Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2016

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2016 [1].

---

Djedkare Isesi

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Djedkare Isesi, the eighth and penultimate pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, reigning for over 40 years in the late 25th to early 24th century BCE. Djedkare is arguably the most prominant member of his dynasty, a great reformer he undertook–with dire consequences–the first reforms of the Egyptian administration and commissioned numerous trade and mining expeditions abroad. Egyptologists perceive his reign as heralding a new era in the Old Kingdom period and indeed many firsts are dated to his rule: earliest depiction of warfare, earliest reforms of the state, earliest record of an oracular divination, earliest letters on papyri, earliest use of the word Nub for Nubia (we still use it today!), earliest piece of philosophic wisdom literature... This article is the fruit of months of bibliographic research, boasting over 40 footnotes and more than 300 inline references drawn from 100 different sources. It is part of a series of FA (Shepseskare, Menkauhor Kaiu, Unas) and GA (Sahure, Pyramid of Userkaf) articles on the 5th Dynasty. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Chiswick Chap

What a well-finished article! At a first glance there is little to comment on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please wikilink serekh, Byblos.
• Even simple terms like mummy and pyramid might be worth linking.

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please also wikilink vizier, necropolis, oracle/oracular, sarcophagus, cylinder seal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• "disposes of a causeway" could simply be "has a causeway", I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• We can link Michel Baud among the Egyptologists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Done I have added links to all of these except cylinder seal which is already linked to. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I meant the image caption, I can link it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks very good to me, and it's informative, readable, well-illustrated, and well-sourced, so I'm happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Petrie_Statue_of_Djedkare_from_Abydos.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Petrie_Relief_of_Inti_from_Dishasha.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Done, in both cases the author died over 70 years ago and the pics were published over 100 years ago in the US. I added the tags. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment

• Looks pretty good generally, but "In particular, the earliest known depiction of a battle or city being besieged[160] is found in the tomb of Inti, an official from the 21st nome of Upper Egypt, who lived during the late Fifth Dynasty." looks questionable given that, just among objects with WP articles, there are the Battlefield Palette of 500+ years earlier, and the Mesopotamian Stele of the Vultures of around the same date as this one. Restrict a bit maybe?
• Is this the same Inti as Senedjemib Inti, who btw is linked only at his 2nd mention? His article does not mention the battle scene. Also, is it a relief; hard to tell from the pic?

Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod Done: For the first point, I have changed the sentence a bit to "one of the earliest", to be clear I was just following the source (Strudwick), a well known Egyptologist who says "the earliest", I think he is referring to the fact that we are sure an actual battle / siege is depicted, the battle / siege was narrated on the walls of the tomb in a text unfortunately lost. For your second point, this is another Inti not the same as Senedjemib Inti. The scene is indeed a relief as indicated in the caption of the figure. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support I did the GAN review for the article and thought then that it was a potential FAC. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Tim riley Thank you and also thank you for your GA review! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from A. Parrot

I mainly did a source review. All the sources are reliable, and my spot-checks found no errors. I do question the Archive.org link for Hornung, Krauss, & Warburton; Archive.org has been known to infringe copyright before, and I see no evidence that this book has been made freely available online.

Done Ok I removed the link to be on the safe side. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Other than that, I only have a few comments:

• The last paragraph in the lead section needs some qualification, given Strudwick's doubt that Djedkare's reforms weakened the kingdom. A. Parrot (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A. Parrot Done since most Egyptologists such as Grimal, Tyldesley, Kanawati, Malek etc. believe Djedkare's reforms are responsible I left the last paragraph as is until the last sentence where I mention Studwick's doubts on the matter: "These conclusions are rejected by Nigel Strudwick, who observes that in spite of Djedkare's reforms, Ancient Egyptian officials never amassed enough power to rival that of the king." Iry-Hor (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• "These artifacts are now scattered throughout the world in many museums including the Louvre Museum, the Petrie Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and the Egyptian Museum of Berlin." I'm not sure that fact is noteworthy. Any pharaoh with a fairly long reign is going to end up with artifacts in multiple museum collections. A. Parrot (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok do you want me to remove this sentence, or perhaps, put it in a footnote? I only wanted to wikilink some of the museums where Djedkare's artefacts can be found as I thought such a non-exhaustive list could be interesting for potential museum visitors. By doing so I linked to the online catalogs of these museums so that the original artefacts can be seen by the reader. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You could do either one, but I would just leave that sentence out. Djedkare's reign doesn't seem to have produced particularly interesting artifacts. A. Parrot (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A. Parrot Done I have put it in a footnote, as for Djedkare's reign not producing notable artifacts just look at this cosmetic plate (far from unique but a very fine example!) Iry-Hor (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the last sentence of the "Parents" section doesn't have a citation? A. Parrot (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Done I had forgotten to put it. It has now been added. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• "…three viziers would be in office at the same time: two in the Memphite region and a Southern one, the 'Governor of Upper Egypt', in the province, with a seat at Abydos." I'm not sure what "in the province" is meant to mean here. A. Parrot (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Done I meant "not in Memphis" since the capital of Egypt was in Saqqara south at the time, in an area that would become Memphis during the 6th Dynasty. I removed it since it is clear that Abydos is not in Memphis. Iry-Hor (talk)

Support A. Parrot (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto

Is there any particular reason for putting the section on "historical sources" above the one on "contemporary sources"? I would have thought it would make more sense to have the two subsections in chronological order. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto Done this is a very good point that I will follow from now on when I edit pharaoh articles. It makes much more sense this way! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Another question: in the section on the funerary cult, the translated inscriptions mentioned sometimes render Isesi's nomen as Isesi, and sometimes as Izezi. Is there a reason for this inconsistency? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This is because two hieroglyphic variants exist for the letter "s/z", some Egyptologists do not write the difference between these two when translating/transliterating a text, others mark one with a "s" and the other with a "z". Both variants were used for Isesi (it seems they were interchanged relatively freely by Ancient Egyptians) and Brovarsky, the author of the book where the names of the estates are given, is among those Egyptologists writing the difference with a "s" or a "z". I can harmonize everything if you prefer, but this would make some names slightly different from what they are in the source. P.S: did you know that you could click on the [Show] button right of "Royal titulary" in the pharaoh infobox to reveal the full names of Djedkare? I am wondering if wikipedia readers know that? Iry-Hor (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have a good reason for the way it is now, I don't think you need to change it, and that certainly sounds like a perfectly valid reason. I did wonder whether there were two different hieroglyphs being transliterated, but I thought I'd check to make sure it wasn't simply an error. (No, I didn't notice the "[show]" button for Djedkare's titles in the infobox. Looking at it now, I see the two different hieroglyphic spellings for his nomen are both given there!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

ok good to know, I think most readers just miss this, perhaps the show button should be in bold. I might raise this issue on the infobox talk page. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto could you possibly indicate if you support or oppose the nomination of Djedkare Isesi to FA so as to close the discussion above? Iry-Hor (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Looks good to me. Sorry about the wait! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• I see you have enough supports already, so I just did some light copyediting. One comment: be careful not to flipflop verb tenses starting in the Reign section. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Just a suggestion as I close this review, Iry-Hor, it might be good to try and vary the lead so the subject's name doesn't commence all four of the paragraphs; admittedly nothing quickly came to mind on how best to effect this but you might think about it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2016 [2].

---

Knight Lore

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

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

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

Extended content

Comment. I think there is a need for some care in the legacy section of this article. No one can doubt the technical excellence of Knight Lore and the impact it had in cementing the reputation of the Stamper Brothers, but outside of Europe, it had no impact at all. Certainly it led to a brisk local trade in isometric arcade adventures, but it did not popularize isometric gaming anywhere else. Zaxxon, Diablo, Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Crusader: No Remorse, these are the games that popularized the isometric view worldwide, and none of their creators would have ever played Knight Lore. Syndicate, Populous, and X-COM played a role too, and their creators may well have been influenced by Knight Lore and its ilk, but that leaves it with an indirect worldwide influence only. Until just this past decade, the United States and Japan were the two largest video game markets in the world, and it's safe to say Knight Lore did not directly influence either one. Does not make the game any less impressive nor does it detract from the game's regional influence, but the article as it stands does not properly qualify these achievements. Indrian (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC) @Indrian, what parts do you find unproportional? I thought the Legacy was exceptionally metered—I qualified the sources as British whenever it was particularly relevant and I have yet to find a source that qualified its influence as strictly limited to the UK. The sources say that games like Diablo are descendants but they don't claim a direct link the same way modern games don't claim direct links to their predecessors. czar 07:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC) It's influence is largely limited to Europe because no one outside of Europe played ZX Spectrum games. All the sources discussing its impact are British, so they are biased towards that perspective: they don't qualify their statements because they are speaking to a British audience. Retro Gamer is a fun source with good interviews, but it's not scholarly; it's written for (primarily British) enthusiasts of old games. The lack of coverage in U.S.-centric sources tells the tale of its complete lack of impact anywhere else (not a knock on the game, just the facts of 1980s market conditions). The legacy section is mostly fine and all well-written; there are only two small problems really. First, the Gillen quote about Elite and Knight Lore should be qualified as coming from a UK market perspective, which is actually how he qualifies himself in the original source ("In terms of the Brit industry in the 1980s"). It's only common sense that he is referring only to British game icons, as no knowledgeable person would put both of those games ahead of Super Mario Bros. as a 1980s icon (just look at how many greatest games of all time lists Mario tops). Second, the statement about how Knight Lore popularized the isometric view has to be qualified as Europe only. It's possible that Knight Lore indirectly influenced late 1990s isometric games in the US since several isometric games from the UK came across the pond in the early 1990s (Diablo, for example, adopted an isometric view due to the influence of British-made X-COM). It did not, however, popularize the isometric viewpoint anywhere but Europe because no one played it outside of Europe. For the same reason, Filmation was not at the center of anything outside Europe. If Europe were the largest market at the time, a qualifier might not be necessary, but the U.S. and Japan were both larger. Implying global popularity for a local phenomenon distorts the accuracy of the article. Indrian (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC) @Indrian, I added some qualifiers to the Legacy section—do you think that does the trick, or do you recommend other sources? I was already using a piece from USgamer (American website) that read, "Knight Lore inspired console action-adventure games such as Solstice, Equinox, and the Landstalker series, but it resonated most with microcomputer fans, and inspired a flood of clones, cementing isometric viewpoint as a computer game staple." (note no British qualifier). Still, I revised the Legacy section to be incontrovertibly conservative on its extra-British influence, if you'll take a look. (I think we'll need sources if we're going to argue with Retro Gamer—a trusted source—that Ultimate and Filmation were not at the center/centre of the isometric graphics style.) It would be great to get a review of the rest of the article too, if you have a chance czar 19:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Jaguar

Extended content

I'm going to have an initial read-through now. I'll list some minor points first: The opening sentence "Knight Lore is a 1984 action-adventure game by Ultimate Play the Game known for popularising isometric graphics in video games" - I don't know if I'm prying too deep, but the latter half sounds like a run-on. How about Knight Lore is a 1984 action-adventure game by developed and published by Ultimate Play the Game, who were known for popularising isometric graphics in video games or rework that to something similar. I just go with the norm "It was written by company founders Chris and Tim Stamper in their Sabreman series" - the use of "in their" sounds abrupt here. How about It was written by company founders Chris and Tim Stamper and is the third game (or instalment) in the Sabreman series, although it was the first completed.. Also, 'Sabreman' needs to be italicised "Each castle room is depicted in monochrome" - link monochrome "could overlap other images without visual collision" - would it be right linking attribute clash here? "Knight Lore was released third in the Sabreman series despite being the first completed" - I think this sentence needs to be moved to the first paragraph, where I suggested that you rephrase "It was written by company founders Chris and Tim Stamper and is the third game...". "Ultimate released Knight Lore shortly after its first two Sabreman titles in November 1984" - needs italics "The game was later included in compilations including Rare's 2015 Xbox One retrospective compilation, Rare Replay" - I notice a plural here. Were there any other compilations? Could be worth mentioning They Sold a Million II here Make sure that all instances of "Spectrum" have the full name "ZX Spectrum", for consistency. For example there's a "has been included in multiple lists of top Spectrum games" in the lead, without the ZX prefix "They praised the game's controls and atmosphere of mystery" - mysterious atmosphere should be fine "and criticized its sound" - criticised (if you want to stay consistent) "And when the isometric, flick-screen style fell out of fashion" - this sounds informal. I'm not too keen on starting a sentence with an "and" "The game's only directions are given through a poem included with the game's cassette tape" - I couldn't find anything about directions in a poem in the given CVG source "The player often needs to move bricks to reach objects out of reach" - bricks or stone blocks? "the player must return 14 objects in a specific order from throughout the castle to a cauldron room in its centre staffed by the wizard Melkhior" - the cauldron room is in the centre of the castle? Also, a tweak is needed: the castle to a cauldron room in its centre, which is staffed by the wizard Melkhior "The game does not support leaderboards" - the Rare Replay version does ;-D I used the online transcript for checking. It's referred to as "Hall of Fame", so you could mention that it was cut due to lack of space, which is interesting "single-screen rooms ("flip-screen")" - the lead states "flick-screen" "Ultimate Play the Game, represented by its co-founding Stamper brothers" - I think it's best to introduce them as Chris and Tim Stamper If you want to get comprehensive, a brief background on Ultimate Play The Game would do nicely in the development section. I remember I put in a 'template' in Underwurlde which you can use, like a sentence or two should do it "While Knight Lore was released as the third game in the Sabreman series" - italics needed "they thought that Knight Lore's advancements—copyrighted as the Filmation engine" - link Filmation "would hurt sales of their upcoming Sabre Wulf" - wikilink the game "The Stampers used the extra time to prepare another Filmation game (Alien 8) so as to preempt the publishers that would rush to copy the technique" - I don't get this part, Ultimate Play The Game published it? Or is this referring to different publishers? Competitors who wanted to copy their engine? "Sabre Wulf released to commercial and critical success in 1984" - which month? The development section contains a fair amount of release info, so it seems fitting to rename the section to "Development and release" "Ultimate asked Shahid Ahmad, who developed the Knight Lore-inspired Chimera (1985), to write the Commodore 64 port" - I didn't know it was ported for the Commodore 64. This isn't mentioned anywhere else; lead or infobox "In 1986, the Famicom Disk System release of Knight Lore bore little resemblance to its namesake" - can this be more specific? "and the 2015 Xbox One compilation of 30 Ultimate and Rare titles Rare Replay" - comma needed between "titles" and "Rare" "Computer game magazines lauded Knight Lore" - sounds a bit odd. How about The game received positive reviews (or critical acclaim) from critics/reviewers/magazines/publications upon release "British magazine Retro Gamer described players' first impressions of Knight Lore" - no need "but Retro Gamer said that its gameplay was comparatively dull" - however "customizing each port for the processing limitations of its platform" - customising That's all for now. I haven't gone through the sources yet, but when I do I'll post back some more comments. I feel that the gameplay section could be expanded somewhat, as it doesn't mention what type of enemies there are, what functions the items serve etc. I'll do some more checking when I get the time. I'm sorry if I went too deep, I'll offer whatever I can as this is a subject I have an interest in. JAGUAR  22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC) @Jaguar, nice, thanks! I think I've addressed everything, if you'll take a look. To my best recollection, I don't remember the sources calling special attention to the type of enemies, but if you find parts you think need mention, we can discuss. I didn't italicize "Sabreman series" because I see it the series as about the character Sabreman (unitalicized as a name) and not the series of games by the italicized title Sabreman. I don't like the "despite being the first completed" construction in the first paragraph because I think it warrants more explanation (and thus fits better in the dev ¶). This lede already had a lot of (I think worthy) stuff trimmed out, so the non-independently notable second compilation didn't make the cut. Flip- and flick-screen are the same—I liked it the way it was, but unified it anyway. The CVG poem is in the bottom left of the page: "... your clue comes in the form of a poem printed on the cassette inlay ..." Spectrum and ZX Spectrum are used interchangeably in the sources, so I think it's fine to use the former when I've already established the latter once in the section. I wasn't sure on what authority Crash knew the leaderboard was cut for a lack of space so I thought it was best to exclude that detail. I also thought it was fine for the Stampers to not have names—I prefer not to give the extra detail when it isn't something the reader needs to remember. For the lede, it's fine (to give accurate credit) but the dev paragraph doesn't refer to them as individuals. No month listed for Sabre Wulf—let me know if you find it, but I remember the sources being imprecise. "Development" sufficiently covered the ¶, I think. "Release" is self-contained within the "Development" process. There is quite literally no coverage of the Famicom port, so nothing I can add that wouldn't be original research. It was mentioned in a single Retro Gamer caption with a screenshot—it just visually looked little like Knight Lore. I took most of the suggestions but the ones I didn't I thought were fine as is. I set up Retro Gamer as a "British magazine" to qualify the comments by Indrian above. czar 16:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Google Scholar is throwing up some extra snippets.[3][4][5] Mott, Tony; Molyneux, Peter (2010). 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die. London: Octopus Publishing Group. p. 296. ISBN 9781844037155. Equipped with the Filmation three-dimensional graphics engine, Knight Lore was a groudbreaking British platform adventure... full review here The full search is here, but I'm not sure if that BritSoft book would have anything. The article is comprehensive enough as it is. Thanks for clarifying the above, I'll start doing a source check. JAGUAR  23:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC) I had seen 1001 and some of the others but I didn't think they added anything that wasn't already covered better elsewhere. Appreciate the searching czar 00:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC) @Jaguar, is there anything else that you think needs to be addressed? David did a source check so should be okay in that regard czar 15:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Comments by David Fuchs

Some openers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@David Fuchs, how's it looking? czar 15:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC) @David Fuchs czar 02:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the images meet criteria; apologies that I haven't had time to draft up a replacement image but I don't think through my searching there's been any indication that it incorporates copyrighted materials, so I don't think it needs to hold up this FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp

Extended content

Reception: "Crash called it the Spectrum's best game and said it was unlikely to be improved." Does this mean they thought it was likely to be surpassed in quality (by other games)? If so, I would not use "improved" in this way. "but nevertheless named Knight Lore the Amstrad's among of the best three games on the console": I think some extra words must have been left in during an edit. Moisejp (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Legacy: "Ultimate's last two isometric games were poorly executed, but consumer interest in the genre endured." Consider rewriting to make the opinion sound more objective (e.g., "were widely considered to be poorly executed" or "were described as poorly executed by XXX source). Moisejp (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Sandy White of the pre-Knight Lore isometric game Ant Attack was impressed at Ultimate's in-game "balance" and gutsy design decisions." So White was a developer of Ant Attack? I'm not sure that "Sandy White OF Ant Attack" is the clearest way to express this. Here you have a nice list of titles that uses a clean parallel structure (i.e., dates in parentheses after each title): "Retro Gamer wrote that Knight Lore's influence persisted 30 years later through titles such as Populous (1989), Syndicate (1993), UFO: Enemy Unknown (1994), and Civilization II (1996)." It would be great to similarly use a parallel structure for this list: "Apart from Fairlight, Sweevo's World and Get Dexter, there was Jon Ritman's Knight Lore-inspired Batman (1986), 1987's Head over Heels, The Last Ninja, La Abadia del Crimen, the 1990 Cadaver and console games Solstice[17] and Landstalker (1992)." Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC) More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC) @Moisejp, rephrased. Appreciate the review! czar 05:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I'll try to finish off this review in the next few days if possible. More comments: I'm a native speaker of English and consider myself reasonably learned, but I found the overall difficulty level of the vocabulary in this article to be quite high. Some of the following words or terms I more or less understand but still think they could possibly be difficult for some people, and other words I only understand somewhat or less: seminal (used twice), harbinger, taciturn, crepuscular, nascent, sea change. I can tell from your writing that you are a very intelligent person, and I'm sure these are all everyday terms for you. But people reading the article may be of different education levels, and others won't necessarily be native speakers of English. I'm not asking you to "dumb down" the content, but I think if some of these terms were replaced with easier turns of phrases, it would increase the overall accessibility of the article. Moisejp (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Development: "Ultimate did not circulate screenshots of the game in its press materials or cover art." I imagine this was a marketing ploy of some kind, but does the source give information about the specific reason? "The Amstrad version upgraded the monochromatic colouring to a two-colour setup[6] while the MSX release was released through Jaleco." Is there any way to avoid "release" - "released" in such close proximity? Does "was distributed by Jaleco" work? Or "put out by Jaleco". Or "the MSX software/game was released"? Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "In 1986, the Famicom Disk System Knight Lore release by Jaleco[16] bore little resemblance to its namesake." If the information is available, it could be interesting to know some of the ways the Famicom version was different. (By the way, as a whole, "bore little resemblance to its namesake" could also be a difficult-ish turn of phrase for some readers. I'm not saying I'm necessarily requesting you to change this one, I'm just saying combined with the other difficult phrases, it contributes to the overall relative difficulty of the article.) Moisejp (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Reception: (Minor comment) "Peter Sweasey of Home Computing Weekly was left speechless and predicted that Knight Lore would change the market." "Left speechless" is quite strong, and is a bit colloquial. The reader may wonder whether Carroll is quoting Sweasey, who said, "I was left speechless", or whether that was Carroll's possibly subjective interpretation, or possibly the Wikipedia article's author's interpretation. Probably the former scenario, I imagine, but you clarify this by saying something like "Martyn Carroll of Retro Gamer magazine quotes Home Computing Weekly's Peter Sweasey as having been left 'speechless'..." (or without the quotation marks if Carroll is paraphrasing Sweasey)—or something like that. Moisejp (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Legacy: "While Ultimate's last two isometric games were of lesser quality, consumer interest in the genre endured." Was that Carroll's opinion that they were of lesser quality? It could be worthwhile to clarify who says this. Moisejp (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC) I think that is all of my comments. Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @Moisejp, thanks so much! I think I got it all, if you'll take a look. I went to see about those rough vocab sections (particularly "crepuscular") and... thought it might be best the way it is. I don't want this to be tough reading, but I also would think that the vocab isn't too much of a stretch past New York Times-level for the WP:FACR's "brilliant prose" quota. Open to other opinions on this, though: @Indrian, Hahnchen, J Milburn, Jaguar, and David Fuchs. There's no straightforward explanation for why the company was cryptic, though I think there are guesses, but either way I imagine that would be likely out of the scope of this article. The Sweasey quote is, "words fail me when trying to describe it", so I thought "speechless" would be an apt paraphrase. Re: lesser quality—it is a statement of fact rather than opinion. czar 01:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Hi Czar, I don't really understand how you can say "lesser quality" is a fact rather than opinion. Couldn't there conceivably be some people out there who liked Ultimate's last two games best of all? Moisejp (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Insofar as all quality assessments are subjective, Ultimate did not spend the time/resources/polish on the last two games—the source isn't saying that they're better/worse from a reviewer's point of view. I would rephrase to be as explicit as I just was, but it isn't said like that in the source. czar 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC) @Moisejp, thanks again for the review. Are there any outstanding points that keep you from supporting the nomination? czar 15:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC) I'm very close to supporting, just noting a few other little things in my re-read-through just now. Reception: In the second paragraph, for the Crash review, you refer to "They... their reviewer... they". It struck me as odd, because on one hand this treats it as a collective review, but on the other it is attributed to a single reviewer. In the same paragraph, possibly consider reorganizing the points so that the two mentions of its particular difficulty (Crash's and Your Spectrum's) are together? In the fourth paragraph, if you switched the first and second sentences, possibly this would help the flow slightly in that it would be referring to Signor - Gillen - Gillen, instead of Gillen - Signor - Gillen? (I'm not totally sure either way—feel free to ignore this if you don't think so.) Do the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph belong in the first paragraph of the Legacy section? It's not clear to me what the distinction is between the praise in the "retrospective reviews" and the praise in the first paragraph of the Legacy section. Legacy: Wiki-link Atari? For consistency with the other video game systems wiki-linked earlier in the article. "The developer of The Great Escape, another isometric game, considered Knight Lore... " Just confirming, the developer's name is not given in the source? Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Since David Fuchs has already done a check of the sources, these are all of my comments. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Hi @Czar: I finished my comments a while back but didn't ping you at the time. I wasn't sure if you were waiting for my ping and didn't see these. In any case, they are done whenever you have time to look at them. :-) Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC) @Moisejp, I must have missed it—thanks for the ping. I didn't combine the two difficulty comments because they were different in scope (some rooms vs. the whole game). I think Gillen - Signor - Gillen flows better with the ideas, even while the other way works better for keeping the subject. I think retrospective reviews often combine Reception and Legacy but I moved it to the latter in this case. Not sure offhand if the dev of The Great Escape was mentioned by name but I think the point is that their expertise was on the basis that they developed that game. (If the dev was independently notable by name, I would have used and wikilinked it.) czar 22:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Czar: OK, all of my concerns are addressed, and I support. One very minor thing, for the Atari wiki-link, I was expecting a link to a specific model of Atari, like Atari 2600 (if that's the correct model)—just like Commodore 64 is a specific model of Commodore. Moisejp (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks! czar 02:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments From Indrian

Extended content

Sorry it took me so long to come back to this. The article is well-written, and I anticipate supporting in short order. Just a few comments: "written by company founders Chris and Tim Stamper in their Sabreman series" - Reads a little awkwardly. Perhaps "as part of their Sabreman series" "which computers of the time did not naturally support" - I'm not up on the tech enough to know the answer to this one, but were there really no microcomputers that could support depth priority, or was it just the Speccy (and perhaps the other British micros) that could not support it? " Ultimate released the original Sabreman trilogy in quick succession in 1984 for the ZX Spectrum. Knight Lore was last, in November." - I think these sentences could be joined, something like " Ultimate released the original Sabreman trilogy in quick succession in 1984 for the ZX Spectrum, with Knight Lore coming last in November." I know we want to avoid game guide material, hence the short "Gameplay" section, but is there possibly a way to briefly convey what kind of puzzles the player has to solve? "The game does not support leaderboards" - This sentence seems unnecessary; I think it is best to stick with what features are in the game rather than those that are not. " infamously taciturn" - While I understand the sentiment, "infamously" seems a bit over the top for an encyclopedia article. The use of "infamously" is still a problem. "Infamous" means being well known for a bad quality or deed. The press may not have liked the fact that Ultimate staff refused to talk with them, but that hardly makes them evil. It's over the top for an encyclopedia article. "a computing limitation wherein one sprite's colour bled into another" - Getting a little technical here, but the Spectrum did not support sprites even if characters in the game may have been referred to as such in the gaming press for convenience. Attribute clash in the Spectrum occurred because the bitmapped screen was divided into cells, each of which could only contain one foreground and one background color. Attribute clash occurred when an object moved between two cells that were set to display different colors. Your change on attribute clash missed the point slightly: The colors of the objects do not bleed into each other; the color of objects changes when they move between cells on the screen. The "objects" are not sprites, so they do not have attributes like color defined separately from the portion of the screen they occupy. "Knight Lore was the best selling game in the United Kingdom that month" - All video game sales figures throughout the history of the medium have been compiled through estimates, as the publishers have never released complete internal sales figures for their games. Therefore, its important to give the source for such statements (e.g. "according to Crash, Knight Lore was the best selling game in the United Kingdom that month.") Again, who's all-format charts? These charts are not based on direct reports from the companies selling the games, so its important to know which organization is claiming these sales since they are merely estimates. "brothers sought to enter the nascent console industry" - A little nitpicky, but consoles were nothing new in the mid-1980s even if they were never big in the UK until the early 1990s. "Nascent NES market" would work since the Famicom was just being released internationally at the time. "The developer of The Great Escape" - Is there a reason we are not addressing John Gibson by name when we have been naming all the other developers in the article? Normally, I would not care either way except that it's really awkward to identify the quote as coming from "the developer of The Great Escape." Quotes should be attributed with specificity to avoid confusion. That's it; these should be fairly straight forward to address. Indrian (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) @Indrian, thanks for the review! I think I fixed everything, if you'll take a look. On the history of depth priority, I couldn't find a definitive source, but p. 22 of Carroll said that it was totally new to avoid clashing sprites in this way. Whether that was British or worldwide, I do not know, so I rephrased to refer to the singular computer rather than all. If you want to rephrase or find another source, let me know what you think. I like the "quick succession" better as two sentences so as not to overload the first, if that isn't a dealbreaker. "infamously taciturn" would be appropriate weight, no? It sets up most of the section's expectations. The quote on the charts is, "Knight Lore unsurprisingly topped the UK all-format charts in January 1985 ..."—wouldn't that indicate a kind of corroboration, rather than needing to be couched by the source? I've tried to only name developer names when the person is independently notable (otherwise I don't think it does the reader justice to track yet another entity). czar 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC) @Indrian, ping czar 00:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC) @Czar:Most of my concerns have been met, but there are still a couple of points, which I have annotated above. Indrian (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC) @Indrian, thanks! I included the quote on the all-format charts in my response above—the magazine did not specify the origins of the "UK all-format charts". I can send a copy if you'd like. I don't think the Great Escape quote is awkward (it's more awkward to name a non-notable person whose name won't come up again)—what's important is that this quote comes from this figure in their capacity of making a similar game. czar 22:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC) @Czar:Nearly there. I disagree on Gibson, but I am not going to withhold support over it. The sales figure thing is still a bit of an issue. I have the magazine in question. Retro Gamer is great for its interviews, but they get sloppy else wise sometimes. They really should have provided the source of that info (though they may have just assumed their core readership would not require an explanation). The magazines of the period (Crash, CVG, etc.) are largely available through the Internet Archive, so perhaps something can be unearthed there. If not, I suppose I will reluctantly accept the current source, but I would appreciate the effort to clarify. Indrian (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC) @Indrian, here's Crash for January and February—no sales charts, no dice. And here's the January CVG, but I don't see charts. I understand why you'd prefer the specificity, but I think that Retro Gamer is reputable enough that we can acclaim their claim without the caveat. czar 00:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Czar:I appreciate you looking. I would certainly not hold up the entire article on such a minor point. You have done excellent work here, and I am pleased to offer my Support. Indrian (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Next steps

Hey @FAC coordinators: Anything else needed for this nom? czar 01:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, I think I saw this notification my mobile and I prefer not to edit on that unless I have to, so it slipped through the cracks... It looks like we still need a signoff on all images; I know you pinged David Fuchs a couple of times so we may need to get someone else, perhaps via a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose, image review done above czar 00:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2016 [6].

---

Maxinquaye

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 1995 debut album by English trip hop artist Tricky. When it was released, it was a critical success and deemed a key recording of the trip hop genre. It has since been ranked frequently by critics as one of the greatest albums of all time. Dan56 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

Comment had been reading through during the week, article is very good, and the following are minor

"Assisted by co-producer Mark Saunders, Tricky recorded the album"; should that be co-produced and engineered by

No, he was technically credited as producer/co-producer. Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

'Assisted' implies more than production. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"frequently found himself serving as a DJ and programmer"... and assisting is kind of a broad term. By co-producing, he was assisting in the recording process. Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom's demographic of progressive, young music buyers for the record to perform well" - bit obvious, marketing speak

How so? Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"The record charted for 35 weeks and peaked at number 3 on the British charts" - should be a single statement; maybe "The record spent 35 weeks on the British charts, peaking at number 3".

Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I'll be supporting this shortly. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Tricky would have received airplay in the US on alternative or college rock radio" - "would have"; despite what? I know what you are getting at, tempted to rephrase as "should have". Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I added "if the label focused their efforts to promote him there". Is that what you meant? Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think its more what the sources meant. Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose from me anyhow, and to say am very please to see the candidacy. All major points covered. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Support from Sparklism

Nice article. Fine record, too - another one I must dig out for another spin sometime soon... Anyway, I've had a quick look:

• There's a fairly dormant but still open RfC on the talk page. I've commented there giving my view that the RfC should be closed, but I think that while it remains open it highlights a potential risk to article stability

Idk why that's even open still. I've revised some of the lead anyway, so the issue is stale/moot, and those editors haven't been active there in weeks. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's a duplicate link in the 'Release & reception' section (Rolling Stone) that should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• In both the lead and the article body, the label is referred to as both '4th & B'way' and '4th & Broadway' - we should just choose one, for consistency. Technically, since this was a 'British' album, the correct label name is the full "Fourth & Broadway", though I'd be happy with any variant so long as it is consistent throughout

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Tricky and Topley-Bird would form a musical and romantic partnership over subsequent years, starting with their first recording together" - this was the start of their musical partnership, but we don't know if it was the start of their romantic one

Lol. I reworded it. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• In the 'Music and themes' section, the word "frequently" appears twice in close proximity - it might be better to use something else for one of these

Replaced with "often". Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd wikilink the first use of "sample" in the article body (it's already linked in the lead)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• You might want to describe who Ragga is to aid the reader's understanding (and perhaps Alison Goldfrapp for that matter, though she is wikilinked)

There was no information on Ragga I could find, but I did introduce them as "vocalists" if that helps. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's better. I notice the track listing has an actual name for Ragga - any idea where this came from? — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Discogs lol. I put it there as a reminder, to look up stuff on her, but couldn't find anything. I've removed it. Dan56 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Additionally, almost all of Topley-Bird's vocals on the album were recorded in a single take" - I don't think 'Additionally' is needed here, and perhaps this sentence could be combined with the subsequent one to improve the flow

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Tricky also remade his 1994 contribution for Massive Attack," - this doesn't quite work for me, as it wasn't his only contribution. It was also a contribution to Protection really, so you might want to mention that

I wrote it as "one of his contributions for Massive Attack". Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if we should link glitch or even glitch (but not glitch)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "her suicide, along with his father's abandonment" sort of makes it sound like it was the father that was abandoned, which I don't think is what you're getting at

"his father abandoning him"? Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a suitable wikilink for Babylon?

Perhaps Rastafari#Zion vs. Babylon, although Rastafari is already linked in the article. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Hell Is Around the Corner" is mistitled in the 'Music and themes' section (three times)

Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• 'channeling' might be 'channelling' in British English, but don't quote me

No, youre right ([7]) Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Hell E.P. is a collaboration with Gravediggaz, so this ought to be mentioned

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Some people I've met were confused because he's black, and it's not easy to break through those barriers there." I'm not sure this adds much to the sentence that it appends

I added "because of his race", which is what the source was getting at. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's much better. — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blues Lines is a mistitle

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• You could link to either Black British or Black British music

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Tricky himself disliked the term and later said, "I was supposed to have invented trip hop, and I will fucking deny having anything to do with it"" - I'm not sure this adds much to the article, since we're talking about the album and not the genre

The album and the genre are often discussed together, along with Tricky's dislike for the term, so I thought something should be said representing that portion of the coverage on this album. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Should we mention that it was the 1995 Mercury Prize?

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "35 weeks on the British charts" - was this the UK Albums Chart?

Yes. I revised it. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "peaking at number 3" - I was always taught to write out single digit numbers in full (i.e. three)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I notice that Tricky himself isn't wikilinked in the 'Personnel' section - is this deliberate?

Yes, to avoid overlinking (infobox + lead + track listing), but I can link it. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think the 'see also' section adds much to the article
• There's no mention of touring in the article (except a much later performance) - is there no coverage available?

"After it was released in the US on April 18, Tricky toured the country as a supporting act for fellow English recording artist PJ Harvey." Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, of course. One imagines that he toured the UK too (and I certainly remember seeing him play at Rock City, but I've got a feeling that was in '96), so it would be good to see if any info can be found on that. It's not a deal-breaker for me, though. — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• There are no audio clips either. These would be good to illustrate the music that you've written about in such beautiful detail

Thank you! But I'd rather give the space to the image and the quotebox. I've lost interest in adding clips anymore to articles. They're not practical (limited length, not always supported on every browser), and readers could and would rather youtube the entire album or parts since it's easier. @Sparklism: Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Fair enough :) — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a bit to go at, but nothing major I don't think. I might add more after a second read. Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 15:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm supporting this on prose. I haven't reviewed the sources. Good work Dan56! — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

• Having read through, I found I just lapsed into reading without thinking too much about corrections (a Good Thing) - so a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Only minor point being below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed this, which came across odd to my ears.Otherwise ok.

Source review: everything is adequately cited, sources look good, everything formatted correctly. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2016 [8].

---

Gudovac massacre

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This article covers the first massacre committed by the Ustaše, the fascist movement that ruled Croatia during World War II. I'm hoping to have it on the front page in time for the 75th anniversary on 28 April 2016. 23 editor (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the partition map and the proclamation
• File:Official_Proclamation_of_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia.jpg: what is the copyright status of this work in its country of origin? Same with File:Gudovac_massacre.jpg
• File:Mladen_Lorković.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: File:Official_Proclamation_of_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia.jpg: It was published in April 1941. PD-Croatia says "a photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1974" is in the public domain. The United State Holocaust Memorial Museum explicitly states it is PD.

• Same goes with File:Gudovac_massacre.jpg. It was published in 1941–42 (displayed at a Belgrade exhibit in 1942, according to Karaula). The USHMM says it's in the public domain .

• Added tag to File:Mladen_Lorković.jpg. 23 editor (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment, leaning toward Support. There are several terminology issues:

• "A monument called Gudovac: Before the Firing Squad". The name of the demolished monument in original is Gudovčan: Pred streljanje (see for example this document). The first word means man from Gudovac, and the third means execution with firearms. The monument featured a man with bound hands (its photos before and after the demolition, sl. 26 and sl. 27).
• "The Gudovac distric". In the cited source, the administrative division centred on Gudovac is termed as općina, which I think is usually translated as "municipality". District would be a larger territorial unit, consisting of several municipalities. The Gudovac municipality was actually a part of the Bjelovar district.
• "Veliki and Mali Korenovac". In the cited source, these two villages are named as Veliko Korenovo and Malo Korenovo (i.e., the names are in neuter gender).

Beside that:

• "Serb officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers". Maybe it would suffice to state "Serb officers and soldiers" to avoid repeating?
• "The disarming and arresting of captured VKJ personnel". Is there a need for "captured" in this phrase?
• "The detainees were transported to the Danica camp". Where was that camp? (It was near Koprivnica, but this should be stated here.)
• "and the field was razed". I find "field" confusing here. I'd say it was a memorial complex (see above-linked photo sl. 26), or whatever term would be applicable here. Vladimir (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All done , Vlad. Goldstein translates the monument's name as Gudovac—Before the Firing Squad. I had no idea what it's Serbo-Croatian name was until you mentioned it. Perhaps the correct translation would be "The Man From Gudovac: Before the Firing Squad". Alas, I can't find any source to back that up. 23 editor (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Support, the issues I've raised have been addressed. If the monument's name is represented like that in English translation of Goldstein's work, then we can leave it to that (though I think a closer translation would be Man from Gudovac: Before Execution). This comprehensive yet succinct and well written article should appear on the Main Page. Vladimir (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If only we could find a PD image of the monument, but of course, this is no impediment for the promotion of the article to the FA status, which it surely deserves. Vladimir (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, sorry, I only took a quick look as I'm feeling under the weather right now. I have a couple of minor observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• in the infobox: "184 – 196" should be unspaced;
• in the Sources section: inconsistent presentation, compare "(2 ed)" with "(2nd ed.)"
• for the works that are chapters in a larger book, I think it would be best to provide a page range in the full citation (in the Sources section). e.g. the Cox and Levy chapters
• same as above for the journal articles: they should probably have page ranges (for the full article) in the full citation
• the duplicate link checker tool indicates "Slavko Kvaternik" is overlinked.
• "so-called" I suggest avoiding this per WP:ALLEGED
• wikilink 40th Infantry Division Slavonska and other similar formations
• "losses of 2 killed and 3 wounded" --> probably should be "losses of two killed and three wounded..." per the MOS
• wikilink Fifth column
• "He survived an assassination attempt in Buenos Aires in 1957": can we say who was trying to assassinate him? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

All done , AustralianRupert. Feel free to post further comments when you're feeling up to it. 23 editor (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, AustralianRupert. Since this article is nearing the end of the FA line with 2 supports, I'd be interested in your take on how it's shaping up so far. Best, 23 editor (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, continued above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

All done, AR. 23 editor (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Added my support, but I wasn't able to fact check as this isn't an area of expertise for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I'll make the request. Thanks a bunch. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- tks all for the reviews so far, as this hasn't been through MilHist ACR, I'd be interested in seeing Peacemaker67's comments when/if he has a chance, as another editor well-versed in the subject area. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I am pretty busy with RW stuff for the next two weeks, so won't get to it, I'm afraid. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see more commentary as well before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it's too bad we haven't gotten more reviews. Ian pinged Peacemaker67 a few weeks ago since he's Wikipedia's go-to guy for all things Balkan but I guess he's busy. Would appreciate a good copy-edit, though. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Some BrEng dictionaries are fine with "marginalize" and "emphasize"; some prefer -ise. ("centralize" seems to be fine.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Since the article is nearing the end of its FA run, I might as well bring this up. I requested a source review a few weeks ago and it doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Could you please pull some strings? Appreciate it. 23 editor (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I had hoped to get to it tonight or tomorrow, but if someone wants to tackle it first, that's fine, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review. There are sufficient citations throughout the article, and they all appear to be formatted correctly. I can't speak to the Croatian sources, but everything else is certainly a reliable source, and there is no reason to do those others, either. I spot-checked footnotes 16, 20, and 53, and they all check out. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2016 [9].

---

The Phantom Tollbooth

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources review:

• Ref 2: The New Yorker should be italicised (and maybe linked?)
• Ref 5: The publisher is Dennis Publishing rather than "Mental Floss" which is the site name.
• Ref 6: ISBN? Also, location given here, but not for the cited version of Juster & Marcus
• Ref 14: The Independent should be italicised
• Ref 43: link goes to wrong page of publication
• Ref 44: What are this source's credentials for reliability per FA criteria?

It's an interview, thus a primary source. Per WP:PRIMARY, they may be used cautiously, and I think the use of it here qualifies. I think they are sufficiently established to get what Juster said right, and I ask no more of them.

• Ref 50: Missing publisher details

Subject to above, all sources appear of appropriate quality and are in consistent formats. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review, and your most helpful comments throughout. If not commented on, I've done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, sources all clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2016 [10].

---

Literary Hall

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the former home of the Romney Literary Society, which is also represented with a featured article on Wikipedia. This article is the most comprehensive history of the this notable structure. This article also underwent a peer review. Please feel free to share your comments, guidance, and suggestions here; I will address them as quickly as possible. Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, thank you for taking the time to complete this image review! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: the article seems fine and I didn't notice any significant issues that would cause it to fail the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Praemonitus, thank you for your thoughtful review and support! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 2:52, 22 February 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Dank, thank you tremendously for your review and edits, of which I am in full concurrence. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It is asserted several times that the design contains Greek Revival elements, but it doesn't seem to say what these are supoposed to be. Even given the loose stylistic grip of most American writing on the subject it seems most unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, I thank you for your comment and I understand your concern. "Greek Revival" is used rather generously in the United States, and the label is usually applied when a building is symmetrical in architectural plans, elevations, and massing. I have some sources that can support this; however, the sources cited here do not explicitly state this and it would be original research for me to include these details otherwise. Because the sources do say "Greek Revival" without being specific as to which details qualify, I would like to keep this Greek Revival designation in the text. Please let me know if you have any suggestions moving forward, as this is a small part of the article as a whole. Thank you again for your comment! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, even in the US it takes more than that ("Georgian" is applied that way for an earlier period). I certainly don't think it is acceptable (repeated 3 times) at FA to misuse terms like that. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Because architectural historian S. Allen Chambers and West Virginia state architectural historian Michael J. Pauley both contend that Literary Hall exhibits Greek Revival detailing, I would prefer to keep "Greek Revival" in the article's prose. I acknowledge that both historians were not as specific as they should have been, but I don't want to leave their classifications of the building's architecture out of the article. I thank you for your comment and suggestion, but I must respectfully disagree Johnbod. If FAC reviewer consensus deems it necessary to remove the classification I will take it out, as I don't want this one phrase to be a stumbling block for FA status. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Great work as always.

• Sources are current and working.
• Images are clear and show the building in question, not people, etc.
• Text of the article is good, no problems that I can see.
• Lede is also good, no problems there.

• All and all, another great article. Well done, WV! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Neutralhomer, thank you for taking the time to engage in this review, provide feedback, and lend your support. It is greatly appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Spot check

• Ref 1 -- used three times. Don't understand the purpose of its usage the first time. Nowhere do I find the source that says that it was designated on May 29, 1979. Also, maintain consistency with the date's format and get rid of "Staff".
• Ref 10 -- Fine.
• Ref 42 -- used three times. Fine.

Frankie _talk 21:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• FrB.TG, thank you so much for engaging in the spot check source review--it is very appreciated! Regarding the first source, it is formatted with the "NRISref" template. I changed the "dateform" so that the date in this source is consistent with the date formatting throughout the article. I've removed the source from its first and third uses and replaced it with a new citation that cites the date of inclusion on the NRHP. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can improve on. Thank you again for the review! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. Not sure why this hasn't been promoted already. FrB.TG (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

FrB.TG, thank you for your support! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2016 [11].

---

7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The 7th Army was a Yugoslav formation which was responsible for the defence of north-western Yugoslavia along the Italian and Reich borders during the WWII Axis invasion of that country that commenced on 6 April 1941. It was quickly cut off and encircled before surrendering. The article was recently promoted to Military History A-Class, and has subsequently had a Background section added to improve context. I believe it now meets the FA criteria, but any and all feedback will be gratefully received. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Caption of the first map should explain the meaning of the colours used for the dots
  • Done.
• q: see freedom of panorama explanation. Does this image qualify for FOP under those restrictions? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nikki, does the fact that the tunnel was built by Austrians and the area was part of Austria-Hungary when it was completed have any impact here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Under Austro-Hungarian law, would it have been PD for any reason while still part of Austria-Hungary? I suspect it would have been considered too utilitarian for protection at the time, but I don't have a source to confirm this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • According to this reference, the 1895 Austrian act did not protect architecture. Does that address the issue? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes. I don't know whether there's any tag that would address this, so perhaps we can just make a text note to that effect on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dan! Your input on prose is always appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Glad you liked it, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Excellent work as usual. Prose is good. Just two points.

1. The first line of "Mobilisation" talks about Simović's post-coup government. For comprehensiveness and context there should be a sentence or two clarifying when the coup occurred and how it prompted the invasion.
2. The last paragraph of "Fate" should state that Yugoslavia was occupied and dismembered by the Axis. Not too much detail needed, just enough for a casual reader.

Otherwise, a job well done. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 23, I'll make a start on adding these bits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

All done, 23. Useful context, thanks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Support: excellent work as usual. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• in the lead: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the government until 3 April 1941 out of fear..." I wonder if a short clause should be added to this clarifying why mobilization would have been required, e.g. "Despite concerns over a German invasion, orders..." or something similar. I think this, or something similar to it, should be added to the Mobilisation section, with potentially a small clause clarifying why the military coup occurred.
• slightly repetitious: "during the German-led Axis invasion of the Yugoslavia in April 1941, during..." (during and during in the same sentence)
• slightly inconsistent: "LI Corps" v. "LI Infantry Corps"
• missing comma: "detachment commanders, Hauptmann Palten led..." (probably need a comma after "Palten")
• "became the 7th Army area of operations..." --> "became the 7th Army's area of operations"?
• in the Notes "U.S. Army" is probably overlinked; same with "brigadier general"

• All done except the linking in the Notes. I've left them in, because the notes stand-alone, and pop up and are clickable, so if a reader wants to open a new tab and follow the link, they can. These are my edits. Thanks for the review, Rupert. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Peacemaker67, where are we on addressing AustralianRupert's comments? Source review? --Laser brain (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Will get onto them right now. Thanks for the reminder. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review. The formatting of cites and sources is all in order, and the sources are all of high quality. The only ones that gave me pause were the websites by Niehorster but, as he is an expert in the field, they would appear to meet our criteria for self-published sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus: Niehorster usually comes up in FAC/FLC source reviews, but I'd add that quite a few articles and lists that use Niehorster are already Featured. His work has proved to be absolutely spot-on when it comes to orders of battle and related subjects. Thanks for the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: : this one looks to be ready for promotion. Can I have a dispensation to nominate a fresh one? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2016 [12].

---

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoria, Outriggr

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

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

Lead

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

Commission

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

After van Eyck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description - prelude

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

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

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

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

Foreground

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

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

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

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

Midground and landscape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-portrait

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

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

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

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

Iconography

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, agree. I overlooked the online source. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The panel is among the first known..." → "The Van der Weyden panel is among the first known..."
• "A representation of Adam and Eve is carved on the arm-rest of the Virgin's seat". Earlier we read that these figures were "painted as if they were carved".

• Redundant here and removed. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Attribution and dating

• "the Boston panel is an original" – Shouldn't this be the original?
• "earliest pieces of timber" – "oldest"?
• The Hermitage version doesn't get a mention when you are comparing the ages of the four panels.

• No, the source doesn't mention anything about its date. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Provenance and conservation

• Tense conflict: "...describe the panel in detail, attributed it to Lucas van Leyden, and suggest..."
• "after their purchase" → "after his purchase" (higginson was the purchaser)
• Second para. I'd delete the words "both" and "remaining" from the first line.

Influence

• "If it was in the Guild of Saint Luke's chapel in Brussels..." Shouldn't this possibility be mentioned in the provenance discussion?

• It's now in the "Commission" section. We usually use this section only for the known provenance. The section does include Durer's diary entry, but he neglected to mention where he saw the painting, so scholars don't know much about its whereabout until the point where documentation exists. Victoria (tk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The very long sentence beginning "Also influential was..." needs attention. It's too long, too much information for a single sentence, and it goes wrong in the middle: "whose image appears in the same panel hers"
• I think you should clarify that the "Master of the Legend of St. Ursula" is a painter – it's not obvious to non-art historians. Something like "The unidentified painter known as..."
• "Van der Goes's is the earliest extant autographed copy..." - "copy" is surely not the right term. There is clear influence, but it's a different depiction entirely.
• There may be a bit too much text on the Van der Goes comparison

Overall, good work and highly informative. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: These are mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Brian, I got some of these that were outstanding, and have commented on a few above. Thanks for your review. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I've just been through again - left the odd comment for further consideration, and done a couple of minor copyedits. I'm not sure whether Johnbod is through yet, but I feel sufficiently confident to register my support, assuming that if there were any significant blunders in the text, the experts would have identified them before now. Well done, the team. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support Brian, and for your time in providing an excellent review. The article is much improved. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this careful and thoughtful review has helped immensely. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments (Johnbod)

• I've removed that he was painting an "apparition" in the lead. He was believed to have painted a portrait from the life, as is said later. Obviously, that such a portrait should contain the Christ Child as well is illogical, but I don't think would have bothered people in the Middle Ages much.

  Yes, the point seems to be that he is witnessing her in person, rather an "apparition", which you would seen in a donor portrait. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "During the Early Renaissance, images of the Virgin and Child were more commonly found in Northern than Italian art..." unrefed & dubious, I'd say. They are extremely common in both.

• Now 'images of Luke painting the Virgin" Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "faithful reproductions of images of this type..." - but are they faithful? Not by Byzantine standards, for sure. See Cambrai Madonna etc.

• Removed "faithful". Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Iconography section now mentioning Byzantine Icons and clarifying re the specific Madonna type. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• We're using US English, no? Some changes made.

• The lead seems to be British so I've been through and made some changes. Hopefully I've fixed throughout. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Van der Weyden switches the color of their costumes; Luke is dressed in red or scarlet, Mary in warm blues. " ie, as usual. Red-clothed Madonnas were something of a personal eccentricity of van Eyck, no?

• Yes and looking through the sources on the van Eyck to maybe expand slightly on this. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• It seems the choice was related to the price of different pigments; ultramarine was favoured by the Italians as it was very expensive there, so worthy of a major saint. For the Northerners carmine was the most rare and costly pigment. Not sure yet on the market forces at work here (accessibility and import costs), or how to weave this in, but it's certainly interesting and I think once fleshed out might be one for the ENA article. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've qualified in a simplistic fashion so as to avoid a treatise about JvE's penchant for dressing the Virgin in red. We could do that if necessary but it will require some reading (probably Pacht) and take a bit of time. This fix might work - can be undone if not. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The earliest growth ring has been dated to around 1410, which gives credence to the estimated execution completion date of c 1435". Seems odd. You date a series of rings by their relative sizes. If the earliest is 1410 only outer sections must be represented, which should perhaps be said. What is the latest? You'd think that more relevant. Or is earliest just a typo?

• Have reworded this but want to revisit the source and expand. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• No, it's not a typo. The source says "earliest" but after reading it about five times I think he means "most recent". Anyway, Ceoil fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The scene is set within an architectural space that may be a castle porch. The room has a barrel vault ceiling, inlaid tiled flooring, and stained glass windows. The outer wall, or loggia, sits on a bridge over a river or harbour bay." Hmm. The loggia is the room itself, open to the elements on one side. Then there is a short drop to a patch of rather weedy lawn, apparently surrounded by a raised walkway, seen on the far side. By the Virgin's arm you can see this turning a corner, so I don't see how the loggia opens onto a bridge, even though the river seems to lead from directly underneath. If on a harbour it would be an inlet rather than a "bay". Of course the room repeats the van Eyck, and seems very much a private space, with a small study opening off. Are the tiles "inlaid"? They look plain single-colour ones laid in patterns. "Crenellated" (redirects to Battlement) is a more precise term for what the far wall is, and avoids have to guess its exact function more closely.

• Made first pass at clarifying. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• Made a second pass. This is hard. Powell says a castle balcony, Nash (I don't have that source) says loggia - so I've tried to combine the two. To digress slightly: I've seen the painting and never had a sense that the space was at a height on a castle, as the sources describe, but rather that it's an open space with a bit grass/weeds outside, then a bridge overlooking a river. But that's just one viewer's opinion, so I've tried to balance a little. Not finding much about the the patch of grass in the sources, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It is after all a fictive space and, like many of van Eyck's, throws up more puzzles the more you think about it. A comprehensive analysis as though it was a real place is probably inappropriate, so I suppose I'm pushing for more vagueness, or giving the dots but not trying to join them up. Great to see you back! Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Very good point re fictive space - I've tweaked it a bit today, trying vague-ify (so to speak), but would like to take some time coming back up to speed with the sources and might take another pass there. Thanks re being back. A bit slow at the moment. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No worry or hurry. I must say I think calling the room, or its edge, a balcony just seems wrong as a matter of architectural terminology. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree re balcony and have now fixed (hopefully) with a little more tweaking. I'd forgotten I bought a very beat up copy of Campbell, but knew I read about the space at some point, months ago. Just had to get my hands on the right source. Victoria (tk) 15:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  These points are most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod

• Continuing (sorry for the delay) - "Mary is presented as the Theotokos, that is as the "God-bearer", or "the one who gives birth to God", a concept largely borrowed from Eastern Orthodox thought, largely received in northern European art through the veneration of Byzantine Icons." - I'd cut "Theotokos" and the middle bit - the Catholic theology is exactly the same, and goes back well before the schism. It is the iconography or forms of the images that are originally largely taken from Byzantine icons, though there was well over a century of Western development of them by van der Weyden's day, at least in Italy, not to mention the sculptures the Greeks didn't have. I'm not sure the whole sentence adds much. I don't think the "Maria Lactans" was in fact popular with the Byzantines.
• "The panel is among the first known depictions of St Luke in Renaissance art" - better remind people he was not an Apostle, though it still seems odd. Weren't there sets of the Four Evangelists? Are we sure we don't mean "St Luke painting"? or "Northern Renaissance"?
• "Art historians gradually revised their dating from 1450 to the currently accepted 1435–40" (agrees with lead & infobox) and "The panel is usually thought to have been completed around 1435". Better synchronise. Then "Held argues for a date between 1440 and 1443", but that was in 1955, which should be added.

• Took a stab at this. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The MFA undertook a third restoration in 1943, when some yellowing of the glaze was repaired, and there may have been some concern over the reversibility of some of the conversation decisions taken by Ruhemann, however this restoration was not well documentated and there are doubts as to its motive and validility." All a bit cryptic; which "restoration was not well documentated"?
• More touches edited. I haven't looked at the earlier sections again yet. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, have these; mostly by trimming down the claims. Ceoil (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Hi Johnbod, I think we have all of these. I've tried going through the edit history to follow events since the FAC started, but it might be easier if you can point out what's missing. If you're around today, I have a bit of time to give to it - otherwise probably won't get back until later in the week or even next Sunday. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 15:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Last run through:
• "Van der Weyden closely follows van Eyck's c. 1435 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, though there are significant differences. The landscape is less detailed and contains fewer human figures. While van Eyck's landscape is left open, van der Weyden's is enclosed,[9] and is set at a considerably higher distance and altitude." A bit odd. Both are really pretty similar, leading to a horizon of distant mountains. But vdW's mid-distance is closed in by walls, certainly. It is JvE who shows the higher viewpoint, surely, and vdW who shows more figures? The phrasing suggests the opposite.

• Campbell's point seems to be that JvE's is airier at the top, which I can see, whereas RvdW's is narrower. I've trimmed out the "higher distance and altitude" because I don't have that Borchert essay and can't get access to it on the web. Victoria (tk) 15:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Luke hovers before her; he is either rising from a kneeling position or about to genuflect." Is this covered by the next ref? He does rather give this impression, but since his silverpoint is poised and he is studying his subject closely, I suspect that less-than-perfect drawing has more to do with this impression, and he is meant to be at rest. "Luke hovers before her" is I think a good deal too strong; surely gravity is not supposed to have been suspended? I'd at least soften to "gives the impression of" or something.

• It is an odd position, but I've added "appear" and tweaked. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "His thoughts on the value and role of the artist or craftsman within a wider social sphere must have been largely self-initiated," - seems dubious to me. He lived in one of the largest concentrations of artists in the world, but died before such "thoughts" began to be recorded in print, or even ms.. For all we know there was lively and sophisticated debate in the guild etc, which indeed the surviving paintings suggest, as does the next para in the article. I find myself often doubting Ms Apostolos-Cappadona's points.

• They are difficult to parse. I've rewritten but welcome your input there. I get a little lost when trying to write about the female mystics, and suspect what happened there was to try to avoid. I think those points are important, but needed to lean on direct quotes a little more than I'd like. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "By placing her underneath a canopy the artist probably implies the shroud of the church, the physical separation of the celebrant from the congregation, and the manner in which a church altar was often bordered by a screen." (ref to Apostolos-Cappadona again). Yes, perhaps, but this was also extremely common, if not standard, in depictions where she is seated and more simply relates to her role as Queen of Heaven etc etc. The Duke of Burgundy, when formally seated, normally has a cloth of honour, so naturally the Queen of Heaven too.

• Rewritten. She's comparing the enclosed space to a church. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The animal may represent one of the apocalyptic beasts from the Book of Revelation" - on the ox. We've already made the obvious point that it is Luke's attribute (a "good" ox). It seems odd now to throw in the surely rather wacky thought that it might be one of the (rather bad) Revelations beasts.

• Ox is gone from here. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The idea of St Luke painting the Virgin originates from a 3rd-century Marian icon." Really? No such object survives, sadly. Isn't this initially a purely literary tradition, with sharply "back-dated" relics coming later.

• Took it away. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Though Mary is placed by a throne and under a damask canopy, indicating her role as Queen of Heaven, she does not sit on the bench but rather on its step, an indication of her humility.[24][52]" - it was brocade earlier, can it be both that and damask? This bit should be integrated with earlier passages I think.

• Yep, agreed. Done. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• It seems you might in fact be able to brocade damask, as a 2nd process. But I'm not sure - weaving defeats me entirely. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• "In the early 1930s, based on x-radiographs, art historians Alan Burroughs attributed .." one or many?

• Boston. Clarified. Victoria (tk) 17:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I meant "historians", but I decided it was just him. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, good decision :) Victoria (tk) 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, that's it. I've made some changes directly - please let me know if you disagree. All earlier points now settled. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, these all look very good. Thanks a bunch. Victoria (tk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think I got them all. Thanks! I'll try to take another run through this evening to be sure I haven't made too many mistakes. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support All points dealt with. Good job both! Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and for your time in reviewing. Very good review - I enjoyed it. Victoria (tk) 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Also enjoyed the review and researching the points raised. We are most fortunate to have a subject matter expert weigh in like this. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• PS; sorry, one comment I think was lost to edit conflicts "The immediate midground contains a garden with plants set in vertically aligned tiers.[9] Art historian Jeffrey Chipps Smith notes how the transition between the grounds establishes a "complex spatial space in which [van der Weyden] achieved an almost seamless movement from the elaborate architecture of the main room to the garden and parapet of the middle ground to the urban and rural landscape behind".[23]". I'm dubious about the first sentence, especially looking at the slightly varying treatments in the other versions. I've said already it looks like a weedy lawn to me - this is even more so in the St Petersberg version, where the background "plants" are clearly clumps of longish grass. The larger weeds seem randomly distributed, but I agree the Boston grass seems in the centre to be clumped in rows running to or from the viewer. "Tiers" must be wrong, on a flat surface, implying mini-terraces on a slope - rows is what plants are put in on the flat. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• It didn't get lost, I simply forgot. Campbell mentions "vertical tiers", but I have to agree with you. I don't really see them. I've tweaked a bit there and removed that phrase. Victoria (tk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that sorts it. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Master_of_the_Legend_of_St._Ursula_Virgin_and_Child.jpg is tagged as lacking a description
• File:Hugo_van_der_Goes_-_São_Lucas_retratando_a_Virgem.jpg: source link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks, both corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikkimaria. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Provisional support pending Johnbod's more knowledgeable comments. I read this through on a smartphone and maybe found one segment of text I'd change...aaand now I can't find it nor remember it. I can't see any prose clangers and it seems pretty comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Cas. Maybe I'll ping you when happy. And yeah smart phones can be a pain. Ceoil (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cas. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments (MPS1992) This is very well written. Here are some of my thoughts.

• "or the Brussels' painters' guild". Are we very attached to the first of these two possessive apostrophes? It is grammatically correct, of course, but I wonder if it might still be grammatically correct without it, and also slightly less distracting.

• "Until the Early Renaissance painters aspired to exactly follow his idealised model." Consider a comma after "Renaissance". There is also a split infinitive here, but it is possible that I am unfamiliar with the style aimed at, and whether the main authors consider such rules worth breaking on occasion.

• "Until the Early Renaissance painters aspired to exactly follow his idealised model. Thus their depictions were relatively static. During the Early Renaissance," - I will remove the duplicate wikilink, but could there also be a way to avoid repeating "Early Renaissance" so closely?

• "This historical link to the Holy Family explains the frequency" - the subject is now three sentences further back; perhaps this could be made easier to read.

• "In the Van der Weyden the positioning of the main figures is reversed from the van Eyck; the Virgin appears to the right" - this appears not to be the case in the lead image. Is this correct?

• "here she is depicted as a Maria Lactans" - I know what this means from learning Latin at school, but perhaps a gloss within commas could be added to ease the reading of those who are new to both Latin and fine art?

• "This is one of the standard depictions of her, different from with the Hodegetria (Our Lady of the Way, or She who points the way) Virgin type most usually..." - could "with" be removed?

• "execution completion date" - is this an artistic term? If not, removing "execution" would improve it.

• "Mary sits under a brocade canopy which is painted in layers of beige and now appears as mostly dark green, though it was probably painted with predominant browns." This is a little messy. First we say we know what colours were used, then we say what they now appear as, then we say what similar colours were probably used. If based on one source, this could be shortened some way I think.

• "His eyes are attentively fixed on her,[22] and seems near hypnotised" - do we need "he" added here?

• "perhaps explained by the fact that her breast is bared" - does Hall mention this interpretation?

• "with the same delicacy than an angel might..." - I am aware that this is a quotation, but could there be a typo "than" for "that"?

• This is fixed now, but does Hall definitely say "a angel" not "an angel"? MPS1992 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hall describes Luke's hands as floating "up before him... " - where does this quotation from Hall end?

• "He is painted with more naturalism than she" - there is no mention of the female subject of the painting in this paragraph, which makes this read awkwardly.

More soon. MPS1992 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

More comments (MPS1992)

• "their backs turned against the viewer" - could this be better as "their backs turned to the viewer" or "their backs turned towards the viewer" or something similar?

• "both to his friend and the viewer" - I can see the sense in including this, but I think the prose would flow better by excluding it entirely

• "Thus his thoughts on the value and role of the artist or craftsman within a wider social sphere was largely self-initiated" - perhaps there is a mismatch between the subject and verb here

• I literally don't understand grammar. Subject and verb? Can you fix please. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have replaced "was largely self initiated" with "were largely self initiated" - plural verb (were) to agree with plural subject (his thoughts). MPS1992 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "literally Our Lady of Milk" - is this really a literal translation?

• "The Virgin occupies an earthly, as opposed to sacred, space but remains aloof." - consider recasting this as "The Virgin occupies an earthly space as opposed to a sacred one, but remains aloof."

• "one-another" - the hyphen seems wrong to me, but I'm not sure. Similarly "arm-rest"

• "Though Mary is placed by a throne and under a damask canopy, indicating her role as Queen of Heaven. She does not sit on the bench but rather on its step, an indication of her humility." - I think should perhaps all be one sentence, with a comma? Otherwise the first sentence lacks a verb.

More soon. MPS1992 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Even more comments (MPS1992)

• "The panel in Bruges is in the best condition and of exceptional quality, but dates from c. 1491–1510.[30] [paragraph break] The panel is usually thought to have been completed around 1435." The similarity in subjects here may lead to confusion - I assume they're not referring to the same things?

• "It was donated to the Museum of Fine Arts in 1893 by Henry Lee Higginson after their purchase at a New York auction in 1889" - to what does "their" refer?

That's it for my comments. I have made these edits, most of which are very minor. MPS1992 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have struck a large number of items fixed by Ceoil, just so I know where I am up to. MPS1992 (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MPS1992, reading though and they are very helpful. Will let you know when done, and many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Note, all done except for the thing about the split infinitive, which I don't see. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The split infinitive seems to have been removed somewhere along the way. All my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and your support. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and many edits. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - has there been a source review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support well done. Just a very few items:

• "This panel is considered the oldest extant Netherlandish panel depicting Luke the Evangelist painting the Virgin" I might say "believed" for "considered"
• "veil" might be overlinking
• "attentively fix on her,[19] and he seems near hypnotised" I might move attentively to after "her" (attentive and hypnotised? Hmmm)
• "Compared to contemporary paintings of this type" you might want to consider moving this sentence at least two paragraphs later so that the explanation of the attributes can be their first mention.
• "Two figures in the mid-ground stand at a battlement wall" You mentioned before they were at a bridge.
• "a single surviving silverpoint drawing attributed van der Weyden" missing "to" before "van"?
• Maria Lactans is linked twice and is italicised in two of the three usages.

• Very enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are, so far as I can tell, consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2016 [13].

---

Huguenot-Walloon half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a somewhat controversial commemorative coin, in its time. Though it would probably be so today, I suppose. Also notable for the appearance of one of Congress's most spectacularly named members, Wells Goodykoontz. He should have kept at it, imagine Senator Goodykoontz, Governor Goodykoontz, dare I say President Goodykoontz? But I digress.Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Support: A very interesting and nicely written piece. Minor quibbles/preferences that you are free to ignore:

• In the lead, 'a portion was returned to the Mint' can we say how many
• The Huguenots were French Protestants, and there was often conflict with the Catholic majority. - who were often in conflict...
• with an amendment adding the bank - ...as designators
• Neither had any direct involvement with the voyage of the Nieuw Nederlandt, having been killed forty years or longer before it took place. Could this sentence do with out "it took place".
• were not killed for their religion and were anti-Catholic, "the United States...": ..religion, were..., and that "the United States..."
• with the words, HUGUENOT – WALLOON – TERCENTENARY – FOUNDING OF NEW NETHERLAND with the years 1624 and 1924 - 'with' twice, maybe and the years
• Sourcing is impeccable. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken care of those.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Interesting article. Just a few comments:

• the lead could benefit from an explanation of the Walloon connection, rather than just mention Belgium.
• I found the Background section a bit light. Lots of key info of how the background connects to the coin only trickles through in later sections.

It does ... but that's the fault of the sources. I'm wedding the standard books on the subject of commemoratives with congressional sources that I do not know if the authors examined and probably not. Thus, there are disconnects and no one comments on them. For example, Peter Minuit is mentioned by Stoudt as the subject of the design. Obviously that didn't happen. Whether that was due to some problem with the design, or whether it was "Protestant propaganda", who knows? I'm picking and choosing facts to help the reader because no one has drawn connections or commented.

• The first paragraph of Legislation is not about Legislation. I wonder if this fits better in its own section. The article is a little light on Huguenots in the 1920s, so more background on the forming of the commission would be good. An alternative to its own section is the background section.

I've added it. I'm not sure how much it would be useful to add on 1920s Huguenots, as this was a broader celebration by the Churches of Christ in America.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The Huguenot-Walloon New Netherland Commission was established under the auspices " when?
• "by Pennsylvania Congressman Fred Gernerd" needs explanation of why him here, rather than 2 sentences later
• "by Pennsylvania's David A. Reed" why him?

I'm going by the congressional documents, which are bare of such details. Likely because he was from Pennsylvania.

• "Swiatek and Breen noted" a description of who they are would be good. numismatists?
• "The Huguenot-Walloon commission" is this another commission or is it The Huguenot-Walloon New Netherland Commission?

Yes, but that's something of a mouthful.

• Q. David Bowers needs a description

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I think I've either done or responded to all here.

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Support – My only complaint is that if one blinks one misses another top-notch FAC from Wehwalt. I nearly missed this one, and am happy to add my support now. Tim riley talk 17:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, but given you are the first comment in 16 days, the blink must have frozen into sleep.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• For some reason, the image in the Production section has a visible file name in the caption
• File:NNC-1924-50C-Huguenot-Walloon_Tercentenary_half_dollar_(reverse,_uniface_die_trial).jpg needs a licensing tag for the die itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the licensing, Nikkimaria. I don't see a caption. Can you advise?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot. Not sure what's causing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Godot13 did that coding (and I must thank him for providing the images, that particular one inspired me to do this article). Can you see what's going on?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the coding and don't see anything wrong with it. I took a screen shot and it doesn't show the extra text. Is the text still showing up for you Nikkimaria?--Godot13 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I looked at the code too but couldn't see what the problem was. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've requested help at the Village Pump which hopefully was the right place. Thank you, Nikki, for your review, as always. We'll see what the technical folk think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, as we haven't been able to fix it, I've switched to the original image, showing both sides of the die trial. I may crop the image and upload it as derivative but there's no hurry. I think this addresses all image concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Thank you for another article of high value ;)

• In the lead, you may want to mention the destination of the ship, for those who don't know what the name implies.
• In the caption for Stoudt, consider to repeat his part in the story. Yes, it was said before, but for us idiots who look at boxes and pics ;)

That's it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I will add those. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review -- Ceoil signed off on reliability, nothing leapt out re. formatting except perhaps:

• "House hearings" citation might be quicker to match up to the references as "House of Representatives Committee".
• Not sure that US Govt Printing Service needs linking when no other pubs are linked (or is it the only one with an article).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, they're not holding up promotion but could you ack these one way or t'other for future reference? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose Thanks. Noted. I consider the hearing transcripts like books, so list the publisher and location. I'll look at it closely though.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Italic text

I've added a location for the USGPO, so it is consistent with those in book form. I've changed the name of the reference per your suggestion. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2016 [14].

---

2007 Coca-Cola 600

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2007 Coca-Cola 600, the twelfth stock car race of the 2007 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and the 48th iteration of the event. The 400-lap race was won by Casey Mears which proved to be one of the biggest upsets in NASCAR's history. Mears won the race when other drivers made pit stops for fuel during the event's closing stages. This article passed as GA in January and had a copy-edit from the GOCE in February. All comments are welcome. Z105space (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support I looked through the article and everything seems neat and readable. Images and sources are all fine. Any issues were addressed in the GA Review. Looking at other NASCAR Featured Articles, this one definitely meets FA criteria. Will211 (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support I've looked through this again and am satisfied this meets the FA criteria. I'm not an expert on the matter but it seems that the sources are all in order. JAGUAR  19:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Made a few minor prose changes but article seems complete besides that. The only suggestion I have is to list the top twelve drivers in the championship points standings after the race (as that's what we've done in the other FAs) for consistency reasons, but I'll leave that up to your judgement. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose on some writing and general MoS issues:

• After having been through the lead, I'm concerned about overuse of jargon and racing slang. For example:

• "pitted for fuel" vs "made a pit stop for fuel" (may be unclear that "pitted" is slang for "made a pit stop")
• "crashed out" (I know what this means but it's slang)

• I'm wondering what your interpretation of WP:NUMNOTES is when you go through a paragraph talking about lap numbers. The MoS guidelines talks about comparible numbers in the same sentence, but how about in the same paragraph? Should we be writing "Lap eleven" and "Lap 185" in the same paragraph?
• Same when you get into comparing points in the second para of Background
• Other MoS violations noticed such as periods in image captions that aren't complete sentences (see MOS:CAPTIONS)
• Awkward: "After the race, Jeff Gordon maintained his Drivers' Championship lead" He had it throughout the race, correct? So he didn't maintain it only after the race.
• Rewrite so it doesn't use a parenthetical: "The race is the longest (in terms of distance)"
• "considered ... as one of the sport's most important races" In this context, "considered ... to be" is more accurate.
• "he was evaluated at the Carolinas HealthCare System Infield Care Center" Hmm.. can we just say "at the infield medical center" without that whole branding spiel?
• In the first para of Practice and qualification, does the general reader need to know who was fastest and even what their times were? It seems a bit of undue detail. I'd suggest keeping the first sentence of that para and then jumping into the content of the second para. At the minimum, please omit the irrelevant practice lap times.
• If you must keep it, "went to a back-up car" is slang.
• "After the qualifier, Newman said there was pressure to achieve Penske's Racing South's first victory at Charlotte Motor Speedway" Maybe "said he felt pressure"? The way you've written it implies that others were applying pressure on him, but you don't specify who.
• Better: "weather conditions were partly cloudy with an air temperature of 87 °F (31 °C)"
• "Coke Rewards Fan Winners commanded the drivers to start their engines" Who are they? Generalize to something like "Sponsored contest award winners"
• "Mears was caught speeding upon leaving pit road" sounds a bit casual... "observed speeding" maybe?
• Why are we hyphenating "career-win"? Also, the archive link isn't working on that fn (34 as of this writing).

I don't think it's far off, but it really needs a once-over to check for issues like those mentioned above, and for MoS compliance. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I had a look and I believe that have dealt with all the points raised above. Is there anything else that needs looking at? Z105space (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Z105space: Thanks for your quick action on these! I'll run through it again today and also do a source review. I'll let you know if I spy anything else. --Laser brain (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Striking my opposition, source review pending. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Source and image review:

• Omit the publisher for works where the publisher name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example fn 12 and 16)
• Fn 34, MSN is the publisher of Fox Sports?
• File:Cokecola.png - Fair use rationale is acceptable
• File:Lowesmotorspeedway.jpg - Verified PD
• File:RyanNewmanAugust2007.jpg - Verified cc by 2.0
• File:TSM350 - Kurt Busch 2 - 2015 - Stierch.jpg - Verified cc by 4.0
• File:BrianVickersAugust2006 (cropped).jpg - Verified cc by 2.0
• File:CaseyMears 3.JPG - Verified cc by 3.0
• File:National Guard Bureau.jpg - This is incorrectly licensed on Commons. It should be PD.

Otherwise, looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: MSN is no longer the publisher of Fox Sports. Otherwise everything else has been dealt with. Z105space (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

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) 15:57, 8 April 2016 [15].

---

Senghenydd colliery disaster

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The Senghenydd colliery disaster was an underground methane explosion in 1913 that killed 339 miners. A terrible and horrible tragedy, it remains the UK's worst mining accident, and it devastated the small community of 6,000 that serviced the colliery. This article has been through a major re-write and a highly profitable and constructive PR, but further comments are welcomed from all-comers. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Looks to have further improved following a decent PR. Certainly looks a well-researched, credible article worthy of FA status. You've done well to compile it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Doc, particularly for your GAN comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments by Simon Burchell Reading through now, will comment as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• In Senghenydd and the Universal Colliery, there is no need to restate that firedamp is an explosive gas consisting of methane and hydrogen, since its composition was stated in the previous section. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• In Rescue, fire-fighting and recovery: 15 October to 30 November (and throughout), any chance of estimating what the amounts would be in modern currency? It is hard for a reader to know what to make of a £500 donation in 1913. Maybe use Template:Inflation, which should do the conversion for you, e.g. {{Inflation|UK|500|1913|2014|fmt=eq|cursign=£}} gives "equivalent to £43,941 in 2014". Simon Burchell (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Simon, Many thanks for your comments. I've tweaked the firedamp info to make sure it's all in the first section. I've added the inflation information as a footnote. There has been some discussion in previous articles about the validity of the information (given it's never entirely correct or looks at comparable information), but a general rounded up guide is useful, I think and these are now available for those who want them. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick responses - almost ready to support this fine article - there's just a few more monetary conversions needed in the Aftermath section. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Simon: I think I've caught them all now. The only ones we can't do are the shillings and pence amounts, but I think people will realise that we are talking very small amounts in any year. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• OK, that's great - good work on the article, I'm happy to support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Simon - your commens are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support – A grim read but worth the reading, and finely and soberly told. Well balanced (more than I'd manage to make it, I fear) and widely sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view and I willingly support its candidacy. – Tim riley talk 12:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Tim: your PR comments were a great help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done.

• Why include a location in FN86 but not FN104? FN27 but not FN110? Check for consistency
• "WikiMedia Commons" -> "Wikimedia Commons". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Nikkimaria - much appreciated and all now consistent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up both maps
• Le Petit Journal caption shouldn't end with a period
• File:Sir_William_Lewis.jpeg: per the tag, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Same with File:Rescuers_from_Rhymney,_who_assisted_at_the_Senghenydd_disaster,_1913.jpg
• File:Courrières_1906_LeJ.jpg: per the tag, "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication"
• File:Senghenydd_pit_disaster_18.jpg and others from the National Library: where are we getting CC0? The source link states "Copyright: The National Library of Wales". (The images would be PD-US anyway, but they should have the right tags). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria. Many thanks for the review. I've amended as requested, except the final point: the postcard images were all uploaded by User:Jason.nlw, the Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Wales: it is they who have posted the images and released them online, which should be OK. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi both. Just to confirm, National Library of Wales agreed the release of these postcards as CCO following a thorough but unsuccessful search to identify the author and his death date. I am working with them to update copyright notices on their website, but this will take time. Hope that helps. Jason.nlw (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support weighed in at the peer review. Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Wehwalt, your comments at PR were extremely helpful. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support with a few final suggestions:

• "...and employed a fifth of its miners in the mid-nineteenth century.[2] That year..." – no year indicated.
• "If the survivors are not rescued quickly..." As you are generalising here, this should perhaps be "If survivors from an explosion are not rescued quickly..." etc
• "...to allow rescuers to descend.[30] The rescuers descended..." This seems somewhat repetitious.
• In the "Senghenydd and the Universal Colliery" section I believe that the first sentence of the final paragraph should be the last sentence of the previous paragraph, as a new topic starts with "In 1906...". Likewise, the last two sentences, beginning "In 1913..." should form a brief separate paragraph, since they shift the subjecxt back to Senghenydd. Thus, "In 1913 the Senghenydd colliery was..." etc.
• "Reginald McKenna, the Home Secretary, visited the colliery that day... " – again, "that day" needs to be specified
• "to a disaster relief fund", or "to the disaster relief fund?

• "a" I think: there were two funds, so I think this is right, but happy to hear any further comments. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "the focus of attention would be on" gives off a bit of a clunk. Perhaps "priority wouild be given to"?
• "100 long tons of debris" - surely the "long" is irrelevant here?
• "some bodies remained unknown" – is "unknown" the best word to use?
• I assume that the gallery captions are Benton's, and it might be as well to make this clear.
• "of which 8 were 14 years old" → "of whom..."
• "jury returned a verdict of accidental death" - probably "verdicts"?
• "of all the theories put forward" is unnecessary verbiage
• "firedamp or afterdamp could have been extracted from some sectors onto the blaze" – not completely clear. Does it mean "could have been extracted from other sectors of the mine into the blaze..."?

It is right that this sad event be remembered. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian. All done, bar one, which I'm happy to be nudged the other way on, should you think it appropriate. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Support, had my say at PR and it has improved very much since then. Well done indeed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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) 15:38, 8 April 2016 [16].

---

No. 90 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Back as a nominee after a six-month hiatus, I bring you a brief but, I think, comprehensive article on a short-lived RAAF formation that operated in the early years of the Malayan Emergency. No. 90 (Composite) Wing only existed from 1950 to 1952 and controlled only two flying units, but the rationale for its establishment -- more political than operational -- is interesting and explained in some detail, along with an overview of tasking, commanding officers, and disbandment. It hails from a bygone era when RAAF unit names generally advertised their purpose ("Fighter", "Bomber", "Transport", etc) for easy identification, so you may deduce from this that "Composite" basically meant "mixed bag" or, less kindly, "mongrel"... ;-) The article is effectively a potted history of Australia's initial involvement in the Emergency, as the RAAF was the only service to deploy forces until 1955, when Australian Army and RAN units began arriving. This has passed GAN and MilHist ACR, and is part of a Featured Topic. Thanks in advance for all comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:38_Squadron_RAAF_Dakotas_in_Singapore_during_1950.jpeg: this is certainly out of copyright in Australia, but I don't think it would be in the US - pre-1955 photos had a copyright of 50 years, 1950+50 gives an expiration of 2000 which is after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, tks Nikki -- I'd assumed without looking closely that it was an AWM image and licensed accordingly. It seems to be a similar situation to the infobox image, i.e. donated by The Age newspaper to the State Library of Victoria, so will I just match the licensing for that one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I see "This work is out of copyright" on the source pages for both images, but I'm not seeing a reason for it - I would guess it's because Australian copyright has expired on both rather than any rights waiver taking place, unless I'm missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I really did think this had been resolved at this image's deletion discussion a while back. Several images from the same source have had similar discussions, and all have been closed as 'keep' AFAIK. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Are we sure that the copyrights, and not just the actual photos, were gifted to SLV? Do you have links to the similar discussions? I hate to harp on this, but it's really not clear to me that these should be considered free in the US as things stand, and SLV's copyright declaration isn't clear on rationale or applicability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 15 includes discussions of several post-1945 Australian images as well as this one, some SLV and some AWM, but all declared as out of copyright by their government source, and all were kept. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
            • Okay, we'll go with that then, once the tagging is fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
              • Just so I'm clear, Nikki, you mean tag the Dakota picture like the infobox one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
                • Yes, that's right. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
                  • Okay, I think that's done. Tks as always, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Support: looks like this one is up to your usual standards, Ian. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations (no action required);
• "Australian Dakota crews from service in the Berlin Airlift" --> perhaps: "Australian Dakota crews from service during the Berlin Airlift"?
  • Okay.
• should "No. 224 Group RAF" be linked?
  • Probably, yes.
• "mindful of repeating the experience of World..." --> "mindful of not repeating the experience of World..."?
  • This is an interesting one: my thinking was that if you're mindful of something then you want to avoid it, and what Jones wanted to avoid was repeating the experience. Then again I could just say "wanted to avoid repeating the experience of World..." but I kinda like the expression as it is unless consensus is against it... ;-)
• in the References Grey should come before Helson
  • Oops, yes. Tks for your review, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Support – A pleasure to review an article so concise but evidently comprehensive. Meets the FA criteria in my view. I can't fault the prose, the referencing is blessedly clear, and the sourcing suitably wide. Top-notch stuff. Tim riley talk 12:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tks for stopping by, Tim -- much appreciated! As the UK was kind enough to invite Australia to this party, I was thinking of returning the favour and asking a Brit to comment, but you beat me to it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Support While the article is short for a FA, I know from my experience developing the No. 38 Squadron article to FA status that not much has been written on this unit - which isn't surprising given that it was essentially an administrative and logistical headquarters. I've read through the article and, aside from a missing word (I think) couldn't spot anything to comment on or change, and am pleased to support the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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) 15:38, 8 April 2016 [17].

---

George Bernard Shaw

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk and Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernard Shaw achieved international fame more than a century ago as a playwright, polemicist and critic, was a prominent public figure until his death in 1950, and remains one of the best-known dramatists in English. Brianboulton and Tim riley have been overhauling the article during the past three months. It has been a challenge to cover Shaw's 94 years, 62 plays and innumerable opinions in 11,500 or so words, but after the benefit of a thorough and penetrating peer review we hope and think the page is ready for consideration as a Featured Article candidate. As ever, suggestions will be welcome about further improvements to prose, proportions, balance, structure or anything else colleagues feel moved to comment on. – Brianboulton (talk) and Tim riley talk 12:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. During the PR I restricted myself to looking into the sourcing. My issues there were dealt with, but a couple more have bubbled to the surface in the interim:

• Footnote 305 (Bentley) doesn't have any associated source; neither does FN322 for Cole (is it 1949, or should it be 1961, like the others)?

Aside from that, this mammoth piece of work is a thorough and solid biography of a complex, contrary and productive individual. – SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, SchroCat, for the input here and at peer review. The two absentees have been added to the list of sources. Are you happy for us to point to your source review for FAC purposes? If so, I'll put a note on this page drawing it to the attention of the coordinators. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Tim, sorry fr the delay in getting back: for some reason the ping here didn't get through to me. Let me have another look through them once again and I'll comment separately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw

• Support

Fascinating and well-sourced article at first glance. Very comprehensive and overall quite interesting. That said, I find the writing a little bit "in-universe" in tone and phrasing -- what I call (in my own cases) "looking at the article so long you can't "see" it any longer). Certain things jumped out at me as either assuming a knowledge not necessarily in the hands of the average reader, or perhaps a bit jargony, or --occasionally-- not quite making sense in places. I'm going to list them as I see them; it isn't an explanation I'm looking for (I usually figured it out) but rather a suggestion that it's a bit of writing that needs to be reworked for clarity because the average reader is lazier than anFAC reviewer ;-) . Montanabw^(talk) 06:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I'd actually suggest a complete rewrite of the lead and a significant expansion so it presents a more thorough summary of the rest of the article; it's too short, it is not in sequence with the article, and IMHO too focused on his political views, it doesn't really meet the standard of a FAC-quality lead. (I say this as someone who hates writing a lede, so I say this with sympathy.) Some places that need rephrasing if you do keep it as is:

I so agree about writing leads! This one survived PR without adverse comment, but if other reviewers here share your view that a complete rewrite is wanted we can go back to the drawing board. Responses to your individual points are below. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC);

My thinking is that you probably can salvage what's there, but you need to supplement it to be more of an overall summary of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "controversialist " Might want to link; that's an unusual noun form for the US reader... The redirect if linked would go to polemic, but I'm not really sure that's the precise meaning intended?  ;-)
  • "polemics" will do very well as a link. Indeed, Shaw is so described in the opening of the article on him in The Cambridge Guide to Theatre: "playwright, critic and polemicist". I'll link to polemic for now, and with my co-nom will ponder if changing to "polemicist" would be better. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• • I've changed to "polemicist". Either word fits Shaw, and there's not a paper's thickness of difference in meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• struggled for some years to establish himself as a writer, while undergoing a rigorous process of self-education..." (awkward)
  • Yes – will redraw. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• "..."renounced Fabian caution" awkward -- the phrasing is "gradualism" in the preceding paragraph, sounds like something different here.
  • Will make this "renounced Fabian gradualism". Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. On the lead generally, I'm sure it can be improved – in particular the balance between politics and drama looks a little lopsided – but I would be against any large expansion. I believe the most important function of the lead is to draw readers in, and that this requires above all two features: that the first paragraph should pack a heavy punch (which I think this does), and that the lead be as short as possible consistent with the requirement that it summarises the whole subject. Long paragraphs in the lead – walls of text – can be deeply off-putting to casual readers. So I will tackle the question of balance, but will try to do so without a significant increase in the wordcount. Give me a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have redrafted the lead on the basis of the above, adding about 80 words, which is a bit more than I'd hoped but probably acceptable. Tim, when you see this, please tweak as you think best – I don't think I can do much more with it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• LEAD MUCH IMPROVED! Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Life

• First two paragraphs a bit jumpy; leaps around from birth to ancestry, back again. Might want to start with the history of the Shaw family, and then do the birth section; that or consolidate the info on the household and then duck back to 1689 in a new paragraph.
  • I may be wrong, but I think it is fairly usual to follow this pattern in Early Years sections in FA biographies: the subject's specifics, then the background, and then back to the main topic. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of other FAs such as Evelyn Waugh, P. G. Wodehouse and Laurence Olivier. In cases where the background is extensive, such as Nancy Mitford it comes first, and Shaw's could do so here, if reviewers agree. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    • The pattern concept is OK, it's the implementation... As I read, I feel like I am in a car that is randomly switching lanes with no clear sense of the traffic pattern. ;-) Basically Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Streamlined. The gallant Captain has been relegated to a footnote. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• "...styling himself "Bernard Shaw" after his move to London..." this is touched upon in a couple places, but never explained why he made the decision to drop "George" -- is it known why?
  • He simply loathed the name. We develop this topic later in the article, but could mention it here too if wanted. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Footnote added expanding on this point. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• "...Shaw, a sensitive boy, found the less salubrious parts of Dublin shocking and distressing..." this jumps out of the blue, not being a Dubliner, I'm wondering if Upper Synge Street was a "less salubrious part" or...?
  • Middling, if I interpret the sources correctly, but Shaw was familiar with some dodgier parts of town. I don't think we can say that Synge Street itself was insalubrious. "Genteel poverty" was Shaw's phrase, and (this is OR, admittedly) the Shaws' street seemingly had pretensions to some sort of gentility. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Later: I've found just the thing, from Ervine, and will add it. Tim riley talk 07:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

London

• 3rd through 5th paragraphs jump around quite a bit, leap from jobs to books, to beards and back again. It appears you are seeking a chronological arrangement, but it's not quite linear, and if the timeline is going to be a little chopped up, best to try and organize it more topically... wrote three books, grew a beard, joined Zetetical Society, etc…
  • We have grappled throughout with the competing demands of chronology on the one hand and of coherence of topics on the other. I think the third and fourth paras could be swapped about for chronological precision, but that would weaken the link between the present fourth and fifth paras, which are related to each other. I'll discuss with my co-nom on his return a few days hence. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fabian society

• Wonder if there would be any sense to putting the bit on Marxism from the earlier section here as an intro to this period of his life
  • We'll come back to this: a bit of experimenting would be as well. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• • I've tried this out – works quite well I think, though it requires a rather cumbersome revised section title. what do you think, Tim, Mbw? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    • It works so well that I didn't even notice the change when I was reading through for something entirely different the other day. So it's fine with me. Tim riley talk 10:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Critic.

• Well, the first sentence was an attention-grabber, but wonder if it would be better placed as the conclusion to the "London" section. I almost wonder if the entire "critic" section should move up with the "London" material, perhaps with some of the London material popping into the Fabian society section. Seems the departure into his political views would do better as a wrapup to the 1880s.
  • I agree about the attention-grabbing line, and my inclination would be to do as you suggest, but I seem to remember that we are exhorted to refrain from ending one para/section with a taster of the next. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• • There's a reasonable case for transferring the first two paras of this section to the London section, as they don't really relate to Shaw's career as a critic. Or we could leave it as it is and retitle the section "Novelist and critic". Don't see any advantage in transferring the whole section or shoving more stuff into the Fabian section. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy with either, but on balance I prefer the present grouping of the information .I've changed the section heading, as you suggest. Tim riley talk 10:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Playwright and politician

• "...After using the plot of the aborted collaboration with Archer ..." Forgot all about Archer, perhaps a few words to remind the reader where we are at now…
  • Good idea. I get cross when I have to ask myself "who was he, again?" in mid-article. Shall add a bit as you suggest. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• By the way, between 1880 and 1894, I'm a bit fuzzy how he earned his daily bread... office jobs until... when? IN the late 1880s was his income from his work as a critic?
  • Yes, this could be tightened. After the phone job he earned his living (a negligible one at first) wholly as a writer. I'll redraw. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(More to come...)

Thank you very much for these points; looking forward to more when you're ready. Meanwhile I'll go and make the changes mentioned above. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks echoed, looking forward to more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we've addressed all the above points – satisfactorily, I hope. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks much better! ONWARD! (and sorry for my delay in getting back here) Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stage success/Fabian

• Not much to pick at here, though the sentence, " His co-star then toured in the piece in the US" is a bit awkward and a weak end to the section, perhaps a more complete sentence like "Campbell toured with the production in the United States from X to Y (dates)." Or something...
• "He later wondered if the Fabian Society would have benefited if, after all, it had dismissed the Old Gang ... " Also a bit awk.
• "Although less active—he blamed his advancing years—Shaw remained a Fabian" I'd make that the end of the preceding paragraph instead of the start of the one it's in (which is about the weekly)

• Re the above two, I've tweaked and rearranged per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

First World War

• "Shaw was scathing in The New York Times about Irish nationalism, writing... " icky construction, perhaps "Shaw wrote scathingly in ..." or something... Actually, that whole section might benefit from a new copyedit, it's not fatally flawed, but it's clumsy. It jumps from the war to Ireland and back to the war... given that the Irish issues are going to get more attention in the 1920s section, perhaps put the Irish bit last and maybe expand it a wee bit to give a little more context; the last time you mentioned Ireland was John Bull's Other Ireland, and we the readers perhaps need to get a bit more setup for what will be coming next...

• I have tweaked the icky construction. The "War and Ireland" section was an attempt to maintain the chronology, which as Tim says earlier, has been a recurring problem for us. I think on balance that we made the wrong decision here; it would have been better to split "War" and "Ireland" into separate sections, thus uniting the two Irish paragraphs into a single narrative. I have done this (also adding a piccy). I will add a few words of context to the Ireland section so that it doesn't jump out of the blue. Tell ne if you think this works. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

1920s

• " Shaw visited Dublin in August" this being 1922... but in the earlier section where he left Ireland in 1876 "and did not visit it for another twenty-nine years" = 1905... do we need to know anything about his visits back home prior to 1922? (Do we care). Just wondered... was his 1922 visit a rare thing or was he making a habit of it, particularly in light of his future dual citizenship?
  • He only went back in 1905 because Charlotte bullied him into it. He doesn't seem anxious to have visited often, but I don't recall any comment from a RS that he actively avoided the place. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Shaws regularly holidayed in Ireland after the war, usually staying with their friend Sir Horace Plunkett, but I don't think such detail is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• " It is a cycle of five interrelated plays ..." There's a past/present awkwardness... most of your discussion of his previous plays is in the past tense. Just a wee copyedit there.
  • Redrawn. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• I rather liked that quote from the Nobel Committee in Note 18 and would not find it amiss to make its way back into the main article.
  • OK. Done. Doesn't inflate the word count too much. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• The bit on Mussolini, dated 1922, seems out of sequence and awkward in the middle of the section. Might want to look at giving the reader a sentence or so of lead in, as going from the Socialist Fabians to Mussolini and then Stalin and his interest in dictatorship seems odd... later in the article you note his views were "contradictory... partly an intentional provocation" -- I'm thinking that it's OK to point that out here and there early, as you go, otherwise the readers of these sections (who may not reach the end of the article) could come away thinking he just a curmudgeon that way and shifted gears all of a sudden. His later embrace of eugenics and such should have cost him more socially -- or was he not taken seriously? Were his ideas viewed as satirical, or was there more public sympathy for his views then than now? (Just a question)

• There's more about this slide away from Fabian socialism and towards a fondness for dictatorships in the "Political and social writings" subsection, found in "Works". I'll bring a little of that material forward to provide a better context here. I agree the positioning of the Mussolini paragraph looked odd, and I've now put it at the end of the section so it doesn't interrupt a discussion of Shaw's stage works. Tim needs to agree. There's probably no ideal position, but putting it here allows it to lead directly into the political discussion that opens the next section Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1930

• "and at 2016 remains" Could use the as of template: {{as of|2016|lc=on}} should work.
• "but this breach of his vegetarian creed" -- hadn't mentioned this since 1881... might want to make a more memorable note of it earlier -- if he was famous enough for it to be criticized when he "slipped up," then I'd at least note in the "London" section that he not only became a vegetarian, but remained one pretty much for life and became famous for it, etc... just a bit more of an anchor for the reader when they see it 50 years later. ;-)
  • I've added a footnote mentioning this and some of his other famous trade marks. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• One thing that keeps nagging at me is his flirtation with dictatorship; how did he remain such a popular public figure? Did he alter his views during WWII? Just wondering?

• He was by no means alone in these views. Ex-prime ministers, media moguls, opinion-formers, all spoke favourably of the European dictators in the 1930s, and many believed idealised versions of life in the Soviet Union. Shaw's views were not egregious. A decade later many were anxious to forget what they'd said, but not I think Shaw. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Works

• Not much to do there, it is a narrative list by nature, spotted one place where you have "St Joan" instead of "Saint Joan" at the 1920–50 subsection

Criticism

• Section makes me think "criticism OF Shaw," not "criticism BY Shaw." Perhaps title "Artistic criticism" -- or something?
  • Redrawn. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

• May want to note how famous he was in America up in the earlier sections, at least the initial success there.
  • His early US success is mentioned in re Arms and the Man and Mansfield's lucrative production of The Devil's Disciple. Tim riley talk

OK, NOW I'm done. This is an impressive effort and with only minor cleanup as noted above, it will easily gain my support. Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Tim has to deal with a few points, and as indicated I am finalising a couple of your issues. Thank you again for this thorough review, which has certainly helped to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• As noted above, I am now fully supporting this FAC; my concerns are addressed, (Other than my last point about fame in America, which is minor) and I am confident that you two will clean up any remaining quibbles I may have. Excellent effort! Montanabw^(talk) 05:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added my responses, above, and add my thanks to Brian's here. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Chiswick Chap

It's not easy to add much to such a comprehensive and carefully-written article, but I'd agree with Montanabw that the lead could be a little smoother, and that phrasing throughout could be improved. Here are a few illustrations: the whole text needs to be checked for similar usages.

To take one example of a punctuation issue, phrasing like "If as Holroyd and others surmise, George's motives were mercenary, he was disappointed, ..." seems to me not to flow well. Perhaps "If, as Holroyd and others surmise, George's motives were mercenary, then he was disappointed, ..." would work better.

I'm happy with that rewording and will incorporate it. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As an instance of choice of words, "had become close to George John Lee, a colourful figure" is more journalistic (even journalese) than encyclopedic. Why the pluperfect tense? At that time she and Lee were close friends, perhaps lovers. "Colourful" and "figure" could similarly be rethought.

The pluperfect came into my mind to emphasise that the relationship had been going on for some (unknown) period. Given Shaw's obsession that Lee might have been his father I think this is worth giving the pluperfect a short outing, but I'll go with the consensus on this. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

An example of doubtful sentence structure is "During this period he was known as "George Shaw", before dropping the "George" and styling himself "Bernard Shaw" ..." Perhaps something like "During this period he was known as "George Shaw". Around ?1873? he decided to drop the "George", and styled himself ..." would work better.

Indeed it would. I'll redraw, and add a date if I can find a reliable citation for it. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "Shaw's next attempt at drama was in 1884, Un Petit Drame, a one-act playlet in French, not published in his lifetime." does not quite work. Are we talking about the attempt or the play? Perhaps we could say "Shaw's next attempt at drama was his 1884 one-act playlet in French, Un Petit Drame, but it was not published in his lifetime."

Happy with that change. Will do. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"The mid 1880s marked a personal and professional turning point in Shaw's life:" should perhaps be "The mid 1880s marked a turning point in Shaw's life, both personally and professionally:".

That's fine with me. It shall be incorporated. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"is less widely credited.[81][82][83][84][85]" Why so many refs here? What is needed is a ref to a review that summarises critical opinion and that states "less widely credited".

Indeed, but I know of none, and for want of it we have had to look at a representative selection of the important sources and point to their conflicting interpretations. Trying to get a scholarly or critical consensus about anything to do with Shaw is like trying to juggle flour. I accept that having five cites in a line does rather smack the reader in the eyeball, but I don't think the citation templates allow for bundling. I'm inclined to dig my heels in on this one. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Or herding cats? OK. Though it is possible to put a list of cite templates inside one set of ref tags. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"In April 1916, in The New York Times, Shaw was scathing about Irish nationalism, writing:" could perhaps be "In April 1916, Shaw wrote scathingly in The New York Times about ...".

"wrote...writing" doesn't work, but I've made an appropriate tweak. Brianboulton (talk)

"his errant reputation" - he was hardly a Don Juan.

"errant" means straying from the accepted standards of thought or action - it doesn't necessarily imply promiscuity. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, as you like, but the overtone is there nonetheless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

" his fellow-writers Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton": might be worth glossing them as Catholic, unlike Shaw himself.

The Anglo-Irish confrontation between 1919 and 1921 was much more than a religious dispute between Protestants and Catholics, and emphasising the religion of these writers might suggest otjherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Kaufmann's "godfather, if not actually finicky paterfamilias" is a bit obscure: I think I get the "godfather" bit, but "finicky paterfamilias" with its alliterative "f"s just leaves me confused. What has the absurd to do with finicky? Maybe give an explanation instead of the quote?

I've prefaced the quote with a phrase of introduction. Tim riley talk 09:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy and influence: the section alternates between past tense and present tense. 1976 is apparently in the past, whereas 1983 is in the present, for instance. Maybe we should choose one tense for the section.

Done, except for the para on the Osborne-v-Billington punch-up, which needs to be in the past tense, I think: I've tried the present tense for it and it looks very odd. Tim riley talk 09:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope these few illustrations from a not-very-literary editor may prove helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Not-very-literary", forsooth! Some top-notch stylistic criticism there, which I'll enjoy working through. Thank you very much, CC. I've responded on some of your points and I'll report back on the others in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And I've added my pennyworth on a couple more points. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

We've covered all the above points now, I think – I hope to your satisfaction, CC. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, happy to Support, it's a fine article and we need more like it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and kind comment, CC. Your suggestions have certainly helped us improve the article. Tim riley talk 13:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by WW2censor

In the peer review Dr. Blofeld asked about the Dublin area where Synge Street is located. It is in Portobello if you want to add it. I doubt there is anything to pick apart in this massive rewrite but I'll give it a better read later. A fine job. ww2censor (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, ww2censor. I'll incorporate that. Perhaps (just for background – I'm not trying to lure you into Original Research) I could ask if you have a view on the question raised by Montanabw, above, in the third bullet point of the "Life" comments? How would you characterise the Synge Street of Shaw's youthful years? Tim riley talk 15:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Tim riley - South Circular Road, Dublin mentions the area's residential development and this jstor item mentions the street and Shaw's description of the house, while this describes the area in the early 1800s. Maybe that gives you something to look at. In this image File:Portobello1840.jpg Synge Street is the unnamed street that runs north from the letters "Le" of Lennox right by the boat basin, now filled in for parking. I'll see if I can find anything else more specific. ww2censor (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That JSTOR article is fascinating – thank you! I think it will be worth raiding it for a footnote about the birthplace museum. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Support An excellent article, was already in great shape before the peer review. I admire how much work has gone into this, a fine collaboration from two of wikipedia's best editors. Easily meets the FA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Doc. Your input at the PR was of great help (and its ripples are still rippling, as you can see from Ww2censor's point immediately above), and your support here is much appreciated. Tim riley talk 15:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and appreciation echoed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Has been on my watchlist for a number of years, and it has been a pleasure to witness this rewrite and overhaul. An outstanding achievement. I stayed out of the PR, but have been reading on and off, and went through it again today, and find the prose crisp, clear and deeply informed. Especially wrt his views on Irish nationalism, the main writers are evidencing their own seemingly well informed knowledge and sensitivity. Ceoil (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this generous assessment and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I gratefully add my thanks to Brian's. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from John

I like the article very much. Do we need to have "UK" in the infobox? --John (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd personally say no. Ireland was part of the UK when Shaw was born, but I don't see any point, really, in rubbing it in and would be happy to see it go. Tim may have another view. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur. As long as we drop it from both the place of birth and of death that will look fine, I'd say. I'll do the deed. Thank you, John, for your kind remark about the article. Tim riley talk 19:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:George_Bernard_Shaw_1936.jpg: what is the copyright status of this work in the US?
  • Good old Commons! You can always rely on it to let you down. God knows what the missing details ought to say. Should we replace the image? There are plenty of pictures of Shaw that are definitely not in copyright in the US. Tim riley talk 09:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • That might be easiest - it's possible the image is PD, but it's hard to say given current information. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• File:George_Bernard_Shaw_signature.svg: commons:COM:SIG would suggest that this tag shouldn't be used here, as Ireland uses common law. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've looked at that guideline and if I understand the matter correctly we should not use this image. It is almost certainly covered by UK law (Shaw steered as clear of Ireland as possible after he left in 1876 and the letter was written at his English country house) and the guideline says, "The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low, and it is easily arguable that personal signatures are entitled to copyright protection." The signature doesn't add anything much to the article (the various forms of his name are fully covered in the text) and won't be missed if we blitz it. @Nikkimaria: what think you? Tim riley talk 09:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Whether UK or Irish law, the threshold of originality is low enough to include signatures - unless there's another reason this might be PD I would suggest removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you for that v. clear and helpful steer. As Ko-Ko says in The Mikado: "Very glad to hear my opinion backed by a competent authority". I'll follow your advice. Tim riley talk 12:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Were his parents Church of Ireland? Denomination is important in C19 Ireland and one expects to be told.

• Yes on the basis of evidence. Shaw's uncle was rector of St Brides, a C of I church (where GBS was christened), and in later life the old boy wrote about the effects of Church of Ireland teaching on his young mind. Tim may have a direct reference but if not, I can cite Holroyd and Pearson in regard to the above.

• If mention of the Protestant Ascendency won't sufffice, we can add that the young Shaw was sent to worship at Molyneux Church in Upper Leeson Street. (Holroyd 1997, p.16). Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "to share a large house in a better part of Dublin" Do we have the address? We'd include it if was London, I'm sure.

• Address added. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• "When in 1886–87 the Fabians debated whether to embrace Anarchism,...". Capitalization - you don't for "socialism"?

• decapitalised Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• "... writing under the pen-name Corno di Bassetto" - explain.
  • Will do. I have seen (but where?) a retrospective comment by Shaw that he originally thought the name sounded dashing, and was grievously disillusioned when he later heard the dolorous sound of the basset horn for the first time. If I can't find that, then I'll add a plain explanation of what a C di B is. I don't think a plain blue link on its own will suffice. Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Later: found it! It was under my nose, of course, in the collected music criticism. Now added. Tim riley talk 09:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• (Jumping ahead) "Though Shaw's intentions were clear, his drafting was flawed, and the courts ruled that only £8,300,..." - This is still a leading case ("Re Shaw 1957") on what is "charitable" under English law, and I'm not sure how much it was that his (or his lawyer's, one would think?) "drafting was flawed". There is a lot of legal literature on the case - maybe User:Bencherlite or someone could advise.
• My clear impression is that Shaw's reputation as a dramatist has been in sharp and steady decline over recent decades - or at the least his popularity for revivals. While contemporaries like Harley Granville-Barker have seen notable revivals of interest, productions of Shaw remain relatively infrequent compared to some decades ago. I see that many of the references used for the overall assessment are 40-20 years old. It would be good to have something very current, as I suspect that critical interest and appreciation have also declined. Mind you, he comes out of copyright in a few years, which may perk things up.
  • I'll have a look for a 2010+ assessment and add details if I can find a good source. I'm sure you're right about an upturn when the copyright runs out. Who ever programmed Mahler before 1961! Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I've found two 2012 critical assessments (Guardian and New Statesman) and added them. Tim riley talk 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• On a similar note, "He campaigned against the prevailing fashion for performances of Handel oratorios with huge amateur choirs and inflated orchestration, calling for "a chorus of twenty capable artists"" - so he would be very happy with the modern fashion to do them them just this way, which might be noted.
  • True, but I'm a bit wary of ascribing a putative posthumous opinion. Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• You have "Shaw's political and social commentaries were published variously in Fabian tracts, in essays, in two full-length books, in innumerable newspaper and journal articles and in prefaces to his plays", but I wonder if more should not be made of him as a public intellectual/rentaquote/soundbite master etc? By the end of his life he had (if only because of the distinctive beard) colossal and more or less unique public recognition stretching down to the very popular tabloid level (Bertrand Russell taking up the baton after him I suppose), and was very frequently in cartoons etc. One can only be relieved he was not around in the Twitter era.
• stretches of the article are unillustrated, but there are some decent images of various types on Commons, even if his portraits are beard-dominated and rather samey

• ...and many of those Commons images have dodgy licences which would not survive FAC scrutiny. We'll look, but no more bearded Shaws, I think, merely to break up the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

More to come, Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Just spotted this when browsing through (ping didn't work, if I was pinged). Charitable law isn't my speciality by any means, but I can send someone the full text of the judgment if desired (by Charles Harman - sample quotations: "It is, indeed, a curious reflection that this same work, tagged with versicles which I suppose Shaw would have detested, and tricked out with music which he would have eschewed (see the preface to the “Admirable Bashville”), is now charming huge audiences on the other side of the Atlantic and has given birth to the present proceedings"; ... "Unfortunately the will bears ample internal evidence of being in part the testator's own work." ... "The result is that the alphabet trusts are, in my judgment, invalid, and must fail. It seems that their begotter suspected as much, hence his jibe about failure by judicial decision. I answer that it is not the fault of the law, but of the testator, who failed almost for the first time in his life to grasp the legal problem or to make up his mind what he wanted.") After Easter, I can have a hunt for commentary in the legal literature, although it may add little to this particular article; it might improve Purpose trust where the case is mentioned, or indeed it might be possible to create an article about the case itself, which is probably sufficiently notable in WP terms. Bencherlite^Talk 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I feel that as far as this article is concerned, this issue is not hugely significant in the overall context of Shaw's life and works. So let's not go overboard on the research. I have amended the text to make it clear that Shaw's intended trust was declared void, and that the £8,300 arose from a later out-of-court agreement with the residuary legatees. I don't think much more is called for, although obviously if there are inaccuracies in the text they will need to be corrected.Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod, Bencherlite. Tim will need to answer some of these points – I'm sure he'll be on the case soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added my comments, above, and add my thanks to Johnbod and Bencherlite here. Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review

I spent time at PR in sorting out the minor issues found in the sources, and have done so with a few more missed points at FAC. The formatting is up to scratch, spot checks reveal no copying or plagiarism problems, and there is no text that is not covered by the sources as far as I can see. – SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, SchroCat, for this and your labours during the PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 07:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporary absence

Note to reviewers: My conom Tim Riley has been unwell for the past few days and unable to respond here. He will do so as soon as he can. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Now back in the co-driver's seat. Hello, folks! Tim riley talk 07:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Comments leaning support. I had my say at peer review but am giving this a close second reading due to the importance of the subject:

Just a few remaining things.

• "and did not visit it for another twenty-nine years" I'm not sure why the "another" is needed.
• "Despite the rift, Shaw maintained contact with Lee" I might cut "Despite the rift"
• "By this time he had embarked in earnest on a parallel career as a playwright:" I would strike parallel

• Happy with the first two, above, and will (not wholly convincedly) make the third change too. Tim riley talk 08:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "received a one-night performance in South Shields in 1895" is this an ENGVAR thing? So if it had gone 79 nights in South Shields it would have "received a 79-night performance"? I might have used the word "engagement"

• It's Tim's phrase. I think the essence is that it was a single performance rather than a run. I've risked the wrath of Riley and altered it to "single performance"

• An improvement, me judice. Tim riley talk 08:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Shaw had long supported the principle of Irish Home Rule within the British Empire (which he thought should become the British Commonwealth)." I wonder if the parenthetical really adds anything? It does stray from the point and his view regarding the relationship is stated with his national and imperial parliaments idea.

• I think the source included this to modify any impression that Shaw was a whole-hearted imperialist. He accepted the British Empire as a fact, but nevertheless wanted it to evolve into something less, well imperial. I'm not wedded to the phrase, but it might be useful? Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• " he expressed horror at the summary execution of the rebel leaders," hm. This might be read to say they were executed upon capture, rather than after what passed for trials.

• The first executions took place within three days of the surrender, after "trials" lasting minutes with no legal representation for the accused. I take "summary" to mean "without due process". rather than "instant". Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• This caught my eye when I first read BB's para during our drafting stage, and I read up on the case to see if I thought it necessary to query the wording. Given the course of events after the men were captured I reluctantly concluded, and still do, that "summary execution" is indeed the right phrase, so much the worse for British justice! Tim riley talk

I shall not press the point and in essence agree with you personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "twelve years after the Irish Free State was established" what's wrong with "in 1934"? brevity and all that.

• Well I can't argue with that. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I had in mind that he was hardly down on one knee in a pre-sprinting position to apply for Irish nationality at the first opportunity, but I suppose that's a slightly tendentious comment. Tim riley talk 08:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "In December 1932 the couple embarked on a round-the-world cruise. In March 1933 they arrived at San Francisco, to begin Shaw's first visit to the US." That seems scant time for them to go around the world (from Southampton?) and THEN go to San Francisco. Round the world cruises returning to point of origin tend today to be in the 3-4 month range. I doubt if it was different then. Then Southampton to San Francisco is likely to occupy much of a month, depending on route and calls. Possibly they embarked on a world cruise but only went as far as San Francisco?

• It would be a rash man who argued with Wehwalt about ocean voyages. I'll go back to the sources and check, reporting back here soonest.

• It appears that the dates are right. R.M.S. Empress of Britain sailed on 16 December 1932, called at Athens (where Shaw made some remarks, perverse even by his standards, about the Parthenon), passed through the Suez Canal on New Year's Day, arrived at Bombay a week later, then via Ceylon to Hong Kong arriving on 11 February. After further short stops in China and Japan the ship called at Honolulu on 16 March, and arrived at San Francisco on 28 March. I wonder if, possibly, cruise schedules were less leisurely in those days because the ships doubled as the main means of international passenger travel from A to B. – Tim riley talk 09:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think my point is, it was not round-the-world, though certainly a significant portion thereof.

It didn't take in Australasia or Antarctica, it's true, but it circumnavigated the globe, starting and ending in Europe, taking in Africa, Asia and America and is referred to in the sources as a round the world tour. Tim riley talk 07:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "New York harbour" New York Harbor has a link. I merely mention the fact.
  • Thank you; link added. Tim riley talk 09:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. Thus far they're mainly for Tim, who is under the weather at present, but shortly expected to rise from his bed. I have answered where I can. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I am glad he is feeling better.

• "permeation" possibly the reader needs a link on this"?

• The meaning is explained in the text. The link article deals with the scientific principle. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "precipitated by injuries incurred by falling while pruning a tree" I would simply cut the second "by" to eliminate the repetition.

• Redrawn. Tim riley talk 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The Millionairess (1934) is a farcical depiction of the concerns of a successful businesswoman." concerns is ambiguous in this context.

• Redrawn. Tim riley talk 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "semi-detachment" this may puzzle Americans.

• The curse of the common language. Modified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• " In this, he denounced the pacifist line espoused by MacDonald and many socialist leaders," as it has been some time since we've met this gentleman, I might toss a "Ramsay" in and change "many" to "other".
• Done Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• In most cases you have spaces between paired initials, but "G.B.S." appears an exception.

• I think all is as it should be. The MoS, presumably written by a nonagenarian in the early 20th century, still insists on full stops (spaced) for initials before surnames, such as "W. S. Gilbert" although in English usage such full stops were abandoned decades ago by Her Majesty's Government and others as unnecessary and antiquated, and the form "W S Gilbert" is now used on most websites, in the press etc. (Full stops are still used for nominal initials in some printed books, even now.) At the same time (late 1960s/early 1970s) or thereabouts, we also dropped the full stops in discrete sets of initials, such as BBC, NATO, USA etc, and Wikipedia has at least caught up with that. We could apply this to GBS passim, but as he himself used unspaced full stops, as do those who still cling to them even now for, eg, U.S., it seems proper to do so here. Better still would be to rewrite the MoS to bring it into the 21st century, but that's another matter. Tim riley talk 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• " in which Shaw had praised Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin: "[T]hey are trying to get something done, [and] that they are adopting methods by which it is possible to get something done"" The quote with interpolation reads a bit oddly.

• Yes, I roughed that up a bit. Now smoothed

• "As late as the Second World War, in Everybody's Political What's What, Shaw blames the Allies' "abuse" of their 1918 victory for the rise of Hitler, and hopes that, after defeat, the Führer will escape justice "to enjoy a comfortable retirement in Ireland or some other neutral country"" Three things. The present tense stands out here and seems inconsistent with the past tense in which you seem to describe Shaw's arguments elsewhere. Second, the "escape justice" bit sounds like someone else, not Shaw, as it appears he did not consider justice called for in Herr Hitler's case. Third, while his preferred fate for Hitler is obviously unusual, saying that the Allied actions after the war toward Germany led to Hitler's rise is hardly unique to Shaw. I might place greater emphasis on the Hitler in retirement at Kilkenny and less on what seems a commonplace.

• First: I've adjusted the tense. Second: Shaw does say "escape". I've replaced "justice" with "retribution" as more exactly fitting Shaw's text. Third: I'd prefer to keep Shaw's view of Allied culpability, which won't necessarily be a commonplace to all. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Shaw was pleased with his third novel, Love Among the Artists (1881), feeling that it marked a crisis in his development as a thinker," possibly "turning point" or "breakthrough" for "crisis"?

• Yes, turning point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The eponymous girl, intelligent, inquisitive, and converted to Christianity by insubstantial missionary teaching" possibly "vague" for "insubstantial".

• I think "insubstantial", in the sense of lacking solidity and depth, is probably better than "vague", which suggests lack of clarity. Much religious nonsense is taught with perfect clarity but still lacks solidity and depth. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Laurence commented that unedited they would have filled many more than the twenty volumes that Shaw once estimated they would take up; [284]" A full stop is probably intended rather than a semicolon. I might rephrase as "Shaw once estimated his letters would occupy twenty volumes; Laurence commented that, unedited, they would fill many more."

• Your wording adopted Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "amitiés amoureuses" I'd link. Just because they are looking at an article on Shaw doesn't mean they would, necessarily, take that in.
  • Done. Tim riley talk 07:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• " In the Preface (1915) to Androcles and the Lion," why the cap on Preface?

• Decapped Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Among those active in Shaw's lifetime he includes Noël Coward, who based his early comedy The Young Idea on Shaw's You Never Can Tell and continued to draw on the older man's work in later plays." I might move the "Shaw's" to serve in place of "the older man's". Despite my comment about the reader, I think they will understand from context that Shaw penned YNCT.

• Not sure. That wording might leave the impression that Coward drew on YNCT in later plays. I'm inclined to think "work" should be "works", and I've made that change, but I'll leave the other to Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• As we've said earlier that YNCT is one of Shaw's plays I've removed "Shaw's" before it. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Assessing Shaw's reputation in a 1976 critical study, T. F. Evans described Shaw as unchallenged in his lifetime and since, as the leading English-language dramatist of the century, and a master of prose style." I might cut the second and third commas as unneeded slowing and possibly put "as" before "a master".

• My preference is to lose second comma but keep third. And add the "as". Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• " Crawford sees affinities with Shaw in some of Osborne's plays, and concludes that though the latter's work is neither imitative nor derivative, the affinities" I would eliminate one "affinities" by changing "affinities with Shaw" to "the influence of Shaw" if the source will support it, and change the latter "the" to "these".

• Yes, thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Shakespeare pleads with Queen Elizabeth I for the endowment of a National Theatre" I'm a bit troubled by the capitalisation of "National Theatre". I hesitantly offer "state theatre" in its place.

• Yes, better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Writing in The New Statesman in 2012 Daniel Janes commented that Shaw's reputation, having declined by the time of his 150th anniversary in 2006, had recovered considerably; Janes remarked that " maybe "Daniel James wrote in The New Statesman in 2012 that Shaw's reputation, in decline at the time of his 150th birthday in 2006, had recovered considerably." I'd end the sentence here and recast the remainder to stand on its own.

• Redrawn. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "In the 1940s the author Harold Nicolson advised the National Trust not to accept the bequest of Shaw's Corner, predicting that Shaw would be totally forgotten within fifty years." This would probably find a better home in the previous subsection. I think the section open's more strongly with "Shaw's broad cultural legacy, embodied in the widely used term "Shavian", has endured and is nurtured by Shaw Societies in various parts of the world." That really sums it up in my view and it shouldn't be relegated to the second sentence.

• That opening sentence has travelled a bit. On balance I prefer it where it is (or not at all is another option). There is a natural flow in beginning with Nicolson's negative prediction and then showing the extent of its misjudgement. Tim may feel differently, and I'll do as he prefers. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think the paragraph as it is best conveys what I hoped it would convey. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that the musical legacy being not entirely of his choosing is completely tied up without at least some notation that Lerner and Loewe, in their adaptation, did not honour his wishes regarding the ending.

• The pass had been sold by then: the Pascal film of Pygmalion ends in the same emetically sentimental way. Lerner can be blamed for many things (rhyming "bother" and "rather", "on the street" for "in the street", "fall" for "autumn" etc) but not for that. I'm still not sure how Pascal sneaked the soppy ending past Shaw. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Having read footnote 20, I'm troubled by "He accepted the award, but rejected the monetary prize that went with it." Rejecting it, to my mind, means not taking the cheque and the money stays in the prize fund, as it would if, say, he had declined the award entirely. He took the money but used it for a purpose other than personal.

• The money did not pass through his hands, but was, at his suggestion, given to found the institution. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 313 should be pp.
• fixed Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• It strikes me that refs 199-201 could be usefully combined.
• The Conolly book contains the title of a play in the book title, and you may wish not to italicise the play title.
• ""Mr. Bernard Shaw's £367,000 Estate". The Times. 24 March 1951. p. 8.
  
• "Mr. Shaw's Play". The Times. 15 October 1923. p. 10.
  
• "Mr Shaw's Saint Joan". The Times. 29 December 1923. p. 8.
  
• "Mrs. Warren's Profession". The Times. 29 September 1925. p. 12.
  
• "Mrs Pat Campbell Here". The New York Times. 10 October 1914. (subscription required)" My initial quarrel here is with the full stop following Mr or Mrs. I am willing to grant that The Times may change its style guide from time to time, but here it looks downright indecisive, and the NYT somewhat British. I also italicise Saint Joan for the purpose of noting you are not consistent with italics of titles of plays in the references, such as in the case of the ancient profession of Mrs Warren (see the 1925 cite). (also see the Broughton journal cite I think)

• I'm always in some doubt about the proper way to tackle punctuation, including italicisation, in references. If one tries to obey the MoS we cannot always faithfully reproduce the sources because of, e.g., the MoS's rules for single-within-double quotes. The MoS, if I read it right, allows, and indeed recommends, leeway in dealing with punctuation within quotations. We could go for consistency by blitzing all the full stops after "Mr" and "Mrs", and by italicising all or no play titles within headlines, regardless of the original. I see the attractions of the latter, but part of me feels that the flavour of the original (as in the point about Anglicising the NYT) should be preserved. What do BB and Wehwalt (and anyone else, of course) think?

My concern is accuracy. In October 1923, according to the sources, The Times were doing it with the dot. And then in December without, and then in 1925 with. That seems odd. Could you check the originals?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not at all clear what the issue is with the New York Times so I can't comment on that. As to the rest, I take liberties with source article titles, e.g, in capitalisation and with uglifications such as the full stops after "Mr." and "Mrs." If what's there is as appears in the originals, I'd zap 'em, and I'd italicise the play title, too. There doesn't seem to be that much "flavour" needing to be preserved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be content with any defensible and consistent way. The NY Times one does have the full stop, by the way. here, and I've viewed the original if anyone cares.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've italicised all Shaw titles within headlines regardless of whether the publications did so; all full stops now removed after "Mr" and "Mrs". I haven't gone for consistency in ulc, but tried to follow the originals as far as the MoS permits: in one headline (Nothorcot) all cap word BERNARD is in itals here (MoS); title case instead of all cap headlines in headlines from older newspapers; sentence case for more recent headlines when the paper has used sentence case, otherwise title case retained where used in original. I think this is about as good a balance as we can achieve between consistency, fidelity to the original forms, and adherence to the MoS. – Tim riley talk 06:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Bennett, Richard (2010). The Black and Tans. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-84884-384-4." I would add a county name for Barnsley as you do for Abingdon.
• "Conolly, L. W. (2005). "Introduction". Bernard Shaw: "Mrs Warren's Profession". Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-55111-627-3." I would use the province name rather than "Canada".

• Above two fixed Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Feinberg, Leonard (2006). The Satirist. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-0562-9." I'm doing this offline and am unfamiliar with the publishing house. Is this a high quality RS?

• Yes. The book was originally published by the Iowa State University Press Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Kevles title seems to need capitalisation. Ditto Searle.
• On Peters 1996, you might want to add a CT after New Haven, for consistency.

• Above two done Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Crawford, Fred D. (1998). The Annual of Bernard Shaw Studies, Volume 18. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0-271-01779-2. Is this Shaw? It is the only time you refer to the volume number of the annual as part of the title. Did Crawford write the whole thing?

• No, it's from the chapter "Shaw's Advice to Irisnmen" (Crawford was the editor} I've redrawn the source and thecitation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• You are not consistent on whether the publishers of journals are mentioned. Nor with the capitalisation of journal article titles (see Broughton, Sloan) or newspapers (I think they are about equally divided).

• I have removed the small number of publishers - these should not be necessary when there are links. I have also laboriously standardised the capitalisation in article titles (if anyone has a different view I invite them to fix it) Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is a missing single quote mark in the Sharp reference.
• Pygmalion should have italics in the 10/13/1914 NYT reference title.

• Both the above two fixed Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• One NYT ref has an accessdate and the others do not.

• The one that has an accessdate goes to a website, rather than to the facsimile news article itself. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Let not the length of my comments detract from an immense achievement. Like the Snark, I simply make far more of it than the witnesses ever had said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this meticulous readthrough. I've left some for Tim to polish off tomorrow Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

One remaining query: Brian, unless there is some purpose I have overlooked, under Sources – Shaw's writings I think we can blitz the fourth, consolidated, listing of the music criticism: the three individual constituent volumes are listed immediately above it. That apart, I think we're there, unless Wehwalt sees something we've missed. This late revisit to the referencing has been entirely beneficial, and I echo BB's thanks to Wehwalt. – Tim riley talk 07:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ref 249 cites the 3-volume edition. Oddly, I don't see any citations to the individual vol. 3 Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes. My fault, and now amended. Tim riley talk 11:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm satisfied whichever way you go on that. You are most welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose, comprehensiveness, and on sourcing, as well as all other components of WP:WIAFA. A masterful work that could only, I think, have been done by these two masters of FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I say! Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support here, your invaluable input both on this page and at PR, and for that cherishable praise from the undisputed FA maestro. – Tim riley talk 09:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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) 15:38, 8 April 2016 [18].

---

Spotted green pigeon

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a mysterious bird, known from just a skin and an illustration, and only confirmed as a distinct species, related to the dodo, in 2014. In case anyone is wondering why the version of the illustration shown under description appears quite different from the one under taxonomy, and partially contradicts the text, I did contact the author of the most recent article dealing with the bird about it, and he was unaware of the existence of the second version. Therefore, the discrepancy seems to have never been addressed in the literature, and I therefore can't really say anything about it in the article. In a sense, it is therefore "new" to modern science (though not "original research", as it was already published in 1823, but seemingly forgotten since). FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Caloenas_maculata.jpg needs a US PD tag
• File:Spotted_green_pigeon.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed both. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review.

• I've fixed this in a few places, but be aware of false titles. This is something that I only learnt about recently, but they're non-standard in British English (which you seem to be using in this article!)

Looks good to me, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

One thing, "dismissed it as an aberration, perhaps due to not owning a specimen himself." Fuller's point is that Rothschild dismissed the specimen as aberrant because he did not own it, not a specimen. If he owned the specimen, he would possibly have considered it distinct, according to Fuller. So what do you think, can I change it back? FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

By all means; apologies for making an inappropriate edit. I note though that sentence as it was written before ("In 2001 Errol Fuller suggested that the bird had been historically overlooked because Rothschild (an avid collector of rare birds) dismissed it as an aberration, perhaps due to not owning the specimen himself.") referred to the specimen, but I wasn't clear on what specimen this was. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Much of that was cut during GAN. Should any of it be put back? FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I confess I'm not fully clear what you mean. With regards to the Rothschild point, you should just specify which specimen you're referring to; I think what you're saying is perfectly understandable other than that. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, not sure what part you don't know what means, but in any case, I guess I'll just say "the specimen". FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Which specimen? Davies's? You mention several. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed to "remaining specimen". FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the Taxonomy section is a little bit listy- in 2000, this happened, in 2002, this happened...

Not sure what to do about that, it basically consists of claims, followed by counter-claims or confirmations... A sort of dialogue of sources. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As a for-instance, why not change "In 2008, BirdLife International listed the spotted green pigeon as "Extinct" on the IUCN Red List (it was previously "Not Recognized"), due to Fuller's endorsement." to "On the basis of Fuller's endorsement, BirdLife International listed the spotted green pigeon as "Extinct" on the IUCN Red List in 2008; it was previously "Not Recognized"."? Help break up the "In year, x happened" format. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "which does not appear to have had weak flight abilities" So, it was flightless, or it had strong flight abilities?

What if I say "diminished" instead of "weak"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearer, if you mean to say that it's flight was actually pretty good. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "That the Caloenas pigeons were grouped in a clade at the base of the lineage leading to Raphinae, indicates that the ancestors of the flightless dodo and Rodrigues solitaire were able to fly, and reached the Mascarene islands by island hopping from south Asia" This sentence needs attention. The comma use is dubious, and "at the base" is jargon.

Removed the first comma (is that what you meant?) and linked Basal (phylogenetics) and Lineage (evolution). Does it need an in-article clarification of some sort? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's better. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Latham's slightly extended 1823 description" I don't follow- what's "slightly extended" about it?

Clarified, makes sense? It is in relation to his older book. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Most of the literature about the spotted green pigeon" I'd go for "on" or "addression" or "discussing" rather than "about".

Took addressing. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The weight has not been recorded" Does your source say that? If not, I think it would count as original research.

Gibbs specifically says "Weight unrecorded". FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The lores are narrowly naked" What does this mean?

That's what the source says, I think it means the lores are narrow and naked, but not sure why it is worded like this. Remove narrowly? FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

One option- alternatively, you could throw it into quote marks. Maybe someone like Jimfbleak or Casliber would be able to help "translate"! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, pinging Jimfbleak and Casliber. Removed "narrowly" for now... FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The triangular spots of the spotted green pigeon are not unique among pigeons, but are also seen in the spot-winged pigeon (Columba maculosa) and the speckled pigeon (C. guinea), and is the result of lack of melanin deposition during development." are the result, surely?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The name of the bird mentioned by Tahitians in 1928, "titi", was said to be similar to that bird's call." Granted, but perhaps mention again that this may not be the same bird. Actually, given that it probably wasn't, this doesn't really belong here.

Removed, since basically the same information was already present under taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The spotted green pigeon is most likely extinct" Is there really any doubt?

Sources say "now almost certainly extinct" and "no such bird exists there now, so it probably disappeared", which is of course because the provenance of the bird is unknown. There is no actual proof that it is extinct, only that it once existed, and we don't know where to look to confirm its extinction. So what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems your wording does reflect what the sources say; perhaps have a think about consistency within the article. The lead suggests that there is no doubt about the extinction. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed intro. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• The description strikes me as a little long. If the opportunity arises to trim some of it, I wouldn't turn it down.

I've been thinking of this myself, so I'll do it since you also brought it up. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Cut one third of the paragraph that describes the specimen. Or do you mean the entire section is too long? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Enjoyable read, and who doesn't love a good mystery? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will fix these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Left some comments- I certainly don't want this to come across as snippy, as I do think the article's a good one! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Any nitpicks from you are welcomed, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off supporting for now to see if anything else crops up/to have another look through later, but I suspect I will be supporting soon. If I've been absent for a while, do feel free to leave irritated messages for me... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn, based on the comments below, it seems this might be pretty close when the source review is done, any further comments? FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. No further objections. I would prefer "flyer" to "flier", but the OED says both are OK, so they're both fine with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I snuck it in there anyhow... FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf

This is the most beautifully mysterious article I have come across here. This article hardly has flaws after our detailed GA review (dangerously up to the FAC mark!) Well, I noticed a few things that could be set straight: Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• In Taxonomy, means "spotted pigeon" in Latin. Link Latin.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• it belonged in the fruit pigeon genus Ptilinopus in 1826, and Johann Georg Wagler suggested that it was a juvenile Nicobar pigeon (Caloenas nicobarica) in 1827. This is gonna be nitpicking. The line could be reworded a bit so that it does not seem it was a fruit pigeon in 1826, and became a juvenile Nicobar pigeon the next year.

Added "instead". FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• In Evolution, compared the genes gene could be linked

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Caloenas genus was placed Can we simply say Caloenas was placed?

I added it here because it is a pretty complicated section, and it was a while ago in the article it was mentioned Caloenas is a genus... So just a safety measure for lay-readers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• In Description, Most of the literature addressing the spotted green pigeon I assume the literature referred to here is contemporary to Latham's description. Can we say "most of the literature at that time"?

It actually refers to most of the literature ever. Very few writers actually made new observations, apart from a handful (which are mentioned). FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Then should repeated Latham's descriptions, and did not add not be repeats Latham's descriptions, and does not add? As it is, it seems you talk about the 19th and 20th centuries. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, good question... I think there are two important issues. 1: The following sentence is in past tense. 2: "repeated Latham's descriptions" covers the literature from before Gibbs and van Grouw made their observations, and all the way up to that point (early 21st century). So to me, past tense makes more sense. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we can keep the troublesome line intact and simply alter the next line as This was until Gibbs published a more detailed description in 2001... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I did something similar, and combined the sentences, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Splendid. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• the curator Hein van Grouw Curator of?

What if I say "museum curator"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• the curator Hein van Grouw did so as well in 2014 Could this read "followed by the curator Hein van Grouw in 2014"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• The surviving specimen Have we stated before in the main text that this is the sole surviving specimen?

It said "remaining specimen" earlier, but changed it to "surviving" for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• 50 mm longer in life Convert.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• The plate accompanying Forbes' 1898 article Should this be "Forbes's"?

Both are correct, but I prefer the version I used, looks less awkward... FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• so such depictions are most likely incorrect A bit too strong?

"Probably" instead? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That would look better. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Forbes had the iris depicted Link iris

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• In Behaviour and ecology, can the terms frugivorous, sedentary and nomadic be explained as arboreal has been in Evolution.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

All issues I raised have been fixed, and I see no more troubles with the prose. Hence, Support. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

and the Kanaka pigeon appears to have been 25% larger than this. - than the spotted green or Nicobar pigeons?

The underside of the wings are black with browner flight feathers - singular subject, plural verb...

Otherwise.....I think my predecessors have been pretty thorough with finding the necessary fixes...looking good....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Made some changes, does it look better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, support on comprehensiveness and prose from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article. I noticed this species when working on pigeons elsewhere, and wondered what it was, all has been revealed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, glad if anyone learns something new! FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been listed under requests for some days. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose, the article has now been source reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments. This excellent article calls for a close reading before I comment substantively, but for now I offer three words I noticed at first read-through that could do with the author's attention:

• taxidermied – a splendid word, but not the Queen's English. The OED specifies "taxidermized" for the verb; the OED's rearguard action to preserve -ize endings is balanced [19] with UCL's "taxidermised", which is what I'd use in BrE. (I see "taxidermied" is acceptable American usage, but we are presumably in BrE, as befits a Scouse bird.)

Interesting, didn't now! FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• onomatopoetic – another pleasing construction, but in fact you want "onomatopoeic"

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nicobar piogeon – I'm almost sure this is a typo, but I don't dare assume. Later: now amended.

More shortly. Tim riley talk 11:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Lead
  • As the title of the institution is "World Museum", we need a comma between that and "Liverpool" (ditto in the main text below, as the location is not part of the museum's title).

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Taxonomy
  • "perhaps due to not owning..." – creaks a bit: might be smoother as "perhaps because he did not own..."

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• • "an alternate common name" – if we are in BrE "alternate" needs to be "alternative" here

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• • "He also hypothesised that the bird might have inhabited a Pacific island, due to stories told by Tahitian islanders..." – this doesn't quite say what you mean it to say. It was the hypothesis not the inhabiting that was due to the stories. (Only someone determined to misunderstand would mistake your meaning, but it's as well to be 100% unambiguous.)

Based on stories told? FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Evolution
  • In the paragraph beginning "The spotted green pigeon was shown..." there are 160 words across 7 sentences before we get to the first citation. Do refs 14 and 15 cover all the statements and the one speculation in these 7 sentences?
  • Much the same applies to the following paragraph. Do refs 14 and 16 support all the statements and the three hypotheses in these four sentences? The same goes for the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the Description section. It's fine, of course, to have the citations together at the end of a paragraph (saves smacking the reader in the eye with blue figures everywhere) as long as they support all the preceding statements. I'm quite confident all is well, but I just flag the point up. I see Ian Rose's call, above, for a source review, and I daresay the reviewer will ask the question I've just asked. (If nobody volunteers to do a source review I'll give it a go, but it isn't my area of expertise, unlike some eagle-eyed specialists, so ask at your own risk.)

On the two points above, yup, it's all in the sources at the end; these sources (mainly 14) are the only ones that deal with the genetics of this bird, so all the information is taken from them (apart from the short Nature blurb (15) which I threw in for good measure, it doesn't really add anything unique). FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• • "presumably-coloured eyes" – I'm no expert on hyphens but I don't think you want one here.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nothing of any consequence, and I am very happy to support this article for FA. Tim riley talk 12:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will go over these soon! And yes, that typo you fixed was a typo.... FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

All should be addressed... FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review:

• A courtesy link to the full text would be good for van Grouw. I'm not really taken with the capitalisation of the article title, but, given that it follows van Grouw's own, I'm not sure I can really object.

Hehe, interestingly, it seems he made it available there just a few days after I sent him an email requesting the paper (and on the same day he sent his last reply)... So yeah, I can add it now, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• For A General Synopsis of Birds, you provide a DOI and no link; for A General History of Birds you provide a DOI and a link. I can't see any reason they should be different; consistency would be good!

Added, not sure why I could't find it back then. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Concerning the Forbes piece, it seems to be an article in Volume 1, issues 3-4 of the Bulletin. How certain are you that the note is actually by Forbes? I'd be inclined to call it anonymous. Are you perhaps aware of norms in journals of this sort that I am not?

Both van Grouw and Gibbs credit him without further comment. Also, the contents page states the volume was edited by him, whatever that's worth[20] (and he makes a note under another uncredited article on the same page[21]). FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no objection to saying it's by him, but do add the volume and issue number. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Rothschild and Hartert is in issue 2 of volume VIII.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a reason you provide the full page range of some articles but not others?

Which ones? Some of the articles are less than a page long, and some deal with the bird on only one page (Rothschild & Hartert), if that's what you mean. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sure. That strikes me as a nonstandard style, but I can't pretend to know norms in every discipline. It's clear and will be helpful for people looking for information, so no objection. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been told in other FACs to use more specific page ranges, so in cases where it is just a note on one page out of many, I guess it easier to find this way... FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• You link Fuller's name in the reference, but not the names of any other notable authors. Consistency would be good.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• The date format on your retrieval dates is inconsistent

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

All sources are appropriately scholarly; older sources are used appropriately. I've not done spotchecks. Seems to be very comprehensive- I got excited when I saw an OnlineFirst article, but it just replicated information from Heupink et al. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

All should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No further comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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) 15:38, 8 April 2016 [22].

---

Isopogon anethifolius

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC) & Melburnian (talk · contribs)

I had intended doing this one first as I got some to grow in my garden and like it more than Isopogon anemonifolius but found the first one came together more readily. Anyway, I am a bit of a Noah and like to do these articles in twos. This should (hopefully) have a minimum of things to tweak. Melburnian and I will take a look at tweak promptly. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review - can you verify the machine-generated details on File:Ianethifolius_maranoa.jpg? Also, while I'm here, {{reflist}} should use colwidth. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

fixed both....dang I had a cheapo camera 12 years ago... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were mostly addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Most of the article text is in excellent shape, although I think the Cultivation section can be improved. There I found too many consecutive sentences that begin with "It", and in the second half of the paragraph there are a series of rather brief sentences that (to me) hinder the flow. Perhaps you could improve that a little? The Description section needs a clear image of just the leaves as the current pictures are blurred from DoF. Otherwise, I don't see any other obvious issues. Nice work. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I rejigged it thusly to remove some "it"s Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added File:Isopogonanethhabit.JPG, which shows habit (and leaves), or maybe instead add File:Isopogonanethng.JPG, which is a closeup of the foliage? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think both images provide value. Perhaps move the first image down to the Distribution and habitat section? The other changes you made seem fine. Could the article explain what is meant by "Young plants can get leggy"? Praemonitus (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have explained it now. Image also added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything else fixable you see...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment (leaning support). The phrasing with an erect (upright) habit,[2] generally taller on more sheltered areas such as woodlands leaves me puzzled, can you make this more understandable to non botanists - "upright habit"? Wot? Overall, very good, but reading through still. Have looked at sources, all reputable, and correctly formated fyiw. Spot checks to follow. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I tried this to explain a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's ok. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Spot Checks on refs 2, 3, 25; refs back up claims, no close paraphrasing or other issues. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

French botanist Michel Gandoger described four taxa in 1919 as similar to I. anethifolius. I. confertus was a plant from Rylstone on the Central Tablelands, which he distinguished by its crowded leaves that - as written, with all the italix, the punct is confusion. Can you break up the sentences differently. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok I split it up a bit now...it's listy unfortunately and there ain't much I can do about that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, Support now anyhow from me. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk

• "and less than 1 mm in diameter." Is there no conversion here because there is no appropriate equivalent? I see you do convert 1 mm further down, so should be here as well.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "composed of a perianth tube" Could be explained?

added an embellishment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "are the anthers" Is this a common term, or could it be explained?

added an embellishment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The round or egg-shaped, grey cones" Should there really be comma here?

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "misshapen sclereids" Explain?

added a parenthetical expalanation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Many of the people mentioned under taxonomy are not presented, though some are.

added more...though wary to not make too repetitive sounding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• " is found only in New South Wales, in coastal areas near Sydney and to the immediate west." Not stated explicitly in article body.

added endemism to NSW to body. Sydney Basin is synonymous really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• One to go, then I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - all issues addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MPS1992

Some relatively minor prose things;

• "The individual flowers arise out of the central woody globe in a spiral pattern,[3] and are around 1.2 cm (1⁄2 in) long.[4] They are straight stalkless structures that arise out of" - is there an easy way to diminish the impact of this repetition?

I changed it thus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Three of the five paragraphs in the Taxonomy section start with the formula "(nationality) botanist (name)" - it would be good to vary this further if possible.

I changed it thus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• " to block view for privacy" - this wording is slightly awkward.

trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• "it does not tolerate waterlogging. A part-shaded position is the preferred location, but one in full sun is tolerated.[7] Plants tolerate" - again a little too much repetition here.

trimmed two of them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Seeds germinate after 30 to 60 days.[7] Flowering can take several years from seed.[4]" - despite the sourcing of some of it, would some or all of this fit better in the Description section rather than in Cultivation? Such changes might also help to break the run of short choppy sentences here (these two and the one following).

I combined two sentences. The material specifically refers to cultivation conditions, which is why I left it there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Going back to the lead, and perhaps partly related to the above point, I worry about "I. anethifolius grows readily in the garden if located in a sunny or part-shaded spot". I think this means gardens in England or similar climes - I doubt it grows readily in a sunny spot in Malaysia or a part-shaded spot in Siberia. Maybe this could be altered a little.

The sources don't really specify - they are generally written for Australian audiences, and the only parameter I have is for frost hardiness. They might very well grow ok in Malaysia as Australia can get pretty warm too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I have also made these edits. MPS1992 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

yikes! I missed your comments! Your changes look fine. Will get cracking on above things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

All my concerns have been addressed and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

One quick query on "The species can be propagated by cutting or seed, which germinate after 30 to 60 days." Would this be better as "The species can be propagated by cutting or from seeds, which germinate after 30 to 60 days", or something like that? Otherwise we seem to have a plural verb with a singular subject. MPS1992 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I was using "seed" like a collective noun, which is not uncommon in scientific literature, but have changed it to make it less weird-sounding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

Very little to comment on. Looks solid.

• the common name narrow-leaved drumsticks is mentioned in the lead but not in the main body, so doesn't seem to have any source

added, aaaand realised I have been unconsciously mistranscribing it for about 15 years :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• The only book in Cited text seems to have a different publisher and title than listed on Amazon. Amazon has for same ISBN Publisher: HarperCollins and a longer title: "& All Other Plants in The Australian Proteaceae Family"

I have the hard copy on my shelf. I guess this explains it...mergers and all... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• source spot check: 1, 6, 14 16 ok
• for 22 I couldn't quite see "lack of method" in Erickson's description

It is a succinct way of saying, "he book reflected, in a revolutionary, challenging way, Kuntze’s strong opposition to the then current rules of botanical nomenclature, rules which had been established at the International Botanical Congress held in Paris in 1867. He insisted on the use of many generic names which predated Linnaeus’ Species plantarum of 1753, and claimed that many plants were wrongly named as the result of informal mutual agreements based on unwritten rules." - actually I changed it to "poor method" as he agreed there was a method, just not a good one. Open to wordsmithing on this one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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) 15:37, 8 April 2016 [23].

---

Operation Ironside

Nominator(s): Errant ^(chat!) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Next FAC in the WW2 Deception series; Ironside had a lot of thinking behind it, but didn't really get the resources to make it effective. To be honest, the target was so far away from the realms of reality that it wasn't much of a threat. In fact, it was pretty obviously a deception from the outset. All in all events moved apace elsewhere and Bordeaux got left behind. Errant ^(chat!) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Images: the one image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Ɱ

I'm surprised at inconsistencies with other articles, like "Operation Bodyguard" here and "Operation Bodyguard" on that article, and "invasion of Normandy" here and "Invasion of Normandy" on that article. I'm also surprised the first paragraph doesn't sum up the operation, with further details in the next paragraphs, but I guess that style is okay too? The map caption should link to Operation Bodyguard. And why is Bronx listed second in the infobox if he took the lead? Also, if the real names of the agents are now known, as most of them appear to be, why use the codenames so prominently? Also, what does the "Garrone estuary" refer to, and why does it link to "Gironde estuary"? Dd you mean to link it to "Garonne"? Also you say "The operation did not receive any resources from the Navy or Airforce..." Which navy or airforce? That seems to be all of the commentary I can offer; the references, formatting, images, and other details all look fine. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Good stuff. I've made a few tweaks based on your thoughts, to call out a few I didn't action; the infobox already has one link to Bodyguard (at the top), Bodyguard itself is an article I haven't got to yet (you can see my progress here) but I'd expect it to be in line with this article when I finish, regarding agent names the style of the source material is to use codenames I'm happy for that to be challenged but used it to reflect the sources more closely. Thanks for the review! --Errant ^(chat!) 08:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay I can now support this becoming an FA. Best wishes, ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This is a short article by FA standards, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I have the following comments:

• "The operation threatened an invasion of France..." - bit awkward - how about something like "The operation was conducted to support the invasion of Normandy by convincing the Germans that the Allies would subsequently land along the Bay of Biscay. It complemented efforts to also deceive the Germans into believing that the Allies would also land in southern France at this time (Operation Vendetta)."
  • Rephrased using your suggestion as a base. Have a check.
• "Worried about exposing agents as false, the Twenty Committee sent disinformation via less important agents and with words of caution" - this seems a bit out of place
  • I tried to make the link clear (i.e. the story wasn't sold because the agents used were less critical and used cautious wording)
• "In addition, Allied landings around Bordeaux may have seemed implausible because it was beyond air cover from the United Kingdom and lacked the normal physical elements associated with an invasion." - what were these "physical elements"? I'd suggest revising this and the above sentence simultaneously: this seems like a marginal operation, and failed as a result
  • See above; reworked all of this
• "During the early stages of the war the Abwehr (German intelligence) had sent spies to Britain, however all of these either surrendered or were captured. Some were used as an extensive double agent network under the control of the Twenty Committee" - can you say that the agents were all these captured German agents? (this text is a bit unclear)
  • Tweaked this a bit, see what you think
• "Bordeaux was an important port for the German war effort receiving large amounts of cargo, mostly raw materials, from overseas" - was this still the case in 1944? Only Spain and maybe Portugal would have still been trading with Germany.
• "the Allies intercepted communications" - did this involve code breaking?
  • Not explicitly mentioned in the specific sources, sadly, but yes it would have done.
• "This force would spend around twelve days establishing a bridgehead before advancing to meet Operation Vendetta formations (another deception operation targeting the Mediterranean coast of France)" - bit unclear (the deception vs deception plan gets a bit mixed up)
• Most of the para starting with "Ironside began on 23 May 1944" is currently unreferenced
  • Fixed
• If the Twenty Committee regarded Ironside as being fairly unconvincing due to the lack of pre-invasion activity over the targeted region, why was it conducted? - was it done because it could be, and in case it worked?
  • None of the sources really cover this; but I will double check. In short, it was done because the LCS thought it was a good idea.
• "if still trusted" - by whom?
  • Removed
• "her handlers" - the Germans?
  • Fixed
• "his handlers" - as above
  • Fixed
• "One of the most critical Bodyguard agents, Garbo, became involved on 5 June" - why was Garbo involved in this unconvincing plot if the LCS wanted to limit it to more expendable double agents?
• "Garbo explicitly noted that he was unsure of his informant and skeptical of the report." - I'd suggest moving this up
  • Refactored this and the above to be clearer (hopefully)
• If the operation stopped a full armoured division being sent to face the Allied invasion of Normandy, was it really unsuccessful? This seems a good result for the very limited resources used. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @ErrantX: The last of my comments seems to still be unactioned. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes sorry I got distracted by RL. Give me a day or two :) --Errant ^(chat!) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: I think I've got all your points now :) sorry it took so long! Regarding the unsuccessful thing; you are right and I've reworked the article to show that it was less impactful than some of the other deceptions (whcih Crowdy does explicitly call out, so that's much better). Great comments :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Not sure about how this has ended up: if the sources support it (and I think that they do, though you may have a different take based on your wider reading and knowledge) it would be better to say that historians views on the results of the operation differ somewhat: I own the Howard and Levine books, and Howard says that there was no impact, and Levine says that there was probably no impact (at best a slight delay to one division moving). I haven't read Latimer, but he seems to have a somewhat different view. I used a similar approach when the sources disagreed in Battle of Arawe#Aftermath which might be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
          • Hmm, so what's your specific concern here? Around the division delaying and whether that was due to this operation or not? Fair point around that I'll take a look through the sources again and re-try. I'm generally cautious of saying things like "Historians disagree" unless a source says that (which I haven't got) which is probably why this has arisen :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
            • I think that the current material is a bit tricky for readers to navigate, and you're missing the opportunity to include a summary of assessments of the deception in the lead. I don't think that it's OR to say that there are differing views when there obviously are. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
              • Tend to agree with Nick here. It's great that you want to err on the side of caution but the "historians disagree" thing is just a way into giving the differing opinions. You could every couch it as something like "A and B say this, while C says that" and let the reader gather that there's some disagreement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: & @Nick-D:, I think I've now addressed this using the sort of language you've suggested :) See what you think! --Errant ^(chat!) 01:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Ian Rose

Succinct but, I think, quite justified article in this series. Recusing from coord duties, I copyedited throughout so pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning. That aside, pretty happy with prose, content and structure, except for:

• Lead: Don't think I'd use "unsuccessful" in the opening sentence – is it assumed that all operations are successful unless otherwise noted? In any case, as Nick also points out, the last bit of the Impact section suggests it wasn't entirely unsuccessful.
• Infobox: "Agents Bronx, Bronx and Garbo" – there were two Agent Bronxes?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Ian Rose

Sources look reliable and I fixed a couple of formatting inconsistencies; outstanding points:

• Is Levine 2011 or 2012?
• Looks a bit odd that the Macintyre book (assuming that's what it is) has a full date instead of the more conventional year -- if a book I think I'd just go year anyway...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian! Thanks for the review; I've sorted the bits you've brought up I believe. Cheers. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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) 15:37, 8 April 2016 [24].

---

Hartebeest

Nominator(s): Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an African antelope. The article is very comprehensive and supported by a large number of credible sources, it is interesting throughout and goes well into almost all facets of the topic. Though this article did not do well in its initial FA nomination, I have improved it substantially since then. I believe this article greatly deserves to be a Featured Article. Thanks! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk

• First impression, is there no better image for the taxobox? Seems a shame the legs are cut out. FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As you lay stress upon the legs, how about these: 1, 2, 3? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the second and third are the best, because the first one has a l0t of intrusive branches... The third one doesn't show the legs, but at least it's because of the grass, not because they're out of frame... FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's go with the second one. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice, because seems the red hartebeest was already overrepresented among the images in the article. By the way, some captions don't mention the subspecies shown, is it possible to fix this? FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Done for the juvenile image. Not sure about the herd image, but it is most likely red hartebeest. No idea about the image in Diet, and I think the caption might get spoiled if I add subspecies name to it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• "could have originated from the obsolete Afrikaans word hertebeest" Which means what?

It was the name for the hartebeest in the old language. Could not see how exactly to put it in. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no explanation of the component words in the source? Beest still means beast, at least... FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea from where "Harte-" originated, your guess about "beest" is correct though. Still can't see how to put it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Alcelaphus can be partitioned into three major divisions on the basis of skull structure: A. buselaphus division (nominate, also including A. major division), A. tora division (also including A. cokii and A. swaynei) and A. lelwel division.[2] An analysis of cytochrome b and D-loop sequence data show a notable affinity between the A. lelwel and A. tora divisions.[10]" I'm not sure I get this. Those are subspecies or species? If this is divisions of the genus Alcelaphus, where are the other two species then that are not covered by this article?

The two controversial subspecies were omitted in the source. These are all subspecies, don't know who changed them to species. These are just morphological and not phylogenetic divisions. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Alcelaphus buselaphus can be partitioned" then? FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, done. Anyway Alcelaphus is synonymous to A. buselaphus, its sole species. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't Alcelaphus redirect here? FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well not all will agree that the red and Lichtenstein's hartebeest are not independent subspecies, but in the line we were discussing they all have been treated as subspecies and A. buselaphus as species. In this article we assume mention the two controversial subspecies and continue to treat them as subspecies. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Many taxa were introduced as syntypes for this genus, due to which fixing a lectotype was required." Only specimens can be syntypes, so I'm not sure what is meant...

Some jargon-like legacy, unsourced as well. Removed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• "would render A. buselaphus paraphyletic" Most readers won't know what this means.

Though I do understand paraphyly, I am not very much of an expert about this and can not explain this well. The reason mentioned in the source is all I have mentioned in the article. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You can just say "an unnatural grouping" in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Still has some bold in the article, not sure if you want to remove it or not

I think this needs a consensus. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure if it's a conscious choice that you don't do this, but it's possible to embed range maps in the taxobox, thereby saving space for other images in the article (if that is wanted).

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• "It is regarded as a hybrid between the Lelwel and Coke's hartebeest. The African Antelope Database (1998) treats it as synonymous to the Lelwel hartebeest." The second sentence makes the first one seem to sure in its formulation.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wouldn't the part above make more sense in the hybrids section?

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Hybrids between the Lelwel and Tora hartebeest have been reported" I assume these are fertile?

Sorry no info about this. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just noticed that this nomination isn't transcluded on the FAC page, anything wrong, Graham Beards? Oh, on second thoughts, I guess Sainsf just didn't add it to the row... FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I had forgotten, sorry for my negligence! Added it to the list now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The Jackson's hartebeest, another type of hartebeest," isn't the second part stating the obvious?

Removed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Now that the map is in the infobox, perhaps move the subspecies head compilation image up to the subspecies section? Then space under description could be freed for some unusual or distinct anatomical features or similar... FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• "such as the relatives of the hirola" I guess it has many relatives, how about "a relative"? FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "A phylogenetic study showed an early split" Based on what, genetics, morphology, fossils?

Added. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Hartebeest have been known since the Natufian and Neolithic times well into the Bronze and Iron Ages." What do you mean with "been known"? By humans? If so, doesn't it make more sense under Relationship with humans? If you mean they have existed since then, it should be clearer. And what does "well into the Bronze and Iron Ages" mean? I'm sure it was known after that as well...

Looks like something confusing, or rather about the origin in a locality in Israel. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "and oddly shaped horns." This seems a bit subjective, and not very descriptive.

I think that refers to the various shapes of the horns of hartebeest that are not usually seen in other antelopes. But it is not stated explicitly in the source. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Any subspecies not shown in a photo? Could perhaps be nice in the empty space under description. Or an anatomy detail.

Only the Tora hartebeest is not represented, but then it does not have any image. I could not find any interesting image on anatomy. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The hartebeest has preorbital glands" Perhaps mention this is near the eyes, as the regular reader won't know what orbital means.

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Doesn't the following paragraph make more sense under behaviour? "The hartebeest has several adaptations that allow it to survive even under adverse conditions and in poor habitats. The thin long legs are probably an anti-predator mechanism helpful to animals inhabiting open plains, clearings or grassland-woodland ecotones. The elevated position of the eyes enables the hartebeest to continuously inspect its surroundings even as it is grazing. The mouth is specially adapted to derive maximum nutrition from even a frugal diet.[15] Thee horns are used for defence from predators, and during fights among males for dominance in the breeding season;[16] the clash of the horns is so loud that it can be heard from hundreds of metres away.[15]"

Yes, done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "One attempts to fling the head of the other to one side to stab the neck and shoulders with its horns." Sounds violent, are these fights fatal?

Added. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Hartebeest are remarkably alert animals with highly developed brains." and "The hartebeest is more alert and cautious than other ungulates." Seems repetitive.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Herds do not tend to migrate unless it becomes unavoidable to remain at a place" This doesn't seem to make sense?

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"These were named Longistrongylus meyeri after their collector, T. Meyer" When?

Added. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "llowed the hartebeest to prevail over other animals millions of years ago, which eventually led to its successful evolution." The order seems wrong here, if it had already evolved. Perhaps successful distribution is meant?

Reworded. It is radiation, not distribution. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The hartebeest is extinct in Algeria, Egypt, Lesotho, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, and Tunisia." Isn't this more relevant under status than habitat? I wouldn't say a country counts as a habitat... But you could maybe add distribution to the title instead ("Habitat and distribution").

Done, took first solution. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I fixed a few places where you said species instead of subspecies, perhaps there are more.

Will check. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• A somewhat overlooked (but important) issue, it seems some subspecies have separate articles (bubal hartebeest, red hartebeest, perhaps more). Generally, such are merged into the species article, so not sure what you want to do. If not, they should all be linked at first mention, at least, and in the taxobox and captions. I'd prefer merging them all, especially if only some of them have articles.

They have been linked at first mention in the Subspecies section. I do not know what to do about the merging, anyway all have their own articles, and some are well expanded as well. Like a consensus? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Pictorial as well as epigraphic evidence from Egypt suggests that in the Upper Palaeolithic age, Egyptians hunted hartebeest and domesticated them." Sure could be nice with an ancient Egyptian image of them! Some can be seen here[25], but of course, we might not have free ones. There are some free images of banknotes which could maybe be interesting.

I could find one on a Namibian banknote, nothing else. Did you find something? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope... FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - All looks good then. I can't help but feel it would be nice with an additional image, for example a good head-shot close up, under description... To show some of the details, for exaple the horns and the gland. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Now that you speak of head-shots, how about this (another red hartebeest) or a closer one (that's one more red). I found a great one of Jackson's hartebeest, but I placed it in Hybrids where it looked better. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the second one, because it focuses much more on the head (and is a promoted "quality image"), whereas the first one doesn't really show anything new compared to the other photos. also, these serve another purpose, since the former head-shot is a stuffed animal. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Using the second. Anything to do with the first? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the one you added seems to be a different one than those listed, but looks nice! I was thinking the side view could be used under description, by the paragraph starting with "both sexes"? FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How does it look now? I hope the "that's one more red" image was what you meant. I seem to be getting images wrong here....Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me, now it clashes a bit with the herd image below, but you could either move that image a paragraph down, or introduce the upright parameter to the vertical images... FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Taken first solution. Thanks. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been a week without any activity here. Following FunkMonk's example, I would like to ping some animal reviewers; I am humbly sorry if I disturbed any of you. Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, J Milburn, Jimfbleak. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just returned from a fortnight in Mexico, will review as soon as I catch up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I am afraid you accidentally deleted all the comments of the earlier reviewers. I have restored them now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Pinging is fine. Just heading out. Will be back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have copyedited the lead. I think we can lose the comment about the Western subspecies being the largest as I can't slot it in to make it flow nicely. See edit summaries and let me know if you are happy with the changes.

Thanks, the edits look fine. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

To make the Etymology section less listy, do we have any more info on what kongoni means or who uses the word?

Nothing but the addition that this name is often used exclusively for Coke's hartebeest. Added it now.

The second para of the Taxonomy section is confusing - Is Sigmoceros for this species, the other hartebeest, or both? If they are the only two species in hte genus I don't understand why we're renaming it...also the meanings of the scientific name should be added to the first para. I can probably hunt that down.

Corrected

Why is Leichtenstein's cosidered a separate species? reason should be added. found it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried but I could not find anything more than what is already mentioned. Seems it is just a dispute, though I don't know the reason the species-supporters have. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made a start on it - there is some more info there - but I need to sleep as late here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reorganised taxonomy so all the intraspecific material is together - it was in two different places before. Check if you're ok with it.

That's a marvelous job. You were right when you said sometime back that if one constantly looks at an article one may not notice flaws and better formatting that someone else can. Thanks for your edits. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Casliber, any more comments? It seems there is some trouble with the line She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes., which I think was added by you. Cwmhiraeth (below) suggests that this should be reworded.Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, might need a reword. Will look later. I will do that but wait to complete my review once others are done as it will get a bit chaotic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Casliber I think the editing is not so stormy now. I and two others are working on the formatting of the citations and some tidbits. Perhaps you could finish the job here... Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I know these can get a bit busy. Will resume now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A. lichtensteinii has been classified as a subspecies of A. buselaphus by zoologists Jonathan Kingdon and Theodor Haltenorth, but was placed by Vrba in a separate genus Sigmoceros.[2] Gentry placed it as an independent species in Alcelaphus in 1990 - this sentence is problematic - the first and second facts we know already, and the third is not good placed at the end as subsequent genetic studies show it is wrong and that the taxon is nested within the hartebeest complex. I need to think on what to do with it.

Eight subspecies are identified, of which two — A. b. caama and A. b. lichtensteinii — are often considered to be independent species. - change to "Eight subspecies are identified, of which two — A. b. caama and A. b. lichtensteinii — have been considered to be independent species. " - we cannot assume the "often"

Casliber So far these two parts appear problematic:

• "In 1979, palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba supported Sigmoceros as a separate genus for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, as she assumed it was related to Connochaetes (wildebeest). She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and argued that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes."
• "A. lichtensteinii has been classified as a subspecies of A. buselaphus by zoologists Jonathan Kingdon and Theodor Haltenorth, but was placed by Vrba in a separate genus Sigmoceros.[2] Gentry placed it as an independent species in Alcelaphus in 1990."

I have repaired the "often" you mentioned. Now, for the first line about Sigmoceros, Cwmhiraeth was not sure what the reference to the skull meant; I guess it is clarified now. Another reviewer here, MPS1992, pointed out the obvious repetition of the fact in the second line (about the classification of A. lichtensteinii). From what I have read from the sources, Gentry believed that this species/subspecies should not be in a separate genus and supported its inclusion in Alcelaphus as a species, just like A. buselaphus. So can this issue not be resolved by merging the second line into the first para of Taxonomy, so that the Taxonomy section would look something like this (I have made certain changes in this text, please check them):

"The scientific name of the hartebeest is Alcelaphus buselaphus. First described by German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas in 1766, it is classified in the genus Alcelaphus and placed in the family Bovidae. In 1979, palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba supported Sigmoceros as a separate genus for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, a kind of hartebeest, as she assumed it was related to Connochaetes (wildebeest). She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and argued that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes. However, this finding was not replicated by Alan W. Gentry of the Natural History Museum, who classified it as an independent species of Alcelaphus. Zoologists such as Jonathan Kingdon and Theodor Haltenorth considered it to be a subspecies of A. buselaphus. Vrba dissolved the new genus in 1997 after reconsideration. An MtDNA analysis could find no evidence to support a separate genus for Lichtenstein's hartebeest. It also showed the tribe Alcelaphini to be monophyletic, and discovered close affinity between the Alcelaphus and the sassabies (genus Damaliscus)—both genetically and morphologically." Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is much better. The genetics in the evolution section beneath it add strength to treating it as a subspecies. I need to read that again and think but I think you should proceed with this change at the very minimum. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Casliber Any more troubles? Sorry if you are busy... Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think we're there or nearly there. I can't see any outstanding issues so a cautious support from me, though other editors might pick up things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM

• I think "including two controversial ones" is a bit odd for the opening lines. Perhaps you could say something like "including two sometimes considered independent species".

OK, done.

• "mainly of grasses, with small amounts of Hyparrhenia grasses and legumes throughout the year" A little odd- why are you listing Hyparrhenia grasses separately from others?

The source stressed upon this grass, so I thought this should be the item especially preferred for diet. Other species were recorded in separate studies. If you say I will remove its "special" mention.

An update. This part has been removed as it came from an unreliable source. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• The short sentences in the final paragraph of the lead come across as a little choppy

Done some reordering, it should not be troublesome anymore.

• "The vernacular name "hartebeest" could have originated from the obsolete Afrikaans word hertebeest,[3] while another supposed origin of the name is from the combination of the Dutch words hart (deer) and beest (beast).[4]" Surely, given that the languages are so close, these are hardly competing accounts.

I did not take any risks, and sources do not mention these two points together. If you think it right I will combine them.

• "Kongoni is often used to refer almost exclusively" Weaselly

Reworded

• The first paragraph of the taxonomy section is a little choppy.

Much rearrangement has taken lace in the taxonomy section. Could you elaborate what exactly the problem is?

• Link (and perhaps explain) Connochaetes at first mention?

Missed it, done.

(Sorry- got completely distracted. I'll try to find more time!) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sparing time for this. You were surely not distracted, these flaws need a close view to be noticed! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• It strikes me as a bit odd that you say "There are two common cross-breeds between the subspecies" and then have a three-item list.

Missed it. Fixed.

• Is Alcelaphus lelwel x cokii an occasional crossbreed, or is it a hybrid population? It's introduced as the former, but seems to be described as the latter? Same with Alcelaphus lelwel x swaynei- or am I misunderstanding something here?

It is an occasional crossbreed as far as I could understand; I guess it is the part about their range that makes them appear a hybrid population. The sources do not state anything clearly about this.

• "several previous forms" A form is something fairly specific in taxonomy; I don't think using it in this non-technical way is a good idea

I am not sure what word can best replace "form".

• "a particularly close relation" This doesn't quite work.

Tried to reword, how does it look now?

• "with a dark face and several black markings all over its body, that are a sharp contrast to the broad white patches mark its flanks and lower rump" Clumsy

Fixed.

• "Parasites in the hartebeest generally alternate between living off gazelles and wildebeest" And hartebeest, presumably!

Fixed.

• "host species of Cooperia, Impalaia nudicollis, Parabronema, and Trichostrongylus" First, you say "species of" and then list a particular species, and, second, in this line and others in the section, you seem to miss a few links which would be appropriate. Don't be scared of red!

Absolutely. Done.

• "to parasites of Rhipicephalus evertsi and Theileria species" This needs to be rephrased

Done.

• "These were named Longistrongylus meyeri after their collector, T. Meyer, and proposed to be placed in the genus Longistrongylus" Redundant

Fixed.

I think the text is a little choppy in places, but I did learn a lot. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for your edits! I have learned a lot from them. It is indeed difficult for me to add such a lot of literature and then be patient enough to go through it to check the style and copyedit issues. I am glad that I am improving, thanks to painstaking and hawk-eyed editors like you! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I see you redlink "paramphistomes"; is this, I wonder, a common name for the family Paramphistomatidae or the genus Paramphistomum? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be the latter. Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn A lot has been going on here since the past few days. You may like to look at the article once again to see if you have more comments. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm taking a while- I'll make every effort to find time for this in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

More from me: Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• ""Problems with identifying meat? The answer is to check the barcode". BioMed Central. 2013. Retrieved 10 March 2013." The link doesn't go anywhere useful

Removed along with the controversial info it supported. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Hendrickx, S; Adams, B. (2004). Egypt at its Origins : Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams : Proceedings of the International Conference "Origin of the state. Predynastic and early dynastic Egypt", Krakow, 28th August - 1st September 2002. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies. p. 111. ISBN 978-90-429-1469-8." Surely, if you're citing conference proceedings, you need to cite the particular paper. Also, more than just "Leuven" would be good. (You generally seem to be inconsistent on how you cite locations. Some have city and country, some just city. Or am I misunderstanding?)

Sorry for the inconsistency. I have mentioned the paper now. I have added a link where it can be viewed in a collection at Google Books. But do I mention the year when the paper was presented (2002) or the year it was published in the book (2004)? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Published in the book. Occasionally, people will cite conference papers themselves, but here you're citing the published paper. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Hoberg, E.P.; Abrams, A.; Pilitt, P.A. (2009). "Robustostrongylus aferensis gen. nov. et sp. nov. (Nematoda: Trichostrongyloidea) in kob (Kobus kob') and hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus jacksoni) (Artiodactyla) from sub-Saharan Africa, with further ruminations on the Ostertagiinae". The Journal of parasitology 95 (3): 702–17. PMID 19228080." Your italics are off

Repaired.

• "Verlinden, A. (1998). "Seasonal movement patterns of some ungulates in the Kalahari ecosystem of Botswana between 1990 and 1995". African Journal of Ecology 36 (2): 117–28. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2028.1998.00112.x (inactive 2016-02-06)." An "inactive" doi is a useless doi. Can I recommend that you find the right one, or, if that is the right one, report it as not resolving?

The DOI is right, I don't know why it doesn't work. Could we remove the DOI? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reported it. I've come across a few like this recently; I'm surprised, to be honest. I think publishers are more concerned (understandably) with ensuring that their new papers have working DOIs than adding them to their old papers. In terms of your options, perhaps you could leave the DOI as if it worked but also add the URL it likely would point to. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, let us see what comes out of it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Guggisberg, C. A. W. (1972). Crocodiles. Their Natural History, Folklore and Conservation: David and Charles (Publishers) Limited, Newton Abbot." Your formatting's all over the place here

I don't think I added this. I have replaced it with another properly formatted citation. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Capellini, I. (2007). "Dimorphism in the hartebeest". Sex, Size and Gender Roles: 124–32. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208784.003.0014. ISBN 978-0-19-920878-4." This is a book, not a journal. We'll need the editors, location and publisher. Also, you tend to include subtitles, but do not here.

This appears to be a paper (Chapter 12 as per this) in the journal Sex, Size and Gender Roles. I think the ISBN should be removed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies- yes, you should lose the ISBN and add volume/issue information. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Kingdon, J. (1989). East African Mammals : An Atlas of Evolution in Africa (Volume 3, Part D:Bovids). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-43725-6." Your formatting could be neater, here

I was not sure how to put Vol. 3 and Part-D, so I inserted it in the title. How can I write it better? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a separate "volume" parameter. It bolds shorter answers (like "4") but leaves longer ones. I've changed it; I think it looks a bit neater, but you may disagree. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Castelló, J.R. (2016). Bovids of the World: Antelopes, Gazelles, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, and Relatives. Princeton (USA): Princeton University Press. pp. 537–9. ISBN 978-0-691-16717-6." Another inconsistent location

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Arctander, P.; Johansen, C.; Coutellec-Vreto, M.A. (December 1999). "Phylogeography of three closely related African bovids (tribe Alcelaphini)". Molecular biology and evolution 16 (12): 1724–39. PMID 10605114." Caps?

Repaired. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Swank, W.G. (1971). African Antelope. [New York]: Winchester Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-87691-029-0." And again

Repaired. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Llewellyn, E.C. (1936). "Chapter XIV The Influence of South African Dutch or Afrikaans on the English Vocabulary". The Influence of Low Dutch on the English Vocabulary. London: Oxford University Press. p. 163." If this is a monograph, you don't need the chapter name. Do you need the number? If it's an edited collection, you need the editor.

Not sure if it is a monograph, removing chapter number. It appears to be a book, so I am keeping the publisher. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M., eds. (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 674. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494." Location?

I use the MSW3 template for this. I don't think it can be altered. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but it needs to be consistent; you could just type it out manually and add a location. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine, done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Georgiadis, N. (2011). "Conserving wildlife in African landscapes: Kenya's Ewaso ecosystem". Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology (Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press) (632): 63. ISSN 0081-0282." Why list the publisher?

Removed the publisher. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't promise that I've caught every sourcing issue; I suppose the take-home message is that they need some attention. There are also some less-than-ideal sources; travel guides and hunting associations are nothing on peer reviewed research or books from good publishers. I'm not saying they have to be removed, just that they catch my eye. They certainly should not be used for any controversial information. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I am discussing with another reviewer if the BioMed Central citation and the controversial info should be kept, I think we should remove it completely. All right, I will go through the citations and try to make them consistent in their format. In most of the articles I have improved I had to use travel guides for a few interesting facts, but often supported by better books. The Safari Club International is a major source for the description of the subspecies, plus it is not really controversial, so I guess we should not remove it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn I have gone through all the references and tried to repair them, please see my replies above. For the sake of uniformity I have named places in the form "city, country". How is it now? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think all is done now? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Great. Getting there... I'll try to find time for another look through. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: What else can I fix? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

A few points I noticed:

• "She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram., and that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes." - There seems to be an extra punctuation mark here, but the meaning of the rest of the sentence is unclear.

I think Casliber added this, I will talk it over with him/her so that the meaning is not changed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• You need to explain who "Gentry" is the first time you mention him.

Done. I have also identified Arctander now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "She later dissolved the new genus later in 1997 after reconsideration." - Too many "laters" and it is unclear to whom this refers.

No more "later"s now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have rewritten a sentence in the Subspecies section. You had better check that the meaning remains unchanged.

Thank you. The meaning is unaltered. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• In the Subspecies section, you need to be consistent so that each of your subspecies is referred to in a similar fashion. A. lichtensteinii should be A. b. lichtensteinii

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The study emphasised on in situ conservation of the Swayne's hartebeest ..." - "advocated" would probably be better.

Yes, done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "A study proved the male hybrid between the red hartebeest and the blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus) sterile." - This sentence should not be placed in the middle of a discussion on the hybridisation of subspecies.

Perhaps it would look good at the end of the para? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I should think so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• "It was originally limited to the open country of the southernmost regions of southern Levant." - It is unclear to what "It" refers.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The hartebeest has several adaptations that allow it to survive even under adverse conditions and in poor habitats." - I find the sentences following this statement unconvincing; How do long, thin legs help? How is the mouth specially adapted for a frugal diet? It might be better to rephrase the information, something like "Its long legs enable it to run swiftly and if attacked, its formidable horns ...".

Right, done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Fights are rarely serious, but might turn fatal if they are." - I would think that the fights are always serious, but that they are not usually fought out to a fatal conclusion because one contestant retires.

It seems as if the fights are either normal or, in rare cases, fatal. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "These parasites regularly alternate between hartebeest and gazelles or wildebeest." - Do you mean that the same parasites are common to these different groups?

Yes, that is perhaps the best way to put the fact. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• The section on parasites is rather listy and uninteresting (and Cooperia is inappropriately linked). Not all animal species FAs have sections on parasites, Pinniped and Blue whale do not for example, and I would have thought a single short paragraph would have sufficed here.

I see. I have summarized the section into one para now. How does it look? I was not sure about what examples to add, so I have not mentioned any at the moment.Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The long thin muzzle of the hartebeest assists in feeding on leaf blades of grass swards and nibble off leaf sheaths from grass stems." - This sentence needs attention.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Jasminium kerstingii is part of the hartebeest's diet at the start of the rainy season." - I'm not sure that the Animal Diversity Web is a reliable source. The articles are written by students and in this instance, I think it is just plain wrong. For a start, the species is spelt wrong and should be Jasminum kerstingii, but jasmines are shrubs and are not native to Africa.

I have corrected the spelling, but the ADW source is not involved here, is it? But I agree with you, I will remove the ADW sources and make the necessary fixes. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The ADW source copied the erroneous spelling from its original source, and I find that this species of jasmine does occur in Africa. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• "A study found that the hartebeest can digest a larger quantity of food than topi and wildebeest." - I think you mean a higher proportion of its food.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "females roam home ranges of over 1,000 km2 (390 sq mi) area, with male territories 200 km2" - I think you mean male range not territory.

I understand that there is a difference between home ranges and territories. Males are territorial, and guard their home ranges. So it should be proper to refer to their range as territory. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it difficult to accept these facts, can you check the source? A male could not possibly assert his dominance over 200 km2 (77 sq mi). (Black wildebeest for example have territories that are 100 to 400 metres apart.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The source is firm on this. You can see it here. If you have doubts about the definitions, this article explains them well. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. I see that a territory has a broader definition than I thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• The Reproduction section is very bitty, with a lot of short sentences.

I have tried to improve the situation, how is it now? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That's much better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Most of the population nowadays is found mainly in Salamat and Zakouma National Park (Chad), latter of which has witnesses improved protection and increase in population since the 1980s." - This sentence needs attention.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "There have been unconfirmed reports of sightings of the tora hartebeest southeast of the Dinder National Park by locals, from where this hartebeest had disappeared before 1960." - This sentence needs attention.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sparing time for this FAC. I have responded to all your comments. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I have revised the article. I have done away with the ADW source and added better-sourced info wherever possible to make up for the loss. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I did some copyediting in the Reproduction section. You had better check that I have retained the meaning. In the lead you have three sentences that are somewhat contradictory. I suggest you replace them with a single sentence.
• "The time of mating varies seasonally, and depends on both the subspecies and the population."
• "Mating in hartebeest takes place throughout the year, with one or two peaks."
• "Births usually peak in the dry season." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit but you seem to have altered the meaning of the line Reproduction depends on the subspecies and population at the time of mating It means that reproduction varies by the subspecies and the population in the area when the mating occurs. Rest looks fine. Seems it was misinterpreted and added to the Lead. I think we should add it to the Lead as "Mating in hartebeest takes place throughout the year with one or two peaks, and depends upon the subspecies and the extant population. Births typically peak in the dry season." I have checked it all. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That looks better, though perhaps "extant population" is not ideal, maybe something like "local factors". When you come to think of it, some populations are north of the equator and some south, the climate varies over its wide range and it is unsurprising that the animals do not all calve at the same time of year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Taken "local factors". Thanks for your help! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The queries that I raised have been dealt with and I am now supporting this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MPS1992

• In the lead, "They are primarily grazers, with their diets consisting mainly of grasses, with small amounts of Hyparrhenia grasses and legumes throughout the year." I know what this means from reading the body of the article, but reading it the first time gave me pause. The ", with ..., with ... " structure is not a huge problem in itself, but the instinctive assumption on seeing "mainly of grasses, with small amounts of..." is that the diet is going to be grasses with small amounts of something else. The reader then discovers it's actually grasses with small amounts of grasses and legumes. Perhaps a wording based on something like "They are primarily grazers; their relatively small food intake consists mainly of Hyparrhenia grasses and legumes throughout the year"?

I checked for the Hyparrhenia and legumes part but it seems to be from an unreliable source that was to be removed according to previous discussions in this FAC. So this part has now been omitted from the article. I think this should solve the problem. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• " but was placed by Vrba in a separate genus Sigmoceros.[2] Gentry placed it as an independent species in Alcelaphus in 1990". This seems to repeat concepts from the preceding paragraph "In 1979, palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba supported Sigmoceros as a separate genus for Lichtenstein's hartebeest, a type of hartebeest with unclear taxonomic status, based on its close affinity to Connochaetes (wildebeest).[10][11] She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and argued that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes.[12] However, this finding was not replicated by Alan W. Gentry ... Vrba dissolved the new genus in 1997 after reconsideration". Should this all be combined?

I agree. With so much editing, rearrangement and additions going on, some repetition has occurred. Will look into it with another editor who contributed to the Taxonomy section. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• "are often considered to be independent species". Would "separate" be better than "independent"?

I prefer "independent", both would do. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Study... Sterility of the hybrid was attributed to difficulties in segregation during meiosis of the hybrid, azoospermia and fewer germ cells in the cross-section of the seminiferous tubules." I do not understand this sentence even at a high level. Was this a study of a single hybrid which itself was created for the study? Or is the initial sentence indicating that all hybrids of this combination are considered to be sterile? Is this sentence saying that the observation of a cross-section contributes to sterility? Apologies for my lack of knowledge in the subject area, perhaps I have completely misunderstood something.

In the study they made the two individuals mate and produce an offspring - they were not inventing a hybrid, they were trying to check if it could be a possibility. The study does not mean to say that all similar hybrids will be sterile; in the article we simply report the findings of a study relevant enough to discuss here. I don't understand what you meant when you said observation, but the meaning is that three factors caused the sterility (at least in the case at hand) - problems during meiosis, the azoospermia defect and low number of germ cells in the cross-section of seminiferous tubules. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I will take this to your talk page, if I may, as I'm still failing to understand the "cross-section" part. There's no need for it to hold up the FAC. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am no expert on this, instead of discussing with me I think you should read the publication I have cited in the article. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I have now re-worded it completely, including removing all mention of "cross-section", which does not fit the context. My edit summaries have slightly more details as to why. MPS1992 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• " The chin has a hint of black and the tail tuft black". Does the tail tuft have a hint of black like the chin, or should this be "and the tail tuft is black"?

Corrected. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• "An analysis using phylogeographic patterns within hartebeest populations suggested a possible origin of the antelope in eastern Africa." The later part of this sentence does not read well, if it means that the hartebeest might have originated from an ancestor of the antelope in eastern Africa. It is difficult to know what to suggest, since we are encountering a problem similar to the fact that humans are not descended from any sort of monkey or ape, but instead are descended from something from which some sorts of monkeys and apes are also descended. A clear enough concept, but not one that is easy to put into a flowing sentence. I wonder if anyone can help. If, on the other hand, what the analysis indicated was that the antelope (not the hartebeest) might have originated in eastern Africa, then that's fine, but perhaps could be made more clear.

It simply means that the study found evidence supporting the origin of the hartebeest in Africa. As we are discussing exclusively about hartebeest, it is not much likely that our thoughts would be deviated toward antelopes in general or their ancestors. I wrote it so to avoid repeating "hartebeest". I do not feel this should bee so problematic, as this is how it would be typically put. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How would you feel about wording it as "of the species" instead of "of the antelope"? MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have said Alcelaphus now, that sounds the most proper term. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• " climatic factors, and that there had been successive bursts of radiation...". This is unfortunate wording that will have physicists and climate scientists reaching for their models of past solar behaviour. But there's nothing incorrect about it, and I can't think of any better way to put it. Hmm.

Seems unless one reads the article from the start and digests what "Radiation" means here, confusion will surely occur. I am afraid this can not be helped. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The red hartebeest is a reddish-brown, with a dark face and several black markings all over its body". I have trouble reconciling "several" with "all over", and also reconciling "all over" with the images of the creature. Maybe this needs re-wording slightly.

Clarified. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, this is looking better. This is still problematic, though: "Black markings can be observed on the shoulders, hips and legs apart from the back of the neck and the chin. These are in sharp contrast with the broad white patches that mark its flanks and lower rump." To what are the back of the neck and the chin exceptions? What does the pronoun "these" refer to? MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"Apart from" means "along with" and not "except for" here. I have reworded it to remove confusion. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Coke's hartebeest is reddish to tawny on the upper part of the body, while the dorsal side is relatively lighter". I thought the dorsal side is the upper side?

Oops, a blooper. Corrected and checked for similar instances. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• " Fights are rarely serious, but can be fatal if they are". Does this include the earlier-mentioned fights to take over a territory? The text suggests these are inevitable because all males eventually lose their territory. And presumably they must be serious. Is serious exactly the right word here? Or alternatively, could it be worth qualifying what sort of fights tend to be serious? We say later "The males can fight fiercely for dominance". Should we distinguish dominance and territory, or are they the same thing? Maybe the scientists just disagree. One thinks fights are rarely serious, another thinks pretty much all fights are serious since they are all about dominance/territory.

Dominance and territory acquisition are different. One is to secure the right to mate with the female in estrus, while the latter is to snatch away territories and not necessarily related to rut. "Fights are rarely serious" means that fights are not gory in the case of hartebeest. The description is for all fights in general. In the line "The males can fight fiercely for dominance" I mean to say that it is possible that fights can become serious, and need not always be serious. I have reworded this line to avoid confusion. This is what I have understood and produced here from the sources. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• "A study found that the hartebeest is able to digest a larger quantity of food than the topi and the wildebeest". Are we sure that this is quantity rather than proportion? Wildebeest are rather larger animals than hartebeest.

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• ""Problems with identifying meat? The answer is to check the barcode". BioMed Central. 2013. Retrieved 10 March 2013." The link just took me to a "Press Center" with phone numbers. Is this a dead link, or is there some sort of paywall or registration. Either case should be better documented in the reference.

I see. I think this citation and the part it supports should be removed. I tried to locate the basic source but seems it has been removed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• "... which revealed severe negligence in meat labelling in South Africa" is perhaps of limited relevance to the Hartebeest, since presumably it was not 100 of 146 samples were labelled as containing Hartebeest when they did not, but rather 100 of 146 samples contained things they did not, of which some were Hartebeest. This was also the same year as the 2013 meat adulteration scandal which affected at least fifteen European countries and focused mainly on horsemeat. I doubt if that is mentioned in the article Horse, but I have not checked. A softer wording might still work, linking or mentioning the South African scandal without making statements about severity of negligence, or perhaps even of negligence.

As above, I think we should cut this part out. The comments on negligence were possibly the views of the author of the publication. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have also made these edits to the article, some of which you should look at carefully to be sure I have rightly represented what is intended. MPS1992 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

MPS1992, thanks for your comments. I have responded to all of them and gone carefully through the article. Going through your edits, the line She had analysed the skull characters of living and extinct species of antelope to make a cladogram, and argued that a wide skull linked Lichtenstein's hartebeest with Connochaetes was perhaps added by another editor whom I am contacting so that they may clarify the meaning of the latter part. Don't you think there was some unnecessary rewording in The genus Alcelaphus emerged about 4.4 million years ago in a clade whose other members were ... Connochaetes ? I am learning from the suggestions at the FAC, and I see no trouble if it would have remained "consisting of". Next, the caption under Description has been reworded; but the way I wrote it earlier is the commonest I have observed, perhaps it need not have been reworded. Under Reproduction, A male ... longer than in other Alcelaphini. was reworded, but I think the correct word to use should be "alcelaphines". Finally, under Status and Conservation, the National Park population sounds a bit weird to me. These are my personal views, and, of course, all editors have their own styles. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check these. I think the caption is better the way I worded it :) MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just one extra, as of right now the body text says that the weight ranges from 100kg to 200kg, but the lede says it ranges from 75kg to 200kg. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My folly. Actually there is so much shuffling and rewriting going on that I forgot the lead! Corrected. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

MPS1992 How does the article look now? I believe just the BioMed Central issue is standing; should we remove it? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks great, but the Vrba/Gentry repetition/confusion is still an issue in the first two paragraphs of the Taxonomy section, I think. MPS1992 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

MPS1992 Casliber and I are handling this issue. You can join us in the section above. Here, we can talk about other issues you may have noticed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks fine in your new version, and all of my queries and concerns have been answered. I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Coord note

Did I miss image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No one has come forward to do it yet. Thanks for the notification, I have added this at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_busephalus.png is tagged as lacking a description. Same with File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_caama.png, File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_cokei.png, File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_lichtensteini.png, File:The_book_of_antelopes_(1894)_Bubalis_swaynei.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the IR, Nikkimaria. I have asked the uploader Mariomassone at Commons to add the descriptions. Let me know what else is to be done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: It has been ten days and Mariomassone has not responded to my messages. Shall we have to remove the images from the article? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Descriptions added. Mariomassone (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, could you add the source links as well? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Any more comments on the images? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that was the only issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. @Ian Rose: The image review is complete, awaiting source review. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I have a question. Are the comments given by J Milburn above not like those of a source review? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes, since it appears to check both formatting and reliability, but has Josh signed off on the changes made? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn appears busy, I have pinged him a lot already... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about this- please do not hold up promotion on my accord. I am not opposed to promotion; I was trying to give some "help along the way" comments in the style of a peer review with the hope of coming back to maybe support later. I see I've not been so helpful, here. My apologies. My original source review may not have been as in-depth as it could have been. Please see below for a fuller review. (But no word on comprehensiveness and no spotchecks completed.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• I think "Animal Burials and Food Offerings at the Elite Cemetery HK6 of Hierakonpolis" should be cited as an article in an edited collection rather than the current journal-style citation.

Done.

• Your Belem/Bakoné paper is here; it's open access. You should probably cite the original and include a link (the template {{open access}} is also nice) and add the translated title using trans_title=

Thanks, that is something new I learned. Done.

• Sex, Size and Gender Roles is an edited collection, not a journal, and should be cited as such. The DOI's fine, but you need to include the editors, location and publisher (also, I think you probably need the subtitle to be consistent with your other book sources).

Done.

• eprint worth including as a courtesy link, especially as there's no DOI or anything.
• "Footscray, Melbourne (Australia): Lonely Planet." Inconsistent location style. Others are just "City, Country: Publisher".
• "Chicago: University of Chicago Press" Inconsistent again.
• Open access logo for PLOS One?

Done.

• "Chalfont St. Peter, Buckinghamshire (UK): Bradt Travel Guides." Again
• "Shurter, S.; Beetem, D. "Jackson's hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus jacksoni)" (PDF). Antelope & Giraffe Tag. Retrieved 28 April 2013." What makes this reliable? The URL didn't work for me.

Removed.

• The DOI for "Conserving Wildlife in African Landscapes: Kenyas Ewaso Ecosystem" is 10.5479/si.00810282.632. However, your citation is questionable- this isn't a journal article, it's an edited collection. Please cite the chapter as appropriate. (See here.)

Will remember this from now on. Done.

• "Princeton, New Jersey (USA)" Again. I'd have no objection to City, US State: Publisher, but you need to be consistent.
• In some citations, you space the initials (Milburn, J. L.) in others, you don't (Milburn, J.L.). Consistency is important!
• On a similar note, what's going on with "Stenseth, N. ChR."?
• "Baltimore, Maryland (USA)" Again.
• "Gentry, A.W. (2012). Bubenik, George A.; Bubenik, Anthony B., ed. Horns, Pronghorns, and Antlers: Evolution, Morphology, Physiology, and Social Significance. New York, USA: Springer Science & Business Media. p. 216. " What's the title of Gentry's contribution? Also, you elsewhere refer to the publisher as simply "Springer".

Fixed.

• "Flagstad, Ø.; Syversten, P. O.; Stenseth, N. C.; Jakobsen, K. S. (7 April 2001). "Environmental change and rates of evolution: the phylogeographic pattern within the hartebeest complex as related to climatic variation". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268 (1468): 667–77." Why the full date?

Fixed.

• "Baltimore, Maryland (USA)" Again
• "Baltimore, Maryland (USA)" Again

I note, again, that I'm not keen on using the hunting organisations, and travel guides are less than ideal, but provided the information isn't too controversial... Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to resolve these within the following week. A bit busy at the moment. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem- I'll push this review up my to-do list. Again- my apologies for being unresponsive. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks for the review, I have ensured complete consistency in all citations. I have removed the travel guides, but I am not sure if the hunter association sources support anything controversial. I could not find the descriptions and a few details on the range for the subspecies elsewhere, so I had to resort to this. If you believe they ought to be removed, I will do it in the interest of the article. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - Sainsf, where are we on Josh's sourcing concerns, including the use of travel guides? We need to see some forward progress and agreement on sources, or we will have to consider archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Sorry for the delay, I returned from a busy week just yesterday and was coming here just now. I will fix the issues within an hour. Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've had a further fiddle myself, and I'm happy that the formatting is up to snuff, and all the citations are appropriate. I can't speak to comprehensiveness, and I've not done spotchecks. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: J Milburn has completed the source review, do we have more to work on? Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.