Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2017

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2017 [1].

---

Oran fatwa

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 16th century fatwa during the period of persecution on Muslims in Castile (now Spain), relaxing the requirements of Muslim religious practice there given the climate of persecution. It passed GA, and I've put it up for Peer Review, which suggested me to directly nominate for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sistinehall.jpg needs information on the original work pictured, as Italy does not have freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria:. Thanks. That concept is new to me, I read up a little bit, and it looks like being a building from 1588, the Sistine Hall should be OK to photograph. I updated the file's description on Commons, please take a look and I hope my understanding is correct. HaEr48 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, we just need a copyright tag for the artwork as well, indicating why it is in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      •  Done

Comments from Midnightblueowl I passed this as a GA so it's great to see it at FAC. Just a few points:

• There is probably no need for citations in the lede given that it simply duplicates prose in the main part of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Isn't it ok to err on the side of adding citation? It will help readers locating the source of those materials HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not a big fan of citations in the lede; I find them a little messy, but it's not a big deal and they are certainly not a barrier to FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'd really recommend that you add the locations of the publishers of the different sources that have been cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Why is citation 24 alone in being formatted differently to the others? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Good work, HaEr48. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• At first glance, some of the header titles seem too generic/vague. "Significance" or some such would say much more about the relevant section than "Analysis". "Context" also seems inferior to for example "Background".
  • Did a series of changes reorganizing the header and renaming the title. Is this better now? More suggestions welcome. HaEr48 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• You could give the year in the caption of te first painting.
  • Added (it was from 1873) HaEr48 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Any pictures of a copy? Would be PD, since it is 2D.
  • I agree it would be awesome, but unfortunately I haven't seen any picture of the actual copy in my sources. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Previous opinions" Could be renamed "Previous Islamic opinions" for clarity.
  • Done HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "As the Christian conquest of Iberia " Why not Christian reconquest?
  • I use the term "reconquista", but it appears that the idea of it as a "reconquest" is somewhat problematic (see Reconquista#Concept_and_duration for example). I tried to stay away from that by just using "conquest". HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Perhaps state when the reconquest began?
  • There doesn't seem to be any clear-cut date where Reconquista is supposed to start (for example, the lead of Wikipedia's article on Reconquista mention 711, 718, and 722, all without any citation). But what matters for the population trajectory is that it seemed to accelerate beginning from the 12th century, reworded the paragraph to highlight that. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Morisco, fatwa, and other terms that are only explained in the intro should also be explained at first mention in the article body.
  • Explained Morisco in body. Re "fatwa", it's hard to find where to insert that explanation in the body. First few mentions are in form of "Oran fatwa" or "the fatwa", which became awkward to insert. If you have a good idea feel free to add it or point it out to me. Otherwise, hopefully the description as "Islamic legal opinion" in lead suffices? HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• I see citations in the intro were already discussed, but at least make sure no citations are only found there.

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Thus, the author is often referred to as "the Mufti of Oran" and the document to be called "the Oran fatwa"" Something seems odd here.
  • replaced "to be" with "is". HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "and instructed them make up" A "to" missing?
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk)
• " to replace the ritual ablution" You give the Arabic word in parenthesis for other terms, why not here (wudu)?
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "as long as the Muslims did not intend to make use of them" What is meant bu this? What other use do these things have than to be consumed?
  • The wording "make use of" is from Harvey p.61, but I checked Rosa-Rodríguez uses "take advantage" which sounds better, so replaced it. Does it make sense now? HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "The other three were translations in Spanish" To Spanish?
  • Ok. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Any relation to taqiya? Seems very similar, if so, could be stated.
  • It does sound similar to me, but the sources I read it don't link them together, so I worry mentioning it here may be WP:OR. I found this [2] which mentioned Taqiyya, but it is in Spanish (which I don't read) and the Spanish abstract says that the term taqiyya "is not found in the writings of the Morisco", so probably that's another dead end? I guess taqiyya is more of an important concept for Shias, but the Spanish Muslims were Sunni, so.. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Ulama and nisbat could be explained. Perhaps even sharia; many have heard the word, but may not know its meaning. Same with hadith.

• Added explanation of Ulama, nisba, sharia and hadith at first mention of each. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• It seems like an omission that no modern analyses (or any, for that matter) by Muslim writers are mentioned, I'm sure Harvey and Stewart can't be the only scholars who have discussed the issue? I think it would be needed for comprehensiveness.
  • There are many other scholars who discussed the issue (I added some content citing Rosa-Rodriguez and Garcia-Arenal) but all of the references I found in English are from scholars of Spanish Muslim history, not from Islamic religious scholars. Possible explanation: (1) it was such a long time ago so it's mostly interesting as part of history (hence mostly historians discuss it, not modern religious scholars) (2) Muslim religious scholars might write in Arabic or other languages, which I don't read (3) the fatwa contradicts the predominant opinion (discussed in "Previous Islamic legal opinions" section), so maybe while it was popular among the crypto-Muslims in spain, it was not so popular among the religious authorities elsewhere. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• "such as worshipping as Catholics" This is the only time Catholics are mentioned. Elsewhere you just say Christians.
  • Good catch, done. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "The fatwa has been described as the "key theological document" to understand the practice of Spanish Muslims " Only mentioned in the intro, which should have no unique info. It should be stated in the article body as well, with in-text attribution, since it is a direct quote.

• Added explanation of the "key theological document" quote in the "Scholarly analysis" section, quoting some scholars who stressed its importance. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk for your thoughtful feedback. Give me some more time to address your other points. HaEr48 (talk)

@FunkMonk: addressed all your points. Let me know if I miss anything. HaEr48 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good to me now. If any later Islamic opinion can be found, it would of course be nice to add. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Syek88

This is really good, thank you. A few points:

• It might be good to pick up the point explicitly that Harvey makes on p. 64 that the fatwa had no discernible extra-Iberian impact. The article implies that it didn't, but the evidence seems strong enough to say so expressly.
  • Added a paragraph to that effect in the "Impact in Spain" section. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• "After the forced conversion was extended to the Crown of Aragon in the 1520s, the fatwa circulated there, too." - Harvey is less certain about this than you are, using the qualifier "reasonable to assume".
  • Good catch, I overlooked that qualifier by Harvey. Added a "likely" qualifier, would that do? "reasonable to assume" sounds like an author stating his view (vs an encyclopedia article) so I feel I should avoid that phrase. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Footnotes 95 to 97 of Stewart's article look like they could be interesting and potentially relevant texts, comparing the Oran fatwa with the prevailing Maliki view. Might it be worth mentioning that there is scholarly debate about the extent to which the Oran fatwa is a direct and personal rebuttal of al-Wansharisi? Stewart's fairly balanced view (pp. 299-300) seems to be that it probably was, and that moreover a rebuttal of such a senior cleric was a very bold thing to do, which all appears interesting and relevant.
  • Expanded one of the paragraph to note Wansharisi's seniority and Stewart's view that the fatwa was a rebuke against him. The texts in those footnotes are in Spanish (which I don't read), and Stewart's descriptions of them are too short for me to understand the debate properly, so I'm not sure if I can go there. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• We get given Harvey's full name and link right at the end of the article but on two or three earlier occasions he is just "Harvey".

Syek88 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• • We get "L. P. Harvey" with wikilink at the authorship section, which is the first mention of his name. Also, should I expand to "Leonard Patrick Harvey" (his full name)? In his works he just use the "L. P. Harvey" initial, I assume this is the more natural name to use in the article. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-thought review, Syek88. Hope my updates addressed your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - they most certainly do. Thank you again for this article. This is one of those rare pages that exemplifies Wikipedia's greatest strength: nowhere else could an amateur researcher find, in one place, the information you've been able put together. Syek88 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• What engvar are we using? I see "emphasised" and "materialize"; perhaps other discrepancies.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Let's use UK English? My brain is dominated by neither UK or US spellings, so sometimes I mix them up without realizing. I spot checked (with the help of browser's Ctrl+F) and updated some, please point out or update if you find more discrepancies. HaEr48 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

• Midnightblueowl, I notice you commented on citations, did you perform (or are you comfortable performing) a full source review for reliability as well as formatting?
• HaEr48, as this is your first FAC (correct me if I'm wrong) I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all newbies to jump through. Like the source review mentioned above, this could be performed by someone who has already commented on the article here, or else you can make a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, 21:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Rose (talk • contribs)

On the second point, I read the Stewart and Harvey sources carefully. They are the principal sources used. I can vouch that they are accurately represented (subject to my actioned comments above) and that there is no close paraphrasing. Syek88 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Does Syek88's comment (Thanks, Syek!) above suffice, or do I still need to make a request at WT:FAC? HaEr48 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I think that will do, tks. Cheers, 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: (Recused as co-ordinator) I just read through this with a view to promoting, but noticed it needed a source review. However, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and am more than happy to support, particularly as this period of history is always one I've found interesting. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review: All sources look reliable and correctly formatted. I would suggest, for consistency, either linking all the publishing locations or none; we currently have a mixture. Otherwise sources OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• The mixture is because some locations are mentioned multiple times (e.g. Chicago, Leiden). Modified now to make them consistetnly shown at the locations' first occurence. HaEr48 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment

Hi HaEr48, I'm going to promote this but pls note you have some duplinks that should be reviewed to see if they're really necessary, given the article isn't particularly long. You can use this script to highlight the duplicates. Cheers, 23:17, 28 February 2017 (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) 23:18, 28 February 2017 (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) 23:34, 28 February 2017 [3].

---

Ben Crosby

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Third time's a charm? I really hope so.

After contributing just 35 edits since May (including an incredibly embarrassing single edit in all of November) due to a variety of off-wiki issues, which happened to be the primary reason why this failed the last FAC, I'm trying to get back into editing, and I figured that the best way to start out is to finally finish dealing with this article. I've recently gone back and fixed all of the outstanding concerns from last time, and although I've been wrong with this kind of a statement in the past, I think that this miniscule nine paragraph article is now free of all of my various flaws.

And just to give a very brief description: Ben Crosby was a late-19th century football player and coach, who basically accomplished nothing with his life before dying at 22 from Typhoid. He spent one year as a head coach of an important team and gained notability in his playing career for being worse than someone younger than him. I hope you like the article!

Thanks to everyone who reviews this. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I only had one issue last time, and I see you've edited to remove some of the repetition, but I think if you made it "Crosby died on December 29, 1892 at the age of 24" it would be clear that he died from typhoid. As it stands, since "succumbs" usually means "died", I think it's still repetitious. Alternatively you could edit the first mention of typhoid to remove the word "succumbs" and just say that it he contracted typhoid; I'm guessing you phrase it as you do because the source doesn't make it clear whether he contracted typhoid at that point, or the "severe cold" was typhoid all along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I think I understand what you mean now, and I've changed the paragraph accordingly. Thanks for coming back and reviewing again, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. The above was the only remaining issue from my previous review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Mike. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• As before, quotes should only be used minimally and only really for something memorable. Both of the following should be eminently fixable

"'contracted a "severe cold" - can be dequoted "URTI" or something, "fell very ill with a cold/URTI"

his illness intensified and he apparently "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever". - "his illness intensified and he apparently fell gravely ill from typhoid fever." (or somesuch)

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long to give you a response; I'll try to address your concerns later today. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that took longer than it should have. Sorry about that. I made a change based on your first point. On the second, I'd prefer to keep it how it is. Mike Christie noted it somewhat above; the sources are relatively ambiguous in their description of events, and I'm also not sure how medically accurate their wordings are. I think in this case using the quote is justified as it's the best way of expressing the information presented, without the possibility of misconstruing its meaning. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Wow, you corrected everything I saw on the BC#2 FAC, and did it in a very clear and concise manner. No other objections. I'm happy to support this. — Maile (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following up and for the support. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear reliable and the links are working fine. The only issue I see with the formatting is that there is a mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBN numbers; I believe the MoS favors the 13-digit ones. This is easy to fix; go here and type the 10-digit number in (click a button to hyphenate them), and it spits out the 13-digit number. Other than that admittedly minor concern, everything looks good in the sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've corrected this. Also, I went through and added OCLCs for all remaining sources that could have had them before. Thanks reviewing again, Giants2008. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I supported this article at the previous FAC and it looks to have improved since then, with the other commentary it's received. Having re-read it, I found no new issues to report. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88

This is a good short article: its brevity should not be confused for a lack of comprehensiveness. The following issues are all very much minor. I have little doubt that they can be addressed quickly and easily.

• "which he was then commended for following the upset victory". This would read better with the preposition earlier and removal of the unnecessary "then": "for which he was commended following the upset victory". But perhaps the bigger issue with this sentence is this: he was commended for the win, not for the extra practices he scheduled. The sentence is ambiguous about this, and suggests that Crosby was specifically commended for his hard-ass coaching.

• I've tried to reword this entire part of the lead. I think I clarified the issue, but it feels like I made the whole thing read a bit worse.

• The article's lead section mentions a "cold", but the later and more detailed discussion of the circumstances of his death refers only to a "serious illness". The result is an internal inconsistency. I wonder if the reference to a cold is strictly accurate given the vagueness of such a diagnosis, especially in that era. It might be better to stick to the terminology of "illness".

• Changed to "illness".

• "As a child, Crosby attended Hopkins Grammar School in New Haven, Connecticut, the second person in his family to do so." The phrasing of this sentence immediately made be wonder who the other person in his family to attend the school was.

• I've clarified this

• "Crosby was very popular while at Yale". The word "very" looks to be vague and unnecessary inflation.

• You're right. I've removed it.

• "The team eventually finished the season with a perfect record and would be retroactively named national champions." Why was it retroactive? If nothing out-of-the-ordinary happened, weren't they just "named national champions".

• At this point in college football, there was no system of awarding a program with a national championship. The idea didn't originate until the 1920s. All awards given to the team were awarded by organizations during the 20th century, and so they were awarded retroactively.

• "Despite losing his spot, Crosby remained popular through his senior year at the university" I would not expect the loss of one's football team spot to result automatically in a decline in one's popularity. Accordingly, is "despite losing his spot" appropriate?

• "Despite losing his spot" has been removed.

• "first that had been independent of the program." - "who" would be better than "that".

• Changed.

• "Crosby also caught the attention of the press with his scheduling of constant practices leading up to the game". The word "constant" literally means 24 hours a day. Perhaps "more frequent" or something similar would be better.

• Changed to your suggestion.

The final paragraph is very good. Syek88 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've finally gotten around to trying to deal with all of your concerns. Thanks for the review, and sorry about taking so long. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 23:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - Don't apologise at all. The changes look good to me, as does the explanation about the retroactively awarded championship. Syek88 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Have I missed an image review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Looking now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• ok, 2 of 3 are definitely in Public Domain due to age and publishing date. The third File:Ben Crosby 1891.png is clearly of an age to be public domain except that its publishing history is unclear. Worst-case scenario is a Fair Use rationale, which is valid, as there are no other photos of the person. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• i.e. I think we're in business...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A further note: While we are waiting for Syek88 to finish their review, a few things jump out from the article in terms of prose. For instance, we are using "Crosby" rather a lot, and some rewording to avoid this would be good. Also, in the lead, we have "A member of both Delta Kappa Epsilon and Skull and Bones, Crosby was a two-year starter on the football team and a backup on the crew team", which I'm afraid makes little sense to me and I suspect to a lot of readers. Before we promote this, I'd like one or two more eyes on the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Another note: Everything has gone a little quiet, but can I just check if Syek88 plans to revisit? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I had been waiting for the article's author to respond to my (fairly minor) points. Even if there is no response, I am not opposing, if that assists. Syek88 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@A Texas Historian: If nothing happens soon, and the nominator is not responding, we might be forced to archive this I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just been getting distracted. I've already dealt with most of Syek's points and I'll try to address the remaining ones soon. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 16:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@A Texas Historian: This has been open a long time now. If nothing has happened by the end of this week (4 March), I think this will need to be archived. Reviewers are stretched thin and it is not really fair to keep them hanging like this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, not sure if you noticed, but in fact the nominator has dealt with the remaining points a paragraph above, and the last reviewer has supported. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for that. Ignore my last comment! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I've recused as coordinator to copy-edit this a little. I've removed quite a bit of jargon and tried to make it more accessible for the general reader. Anything I have messed up can be reverted. I'm not supporting, as I think it may still be a little jargony, but have absolutely no objection to this being promoted now and may return to support in a day or two if this is still here. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - I read through this last week and made a list of fairly minor comments but got sidetracked and didn't post them. Coming back to it today, I find almost all of the comments are resolved. I've tried a slight bit of prose tightening in a few areas, and have changed a few numbers so that per MOS:NUM it's consistent. It might need another look through for that. Otherwise, this is looking much improved. Don't hesitate to revert copyedits if the meaning has been changed. Nice article. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:11, 28 February 2017 (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) 23:34, 28 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 [4].

---

Henry Conwell

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Henry Conwell, the second Catholic bishop of Philadelphia. He began his episcopate at an advanced age and spent much of his tenure fighting with lay trustees of one of his parishes. He was recalled to Rome, stripped of most of his powers, and lived out his days as bishop in name only. I hope his story proves an interesting read. Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Support just a few things

• You might want to make it clear he was born in Ulster and thus not in present-day Ireland (Irish Free State)
• "He was appointed parish priest of Dungannon in 1792 or 1793 and Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Armagh in 1794.[1][5] After the death of Archbishop Richard O'Reilly in 1818, Conwell served as acting Archbishop". Hm. Long time, no see? (no action required)
• I'd make clearer how few Catholics there were in the US at the time, especially outside Maryland.
• "Hogan quickly ingratiated himself with the board of trustees, siding with them in their dispute with the other clergy" Was the board made up of clergy? Some clarification so we know the situation we're dealing with.
• "that neither Conwell nor anyone had the right to dictate the location of his residence." maybe "that neither Conwell nor anyone else had the right to say where he should live."
• "In the meantime, Conwell recalled a Dominican friar, William Vincent Harold, whom his predecessor had dismissed." I'd make it clearer this was as interim priest at St. Mary's, or whatever the proper term is.

Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I've clarified these where I could. There is very little information on his early life, so not much I can add there. I can't find anything that says exactly what Harold did when he returned except assist Conwell. I'll look some more to see where he said mass, if anywhere, but Hogan was still at St. Mary's at this point, despite his excommunication, so it almost certainly wasn't there. There were three more downtown churches, so it could have been any of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dank, for the edits and for the support. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

• "his divide with Conwell deepened": I think I know what's intended, but there's been no mention of a divide specifically between Hogan and Conwell up to this point, so I think this should be rephrased, particularly as this is followed by "When Conwell arrived", implying that the previous sentence describes events preceding Conwell's arrival.
  • Yes, I got the tenses screwed up in editing. Should be fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, the schism continued": suggest dropping "meanwhile"; we just had "In the meantime" and I don't think the sense would be harmed.
  • Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• "The trustees soon renounced the agreement, and when word reached the Holy See": word of the agreement or of the announcement by the trustees that they had renounced it? The wording makes it seem to be the latter, but the rest of the sentence seems to point to the former.
  • It's the latter, they didn't approve of the agreement even before they knew the trustees were going to break it. Should be better worded now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Can the external link in note b be converted to a citation? And I think note c should have a citation too.
  • Done and done. Thanks very much for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Support; the fixes all look good. A well-crafted short article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Can we get ISBNs for the two 1976 books?
  • They're two chapters in the same book, which seems not to have an ISBN. [5]
• The Catholic Encyclopedia citation gives a date of 1908 in the recommended citation form at the bottom of the linked page; you have 1909.
  • Fixed.
• You have "Kendrick" in the source listing for Nolan, but "Kenrick" in the article.
  • Fixed. (I must have been thinking of another Kendrick). --Coemgenus (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Those fixes look good to me. Odd that there's no ISBN, but there were other small publishers well into the 1970s that omitted ISBNs; I guess the archdiocese was a little behind the times. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 27 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 [6].

---

White-rumped swallow

Nominator(s): RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is another one about a swallow from the Tachycineta genus. It is found in central South America. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine Sunbird

• The second paragraph of the intro is book-ended by references to the supraloral stripe - why not combine the two sentences? The stripe is a weird way to start the paragraph and you could say It has a white supraloral streak above its eye, which can be used to differentiate it from the similar Chilean swallow.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Does the species have a lower altitudinal limit? If not, perhaps mention it ranges from sea-level to 1000 m.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Nest prospecting is a behaviour recorded in both breeding and non-breeding individuals. Does this mean that birds prospect for nests while actually nesting? If so it could be made a touch clearer.

I added a sentence after the one mentioned to clarify. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• transition from pinkish-white to pure white. Does this mean they vary in colour or they change colour after laying?

Clarified, they change color after laying. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made few edits for language and will have another look soon. Looks good overall. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: FYI, I'm done. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• According to the HBW the species was sometimes placed in the genus Iridoprocne, worth mentioning?

I added a mention of that. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think, raving read the article, that the section on nest-prospecting isn't quite right. I'll try and re-jig it later.

Ok! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this close... Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Is everything good with the article now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry. I've been struggling with the nest- searching behaviour paragraph. I'm not convinced that the article conveys accurately the journal article's conclusions, but the journal article itself is a little unsure (in my opinion) about what it is trying to say. Its saturday here so I'll have another go at reading the journal article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Sabine's Sunbird: Do you think that it is good now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• "This swallow was first formally described" You should give the full name of the subject at the first mention in the article body. Preferably also in the start of every new section.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The species name is derived from Ancient Greek. Tachycineta is from takhukinetos, "moving quickly", and the specific leucorrhoa" You translate both the genus and species name, so the first part should be changed.

Changed to "binomial name." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• "a subspecies of the Chilean swallow" Link everything again first time it is mentioned outside the intro.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• "It has since been moved to the genus Tachycineta." By who?

Cannot find, may need more experienced editor to do so. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• When did it split? Any cladogram?

I don't really know, a more experienced editor is needed here. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(Update) I will not include a cladogram, see Jimfbleak's comments. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Never seen a cladogram create problems myself (unless there is serious disagreement in the literature), shouldn't hurt, but yeah, it isn't necessarily required. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• "This swallow is monotypic." I'd say species instead of swallow, otherwise it's too vague. Maybe even specify that it does not have subspecies, most readers probably don't know what monotypic means.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• The culture sections seems fairly pointless, I'd cut it.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• You could invert the alignment of the images under breeding and diet; depicted subjects should face the text, and then you won't get the subject header clutter you now have with the lowest image.

Good now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The article seems fairly short, is there no more info to squeeze out of the sources, and have you checked Google Scholar?

Not too much more, I only found one more source. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• "These flocks frequently consist of both the white-rumped swallow and other species of swallows." Like which?

Not specified RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• "supraloral", " lores", "ear-coverts" Could be explained and linked.

Linked all three, explained lores and supraloral. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• "These features fade with age." Which features? Both the black and white?

Not specified, but it seems to refer to the tips. I also made it more accurate, "fade" to "erode." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• "and was once considered a subspecies of it" Already mentioned in a more appropriate section than description.

Removed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• No predators are mentioned in the "Predators and parasites" section.

Removed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Status" is too vague, could be renamed Conservation status.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is quite a bit of info in the intro that is not mentioned in the article body, which it all should be. There are also statements that are phrased very differently form how they are phrased in the body. Please double check all statements and make the article body consistent.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is not a word about its behaviour in the intro, which is supposed to summarise the entire article.

Added RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• "extra-pair young" Which means what?

Added RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• "About 58 percent of the broods hatched" Why past tense suddenly?

Fixed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• to FunkMonk's point about the culture section, I agree it could and probably should be removed. If it is kept it needs to be moderately expanded, just to elaborate about how it wan't just a throwaway reference but the central plot diver of the episode. That said, I'd still lean towards taking it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Cut RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The changes look good. Will you ask someone for help about the taxonomy issues? FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Yeah, I asked Jimfbleak. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - everything addressed, looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

The genus was created by Jean Cabanis ref is Cabanis 1850 Museum Heineanum 1 p.48 (in German) link which also fixes the date. personally I wouldn't give a cladogram, it's not required and usually attracts criticism. More comments to follow as and when Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• or a streak above its lores— I'm not convinced by the indefinite article

Removed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Its underparts, underwing-coverts, and rump are white, as the name suggests— lose the last bit. Although I see what you mean, the name doesn't suggest that the underparts and underwing-coverts are white

Better? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• starts in October and ends in December in Brazil and February in neighboring Argentina—Does that mean that the breeding season is two months longer in Argentina, or is the start later than October there?

Specified RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. As written, "features" applies either to the wings or the named feather tracts, neither of which is what you probably mean

It wasn't exactly specified, so I think it should be left like it is. Do you object? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The song this swallow uses... alarm note it uses— repeat of "uses", seems a strange word choice anyway

Removed on instance RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• It is known to inhabit… It is also known to occur… It is additionally known—three uses of a word that isn't necessary anyway. "known to inhabit"="inhabits". I see that there are other pointless "knowns" further on too

Removed some instances RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• First two paras of "Breeding" seem to have more repetition of terms than is strictly necessary

Removed a few instances of repeat terms. Good now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with most of the responses, but surely in the sentence It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. it can only be the white tips that erode, not entire feathers? If that's so, it should be made clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I will fix it then. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed it, I think this just needs a source review now. Once can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber

• References formatted consistently - just need to align page ranges. I use final two digits myself (like FN 6 & 7), but FN 8,11 and 12 have full page ranges. Either is ok, just choose one to follow. Also, ref 4 has publisher location, others don't. Just choose to have or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Used full page ranges, removed publisher location. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 3, used once. material faithful to source.
• FN 12, used once. material faithful to source.
• FN 8, used nine times. material faithful to source, though the source does not explain why it is also called the white-browed swallow (however as it is very obvious happy not to worry about this). I also tweaked the wording to distance from the source (this can be tricky I know).

Ok all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think this is ready for promotion. One point I noticed, though: Why is "The white-rumped swallow, on average, lives for 2.12 years. The male lives slightly longer than the female." in the "Parasites" section? I think that might need a better home. I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 [7].

---

Yellow-faced honeyeater

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is has seen a couple of editors improve it. I feel it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

As always, some quick ones to start with:

• In the first sentence, perhaps add a comma after "...in the honeyeater family" to make it more clear that Meliphagidae is the only honeyeater family.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Range map? Perhaps ask for one on the birds talk page.

I need to get to the library tomorrow to get the best map for this got map now just need not to be tired and added... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps link all of socially monogamous in one link?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing and weeds," the apostrophe needs to be straight.

I don't follow.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of "’", it needs to be "'", per MOS:STRAIGHT. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, something new I am still learning...done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Per MOS:ACRO, IUCN in the lead should be expanded, with the acronym in parenthesis after so you can use just the acronym in the body.

unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps move the sentence "The specific name chrysops is from the Greek words meaning "gold" and "face" in reference to the stripe of yellow feathers," in the taxonomy section to the end of the paragraph, and rephrase it a bit so it flows better.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Add to the sentence "It was classified in the genus Lichenostomus for many years until 2011," what genus it was moved to.

I moved the sentence further on so it can run into the discussion of what happened next Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Three subspecies have been described (Matthews, 1912) but are not universally recognised," a comma is needed after the parenthesis.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph of the taxonomy section, you need to put spaces between the genus and species abbreviated name.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• You should probably specify what you are talking about in the sentence "Surgeon-General to the First Fleet John White caught one in May 1788, calling it a yellow-faced flycatcher in his Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, which was published in 1790." This is because you talked about the subspecies in the previous paragraph, so that might cause some confusion.

called it "the species" as calling it the "yellow-faced honeyeater" might sound repetitive given the next clause. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ear coverts should be without a hyphen and linked (I recently created a redirect to ear coverts for my article).

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That is all for today, more will come soon. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

More comments now, hopefully I can get this done with the next review:

• Silvereye is overlinked.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Link and/or explain counter-singing.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Spotted Gum should be capitalized, you also need to be consistent in putting the binomial after the common name.

my personal feelings aside, the standard is to use lower case. binomial now placed after Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "It usually avoids woodland, unless it is near forest or has an understory of sclerophyll plants," I am not sure about the woodland thing, possibly say "It usually avoids low-density forests, unless it is near a higher density forest or the forest has an understory of sclerophyll plants." If you don't want to do that, then at least I'm pretty sure you would add the indefinite article "a" before "forest."

I don't follow on the "a" being necessary as am talking about a habitat type rather than a particular forest as such. I realise our woodland article doesn't have Australian definitions in it, which might help (i.e. woodland is not considered forest). Added definition at here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the second comma in the sentence "The yellow-faced honeyeater ranges across a broad arc from near Cooktown in Far North Queensland, south west between a line from Charters Towers to Albury and the coast, and then west to the Fleurieu Peninsula and Mount Lofty Ranges in South Australia," is an Oxford comma and thus should be removed for consistency.

I thought I had a few Oxford commas in this already so would rather go all in than all out.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, why don't you add an Oxford comma in the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing and weeds," (MOS:STRAIGHT error still needs fixing)? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think that you would switch back to present tense (for the verb "to increase") in the sentence "During the winter months of June and July, numbers are generally decreased in Victoria and increased in Queensland, following northward migration."

They are present tense as they are passive verbs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• The usage of seasons with months after them seems fine, but it would be great if a more experienced editor could check this out (maybe we should have an RfC or something so this isn't a problem in future reviews and such).

ok, will see what others say Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly reword the last part of the sentence "Experiments where the vertical component of the magnetic field was reversed indicate that the magnetic compass of the yellow-faced honeyeater is based on the inclination of the field lines and not on polarity, distinguishing between the direction of the equator and the poles, rather than north and south," to "meaning they distinguish between the direction of the equator and poles, rather than north and south," just to clear up any confusion.

done this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Good job! These articles are being cranked out really quickly! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

several honeyeater articles were buffed to GA status by an editor now retired for some years. I figured it was worth updating/reviewing them and pushing a few of them over the FA-line.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Final comments:

• Make it more clear what "when not migrating" applies to in the sentence "The yellow-faced honeyeater is usually seen singly, in pairs, or in small family groups, when not migrating." If it applies to everything, then remove the comma after "groups."

It does apply to all so done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oxford comma needed in some sentences in the feeding section.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Same as above in breeding.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Poerhaps merge the sentences "The yellow-faced honeyeater breeds in monogamous pairs in a breeding season that extends from July to March. Migrating birds begin nesting later than sedentary birds," so it flows better.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• More Oxford commas are needed.

got some more ...bloody hell there are a few... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is all, good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

2nd reading:

• In the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing, and weeds," the curly apostrophe needs to be a straight apostrophe per MOS:STRAIGHT.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Eh, I'll just do it myself (or you can copy and paste: '). RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence " A 2017 genetic study using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA found the ancestor of the yellow-faced honeyeater diverged from the common ancestor of the other two Caligavis species around 7 million years ago," I'm pretty sure you would say "seven" instead of "7."

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be all. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Nice job on the article! All of my nitpicks were addressed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

Support Nice. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• In distribution we have The yellow-faced honeyeater is widespread across eastern and south eastern Australia, in open sclerophyll forests from coastal dunes to high-altitude subalpine areas, and often in riparian woodlands. and then It occurs in high-altitude, tall, open forests of alpine ash and woodlands dominated by snow gum and then at the end is It usually avoids woodland, .

the key word there is "unless" after the comma after woodland... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So in each situation where it's mentioned occuring in different kinds of forest, it's always qualified by that statement? It may be worth moving to the front then, perhaps, or perhaps Where it is found in woodland, it is usually woodland near forest or with an understory of sclerophyll plants. Not sure, it just comes over a little odd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

sounds better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• the last sentence of migration may read better as However, the yellow-faced honeyeater has been found to have a broad range of characteristics; an annual cycle of migratory restlessness; seasonally appropriate orientation based on magnetic, solar and polarised light cues; and a migration program based on the magnetic inclination compass, which are consistent with the adaptations of Northern Hemisphere migrants.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll look at it some more tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

• "It was classified in the genus Lichenostomus for many years until 2011.[5]" This is a bit misleading and is not supported by the source. The use of Lichenostomus was a short lived fashion. Gould (1848) and Mathews (1911/1912) use Ptilotis. Peters 1967 uses Meliphaga. More recent usage is conveniently recorded by Avibase. Clements 3rd (1981) has Meliphaga, Clements 4th (1991) has Lichenostomus, Clements (2015) has Caligavis. Howard and Moore 2nd (1991) has Meliphaga, H&M 3rd (2003) has Lichenostomus, H&M 4th (2014) has Caligavis. (a new edition, a new genus). - Aa77zz (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

aah recentism, I forget this. Anyway, changed it a bit to reflect literature/source(s) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

More

• Taxbox: Synonyms are when the specific epithet differs - thus Sylvia chrysops and Lichenostomus chrysops are not considered as synonyms.

Wow. wasn't aware of that. I suspect the example in the first para or the lead of Synonym (taxonomy) needs removing then... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Gosh - that makes me have serious doubts! In our article on author citations there is an example using Anser albifrons (Scopoli, 1769) that states "the two different genus-species combinations are not regarded as synonyms." I'll try to find a RS. -Aa77zz (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The ICZN glossary has: "synonym, n. Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon." which probably means I'm wrong. struck. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a long discussion on this subject on the Synonym (taxonomy) talk page here. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• "studies using the mitochondrial ND2 and nuclear β-fibrinogen-7 genes identified " Perhaps not necessary to specify the actual markers used in the study. (Very few of the readers will know or care what the ND2 gene is.)

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• "were sufficiently different to be a separate genus as Bolemoreus." -> were sufficiently different to be placed in a separate genus Bolemoreus.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• " but are not universally recognised." Not recognised by whom? IOC7.1, Clements-2016, H&M4 and HBWonline all list 3 ssp.

Higgins is dubious but that is spelt out further on, so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Latham called it the black-cheeked honeyeater." but his Supplementum Indicis... cited above has "Black-cheeked Warbler" - see here.

corrected Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Description

• What colour are the breast and belly?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• What colour are the legs?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Breeding

• "The nest is a fragile, transparent structure, cup-shaped," To me the word "transparent" suggests a material that one see through. One would not describe a chicken wire fence as transparent even though one can see through the holes.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• "(Among the species that parasitize the nests..." why is this sentence in brackets?

no idea/before my time. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

• Ref 24 Munro 1999 - broken link. I can't find a replacement.

Weird...it's working for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops - I meant Ref 26 "Munro, Ursula (1999). "Adaptations to..." -Aa77zz (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sigh...can't find an alt link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

All good. Supported above. -Aa77zz (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Afterthought: the short paragraph at the beginning of the Behaviour section should end with a cite. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Getting to it. See below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Vanamonde

First off, a quick note that Cas and I are both Wikicup participants: I do not believe this will affect my review, but if somebody does, they should say so. Second, this is probably a silly question, but I feel compelled to ask it: there's something on the FAC page about one nomination at a time: but I see Corvus (constellation) listed there as well...

Well, I saw that too. The rule states "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." This exception does not seem to apply in this instance as both nominations are sole nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A fair question. I asked at User_talk:Sarastro1#Bird_production_line... as Corvus has been waiting for a source review (which can take some time) but otherwise looks near promotion. Editors here have done this from time to time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see you obtained permission to have two nominations open at once. From the point of view of the WikiCup, perhaps you could refrain from doing so in the future, if you intend to submit the articles for WikiCup points, so as not to disadvantage other competitors. (I speak as someone who has been frustrated by this rule in previous WikiCups) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the history, you'll note that almost all the article improvement took place last year. Hence the Corvus article is ineligible for this years' wikicup anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• "yellow-faced honeyeater as closely related" perhaps clearer as "most closely related..." as I'm guessing the study used all known species of honeyeater?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Surgeon-General to the First Fleet John White caught one in May 1788" I'd suggest linking or explaining "first fleet", and also substituting "a specimen" for "one"

done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if it would be useful to provide a phylogeny here, with a footnote saying that this was based on such and such a study.

I've mentioned the useful stuff in the text, so I think would be a bit redundant, and the article has quite a few image boxes as is anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay.

• Is the statement "not universally recognised" covered by the source at the end of the paragraph?

removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Description

• "Juveniles are very similar to the adult" would flow better as both singular or plural.

aligned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Could you break up the sentence about comparisons? The three semi-colons make it unwieldy.

You mean this? Agree and done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Since the article mentions a sexual dimorphism w.r.t. size, might it be useful to mention numbers for that?

the difference is very small, like 0.8 g in weight....actually I could add that I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is just my inner pedant, but I find the phrase "One of the first birds heard in the morning," to be rather colloquial: I'm also wondering if there's a little more detail available here.

missed that one. ok changed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• "counter singing" should be linked or explained.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• As with folks above, I would find a range map quite helpful. This is especially true because the prose description of the range is tricky to understand even for somebody who has visited Australia.

yeah..ok. Need to get the best one. Might take a day or two added now.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm finding the habitat section a little difficult to follow at the moment, because it reads more like a list of vegetation in which the bird is found than anything else. I am wondering if it can be structured differently, sort of a more explicit "habitat - sub-types of habitat - most common vegetation type - other types". Does that make any sense?

yes - the idea is that the specific habitats are listed commonness to rareness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Near Hastings Point in New South Wales over 100,000 passed through in a single day." I'd suggest phrasing this as "Over 100,000 birds were recorded passing Hastings point in NSW over the course of a day in MM YYYY".

good idea/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if an image of Earth's magnetic field lines can be found for the migration section: the fact of migrating along field lines is a fascinating one, but most folks don't know the first thing about magnetism.

did you have a particular picture in mind as I am not sure which would be helpful... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, I looked through the images, couldn't find one that would be worth adding...so never mind.

• I am very confused by the last sentence of the section. How is it a rebuttal to the previous sentence? Would it not be more logical to collect the information about orientation based on solar light and polarization with the information about magnetic field lines further up?

many Australian species are nomadic, following food and water rather than any set migration as such (unlike many northern hemisphere species). However this one has some migratory characteristics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I see; that's interesting! In that case, might I suggest rephrasing the following "consistent with the adaptations of Northern Hemisphere migrants" to "more often associated with Northern Hemisphere migrants." This avoids the (slight) implication that those characteristics are evolutionary adaptations to the northern hemisphere, which this bird shares (which I do not think you are trying to say?) Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Behavior

• "While it is generally active, in the early morning" This phrase is a little confusing: I'd suggest starting "While it is generally active throughout the day, in the early morning ..." Although I'm not sure whether this is what is meant here. Also, the sentence has no reference.

changed to "an active bird" - will chase a ref. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Would it not be more accurate to say "adapted to a mixed diet"? Adaptation is to current circumstances, not future possibilities.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence of 545 observations needs more context, I think. Of how many individuals? In what habitat? Also grammar seems uncertain, but we can fix that after.

read material and made more general Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• The main paragraph about food habits is a little messily structured. I would suggest starting with all the information about broad food categories, and then moving to specific types of insects and nectar.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Also, the information about mixed flocks is perhaps more logically placed with the information about the bird being seen in pairs/small groups in the previous sub-section.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "gleaning" should be linked or explained.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• "good fat reserves." perhaps "healthy fat reserves" or even just "fat reserves"?

went with "healthy" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Wow, this was quickly attacked by reviewers, so here's an image review. All files are properly licensed and sourced, but I'm wondering if a range map could be added? Also, the link to Commons seems to be a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Hi Cas, you must be reeling from all the comments above. I've actually seen this species, so I'll be gentle with you. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

meh, that'll teach me to fix up an old GA and buff for FAC...I thought I'd fixed everything... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• hundreds of thousands of them migrate— don't need "of them"

trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• are generally decreased in Victoria — "lower" rather than decreased?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Banded birds —is banded OK for OZ, sounds US to me?

HANZAB uses "banding". - Aa77zz (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

One of those places were Australia and NZ follow the US and not UK. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

strewth, yes! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I can sort of see why you spell out international units at first occurrence, not sure why they are not abbreviated thereafter

neither can I. changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No further questions, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from HalfGig

• the commons link at the bottom goes to a redirect that is one of the old genus names for this species. It should go directly to the current name, not a redirect.

moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• is there a reason FN 6 is in the middle of a sentence, not immediately after a punctuation mark, instead of at the end like the other FNs?

no. moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• writing is superb and already been addressed by several other reviewers

thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Copyvio check Earwig's tool shows no issues; most sources are offline or require some sort of access
• Source check Sources are of highest quality and have consistent formatting. I did notice all but one book is in sfn and that one is in cite web but probably because it is in ebook form, which is fine.

HalfGig talk 11:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article. HalfGig talk 14:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: There is a clear consensus for promotion here, but it is worth checking consistency of pagination: sometimes we are using "133–37" and other times "233–244". But that isn't worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2017 [8].

---

Fantasy Book

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Fantasy Book was a semi-professional science fiction magazine that appeared at the end of the 1940s, published by William Crawford, a fan who went into publishing but never had much money to invest in the business. He occasionally managed to print some surprisingly good material, though. There aren't many sources, but I've included what I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Well, it's short, but the sources are what they are. Interesting if only for Cordwainer Smith, though I really prefer Norstrilia. Only comments:

• Is there anything on how the subscriptions worked, given the irregular publication schedule?

  Nothing I've been able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would link Dianetics, scientology.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Small, but (almost) perfectly formed. A couple of nitpicks you may want to address

The figure "8" in the first line should be spelt out as "eight" per mos for numbers less than 10

You repeatedly use "sf" but it's never linked or glossed, eg "science fiction (sf)" on first occurrence.

Seems slightly odd to link Cordwainer Smith as a redirect from his birth name rather than directly from his pen name

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a gloss of "sf" in the first sentence of the body; did you miss that? Should I put it somewhere else? I fixed the other two points. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

image review

• Who is Milo? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The source says "Its cover, by 'Milo', illustrates..." which tells me that the credit in the magazine is just "Milo" and no more information is available. Per the ISFDB there are no other covers attributed to Milo. If I had to guess I'd say it was a friend of Crawford's who wasn't a professional artist. I could make the caption "...by 'Milo', about whom no more information is given", if that's more helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Milo" (with the quotes) for the caption and further explanation on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review, you altruist you. When are you going to get yourself another gold star? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review this fully soon. First thought, could we have dates in the image captions? FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I know it is stated in the table, but could a date be added to "By the time the first issue was printed"? You also give a date for the last issue in-text.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• What is meant by "semi-professional? The linked article does not really explain it, and that article itself has a link that only goes to an article about editing in general...

  I added a note which I hope covers this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  Nice, seems the article about the prize could use the note too, seems to be an FA after all... --FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now, short article, little to nitpick. --FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ian

Recusing from coord duties, copyedited a bit as usual but little to complain about prose-wise; these are nitpicks:

• "his budget limited the quality of the paper he could afford and the artwork he was able to buy"... I was originally going to query whether we couldn't trim this to "his budget limited the quality of the paper and the artwork he was able to buy" or some such, but I'm also wondering if it's a bit too self-evident a statement anyway... Budgets always limit what you can afford/buy but that doesn't always mean you can only buy substandard stuff. I assume in this case we do mean the quality of the paper was generally inferior and the quality or amount (or both) of artwork was poor -- can/should we be a bit more explicit?

  Ashley implies that it was the budget, but his point is really that Crawford used whatever paper he could find, which was often poor quality, so I think it's better to cut the reference to cost -- as you say, it's kind of obvious anyway. The important point is that he didn't have easy access to good paper. I think it's a bit clearer now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• "news-stand" -- is the hyphen an Americanism? I'd have expected "newsstand".

  Oops; just a mistake. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Following on from my first point: "Crawford's budget limited the artwork he could acquire" -- is the source any clearer about whether the limitation was in quality, or quantity, or both?

  Ashley is definite that this was a cost issue, so I've clarified this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Structure and level of detail seem fine -- I wouldn't expect a lot on such a short-lived mag (neither of my main references, Holdstock and Aldiss, even mention it!). I'll take Nikki's image review as read -- source review to follow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fairly obscure magazine. I think it would get mentioned even less than it does if it weren't for "Scanners Live in Vain". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• All book references and the online sf-encyclopedia.com are by major authors in the field; philsp.com looks more of an enthusiast's site (correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears to be used only for self-evident info re. covers and pricing so I don't think it's an issue in any case.

  It's run by this guy; he's certainly an enthusiast but he's also a respected bibliographer, so I think the site is reliable for our purposes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Formatting generally looks good but you could standardise the date formatting in FNs 1 and 5.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for both reviews, and for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2017 (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) 09:21, 22 February 2017 [9].

---

Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō was an ocean liner that was converted into an aircraft carrier as part of a large program to surreptitiously reinforce their carrier fleet leading up to the Pacific War. Completed in 1942, she and her sister ship were thrust into major roles in the war after the Japanese lost four carriers at the Battle of Midway. Jun'yō thus had a very active war and her aircraft helped to sink the US carrier Hornet in late 1942. She survived being torpedoed twice by US submarines during the war, although Japanese shortages of steel and manpower caused her damage to remain unrepaired during the last year of the war. She survived the war, but was broken up a year later as she wasn't worth repairing to repatriate Japanese troops home. The article passed a Mil-Hist A-class review a year ago and I've tweaked it since to bring up to snuff. I'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained jargon terms as well as any unfelicitous prose that may be lingering.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Good to see you back at FAC. I've looked at the changes made since I did some copyediting for A-class, and I just now finished it up. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Last year was kinda hectic, but I'm hoping that I can continue to participate at FAC again as much as I used to. Your edits look good; tightening up the text is almost always a good thing. Thanks for looking at this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Support all looks good. Just a couple of nitpicks:

• "sponsons along the sides of the hull." you conclude consecutive sentences with this phrase. Can you vary it?

• Good idea.

• "which had been falsely reported by the Imperial Japanese Army as in their hands, " I might say "incorrectly" for "falsely" unless there was intent to deceive.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's hard to say what the motive was, given the rivalry between the IJA and the IJN, but it's clear that the Army was nowhere near the airfield when they sent the message, and had to retract the message at 07:00 the next morning. Thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support all good, would recommend adding "still" to "while under construction". -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we still need a source review, unless I've missed it. This can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Source review: all sources are reliable, from reputable historans. Nothing problematic in Earwig's tool. Formatting of footnotes and full citations are consistent and complete. The only thing missing seems to be a link to Norman Polmar. Disclaimer: this is my first time doing one of these, so if there's something I missed, please let me know.Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Added, thanks for checking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment -- taking into account three reviews (different editors to the above) at MilHist ACR, I think this has had a thorough going-over, including that of a non-MilHister; Sturm, I'm going to promote but could you just check for me the low figure in the infobox for aircraft carried, because based on the info in Flight deck arrangements I made it out to be 42, not 48 (temporary blindness perhaps). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian, it's in the first bit of the 2nd para in the flight deck arrangements. 12 fighters, plus 18 each dive and torpedo bombers. Reduced after Midway to the 42 that you saw.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the infobox says 48–53 aircraft, and the way I read it was that the plan was 12 A5Ms + 4 stored, 18 D3As + 2, and 18 B5Ns = 54. For commissioning in 1942 this became 12 A6Ms + 3, 18 D3As + 2, and 18 B5Ns = 53 (high figure in infobox). After Battle of Midway it was 21 Zeros, 12 D3As and 9 B5Ns = 42 (disagreeing with low figure in infobox). BTW if FACbot goes through before we resolve then let's continue on the article talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not counting the spares, which were either triced up between the beams under the flight deck or boxed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough but then the range in the infobox would be 42–48, not 48–53, wouldn't it (based on the text)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2017 (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) 09:21, 22 February 2017 (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) 08:54, 22 February 2017 [10].

---

Nemegtomaia

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the first ever nomination of an article about an oviraptorid dinosaur, a bird-like group first thought to have been egg-thieves, but since redeemed as the parents of said eggs. This particular genus has fortunately had papers published in CC licensed journals, which means plenty of free images. All articles discussing this dinosaur have been summarised here, and for some circumstantial info I have also cited a blog-post interview with one of the scientists who described the nest. I thought it was ok to use, since the blog is owned by a published palaeontologist (Victoria M. Arbour), and it has uncontroversial info not found in any of the journal articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• comments I'll take a look: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd link palate and cranial in the lead.

neural arches, cervical vertebrae - more links

Otherwise looks good - it is clearly comprehensive. The prose is good, though I am re-reading to see if there is any possibility of using less specialized and more plain words (but this is difficult) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hence tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, but does need some neophytes to read it for accessibility. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, it always seems hard to attract reviews from "laymen"... FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments SUPPORT by IJReid

Really well written article, just one comment I've noticed so far, but more to come later. IJReid ^discuss 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The sacrum consisted of eight vertebrae" This doesn't really provide any information that would be interesting to a layperson, it doesn't mention size of this, or implication of what more vertebrae means biologically.

Yeah, the only reason this is mentioned/important is because it is one of the features that diagnose it as an ingeniine oviraptorid... Number of sacral vertebrae are mentioned as a diagnostic feature under classification, but I can drop it if it's unnecessary even at that... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it's important phylogenetically, its fine to mention that in the classification section, but probably cut it out of the description if it has no purpose there. IJReid ^discuss 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed it from the description. There is a brief mention in classification already. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Compared to the rest of the body, the skull of Nemegtomaia was deep, narrow, and short and reached 179 mm (7 in) in length" I don't think this sentence makes sense. Maybe you meant "compared to related species" or something like that, but otherwise the size mention does not fit. IJReid ^discuss 15:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that was repositioned by the copyeditor, I changed it back to: "and short (compared to the rest of the body)". Better? Or maybe the part in parenthesis isn't needed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Anything else, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fewer parenthesized terms would be better. When the terms are too complex for anyone but out knowledge to understand, use the simpler terms instead. IJReid ^discuss 01:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Always a bit hard to judge which, perhaps those Ashorocetus mentioned in the third bullet point of the GA review?[11] FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I nuked some uncommon ones throughout the article, IJReid, but many of those in the description section are found in most dinosaur FACs, so keeping them would seem to have precedence. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing left, giving it a support. IJReid ^discuss 01:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Now it would be nice with some non-expert opinions as well, though the most important thing is of course that it doesn't get archived... Perhaps it's too technical to attract reviewers, not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cwmhiraeth

I was going to do a source review but perhaps I will do a non-expert review instead.

Thanks, much needed and appreciated! FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "It had three fingers; the first was the largest, with a strong claw." - perhaps "It had three fingers, the first having a strong claw ans being the largest".

I was advised once, for whatever reason, to try not to use "ing" endings.... How about "the first was largest and had/bore a strong claw"? FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Nemegtomaia is classified as a member of the oviraptorid subfamily Ingeniinae, and it is the only known member of this group with a cranial crest." - suggest removing the "it".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "non-avian dinosaurs." - "avian" needs disambiguating.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "... in a similar position as modern birds," - "similar to".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "the third finger was smallest" - was the smallest.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The front margin of the crest was nearly vertical, and formed almost 90 degrees with the upper margin of the skull."- Awkwardly expressed.

Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• "a tooth-like projection that was directed downwards (a feature that has been called "pseudo-teeth")." - This starts in the singular and finishes in the plural.

Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• "the front part of the lower jaw" - this phrase occurs twice in adjoining sentences.

Removed one "part", better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• • In general, I commend this "Description" section as being straightforward and well-written, with sensible glossings and measurements and without excessive jargon. Very good!

Yay! FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Ingeniines are also distinguished by their smaller size ..." - this sentence uses "their" several times then stops using the personal pronoun.

Removed "their". FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "non-avian" - needs disambiguation.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "That the skeleton was directly positioned on the nest shows that it was not completely covered by sand." - This is a curious statement; I suppose you mean that the eggs were not buried in sand as are the eggs of a crocodile or turtle. (At first I thought the "it" was referring to the skeleton.)

Changed to: " That the skeleton was directly positioned on top of it shows that the nest was" Better? Tried to avoid saying nest twice. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Oviraptorid eggs appear to have been 17 cm (6 in) on average" - Long?

Yep! Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "This reproductive system would therefore be the ancestral condition for modern birds, with biparental care (where both parents participate) being a later development." - I am not sure of the logic of this statement, comparing Oviraptorids to modern birds such as ostriches and deducing that male parental care is the ancestral condition seems a non-sequiter.

It is because the system seems to pre-date the origin of modern birds, changed the text a bit, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• The paragraph starting "Longrich et al. pointed out" uses they and them in various places, sometimes referring to the researchers and sometimes to the oviraptorids.

Changed the second time the writers are mentioned to "the researchers", so them and they only refers to the animals. Better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

All issues should now be addressed, Cwmhiraeth. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• The points I raised have been dealt with, and I am now supporting this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review. Can't find any problems or inconsistencies. The only question I have is about the blog, which I agree is OK for uncontroversial information. It's used in two places, and in both cases it shares a spot with another citation, so I can't be sure what it supports. Can you identify exactly what it's used for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, first time is to support the full name "good mother of the Nemegt", as only the component words are translated in the scientific paper. Second time it is to explain the "difficult circumstances" during an excavation, and to state specifically that no trace of an egg or nest were found when the original specimen was collected. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I agree those are fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are just waiting for an image review now (unless I missed it). One can be requested, as usual, at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it has already been on the list for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• Images are Creative Commons licensed (mostly PLOS or "own work") - OK.
• Sufficient source and author information, attribution of derivative works - OK.
• File:Autruche male.jpg - added archive to source page - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (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) 08:54, 22 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 [12].

---

Nyuserre Ini

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Nyuserre Ini, pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt during the 25th century BCE. The most prolific builder of his dynasty, with three new pyramids under his belt, he also completed a further three pyramids, built the largest sun temple of the Old Kingdom period and undertook restoration works in Giza and Elephantine. Starting his reign in difficult and still debated circumstances following the death of his brother and the ephemeral rule of an uncle, Nyuserre ruled over a prosperous Egypt for three decades. After his death, he became the object of a spontaneous popular cult, where he played the role of an intercessor between the believers and the gods. This article recently reached GA status following a review by Jaguar. It is part of a series of FA articles on the Fifth Dynasty (including Shepseskare, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi, Unas and one GA Sahure), and represents 8 months of research and editing work, with more than 500 inline citations drawn from over 120 sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

Sorry I've been so slow in working on the review. I'll spot-check sources and make a few more copyedits in the next few days, but I thought I should submit these comments now.

• The article uses "Old Kingdom period" and its equivalents throughout. The normal usage is to simply say "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom", and "New Kingdom", reserving the word "period" for all the other phases of ancient Egyptian history. I wouldn't object to using "period" once, to make it clear to readers unfamiliar with Egyptian history that "Old Kingdom" refers to a time period, but in the rest of the article it should be cut.

Fixed, I am removed the word period throughout except for the first instance of "Old Kingdom". Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The article also uses the phrase "pharaoh Nyuserre" several times. Egyptological literature rarely uses "pharaoh" as a title appended to a name like this. Although I've used it in Wikipedia writing myself, I'm not entirely sure I should. Anyway, if it's going to be used that way, "Pharaoh" should be capitalized.

Fixed, I am removed all "pharaohs" appearing before the name of a king, I prefer to stick to the sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Directions (north, east, etc.) should be in lowercase, unless it's part of a proper name, as in "South Abusir". I've corrected the capitalized directions I've found, but I may have missed some.

Done, I have corrected a few ones and have been over all others to make sure there aren't any mistakes anymore. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Abusir south" sounds rather strange in English. "South Abusir" seems to be the usual term for the area in English; Lehner 2008 and Verner 1994, for example, both use it.

Corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• "He may have succeeded his brother directly, as indicated by much later historical sources, or as advocated by Miroslav Verner, Shepseskare reigned between the two, albeit only for a few weeks or months at the most."

I have rewritten this sentence to clarify it. It is now split into two sentences. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I dislike having a "main article" link at the top of a section when the link is red, but I assume you'll be creating the Pyramid of Nyuserre Ini article soon.

I want to but I don't know when I will have the time to do so. Thus I am removed the link and will put it back once the article exists. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• It might be useful to include Ludwig Borchardt's reconstruction of the sun temple: File:Temple-solaire-abousir.jpg. It's not outdated as far as I know (recent illustrations of the sun temple are virtually copies of it), and the temple is hard to picture without a reconstruction.

Yup, added! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• "At the western end of the rectangular court was a giant obelisk symbolizing the resting place of Ra." I'm not sure what "resting place" is meant to mean here—maybe related to the interpretation of the temple as a funerary temple for Ra. In any case, this claim isn't supported by either of the references later in the paragraph. The usual interpretation of obelisks in general is as a symbol of a ray of light, though I don't know exactly how Egyptologists interpret the sun temple obelisk, which isn't exactly the classic obelisk shape.

I have removed "symbolizing the resting place of Ra", I think the sentence was here when I started editing and I kept it without questioning it. I will read some more on this, but for the moment it is clearly better to remove the assertion. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The citations are all in a single column right now, which stretches the article vertically. I assume you'll want to add columns to the reflist template; 20em and 30em are the values you use in your other articles on Fifth Dynasty kings.

Fixed, this had been changed by a bot for an unknown reason. Back to normal now. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A._Parrot Thanks very much for your comments and time! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• In writing about the sun temple, you might want to link obelisk and note that obelisks were symbols of the sun god.

Good point, done. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The article implies that Nyuserre's funerary cult was more durable than those of other kings of his era. Certainly, it spends more space on his funerary cult than the articles on other Fifth Dynasty kings do on theirs. Do any sources say outright that he was more popular than other king of his era? Do they say why?

Antonio Morales, who wrote an article dedicated to the funerary cult of Nyuserre writes, as stated in the article, that only Nyuserre, Unas and Teti saw their official cult extend to the Middle Kingdom, while only for Nyuserre and Unas there are traces that this cult was uninterrupted during the First Intermediate Period. However, it seems that only for Nyuserre was there an additional, not state sponsored, popular cult reflecting Nyuserre's special standing. Quoting Morales: "In the case of Nyuserra there is strong evidence suggesting that during the First Intermediate Period and in the early Middle Kingdom the king enjoyed an outstanding position of respect at Abusir. This special status was strengthened by the popular manifestations of piety toward his deified figure that occurred in parallel to the official cult performed in his funerary establishment. Hence, it is considered here that there was a double testimony of the reverence to this king" and later on:Some references indicate that Nyuserra’s successors were aware of the importance of his role in the cemeteries of Abusir,[...] the official and popular practices of veneration show the emergence of a substantial phenomenon of devotion to [Nyuserre] as a royal ancestor and as a saint. This could be taken to mean that, according to modern Egyptology, Nyuserre was indeed more popular than other 5th Dynasty rulers in later times, at least until the New Kingdom, and that this might be because he played such an important role in Abusir: built 3 pyramids, completed 3 more. I don't state this directly in the article that he was more important, rather I simply give the evidences as the sources do (mostly Morales and Malek) so the reader can draw the same conclusion as them. The subject matter is complicated by the later appearance of cults only loosely based on OK kings: for exemple in the New Kingdom a new cult of Sekhmet appeared in Sahure's mortuary complex, although it seems this cult was more about the goddess than about the king (Borchardt posit that Sahure's temple many statues of Sekhmet prompted the cult). Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• When mentioning the statues of Nyuserre in the cache in the Temple of Ptah, you may want to briefly explain what "cachette" means.

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Source check

I've spot-checked the sources and only found a couple of irregularities:

• The page range for citation 98 should be extended to page 550.

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Express Tribune citation at the end of the "sons" section only supports the claim that Khentkawes III was Neferefre's wife. It doesn't support the claim that her son was probably Menkauhor. Maybe another source supports the latter claim, but if so, the citations need to be rearranged. If no sources support it, you may need to leave it out.

Done, there are several publications talking about Menkauhor's filiation, I took the one from the Czech institute of Egyptology, now included in the article, see here which states: If the queen was buried during the reign of King Niuserre, as is suggested, for example, by the find of mud seals, one can assume that she probably was the mother of King Menkauhor, the successor of Niuserre on the Egyptian throne. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A._Parrot Thanks again for your comments, especially regarding the importance of Nyuserre's cult, which I strive to describe as accurately as possible. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. – Masterfully written and fully referenced. My few concerns have already been highlighted by A. Parrot and resolved, namely the "period" thing and the redlinks. Khruner (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - well written and well researched article. -- Udimu (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• Images are Public Domain or Creative Commons with credible "own work" claim - OK.
• Sufficient source and author information - OK.
• File:Niuserre Iny Wadi Maghara.jpg - the original Flickr file is now hosted as "All rights reserved" on Flickr. Nevertheless the previous "Creative Commons" license for the initial upload (as verified by FlickreviewR bot) is still valid and irrevocable - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

GermanJoe Thanks for the image review! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

John

What version of English are we supposed to be in here? At present we see examples of both. This is not a good sign in a FAC. --John (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• This early version of the article contains American spellings. Shall we standardise on USEng as MOS:RETAIN suggests? --John (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

John The early version you are referring to has little in common with the current one, and I would prefer to use British English. If you could point the places where American English appears I would be happy to put it in British English. In the mean time, I hope you will appreciate that while this may not be a good sign at FAC, other clues might give a more positive view of the article: number of references and sources, layout etc. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. --John (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

John I have hunted down and changed a number of "favor" to "favour" and "honor/ed" to "honour/ed" as well as many words in "ize" into "ise" e.g. "emphasize" to "emphasise" etc. At the moment I don't see any American spelling left, but if you spot anything I have forgotten, please let me know. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

John Could you post further comments if you have any or close your comments, either by opposing or supporting the article? Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two.

• "Nyuserre was also mentioned in the Aegyptiaca, a history of Egypt written in the 3rd century BC during the reign of Ptolemy II (fl. 283–246 BC) by the Egyptian priest Manetho." The article on Manetho indicates that it may have been written later; should this mention of it say "probably written" rather than "written"?

You are completely right, I have amended the article accordingly. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I can't follow the accession theories. In the first paragraph, about the theory that Nyuserre directly succeeded his father, it seems that Neferefre = Neferirkare Kakai, so the sequence is Shepseskare, then Neferefre/Neferirkare Kakai, then Nyuserre Ini. But the next paragraph starts by saying Shepseskare purportedly reigned between Neferefre and Nyuserre Ini. Then when you say "Verner observes that Neferefre and Nyuserre were brothers", is this uncontroversial? If so, how can anyone believe that Neferefre preceded his father in the succession? Or do you mean that Verner believes this, not that it's a straightforward observation?

I have clarified the two paragraphs pertaining to the accession theories. The "traditional" hypothesis is that the royal succession was Neferirkare -> Shepseskare -> Neferefre -> Nyuserre. There are many problems with this idea, notably because Verner as shown that Neferefre was Neferirkare's eldest son, in age to take the throne at the death of his fatehr, and thus very likely did so. Another problem is that the old hypothesis credits Shepseskare with 7 years of reign, when archaeological evidences have put everyone together since ~2000 that he reigned only a few months at the most. Verner's hypothesis that Neferefre and Nyuserre were full brother is well supported by evidences and it seems, has convinced Egyptologists since c. 2000ish (2001-2). Then Shepseskare must have been a short-lived interloper between Neferefre and Nyuserre, although there is still much debate about his relationship to the other pharaohs. I have decided to present the old hypothesis nonetheless because I am not sure the new one has reached universal consensus, and the old one is found all over the pre-2000ish literature. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I have it straight now. I copyedited that paragraph; please check I didn't make any mistakes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• There seems to be a contradiction between "Nyuserre reigned for 44 years, a figure which is rejected by Egyptologists owing to the lack of archaeological evidence for such a long reign" and "The view that Nyuserre reigned in excess of twenty years is furthermore supported by archaeological evidence, which points to a fairly long reign for him". Or does the archaeological evidence place an upper limit on the duration of the reign? If so I think that should be said. I also see the comment in the Sed festival section about support for a long reign, so I think the argument against 44 years needs to be a bit more specific.

Very well spotted, actually the argument against 44 years is little more than the paucity of securely attested dates for his reign. Let me explain: during the Old Kingdom, Ancient Egyptians did not have a system of absolute dating as we do today, rather they counted years from the beginning of a king's reign and gave them names relating to important events that occured or would occured during this year. The most important such event was the cattle count, and many documents and inscriptions thus mentions the year of the Xth cattle count under king Y. In the case of Nyuserre, the latest such event attested in a document contemporaneous with his reign is the 8th cattle count, that is at most Nyuserre's 16th year on the throne. I have amended the text accordingly. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Representations of the festival were part of the typical decorations of temples associated to the king during the Old Kingdom." Suggest moving this before "Mere depictions", and joining the two sentences with "and".

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "In conjunction with the inflation of the bureaucracy was a slow weakening of the power of the king": suggest "The king's power slowly weakened as the bureaucracy expanded".

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "This situation went unchecked": do we need this sentence? It's a long article, and perhaps this belongs in a higher-level article such Fifth Dynasty of Egypt.

I have moved it to a footnote, don't hesitate to remove it completely if you find the article too long. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Yet, the earliest topographical lists of the nomes of Upper and Lower Egypt": why "yet"?

Well the Egyptians might have had such lists since long before Nyuserre given that nomes arch back to prehistory. This is a wild guess however so I have removed the "Yet". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "To the extreme south of Egypt": I'm not sure what this means. If it's within the borders of what was considered "Egypt" back then, I'd make it "In the extreme south of Egypt"; if it's south of the border, we just need "To the south".

Good point, I have removed the word "extreme". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Pyramid of Nyuserre" repeats information about the location from the paragraph just above; it would be better to refer to what's already been said.

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• You use "magazine" in what appears to be a technical sense that I'm not familiar with; can it be glossed inline, or linked?

Fixed: it means "storage room" here and I have changed the phrasing accordingly. Indeed, even though Egyptologists always use the word magazine, I think it is better to changed it to "storage room", for most readers would not be specialists. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK; I changed one more instance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Nyuserre Ini expended much effort in the completion of the pyramid and mortuary temple of his mother Khentkaus II, restarting the building works on the then still uncased pyramid core after a 12 years-long interruption which had started on Neferirkare's tenth year, and thus realising the majority of the construction": I'm not clear what this is telling me. Can you rephrase? Or explain it here and I'll see if I can come up with different phrasing.

The core (i.e. bulk) of the pyramid was the first to be built and was, during the 5th dynasty, essentially made of rubbles (i.e. not as in the 4th dynasty pyramids). Once finished the core was supposed to be encased in nice-looking, well-cut, limestone slabs giving the pyramid its smooth clean appearance. The construction of Khenthkaus' pyramid was stopped after the core was finished but before it was encased. It was left like this for 12 years, until Nyuserre decided to finish the job: encase the pyramid, built the complex around it, etc. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. How about this rephrase: "The pyramid and mortuary temple of Nyuserre's mother, Khentkaus II, had been begun by Neferirkare in the tenth year of his reign, but work had stopped with the pyramid core still uncased. After a delay of 12 years, Nyuserre Ini restarted the building work, and expended much effort in completing the majority of the construction."?

So I wrote something nearly identical with the exception that I noted that the work had stopped during Neferirkare's tenth year rather than started then: "The pyramid and mortuary temple of Nyuserre's mother, Khentkaus II, had begun during her husband's rule but was stopped in the tenth year of his reign,[45] at which point only the pyramid core was still uncased.[119] After a delay of 12 years,[120] Nyuserre Ini restarted the building work, and expended much effort[121] in completing the majority of the construction." Iry-Hor (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked this to "Work on the pyramid and...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• A general note: on a couple of occasions you refer to Neferefre as Nyuserre's brother -- for example "At least one sibling of Nyuserre is known with certainty: Neferefre was Nyuserre's elder brother" -- but in the "Reign" section it sounds as though that is by no means universally accepted. Shouldn't there be some qualification given to those comments? Or has Verner's view come to predominate?

Verner's view is clearly dominant nowadays and is backed by strong archaeological evidence. I cannot be sure however of its exact standing with respect to all Egyptologists, i.e. is it universal? I am yet to find a recent work (ie. after ~2000) where this is not accepted, so I assumed consensus. The updated "Reign" section hopefully makes it clear now. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly clearer, but I think a little more is needed to let the reader know that Verner's position is the one accepted throughout the article. If you can justify it, I would add something to the Accession section that says something like "this view has been accepted in the literature since at least 2000". Failing that, you could hedge before every reference to the theory, by saying things like "Assuming Verner's theory of the succession is correct, ..." If you don't like either option I'll see if I can find other articles that have dealt with this and get more opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike ChristieSo I introduced phrasings equivalent to the second option in the beginning of the "Main building activities" section as well as in the "Parennts and siblings" one. I do believe there is consensus on Nyuserre and Neferefre being brothers but I don't know how to prove such as thing. I can cite sources from various authors who follow this hypothesis, but how can we be sure of the universality of the consensus? In any case, in the article, the idea that Neferefre was Nyuserre's brother already has direct references from various Verner sources (of course), but also Baker, Dodson/Hilton and numerous indirect references in sources that de-facto agree with Verner's hypothesis (Barta / Krecji etc... lots to cite here). Iry-Hor (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's good enough. If you later come across something that could be used to cite general support for Verner's interpretation, you might want to come back here and add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Recent archaeological excavations": better to give a date, or range of dates.

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "This filiation is also indicated": "filiation" is quite an obscure word; how about "The relationship is also indicated", since the previous sentence makes it clear? And I see you use it a couple more times; it's not wrong, but it's certainly not going to be understood by non-specialist readers.

Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "under the impulse of prince Khaemweset": I think "impulse" is not quite the right word; perhaps "guidance"?

I put "direction". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note 4 is repeated in the text, more or less verbatim, towards the end of the article; perhaps the note could be scrapped since the point is made in the main text?

Oh! You are right, I have removed the footnote. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "At the opposite of Verner,Lehner posits that the substructures might have been finished": "At the opposite of Verner" isn't a very natural phrase, and Verner hasn't been mentioned to have Lehner in opposition in any case. How about making the note text "This is Verner's view. Lehner suggests that the substructures may have been finished"? However, I'm not sure you need the note at all -- you have "possibly unfinished" in the text, and this note really adds nothing but the names of two experts who disagree on that point.

Yes I have removed the note, I think the shorter the clearer. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. Please correct any mistakes I may have introduced in my copyedits. Overall this is in excellent shape, and is clearly a scholarly article, but there are occasional minor infelicities in the prose. I'll read through again once the points above are addressed and hope to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike ChristieThank you for your thorough review, I have updated the article accordingly and hope you will find the fixes have improved the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator notes: I think this almost ready now and we only need a review for source formatting and reliability, which (if I haven't missed it) can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Just two little points which I noticed: Could we date the various theories in "Accession to the throne"? And I wonder is the first paragraph of the lead a little impenetrable to the general reader; do we need to go into detail about the accession theories, or could we simplify that paragraph after "Alternatively, Shepseskare may have reigned between the two as advocated by Miroslav Verner, albeit only for a few weeks or months at the most"? Mike I don't know what you think about that part. In any case, that will not hold up promotion, and unless other issues arise in the meantime, we are just waiting for the source review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it might be good to simplify or cut that paragraph a little, but I'm OK with Iry-Hor's decision either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1: As a longtime editor on Egyptological subjects, I can say that most of these sources have impeccable credentials. The only ones you might question are old Egyptological sources, which are mostly cited for straightforward descriptions of artifacts and inscriptions, not for interpretations of the evidence; a recent news story that is based directly on what current Egyptologists say about a recent discovery; and a Britannica article that is used only to provide one of many possible date ranges for Nyuserre's reign. I'm not very good at spotting inconsistencies in reference formatting, but it seems consistent to me. A. Parrot (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1Mike Christie I have simplified the first paragraph of the lead, cutting the accession theories and leaving only the mention that Shepseskare's relation to Neferefre and Nyuserre remains highly uncertain. I have also dated Verner's challenge on the royal succession of the mid-Fifth Dynasty in the "Accession to the throne" paragraph in the main body of the article, indicating that the traditional theory is essentially pre-2000, while Verner's is post 2000. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also Sarastro1, I am currently participating in the wikicup and there is an intermission between the 1st and 2nd round until the 1st of March. If the article gets promoted during the intermission, I fear it wouldn't count in my tally, could you hold the promotion until the 1st of March so it gets counted? If you prefer not to, I understand. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: I'm afraid Iry-Hor that we can't really hold up promotion for the wiki-cup. Even without the backlog, and long delays at FAC these days, I don't think that would be a good precedent to set. I'm sure there is a rule somewhere that makes it eligible. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 (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) 10:31, 21 February 2017 [13].

---

Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)

Nominator(s): Syek88 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of Mozart's late piano concertos. It became a Good Article a while ago, thanks to a review conducted by Tim Riley. I encourage anyone who is not familiar with the work to listen to it while reading the article! Syek88 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:August_Gerasch_Vor_dem_alten_Burgtheater.jpg needs a US PD tag

• This has been done, I believe. Syek88 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• The tags and description on the excerpts should reflect the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have amended the licensing tags for the three score excerpts on Wikipedia Commons to reflect the copyright status of Mozart's original work (out-of-copyright, obviously). I hope this is what you meant.

Comments by Nick-D

This article is in very good shape, and I'm glad that I took your advice to listen to the music as I read it. I have only the follwing comments

• Not sure what the norms/guidelines are for FAs on classical music, but does "The concerto is divided into the following three movements..." need a reference?

• I am not sure that there are norms or guidelines. I have added a reference in any event.

• "there is a very simple four-measure bridge passage that Girdlestone calls to be ornamented by the soloist, arguing that "to play it as printed is to betray the memory of Mozart"" - why is not deviating from the score a betrayal? Is it due to an obvious flaw in the surviving original of the score, etc?

• I have expanded upon Girdlestone's quote: he says that the passage as written by Mozart is a "sketch". Girdlestone's talk about betraying the memory of Mozart is probably a reference to Mozart being known as a performer who improvised a lot - not to improvise his own compositions, especially when they are mere "sketches" - would thus betray his memory. But I'm reading into Girdlestone's mind there.

• I have to confess that I couldn't follow the technical language in the sections on the three movements, but the quotes from various musicians and experts helped to explain it. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I was mindful of trying to have enough technical language for those who could understand it, while also not making it impenetrable. I am most grateful for your comments, thank you. Syek88 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Those changes address my comments, and I'm pleased to support this nomination: great work. Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support from Sarastro1

Support (recusing as coordinator on this one): I've read this a couple of times now, and I can find little to grumble about. I can just about hang on to the musical sections and have a reasonable idea what is going on. There might be things in there I've missed, so I'd really like a musical specialist to have a look as well. With that qualification, it looks good to me from a prose point of view and seems very comprehensive. I think it does what a lot of work about Mozart doesn't do, which is to explain what made him different. Good work. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I am glad that is what you took from the article. I will mention at the Classical Music Wikiproject your request for a musical specialist. Tim Riley conducted the Good Article review but I understand that he is no longer on Wikipedia. Syek88 (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Icebob99

Oppose for now: shouldn't a discussion of significant discography be appropriate in this article? Discography is very important to how the work is viewed by the public (which thus puts it in the scope of an encyclopedia article) because it's often the only way that people can actually listen to it, and thus it is important to know which prominent artists have recorded it (and to know their respective styles as well).

I don't think so. The piece has been recorded probably around 200 times. There has been no study of those recordings as a whole. How do I pick which recordings to highlight? How do I decide who is a "prominent artist"? And how do I describe their "style". Everyone will have different opinions. Arguments will develop about which recordings to highlight. There is no objective overview of them all upon which we can rely to settle all of these questions. Moreover, any such overview would become quickly out of date.

If a piece has been recorded on only a handful of occasions, it is possible to mention them all in a short discography section. But for the more popular works, like this one, neither a full list nor a necessarily subjective selection is appropriate.

I should add that it appears from your contributions that you put all of four minutes of thought into this oppose vote. It is not clear whether you have read the article. You did not even sign your vote. Perhaps think more carefully about opposing things into which other editors have put massive amounts of effort, and about grounding an oppose not in an objective assessment of the article's merits but a personal view about what the article should do. Chances are that the editor who has put weeks of effort into the article has already thought in detail about the issue and has a compelling answer to your question. Syek88 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Syek88, before I address your concerns, I would like for you to assume good faith. Even if what you say is true (which I respectfully differ upon), that doesn't have any effect on whether my issues are actionable or not.

In regard to your responses: I found an example which I liked at Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)#Notable performances and recordings. I understand that that article is a C class article, but that doesn't mean the section isn't a good example of what I'm suggesting here. For examples in current featured articles, see Messiah (Handel)#Recordings, Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)#Recordings, Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172#Selected recordings, or Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria#Recording history. In fact, I haven't yet found a classical music featured article that doesn't have a discography section (although I haven't checked every single one).

I think the gist of your answer was that we can't include a discography section because there hasn't been a high-level academic study on the piano concerto (that we can find, at least; one probably does exist hidden away in a library somewhere). Luckily, though, we aren't limited to DMA dissertations or the like, since we can objectively detail major recordings or recording projects as long as the source is reliable and independent. I'll concede the point on artist style; what I meant was that if a formal study existed (this is where a dissertation would come in handy) and it happened to detail that an artist played the concerto in a style such as period or modern, that would be included in a comprehensive overview that FA entails. I also agree that prominent artists are very subjective; obviously, we can't list every single recording, but we can choose recordings that have received significant coverage themselves from respected sources, like a music review or highlight on a music website. Here's an example from WQXR, one of the best-recognized classical radio stations. The example details a recording which contains the 24th that WQXR (an independent, reliable, and respected source) thinks is important. Another good example is [14].

I'm not sure I understand your response about how a handful should be covered but not a large amount—wouldn't a large amount demand more coverage (to be comprehensive) than a small amount? If the issue is that a comprehensive discussion of the discography would be too long, we could always do something like Beethoven Symphony No. 3 discography or Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria discography, but that would also mean having a section of reasonable length in this article.

If you want, I can help you write this section. I'm sorry that you found my oppose !vote to be agitating enough that you lashed out at me. Yes, it took me four minutes to decide upon and craft the oppose since lack of discography was a immediate oppose for me, but I would have spent four hours if I knew that I had to provide all this material up front. Let me know if you have any other concerns with my oppose !vote; I'll be happy to strike it and !vote support once the actionable issue is addressed. Icebob99 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Beethoven's 9th is a terrible example. It illustrates precisely the points I made to you two days ago. Why are Bernstein and Solti highlighted but Karajan not? The answer is that someone on Wikipedia has decided that Bernstein and Solti are worth mentioning but that Karajan isn't. It's a bad decision brought about by the fact that the section of the article is not based on an independent review of recordings. Additionally, what does the fact that Bernstein and Solti recorded the symphony even tell us? The answer is "absolutely nothing". It is irrelevant to the symphony itself. Even so, what sets Beethoven's 9th and Handel's Messiah apart is their iconic status. The history of recordings of those works is well document. K. 491 isn't in that category. The phantom library paper you bizarrely mention does not exist. The WQXR "20 essential Mozart recordings" is singularly unhelpful: over my dead body will you have me include that as a reference in the article, and over my dead body will I accept the request to "help write" a discography section that has no place in the article. I'm sorry but at this point, continuing to reply to your oppose is starting to become bad for my blood pressure. I'm not going to lower the standard of a 100% academically sourced article with a meaningless and subjective discography. It won't happen and I can only hope that whoever decides upon the fate of the article recognises your oppose as the groundless four-minute job that it is. Syek88 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Syek88, please remain civil. We're trying to help improve this article so it can be a featured article, and we can only do that together when we maintain an attitude of respect and cooperation.

Regarding the Beethoven example: I chose that one because I liked how it laid out the format, not necessarily the content. If you think its content is lacking, find a source and add the info about Karajan. I disagree about how only articles about iconic works should have discography sections. Two other featured article examples I listed above were Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172#Selected recordings and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria#Recording history. Both are about as recognized (in my experience) as this piano concerto, and none of those are iconic in the way of Beethoven 9 or Messiah.

I think we can avoid the threat of a biased section by listing the relevant literature of reliable and independent sources. I listed a couple examples of those above. You don't have to use WQXR if you don't like it, I listed it because it's reliable and independent. We can also avoid the problem of editorial bias by simply listing every notable recording (which might deserve its own article at that point, see the Beethoven Symphony No. 3 example I gave above), but I think that would be an unnecessary amount of effort.

I hope you'll take the time to work with me on this. I think I've put forward a legitimate concern, and we would all benefit from responding civilly at the very least. I had to take a few deep breaths too, nothing wrong with doing so. Cheers, Icebob99 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not doing it. No other reviewer has made this suggestion, and in that I include the highly experienced classical music specialist who conducted the Good Article review. I have explained why I don't think a discography section has any place in this article and have nothing further to add. Syek88 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Coord note: Having checked over several classical music FAs, it appears to me that discographies are not standard, although some articles certainly include them. Based on this I think it has to come down to the consensus of reviewers here as to whether this particular article should include one, and we don't appear to have such consensus. That said, I see no evidence of bad faith in this opposing commentary, and I strongly recommend to the nominator that they treat dissenting voices at article reviews more cordially, even if they disagree with them. Most nominators at FAC put many hours into their work, and still they will not consider everything, which is why we have reviewers. Mutual respect between the parties, each of whom is vital to the FAC process, shouldn't be that difficult. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Graham Beards

Support - a thoroughly researched and well written article. Should "due to Mozart notating" be "due to Mozart's notating"? I agree that input from another specialist would be useful; my knowledge is limited to relative majors and their minors. Graham Beards (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham. I have changed the sentence in which those words appear, and they appear no longer. Syek88 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerda

Thank you for a great article! Only minor concerns:

Infobox

• How about W. A. Mozart, as a little tribute to his own writing of his name (Wolfgango Amadeo in Italy, Wolfgangus Amadeus in the C minor mass, and preferedly Wolfgang Amadé)?
• We are asked to keep them concise, - the genre is clear from the title, and IF mentioning Style, better Classical period, because many readers may understand Classical music.

• I have made both of these changes.

Lead

• There's a lot of information in the opening sentence, - can we get to Mozart sooner, and to the pianoforte later, perhaps in a second sentence?

• I have made this change.

• Mention that Mozart played and conducted himself, perhaps also mention him improvising?

• I am not convinced that this is a sufficiently significant detail for the opening paragraphs. It says more about Mozart and contemporary performance style than it does about K. 491: a good detail for the lengthy part of the article but perhaps not for the brief summary?

• Piano Concerto No. 23 (K. 488) in A major - that's again a lot. We have a link, - no surprise that #23 came before #24, the K# hardly relevant when we want to know about the C minor piece ;) - my suggestion: Piano Concerto in A major. Same for D minor, and other concertos mentioned later.

• I have removed the Köchel numbers in every case and the reference to "No. X" where chronological relationship to K. 491 is clear from the surrounding circumstances.

Background

• premiere of The Marriage of Figaro? No, Le nozze di figaro was premiered. That's an opera with dark sides: la contessa missing the love of her husband, Barbarina singing in F minor that she lost something (which may hae been more than a needle), figaro's jealousy, etc.

• On the first point, wikipedia's own article is Marriage of Figaro. As this is an English-language article and an English-language website, it seems sensible to use English but also to be internally consistent. On the second point, Figaro being a sunny major-key opera is straight from the academic source, so I am confident in repeating it. I also think it is correct: the one or two minor-key numbers do not fundamentally change the nature of the opera as comic, good-hearted, 95% major-key, and with a happy ending.

• While I find the complete listing of number, K# and key too much, "the No. 24" seems too short. How about the concerto in A major? I'd relate to a key = mood more than just a number.

• But "No. 24" is this concerto -- the C minor one. I'd usually use "K. 491" as a shorthand, but we can't do that. Calling it the "C minor concerto" would be too much as it's the very concerto in the title of the article, so the shorter the better.

Overview

• In Bach cantata articles, that section is called Structure and scoring, and comes with a table for the movements, - take a look at BWV 125.

• I think that works for a five or six-movement work, but not a three-movement work. A table for a three-movement work might be distracting and overkill for the limited amount of information it will contain.

• link 3/4 time?

• I've linked to Time signature#Most frequent time signatures

• "cut common time" was no familiar term to me, but the link helps.
• flute is a broad article on the family, perhaps Western concert flute would be better?

• I have done this.

• clarinets: perhaps worth finding out when Mozart (and others) began using clarinets at all which were regarded as folk music instruments before

• I think the answer is that it was just one of a great many instruments developed in the 18th century and, unlike most, it succeeded. Anyway, I have added this sentence: "The clarinet was not at the time a conventional orchestral instrument." The sentence is grounded in Clarinet#History. That should be sufficient to explain to the reader that it was the clarinet, not the flute, which Mozart was bringing into the orchestra in his late career.

• How about a few words about the sound of a fortepiano, for readers who are not familiar with the term? Yes, we have a link, but ... Music is sound, not only structure ;)

• I have done this.

Recapitulation, cadenza and coda

• Consider ending on "the final pianissimo chords". The following sentence adds nothing to this great ending ;)

• Yes, I like this change and have made it. Thank you.

I will look at the rest later, perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Back:

Second movement

• In "This was not always the case: Mozart's first sketch of the movement was much more complex.", I'd be happier without "This was not always the case:".

• I have removed these words.

• Not sure I know what "bridge passage" means, probably "Überleitung" in German?

• I have changed to "bridge or transitional passage". The adjective transitional might be more descriptive.

• Can we avoid the repetition of A-flat major in two consecutive phrases? Link the new key? (and new keys later)?

• I have done this on both counts.

• "The use of a recurring principal theme ("A", in E-flat major) and two secondary sections ("B", in C minor, and "C", in A-flat major) makes the movement characterisable as being in rondo form.", - many words about ABACA being rondo form, - not sure it's needed at this point.

• I have shortened this considerably - I agree it was too wordy.

• "Brendel further argues that the time signature for the whole movement is a notational error", - how about "another notational error"? - That tempo reflection deserves a bit more explanation to be clear.

• I have done this on both counts, the second by referring to cut common time as requiring two beats per bar rather than four.

Third movement

• "C-minor theme"? "C minor-theme"? "C-minor-theme"? "theme in C minor"?
• I have changed it to: "The third movement features a theme in C minor followed by eight variations upon it."
• Are the Roman numerals for the variations from the score? Readers might be served better by normal numbers, but I understand at least the French use Roman numbers for movements.

• The roman numerals are the most common form of academic reference. I think it works here to distinguish variation numbers from movement and other numbers.

• "Variations II to VI are what Girdlestone and Hutchings separately describe as "double" variations." - How about "independently" instead of "separately"?

• I have made this change.

• The refs after that should be in ascending order.

• I have made this change.

• Aren't there musicologists who found better descriptions (for IV-I) than "cheerful", "graceful" and "the most moving"? All very general, not really worth quoting.

• I thought the quotes would help convey the effect Mozart created by throwing two major variations into the mix to surround a minor-key variation. To the non-musically literate, those quotes say more than the keys do. I appreciate that for the musically literate they are superfluous, but we have to strike a balance for both kinds of reader.

• "Variation VII is half the length of the preceding variations, as it omits the repeat of each eight-measure phrase." Is that a different meaning from "Variation VII is half the length of the preceding variations, as it omits the repeats."?

• I don't think we can do this because they are not "repeats" as such, with :||. Instead, the phrase is often written out a second time, with changes. So the phrase is "repeated" but there is no "repeat".

• "(which, in C minor, are composed of F, A-flat and D-flat)" holds up the flow, is boring for those who know, and difficult for those who don't. We have a link. I'd drop it.

• I have done this.

• "[w]e shall never be able to do anything like that." - can we have the German original also, at least in a footnote, as the source is offline? What does it mean that part of a word in the quote is in brackets?

• I am struggling to find the German original for this. The brackets are just a decapitalisation from "We" to "we".

• "encouraging Clara Schumann to play it and writing his own cadenza for the first movement." - how about "writing his own cadenza for the first movement and encouraging Clara Schumann to play it.", - to avoid interpreting that Clara wrote the cadenza.

• I have changed this sentence to clarify.

• Again, can we have the German original for "masterpiece of art and full of inspired ideas." I would not know how to say that in German.

• I have traced, found, and included the German original. The translation is Eric Wen's.

• "Musicologist Simon P. Keefe ... writes that the No. 24" - why an article for the number, but not "The musicologist"?

• I have made this change.

Great music, thank you again for covering it in depth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these comments. I hope I have either addressed all of them or explained why not. Perhaps the one thing I can't do satisfactorily is chase the German original for the Beethoven quote. I think that will take me some time and one or two library visits. I promise at least to make those library visits, but if is not essential for this article to be an FA, perhaps I can be cheeky and ask for a little time? Syek88 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes, and for the detailed explanations. I think it's FA quality, with or without Beethoven, but hope of course that you will keep searching. I cheerfully support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked again, and wonder if we might have a better lead image than the overly well known posthumous portrait of the composer, - something more specific to the piece, perhaps a period fortepiano? We don't have an image of Bach in the lead of his compositions, better something he wrote, compare Mass in B minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a think about it. I'm certainly open to the idea of a fortepiano (despite my preference for modern instruments!), and I too don't think the Mozart image is ideal, although I have to be sure I get the right fortepiano lest the period instrument crowd get offended... Syek88 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Switched image for File:FortepianoJAStein.JPG. Closest to the period we have on Wikipedia. Feel free to change again — Iadmc♫^talk  20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I like it. Next, we need a precise caption, and also an "alt", an alternate description to tell people who can't see the image what they would see, - for all images, please. For examples look at any established FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Iadmc

The article meets all the Featured article criteria. Minor quibbles on style: "hitherto" is a little old fashioned these days, IMO; "This amounts to the largest orchestra for which Mozart composed any of his concertos" could be better written as "This is largest orchestra for which Mozart composed any of his concertos". Other than that, great article! Hope to see it on the front page very soon — Iadmc♫^talk  21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and support. I have made both of those changes. Syek88 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. It should pass no problem — Iadmc♫^talk  19:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Outstanding checks

• Unless I missed it above, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability.
• Also I gather this is the nominator's first FAC, in which case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. Both checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian. I have requested both checks. Syek88 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review and spot checks

• Sources fine for reliability and formatting.
• Ref 8 is currently dead.
• Spot checks of the available online references (3, 6, 7, 38) reveal no problems. I suppose we could look at some of the print sources (which I don't have access) but I don't think any further spot-checks are required based on what I found. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarastro. I have substituted the dead link in Reference 8 for an archived link. Syek88 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2017 (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) 10:31, 21 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2017 [15].

---

Æthelflæd

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Æthelflæd, daughter of Alfred the Great, Lady of the Mercians and the foremost female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (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) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, close to a support. Some initial thoughts:

• "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule, East Anglia and Northumbria having been conquered and Mercia partitioned between the English and the Vikings, but in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington."- a long sentence; any way of breaking after "the English and the Vikings."?

• I think it could do with more detail to clarify. How about "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule: East Anglia and Northumbria had been conquered, Mercia was partitioned between the English and the Vikings, and Wessex was on the verge of defeat. However, in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington, and Wessex was never seriously threatened thereafter." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Æthelred played a major role in fighting off renewed Viking attacks in the 890s, together with Alfred's son, the future King Edward the Elder. " - is Edward therefore her brother? If so, might be simpler to describe him that way.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• "His health probably declined early in the next decade," - I found "his" a bit awkward here, as we'd had two men mentioned in quick succession before.

• Changed to "Æthelred's health". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• " and the Mercian rulers were buried there." - which Mercian rulers? I may have missed something here.

• I was using a symonym for Æthelfæd and Æthelred, but it is a bit confusing as I mention Æthelred's death in the next sentence. Best delete? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd delete it - it's doesn't feel crucial here, and without a synonym it would feel a bit clunky. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Shortly afterwards the York Vikings offered her their loyalty, " - would "Vikings in York" sound more natural? not sure...

• York Vikings is the usually term and sounds better to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Æthelflæd was succeeded by her daughter Ælfwynn but in December Edward took personal control of Mercia and carried Ælfwynn off to Wessex." - I'd have gone for a comma after AElfwynn

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• "According to Pauline Stafford, "Like a latter-day Elizabeth I..." the MOS would permit the lower case "like" which would help the flow

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the cited works give location and publisher (e.g. London, UK: Cambridge University Press) others just publisher (e.g. Oxford University Press, Yale University Press.) - the style should be consistent

• Done. I could only find one location I missed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters needs the location as well (KCL : London, I'm presuming). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Miller, Sean (2004). "Edward [called Edward the Elder] (870s?–924), king of the Anglo-Saxons". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. reference is wrongly cited; the version linked to is the

online edition, September 2011. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Changed year to 2011. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think the ODBN still need the Oxford location in the bibliography.

• I have never given locations for websites and they are not given for other FAs I have checked, such as William the Conqueror and Middle Ages. I doubt whether it is sensible to give a location as the server may not be located in Oxford. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• The formatting of the referencing in footnote d) looks odd - it's a long in-line citation, as opposed to the short citations in the rest of the article.

• I am not sure how to deal with this as it is a poem in a book I have not checked myself, only a copy of the poem in a book I have checked. Nikki can I ask you to kindly advise yet again? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd suggest two citations: Szarmach directly for the "freely" comment, and then an embedded cite for the poem itself. Within that ref you're going to have "{{cite book}} quoted in {{sfn}}", with the original source in the first template and Szarmach in the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Nikki. I think I have tried this but I must be getting something wrong as it does not come out right. I have tried: "Henry of Huntingdon's poem was translated, "freely" according to Paul Szarmach who quotes it, by Thomas Forester in The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon." It is very odd that ref 2 comes out below as "quoted in [blank]", but if I leave out {{reflist}} it comes out OK. That looks like a bug. There does not appear to be any provision in cite book to show a different publisher and location for a reprint. Can you advise further please Nikki? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, that's my mistake on the first one actually - try using {{harvnb}} instead of {{sfn}}, it should work better. On the second, the template documentation actually suggests shoving all those details into |orig-year=, which I think looks odd but is an option. Failing that, you could omit the location of the reprint and include the publisher as an edition statement, or simply hand-build rather than templating that first part of the cite. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks again Nikki. I have put all the orig details in orig-year. Any further points Hchc2009? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just butted in with this edit, as e.g. "freely" was repeated and it looked as though formatting had gone awry somewhere. I hope it's an improvement, but revert by all means if I've got the wrong end of the stick. Nortonius (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nortonius for improvement. I have tweaked it and hope it looks OK now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree it's an improvement Dudley – I've just tinkered with the punctuation there, I hope that looks good to you too.[16] Nortonius (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Great thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Apart from that, all looks good. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Nortonius

Lead:

• Soon afterwards, Æthelred became the ruler of the English-controlled western half of Mercia as Lord of the Mercians and accepted Alfred's overlordship. I realise this needs to be brief, but I think Æthelred needs a slight introduction, e.g. by re-jigging the sentence as something like "Soon afterwards the English-controlled western half of Mercia came under the rule of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, who accepted Alfred's overlordship."

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• In 909 Edward sent a West Saxon and Mercian force to raid northern Danish territory ... I would clarify as "Edward, who by then had succeeded his father Alfred as king, ..." and "Danish-controlled territory to the north", the latter so the reader isn't tempted to think of a naval expedition to Denmark or beyond.
• ... and the Mercian rulers were buried there: per your suggestion I would delete.

• Changed to "Edward had succeeded as King of the Anglo-Saxons in 899, and in 909". Also "northern Danelaw", which means I can link for clarification. I have deleted "Mercian rulers were buried there". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• the York Vikings: my own preference would be for "the Vikings of York", just so you know. "York Vikings" seems a bit journalistic to me.

• I have gone for "the Viking leaders of York". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, more accurate. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• completed the re-conquest of Mercia: strictly, shouldn't this be "completed the conquest"? Or something like "completed the conquest of Danish-controlled Mercia." For example Pauline Stafford, in Unification and Conquest, p. 7, touches on "the conquest of Danish England by [the] children of Alfred", which is how I would see it. Sorry, I don't mean to take us off down a rabbit hole ... Anyway I see you have "reconquest" (no hyphen) in the next paragraph.

• Changed both to "conquest". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• the dread of his enemies, a woman of enlarged soul: " ... [and] a woman of enlarged soul"?

• I do not think we need to insert a word in the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

On second thought I do think it works as is, it's just that to me the sentence structure calls for an "and". But I'm happy to drop this. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Has Pauline Stafford really described Æthelflæd as "like a latter-day Elizabeth I"?! The quotation's repeated below, so I suppose she must have. But I thought Æthelflæd came first ... Is Stafford referring to some great resurgence of Æthelflæd's stock since the reign of Elizabeth I, perhaps? Otherwise surely it doesn't work.

• I assumed that Stafford meant in the Middle Ages, but I take your point that "latter-day" is misleading. Stafford can be a bit careless, but I think the quote is worth keeping unless others disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I think I was so staggered by "latter-day" that I missed the message in the rest of the quotation – I fully sympathise with the comparison as Æthelflæd clearly is a remarkable figure, but I really want to resist "latter-day". Stafford's sentiment could easily be paraphrased. But you're quite right to wait for other views, of course. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "like...Elizabeth I she became a wonder to later ages."?

Yes indeed. I'm surprised Stafford's use of "latter-day" wasn't picked up by peer review or at an editorial stage. Nortonius (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. (I have stopped going to PR as it was producing minimal results, but I took the article through A-Class.) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a strong impression that even many academic books and journals are submitted to minimal editorial review these days, whether by peers or publishers. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've only looked at the lead so far, I'll try to look further when I can. Nortonius (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Background:

• A link for Ceolwulf II of Mercia

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• His successor, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred, is first seen in 881 ...: the next sentence feels a little repetitive having read this information already, and to me a simple fix would be to delete "His successor" (and of course the comma after "husband Æthelred").

• I think this is needed. The lead says that Æthelred was Lord of the Mercians but it has not been stated that he was the successor to King Ceolwulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean by "needed", but perhaps it hinges on what we mean by "successor", i.e. Æthelred wasn't King of Mercia in succession to Ceolwulf; and in the third sentence in that paragraph he's described simply as "ruler". From a different perspective we might call Æthelred a warlord, and I don't think he's strictly a "successor". To me it seems fine simply to introduce Æthelred in the sentence under discussion, because its information suggests the emergence of an important figure in Mercia after 879, who, in the next (third) sentence, we are told became its ruler. I'd just like to avoid any sense of repetition. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

How about changing "His successor, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred," to "His successor as the ruler of the English western half of Mercia, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred," and deleting "Around this time, Æthelred became the ruler of the English western half of Mercia."? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the 890s, Æthelred and Alfred's son: this confused me for a moment! I would suggest switching information around, e.g. "Æthelred and [[Edward the Elder|Edward]], Alfred's son and future successor, ..."

• Done. ("future successor" sounds a bit odd to me, but I see it is widely used.) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel the oddness too and I'm not stuck on "future", e.g. "eventual" might do – but I think the flow of the sentence is much better now. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "future". "eventual" implies a long time in the future. Dudley Miles (talk)

Fine by me. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• "a conspiracy of silence": I think there needs to be a citation at the end of the sentence, especially if this is a quotation. Otherwise lose the quotation marks, as it's perfectly good English.

• The first two sentences are about Wainwright's views with a cite at the end. I do not see the need to cite each sentence separately. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree, but I understand it to be a MOS requirement to have a citation at the end of a quotation, even when that quotation does not end a sentence – or so I was persuaded quite a long time ago. I don't remember exactly where or how that arose, but looking at WP:CITE the lead says "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." You might want to seek an opinion from someone more familiar with the MOS than I am, and if it is a quotation. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a quotation. Nikki would you advise please. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've also heard that argument, but while it certainly doesn't harm anything to have the citation, I'm not sure it is explicitly a MOS requirement that it be in that sentence and not the next - though see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

To Nikkimaria's comment, having read the page she linked to and in the interests of transparency, I would add that I've now found where this issue arose for me: it was at Talk:Reculver/GA1#Some comments about referencing. I'm not suggesting anyone should read that, but I have. With hindsight I think it gave me the wrong impression and I'm happy to drop this now, if everyone else is too. My own feeling is that, while I support the idea of a citation for every quotation, it can produce some very inelegant results. I recall that it pained me to write e.g. "In that year a "monumental showdown"[39] began", which I did in the wake of that GAN. Nortonius (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

As there is no MOS prohibition on putting the citation at the end of the next sentence I will keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me, and I'm striking the similar comment below. Nortonius (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• elements were incorporated in: "incorporated into"?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Family

• A link for Gloucester

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Æthelflæd and Æthelred

• A link for Winchester

• Done. (I have deleted this reference to Winchester as I have mislaid the source, but linked at first mention.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Worcester was able to preserve ...: I think either this needs to be "The church at Worcester ..." or the link for Worcester in the same paragraph needs to be moved here.

• Moved. Blair probably did mean the church of Worcester but he did not say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to that source (it's on Google Books but the relevant pages are omitted for me), and I don't mean to confuse things, but, given the title of the book, I think it would be fair to assume here that by "Worcester" he means "the church at Worcester" – i.e. I don't think you have to read it too literally. But then you evidently do have access to the source, so I leave it entirely to you. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• This was the only occasion in Alfred's life when husband and wife are known to have acted jointly: "husband and wife" here reads like it could refer to anybody, I would change it to "they". Unless you mean "anybody", in which case maybe "when any husband and wife ..." And, might "Alfred's lifetime" be better?

• Done both. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• They granted the church of Worcester a half share of the rights of lordship, covering land rents and the proceeds of justice: where? A half share presumably of "their lordship", but in Worcester, in English Mercia, or ...? The next sentence mentions the city of Worcester and seems to suggest the lordship was originally "proprietorial" to the church at Worcester, so within its jurisdiction, but I think it needs clarification.

• I do not like saying "their rights" as they were apparently granting the church half of its own property. How about changing "As the rights of lordship had previously belonged to the church" to "As the rights of lordship had previously fully belonged to the church"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"As the rights of lordship had previously belonged fully to the church" would avoid "previously fully", but that seems good. "Where" remains implied though, to my mind. Perhaps the preceding sentence might begin "They granted the church of Worcester a half share of the rights of lordship in the city, ..." if that's the case. It would fix it for me. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"rights of lordship over the city" sounds better to me.

Good. Nortonius (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• A link for de facto? It's available and just a suggestion.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Vikings then joined with the Danes ...: I think this is a long sentence, especially given the absence of any punctuation. It could easily be split as "... Æthelflæd had fortified the town. She and her husband ..."

  I do not think this works. The sentence says that the attack failed because of x and y. Hiving off y into a separate sentence would be confusing. I have added some punctuation to make it easier to follow. What do you think? I could add a second "because" as "and because she and her husband persuaded" if this would make it clearer, although another editor might object to the repetition of "because". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the new form is fine. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Æthelflæd re-founded Chester as a burh ...: move link for "burh" from the next paragraph to here.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• she is believed to have restored its Roman defences by running walls from the north-west and south-east corners of the fort to the River Dee: if this is what Hadley says then perhaps fair enough but the connection with the river seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, as the sentence stands. As far as I'm aware any walls running to the river would have been additions to Roman ones, and formed an enclosed extension to them.[17] I think saying Æthelflæd "restored and reinforced its Roman defences" would be better.

• You are right she does say that they were additions. How about "she is believed to have enhanced its Roman defences by running walls"

Excellent. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• northern Danish territory: fix as above in the lead, presumably?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the late ninth century Gloucester had become a burh (fortified settlement): "late-ninth"? And unlink Gloucester and Winchester, unless you want duplicate links here to help the reader, in which case move the link for Gloucester to the end of the preceding sentence. Also "burh" hasn't been qualified explicitly as a fortified settlement in previous appearances in this article, if you want the qualification I think it needs a first appearance in the lead and then above this in the body; but I would rather drop it entirely, especially the parentheses. Note also my earlier comment about moving the link for burh up from this sentence.

• I would say no to late-ninth. In my view there are far too many unnecessary hyphens in Wikipedia! I have unlinked Gloucester, but 'Highlight duplicate links' is not tagging Winchester. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I sympathise about hyphens. It can only be my mistake that I believed there was a duplicate link for Winchester. Looking through this again I realise that you deleted an earlier mention of Winchester – actually there have also been some odd edit conflicts here, they made no odds so I didn't mention them. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester: the sentence seems a bit bald, I would change to "also built".

• I do not see this. "also" to what? How about changing "The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester. The minster was small but embellished on a grand scale, with rich sculpture." to "The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester, and although the building was small, it was embellished on a grand scale, with rich sculpture."

I had in mind that here the focus is on Gloucester, so among other things they "also built a new minster" there – but I like your suggestion, with an extra comma in "and, although". Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved the comma rather than adding one. Does it look OK to you? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, excellent – I'm annoyed with myself for not thinking of that. Nortonius (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• when Oswald's remains were brought to Gloucester in 909, Æthelflæd had them translated to the new minster: as I understand "translation", and as the word is used elsewhere in this article, this translation was from Bardney to the new minster in Gloucester, rather than from arrival in Gloucester to their deposition in the new minster. I would change to "deposited in" or similar.

• I intended translation from Bardney, but I obviously did not make it clear. I am reluctant to lose the meaning that they were formally translated, not just deposited. How about "Æthelflæd had them formally translated from Bardney to the new minster". I have linked translated in case anyone is confused. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good, though I think "translated" presumes "formally" per the linked article, so I wouldn't worry about that word and would drop it. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the same sentence, "Priory" is anachronistic here I believe, beginning with Cluny, and could be fixed by a change to e.g. "which was re-dedicated to him" or "to Oswald" and by moving the link for St Oswald's Priory to the preceding sentence, piping it as a link behind "a new minster", as it appears in the lead. "Priory" also occurs in the next sentence.

• Yes you are right. I have gone through removing the word "priory" except where it refers to the later medieval building.

• raiding as far as the Bridgnorth: "the" is presumably a minor slip.

• Done Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• the Danish midlands: "Midlands"?

• Done Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Lady of the Mercians

• Italics for Bremesburh, Scergeat and Weardbyrig I would expect? Someone somewhere (!) thinks Bremesburh is Bromsgrove (q.v.) – at times like this I wish I had access to the English Place-Name Society's generally marvellous volumes, although I've no idea if they would help here.

• I have seen that unknown place names are often italicised, but I have never known whether it is a rule that they should be. I take it you think they should be?

I do. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC may be most relevant here, since we are writing in modern English. Nortonius (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that the Electronic Sawyer lists a source that identifies Weardbyrig as Gwespyr, or at least claims to.[18] Nortonius (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This suggestion does not appear to have been taken up by other historians, and a location so deep in Wales seems very unlikely. David Griffiths, writing in 2001, after the Gwespyr article was published, says (p. 168) that Warburton in Cheshire has been suggested, but that a location in the West Midlands is more likely. Costambeys in 2004 describes the location as unknown. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

*Tim Clarkson, who describes Æthelflæd as "renowned as a competent war-leader", regards ...: that MOS citation issue again. But see my revised comment above, prompted by Nikkimaria's comment. I'm on the verge of striking this, I'm just waiting for a response above that will push me into doing it.

• Norse (Norwegian): I think "Norwegian-Norse" or similar would be better, principally losing the parentheses. Looking again I see you have dealt with this differently above, e.g. by linking "Norse" to Norwegians. In light of that I would suggest just "Norse" here.

• Historians of Anglo-Saxon England use Norse Vikings to mean Norwegian ones, but Norse can mean Scandinavians generally as in Norsemen, so to avoid misunderstanding I think it is best to spell out with the parenthesis as well as the link how the term is being used here. I have moved the parenthesis to the first mention of Norse. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is an issue that I've noticed, e.g. here, where we both commented at different points. It's really the parentheses I'm stuck on – I was taught that, if I used them, I needed to re-write so that they became redundant. Anyway, perhaps because of that, I think they should be avoided in prose where possible. On the other hand I note that MOS:BRACKET isn't terribly bothered, except where it says "[i]t is often clearer to separate the thoughts into separate sentences or clauses". Nortonius (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think brackets are a useful tool if used sparingly, and the best solution here. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Then carry on by all means. Nortonius (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Ragnall" is presently linked to a page for a village, switch it to Ragnall ua Ímair, presumably. In the same sentence I would change "the army of Scots and Northumbrian English, which fought" to "the army of Scots and Northumbrian English that opposed": otherwise "the army" feels odd; I'm not sure why the comma is needed; and the army didn't fight only Ragnall.

• Corrected the careless Ragnall error. Sentence now reads "According to the Three Fragments, in 918 Æthelflæd led an army of Scots and Northumbrian English against forces led by the Norse Viking leader Ragnall at the Battle of Corbridge in Northumbria." Does that look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes that looks good. Nortonius (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Three Fragments also stated: should that be "state", or maybe "states"?

• I am not sure about that. Any views Dan? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of the verb "state" here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's the tense that's bothering me, not the verb, although alternative verbs are available of course. Nortonius (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• the Mercian abbot Ecgberht: strictly I think this ought to be "a Mercian abbot named Ecgberht", since there almost certainly were more than one during Mercia's existence. It seems that PASE doesn't replicate searches via a link very well, so to be clear I'm looking at their Ecgberhts 11, 20 and 22.

• Changed to "a Mercian abbot" without naming him. As he is unknown apart from this mention, I do not think his name is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is "specie" an uncommon term? Might "coins" be adequate?

• I would rather keep "specie". I have already used "coin" or "coins" three times in a short paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As you might guess I think "specie" is an uncommon term. I would suggest linking it – but I see that Specie is a disambiguation page where the relevant link offered is to Coin. I don't think I'd mind a bit if I saw the word "coins" again here, but "coinage" would be a sensible variation here, if that's what you want. "Specie" seems a bit, erm, elegant... Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not see what is wrong with "specie", but how about linking it to "coin"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How about I just drop this and go with the idea that WP isn't a dictionary? I just think it's unnecessary to avoid using the word "coin" again, but if you want to say "specie" I won't stop you! Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Death and aftermath

• 75 mi (121 km): I think "mi" looks odd here, I would change "|abbr=on" to "|abbr=out" in the template.

• Changed. I very rarely put in conversions at all, so it was almost certainly added by another editor, and I trust whoever it is does not mind the amendment. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately porticus redirects to "Portico", which article doesn't cover the meaning intended here. Nor indeed do any of the dictionaries that I just had a quick look at. Someone ought to at least create a stub for the meaning intended here and at e.g. St Mary's Church, Reculver, where I worked around this problem by briefly explaining the structure at the first occurrence. I just created a stub for "porticus".

• Many thanks. You will see that I made a copy edit to the Porticus article. BTW you have "kings of Kent", which looks wrong to me. I would prefer "Kings of Kent". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

All I did was create the stub, you must edit it as you see fit – although there I don't see "kings of Kent" as a formal title, for example the sentence could equally read "Anglo-Saxon kings, for example those of Kent, ..." and rulers like Æthelflæd and Æthelred of Mercia, according to Wm of Malmesbury. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• William of Malmesbury wrote that the burial places ...: "their burial places", so as not to include Oswald here?

• Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• some historians such as Ian Walker, think: in efn b is that comma redundant?

• Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• in early December Edward deposed her: I'd be grateful if you were to add the year here. While I think it would in any case be helpful to specify the year in which this happened, as a reader I would be disappointed not to see it.

• Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• the deposition of Ælfwyn: a typo

• What is the problem here? According to OED this is a correct use of "deposition". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer – the typo is in "Ælfwyn", vs Ælfwynn. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not notice. Corrected now. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• I think a direct citation of Forester's "translation" of "Heroic Elflede! ..." might be useful. If it helps the details are Forester, Thomas (trans. & ed.), The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon Comprising the History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Cæsar to the Accession of Henry II. Also, the Acts of Stephen, King of England and Duke of Normandy, London: Bohn, 1853, p. 168. Incidentally I notice Forester has "Heroic Elflede ! great ...", i.e. with a space before the exclamation mark – I would want to add that space, but you might not be the least bit interested! Which would be fine by me.

• I do not like using Forester's original translation as it is arguably OR. Szarmach's citation and comment that it is a free translation sets it in context. I am also dubious about adding the space - that sort of detail may well have been a typo. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fine to present primary material without synthesising it, as I've said before, per policy. It's only a suggestion so ignore it as you please; equally regarding the spaced exclamation mark, which looks to me like the sort of dramatic device that one sometimes sees in that sort of context in books like Forester's, of his period. Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I could have picked this up earlier when we were discussing "latter-day", but I assumed what you wrote above would be adapted for article space: in like...Elizabeth I I believe the ellipsis needs a non-breaking space before and a normal space after, here and in the lead, per WP:ELLIPSIS.

• Sorry I forgot to follow this up earlier. I do not understand why a non-breaking space is needed before the three dots but I am happy to take your word for it and I have inserted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Only because of what it says at WP:ELLIPSIS – I've just added spaces after the ellipses, simply to spare us discussing it further.[19][20] Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• In this historian's view, ...: this may be fine but to my eyes it looks like the sort of form used when an author is expressing their own view, so it looks odd here. I don't think it would hurt to repeat "Wainwright" here, or change "this" to "that".

• Wainwright repeated. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. I just changed "In this Wainwright's ..." to "In Wainwright's", again simply to finalise this.[21] Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the midlands and the north ...: per MOS:PMC I would capitalise "Midlands" and "North" in this quotation from Wainwright.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep adding comments above as or if I have any I've now finished looking through the article, and await responses from Dudley. I'm going to assume that Dudley's use of sources is up to his usual impeccable standard. I won't offer any comment on images, although again I'm quite sure Dudley knows what he's doing. Nortonius (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dudley I'm pretty sure we're done now, I only wonder if you noticed a comment I've added under "Italics for Bremesburh, Scergeat and Weardbyrig ..." above, where I merely mention something that might be of interest. That being the case I'm changing "Comments" above to "Support". Oh, I just noticed we're still hanging on "stated" vs "state" or "states", or for that matter whichever other verb you might want to use, given Dan's response to you above. But otherwise ... Very well done. Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your very helpful and detailed review and for your support Nortonius. So far as I can see I have dealt with all the issues now. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure Dudley – I'm sure my review has been imperfect, but you've certainly dealt with all the issues I raised. Another long and complex subject dealt with admirably, I believe! Nortonius (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• One option is "In the Three Fragments, Æthelflæd also formed ...". - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks Dan. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Placeholder -- Recusing from coord duties, and with the caveat that I'm not an expert on this period in history, I reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR, and the changes made since then look fine to me. I expect to support here but might wait until Hchc2009 completes his review in case there are further text changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a couple of very minor edits from me -- article structure and level of detail look good, reads fine to someone with a fairly rudimentary knowledge of the period and personalities. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Ian. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

NB: support from my side. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Hchc2009. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review for this? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, or I'm sure one of the reviewers here could be pestered to do it quite effectively. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review. I don't do many source reviews, so I spent quite a bit of effort trying to find at least one problem so I could prove I'd actually done something, but I came up empty-handed. The sources are all reliable and consistently formatted, the external links work, everything is cited, everything in the source list is used in a citation, and every citation in the notes is in the source list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2017 (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) 21:46, 18 February 2017 [22].

---

Corvus (constellation)

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about yet another constellation. I'd say it is the equal of the other FAs. Come assess and I will answer promptly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

From jay to raven…. All looks pretty good. I did wonder about the raven link, but the Greeks and Babylonians may well have known different species, so raven probably OK

• Your Coronis link gives a choice of several, can you be more precise?

The main one on the target page is linked to Apollo there, so I thought it was self-evident. Added an epithet to make sure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• You have two different redirects to Apollo, what's wrong with the direct route?

Maybe an old link before the target was moved. Rejigged now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

TV Corvi

Not sure how important this is, but the article says TV Corvi has a baseline mag. of 17, rising to 12, but the page for TV Corvi says "...reaching magnitude 13.5 in these outbursts and remaining at magnitude 19 when quiet."VirtualDave (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the TV Corvi page with visual magnitude ranges from the original discovery paper (13.0 - 19.5, give or take a little) and from the latest AAVSO data as published on the VSX page (12.2 - 19.5). Either or both of these ranges would be suitable to go on the constellation page. Not sure where the values on there now came from. Beware of photographic or blue magnitudes which are smaller (brighter) because the white dwarf and its accretion disk are hot blue objects. Lithopsian (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: I revised what I thought were some little nits, but otherwise I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Good job! Praemonitus (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: I'm recusing as coordinator for this one. These articles are always a good read but this one was particularly enjoyable as it has a rather interesting history. I've done some light copy-editing (which can be safely reverted if I've messed up) and have some little nit-picks but nothing major and nothing to prevent my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• "It was similarly placed sitting on the tail of the Serpent (Greek Hydra).": Not quite sure what we are saying this is similar to.

I have tried to clarify thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• "John H. Rogers suggests that Corvus and Crater marked the gate to the Underworld": Why? I think this is worth expanding a touch.

expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• "These two constellations, along with the eagle Aquila and the fish Piscis Austrinus, were introduced to the Greeks around 500 BCE": Is it worth saying how? Or perhaps via who?

expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• "where the Cup is barely out of reach": Barely is undoubtedly correct here, but it makes it sound like it was just within his reach to me. Maybe it's just me. Would "just" work? Not a big deal either way, just a preference thing I suspect.

Rejigged to "just" now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• "To the Tupi people of São Luís Island in Brazil, Corvus was seen as a grill or barbecue—seychouioura, on which fish were grilled. However, the depiction could have also referred to the Great Square of Pegasus.": The certainty of the first sentence is rather shattered by the second! Maybe stick a "might have been" into the first sentence?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Corvus ranks 70th of the 88 constellations in area": I may have asked this before, and sorry if I have, but ranks in terms of...? Area I assume, but it could be on lists of favourite constellations!

Err....in area (i.e. size)? I thought that was obvious and would be duplicative to add in "largest" somewhere.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• One star "ended up in Corvus": When? I assume it was reallocated rather than moved, so perhaps we need something other than "ended up"!

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Do we have a link for spectral type?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• "which was once mistaken for a moon of Mercury": Any more details on this? It sounds an interesting mistake.

expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Meteor showers": I can't remember if I've ever asked this before, but is it worth explaining (in case it is confusing to the lay reader) that the meteor showers are not a feature of the constellation but originate from that part of the sky? Possibly not, so no big deal.

Does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm never a fan of popular culture sections, and would argue that this one could be cut with no great loss, but I'd imagine that these occurrences are fairly rare for constellations so I suppose this one is a rare exception. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

awww...I thought this bit was really cool.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've got to admit, this is one of the few popular culture sections that is worth including, so I'm happy enough for it to stay. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping me if this doesn't get a source review in a few days and I'll do that as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ok all done now.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• Images are Public Domain or Creative Commons - OK.
• Sufficient source and author information (tweaked a PD tag and tiny MOS issues) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Prose is good so here is a source review:

• Link for Journal of the British Astronomical Association exists so it will prove useful to link it. The same should apply to other references' publishers.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 5 needs additional information like publisher, date, accessdate etc.

expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN8 seems like a book so there might be ISBN number (or whatever it is called) for it.

the book was published in 1941, which predates the 1966 establishment of isbns.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN9 - ditto (I don't know if it is a required thing or just encouraged).

the book was published in 1912, which predates the 1966 establishment of isbns.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I believe once linking Ian Ridapth is enough. You might not need to repeat the link. Also, it should be linked on first instance i.e. ref 6.

adjusted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why is New York written twice in a few references. Is it perhaps to mean that one is the city and the other is the state? If so, it should be New York City.

its written New York, New York whenever I have seen it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why are you so picky when it comes to accessdates? I understand that we do not need it when it is a book source but does it apply to references of other certain kinds, too? For instance, is ref 75 a source that is exempt from having an access date?

my bad - I interpreted it as a journal (which doesn't need one), but if interpreted as webpage, then it does. So added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• abc news website should read ABC News with a wiki-link in FN#76. Also, ABC News Internet Ventures can go since {{cite web}} states, "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work". – FrB.TG (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

• Hi Cas, I spotchecked the infobox, and the nearest star (Ross 695) doesn't seem to be mentioned/cited in the main body -- I'd expect it to be referenced in one place or the other; would you mind double-checking for any similar instances?

will look into this tomorrow - need to sleep now added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• There are a few duplinks that may not be necessary in an article of this size (incl. two repetitions of binary star in the one para) -- could you pls check and remove where feasible?

got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Tks Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (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) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (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) 21:59, 18 February 2017 [23].

---

King Kalākaua's world tour

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR, — Maile (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The world tour was an effort by Hawaii's last king to save the dwindling Hawaiian race by supplementing the population with imported labor from similar cultures. One nation at a time, he brought Hawaii to the world's attention. Kalākaua was successful in jump-starting new immigration. He was a consummate tourist and an impressionable royal who returned home and tried to recreate the splendor of European monarchies in Hawaii. Kalākaua had no security guards to protect him, yet his safety was never in jeopardy, even though he chose public transport on ships and railways to circumnavigate the globe. It was just Kalākaua, a couple of friends, his cook, and here and there an extra person or two. One can only wonder how many days they all slept to recover from 281 days of non-stop globe trotting. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment still working on it, but see comments below.

• " from nations that shared a common culture with Hawaii." I would move this phrase up in the sentence, it is too far from what it relates to. An example would be good. My first reaction was "such as"?
• "While in Asia, he tried unsuccessfully to prevent the United States takeover of the kingdom " This sounds like Hawaii was taken over then and there. I might say "While in Asia, he tried to forstall American ambitions in Hawaii ..."
• "Queen Victoria and the ambiance of the British crown" maybe "Queen Victoria and the splendor of British royal life ..."
• The lede's ending seems not really an ending, it feels like leaving off in the middle.
• "According to the personal writings of Queen Dowager Emma, a political opponent of his,[FN 1] Kalākaua allegedly" I would change "allegedly" for "supposedly"
• "acknowledging an immigration system troubled by corruption, " more directly, "acknowledging corruption in the immigration system" (probably you should insert an "and" after this phrase whatever you do.
• [Picture of Armstrong] The reader encounters this well-decorated individual sans link with the picture well before they meet him in prose. Suggest a closer coincidence, or at least a link.
• You might want to explain the population drop.
• "Dovetailing" Suggest at least a wiktionary link, or, better, a synonym that doesn't require one.
• " the islands " exactly what you mean by this is unclear.
• "Hawaiians" as you have not yet contrasted Native Hawaiians with any other group, the reader may not understand that Native Hawaiians are meant here, rather than random inhabitants.
• Don't use contractions except in quotes.
• "Inasmuch" delete, not really needed.
• "world consulates" delete world
• "stating the end goals expected.[17]" this seems unclear. Possibly, "stating the goals for the tour".
• "otherwise been alerted" I would strike "otherwise"
• "Believing their protocol was bound " maybe "Believing a formal reception was required"
• "sightseeing trip" since they remained in Kobe, maybe "sightseeing tour"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed everything above so far. I found two contractions, which I fixed. If you see more, let me know - my eyes are a little buggy looking at this article day and night for weeks, and I probably missed tiny things like that. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw two. More coming, once I get through the remainder of the article :)--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's more.

• New matter (Lede). You speak of personal days, twice. That's a bit of an odd phrasing to begin with, and probably not worth using twice.

Um hmm. When you see that terminology as an explanation for "not official business", you know you're dealing with someone who's spent a lot of time in a corporate environment.— Maile (talk)

• "foreign government diplomats" cut government as implied
• "facilitate such an emigration conjointly with the Hawaiian government." feels clunky, maybe "co-sponsor such an emigration with the Hawaiian government"
• "interact with the city's influential persons. " maybe "meet the city's influential people"
• "Transcription of a proposed treaty" maybe "draft" for "proposed". And "A copy" for "Transcription"
• "bestowed with" This seems an odd phrasing.

Changed to "given". — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "that presentation of medals" were what were given medals? They seem like orders to me. Possibly an overfine distinction.

Changed it to "an exchange of decorations" in quotes, directly from Kalakaua's correspondence. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. I guess it's the royal equivalent of swapping baseball cards. "What do the simple folk do ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• "for future governmental immigration discourse." Likely better, "for future talks on immigration". Emigration? That's the word you used regarding Japan.

Changed the phasing, but "immigration" is correct in this case. With Japan, it was "an emigrating labor force in Japan", which is referring to the outward flow of people from a country. "immigration" refers to the inward flow of people to a country. In the source, Kalakaua says, "..the success of any future movement our government may take to in desiring to procure immigrants from Japan, China, Siam and Johore." — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• *"military volley of shots" the term is "gun salute", I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• OK. Second batch is done. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• More

• "a lengthy list of awards" possibly "decorations" for "awards" if it fits.
• "as a brother. As kindred souls," repetitive.
• "the Malaysian states" Malaysia implies the modern nation:, with its states in Borneo. I would say "the Malay states"
• "governments of both Great Britain and East India." East India?

I just linked East India, and should have done so before. That's a specific area of India that was under British rule in the 19th century. It had its own government. In the sources it refers to "East India" and "East Indian coolies". — Maile (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Where did the discussions take place? I can see Calcutta, but they don't seem to have gotten there yet. There wasn't a big government center east of Calcutta in British India of that era, so where did they talk?

I've reworded it a little bit. The source itself is actually Armstrong's post-trip report to the Hawaiian government. They didn't have talks in India, because it had to be done in London. And other than his somewhat racist opinion of the Indian people, I believe his "study" on contract labor from India most likely came from his contacts in London. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt I just now rewrote the section in India. There's still only two paragraphs, but you might want to re-review it when you get back to this nomination. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• "King Umberto I and Queen Margherita of Savoy." this makes it sound like Umberto was king of Savoy
• "Civil Lord of the Admiralty and Lady Thomas Brassey" I am not an expert on the peerage but I don't think being Civil Lord made his wife a Lady (so to speak) I would say "Civil Lord of the Admiralty Thomas Brassey and his wife".

I don't know peerage, either, so I just changed it. But since @KAVEBEAR: is the one who wrote that, he can tell us if she really did hold the title of Lady. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like he met with people pretty far down the food chain in Vienna, compared with other nations. Any reason?

I added a little and sourced it. The royal family was away for the summer. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• "and an unanswered invitation for the king attend the Bastille Day celebration as a guest of President Grévy while he was in London; the French foreign minister had visited the king in the absence of the president who was not in the capital at that time." This is very confusing.

@KAVEBEAR: Can you assist on clarification of the unanswered invitation? — Maile (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Armstrong remained behind to execute the treaty."" Execute the treaty would probably be to formally sign an already-negotiated treaty, which would probably be the king's job. It's likely "negotiate" better carries what was going on (or since you've used that word recently, "work out" or similar, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Changed it to "initiate", Armstrong's word, is probably accurate since others were sent back later to finalize everything. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• "for Portugal to send 300 emigrant families to the Hawaiian Islands in the near future" I would strike the word "emigrant" as implied.

• I've also edited hands on a bit, feel free to revert or change anything you don't like.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the edits you did. I've taken care of most of the above. Just waiting to hear from KAVEBEAR on that which he had direct input. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Third batch done. KAVEBEAR took care of his part. We're ready for the next batch. — Maile (talk)

• "Real Museo de Pinturas y Esculturas" I doubt many know that name. They do know "the Prado", though.
• "the next three days", that is, August 28, 29, 30, he sightseed But you've said the king relaxed in his suite on Aug 30.

Changed it to two days. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• "spend a day as private tourists on Coney Island" I would say "spend a day at Coney Island". While Coney Island was actually an island then, so "on" would be arguably proper, using the more current phrase shows the contrast between the official mourning for Garfield and what they actually did, which was go enjoy themselves.
• "The Sun newspaper" link?
• "the suite boarded at the Arlington Hotel." The "suite" seems a bit of a pun on hotel that could probably be dispensed with.

That was just a typo. Fixed it. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would at least pipe the sermon in Honolulu to Parable of the talents or minas.
• "as a cover story to indulge in his own selfish desires to see the rest of the world" maybe "as a cover story to gratify his selfish desire to see the world".
• "All the awards and medals he was giving out on the trip were costing the kingdom additional money." maybe "The many awards and decorations he bestowed during the trip cost the kingdom additional money."
• You spoke of "the palace" in the account of the king's homecoming, and I assumed the Iolani was meant. However, it seems it wasn't finished yet. Could this be clarified?

Footnote added. He was living at Iolani Palace before it was completed. Liliuokalani mentioned in her book that in January of 1881 she was summoned by Kalākaua to Iolani Palace for the discussion on her being named temporary Regent in his absence. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• The reference in the lede to the king being feted by Masonic lodges around the world doesn't seem to live up to its billing in the article.

Removed. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I find the ending of the article a little abrupt. Can the king's lavish spending be tied in with the ending of the monarchy? If so, I'd make that the end of the article and find a way to fold in the one paragraph on Armstrong a bit earlier.

I'll get back to you on that. I don't see that it's tied in with the end of the monarchy, because that was about the US self-interest in wanting to annex the kingdom. I can't even say it is a link to the 1887 Bayonet Constitution, which was a thread I looked into. That constitution was more about the annexation politics and his chosen cabinet. I agree the ending is abrupt, but it doesn't go as far as the overthrow of the kingdom. Thoughts on this, @KAVEBEAR:? — Maile (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think his opponents often use this trip with other expensive projects which follow as examples of the extravagance and corruption of the monarchy. I don't recall any good, unbiased source that can summarize this point nicely, but it is what Liliuokalani was defending in her 1898 autobiography. Also [24] History of Later Years of the Hawaiian Monarchy (a very biased source)] in its first chapter list out all the extravagances of Kalakaua's reign with their cost. This ultimately led to the Bayonet Constitution and the PR damage to the monarchy especially among the annexationist sectors of society continued into the reign of his sister. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is going to take some thinking to do a summary of that to wrap this up. I think you have it in the idea that the above expenses were part of what was used against him for the Bayonet Constitution. In and of themselves, they were not the sole reason for that event. I think Walter Murray Gibson and his schemes were more of a direct reason for that happening, but he came to power after the tour ended. So, I'll think on this. If you want to add anything in the article about this, go ahead. I'm thinking on how to write this. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR and Wehwalt: I added a paragraph at the bottom of the Kalakaua section. Please have a look. I don't want the end to be overly large, because the Bayonet Constitution was not a direct aftermath of the world tour, just an offshoot resulting from Kalakaua's attempts to mimic the lifestyles of the European monarchies. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fn 3, listing the territories of East India, I see West Bengal. I do not think the Presidency of Bengal was divided in 1881.

Removed West Bengal. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, is there any indication that the king arranged for Hawaii's major issue of coins (1883) while he was in the US? No change to the article is sought.

@KAVEBEAR: Do you have any information on this? Wehwalt does a lot of articles on coinage, and took Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar to FA. — Maile (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: You might be interested in this. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Andrade, Ernest, ed. (1975). "Hawaiian Coinage Controversy - Or, What Price a Handsome Profile". The Hawaiian Journal of History. 11. Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society. hdl:10524/415 – via eVols at University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

• I've skimmed it. It's really interesting. Thanks--01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• It seems it's good to be the king. That's all I've got for now. I'll give it a re-read when you're done. Very interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I added this to the second sentence in the lead, "... but in Hawaii there were critics who believed the labor negotiations were just his excuse to see the world" as a balance to the expressed purpose of the trip. I also added a mention there about the rumors sparked by the tour. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• P. S., Wehwalt, I don't take for granted that you or anyone else knows that the monarchy did not end with Kalakaua. Just in case I gave you that impression by saying Kalakaua was the last king of Hawaii. He was. The next, and final, monarch was his sister Queen Liliuokalani. — Maile (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I know the basics of that, though it is absorbing to learn the details!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• "Japanese newspapers gave him favorable coverage on how they viewed his accomplishments in Hawaii" awkward

Removed it as not necessary.

• The timeline in China seems a little confusing. They arrived on March 25 and left on April 2. You say they went to Tientsin. That's a good two or three days from Shanghai by sea. It sounds to me like the most likely course of events is that they went to Tientsin after leaving Shanghai on April 2, proposing to go on by land to Beijing but while there learned of the dowager Empress's death and left for Hong Kong (the travel time is more or less what it should be). But the reader shouldn't have to guess.

Well, in a past FAC, I had a reviewer complain that too many dates made them lose track of what they were reading. However, one of us here is confused on this issue. So, let me tell you what the source says:

March 25 - "His majesty and suite arrived off the bar of the Shanghai roadstead"

March 27 - " ... the royal party embarked on the Pautah"

March 29 - " ... arrived at the bar of the Bund" (I have no idea what the Bund is)

March 30 - " ... all the foreign representatives in the city waited on His Majesty on board the Pautah"

March 31 - " ... His Majesty and suite called upon the Viceroy Li Hang"

April 1 - " ... the Viceroy waited upon His Majesty on board the Pautah"

The next paragraph does not specify a date but begins, "At Tientsin the royal party met with old acquaintances ... "

Subheading below that is "RETURN TO SHANGHAI"

April 2 - " ... His Majesty and suite re-embarked on the Pautah, and streaming back over the Yellow Sea returning to Shanghai on the 6th April"

April 9 - " ... His Majesty and suite left Shanghai and arrived in Hongkong on 12th April"

I just changed "returned to Shanghai on April 2" to April 6, if that was the point of confusion. The way I'm reading the sources, they left for Shanghai on April 2, and arrived there April 6. Was that the change you needed, or am I missing something? — Maile (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bund is an area of Shanghai, on the (very wide) river. So I think you are mistaken they were still in Shanghai.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• You are not consistent whether the abbreviation of the word "number" (thus, No or No.) bears a period.

I only found one incident in the body of a missing period, and fixed it. If you are referring to the "no" for the London Gazette, that's their doing in how it's displayed - it's not something input on the citation template. — Maile (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The lede says he played billiards in Singapore. Johor is not part of Singapore, so the body does not bear this out. I will also note that the billiards reference in the lede is to stress the ordinariness of the king's travels, but few get to play billiards in a sultan's palace with the sultan.

Removed it as not necessary. However, looking as it as I did when I wrote it, while realizing your point that not everybody plays billiards in a sultan's palace ... even if they had been in a corner pub, a king and a sultan playing billiards shows on some level they had something in common with ordinary people. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• You are not consistent with the spelling of "Abu Bakar"

Typo. Fixed. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• " In the end," odd phrase to use for a five-day wonder.

Removed the phrase. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The account of Germany is a bit muddled. You mention them arriving in Cologne, then visiting Potsdam. I would be surprised if they visited Potsdam from Cologne; they presumably relocated to Berlin from where they visited Potsdam.

I think you misread the article. "They arrived at Cologne on July 29, visiting the Cologne Cathedral before continuing to Berlin." That's the only place Cologne is mentioned. Then after he's been in Berlin a couple of days meeting with people, "On a visit to Potsdam with Prince Charles of Prussia, Kalākaua was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of the Red Eagle." It's in correct order. I added "Berlin" in front of "accommodations" in the next sentence. I figure if you read that like they were still in Cologne, so could others. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Onlookers were gathered at the Vienna train station" implies Vienna had only one train station (picky, I know)

Added "Northwest station", with only Northwest capitalized, per the source. — Maile (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Your use of the serial comma is inconsistent. Contrast "the king toured the College of the Imperial Guard, Imperial Engineering College, and the Oji Paper Company." with "visiting the Royal Army, Museo del Prado and Buen Retiro Park."

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The latest batch is done. You might re-check to see if I took care of the China date the way you meant. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why a link for the Sphinx and none for the Pyramids? And if you are going to mention Giza, I'd do it in connection with the Pyramids as seems more usual.

I've done it both directions, linking the Giza pyramid complex in the lead, and in the Egypt section linking both the pyramids and the Great Sphinx, with a link to the Giza Plateau at the end of the sentence. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Returning to the capital, on October 3, they boarded a railroad train westward stopping at Cincinnati," the commas lead to ambiguity as to whether returning or boarding happened on October 3.
• "Speeches were made in both English and Hawaiian" I would link Hawaiian as a language, it is the first time you've mentioned it
• I like the ending better.

OK, that's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Assuming this is really the end of your review (or not ...), I want to thank you for making me go back through all the nitpicking stuff, because it gave me better instincts on what to look for in everything else I do. And as far as the article in general, of all the Wikipedia articles I've worked on, this one was absolutely the most fun. Kalākaua was a fascinating personality.— Maile (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to. Yes, those are always the most fun articles. Support very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
• File:Kalakaua_in_Berlin_(ca._1881).jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?

• I've asked on the Humanity Desk.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: If for any reason it turns out we can't use the Berlin photo, I think File:Kalakaua, painting by William Cogswell, Iolani Palace.jpg looks really good. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: This should be the last problematic files minus the map below. E. Linde was ran by Sophus Williams (1835–1900).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, looks like this now needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: Base on File:Cover of Hawaii Ponoi2.jpg, the lead image may be as old as 1874 so I suggest we replace it with the painting instead.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: We can do that, but I've been thinking on this. What if we just use a caption that says it's King Kalakaua, without using the date or saying it's Berlin? Or, we could go with the painting. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR and Nikkimaria: The image has been moved by KAVEBEAR to File:Kalakaua, reprinted by E. Linde (ca. 1881).jpg. The description is better, and it has a PD tag. I've removed "Berlin" from the caption in the article. Is it OK to use this one now? — Maile (talk)

It's fine with me.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

To use the 1923 tag we need to know that it was published, not just created, before 1923. When/where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: It probably is not, and something we probably will not find out, so I removed it. You're confusing me with your previous request that they "will need a US PD tag". Are you saying we can't use the image even if it is just PD-old or PD-100.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

All images not being claimed as non-free must be PD/free in the US. If you take a look at the wording of PD-old, it indicates that when using that tag you must also include a tag for why the image is PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate your thoroughness but I'm not sure then because I have no idea how to date the publication dates or their publication place of these images (if it is to be distinct from the creation of the work). For all we know none of them could have been published before the advent of the Internet. What do you recommend?-KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If we can be certain that the work was not published prior to 2002, then life+70 works per here. Does the image holder have any further details on its history? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm uncertain who the image holder is, so presumably it is an unpublished image with the original creator having died 70+ years ago. What tag is appropriate in this case.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

PD-US-unpublished, if the criteria listed there are met. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: I think we can date the image to being published in 1874. File:Cover of Hawaii Ponoi2.jpg The fine print the image on this says "The photograph is respectfully dedicated to His Majesty by Bradley & Rulofon" That would be William Rulofson (1826-1878) and his partner H. W. Bradley (1813-1891). The fine print at the bottom says, "Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by M. Gray, in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington." — Maile (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

True but there are some other images which may need to be tagged with PD-US-unpublished including the portrait of Li Hongzhang and the photograph of the arch, which I went ahead and did. Because they are archival images that have only been digitized or placed online in the last few years. I'm confident they have not been published.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Kalakaua_journey_round_the_world.jpg: source link is dead, and we should include a source for the data presented

• No idea. This is an old file someone else uploaded. @ThT: maybe he knows better..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Maile66: Do you think this map covers the correct path? We might be able to ask a graphic editor (depends on who is available usually) at the Map lab (see Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Kalakaua journey round the world for any progress) to help us create a better one using this as a template and making it more detailed and also sourcing the path to the sources used here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• @KAVEBEAR: Please be a second set of eyes on this, in the fact that I think it misses the return trip to Paris. What do you think about a different base map, maybe one that is not in color? The current one looks good if you click on it and bring up the full size, but it looks so modern for the subject matter. Can we get Graphics Lab to make one on an old-fashioned patina-colored map? Like maps looked in the 19th century? — Maile (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  @KAVEBEAR: I just updated source information and description of File:Kalakaua journey round the world.jpg. The map is intended to show the visited countries in the general sequence only. --ThT (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Li_Hung_Chang_in_1896.jpg: what is the author's date of death?

• No idea since Russell & Sons is a photograph company/studio probably with one or more photographer. But this one is in the public domain since it comes from a book published in 1903.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the US, yes. But it was published in the UK and is hosted on Commons, so we have to care about its status in the UK too. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: I replaced that image with File:Hubert Vos's painting of Li Hongzhang.jpg — Maile (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That one will need a US PD tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Maharaja_of_Johore_(PP-73-3-020).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Kalakaua_at_Normalhurst_(PP-96-13-006).jpg, File:Kalakaua,_Judd_and_MacFarlane_(PP-75-6-020).jpg,

• No idea.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Kalakaua,_Judd_and_MacFarlane_(PP-75-6-020).jpg, File:Kauikeaouli_Gate_decorated_in_honor_of_Kalakaua_return_home_in_1881.jpg, File:Coronation_of_Kalakaua.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• No idea.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: Would you please address the image issues? Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I generally have no idea where most of the images are published. Most exist in the Hawaii State Archives with no author identification. From my past correspondence with them, they don't have the staff capacity to keep their records straight and from what I know they are images lying around with minimal identifications. We may have to just replace them with PD images from books and newspaper articles unless we know the creator's death date. commons:Category:King Kalākaua's world tour--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and remove all the non-traceable images from HSA. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The coronation one has been replaced with a PD engraving from the Library of Congress. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That one will need a US PD tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: somebody please bring me up to date. Are we OK on everything except the map? — Maile (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I tag the images as you recommended. Is there any image now that won't do?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Japanese tag on File:Meiji_tenno1.jpg is for photos, while this is a sketch. For File:Hubert_Vos's_painting_of_Li_Hongzhang.jpg, public display counts as publication - given that, are you certain of the tag? Where was File:Victoria-sm.jpg first published? File:Kalakaua's_Coronation_from_Illustrated_London_News,_1883.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I honesty don't know when these images (or how long the portrait has been public displayed for) were published. I mean that is impossible to answer unless they are taken straight from books or published sources which the images are used. But File:Kalakaua's_Coronation_from_Illustrated_London_News,_1883.jpg was published in the UK, so would a US PD tag be appropriate? File:Victoria-sm.jpg was probably created in the UK (where it was published is not known to me), File:Meiji_tenno1.jpg also not sure. To be honest, you are asking questions I have no answers to.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Change the Li Hung Chang painting to File:Li-hung-chang, Governor General of Pei-chih-li Wellcome L0040968.jpg, I am assuming this is properly licensed (being licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). Switch the problematic images to photographs from Armstrong PD 1904 book instead. Just need your opinion on the Illustrated London News images and the tagging for that. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The Tag you suggest brings up this message at Commons: "Note: This tag exists for compatibility with Wikipedia; please replace this template with both {{PD-1923}} and the appropriate tag for the other country, such as {{PD-old-100}}". It's tagged with both. Have we now tagged all images correctly? Any other issues? — Maile (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

All images now appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! — Maile (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• I've made a couple of tweaks in publication locations to make the citation style consistent. Everything else seems to be in order: adequate cites to encyclopedic sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! — Maile (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• "He stated that Hawaii's monarchy ended in 1843 with the surrendering of the kingdom to British rule in the form of a warship, and the commander of the same warship restoring the monarchy.": I don't know what you mean.

• Maile66 Is Armstrong referring to the Paulet Affair? This is a rather odd way to summarize that--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dank and KAVEBEAR: I've removed the mention of this incident in Armstrong's speech. There's no way to know what he was referring to. The Paulet Affair lasted 5 months. In Armstrong's speech, it sounds like he was referring to a 1-day incident. But he's not specific enough to know exactly, and we can't assume to know what he meant. It reads like he threw this mention in to publicly dispute something Kalakaua had just said, which seems oddly rude and condescending, but not worthy of being in the article. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This has had a very in depth review from Wehwalt, and a subsequent support, plus a support from Dank, so I think we can leave this open a little while longer. However, we really need to see something happening soon if this isn't to stall. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two. Please revert any copyedits of mine as needed.

• The lead is in six paragraphs, which is more than recommended in WP:LEAD; I think you could safely combine the last three into one.

  Combined. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The New York Tribune quoted Armstrong's July 16 "frivolous and utterly false" response to the rumors from London." This should be rephrased; his response wasn't frivolous and false; he was asserting that the rumours were.
• Is Lodge Le Progrés de l'Océanie worth a redlink?
• What's the relevance of the last two sentences of the article, starting with "He advocated"? I see they follow from the previous sentences, but are they relevant to the topic of the article?

I removed the last sentence as redundant, and worked the other one into the preceding sentence that it belonged to. Hope this is better.

That's everything I can find -- the article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. The fixes look good. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

The rumor mill

• Merge the one-sentence first paragraph into the second
• James G. Blaine, United States Secretary of State, began to hear the rumors in April Probably about another one of his many scandals, but if it was about Hawaii, you should make it specific.
• repeated them to President James A. Garfield Since he's already been introduced, just "Garfield" would suffice
• shared it with Dowager Queen Emma Princess Likelike I think there's a comma missing here. And was Emma Queen Dowager or Dowager Queen?
• When the King was visiting England on July 15, The Sacramento Daily Record-Union reprinted No capital T. Link The Sacramento Union. And I cannot see the connect between the rumour and the quote

Moreover...

• Anew constitution called for a new cabinet that answered Should be "A new"
• Shouldn't "Hawaiian islands" be "Hawaiian Islands??
• The Royal party arrived the Gare de l'Est train station in Paris I think a word is missing

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed everything. Emma was Queen Dowager. I have expanded on the quote from the Sacramento Union, and hope it is what you were looking for. In a nutshell, their remarks were referring to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 (that the quote didn't name) which gave the US exclusive trade rights, forbid Hawaii from making a trade treaty with any other nation, and they therefore concluded also gave the US the muscle to retaliate if anyone else thought they could acquire Hawaii. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Would have been interesting if Germany had annexed Hawaii. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (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) 21:59, 18 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2017 [25].

---

Great spotted woodpecker

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The image of a great spotted woodpecker eating a pig shows just how adaptable this successful species is. Already the world's most widespread woodpecker, it's recently recolonised Ireland and has turned up in Alaska. North Americans, lock up your hogs! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Hi, I'll review this more thoroughly soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• What does the recording correspond to in the voice section? Kind of hard to know whether this is the sound of the bird itself or the "drumming". I see the Commons description says drumming, so this should be added.

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• The images seem a bit cluttered on the right side, could some maybe be staggered?

moved two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Image review - since it seems safe this will get four other reviews and supports already, I'll provide an image review instead (so you don't have to wait the usual time for that), but will be back with a full review if some of the others stall. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• The distribution map needs a source for the info on Commons.

• Not my map, but I've added a couple of "consistent with" sources. I hope that will do, since I'm reluctant to have to invest a lot of time and effort to re-invent the wheel and replace with a probably worse version. The map looks OK to me, the only similar images I found on Tineye were the same map on other Wikipedias Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Consistent with" sources appear to be fine for images, I've been told. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• In what way is the skull drawing based on the The Unfeathered Bird book? If it is traced after a drawing there, it may be problematic as a derivative work. If that is the case, it could maybe be remade based on one of these[26] free images?

• Not traced, different angle. If you can access the book, it's clearly different Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• This video of an adult feeding a juvenile seems superior in quality and interest to the video currently in the article:[27]

• Good find, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• All other media is fine, sourcing and license-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, good idea to do the images instead, I'll try to remember that myself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

I'm sick, so I don't really know how thorough these comments will be. Anyways, here goes:

• Thanks, it's beyond the call of duty to review when you're poorly. I'll finish most of these tomorrow I hope

• This sentence in the lead is a bit ambiguous, "When the young fledge, each adult takes responsibility for feeding part of the brood for about ten days." One could take that to mean either each adult feeds it for ten days each, or it could mean that the adults split up the feeding about ten days after the young fledge.

• Rearranged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence, "The Picinae are further divided into six tribes, the largest of which is the pied woodpeckers, including the great spotted woodpecker," it is a bit confusing grammatically (it is correct I think, but still, confusing).

• Clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly make "It was moved to its current genus by the German naturalist Carl Ludwig Koch in 1816," "It was moved to its current genus, Dendrocopus, by the German naturalist Carl Ludwig Koch in 1816."

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Specify ice sheet in the sentence, "The fossil subspecies D. m. submajor lived during the Middle Pleistocene Riss glaciation (250,000 to 300,000 years ago) when it was found in Europe south of the ice sheet."

• Not sure what you are after; doesn't the Riss link specify the glaciation? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence, "The adult great spotted woodpecker is 20–24 cm (7.9–9.4 in) long, with a 34–39 cm (13–15 in) wingspan and weighs 70–98 g (2.5–3.5 oz)," in the description section needs a grammar fix.

• Rearranged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the description section, the second paragraph has a lot of instances of no spaces between periods.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Two things in the distribution section, first, split the sentence, "The great spotted woodpecker is mainly sedentary, but sizeable movements can occur when there are shortages of pine and spruce cones in the north of the range, and highland populations often descend to lower altitudes in winter," and then link sedentary.

• Split sentences, although I'm not convinced that's an improvement, replaced sedentary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence, "Juveniles also have a tendency to wander, often as far as 100–600 km (60–400 mi), sometimes up to 3,000 km (1,900 mi)," you should probably add away from something at the end of the sentence, as the previous sentence makes it sound like you are talking about altitude.

• extended to make clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence, "The great spotted woodpecker became extinct in the island of Ireland in the seventeenth century, but naturally recolonised from 2007, with breeding proven or suspected in at least 10 counties by 2013," the part, "but naturally recolonised from 2007," is confusing.

• I'm not sure quite what is unclear, but I've extended a bit. The "naturally" is needed to make it clear that it wasn't an artificial reintroduction Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• The "from 2007" part is confusing. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• rephrased to make it clear that's first breeding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I will add more later, good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, all done so far, hope you are on the mend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have school today and am feeling much better, so time to continue!

• The sentence, "The great spotted woodpecker is sexually mature aged one year and starts its courtship behaviour in December," needs copyediting for grammar, and in the last part, "...starts its courtship behaviour in December," you should probably specify that it is the December just after it becomes sexually mature.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Add the indefinite article "a" in the sentence "It has a fluttering flight display in which the male flies with shallow wingbeats and spread tail," before "spread tail."

• Added, although I'm not totally convinced that the "a" is needed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Space between refs and period after reefs in the sentence "Old holes are rarely re-used,[3] although the same tree may be used for nesting for several years.[25] [24]."

• Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think that chicks are incubated. "The altricial naked chicks are incubated, mainly by the female during the day and the male at night,[28][24] for 10–12 days before hatching."

• crept i in earlier re-arrangement, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "Both birds brood and feed the chicks and keep the nest clean," has two instances of "and" in a list.

• I think that's correct, the first part of the sentence refers to care of the chicks, the second to the nest. I can't see how you can lose the "and" without splitting the sentence, which would make it choppy to read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm... Looks like you are correct, although it could possibly be this: "Both birds brood the chicks, feed them, and keep the nest clean." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "The young fledge in 20–23 days," do the young fledge 20 to 23 days after being born, or 20 to 23 days after being hatched?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "For this reason the great spotted woodpecker is evaluated as a species of least concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)," the IUCN should be an acronym, as it has already been mentioned in the lead section of the article.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That looks to be all, good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• RileyBugz, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Nice job! All nitpicks were addressed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

• The lead is a touch out of order - instead of saying what the thing is it leaps straight into where it is found in the first sentence. What it is isn't introduced till the next sentence. Perhaps "The GSW (binomial) is a medium sized woodpecker found in ...."?

• I was trying to avoid "woodpecker" twice in one sentence, but you are right, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe link to Bergmann's rule in description? It seems to apply.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Territories are mentioned in the context of advertisement (the drumming) but not in the section on breeding or feeding. I suspect a bit more could be said about them. Are these territories defended by both partners, are they defended year-round or only when breeding, what else is done to defend them, how big are they, do they overlap or are young birds tolerated in them?

• Good spot, added some stuff. Doesn't cover all those points, but I'll keep looking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Incubation of the altricial naked chicks, mainly by the female,[25] lasts for 10–12 days before hatching. Surely the female incubates eggs, not chicks? Once hatched, can I take it the female broods the young too?

• I didn't read it like that, but rephrased and added male/female share Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Still doesn't read quite right. First off, chicks aren't incubated, they are brooded. Secondly, the sentence reads "chicks are incubated - before hatching". Surely that's "eggs are incubated...before hatching"? They aren't chicks till they hatch, right? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Once you've had a look at these points I'll be happy to support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sabine's Sunbird, many thanks for review! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• One last niggle It is mainly resident unless the conifer cone crop in the north of its range fails, but the tendency of some birds to wander , This senstence comes across a little odd, as it is "statement, exception, exception" ;and the bridging between the two exceptions reads a little like a non sequitur. Maybe Across most of its range it is resident, but in the north of its range some will migrate if the conifer cone crop fails. Some individuals have a tendency to wander Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sabine's Sunbird, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, nice work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Just a note that my support covers a variety of issues, but it's agnostic on bigger questions of word usage and what articles like this one are supposed to say. Reading quickly, I don't disagree with any of the points above ... it's just not my job to cover those things. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• (Dan, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

Another well written article.

• I suggest you mention that the great spotted woodpecker roosts in old nest-holes or other cavities.

• Added to "Behaviour" with a ref. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The altricial naked chicks are incubated, mainly by the female during the day and the male at night,[28][24] for 10–12 days before hatching." As pointed out by Sabine's Sunbird's above, the eggs are incubated - not the chicks.

• That crept in when I reorganised the sentence, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• A second problem with this sentence is that BWP (not the Update) has the male rather than the female doing most of the incubation during the day: "Incubation mostly by the male who also sits at night. Longest daytime shift by male 121 min, by female 55 min (Durango 1945b)" (BWP 1985 V.4 p.865). Durango 1945b is "Om större hackspettens, Dryobates m. major (L.), häcknings biologi" Vår Fågelvärld 4(1) 4-18. Amazingly a scan of this issue is available here but I cannot read Swedish. You cite Ref28 BTO which has "by the: Female (occ. Male)" which I don't have much faith in. Your other reference Ref24 BWP Update. 5 (2): 101–184 is not on the web (or at least I cannot find it). It might be safer to just say the eggs are incubated by both sexes during the day. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed as suggested. The abstract of the update is here, although I don't normally link to abstracts in articles. I've requested the full text, but no idea if or when it will come. It's obviously not open web access, and might well have more detail than I need for a Wikipedia-length article anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Aa77zz, many thanks for your copy editing, review and altruism! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Final comments

• Perhaps mention that only one brood is raised each year (are all non-passerines single brooded?)

• Done. Some small non-passerines are double brooded, eg Common kingfisher Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Mention moult - adults have full post breeding moult, juveniles partial

• Added as section, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

All looks good. Supported above. Well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for that and your assistance throughout Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Well done/nice article - only minor issue was some choppy paragraphing, which I fixed. looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixes and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Cas Liber

• References formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Earwigs tool clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• FN 19 checks out (material faithful to source) - incidentally has some interesting material on increase in numbers in England and Wales, which might be good to add.)
• FN 27 checks out (material faithful to source) - incidentally has some interesting material on decrease in numbers in northern England and Scotland, which might be good to add.)
• FN 1 (used 3 times) checks out (material faithful to source) - incidentally mentions hybridization with Syrica woodpecker, which might be good to add))

Thanks for source review. I've added the hybridisation, but not the UK points. The UK is a tiny part of the range, but because so many sources are British it's easy to overemphasise parochial material—the original version of this article was almost exclusively about Ireland (see the talk page). I'm sure there are similar local variations from France to Japan, nothing special about the British Isles, except the recolonisation of Ireland. Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

All fair points. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Support just a few things.

• "recently recolonisation of Ireland" I would strike the "ly"
• "Great spotted woodpeckers chisel into trees to find food items or excavate nest holes" not too thrilled about "items". I think you could get by without it.
• "fallen wood chips" they don't fall very far judging by the body and may not "fall" at all, they are just construction debris.
• "Adult great spotted woodpeckers have a complete moult after breeding that takes about 120 days. " Would it be possible to add "season" or similar after "breeding"? After all, they may not breed and there's a slight problem of ambiguity as the sentence stands. (whether 120 days refers to the mount or to the breeding)
• Why are the birds that reach Gibraltar considered vagrants? Both by the map and by your description, they seem within their range.

Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made the changes suggested and removed Gibraltar, many thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth

A number of people have already reviewed this so it is looking well-polished. A few things I noticed:

• "D. m. japonicus of Japan is black-backed" and "D. m. cabanisi and D. m. stresemanni, are also black-backed" - these seem curious statements seeing that the subspecies in general seem to be black-backed.

Although it's what the source says, I can't tell any difference in the images, removed the black backs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The Sind woodpecker is very similar to Syrian" - perhaps add a "the".

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is the non-breeding plumage identical to the breeding plumage?

I think with all woodpeckers there is no significant seasonal change, as with pigeons, cuckoos etc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The eggs are incubated by both adults during the day" - In this article it was thought remarkable that two birds were incubating the eggs at the same time, so perhaps you could rephrase this sentence.

"either" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Numbers have increased in Europe due to forest plantation" - I don't understand this.

added that it creates more breeding habitat Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Looking back now at the lead, I think it should mention something on taxonomy and subspecies.

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am satisfied with the alterations made and am now supporting this nomination on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 16 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2017 [28].

---

No. 37 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Following up my FAC noms over the past few years for other RAAF transport units, namely Nos. 33, 34 and 36 Squadrons... For 40 years, Nos. 36 and 37 were the RAAF's twin C-130 Hercules squadrons, until the former converted to C-17 Globemasters in 2006 -- No. 37 is expected to continue flying its C-130Js until 2030, and after that who knows? The C-17 may be superior in range and payload, the new C-27 Spartan might be able to get into smaller landing grounds, but no aircraft has spelt "disaster relief" in Australia and the region like the RAAF's Hercs, not to mention their combat support role from Vietnam to the Middle East. The "trashies" (trash haulers) may not have a particularly glamorous job, but unlike their fighter and bomber colleagues they’re “operational” all year round. Tks to everyone involved in the article’s GA and A-Class reviews and, in advance, to all those taking part here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Tks as always Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Seems comprehensive and well-written. The usual nitpicks.

• On my screen, I get a text sandwich between infobox and first image. Could it be moved down a paragraph?
  • Mmm, on my screen that wouldn't make a difference...
• At the end of the first paragraph of history, it strikes me that most of the state/territory names are not essential. Surely any likely reader will know what state or territory most of them are in?
  • I'd agree with that for all except Maryborough, since I didn't know off the top of my head where it was (but perhaps I'm more geographically challenged than most)...

• • I did say "most". Probably that and Launceston.
    • Sorry my brain skipped "most"... ;-) Trying it out, I think it looks better as all or nothing and since we agree that at least a couple need the qualification I'd prefer to leave as is if that's okay... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Under Re-establishment, it might be worth mentioning, if the sources will support, that this was pursuant to Menzies' commitment to increase Australian involvement in Vietnam.
  • Sure, happy to mention if one of the existing sources does -- will check.
    • The key sources I have access to right now don't make the connection clear, even though it's there by inference, so left as is for now at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• " inactive since 1964" that isn't so long. Maybe "disbanded in 1964".
  • Agree, done.
• "the Hercules became a familiar sight in the Southern Pacific after being called on for relief following many natural disasters including tsunami in New Guinea, cyclones in the Solomons and Tonga, and fires and floods throughout Australia." I might say "the Hercules became a familiar sight in the Southern Pacific, called on for relief operations following many natural disasters including tsunami in New Guinea, cyclones in the Solomons and Tonga, and fires and floods throughout Australia. " Is tsunami its own plural Down Under?
  • Fair enough re. expression, and I think you might be right about the plural too -- done.
• "the US-led effort to transport the orphaned children of American servicemen out of Vietnam in April 1975." I might say "evacuate" rather than "transport" and then "from" rather than "out of". "Orphaned" raised an eyebrow but I'm not coming up with a better word.
  • Done.
• I might link "roundels"
  • Done.
• "Entombed Warriors" Is that how they are known in Oz? I would think "Terracotta Warriors" or similar more common.
  • I felt I should use the term in the source, which was "Entombed Warriors".

• • • Fine.

--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support all looks good. Nicely done!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Dan! Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Cannot see anything wrong. Looks great to me. Fabulous effort digging up sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Source check: All references formatted okay. Spot checks on FN 4, 8, 23, 25, 26, 30, 53, 54, 60, 61 and 68 all okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all that Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think we have a clear consensus to promote here, and between this and the A-Class review there has been plenty of commentary. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2017 [29].

---

House of Music

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 1996 studio album by the R&B band Tony! Toni! Toné!. It was their fourth and last album, a platinum seller, and widespread critical success, deemed by some critics as their best work, an influence on 1990s neo soul, and a masterpiece of 1990s R&B music. The previous nomination for featured status received support votes from Dank and TheAmazingPeanuts but not the requisite commentary to establish a consensus for promotion, thus its closure two weeks ago. Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Past supports

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the first FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support as my last vote on this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Magnolia677

The entire track listing section is unsourced. Is there a way to verify this large section of the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, I've made a note that it was taken from the liner notes. Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. I also moved the image right. Thanks for your hard work on this article! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - One cosmetic issue. MOS:LINKSTYLE states that items within quotations should not generally be linked. I noticed this a few places in the article, but none of the linked topics seem crucial to reader's understanding. Your call. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Garagepunk66

I just started looking at the article and I see a lot that looks really good. I'll need to comb through it. I noticed you have a statement mentioning the cover artwork. I was wondering if there is enough information out there on the topic to be able to delve into that subject a little more (if that is possible)? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66:, at this article by Albumism, there's a one sentence describing the band's attire in the cover photo, but I'm not sure it's a reliable/notable source. Otherwise, there's nothing that can be said about the cover except the photographer credit from the liner notes. Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine--I was just checking to make sure. In light of the lack of published information about the artwork, the statement you have is fine. I think that should suffice. I also think the source is fine for this situation and can be considered reliable in this context, because it is reiterating what is in the liner notes and what we see with our own eyes in the artwork. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about the band's attire in the photo based on the article @Garagepunk66:. Dan56 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Support: I just read the article top to bottom, looking to see if I could find anything. If there was one thing I could say, and this was the only thing that made me look twice while reading, it would be that the length of the first paragraph in the lead could fool someone, as it is actually only three sentences. You could replace the semicolon in the third sentence with a period, but it is fine regardless if you do or don't. The article is very well written and it is well referenced. Great job! If you have some time, would you mind taking a look at my my FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by TarkusAB

Support: The only comment I have is that it seems the band both reunited before the album and broke up after. I think some more detail about the band coming off hiatus (if it can be found) would fit nice into a Background section, and the consequential breakup could be added on somewhere. But otherwise, I think the article is well-written, goes into a fair amount of depth, and is well-sourced. This is coming from someone who isn't too familiar with WP:ALBUM's guidelines. TarkusAB 12:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The breakup is discussed in the third paragraph of the "Release and reception" section; Sons of Soul elaborates on their hiatus before this album, so I kept it short here to avoid a content fork. Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

Support: I don't see any major flaws with this article, thus supporting its promotion to FA status. However, you may ask someone to undergo a copy edit on the article to make the content even better to read. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian Rose

Taking a cue from Cartoon network freak, I've recused from coord duties to copyedit. I may or may not support outright (it looks to me that image and source reviews are still needed in any case) but no special concerns re. prose and comprehensiveness. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I made a request a few days ago for a source/image review. Dan56 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:House of Music.jpg: Non-free album cover used to illustrate the album in the infobox, which seems OK for me. Rationale seems OK as well.
• File:Raphael Saadiq.jpg: Free image on Commons. Photo of one of the creators, who is discussed in the adjacent section. Image has good EXIF and seems to come from Flickr, originally. Source link is broken, however.

  The Flickr user no longer has an account there. And Wayback Machine cannot locate an archive of the link. Dan56 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• File:Lovin' You TTT.ogg: Song sample, which is apparently discussed in the caption as well as in the adjacent section. Might merit some more discussion in the adjacent section, so far it seems a wee bit bare bones to me. Non-free rationale seems fine to me otherwise.

Good ALT text too.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Everything that needs a citation has one, and all of the cites are to sources of encyclopedic quality and are properly formatted. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

John

• Looking at prose, I tried removing "The record also received widespread acclaim from critics" from the lead as this is true of almost any successful and noteworthy work. At best, padding; at worst puffery. I imagine there is likely to be more like this in the body. --John (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Actually it isn't too bad. An "eventally" and a few too many quotes. --John (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've paraphrased a few quotes. Dan56 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: In all honesty, I'd be a little happier here if we had a few more comprehensive reviews to go with some of these supports, but neither Dank, Ian or John have found any major issues. There is certainly consensus to promote this, so I don't think there is much point holding this up any longer. Any further issues can be raised on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2017 [30].

---

Zenobia

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very interesting woman, Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra. Often, her story is distorted by romanticism and myths, which ignore the fact that she was a historic monarch whose actions were not really based on romantic motives. I re-wrote the article with the aim of giving a clear picture of the historic queen, and gave the romantic accounts their share, but also noted them for what they are: romance. The article was privately peer-reviewed (as in I asked an editor directly to review it) by one of Wikipedia's most productive editors Al Ameer son and was copy-edited by the copy-editing guild. Looking forward for other editors notes and advice.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

Thanks for your review and sorry for the late reply, I was busy and didnt have the time to edit Wikipedia.

That's quite alright; real life (allegedly!) comes first, after all. Based on your replies I've done a little bit of copy-editing: feel free to revert anything you think I have made worse or where I have changed the meaning of the text.

Again thanks for waiting. I have exams actually and thats why my time is so limited now. Nothing to be reverted, thanks for taking the effort :).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead:

• "Palmyrene: (Btzby), spelled Bat-Zabbai" – What does this mean? In what way was her name "spelled" Bat-Zabbai?

Semitic languages do not include vowels when written. So, in Palmyrene alphabet, the vowels in her name are missing and if you will read it as it is, it will be read Btzby, however, the right pronunciation with vowels is B(a)t-Z(a)b(a)(i)

I changed "spelled" to "pronounced": I think this is what you mean?

• "who exiled her to Rome (where she spent the remainder of her life)." why is "where she spent the remainder of her life" in parentheses?

The article was copy edited by a guild member and it was their choice. I removed the parentheses

Name and appearance:

• "The queen was born c. 240–241": as she wasn't queen when she was born, I would write "Zenobia was born"

Done

• The section says, apart from the quote from AH at the top, very little about Zenobia's appearance: this is a surprise given the name of the section

Yes, we know little of her appearance but for a reader looking for info about her outlook, it would be helpful for him to know where to read and find the answer which justify the heading

• "Historian Victor Duruy believed that the queen used the Greek name as a translation of her native name in deference to her Greek subjects.[11] No contemporary statues of Zenobia have been found in Palmyra or elsewhere, only inscriptions on statue bases; most known representations of Zenobia are on her coins.": this paragraph covers two ideas; it would probably be better to concatenate the first part (about her use of the name Zenobia) with the preceding paragraph, and expand the second part into a more substantial coverage of representations her (or cut it and make the section one about Zenobia's name)

I wrote more about the representation on coins

• Not really sure what the paragraph on sources is doing at the end of this section
• "other sources are available" doesn't really tell us anything. discuss what the key sources are, or tell us something about them, but don't just assert that they exist

Removed the sentence. As for the paragraph, it is important to give an idea about how careful one must be when dealing with the life of Zenobia counting on those written sources. It gives the readers an understanding that not everything they read from AH should be taken with certainty.

Early life and family:

• "The Augustan History contains details of Zenobia's early life, although their credibility is doubtful; according to Augustan, the queen's hobby as a child was hunting." Presumably the connection here is that Zenobia having hunting as a childhood hobby is not credible; if so, you should make this more explicit as it is not obviously incredible to me. Macedonian nobles and Spartans, to take two examples from the ancient world, both learnt to hunt as children.

The paragraph on sources was meant to do the job of not having to explain that the info taken from AH is unreliable. Throughout the article, info from the AH are included and their source indicated (which is inevitable since most scholars still indicate the AH) It would make the paragraphs redundant to mention that an AH info might be unreliable every time such an info would be written. On a side note, the situation of women in the east cant be compared to Greece as females were more marginalized

As it is at the moment, the semi-colon suggests that there is a link between the two parts of this sentence: that AH's story that Z's hobby as a child was hunting is a reason to doubt its credibility. This doesn't seem to me to be at all what the relevant source is saying, which is that AH is unreliable, and then, as a seperate thought, that it tells us that she enjoyed hunting. Therefore, I think that this semi-colon should be a period instead. (If you intend this sentence to be read as I am reading it, then I would instead quibble with your use of the source, which doesn't as I read it say that.)

But Stoneman made the connection: he say that we are given plentiful info by the AH but that little of them should be believed. Then Stoneman say that we are told (by the AH) that Zenobia loved haunting. Before giving any info from AH, Stoneman was careful to tell his readers in advanced that they shouldnt believe what they are reading from AH. I see that he connected the two thoughts really. In any case, I removed the semi-colon.

• What is "an education appropriate for a noble Palmyrene girl"? Were girls – noble or otherwise – in ancient Palmyra educated?

According to Stoneman, we know nothing about that education but Palmyra showed a high level of literacy and Zenobia is known to have mustered many languages which cant be achieved without education. Stoneman reference here.

Well that's disappointing but unsurprising.

• How can one be "fluent... (to a lesser extent)"? Is fluency not a binary property?

reworded

That's fine, but see below.

• "and nafsha is Aramaic for "soul"." I don't understand the relevance of this. Explain?

Deleted. The scholar (Potter) do not mention why its relevant, its only and extra info

• "Based on Zenobia's Palmyrene name (Bat Zabbai), her father may have been Zabbai or he may have been an ancestral head of Zenobia's family (rather than her actual father).": this is a rather clunky sentence; I would rewrite it something like: "On the basis of Zenobia's Palmyrene name, Bat Zabbai, her father name have been called Zabbai; alternatively, Zabbai may have been the name of a more distant ancestor."

reworded

• "led scholars such as Harald Ingholt to speculate that Antiochus might be a distant ancestor" – should be "might have been", I think

reworded

• I'm not sure I quite understand the point being made about Ammianus in what is at the time of writing note 1

The info of the AH is similar to Ammianus'. It could be that the supposed Cleopatra descent entered the mind of the AH writer when he read the comparison Ammianus made between the two queens. This would prove that this connection is fabricated

Ammianus doesn't equate Zenobia and Cleopatra, though: he says that the Egyptians praise Cleopatra and the Palmyrenes praise Zenobia. I can see what is being got at, here, but this is I think too compressed for the average reader (though irritatingly the source you cite doesn't make the argument any more explicit! Dammit!)

No, he doesnt equate, but he mention the two as equals. This might have inspired the AH writer to fabricate the claim since Zenobia occupied Egypt. I think this is the simplest way to elaborate on what Teixidor meant when he discussed this idea

• Note 2 says that Zenobia claimed descent from Cleopatra; the sentences that follow say that she didn't. Which is true? (If the latter is true, should we still believe the inference that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia?)

I wrote "alleged" in the note. This concerns modern scholars and what they know about Zenobia's claims made in ancient sources. It doesnt mean that she actually made such claim. It is widely accepted by scholars that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia, and we cant give our own opinions.

Better now you've added "alleged", thanks :)

Queen of Palmyra:

• Is Boccaccio a reliable source when it comes to Palmyran history? I am unconvinced that he is. If not, why are we singling his account out?

Boccaccio is definitely not reliable. But, an FA article must be comprehensible and gives the readers an answer to any question they might have. If a reader was convinced that Zenobia rode with her husband, this Wiki article should be able to tell the reader where that notion of riding came from

But you write "according to later accounts, including one by Boccaccio". Why single out Boccaccio, instead of any other later account? (And WP:WIAFA requires that an FA "neglects no major facts or details"; I would argue that precisely which millenium-late account contains a particular story is not a "major" fact or detail!)

Well, I hated the fact that Boccaccio thought he can write whatever he wants and present it as a legitimate history. However, the details of Boccaccio are the most widespread and I read a lot of misinformation circulating the internet that were taken from his account. Thats why its important in this article to mention the source of those info and make it clear how unreliable that source is.

• "If the accounts of her accompanying her husband are true, Zenobia would have boosted the morale of the soldiers": I don't really understand how this follows.

It gives an idea about how she gained her obvious close relation to the soldiers

I think you need to explain or expand upon this, then: as it is, it just confuses me. Why is it that Zenobia's accompanying her husband would necessarily have boosted the soldiers' morale? It certainly wouldn't have boosted the morale of early-modern British seamen to have their captain's wife accompanying them! (yes, I know that 2nd-century Palmyrene and 16th century English society were very different: that's not the point.)

I cant explain since those are the words of Patricia Southern and she doesnt give much explanation She only say that the soldiers would have been dazzled by the young wife of their king. I will write in the article that this morality boost is according to Patricia Southern, and the readers can indulge themselves in imagining why. As someone who comes from the middle east and is familiar with it, a woman in the battlefield will always make the soldiers more eager to win cause they want to prove that they are capable of protecting their honor (in this case, women are considered part of the honor). But this is my original research :)

• Vaballathus is described in quick succession as "ten-year-old" and then "adolescent" on his accession: I wouldn't consider a ten-year-old an adolescent

Changed

Descendants and Title:

• Having been told much further up the article that Herodianus was Odaenathus' son "not Zenobia's offspring", we now have a long discussion of whether or not he actually was!

Yes, and it is inevitable kind of. Odaenathus had two sons named Hairan; one with his first wife and another with Zenobia. The problem arise on the identity of Herudianus: was he the first Hairan or the Second. It is generally accepted that the crowned son was Hairan I, but since some scholars (mainly Potter) suggest that he might be Hairan II, then this should be written since Potter is an authority when it comes to Palmyra's royal family. We are dealing with uncertainties here and the NPOV thing to do is to represent all opinions and give the reader the chance to build his own opinions

Possibly you should explain this more in the article, then (and not relegate much of it to a fairly obscurely-written note). Even having read your explanation here, I am struggling to understand the account which is given in the article. (Additionally, a footnote at the point where the article states that Hairan was not Zenobia's son explaining that there may have been two Hairans could be a good idea.)

The two Hairans are confusing. I created a new article for Hairan II where I assembled all the mess and explained further. As for the article of Zenobia, I removed the note, and in the "Consort" section, I removed that Herodianus was not her son. In the role in the assassination section, I explained that the Augustan says that Odaenathus crowned his eldest son (whom the Augustan names Herodes), who was not Zenobia's. Finally, I explained about the theories concerning the relation between Hairan II and Herodianus in the descendant section

Evaluation and legacy/Myth, romanticism and popular culture:

• I'm not quite clear on why these are two different sections: they seem to have fairly overlapping scopes

The legacy section deals with the effect of the historic queen's actions on the national feelings in the region while the Romance section deals with outright fabrications and dramas written on her. They might seem similar though, but the difference are enough to separate them

• I'm not sure how much the random list of "selected cultural depictions" adds. If they are worth discussing, I'd like to see them actually discussed; as it is they just seem like an invitation to listcruft

It isnt quite random as it is very comprehensive and lists the most important works. If they will be discussed then we need a new article about cultural depiction of the queen like it is the case with Cleopatra. Discussing them in the article will turn it away from its scope.

General:

• I know false titles are a matter of preference: I don't like them. More than that, though, I don't see the point of describing every writer on Zenobia as "historian Foo Bar". They're writing about ancient Palmyra: of course they are historians! I count 14 different examples of this usage for modern authors.

I used to share your opinion and never mentioned a profession of a scholar. However, when I nominated Palmyra for FA, an editor was confused about those people. You and I are interested in ancient history and it is obvious to us that a certain guy mentioned in an article is a historian, but not all readers will know that especially if the historian doesnt have a Wiki article

Fine. So long as you know what you are doing.

• Frequently the article uses semi-colons to divide what seem to me like they should really be separate sentences

Those were the choices of the copy-editor. Its a matter of personal judgment really.

I changed some of what seemed like the more egregious ones.

• Almost all of your sources are recent; why are two (Duruy and Mommsen) so conspicuously out-of-date? There's an 89-year gap from Mommsen being first published in 1882 and Millar in 1971, the next-oldest source.Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Being older doesn't discredit a source specially if it is discussing an idea that newer sources make no mention of. This is the case of Duruy who is the only one to give a possible explanation for the motives behind the use of the name Zenobia. As for Mommsen, it is used as a reference for Gallienus being Valerian's son, which is a common knowledge and new sources are not gonna discredit it. After all, Mommsen is still considered one of the greatest historians and his works are still used by modern scholars.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Re. Duruy: if his idea hasn't been discussed since he proposed it in 1855(!) is it really WP:DUE to be discussing it in the article?

Re. Mommsen: there's nothing technically wrong with using him as a source for this – it's not exactly a fact which is likely to be challenged in new sources! But as it's such common knowledge, I would either a) have cited it to one of the other works you are using to establish other things: one must surely have mentioned it at some point(?!); b) cited it to a recent standard resource (the OCD?) or c) not bothered citing it at all: it's not exactly "likely to be challenged". Again, there's nothing actually wrong with citing Mommsen; it's just incongruous when you have cited with two exceptions literature written within the past 50 years to have a source from the 1880s...

Duruy is a respected historian hence his opinion do have some weight. The information is attributed to him and it is good that the article would offer some answer to any reader who might ask himself: Why did she named herself Zenobia. As for Mommsen, I removed it and added a newer source

More comments

• Now that I look at Stoneman p.113, it says that Z was fluent in Palmyrene, spoke good Greek, spoke Egyptian, and did not speak Latin. Yet this article has her fluent in all three of Greek, Egyptian and Palmyrene, and speaking Latin though not fluently. Ball, cited for that claim, does in fact back it up: but is that the scholarly consensus? The two sources I have just read literally at random disagree. (And neither cite the source that "reported" what they claim, so I can't go back to check that...)Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Its from the Augustan. I added a source with direct quote from the Augustan next to Ball's source

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the maps
• Since Syria does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, we should explicitly account for the licensing of the pictured 3D works from that region

Even when they depict statues many centuries old that are no doubt in the public domain? FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• For File:Poikile_quadriportico_Villa_Adriana.jpg, the situation in Italy is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Italy more complicated

Wouldn't that leave us without photos of any ancient buildings in Italy, such as this featured picture?[31] Certainly there must have been some wider discussion about how to handle this? FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It would not, as copyright can still expire. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Odaenathus_Kingdom.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Palmyrene_Empire.png
• File:OldSyrian500front.png: the uploader is not the copyright holder. What is the copyright status of this work?
• File:Hosmer.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture

Same as above, if the author died more than a hundred years ago, as is the case here, there is no copyright, so FOP is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The US only cares about author's date of death in a few cases, and those don't seem likely to apply here. If these works are out of copyright, it should be relatively quick to add an appropriate tag - but we should still do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Herbert_Schmalz-Zenobia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. I will work on the issues as soon as possible but will probably require your help.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this is so so annoying to be honest. You see a column 2000 years old pictured, and the one who took the picture released it into the public domain, yet we are faced with this.. I removed all the pictures that you think have issues.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you can put them back, I will help you add PD tags. The structures are certainly too old to be copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You there, Attar-Aram syria? FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk, I was away for some exams and a short vacation. For the pictures deleted, I have no idea how to do what Nikkimaria wants to be honest. That why I deleted them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I know, so if you put them back, I'll fix it. Then you can see what I've done (for future reference). FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, always helping me :). I will do it now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, an article like this needs lots of images... So as you can see on the Hosmer sculpture[32], I added a PD-old tag that should cover the copyright of the sculpture itself. I also added this to the other photos that were removed, but I assume Nikkimaria would want this of all photos of ancient architecture, so you can go ahead and add it to those too. As for the banknote, I added a PD-Syria tag, since it obviously wasn't created by the uploader... FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I did it to the other pictures. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Might take a while before I can make a full review, but it will certainly come. In the meantime, maybe more approximate dates can be given in the captions of various sculptures and buildings (and the painting)? Also, describing a banknote as "old" seems unnecessarily vague. No date? Artist names stated in captions could also be linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. Done.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Any date for the banknote? The description says 1998... FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its written on the banknote as well. Added

• "in his highly fictionalized account,[7] wrote that the queen's name was Na'ila al-Zabba'" Does this mean that name is probably fictitious too?

Probably, its just the name in Tabari's account and since it doesnt exist in Palmyrene inscriptions then its probably Tabari's own work

• "in many ancient sources but many are flawed or fabricated" A bit repetitive, reword one?

Reworded

• "According to Augustan, the queen's hobby" You seem to switch between the full name, and just the first or second part in different places. What do the sources do?

Actually this is the work of the copy editor, I will write the full name as most sources I've read include the full name

• "In the unreliable fourth-century Augustan History, Zenobia is said" Seems a bit repetitive to present this source again and again?

Reworded

• "Jadhimah ibn Malik, who killed the queen's father, was killed by al-Zabba'" I'm not sure who is who here. The queen and al-Zabba is the same? Also, I'd add say "who supposedly killed", or some such, since it seems to be dubious?

The queen is a historic figure. al-Zabba is a character appearing during the Abbasid era in the works of Al-Masudi and Tabari. The Abbasid woman is based on the Palmyrene queen but her story is much different from the historic Zenobia. In the Abbasid accounts, it is certain that Jadhima killed the father of al-Zabba. I wrote that Jadhima is the Tanukhid king to clarify

• "which she will need in her later career" Why suddenly present tense?

Changed

• "Palmyrene dominance of Arabia is confirmed by many milestones bearing Vaballathus' name." Still named thus today, or how? What are these milestones?

Milestones are just like modern road signs. They used to put them on roads to indicate how much time is left to reach a city. For example, a milestone found on the road between Homs and Palmyra had and inscription saying that Palmyra is 2 days away (I cant remember the exact number, thats just an example)

• "the occupation of Egypt is an opportunistic" Why present tense?

Changed

• " the prevailing emperor (Aurelian)" Is parenthesis really needed here?

Changed

• You sometimes repeat the full name of some authors, such as Patricia Southern, after they have been mentioned first time, which should be unnecessary.

Changed

• "Onomasticon" Could be explained briefly ion parenthesis.

Done

• "Hosmer's Zenobia in Chains (1859) by Harriet Hosmer" Is the first one a redundancy?

Changed

Thanks FunkMonk. I will wait until you finish then work on your notes.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Now finished reading, looks good! Last comment is that there is a good deal of overlinking (articles linked more than once in the article body). FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot FunkMonk.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - looks great to me now! It is of extreme importance that the articles about historical Syrian subjects are improved, considering the insanity that is going on in Syria now. In this way, you spread awareness about it in the world, and hopefully, Syrians will appreciate their past, rather than destroying it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

Good job in bringing this important article so far, I'll comment below as I go along reading it. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reviewing this, Im a big fan and stalker of your articles.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• "She bore the gentilicium (surname) Septimia". Perhaps a brief explanation is in order here as to why a Syrian queen had a Roman name.

Added a note

• "When an Augustan account deals with a known event". Two things: first, use the full name of the source, as is common practice; second, if the AH is the only or main source, how do we know which events are known and which are invented? I assume you mean that "known" is an event corroborated from other sources. If so, write it out, and mention perhaps an example or two of what other sources are used to corroborate the AH.

Used the full name, and yes, I meant that when an event mentioned in Augustan is also mentioned in other sources or in inscriptions. I mentioned that

• "Manichaean sources". Could you please include them by name? And perhaps briefly explain why Manichaean sources seal with her?

They are scattered fragments found in China and they are not part of a certain book. I added a note clarifying them fully. Why did they seal with Zenobia is because, according to them, Mani visited Palmyra in his journeys

• "In the unreliable fourth-century Augustan History". You don't have to repeat the fact.

Done

• " Ptolemaics". This is a bit odd. I'd suggest "Ptolemies".

Done

• "After the Palmyrene conquest of Egypt,[27] and according to the Souda, a 10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia,[28] ". I get what you mean, but this is awkwardly phrased. I'd suggest switching the two sentences.

Done

• "invented by Zenobia's enemies to discredit her". For the average reader, it is unclear why an association with Cleopatra would be discrediting. Add a note explaining the Romans' view of Cleopatra (and women leaders in general, which might be appropriate here in general)

Done

• "Zenobia's alleged claim of a connection to Cleopatra seems to have been politically motivated". This should follow eight after "invented by Zenobia's enemies to discredit her", as an alternative hypothesis. Then conclude with the assessment by the modern scholars that "A relationship between Zenobia and the Ptolemaic dynasty is unlikely"...

Done

• "Arab traditions" and "Arab historians". Given that by this you mean chiefly al-Tabari, I recommend changing to "Arabic", because al-Tabari was not an Arab, but an Arabic-writing Persian.

Done

• "immersed with legends". Immersed in.

Done

That's it for now, I'll tackle the remaining sections later. A very thorough job so far. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was busy in RL. Comments on the remaining sections:

• "During the early centuries AD, Palmyra was an autonomous city subordinate to Rome and part of the province of Syria Phoenice.[45] ". The reference does not say anything about the autonomy, but as I can see, this is dealt with somewhat more in the same source further on (e.g., p. 40). Please include this, and note that the exact relationship is difficult to define based on the sources.

I removed the word "autonomous". Palmyra did enjoy relative freedom but the word autonomous might be too much

• "Odaenathus, formally loyal to Rome and its emperor Gallienus (Valerian's son),[47] was declared king of Palmyra.[48]". What exactly is the connection to the Battle of Edessa? Or is there none?

It seems that the news of the defeat prompted Odaenathus royal elevation. Not many writers expand on the matter but you can conclude from the words of AH that he declared himself king to face the lack of a central authority after the capture of Valerian- as in he needed this title to rally troops, but no scholar specifically write this. This might be helpful as it does somewhat discuss the circumstances of that moment

• " Odaenathus received many Roman titles and ruled from the Black Sea to Palestine.[51]". ruled the Roman territories from the Black Sea to Palestine. Perhaps it would be better to add the titles explicitly, since you do so either way further on, especially since it was the title corrector totius Orientis which made him viceroy of the East and allowed him to rule "from the Black Sea to Palestine".

Done

• "was unmentioned in the historical record". I think this usage is incorrect: was not mentioned, or was left unmentioned.

Done

• " According to later accounts, including one by Giovanni Boccaccio, she accompanied her husband on his campaigns". Why is Boccaccio relevant here? Surely he is not a historian? Rather, mention a couple of the other "later accounts".

He is not a historian but there is a false information circulating the internet and in the minds of many people that Zenobia accompanied her husband in campaigns. Boccaccio is the one who started this tradition of having Zenobia with her husband in war and that's why I mentioned him so it would be clear to readers who is the source of such information and why it is not reliable.

• "In 267, when Zenobia was in her late twenties or early thirties, Odaenathus and his eldest son were assassinated while returning from a campaign.[50]". I'd suggest moving this up to conclude the section about Odaenathus' career, which would then connect with "dated two or three years after Odaenathus' death", where the date is currently unknown.

Done

• "In Augustan History, Odaenathus son". In the AH, Odaenathus' son.

Done

• "The history does not suggest". Which history? If AH, name it explicitly.

Done

• "At the time of Odaenathus' assassination, Zenobia might have been with her husband; according to chronicler George Syncellus, he was killed near Heraclea Pontica in Bithynia.[61]". This also belongs to one of the sections above, either on the assassination or on her role as consort.

This is a part of a long paragraph detailing the circumstances of power transfer. She might have been with her husband (scenario A) or at Palmyra (scenario B). If she was with her husband then the transfer would have been smoother than if she was in Palmyra which might have led the soldiers to elect one of their own generals. I think it would be better for the flowing of ideas to keep it where it is since it is important to explain the circumstances. Would that be Okay ?

• "Zenobia held the reins of power in the kingdom,[63] although she never claimed to rule in her own right and acted as a regent for her son.[64] Vaballathus was kept in his mother's shadow, never exercising real power.[65]". I think a slight re-arrangement would make this flow better: Although she never claimed to rule in her own right and acted as a regent for her son,[64] Zenobia held the reins of power in the kingdom,[63] and Vaballathus was kept in his mother's shadow, never exercising real power.[65]". Just a suggestion, though.

Done

• "antagonized the empire towards Palmyra". Strike "towards Palmyra." as unnecessary.

Done

• "the queen's timing seemed intentional". Did it seem so at the time, or does it seem so to modern historians? If so, then present tense.

To modern scholars. present tense used

• "unrest in the province, whose society was fractured;" a sentence or two on how exactly it was fractured would be needed here to explain why this is relevant.

fractured between Zenobia's supporters and opponents according to Watson

• "The Roman stance was worsened". I think you mean position, rather than stance.

Done

• "during the reign of Emperor Valens." Give regnal dates.

Done

• Descendants and titles section. I'd recommend either splitting off the titles section (and moving it up), or incorporating it, as appropriate, in the "Regent" and "Empress" sections (in part this is already done).

Moved up

Overall I found the article well written, excellently referenced and comprehensive, with an exhaustive bibliography. Once my remarks are addressed, I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 15:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I am glad to Support this excellent article. Well done Attar-Aram syria! Constantine ✍ 13:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good on comprehensiveness...and I can't see any prose clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's copyvio clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• References all formatted consistently.
• FN 18, used 6 times - material true to source.
• FN 146, used once - material true to source.
• FN 199, used once - material true to source.
• FN 207, used once - material true to source.

Ok I am happy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: @Nikkimaria: Just checking as it got a bit lost in all the text. There were a few changes to the image rationales after your image review. How does it look from your end now? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd still suggest scaling up the maps, and File:Herbert_Schmalz-Zenobia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added the tag. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2017 [33].

---

Ninety-five Theses

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This short work started the Protestant Reformation. It will turn 500 years old on October 31st, on which date I hope the article can be featured on the main page. The article was just promoted to GA by Coemgenus. JFH (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• Why is Palmer in your sources list?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Leftover, now removed. --JFH (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at GA, as the nominator mentions. I found very little to complain about there. The only thing I'd recommend as for FA that I didn't care about at GA involves citations. Everything is well-cited, but sometimes an entire paragraph sourced to the same source is marked only by a cite at the end. That's all good, but in FAs I like to cite every sentence, even if it appears duplicative. That way, if someone adds a sentence to the paragraph later, we can distinguish what information goes with which citation. It would be unnecessary on paper, but in a dynamic encyclopedia, it makes sense. But this isn't required by the rules, I don't think, so if the nominator and the other reviewers disagree, I won't let it stand in the way of my support of this excellent article. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments Iry-Hor

This is a well-written, spotless article on a topic of profound importance given the consequences it had and continues to have on world history. I did a random spot-checking of the sources and found no problem. I wonder however if the lede could better reflect the content of the article: the piece of the lede referring to the content of the theses is a single sentence "They advance Luther's positions against what he saw as abusive practices by preachers selling plenary indulgences, which were certificates believed to reduce the temporal punishment for sins committed by the purchasers themselves or their loved ones in purgatory" while the section discussing the content is a good quarter if not a third of the article. Given that people coming to read the article are likely to be at least as interested in the theses themselves as in the historical circumstances surrounding them, I think it would be good to add another sentence to the lede incorporating Luther's positions in more details, in particular vis-a-vis the pope, given that this is what led to the opposition of the church. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've expanded the lead. --JFH (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I gladly Support then! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber

Looking good, some questions below:

• Why was Tetzel barred from entering Saxony?
• In theses 41–47 Luther begins to criticize indulgences.. why not just, "In theses 41–47 Luther criticizes indulgences..."
• Luther begins to criticize the doctrine of the treasury of merit on which the doctrine of indulgences is based in theses 56–66 - ditto
• there are a lot of disputations in the first para of Luther's intent

Otherwise looks good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've addressed these. --JFH (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

Overall the article looks very good. I have a couple concerns.

• In the "Content" section, you say:

"In theses 14–16, Luther challenged common beliefs about purgatory"

He does so in many statements after that, seemingly up through thesis number 29. Thus, you may want to say "In theses 14-29, Luther challenged common beliefs about Purgatory." Then go into more specific detail about what he said in 14-16.

• Luther is famous for his assertion, condemned as heretical by the Church, that salvation is attainable "by faith alone". I don't see any specific mention of this in the article. Is there any statement in the 95 Theses that was understood by some to imply that argument? Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've clarified that at least for Luther the Theses don't imply that doctrine. I don't believe any of my sources argue that they imply that, only that they set Luther up to be open to disagreement with the Pope.

Thanks for your comments!--JFH (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. The article is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced. I believe it meets the criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Excellent piece of work, clearly and concisely written. I made a couple of minor edits for page number formatting. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Coord note -- Was there a source review for formatting/reliability? You can make a request at the top of WT:FAC if not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Laser brain

• No problems noted, everything looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

Interested in the topic, I am grateful for a great article. Just minor concerns:

Lead

• "involves inner spiritual repentance rather than the system of sacramental confession of the Catholic Church", - perhaps it will be more precise in the body that sacramental confession of the Catholic Church also aims at spiritual repentances, but was perverted by people making money. Reads overly simple.
• In the quote, Catholic Church - especially with that general link to today's Catholic Church - seems also overly simple. At that time, it was rather a catholic church, one for all of of Western Europe (and its colonies, as reflected in Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery).
• I suggest to mention and link Protestant Reformation at the very beginning of the lead, because we can't count on readers knowing the Theses are connected to it.

Background

• "In the Catholic Church, indulgences are part of the economy of salvation." - as before, this is not true for today's Catholic Church, - at least say "were" (tense in the whole paragraph and following), better refer to the practise of that particular time (when they had to finance St. Peter).
• Background might include please that All Saint's Day is 1 November = the day when the relics were displayed. I also miss the German name of the Church, which after turning Protestant (a little later) was simply known as Schlosskirche, - no Saints. - I am actually surprised that allegedly (looking at our article name) the common name of that church is the English translation of how it was called until the early 16th century.

Distribution ...

• The image needs more explanation.

That's all. Thank you again for presenting a complex topic! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks much! I incorporated all your suggestions but the name of the church. Are you saying you think I should use Schlosskirche? That's not common at all in the English literature on Luther. "Castle Church" is, but I defaulted to our article name, and "Castle Church" seems a bit informal. --JFH (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on the church article talk (before I ever came here. No, I would not want you to change the name which is correct in the context of 1517, but can you tell you that I never heard of it before reading English Wikipedia, - it's completely "uncommon" in German, Schlosskirche is the term used in German, perhaps worth mentioning? see de:Schlosskirche (Lutherstadt Wittenberg). - If you look at de:95 Thesen: no mentioning of Allerheiligen. - Castle Church is an awful translation, Schloss is not castle ;) - but that is the name used as a World Heritage Site (not their only sloppy name). - I'll read again, but not now, still think that the link to Catholic Church is misleading when pointing to today's church. How about Christian Church, at that point, and then - new paragraph - explain what that was. We should perhaps have an article Western Christian church before the Reformation, not to be confused with today's Catholic Church which is rather a result of the schism than the organisation which was split. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The best article we have seems to be Christianity in the 15th century. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I added a bit to clarify that there were not competing sects in Europe at the time. As for the link, the Christian Church, or Christianity in the 15th century, includes Eastern Orthodoxy, along with Waldensianism and Lollardy and many other sects. Surely any good Catholic will agree that the institution called the Catholic Church today is the same institution we're talking about here, even if it has changed some of its practices? --JFH (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, are you satisfied with the edits I made? --JFH (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I will look, - past midnight, better after sleep. - Check Samuel Rodigast, who went to a university but not todays. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked and liked most. Minor: All Saints is 1 November, so it was in preparation. Reformation Day is more a holiday than a festival, and not a National holiday anymore as it used to be in states with dominantly Protestant population, but once more a National holiday, now nationwide, in 2017 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt. I've made those changes.--JFH (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: We have four supports, all the checks are complete and I think Gerda's concerns have been addressed. I think if there are any further concerns, they could be raised on the talk page, and I don't think we need to hold this up any longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2017 [34].

---

Gabriel Pleydell

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Pleydell was a controversial politician from Wiltshire who served in the English Parliament throughout the 1550s and 60s. He is mostly remembered for his involvement in several court cases, ranging from illegal hunting to conspiring against "Bloody" Mary I. This article also describes his family's origins, rise to the House of Commons and information surrounding his death. I've worked hard on this article, having created it and responded to GA and PR feedback. My prose isn't the best, but I've benefited from a thorough copyedit by a user from the guild. I'm not expecting this article to be perfect as this is my first FAC nomination; I will say, however, I believe it to be comprehensive and reliably sourced. Your constructive feedback will be much appreciated. Yours, Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

Comments by Mike Christie

I reviewed this at PR, and it's in very good shape. I have copyedited -- please revert anything you disagree with. A handful of minor points:

• What does "permissible" mean in "the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute (a permissible distance from Marlborough)"?

  Detail added in a note, feel free to copyedit if necessary.

  That's a very helpful note, but I'm still not quite clear -- does "permissible" mean that Chippenham and Preshute were within the Marlborough constituency? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  I now understand where you're coming from. Chippenham was a constituency in it's own right; Preshute, however, is a parish that lies immediately on the town of Marlborough's western boundary and thus fell into it's constituency. I've tweaked the sentence slightly. Curlymanjaro (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  OK, that makes sense. I think we might as well be more direct with the reader, though; how about replacing the parenthesis you have now with "(both of which were within the borough of Marlborough)"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  That would usually be a good suggestion. However, by 'borough' I refer to Marlborough as a borough constituency, which does not include Chippenham but does Preshute. Indeed, at this time, Chippenham was it's own borough constituency. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. So it was only Pleydell's acquisition of the Preshute property that qualified him for Marlborough; the acquisition of Chippenham had nothing to do with his nomination? If so, how about "His position as ranger probably led to the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute; the latter allowed him to qualify for Marlborough's seat in Parliament"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Direct quotations such as "Regarded as a ringleader" should have a citation immediately following.

Cited.

• "Although the Star Chamber considered his comments slanderous, it took little judicial action against them": little, or none? If the source isn't specific it's fine as is. Also, I'd change it to either "action against him" or "action regarding them" as an action would have been against Pleydell, not against his comments.

  You were right to point this out, Bindoff suggests the "result is unknown" regarding the matter. Hopefully I've rectified.

  Much better. I tweaked it a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• "a kinsman of William Garrard, with whom Pleydell served as Member for Wootton Bassett": perhaps "a kinsman of the William Garrard with whom Pleydell served as Member for Wootton Bassett".

Added.

• It looks like Alison Wall's description of Pleydell and Sharington as "scoundrels" is only cited to Hasler; I think it should be cited directly to the ODNB.

Citation added.

• Are "corrupt" and "notorious" from Bindoff? If so, that's fine; otherwise I'd cite them directly following the quoted words.

They're from Wall; the citation is included in the note correcting her description. I've added another footnote for good measure.

• How confident are we that Cordell is the gentleman depicted? Unless we're pretty sure I think the connection is too minor for a possibly unconnected picture.

  Most online references to the picture describe the painting as "Portrait of an Unknown Gentleman (sometimes called 'Sir William Cordell')". Given the obscurity of much of Tudor history, I feel it's acceptable. I trust your good judgement regardless.

  Johnbod, can you comment? I'm not knowledgeable about art history at all, so I'd like another opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, struck; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• "several Members of the Wiltshire gentry": should this be "members"? Or were they all MPs?

• My mistake, just a typo. Duly corrected.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, Mike Christie. Once again, you've been incredibly helpful. Curlymanjaro (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Pleydell_coat_of_arms.png: what is the copyright status of the original design?

• I've recreated the arms based on Burke and Burke's description in A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, Ireland, and Scotland (1844). As for free use, the design outdates any possible copyright limitation currently in place. The design has been published at least twice outside of Wikimedia Commons - here and here. There is also a free use image on Commons that includes the arms; I'll leave the link here (see furthest left on the second row).

• File:Westminster_16C.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Done.

Many thanks Nikkimaria for carrying out the review; please let me know if my response is insufficient. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the second, do we know the author's date of death? Assuming Brewer was contemporary to the 1884 publication, he could have survived well into the 20th century, which calls into question both a life+100 designation and a pre-1996 UK copyright expiration. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Seems I can't find anything online regarding Brewer. I will say, however, the modern incarnation of The Builder magazine must have given explicit permission for the website of the UK Parliament to republish the work. Despite this, licensing for images from Parliament's website has been a contentious issue among users in the past, especially in regard to the 'Open Parliament License' described on the site's copyright page. Being undoubtedly more experienced than myself in this field, I would be grateful if you could cast your eye over this. Curlymanjaro (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• That Open Parliament License site indicates it applies only to works which were/are under Crown copyright or are owned by Parliament; that doesn't appear to be the case here, absent evidence to the contrary.
• We can solve the US copyright easily by using a {{PD-1923-abroad}} tag, but the UK will be more problematic. If we cannot find any further info on the author, or identify any other reason why it would be PD in the UK, we could always upload it locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Added the tag for American users. Done some digging into H.J. Brewer and could only find a San Fransisco-based artist active at a similar time to our draughtsman; I've no way of verifying a connection. Curlymanjaro (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Given this, what do you think we should do from here, Nikkimaria? I could upload locally; although I would appreciate advice on the non-free guidelines. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Upload locally. This will eliminate the need to confirm that the image is free in the UK - if we later uncover information that it is, we can re-upload to Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Done. You're more than welcome to tweak the details of the upload; as I've mentioned, I'm no expert in the minutiae of non-free files! Curlymanjaro (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Technically, now it isn't non-free. Commons requires that works be free/PD in both their country of origin and the US, but Wikipedia only requires that works be free/PD in the US - and this image is, it's only the UK status that is questionable. See intro to WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• More fool me. Thanks once again for your insight. Curlymanjaro (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Coming of age by 1540, his entrance into politics in 1553 was secured by his residence at Midgehall, near Wootton Bassett, giving him a valid claim to the market town's seat in Parliament." This does not sound right. The first clause is superfluous as you have already said that he was born by 1519. In the rest of the sentence, "secured by his residence" and "valid claim" are far too strong. Many people living there would not have been thought to have a valid claim.

• Deleted first clause. Replaced "secured" with "permitted"; removed "valid".

• "permitted" is still too strong as it implies only residents could be MPs for the town. How about "assisted"? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Amended.

• "His entrance into politics in 1553 was assisted by his residence at Midgehall, near Wootton Bassett, giving him a claim to the market town's seat in Parliament." Apologies I do not think my previous suggestion works as it still says that his residence gave him a claim, which is too strong. How about changing "Member" in the first line to "[[Member of Parliament#United Kingdom|Member of Parliament]] (MP)", and then "He entered politics as MP for Wootton Bassett, close to his family estate at Midgehall."? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've only just seen this. Amended.

• "confirm for Gabriel Pleydell a niche in parliamentary history", according to a contemporary biographer." Bindoff is modern, not contemporary, and "biographer" implies that Pleyfell has been the subject of a full scale biography. I would prefer "historian".

• Amended.

• "Pleydell was born by 1519 at his family's estate of Midgehall" In note 4 you imply that Midgehall was leased by Stanley Abbey until 1534.

• Amended.

• You still say that he was born at Midgehall in 1519 and imply below that it was acquired in 1534. You need to spell out that William held it by 1519. Is it known when? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing this one out. When I started the article, in my ignorance, I thought "of Midgehall" implied he was born there. No sources actually give a location of birth, so I've removed altogether. Cheers! Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• "A 1545 record, ordering him to pay 26 shillings and 8 pence in benevolence to the crown under King Henry VIII, indicates that he was managing the financial affairs of the Midgehall estate." It would be helpful to explain before this sentence that his father had been granted a 95 year lease in 1534.

• Sentence added.

• The note explaining "benevolence" should be after the word, not at the end of the sentence.

• Amended.

• "In 1549, William Pleydell bequeathed Gabriel tenancy of the manor house at West Ilsley, Berkshire;" This implies that William died in 1549, but in the next sentence you say he died in 1555.

• My mistake, "bequeathed" changed to "entrusted".

• The description of the dispute over Midgehall is confusingly worded. Rather than saying Gabriel would inherit after his father's death in 1555 and then qualifying it, why not just explain how he left the estate, then his death and that of his wife and Virgil (when?), then that Virgil was a "wayward" and what that means.

• Hopefully my changes have been satisfactory here. The last clause of your suggestion was a misinterpretation; I was implying that Gabriel had been described as "wayward", but I've removed the quote to avoid confusion.

• "Gabriel received the remainder of Midgehall's 95-year lease after unsuccessfully challenging the former's will" This is again unclear. Whose will? His mother's?

• Yes, I hope I've made this clearer.

• Why did he challenge it and how did this result in him receiving the lease?

• One would speculate for financial or material gain, but this would be conjecture. I believe this had little to do with Midgehall, circumstances meant that he would inherit the lease regardless.

• "(an action that estranged his sibling John, who was never "involved in the misadventures of his brother")" Presumably his younger brother John, so it would be better to say so. Why was he concerned in the dispute and what misadventures?

• Amended. The "misadventures" refer to his later legal affairs; I concede this was an inappropriate section to use the quotation.

• "Tobias relinquished his inheritance, having been settled in Chipping Faringdon for 11 years." 1. This presumably explains why Gabriel inherited the lease as Tobias was the only person who had a superior claim, but you seem to have confused the issue by putting the apparently irrelevant court case in the middle of the explanation. 2. 11 years to when? You are giving no dates here. 3. The passive form implies that he lost his claim by his residence in Chipping Faringdon. It would be better to say " By [year] Tobias had been resident in Chipping Faringdon for 11 years, and he relinquished his inheritance."

• 1. You'd be correct in that presumption; are you referring to the Chancery case mentioned under "Plaintiff and early defendant"? 2. Date given. 3. Adopted suggestion.

• "He married Anne," "He" appears to refer to Tobias, the last person mentioned in the previous paragraph, but presumably you mean Gabriel.

• Amended.

• At present I am not inclined to support. The content looks OK, but the awkward style and elliptical references to matters which are not explained make the article unnecessarily difficult to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hopefully I can change your mind. I've made an effort to address the issues listed, please let me know if the response is insufficient. Thanks so much for taking the time. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Victorian depiction of the 16th-century Palace of Westminster, where Parliament meets" I suggest "met" as the 16C palace no longer exists.

• Amended.

• "His position as ranger probably led to the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute; the latter allowed him to qualify for Marlborough's seat in Parliament" A similar query to the one in the lead. "allowed him to qualify" implies a requirement that MPs must hold local property, but surely there has never been such a rule?

• "allowed" changed to "incentivised".

• "Described by P.W. Hasler as "a religious and political radical"" Obviously Protestant, but worth saying so.

• Amended.

• " ensure the succession of Queen Elizabeth I" Better "the future Queen Elizabeth I".

• Amended.

• "The Star Chamber considered his comments slanderous; it is unclear how much judicial action was taken regarding them" "unclear whether judicial action"?

• Amended.

• "In 1557 Pleydell was returned to the chamber by former accomplice John Berwick" "returned to the chamber" does not sound right. "charged in the chamber"?

• Amended.

• " former accomplice John Berwick" I doubt whether "accomplice" is the right word as they were found not guilty. Perhaps "associate".

• Amended.

• "assumed by Stanley Thomas Bindoff" I would say "the historian Stanley..."

• Amended.

• "Pleydell's efforts were seen as an attempt" Seen by who?

• The court. Amended.

• "Bindoff and Hasler disagree on the proximity of the Midgehall estate to the town of Wootton Bassett; the former placing it one mile north, the latter, one mile south". East according to the map in British History Online on a page you cite at [35].

• Added.

• "but became redundant for the House of Commons" It would be clearer to say that multi-member constituencies were abolished.

• Amended.

• "The House of Commons, before the passing of the 1832 Reform Act, represented 'pocket boroughs'." This was only one class. There were also county and university seats.

• Added.

• Sorry I should have said before. Not all boroughs were pocket boroughs. Maybe change "The House of Commons, before the passing of the 1832 Reform Act, represented 'pocket boroughs' (in addition to county and university constituencies)." to "Before the passing of the 1832 Reform Act, many MPs represented "pocket boroughs". Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• No problem. Suggestion added.

• My computer is shoing url errors on refs 6, 8, 17, 21, 23, 27.

• Can I ask what for? I'm not seeing anything.
• See [[Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown]].

• I think I've sorted it.

Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your highly constructive feedback, I feel we're getting there now. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Pleydell's father had once held the lands of Thomas Seymour in the nearby parish of Eastrop" Does "held" here mean "leased"? If so, I suggest changing for the more specific word as held could mean owned, and it is not clear why a status as a previous owner would create a relationship of trust.

• Quite right. Amended.

• "the latter incentivising him to qualify for Marlborough's seat in Parliament" I do not understand this.

• Clarified?

• "The Commons, dissatisfied with the ruling, took no further action on the matter" They were dissatisfied and took no action? That sounds like a non-sequitur.

• Clarified.

• "Sir Edward Baynton, now knighted 26 years after the family's litigation" Why are the knighthood and the litigation connected? This sounds like a non-sequitur. Also does it mean that Pleydell were eventually reconciled? if so, you should say so.

• Unconnected; amended. There's no direct evidence to suggest this.

You have my gratitude, as always. Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• No DABs, external links OK
• No duplicate links
• Link Lydiard Tregoze in the caption of the first image and remove the link from the second image.

• Done.

• managing the abode Do you mean the abbey or the Midgehall estate?

• Clarified.

• Not seeing anything else at the moment; I'll make another pass later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Many thanks for taking a look Sturmvogel 66; I'll wait on more suggestions. Curlymanjaro (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• as a Member for the market Is this common British usage? It's not a proper noun so ordinarily wouldn't be capitalized.

• Very true; however, "Member of Parliament" is a title in the UK and is therefore capitalised. See Theresa May for instance.

• I understand that, but I'm not sure about "Member" when you're not giving the full title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fair point. Amended.

• Umm, I didn't mean for you to go that far. Member for X is a proper name and should be capitalized. Just plain Member, as in the example above, is incorrect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Apologies, just a silly mistake on my part. Is everything now in order? Curlymanjaro (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• they were succeeded by Henry Knyvet and John Winchcombe. When?

• Amended.

• indictment by attorney-general Edward Griffin Should't Attorney-General be capitalized?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Amended.

Many thanks for your comments Sturmvogel 66. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's copyvio clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• References formatted consistently Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• FN 6, used 5 times - material faithful to source.
• FN 47, used once - material faithful to source.
• FN 24, used once - material faithful to source.

Ok I am happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Cas Liber; I'm glad you're satisfied with everything. Curlymanjaro (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2017 (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) 13:33, 16 February 2017 [36].

---

Nike-X

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nike-X was the first ABM system intended to deal with full-scale attacks; it envisioned thousands of missiles flying every which way in a war that would last only a few minutes in total. Even with this protection, tens of millions would die, and it was this fact that ultimately led to it being abandoned - if the goal was to save lives, fallout shelters were both cheaper and more effective. Although Nike-X is certainly one of the most technically advanced ABM systems, it is also perhaps the least well known - I was something of a kid-expert on ABM back in the 80s, and I never even heard of Nike-X until recently. The article went through A-class on MILHIST with relative ease, and I've only done minor tweaks since, so It's time to go! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments here as I go through the article. Not sure how much I can get done tonight. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert anything I screw up.

• "1,700 TJ": I assume TJ is terajoules? Suggest glossing or linking or both.

This is something the convert template does, and frankly, if people don't know what a kT is then they definitely won't know what a PT is. Just remove it and list kt perhaps?

I'll strike, since I don't think it's a big deal. Yes, maybe remove the conversion in this case as not being useful. That would also let you make it "...a large (400 kilotons of TNT) warhead..." which avoids "large 400 kilotons", which isn't quite right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I did the conversion anyway, it was bugging me too.

• Why is "cost-exchange ratio" italicized?

Good question. Fixed.

• "Additionally, the non-moving phased-array antennas were mounted directly in concrete and could be hardened to much greater strengths, which, given the accuracy of Soviet missiles of the era, would require several warheads to guarantee its destruction": suggest "Additionally, the non-moving phased-array antennas were mounted directly in concrete and could be hardened to much greater strengths. Given the accuracy of Soviet missiles of the era, this meant several Soviet warheads would be needed to guarantee destroying the antennnas."

Yes, that is much better.

• "As warhead weights began to decrease in the late 1950s, existing missiles had leftover throw weight that could be filled with enough decoys to create significant clutter" is unsourced.

In a note, does it need to be? I added Teller's book which explains what happened during Naboska and lowering weights in general.

I think it wouldn't hurt to add the source, since you have one. I see you have some unsourced notes later. If there's something that is hard to source because it's a fairly obvious deduction from sourced information, that might be a case for not citing anything. That happens in maths articles occasionally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• "The system optionally retained Zeus, which could be used as a longer range system in areas away from cities": given the problems with Zeus, how did this argument go? What could make Zeus useful in any area?

Explained, hopefully.

Looks like you accidentally chopped part of your intended edit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed!

• Some of the image captions simply repeat information from the article, but for example the "typical Nike-X deployment" caption should probably be cited, presumably to the source given with the image.

Done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuing:

• "This did not come to be": suggest "Colgate's suggestion was never adopted".

Much better.

• Can we put a date on Colgate's letter to Science?

We can!

• "Colgate's New Mexico Tech": it took me a few seconds to realize that the possessive indicated the institution where Colgate worked. Perhaps "New Mexico Tech, where Colgate was a professor" or whatever position he held at the time.

Rewrote the whole section, should be improved.

• A couple more italicized terms that I think don't need to be: clutter fence and pulse chain.

Done!

• The sources may not give this explicitly, but the top speed and top acceleration of the Sprint would be interesting to note. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (actually done on the back of an envelope, for the first time in all the times I've used that phrase) tells me it was over 40g acceleration and probably about 2.5 km/s. Not an issue if this isn't in the sources.

I definitely can find this - IIRC it was over 100g and that does seem like something the reader would like to see.

Ok I added this.

• "The W66's explosive yield is reported as being in the "low kiloton" range, with various references claiming it is anywhere from 1 to 20 kilotons of TNT (4.2 to 83.7 TJ)." Since it's not currently in service, I'd suggest either "is reported as having been" or "was reported as". For the second part of the sentence I think "was" is better than "is".

Done

-- I've completed a read-through; the prose is in pretty good shape. I need to read it through again for structure -- tomorrow, if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

More comments on a second read-through:

• "it was calculated that a salvo of only four ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus base": "a Zeus base", not "the", surely?

It reads ok with "a", but I am curious about this... the "the" was "the base that was being attacked". Does this need to be re-worded?

Well, there's no explicit mention of an attacked base, so I think "a" works better. If the sentence had been "it was calculated that if a Zeus base were attacked by a salvo of only four ICBMs, the missiles would have a 90% chance of hitting the base", then it's "the base"; or if you had "it was calculated that a salvo of only four ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus base being attacked" then that could also work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Judging from the missile gap article, and the dates given in this article, at the time Nike-X was authorized it may still have been the case that the USSR did not actually have enough missiles to overwhelm Zeus. Is that the case? The lead says it was "expected that the Soviets would have hundreds" so I'm guessing that it is, but I think it would be worth mentioning the uncertainty, and giving whatever information is known now about how many missiles the Soviets really had.

Yes, they did not actually have enough until the late 1960s. I changed expected to believed, which I think helps, but maybe there's a good point in the body where I could insert more?

That might be good; when I get a bit more time I'll see if I can suggest where. I should be able to spend more time on this over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuing:

• I think a date is necessary in the first paragraph of the lead -- perhaps "... designed by the US Army in the 1960s to ...".

Done.

• Suggest making it "Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, felt ..." in the lead.

Indeed.

• The first and last sentences of the third paragraph of History/Nike Zeus are too similar in structure and wording: "Test firings...began in...and were generally...successful".

Fixed.

• "The primary Zeus deployment concepts were intended to protect against the ICBMs being fired at these bases, or a larger network to defend against attacks with two ICBMs being launched at the largest US cities": I don't think this sentence quite works -- the way the concepts are described isn't syntactically parallel. How about "The primary Zeus deployment concepts were either to protect against the ICBMs being fired at these bases, or to provide a larger network to defend against attacks with two ICBMs being launched at the largest US cities"?

Rewrote this section.

• The paragraph starting "Technological improvements in warheads and missiles" might be a good place to insert a note about the missile gap being imaginary.

  Added.

  I see you have this in a footnote in the previous paragraph, but I think it should be in the main text; and where you have it now it's talking about the past. I think the reader needs to know that it was some years past Khrushchev's comments that the Soviets finally started to have a significant number of ICBMs.

  Done.

• "By the time the warheads passed through the fireball, about 60 kilometers (37 mi) above the base, it was only about 8 seconds from impact. That was not enough time for the radar to lock on and fire a Zeus before the warhead hit its target." Plural "warheads" at the start; then singular at the end. I tried a copyedit to make it plural throughout, but I don't know what the natural plural of Zeus would be: "...lock on and fire Zeuses before the warheads hit their targets"?

Zeus' <- note apostrophe?

I went ahead and changed it to singular throughout; I've struck this point but tweak my edit if you don't like it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest eliminating the italics on "nuclear blackout" and "threat tube"; I think it generally works better to use quotes to introduce these terms. Although on further consideration I wonder if this is a MoS issue; if you prefer italics for this and MoS is OK with it then you shouldn't change just for my preference. I'll see if I can find a discussion of it.

It is MOS. It's quotes for nicknames, italics for "first instance of a term using common words used in a different fashion. Who knows though, the MOS seems to change a lot...

OK, I'll quit complaining about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Exploding a single warhead just outside the Zeus' maximum range, or even the explosion of the Zeus' own warhead, would allow warheads following it to approach unseen": needs some restructuring since "following it" doesn't make sense for Zeus' own warhead. How about "Exploding a single warhead just outside the Zeus' maximum range would allow warheads following it to approach unseen; the explosion of the Zeus' own warhead could have the same effect."?

Oh yes, I definitely like that.

• "Known as the Zeus Multi-function Array Radar, or ZMAR, initial studies at Bell Labs started in 1960": needs rephrasing; the initial studies weren't known as ZMAR.

Corrected.

• "The system optionally retained Zeus": I think this refers to the fourth system listed in that paragraph, but it should be clearer.

Some more cleanup there.

• "the funding would instead be used for development of the new system": did McNamara specifically pick one of the two "new missile" systems from the previous paragraph, or was the choice between those two not made at this point?

Yes, he chose the most complex. Fixed.

• "Low-altitude intercepts would also have the advantage of reducing the problem with nuclear blackout. The lower edge of the extended fireball is also at about 37 miles (60 km) altitude." I think it might be better to lead with the connection with the altitude in the previous paragraph. How about: "The lower edge of an extended fireball used to induce nuclear blackout would be at about 60 km (37 miles), the same as the altitude at which decluttering began. Hence low-altitude intercepts meant that deliberate attempts to create a blackout would not affect the operation of the Sprint missile."?

Used.

• "would hand that information off to the DCDPS over voice-quality phone lines": I would guess this means that in the era before the internet, an existing POTS line was repurposed as a direct communications line? This is going to be a little obscure to many readers. If there's enough information in the source to put some explanation in a footnote I think it would be worthwhile.

OK.

• "By 1965 the growing fleets of ICBMs in the inventories of both the US and USSR was making the cost of such a system very expensive": again I think it needs to be clear to the reader what was real and what was imagined to be the Soviet ICBM count.

Edited as above.

• You have "became clear" twice in a short span in the "Problems" section.

Fixed.

• The caption for the HIBEX says 400g, which isn't in the article, so I think that needs a citation.

Added.

• "Hardsite proposed building small Sprint bases close to Minuteman fields": this is the HSD-II concept, I gather, and I think it's worth spelling out, even though the prior paragraph does say subsequent work focused on HSD-II.

Indeed.

• "by 1966 the Air Force came to reject it largely for the same reasons it had rejected Zeus in the same role": is "reject" the right word here? They opposed Zeus; it was McNamara who rejected it, wasn't it? For the first use of "reject" I'm unclear on the context of their rejection: Hardsite was an ARPA study, not an Air Force study, so I assume this is the Air Force telling ARPA they weren't interested. Since the missile sites were their responsibility, was it their choice in this case to reject Hardsite, so "reject" really is the right word here?

Changed.

• "By 1964 SCD had become part of the baseline Nike-X deployment": I think we need "planned" somewhere in the adjectives for "deployment", to make sure readers are clear it was never actually deployed.

Done.

• "The deployments were arranged to be able to be built in phases, working up to complete coverage": suggest "The deployments were arranged so that they could be built in phases, working up to complete coverage".

Indeed.

• "Through late 1964 Bell was considering the role of Zeus in the Nike-X system": given that Zeus had been cancelled in January 1963, what does it mean here to say "the role of Zeus"? And later in the article I see that DEPEX and I-67 concepts incorporated Zeus; so maybe the right question is what does it mean to say Zeus was cancelled?

The missile itself, not the system as a whole. Fixed.

• There are four subsections under "Problems", but they don't really address problems; they're about studies of ways that Nike-X or Zeus could be used in other ways. It might be better to follow the "Problems" section with another subheading at the same level, titled something like "Alternatives".

Well it is both really, the problems with X and the alternatives. So I put in both.

• "DEPEX described a system similar to that initially considered under Nth Country, but was designed to grow as the nature of the threat changed": needs rewording, I think -- shouldn't "system" be the subject of "was designed"? As it stands "DEPEX" is the subject.

Should be better now.

• A couple more infelicities in that paragraph: "initially" used twice in quick succession; and "They imagined": I don't think there's a clear referent for "they".

It seems I use that word a lot...

• "This was the first strong vote of support from the JCS for ABM; the Air Force had previously been dead-set against any Army system and had publicly criticized their earlier efforts in the press": a couple of things. First, I don't know much about how the JCS works, but is it the case that the Air Force has an effective veto over JCS decisions, so this indicated a change in the Air Force's position? If not, then I don't understand what the sentence is telling me. Second, the date of the JCS comments isn't given in the article, but it appears to be early or mid 1966. Earlier in the article you say that the Air Force were "initially supportive of the Hardsite concept"; isn't that in conflict with this?

Well the JSC includes everyone and the Air Force's input was enough to keep the organization as a whole against the ABM. I'm not sure the AF ever changed their mind, there seems to be enough evidence against it, but what did happen was that the Soviet deployment was so politicized that the US had to do *something*. I've re-worded some of it, see if it's better.

That's much improved. How about: "but the construction of the A-35 ABM systems around Tallinn and Moscow persuaded the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who had previously had no strong opinion on the matter, to override the Air Force's opposition"?

• Suggest adding either a link or a {{main}} hatnote pointing to Sentinel in the "Nike-X becomes Sentinel" section.

Indeed.

• In the MAR section, it took me a minute to figure out that GE and Sylvania's experimental systems were built under Zeus, but Sylvania's contract was awarded under Nike-X (at least, that's how I read it). If we could put a date on the contract award that would help make it clearer. I see groundbreaking started in March 1963, which is only two months after McNamara terminated Zeus, so perhaps the contract was actually awarded under Zeus?

It was indeed. It should be clearer now.

• Was Sylvania also the contractor for MAR-II?

This too.

• "Having learned more about nuclear hardening, this version was built": needs rephrasing; the version hadn't learned about nuclear hardening.

Indeed.

I tweaked this some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• What does "horizontally" mean in "horizontally truncated pyramid"? Do you mean this shape?

That would be (in my terms) vertically truncated - the top is cut off. In this case the back half was cut off. Is there a better term?

I think I'd call that half a pyramid. How is it explained in the source? Is there an image? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The only image is the one in the "This image shows". If you open the thumbnail you can make it out. That was almost identical to the one they were building on Kwaj.

• The MSR paragraph has "This led to a design with... This led to an upgraded design with..."

Done.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to point out repetition: you have two sentences with identical sentence structure within a line or two of each other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think I got those.

• The Safeguard program is mentioned twice with no link and no explanation.

Fixed.

• Is PRESS or TRADEX worth a redlink?

Both, but not yet, I've started them but it will be some time.

Struck, but I'd suggest linking them anyway; redlinks are a good thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And I added them anyway.

• "MAR was an L band active electronically scanned array phased-array radar": just checking that the repetition of "array" is correct, since I know almost nothing about radar terminology.

It is not.

• The caption to the image of the Mickelsen TACMSR seems to be the only reference to that structure, so I think it needs a citation. You might also mention in the adjacent paragraph that only one was built.

Added.

• The second paragraph of Description/Sprint is mostly in present tense, but the rest of the section is in past tense.

Should be better now.

Tweaked some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

-- I've finished this pass. Generally the article is in excellent shape; most of what's above is minor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments updated above; just a couple of minor points left now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. The only remaining question I had was whether "horizontally truncated pyramid" is the best way to describe the shape in question (a pyramid with the back half cut off). I'm not going to hold up support for something this minor, but I'd suggest "half a pyramid", and then perhaps a note saying "the shape was a square pyramid with the rear half cut off" or something similar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the Zeus system illustration

Scaled.

• File:Nike_family_02.jpg: source link is dead

It is, but what do we do about that? Is there a way to do an archive url? Or is one needed at all?

If you can find an archived url (perhaps through Archive.org), that would be the best solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• File:Nike-X_deployment_concept.gif: is there a link to the report available?

I did some googling without much luck. It appears to be a single slide from a viewgraph report.

• File:Fallout_shelter_photo.png is tagged as lacking author information

Added, from archives.gov.

• File:LIM-49A_Spartan_mockup.png: we credit the Air Force but the tag is Army - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely Army, specifically U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command

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

• "Zeus would have been useful in the late 1950s when the Soviets had only a few dozen missiles, but it was of little use by the early 1960s when it was believed the Soviets would have hundreds. ": Throughout, I'm not taking a position on verb tenses and auxiliaries. There's an argument that "might have been useful" and "they had [however many they had]" would be better, but tenses can be a matter of taste.

Seeing as I barely understand these I'll avoid this, but I'm open to any specific suggestions.

• Also, I'm not taking a position on inflation figures.
• "The following section discusses the main developments during the Nike-X period.". Better would be something along the lines of "MAR, MSR, Sprint and Spartan were the main programs during the Nike-X period"

Agree, changed.

• "Sylvania's design used MOSAR phase-shifting using time delays": Avoid used ... using.

Someone edited this it seems.

• "a number" (a number of them): Some reviewers find "a number" to be ambiguous on Wikipedia, and I tend to agree.

In this case, the small number is definitely worth mentioning. But this was the only "a number" I found, is there another example?

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC) I reviewed this article in considerable detail during Milhist ACR, and at that time I indicated that while I supported it at ACR, I wouldn't support it at FAC entirely due to its size and the scope for spin-offs. I have reconsidered my position given the complexity of this weapons system and its development, and am happy to support on that basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- I didn't see a source review for formatting/reliability; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Do you mean the cites? They have been extensively reviewed as part of the A-class, is there a second process that needs to happen here in FAC? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The source review is a standard pre-promotion check at FAC -- I'll post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, 16:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Why "Central Intelligence Agency" in footnote 6 but "CIA" in footnote 12? Needs to be consistent.

Fixed.

• What is the abbreviation for WSEG in footnote 17 mean?

It is explained in the actual citation (below) and in the body. I don't think a change is needed here.

• Note b - the second sentence is partly sourced to a memoir (i.e. a primary source) and the rest is unsourced

The memoir in this case is Edward Teller, who pretty much ran the entire US warhead development program for decades. I cannot imagine a more reliable source. As to the last part, statements of mathematical fact do not require cites, but I've clipped it to make it clearer.

• Note c is totally unsourced.

Is it likely to be challenged? In any event, I'll just remove it.

• Note g has a quotation that's unsourced, and the last half of the note is also unsourced

Fixed.

• Note i is unsourced

It is now sourced to Piland and Bell.

• Note j is unsourced

It is now sourced to Bell.

• What makes http://www.thespacereview.com/article/523/1 a reliable source? I see that the site is "essays and commentary about the final frontier"

It's not the website, it's the author. Dwayne A. Day is widely known military and space historian who is highly reliable.

• https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/winter98_99/art02.html this appears to be the personal thoughts of one Russian officer - but yet it is used to source "Technological improvements in warheads and missiles through the late 1950s greatly reduced the cost of ICBMs. During a visit to the US in 1959, Nikita Khrushchev claimed to be building them "like sausages"." - I'm not sure that one Russian officers opinion is a good source for most of these two sentences.

The citation is only for the second statement, and I would argue that the person standing next to him would be a good source about what he said.

Okay.... then what is the source for the first part of the sentence? If the reference at the end of the two sentences doesn't cover both sentences - does this sort of unsourced sentence followed by a sourced sentence happen elsewhere in the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

a) the one before and after it, b) no idea. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Footnote 24 (Leonard, Barry) has a bad ISBN listed - WorldCat search

I do not see a ISBN. Perhaps someone removed it?

"Leonard, Barry, ed. (1988). SDI : technology, survivability, and software. DIANE Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4289-2267-9." ? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• What makes https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/ a high quality reliable source?

The site is dedicated to making US budget numbers transparent, which was my goal in this case. I cannot speak to its "high" quality, however.

• What makes http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/miracl.htm a high quality reliable source? I'll note that recent discussions of this site on the RS noticeboard have been somewhat leery.

This is a scrape of a military press release, which I have pointed to in its place.

• What makes http://www.astronautix.com/s/sprintabm.html a high quality reliable source? I note the contact page http://www.astronautix.com/c/contact.html gives the impression it's just one person doing the site.

Changed to a book.

• Looking at the WorldCat entry for the Clearwater source (footnote 114) - it is only held by three libraries and the publisher listed in WorldCat is different than the one listed in the article. Also - the WorldCat entry says in the notes "Published by Dissertation.com 1999." is this a dissertation? If so, what makes it a high quality reliable source?

That's the publisher of just that copy (and I believe it is simply incorrect metadata on Google), the original publisher was Academic Research Group. Clearwater is a well known nuclear historian, at least here in Canada, and has many publications through Dundurn.

• The Hutchinson source (footnote 118) has a bad ISBN - WorldCat look up

Removed.

Did you access the actual book or just through google snippets/page preview? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Bhushan & Katyal source (footnote 121) is only held by two libraries - see WorldCat result. What makes this a high quality reliable source?

Changed.

To? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Cite 121 Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• what makes http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/events/radioISM/talks/Hayward-Colgate-Paramp.pdf a high quality reliable source?

The National Radio Astronomy Observatory seems like just who you might turn to for information on the history of radio astronomy at NMTech (they run NRAO).

• If "Kaplan, Lawrence (2009). Nike-X Missile Antiballistic Missile System. unpublished (Technical report)" is unpublished, how is it a high quality reliable source? We rely on published sources.

Changed.

To? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The published Kaplan source. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Footnote 24 (Leonard, Barry) is ALSO listed in full in the bibliography - unlike most of the rest of the citations.

It is not, that is a different reference. The rule I use is that if a references is used only once I put it inline so the user doesn't have to click twice.

• Panofsky - who is the publisher? I can't say that http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Fortifications/PSAC_NikeZeus_Deploy_21_Oct_1961.htm gives me a lot of confidence in this source - is it a copyright violation?

The publisher is the US government, specifically PSAC. As such, it is in the public domain. I have added a publisher to the cite.

• The Kent source appears to be a memoir - and thus a primary source. We try to avoid primary sources - see WP:Primary

Kent is not a primary source for this article. He would be PS on an article on Kent. PS's are also perfectly acceptable as long as they are RS and not the basis for the entire article. That certainly is the case here, no?

• The Bell Labs source - I'm not sure a history written by Bell Labs is the best source for large chunks of this article - since Bell Labs was the developer of the missile. We strive for independent sources, and it's hard to see how Bell Labs could be enough independent.

Martin Marietta the developer of the missile, not Bell. In any event, I seem to detect some confusion between PR and OR happening here. By my reading of OR and USEPRIMARY, this is not only perfectly acceptable but quite desirable.

I'm just going by what is in the article - " Bell Labs, the primary contractor for Nike, was asked to study the issue." Is that not a true statement? I note that "Martin Marietta" appears once in the article but "Bell" or "Bell Labs" occurs 16 times. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand the concern here, are you questioning the factual accuracy of the text in question? This is a suberb source for just about the entire history of ABM in the US and it appears the concern here is boilerplate? Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's tool flaked out trying to check this article - I'm not sure if its the toolserver being wonky or something with this article.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: @Maury Markowitz: It's quite hard to see which are your replies here as they are mixed up in the review. Have you addressed all the comments? @Ealdgyth: how is it looking to you now? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe so, yes (just did one last one). Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeking clarification on a few issues and will leave the rest for other reviewers to consider, as is my usual practice. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Anything left here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth:I'm one of the reviewers; if you can identify which points you feel the other reviewers should take a look at that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Maury, I'm going to see if I can follow up on the source comments Ealdgyth left, and help fix whatever needs fixing. It might be a day or two till I can get to it, though, as I have some other FAC reviews on the go at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm now free to help out with this. Since it appears that most of Ealdgyth's points are dealt with, and she's indicated that she would like other reviewers to consider the outstanding points, I'll copy down to here the three I think are still at issue.

• 'Technological improvements in warheads and missiles through the late 1950s greatly reduced the cost of ICBMs. During a visit to the US in 1959, Nikita Khrushchev claimed to be building them "like sausages".' It appears the source used is only for the quote. I don't see anything in the source that indicates Khrushchev was speaking in the US, or in 1959; or that covers the "reduced the cost" sentence.
• The Glenn Kent source is either used for information about what Kent did, none of which seems controversial, or for broad statements about the situation, which Kent would have been expert on. In some cases related information is cited elsewhere. I think this is fine.
• The question about the usability of the Bell Labs source seems to me the most important issue. The document seems to have been written on government contract, and I would regard it as completely reliable for anything about the history, except that anything about Bells' own involvement should be looked at more carefully. Maury, I started looking through the source to see what you were using to support some of the material it is cited against, and found that you're using a straight page numbering for the sources which doesn't seem to correspond with the pages on the scanned PDF (e.g. I-31) or the overall PDF page number. For example footnote 34 is cited to pages 2-6 -- what does that correspond to in the source?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the page number is that it is "two dash six", not "two to six". This is why I'm so against the ndash in page ranges! I missed the cost one, I've added that from MacKenzie (one of the weirdest books I've read). Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• That takes care of the first sentence; how about "During a visit to the US in 1959"? I don't see that in the Orlov source.
• Looking through some of the Bell Labs cites:
  • You have "The resulting machine would still be huge and expensive" cited to 2-5, but I think it needs to be 2-3.
  • The paragraph starting "A fresh look" mentions HIBEX, HSD-I, HSD-II, and Hardpoint Demonstration Array Radar, but I don't see those terms in 2-12 to 2-13, which is what's cited.
  • Footnote 54 is cited to page 213; should that be 2-13?
  • Footnote 46 is cited to support "it became clear that it would never survive a vote in Congress and be deployed; I can't find that on 2-10.

-- I'll look at a couple more in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

1959 turned out to be 1957. Cited.

The resulting - I see it on that page.

Confusing pages, 2-3 and 2-13 are the two main ones that contain all of this.

Fixed.

Can't recall source, removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

All OK except "the resulting"; it's the "huge and expensive" I don't see. The 2-5 I'm looking at is mostly an illustration; it starts "view of city defense"; that's the page you're looking at? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

More:

• Fn 87 (7-4) is cited to support several sentences about the MSR's power; I can see it covers the "five times" part of the paragraph but I don't see support for "needed only short range, enough to hand off the Sprint missiles. This led to an upgraded design with limited radiated power".

This appears to just be editing cruft, the "upgraded" is not supposed to be there. the statement that it had limited radiated power is a paraphrase of that page.

• Fn 100 (6-13) is cited to support "MAR was an L band active electronically scanned phased-array radar. The original MAR-I had been built into a strongly reinforced dome, but the later designs consisted of two half-pyramid shapes, with the transmitters in a smaller pyramid in front of the receivers. The reduction in size and complexity was the result of a number of studies on nuclear hardening, especially those carried out as part of Operation Prairie Flat in Alberta, where a 500-short-ton (450,000 kg) ball of TNT was constructed to simulate a nuclear explosion." I see mention of Prairie Flat, but not any of the other information.

Added details on Prairie Flat (and indirectly, Dial Pack). The rest is taken from the entirety of section 6, along with the image on I-40.

Can you do a pass to check that the footnotes all cover everything? I can do it, but it'll be faster if you do it and then I do a few more spotchecks. As it stands, because I've found several discrepancies, I'd have to check quite a few more if I do it myself, to be confident that everything is cited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "cover everything" might mean. I worry that we're already way to detailed as it is, and that the article would be improved by removing half the inlines. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think what I'm asking for is normal for an FA, but I'll ping Ian to get another opinion. Ian, can you look at a couple of these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule at FA-level, if spotchecks by a reviewer reveal anomalies then the onus is on the nominator -- who should be able to access relevant sources -- to go through the article and ensure that all material is fully supported, after which the reviewer would conduct further spotchecks that hopefully come up clean. The overall process can result in more dense referencing, or wording changes to eliminate unsupported material, but I think we have to regard accurate sourcing as no less important than professional-level prose and layout. Hope that helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK I've gone through the whole thing and changed a few and removed some I could no longer find. Should be good to go now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Another source spotcheck pass:

• FN 115 (Bell Labs 6-13) supports "MAR was an L band active electronically scanned phased-array radar. The original MAR-I had been built into a strongly reinforced dome, but the later designs consisted of two half-pyramid shapes, with the transmitters in a smaller pyramid in front of the receivers." I don't see that in source. A similar description elsewhere is sourced to Piland p.1; perhaps that could be used.
• FN 100 (Bell Labs I-38) supports "As it was expected that the Sprint and Zeus missiles would be ready in time for the MSR to be used with them, the decision was made to skip construction of an MSR at White Sands and build the first example at Kwajalein. The earlier Zeus system had taken up most of the available land on Kwajalein Island itself, so the missile launchers and MSR were to be built on Meck Island, about 20 miles (32 km) north. This site would host a complete MSR, allowing the Army to test both MAR-hosted (using MAR-II) and autonomous MSR deployments". I see part of this in the source, but there's no mention of Sprint and Zeus and skipping an MSR at White Sands. The source also doesn't support "had taken up most of the available land on Kwajalein... so ..." but I think that's OK; it's just a common sense deduction.
• FN 102 -- OK.
• FN 25 -- OK.
• FN 108 -- OK.
• FN 63 -- should this be 2-6, not 26? I think it must be as it supports the material, so I've changed it. However, I don't see support for "every city with a population over 100,000".
• FN 58 -- OK.
• FN 53 -- OK.
• FN 16 -- OK.
• FN 41 (Bell Labs 2-5) supports "The resulting machine would still be huge and expensive, so Nike-X centralized the battle control systems at their Defense Centers, consisting of a MAR and its associated underground Defense Center Data Processing System (DCDPS)." I don't see "huge and expensive" and the reasoning in the source, but I think that can go through as common sense again.
• FN 38 -- OK.
• FN 18 -- OK.

I can't check the offline sources, but this makes me much more confident. If you can fix the three points identified above, or show me how they're supported in the source, I think we're good to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the tardiness, I fell on ice on wednesday and my back blew out. I'll try to get all of these by Sunday. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Been there, done that; you have my sympathy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok I found the original source about the testing and MAR-II, but of course GB doesn't display the page in question so I just removed the thinner part. The shape is shown in the diagram on I-39 so we should be good there? The "huge and expensive" I simply removed, and the mention of skipping MSR at WS. I do recall reading that somewhere, almost certainly Leonard, but can no longer find it. The "most available land", that I can ref to an image, but is that worth it? So, I think that's it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The "most available land" one is fine, and you removed one of the others, and I agree that the image on I-39 covers the "half-pyramind", so those are good. You missed one: "the baseline Nike-X deployment plans, with every city with a population over 100,000 being provided some level of defensive system". Looking on Google Books, I can't find anything not in snippet view, but this says on page 27: "There is also a third breakdown — a list of 130 cities of over 100,000 population that are not covered" which makes me wonder if in fact it was only a subset of cities over 100,000. Do you have a source that can settle this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The quote in question is from here, where they talk about deployments that cover large cities only, to mixed deployments, all the way to "essentially total city coverage, including a large number of SCD modules of various types". The 100,000 number is not in there, but I definitely recall reading that being the definition of "small city". This seems to be semi-confirmed in the source you found (which I had not seen) - go with both refs or are we SYNning too much in that case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to "every major city", since that was the only hold-up to a support, and I've supported below. I don't think the source I found can be used to support it because it looks like it contradicts the specific number of 100,000, but of course I could only see snippets. If you get it and it provides clear support, or you have another source that uses that number, just add it back in. I don't think this is worth holding up the FAC for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)`

Agreed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 15 February 2017 (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) 13:33, 16 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2017 [37].

---

Grey jay

Nominator(s): Ivanvector (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a funny Canadian bird that had a vigorous GA nomination and has had quite a few eyes look over it. I reckon it's within striking distance of FA-hood...and there are two of us who'll address issues. have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I never managed to catch up with this when we went to a wedding in Vancouver... A few comments follow. As you know, I'll be away for a few days, so no rush to respond Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• To avoid confusion, I'd give Bonaparte's first names and precede with "French ornithologist"

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• First para of taxonomy too many relatives/related

removed some Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think we now link continents and countries

delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• is a resident—is resident seems more natural to me, but feel free to ignore

I must say I prefer the 'a' and using it as a noun...will wait for other comments on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• median of 0.0 km for males—isn't it easier to say that males don't move?

I could if it was a mean but not a median... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• You could give the average life span if known

added Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you are going to give binomials for species you should do it for all that are mentioned, not just some. Personally I think it adds nothing since the species are wikilinked anyway and it's just clutter

I like them as they break up the sea of bluelinks in a species list, so have gone all in rather than all out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Grey jays are "scatterhoarders", caching thousands of food items during the summer for use the following winter. — This sentence has five refs for 16 words, seems excessive. Elsewhere, there are other sentences with four refs, are those all needed??

Many of the refs used here are studies on specific aspects of the jays' scatterhoarding behaviour; none seem to discuss the behaviour itself in any great detail. It seems to be taken for granted as though this is common knowledge. I found that one of the studies refers to a 1965 Douglas Dow study which appears to be one of the first to actually study the grey jay's caching and hoarding behaviour. I've pared down the references (which are all cited elsewhere) and added a citation to the Dow study directly. I'll have to get back to checking out the other occurrences of citation overkill. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with replies and comments from other reviewers don't seem deal-breaking, so supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

I enjoyed reading this article. I've added links to the IOC website and BHL.

Taxonomy

• "A 2012 genetic study revealed ..." I find this sentence difficult to read. Perhaps lose "(the earliest offshoot)" and perhaps use quotes for the labels attached to each clade when first mentioned: "boreal", "transcascade", "Colarado" and "Pacific".

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• What is the relationship between the four phylogenetic clades and the nine subspecies? van Els et al mention that they sampled 6 ssp. (p.457).

annoyingly they don't say which subspecies corresponded with what clade. I could guess, but I might be wrong Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Frustrating - but I have to agree we shouldn't be guessing. I wonder why van Els didn't list the ssp more clearly. I notice that HBW rather sensibly has 6 ssp rather than 9 - it omits scanfordi, nigricapillus and griseus. (Just for amusement I'm now going to guess) Fig 1 in van Els et al has a map showing the 4 clades and includes pictures of the three morphotypes. The 'Taiga' clade extends all along the top of the map - and thus must include the ssp canadensis, pacificus, sanfordi and nigricapillus. The 'Pacific' clade on the West Coast corresponds to obscurus (with lighter breast), while the 'Rocky Mts' clade corresponds to capitalis (with light head). I'm giving up there. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• For ssp authorities (as well as species and genera) Peters is the standard source and is available online from BHL. For P. c. pacificus you cite the IOC instead of Peters which would be: Mayr, Ernst; Greenway, James C. Jr, eds. (1962). Check-list of birds of the world, Volume 15. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology. p. 236.

am uneasy - is it still regarded as the standard even though it dates to 1962? IOC is much more current and represents consensus (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Was about to write the same thing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/References suggests that IOC is the standard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

OK - stick with IOC. Obviously with all the reorganization of genera (and even families) as a result of DNA sequencing, much of the content on genera and sp vs ssp is out of date. But the Check-list.. (often referred to as Peters after the first editor) is still an important source of historical information. It is frequently cited when new names are required for splits (using synonyms), for resurrected genera and for the type species of genera. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Description

• What colour are the legs and feet?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mating

• "Approximately 65% of grey jay trios included" - Presumably a result of some study. The number is likely to vary over the large range. Perhaps "In a study conducted ... found that..." or similar.

added the study for accuracy/context Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• allofeeding - is this technical word needed?

I added "food sharing" in parentheses - I think highlighting the term is good as it is a specific behaviour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that when this came up before, I started the article allofeeding with the intention of wikilinking it from here, though I only really got as far as a dictionary definition before something shiny must have caught my attention. There is a fair bit of scientific work on this topic, though, such that I think a decent article could be built. Off-topic for this review, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Until then, parents will drive the other birds away from the nest." - suggest you delete this sentence as repeated in Fledging section

The problem then is that the sentences following on depend on that line to make sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nesting

• "Grey jay nests were found in black spruce..." - tense?

presented Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Cup-shaped nests[24] were constructed..." - tense?

presented Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 24 is seems a strange choice of source for the shape of the nest. How big is the nest structure? Is the nest lined? With what?

updated Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Cocoons of the forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria) filled" - tense?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is the female fed by the male while she is incubating? (HBW has male feeds female usually off the nest)

That seems counterintuitive to me: if the female fed off the nest the eggs would freeze. Rutter has that the male feeds the female on the nest, but if there's a contradictory source I'd like to look into it. I'm not sure what you mean by HBW, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I would trust Rutter. HBW is the Handbook of Birds of the World which was published as 16 volumes but is now available online (subscription needed). The article on the grey jay is here. The breeding section includes: "Male selects nest-site; nest a bulky outer platform (14–16 x 10–15 cm) of twigs well insulated with cocoons placed in exterior interstices, with thick inner cup (7·8 x 5·6 cm) of shredded bark, lichens, hair and feathers, placed 1·7–15 m above ground close to trunk of coniferous tree (especially spruce or fir). Clutch 1–5 eggs, usually 3–4; incubation by female alone (may occur at temperatures as low as -30°C), period 18·5 days; chicks brooded by female, fed by both sexes; male feeds female, usually off the nest, often with previously stored food;..." Rereading this I realise that I've misread the HBW text - "usually off the nest" applies once the eggs have hatched. Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Clutch size is 2 to 5 eggs." Need the article: "The clutch size..."

added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• How large and what colour are the eggs?

added colour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fledging

• "is a median of 0.0 km for males,..." ? I think this is unnecessary obscure. Perhaps - "the most common behaviour for a young male is to stay within his natal territory." or similar.

As pointed out above, changing this wouldn't be accurate because the statistic is a median, not a mean. Young males do commonly leave the natal territory. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Feeding

• "temporally homogeneous throughout the passerine breeding season" What does this mean?

can't find it - pretty general statement if it means what I think it means, so deleted it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Lescher and Lescher" - Why are Mr and Mrs Lescher notable? And if grey jays eat small mammals as mentioned in first line then these are likely to be alive.

agreed and incorporated elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Barnard was the first to witness" Who is Barnard and why is he notable?

a biologist but in this case not notable and reworked bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Caching

• "Grey jays are "scatterhoarders",..." Why are 5 cites needed for this unremarkable sentence?

fixed above Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "and favours the retention of young and a kin-selected social organization." Why?

that came from the Roberts source - I have removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Cultural significance

• "According to Maccarone and Montevecchi" - unless they are notable we probably don't need to know their names.

agreed and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "however, Rutter claims" - who is Rutter? Why do we need his name?

we don't - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "These behaviours" - I would use the singular.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• "This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Department of Agriculture ..." Is this still true?

I have just compared them and found it to be so. Much of the USDA material is repetitive and can be reworded easily. Will prioritise this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 28 - the dissertation by Roberts is not a suitable source. This is unpublished and thus cannot be used to verify the information in the article. see WP:RS.

Roberts source now removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I may return with more comments. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes. I've supported above. Good work. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

This is just a quick a review, I will do a more in-depth reading of the article later. Anyways, here is what I have to say:

• Inconsistent use of Oxford comma.

I think they are all present now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ummm... perhaps check the very first sentence in the article? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Did another quick read-through and fixed a few, I think we've got them all now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the nesting section, you should switch the numbers in, "Clutch size is 2 to 5 eggs," to letters (as is 2 to two and 5 to five).

that would creat a consistency issue as it would look odd against the average clutch sizes in the next sentence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, in that case don't do it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the taxonomy section, last sentence second paragraph, same thing as above.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I may be wrong, but in the fledging section it says, "Food is a dark brown, viscous paste containing primarily arthropods," and I feel like there should be a comma between dark and brown just so that it reads better.

err, no (?) - "dark brown" is a colour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, but it just reads oddly, and I think it would be the same. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Being "dark brown" is different from being both "dark" and "brown", although it's probably not much of a difference. I think we shouldn't change it without a good reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Ok, I guess it is better to sacrifice the reliability for the slight annoyance in reading it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• If you are going to put the binomial name after organism, do it for every organism. I found one occurrence in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the caching section.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Those are just some quick comments, a (probably) better reading of this article will come later. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Now some more comments:

• In "Grey jays adapt to human activity in their territories and are known to approach humans for food, inspiring a list of colloquial names including lumberjack, camp robber, and venison-hawk," the names should have quotes around them (WP:WORDSASWORDS).

see, my take on that is the wordasword is in italics and the meaning is in quotes, hence these should all be in italics....but that causes confusion with the scientific name, which is also in italics..sigh.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the taxonomy section, in the sentence, "However, it and the other members of its genus are not closely related to other birds known as jays, they are instead close to the genus Cyanopica, which contains the Azure-winged magpie," "azure-winged magpie" should not be capitalized.

good catch. lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the taxonomy section, for the description of Perisoreus canadensis canadensis, could you add something about it being the nominate subspecies?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Perisoreus c. canadensis is accidental in northeastern Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)," could you possibly just have it P. c. canadensis? It is in that format at the start of the description and in other descriptions of subspecies, in the body, no less.

good catch. abbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• You should probably link "nuchal" in the sentence "It has a wholly whitish head with a pale nuchal band, and overall more ashy grey plumage."

I made it plainer English by changing "nuchal" to "on the back of the neck" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps change "It is also generally larger than subspecies canadensis," to "It is also generally larger than the nominate subspecies, canadensis."

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "P. c. arcus was the name give to populations in the Rainbow Mountains area, and headwaters of the Dean and Bella Coola Rivers of the central Coast Ranges, British Columbia," reads oddly.

tweaked. better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: A bit, although it might be better to say, "P. c. arcus was the name given to populations that were found in both the Rainbow Mountains area and headwaters of the Dean and Bella Coola Rivers of the central Coast Ranges, British Columbia."

I checked this out during the GA review. The problem is that there are at least three distinct areas known as "Rainbow Mountains" in British Columbia (see dab), and the mention of the two rivers seems to act as disambiguation rather than referring to a separate location. It's not a "both" situation, it's a description of one area. I wasn't able to figure out which of the locations should be wikilinked so I left it unlinked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the description section, "The distinctive head colouring is mostly white with a dark grey or black back and hood, with a short black beak and dark eyes," reads weirdly.

reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Too many occurrences of "northern" in the sentence "It is also a native resident in northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, northern Michigan, northern New York, and northern New England."

I agree, but am not sure how we can rephrase it to lose the duplicate words and keep the meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Better now? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yeah, looks good. Might be good to add "the states of" after the of in the sentence, but that's your call. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're right. Fixed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think you have to do it, but it would probably be better to specify and link to the last ice age in the sentence "Fossil evidence indicates the grey jay was found as far south as Tennessee during the last ice age."

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• You should probably specify the genus of the lodgepole pine in the sentence "The vast majority of grey jays live where there is a strong presence of black spruce (Picea mariana), white spruce (P. glauca), Engelmann spruce (P. engelmanni), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), or lodgepole pine (P. contorta)."

I thought the order made it clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "An exception to this general picture may be the well-marked subspecies P. c. obscurus, once given separate specific status as the 'Oregon jay'," "'Oregon jay'" should probably be switched to ""Oregon jay"" (see words as words again).

I removed that segment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Grammar fail, "Monogamous, pairs remain together for life, though birds will pair up with new partner following the loss of theirs."

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the mating section, "however, this is only allowed by the parents during the postfledgling period.[23][25][26] Until then, parents will drive the other birds away from the nest," "postfledgling" should probably be changed to "post-fledgling."

hyphenated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Since it is the first reference to a study by Strickland, probably change "In Strickland's study" in the sentence "In Strickland's study, two-thirds of dominant juveniles were male," to "In a study by Dan Strickland."

Fixed, although there is a note above about mentioning the names of researchers in the article which I'm still thinking about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Grey jays wrench, twist, and tug food apart, unlike other birds known as jays (such as the blue jay, Cyanocitta cristata) which grasp and hammer their food," there should be a comma after the parenthesis.

fixed Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps change "Scatterhoarding discourages pilferage by competitors. Cache thievery increases with increased cache density," to "Scatterhoarding discourages pilferage by competitors, which increases with cache density," or "Scatterhoarding discourages pilferage by competitors, which increases with increased cache density." It would just make it look less choppy.

I feel that your recommended changes here make the combined sentence vague as to what is increasing with increased cache density. I reworded in a slightly different way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "Grey jay remains were found in the nest sites of fisher (Martes pennanti) and American marten (Martes americana)," implies that the fisher is called the fisher marten.

I tried reversing this but "American marten () and fisher ()" seems just as awkward. I think it's not as incorrect to read M. pennanti as "fisher marten" as it is to read it as "American fisher", so best left as is I think. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that you would remove the comma after imitating in the sentence "Grey jays warn each other of predators by whistling alarm notes, screaming, chattering, or imitating, and/or mobbing predators," but I could be wrong.

I had to read that a couple of times - you're right. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am, again, pretty sure that you would put quotation marks around the different names in the partial sentence "This behaviour has inspired a number of nicknames for the grey jay, including lumberjack, meat-bird, venison-hawk, moose-bird, and gorby."

Keeping in mind Cas Liber's response to this point above, I think that leaving the words plain is the clearest way to do this, however the MOS directs otherwise. The important thing is to be consistent within the article, and it's currently not: there's at least one instance of quoted "whisky jack", the Algonquian and Tlingit names are italicized as are the Scots and Irish words (I guess they're all MOS:FOREIGNITALIC), and the comma lists have no formatting. I think it would be most compliant for the English nicknames to all be in quotes, then, since we are discussing the words themselves and it would be a confusing mess if we italicized them. @Casliber: what do you think? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of demonstration I went ahead and changed the cultural significance section. I don't think it's confusing, or at least no more confusing than it was or than it would be any other way. Will wait for consensus before doing any more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Casliber: I think that it looks good that way, just to make sure, foreign names/words to italics and other names to quotes. Also, it should be done for two reasons, one, the fact that italics would cause confusion, and if you accept that reason, then the other one is that it has to be consistent. Just so everybody is on the same page here, the first paragraph of words as words goes as follows, "When italics could cause confusion, quotation marks instead may be used to distinguish words as words. Use one style or the other in a given context; do not apply both styles at once to the same terms, or switch back and forth between the styles in the same material." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's a guideline question: when I did this I italicized the wikilink to Wisakedjak but another editor undid the italics. Should this non-English title be italicized? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I don't think so, as it says, "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to." This would, of course, be overruled by WORDSASWORDS, in which case you would make it italics. So, think about it like this, if you were to replace that name with an "English" name, would you invoke WORDSASWORDS? I wouldn't. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I agree. It's just another inconsistency in our guidelines, I think, with foreign-language titles & proper names. For example, laissez-faire is a French term used in English so we normally italicize it. I guess Wisakedjak is partly anglicized so no italics? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly add the IUCN classification to the lead, and if not, at least expand the abbreviation of it in the first sentence of the conservation section. (see MOS:ACRO)

Done. I don't really like including IUCN status in the lede for "least concern" species because I feel like it doesn't add much to understanding of the species (not like threatened and endangered species) but it does seem to be common practice for FA bird articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Compared to the articles I have been reviewing recently, this is a long one. I can't imagine how long it took to write the article... Anyways, good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Really good job, it is pretty hard to improve an article of that size, but you guys did amazingly well. All of my nitpicks were addressed, so I am ready to support. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator notes: Have I missed image and source reviews for this? If not, they can be requested in the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Image and source review from Laser brain

• All images are appropriately licensed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fn 41, publisher? Also, this site lists Rutter 1969 as a source and doubles up with fn 22 which is also Rutter... are we just citing the same source twice?

At first I added the publishing organization, but then on investigating your note about Rutter I think you're right, we're doubling up on the same source by proxy. The Friends of Algonquin Park source isn't used anywhere else and it's already listed under external links, so I just removed it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• No other issues noted. --Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2017 [38].

---

Coinage Act of 1965

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... the act that took the metal silver out of most US coins struck for circulation. The coin shortages of the 1960s are mostly forgotten today, but at the time, they affected commerce and everyday life. This act for the most part ended them (I'm old enough to remember the 1974 cent shortage). The price, of course, was the silver coins, which vanished from circulation around 1967. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Seems odd to me to have the presumably slang "dime" take precedence over the official name in para 1

Dime is the actual name of the coin. The act refers to "a dime or ten-cent piece".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Para 2 of lead has three "increasing/increased" in first two sentences
• $.45 .7734 troy ounces etc. Why no leading zeroes?

In my experience, more usual not to have them.==Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• were being processed and cleaned —"being" looks redundant
• representing the bulk of what the Fed shipped— the subject of this is "Coins", but so detached that probably better in new sentence.
• Inconsistent numbers, eg 26 million, 45,000,000
• "exportation" is this a word?

It's in the law, but I've changed it to "export".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I assume that the reason that the clad coins worked in vending machines is because they had the same weight as well as size, but that's unstated, can you clarify?

They don't actually, they have the same electrical properties as the silver coins. I'll make this clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I've caught everything (if I haven't replied, I've gone ahead). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I'm happy with the changes although the "missing" leading zeroes still look odd to me. Maybe it's a BE/AE thing? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. I think it is as you say, something like $0.98 looks odder to me than $.98.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 [Includes image review]

• Images appropriately licensed
• No DABs, external links OK
• Some duplicate links in the Title II section

Coinage Act of 1873 and San Francisco Mint. Been a while since we mentioned them, both before the long legislative section. Inclined to keep things as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Enacted by the 89th United States Congress Capitalize The in the infobox

That's generated by the template. I hate to mess with that,.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• This reiterates language found in the Act of May 12, 1933,[a] a provision repealed in section 210 to avoid possible legal arguments that section 102 does other than restate existing law. Section 210 repealed the part of the 1933 act or of Section 102 of this law? It's answered later, but needs clarification here.
• Need a comma between city and state in the sources.

City followed by state postal abbreviation without comma is what the post office recommends and I've come to use that because it is defensible.

• Be consistent if using state in place of publication.
• Nicely done. Didn't see anything else. Will make another pass later to see if anything else catches my attention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. If I haven't commented, I've gone ahead.

• Just one more thing: Hyphenate copper nickel--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

No spotcheck:

• All of the sources are properly formatted and seem reliable. There are a few that don't have wiki-links but that does not point to unreliability. No dead links. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian Rose

Recusing from coord duties...

• I copyedited a bit so pls let me know any concerns there, just a few other things (two being minor style points) I wanted to raise:
  • I notice the vote scores use long dashes but I would've thought short dashes appropriate -- something I missed in MOS?
  • I thought it was more common to put See also before Notes.
  • The mix of tenses in Provisions jars a bit for me. I get using present tense to describe the provisions if the legislation is still in place, and I can see the reason for using past tense to comment on the provisions, but I wonder if we could separate them more. For instance in Title I, perhaps we could leave the first para as is (present tense), and then split the second para at "According to the Senate committee report on the bill, section 104 was intended..." (where it switches to past tense) and then split again at "Section 105 authorizes the secretary..." (where it switches back to present tense). In Title II I think it's pretty good as is but perhaps split the last para at "Section 207 repeals..." Similarly perhaps split Title III at "Section 304 appropriates..." That's just what comes to mind for me, there might be other options...
• Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
• I checked image licensing before I noticed Sturm had done so along with his source review -- no concerns.

Good work as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. On consideration and checking previous articles, I've put things in past tense. I've done a couple of paragraph breaks more or less as you suggested. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, I picked up a couple of things that still needed to be made past tense -- all looks okay to me now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged for the edits and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No prob -- not that it affects my support but did you have any thoughts on my first two (style) points? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been told that long dashes are used for scores. See Disco Demolition Night for example, and I did the same thing in Coinage Act of 1873. I'm easy on this but prefer to be consistent. I've moved the see also, sorry for the oversight.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2017 [39].

---

History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This article tells the story of the early US science fiction and fantasy magazines, up to 1950. I originally planned to include non-US magazines, but the article is very long as it stands, and I think it would be unacceptably long without restricting the scope. Many of the magazines discussed have either been through FAC and are FAs, or are GAs if too short; I hope to plug the few remaining holes this year. A note to whoever does the source review: the sources for the list are given at the top of the list without page numbers, since those three sources are used for almost every line, and there would have to be scores of cited page ranges. It seemed easier to give the books as a reference -- any reader who wanted to verify anything in the list would find it easy to do so with those three books in hand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Absolute impeccable prose and quality. However, may I draw attention to the sentence "In 1919, Street & Smith launched The Thrill Book, a magazine that was intended to publish "different" stories: "different" meant stories that were unusual or unclassifiable in some way, which in most cases meant that they included either fantasy or science fiction elements."; I feel like this could be combined into one shorter sentence to get the same point across. Good luck! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC).

I changed it to "In 1919, Street & Smith launched The Thrill Book, a magazine that was intended to publish stories that were unusual or unclassifiable in some way, which in most cases meant that they included either fantasy or science fiction elements" -- I don't think it's necessary to tell the reader that they used "different" to describe these stories; the point is just that they were sometimes sf or fantasy. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Astounding_Stories_of_Super_Science_(1930-01).djvu needs a US PD tag, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments, close to Support -- recusing from coord duties as I generally do when one of Mike's sf mag articles comes up for review... as ever, pls feel free to discuss any of my copyediting, much of which was aimed at trimming wordage where possible; other points:

• "By the end of the 19th century, stories with recognizably science fictional content were appearing regularly in American and British magazines." -- I know the original plan for this article was to include UK and European sf mags; is the British ref a hangover from that or deliberate here?

  Yes, it's left over. I thought about leaving it in to avoid the impression that early sf was a US-only phenomenon, but if I do that I should mention other countries too, so I took it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note 1 states "The term "science fiction" would not be coined until 1929, but there were other terms used: "scientific romance" and "scientific fiction", for example" -- there was also Gernsback's own "scientification"; you quote him using this later but is it worth adding to the footnote?

  I don't think so -- the footnote is attached to a sentence that specifically talks about the 19th century; "scientifiction" isn't coined until 1916 (see here, a site I used to run for the OED that captured sf citations). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  You're right of course, I'd overlooked the timeframe you were speaking of there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "As Campbell began to hit his stride as editor of Astounding, the first major boom in science fiction magazine publishing took off" -- I like the informality of "hit his stride" although some may not; my main reason for highlighting the sentence is to question whether we need to qualify the boom as "major" -- are there "minor" booms?

  No, that's just my usual overuse of qualifiers. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...logical rigor that Campbell demanded even of a fantasy plot. Frequent contributors included L. Ron Hubbard, Theodore Sturgeon, and L. Sprague de Camp, who, in collaboration with Fletcher Pratt, contributed three stories about a world where magic operates by rigorous rules." -- any chance we could avoid the "rigor"/"rigorous" repetition, perhaps just "logic" for the first instance?

  I went with "rigor" and "logical rules". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Moving on to images, I've been bold and reworked things to give The Golden Age what I think is an appropriate one, and to try and reduce a fair bit of sandwiching; I also trimmed some captions. The only net loss of this exercise was Strange Tales, which I know gets a fair bit of space in the text, but OTOH it's not the only Wesso cover... Anyway I only commented out that one and the others that I moved. Sandwiching isn't exactly a stopper for me but best avoided if possible I think, and my feeling is better to lose an image than reduce the size of the remainder -- happy to discuss of course. My last comment on the covers is whether we need two of Fantastic Adventures and both SF and SF Quarterly -- could we lose one of each and substitute say Startling and FFM, to highlight some other important mags?

  I'm open to picking more important magazines (Out of this World Adventures wouldn't be my first choice) but I don't think I can justify fair use here, given that these images are decorative. Fair use would apply in the magazine articles, but not here. FFM and Startling both have every cover copyrighted, otherwise I'd agree that they'd be good choices. I'd have picked F&SF or Galaxy or ASF but they're all copyrighted too. Any other suggestions? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I'd assumed without checking that all the defunct mags had copyright-free images. Do you think we could justify a Startling cover to illustrate the implausible spacesuits mentioned in The war years? Nikki might have to adjudicate... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Nikki, do you think this Bergey cover could be justified as fair use? The sentence in the article that would support it is 'the covers, often by Earle K. Bergey, reinforced the editorial policy: they frequently included women in implausibly revealing spacesuits or wearing Bergey's trademark "brass brassières".' Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Potentially, but I'd suggest using a generic template rather than {{Non-free magazine cover}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, Nikki. Ian, I've added the image. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  Great, as long as it passes muster licence-wise I think it definitely adds something (well, two things actually...) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• One other thing that came to mind: do you think it might be worth providing a brief epilogue mentioning the fate of the classic magazines that survived the war only to go in 1953-55? I realise it would repeat info in the opening portion of a potential History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines from 1950, and the end dates are given in the table, but perhaps worth a few lines given so many went virtually together, and so soon after the end of the period covered by this article -- WDYT?

  This is foreshadowed a bit in the opening paragraph of "Beginning of the digest era"; do you think more is needed? I could add a sentence there listing the most important pulps that died over the next five years -- that would be Fantastic Adventures, FFM, Thrilling Wonder, Startling, Planet, Weird, and FSQ. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, that list is pretty much what I had in mind, to go with the prime cause, i.e. the general demise of the pulps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  Works for me, tks Mike. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave it there for the moment -- sorry it's taken so long since I started copyediting but it's a busy time of year and an advantage of knowing a bit about the subject is I can stop and start without losing the plot so to speak... ;-) I'll come back to check over the table at the end and give a source review. Well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, and the usual precise copyedits; I've started looking at my own prose with "what would Ian cut" in the back of my mind, but I'm evidently not looking hard enough yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, well it is a fairly long article, but the level of detail is entirely appropriate IMO, just worth trimming a few words here and there if it didn't affect clarity... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Resuming to look over the table and content in general, basing it on my copy of Mike Ashley's essay in Robert Holdstock's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction...

• In Early magazines, is it worth introducing All-Story as companion to Argosy and origin of Burroughs' first Mars (and Tarzan) stories? Ashley seems to give them equal weight in the essay I have...

  Done. The link to All-Story redirects to Argosy; it really should have its own article, but that's a problem for another day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• In From Gernsback to Campbell, is it worth adding that another reason for Astounding's early leadership in the field was its value for money compared to Amazing and Wonder? Ashley quotes 144 pages at 20¢ per issue as against Amazing's 144 pages and Wonder's 128 pages, both at 25¢?

  Done. I had a bit of trouble figuring out where to slot this in. I've put it in just before the article mentions the merger of Science Wonder and Air Wonder, because that sentence leads away from Astounding, but since Ashley is talking about Wonder and Amazing he's clearly referring to the point just after the merger. I got around this by not mentioning Wonder specifically. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think it does the trick, tks Mike. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Re. the table, Ashley in my source mentions the following "North American" magazines (meaning perhaps some are Canadian, not US, and therefore not in scope; note also I've only listed ones that Ashley describes as predominantly SF, he lists others that are primarily horror or fantasy with some sf):
  • Les Adventures Futuristes with 10 issues in 1949 (French Canadian?)

    Out of scope since it's not US. I'd never heard of this one; it's listed in the 1985 Tymn/Ashley but not in SFE3. From the Tymn/Ashley entry it appears none of the compilers were able to actually see a copy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Captain Hazzard with 1 issue in 1938

    I didn't include this because it appears to be basically a hero pulp, and going that route would mean including Doc Savage and The Shadow, and probably a few others. The only real mention of sf in other magazines is in the "Early magazines" section, which says sf appeared in "(especially) the hero pulps". There should probably be a separate article for hero pulp at some point. I thought about noting somewhere in the article that sf does continue to appear elsewhere, but the article topic is about the magazines, not about the history of sf, which is where I think that observation would need to be made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Imagination with 63 issues from Oct 1950 to Oct 1958 (if Galaxy makes the cut then I guess this should too -- could even use the nice lead image from the WP article in Beginning of the digest era)

    Oops; missed this one. Will add it shortly, and that's a good idea re the image. By the way, I saw you added this to the navbox. That was built for pulps, rather than for pre-1950 magazines -- it contains some post-1950 pulps such as Science-Fiction Plus. I was originally planning to write the article on the history of sf pulps, but I found it too difficult to separate the pulps from the other magazines -- e.g. it made no sense to stop mentioning Campbell in 1943. Do you think it would be better to switch the template to be "Pre-1950 sf magazines" and make the contents match the list in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    Heh, my turn to "oops"...! It might make sense to change the name and scope of such a navbox, but not in scope of this review -- I've self-reverted to keep the content consistent with the title for now. Yeah, I was thinking that as well as listing Imagination in the table you could briefly mention it in the last section of the main body, along with a cover shot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Marvel Tales with 5 issues from May 1934 to Summer 1935

    This (and Unusual Stories) were both semiprozines, and I think would be better covered in an article about early fandom. I'm not being entirely consistent here, because I do include Fantasy Book, which SFE3 also describes as a semiprozine. I kept it in because of "Scanners Live in Vain", which is often mentioned in magazine histories. I'm open to persuasion on these two. I think if I do include them I'd also have to include [Fanciful Tales], and possibly others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    Perhaps best keep it simple and leave as is -- quite happy to go with your rationale for inclusion/exclusion, the check was more to ensure nothing was missed inadvertently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Stardust with 5 issues from Mar to Nov 1940

    Also excluded as a semiprozine per my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Also a couple of discrepancies:
  • Fantasy Book finishing in Winter 1951 (still 8 issues though)

    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Future Fiction finishing its second run in Apr 1960 (issue totals add up though)

    Fixed. I'll add a mention of its reappearance in 1950 as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Reliability-wise, no concerns -- Mike Ashley has a finger in practically every pie but that means you have the expert, and there are several other notable sf personalities among the authors in any case.
• All external links check out.
• Format-wise:
  • You could spell out yyyy-mm-dd dates for consistency and user-friendliness.

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It looks to me that FN3 and FN4 are the same target and could be combined (to FN4's format, for consistency)

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Bleiler (1991) has ISSN as well as ISBN -- is the former necessary in this case? Conversely Murray, which I gather is a journal, has no ISSN.

    Murray just gives an ISBN; it's perfect bound and looks like a coffee table book, but inside is organized like a magazine. I would guess they treated it like a book for publishing purposes. I think someone else must have added the ISSN for Bleiler -- at least I don't recall doing it. That ISSN takes you to a Worldcat page for Starmont reference guides, which seems like a reasonable place to go, but I agree it's inconsistent. Do you think it should go? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    I think I've seen some publications with both ISBNs and ISSNs in my usual military field too. I always go with ISBN if available, and OCLC if there's no ISBN, but keep it to one. To be fair, I don't think it's against MOS to include more than one identifier, but I find it neater to stick to one, so I think we can afford to lose the ISSN on Bleiler. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that's about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I've caught up; let me know if you see anything else. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that's everything... I wouldn't have a prob with retaining the Out of This World cover -- in the bottom right of the section, where there seems to be room -- but will leave to you. Thanks for all your quick action on the comments, I daresay other reviewers might suggest further tweaks to prose but I'm quite happy with it and the article overall, which was a great undertaking -- happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Not affecting my support but I was just browsing Ashley's Book of SF Lists (for fun, not with a view to further critiques!) and I noticed he characterised the period 1926-37 as the "wonder" era of SF, partly in tribute to Wonder Stories but also because a great many classic space operas and other tales evoking a "sense of wonder" were published. Does he describe the pre-Campbell era as such in any of your sources? Perhaps worth a mention here if he did... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to that effect in The Time Machines, which is where it would be, but I'll scan through again and see. Thanks again for the review(s); it's a real benefit to have someone who knows the subject look over these articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, just enough knowledge to be dangerous... ;-) Don't sweat the "wonder" thing, it kind of came from wanting to know more about how Ashley briefly distinguished the style of the various pulps the way he does (in my essay at least) the big three (F&SF, Galaxy, Astounding/Analog) in the 1950s/60s, but you do mention Amazing's "new policy" and Astounding's "though variants", which helps. One thing the "wonder" bit brought into sharp relief was that we don't say anything about E.E. Smith in the early sections and, although I'm not a fan, I would've thought he was at least as important to the formative years of the sf pulps as say Edmund Hamilton, who is mentioned there... WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I belatedly scanned Trillion Year Spree and, while I don't think it adds much overall to what you already have, it does emphasise Smith's contribution in the 1930s: "Within SF fandom -- that is the coterie of readers to whom science fiction virtually meant the magazines -- E.E. Smith, PhD (known as 'Doc' Smith), was one of the greatest names, if not the greatest of all." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that quote; I went ahead and used it, and I agree he should be mentioned -- I looked in Ashley's The Gernsback Days and his language is not quite a strong as Aldiss's, but he does make the point. I was going to attribute it inline -- it's almost certainly Aldiss, and that's worth mentioning -- but with Wingrove as co-author I'd really have to credit him too, and attributing two authors inline can be clumsy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I guess we won't know for sure unless we find a copy of Aldiss' solo Billion Year Spree and see what it says... ;-) Yeah, generally I believe quotes should be attributed inline but I think this is a reasonable exception -- I'd leave as is unless anyone raises a concern. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

• Categories: Given that this article covers US SF & F magazines, should Category:Science fiction magazines not be Category:American science fiction magazines; and what about a category for fantasy? – the closest I can come up with is Category:Fantasy fiction magazines

  Done. I looked for something like a "History of publishing" or "History of magazines" category, but I didn't find anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sources: Some entries have "orig-year=First edition yyyy", others have "orig-year=yyyy". I don't think "First edition" is necessary, but either way, there should consistency.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• List of magazines table: Thrilling Wonder Stories and Fantasy Book don't give the number of issues after 1950 in the Notes column; is this information not available?

  Just an omission; now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• The war years: I take it this refers to World War II. Only at the start of the "Post-war" section is World War II explicitly mentioned. Should this not be mentioned in the previous "war years" section, and in the lead ("eight science fiction and fantasy magazines survived the war")?

  I tweaked a couple of things. I couldn't find an obvious place to say "World War II" at the top of the "war years" section, so I just changed "war" to "World War II" at first mention. Is that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  I think that's fine, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Otherwise it's looking good. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  Support the prose and MOS. Thanks for the fixes and for all your hard work on SF & F magazines. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks! And thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 10 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 [40].

---

Virgin and Child Enthroned (van der Weyden)

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Ayesha23

c. 1433 Marian portrait attributed to Rogier van der Weyden, showing Mary enthroned in a niche which is presumably fixed to a Gothic church wall. The panel was once half of a diptych, later broken up. Those with an interest in medieval Christian iconography (including hardened atheists like me) will find much to enjoy in this rich and emotional panel painting. It is of interest to specialists as a prime example of the transition between two major art historical periods. Ceoil (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hand et al not cited.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Have included them now. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Gerda

I love the artist, and like the article already, with only minor concerns. One general: I grew up on Wikipedia with no left images right below a header, because the reader's eye "wants" to continue reading below the header, not jump to the right, - consider.

Lead

• "The panel is filled with Christian iconography, including representations of prophets, the Annunciation, Christ's infancy and resurrection, and Mary's coronation in heaven." - Only two of these terms are linked, but I have been told to link even terms such as stanza. We have a mixed readership who may not know what Christian iconography is, what Christians think are prophets, and who Christ is, perhaps also Mary. I'd prefer infancy of Jesus, using the given name for a baby ;) - Who says Mary's Coronation is in Heaven? - I'm not sure about capitalization, but think Annunciation and Coronation, or annunciation and coronation. There must be an article about the infancy, even if we know little ;)
• I'd like more lead, but will look at the rest before perhaps saying what more.

  I think the lead has been expanded since Ceoil (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Second round: I'd like Thyssen explained in lead and body.

  ok Ceoil (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Description

• "The smallest extant work", - how small is it? Dimensions anywhere? I found them now (searching for the word), but miss them in the body, and think they are much easier to find here.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• perhaps link Gothic sculpture?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• consider to speak about the niche before about shadows cast on it (and before details such as the hair behind the ear)
• Shirley Blum is mentioned here first, saying just "Blum", - better introduce her a bit?

  Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Claus Sluter's c 1395–1403 Well of Moses" - I am not happy with the order, how about: Claus Sluter's Well of Moses (c. 1395–1403)? - same for other occurrences of more than just one year

  Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Champmol is unexplained and unlinked, linked only in the caption.

  Done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, those who said "we have a law, and according to that law he must die" (Book of John), were no prophets and no judges, but those arguing with Pilate. Source? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dyptich

• "his Madonna Standing" doesn't refer to St. George ;)

Done Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• in the link, please spell out Descent from the Cross, - I know what you mean but only because I love it.

Done Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Dating and attribution

• I'd like to read some of this in the lead: the dating and attribution, and also about the "sculptural" aspect.
• Can you get the image more to the context of that painting, and perhaps end the article on that outlook, rather than another dating?

Saw the Descent last November, again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lucky you! Working through these points. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

All address now, far as I can. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I see you're working on it, if any of these are obsolete, I apologise.

• "it appears to be bulk-less and as if she has only one leg. " Is bulk-less an accepted term? insubstantial? lack substance? lack bulk?

• went for 'lack volume' Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "both with foreshortening and the depiction of a body under clothing" I might add an "in" before "the"

• ok Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "There are symmetrical difference between the left and right hand sides of the painting. " Should "difference" be plural?

• done Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "While they may appear incompatible with the architectural setting" maybe "incongruous" for "incompatible", if the source will support.
• "the breath of the buttress contradicts the spatial dept" there seem multiple spelling errors.

• done Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Champmol" this is never linked or described in prose, but is in an image caption. Not certain that's enough.

• liked and described niw Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Lorne Campbell attributes the work to van der Weyden's workshop,[15] while John Ward attributes Campin" sounds like there should be a "it to" after the second "attributes". I might suggest using a synonym for one of the attributes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• agree, done Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I have most of these, valid points. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Virgin_and_Child_Enthroned_(van_der_Weyden)_Detail2.jpg: the first tag doesn't make sense here
• File:Dijon_mosesbrunnen3.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The first one is ok now, Nikkimaria I'm not sure what is required with the 2nd - have searched around for similar images, it seems to be in order? Help needed. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The current tag covers the photographer's copyright; because this work is in France, which does not have freedom of panorama, we should also include a tag for the original sculpture. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Which tag is needed - I don't understand "for the original sculpture" in this context. Sorry for being slow. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed it anyhow - wasn't integral, article is more concise without. But thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• looking now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The panel is one three surviving van der Weyden's where both Madonna and Child are enclosed in this way. - should there be two 'of's here? One after 'one' and one after 'surviving'?

while John Ward credits it to Campin and gives a date of c. 1435 - might be worth adding who/what Ward is (art historian?) so we can assess his comments in context

Support on comprehensiveness and prose Otherwise looks fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, have fixed these. Ceoil (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Gerda Arendt, do you have any further comments to make here? Also, have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Two of my points received a "Done" note, thank you, Ceoil! What about the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Eeek! Working through the remainders.... Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment from The Bounder

Excellent article, very well put together; readable and interesting. These are all a bit nit-picky, as the article is in excellent shape.

• I'm not sure what is meant by "The smallest extant work by van der Weyden, the painting is a Madonna Lactans. Do you mean that "The painting Virgin and Child Enthroned, the smallest extant work by van der Weyden, is a Madonna Lactans? As this is the opening section I think we need to make it clear in the opening line.
• What do you mean by "Betraying the influence"? Do you mean it shows the influence, or that it is traitorous to the influence? (Ditto for van Eyck in the next para) I appreciate this may seem a trite point, but there will be people who are completely confused by the meaning here!
• Should right hand by hyphenated? (Not entirely sure of this, which is only a suspicion – although our own article suggests it should be "left- and right-hand") Ditto "left hand" in the Diptych section
• You have British "colour" and American "center" (I know there are other variants of English, but I don't think any of them allow colour and center).
• I'm uncomfortable with putting into Wiki's voice that "Reasonable deductions can be made as to the identity of other figures": can we not say "The art historian XXX deduces that..." or similar
• The circa (at "c 1395") should have a full stop after it
• Is "Northern art" worth piping to Northern Renaissance#Art? Non-European readers may be confused by which "north" is referred to
• "decidedly unexcited Libyan princess": that looks like editorialising
• Ditto "rather obvious symbolism"
• "1432–34" I think we are now supposed to put date ranges as "1432–1434" (another pointless RfC decision that goes against common sense)
• The caption for the final image (Descent from the Cross) looks like a full sentence and should have a full stop.

I have no idea on the range of available sources, or the subject matter itself, so this is focussed on the prose element only. I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

These helped a lot and I disagree with none of your points; all addressed now. Many thanks for the read and look. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2017‎ (UTC)

Support. My pleasure. It's a fine article on a lovely work, so moving to support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• There are two Birkmeyers in the refs, 1961 & 1962. I have the one published in 1961 and its page ranges match what's in the article, so if the one from 1962 isn't used, then needs sorting. Otherwise everything is fine, the sources are all scholarly, no formatting errors I can see, no other problems.
• I might get back for a full review but can't promise; made a few minor copyedits. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Its the same paper; first published in 1961. I have pfs of both publications, but now ref'd to the first, in 61. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ok thanks, that explains the pagination. All is well then. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Phew! I survived a source review from you (shiver me timers!). For disclosure: Myself and Victoria have collaborated on many articles in the past, and we are friends; the comments are intended as helpful rather than critical - in this case we share familiarity with the source material, hence her opinion is highly valued on matters of fact and form, and is actively sought by me. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: I'm promoting this now, but I noticed that on my monitor, the image in the Diptych section interrupted the heading of the next section. That might just be me, but I just thought it was worth mentioning. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (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) 15:04, 10 February 2017 [41].

---

Nelson Mandela

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most significant political figures of the second half of the 20th century, a man who needs no introduction. This is classed as one of our Vital Articles, and is a page that I have been working on for several years now. User:Khazar2 (since retired, sadly) and I brought this up to GA quality shortly before Mandela's death in 2013; since then I have consulted more sources, kept the article up-to-date, and obtained a peer review for it in June 2016. I now feel that it is ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be at Peer Review at the same time as FAC. This isn't a good look, I suggest asking for a close of the PR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear - that PR was launched in June I believe, and had effectively terminated by August. I was under the impression that it had been archived, but apparently it hasn't. I shall ensure that it is closed asap. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Peacemaker67. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro1

Quick comment: I've just skimmed the lead and the first section and this looks impressive from a quick glance. One thing I wasn't sure about: we mainly use "Mandela" but occasionally use "Nelson" for no reason that I can see. Unless there is a good case for "Nelson", perhaps switch them all to "Mandela"? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Sarastro1. At present, the article uses "Nelson" in place of "Mandela" in two locations: four times in "Childhood: 1918–34" and once in "Presidency of South Africa: 1994–99". In both of these instances, the text discussed Nelson Mandela alongside other family members, and thus the use of the family name "Mandela" could cause some confusion. Using "Nelson" in these circumstances circumvents this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments: This is looking really, really good. I've got as far down as "Clarkebury, Healdtown, and Fort Hare". Just a few little issues, for this is a hugely important article and I think it is worth polishing up as much as we can. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• "After the Afrikaner minority government of the National Party established apartheid—a system of racial segregation that privileged whites—he and the ANC committed themselves to its overthrow.": A little unclear (although perhaps a moot point!) whether they planned the overthrow of the minority government, the National Party, or apartheid.
  • All three, basically! If you feel that there is a way that this wording could be improved then I'm certainly very open to suggestions, although feel that we need to be careful not to excessively lengthen the prose here. Perhaps "to the apartheid government's overthrow"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I think "apartheid government's overthrow" would work well here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• I might also be a little cautious in using "minority government"; for example, in the UK a minority government is a government that does not have an absolute majority in the House of Commons. We link to "dominant minority", which wouldn't work in this sentence, but I would prefer a little rephrasing.
  • Perhaps we could replace the term "minority government" with "whites-only" or something of that nature? Do you think that that would be an improvement? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think so, yes, and keep the same link? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Very minor point: "rising to prominence for his involvement in the 1952 anti-apartheid Defiance Campaign and the 1955 Congress of the People": I wonder could we rephrase "rising to prominence in the early 1950s and stop there. It's quite a heavy sentence, and perhaps the individual events are a little too much for the lead? But not a big deal, and ignore this one if you want.
  • I see your point but I would personally prefer to leave them in, particularly given that these were significant events in the history of the anti-apartheid movement, the Congress of the People in particular. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Fine with me. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• "He was repeatedly arrested for seditious activities and was one of the activists unsuccessfully prosecuted in the 1956 Treason Trial": Could we avoid "activities... activists"? I wonder could we simply have "and was unsuccessfully prosecuted in the 1956 Treason Trial".
  • I would be happy with that change, and will implement it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• One little point about the lead, which may be worth thinking about. A lot of the sentences have a very similar grammatical structure, and are quite long. The overall effect of this is a little repetitious and makes it a little harder for the reader. Perhaps breaking some of these sentences up would help. (This only seems to be an issue in the lead)
• "a so-called "Left-Hand House"": Unless I'm missing something, not too clear what this means.
  • It's a difficult situation to reconcile. Traditional Southern African systems of family lineage appear radically different to those most Westerners are accustomed to. For obvious reasons we don't want this article to start going into depth into these systems, but at the same time the links to cadet branch and morganatic marriage have been put there to try and make things clearer. It would be best if we actually had an article on family structures in southern Africa to link to here but I am not aware of any such article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • What about a note which summarises it briefly? In any case, I think we need a little more here as "Left-Hand House" is going to be meaningless to most readers. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Later stating that his early life was dominated by traditional Thembu custom and taboo,[13] Mandela grew up with two sisters in his mother's kraal in the village of Qunu, where he tended herds as a cattle-boy, spending much time outside with other boys.": A few little issues here. The first clause seems to bear little relation to the second clause; it's quite a hard read to see "later stating that his early life" and I had to read a few times to get the meaning of the whole sentence. Presumably this means that he said, when he was older, what his childhood was like. Why not give this its own sentence? And it's not too clear what Thembu custom and taboo might be. I would also suggest that "spending much time outside with other boys" is a little redundant: show me a boy who doesn't do this! Even if we keep it, "much time" is a slightly uncomfortable phrase and I think the longer "a lot of time" works better.
  • I've divided this sentence into two, which I feel deals with many of the concerns here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• "of the visiting Chief Joyi": Presumably this was someone important. If there is no article to link to, can we give a few words to say why this is a big deal? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • We have no article to link to, and I'm not sure how important Joyi himself was; what was significant was the fact that his rhetoric influenced Mandela. I'll change this wording to a "of a visiting chief, Joyi". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Next batch: Sorry for the slow pace. Real life has been a little insane this last week! I'm down to the end of "Defiance Campaign" and this is very well written. A few more nit-picks, but feel free to argue as a few of them may just be personal preference. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Sarastro1. There is no rush at my end and I appreciate that you are taking the time to contribute to this FAC with such helpful suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "and ANC activist Walter Sisulu. Sisulu secured him a job": Could we avoid repeating Sisulu across sentences?
  • I've changed this to "ANC activist Walter Sisulu. The latter secured Mandela a job". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Sisulu secured him a job as an articled clerk at the law firm of Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman, a company run by a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who was sympathetic to the ANC's cause": A bit of comma overload going on here which make it a little tricky to read. In an ideal world, I think I'd prefer the simpler "The latter [avoiding the repetition?] secured him a job as an articled clerk at a law firm run by a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who was sympathetic to the ANC's cause", but I can see why you would want the full name. Perhaps "Sisulu secured him a job as an articled clerk at the law firm of Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman—a company run by a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who was sympathetic to the ANC's cause" or even "Sisulu secured him a job as an articled clerk at the law firm of Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman, a company run by Lazar Sidelsky, a liberal Jew sympathetic to the ANC's cause". Both of these cut the comma numbers.
  • Good idea. I've implemented the latter suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "At the firm, Mandela befriended Gaur Radebe, a Xhosa member of the ANC and Communist Party, as well as Nat Bregman, a Jewish communist who became his first white friend.": I think "as well as" might be replaced by "and" for simplicity. That gives some repetition of "and", but I don't think that's a big problem. (You could always replace the commas with dashes. I love a dash here and there!) Feel free to ignore this one.
  • I like dashes too! I'll stick some in here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Mandela attended communist talks and parties, where he was impressed that Europeans, Africans, Indians, and Coloureds were mixing as equals": I wonder (sorry, I'm doing a lot of wondering in this section) would this be better as "Mandela attended Communist Party talks and gatherings" as "communist talks" sound like something that a 1950s panel would accuse someone of! I also think "mixed" would be preferable to "were mixing" here.
  • That sounds like an improvement. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Although embarrassed by his poverty, he briefly courted a Swazi woman before unsuccessfully courting his landlord's daughter": courted...courting
  • I've replaced the first instance with "dated". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "On his return to Thembuland, the regent died in winter 1942; Mandela and Justice arrived a day late for the funeral.": On first reading, this is a little confusing as the last mention of a regent is the Queen Regent of Basutoland, and at first I thought this was who we were talking about. I think we could make this clearer; I'm possibly being a bit thick, but other readers may make the same mistake.
  • I think that you make a fair point. I've made some changed to the sentence in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Although facing racism from some, he befriended liberal and communist European, Jewish, and Indian students": I think "some" hangs a bit here. I think "some students" would be better, but I'm not too sure how to reword the rest of the sentence, or even just omit "from some" altogether as I'm sure it was more than just students who were racist.
  • Agreed and removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Thenceforth, Mandela rejected Lembede's Africanist beliefs and embraced the idea of a multi-racial front against apartheid": I'm never a fan of "thenceforth" and prefer something simpler like "subsequently"; to me, it reads better.
  • Personally I prefer "thenceforth" over "subsequently". Maybe we can get a third opinion on this one? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "his mistrust of communism broke down and he began reading literature by Marxists like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong, eventually embracing the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism": Having two "marxist" and one "Marx" in the sentence is a little repetitive. If it is not stretching the sources (I'm not sure how many other Marxists he was reading), what about " his mistrust of communism broke down and he began reading literature by [among others?] Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong, eventually embracing the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism".
  • Sure thing. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Although Africanists opposed his candidacy, Mandela was elected regional president in October.": Why? And in this sense, I'm not too sure what Africanists are.
  • In this context, "Africanists" are those African nationalists who believed in a racialized black approach to African nationalism, and were completely opposed to any alliance with whites, Asians, and Coloureds who also opposed apartheid. "Drive the Boer into the sea" kind of stuff. It was introduced in the "Law studies and the ANC Youth League" sub-section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Claims have emerged that he was having affairs with ANC member Lillian Ngoyi and secretary Ruth Mompati": "Claims have emerged" sounds a little tabloidy. Better to say straight out who made the claims and when.
  • I've cut "claims have emerged" and replaced it with "He may have had affairs with ANC member". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Watch out for overuse of "much": We have a few "much time"s and a "much respect". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've a trimmed a few of these out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

More: A bit of a flying visit, but hope to return to some more tonight. I'm at the start of the "Imprisonment" section now, and the quality of this article remains very high. (Incidentally, if you missed them, there are two unanswered points at the end of my last set of comments). Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• "In April 1959, Africanists dissatisfied with the ANC's united front approach founded the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC); Mandela disagreed with the group's racially exclusionary views, describing them as "immature" and "naïve".": Not entirely clear here with which group he disagreed.
  • Good idea. I will change the prose here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Disguised as a chauffeur, Mandela travelled the country incognito, organising the ANC's new cell structure and the planned mass stay-at-home strike.": As this is the start of a new section, it might be worth dating this. Also, given that this is obviously in South Africa, could "the country" be cut?
  • I used "the country" because it reflects that Mandela travelled all around the country, to various different areas, rather than just travelling from A to B. It might be best if I change this to "Mandela travelled around the country incognito". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• "it later became widely recognised that MK was the party's armed wing": Better as "MK was later widely recognised as the party's armed wing"? Not sure, but not a big deal either way.
  • A good suggestion, I have made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• In the section on MK, we largely give Mandela's account of the aims of the "sabotage". Are there any other views? Has anyone (academically) looked at the aims, etc, of the group? For balance, it might be good to have other views (but I don't mean the apartheid government's version) which are a little less involved.
  • As far as I am aware from the academic literature and biographical accounts of Mandela's life, there is no real argument that Mandela's claims as to MK's original aims were inaccurate. Mandela himself said that the MK was designed to carry out sabotage, but that if that proved ineffective then more violent attacks and guerrilla warfare would probably be necessary. That he came out and admitted this suggests (at least to me) that he was not necessarily hiding anything. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• We mention Mandela travelling, but we never really say how well-known he was throughout other parts of the world at this stage in his life. He was obviously VERY well known after his imprisonment, but I wonder is there anything to say about his reception outside SA at this point? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not something that I can recall being mentioned in the Mandela biographies, hence its absence here, although if further reliable sources mention this then I agree that it might make for a good addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And more: Sorry for the delay (again!) but up to the endow the "End of Apartheid" section now. I did some very light copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything I messed up or that you don't like. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Various rumours have circulated suggesting that the authorities were tipped off with regard to Mandela's whereabouts": This is a bit vague; where have the rumours come from? From when do they date? Perhaps something along the lines "Rumours [where? when?] suggested that [who?] informed the authorities of Mandela's whereabouts" (if we can't really say who here, we could keep it as ""the authorities were informed/tipped off about Mandela's whereabouts")
  • The biographical sources that we have available do not go into huge detail on these issues although I have consulted them to see if a rewording is appropriate. As a result, I have changed "Various rumours have circulated" to "Many MK members suspected that the".

• We give the CIA as a possible source of the tip off, but no-one else; could we briefly expand here? This is quite wide open otherwise.
  • It is the source that is given greatest attention in the biographies, presumably because it has the greatest amount of supporting evidence. I've made a few prose alterations to make this clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Moved to Pretoria, where Winnie could visit him, in his cell he began correspondence studies": Redundant?
  • Good point. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Initially classified as the lowest grade of prisoner": Could we clarify what this means? Lowest threat? Lowest importance? Lowest status?
  • From what I can gather, it means that he had the least privileges. I have amended the text to better reflect that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think we need to reduce the use of "visited" in the 3rd paragraph of Robben Island.
  • A good point, although there aren't many synonyms available for us to use. I've replaced two of the examples, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• "As leaders of the two major parties, de Klerk and Mandela appeared on a televised debate; although de Klerk was widely considered the better speaker at the event, Mandela's offer to shake his hand surprised him, leading some commentators to consider it a victory for Mandela": considered ... consider Sarastro1 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've changed the latter example to "deem". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

LeaningSupport: Sorry for the horrendous delay. Real life is a little manic right now. I'm almost ready to support but just have a few final points. This is impressive and remarkably balanced. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• "The event was attended by 4,000 guests": Any reason why we don't spell out the number here? It particularly clashes with the "billion" of the previous sentence.
  • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• "world leaders from disparate backgrounds": I think I know what we mean here, but it sounds a little vague. Could we spell it out a little more?
  • I've changed this to "a wide range of geographic and ideological backgrounds". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• "allowing him to organise policy details": Are policy details organised? Created or shaped, maybe? But I don't think organise quite works.
  • I've gone with "shape". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Mandela was known to change his clothes several times a day and after assuming the presidency he became so associated with Batik shirts that they came to be known as "Madiba shirts".": While this is worth including, I'm not sure it fits at the end of its current paragraph.
  • I've removed this sentence and used its citations to bolster a description of Mandela's clothing in the "Personality and personal life" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Replacing Mbeki as Deputy President, Mandela and the Executive supported the candidacy of Jacob Zuma...": The dangling participle here makes it seem like Mandela was replacing Mbeki as Deputy.
  • I've changed this sentence to the following: "Mandela and the Executive supported Jacob Zuma, a Zulu who had been imprisoned on Robben Island, as Mbeki's replacement for Deputy President." Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• At the start of the Illness and Death section, we could stand to lose a few "hospitalised" and "rehospitalised". These words are used 4 times in 3 sentences.
  • I've replaced the two uses of "rehospitalised" with "readmitted". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• I wonder if some of the personal life detail could be cut as it repeats quite a lot of information that we have already given. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've cut some of the material on his wives and children, as that duplicates information elsewhere in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've now switched to full support (and obviously recused from coordinator duties). Sarastro1 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for taking the time to read through this article and for offering your comments and then your support, Sarastro1. It is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

Image review

• File:Nelson_Mandela_Signature.svg: since South Africa is a common-law country, commons:COM:SIG suggests that signatures receive copyright protection
  • Fair point. I have removed this image altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• File:Mandela_burn_pass_1960.jpg: if this became PD in South Africa in 2010, then the URAA tag would not apply
  • I've removed this image and replaced it with File:ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• File:9_2_018_0235-TuynHuys-The_Cape-s.jpg should include a tag for the status of the building itself. Same with File:Bharat_Ratna.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There appears to be some mistake regarding File:Bharat_Ratna.jpg, as this image is not actually included in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • It's in one of the navboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah, gotcha. I'd missed that. I've removed the navbox in question altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. I'll make my way through these. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've added a description of what the image is of to the File:9_2_018_0235-TuynHuys-The_Cape-s.jpg image. Beyond that I am a little unclear as to what you mean by a tag? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The image currently has a CC tag to reflect the copyright of the photographer - we need to have another licensing tag to reflect the copyright of the architect/designer. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I was unable to locate a tag that would do the trick here so have removed the image altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

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

• Looking good so far. Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. For better or worse, this is probably the longest article I've copyedited at FAC. It's a fine article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The first half of the second paragraph of the lead needs some dates.
  • I've added the year that Mandela joined the ANC and the year that he co-founded its Youth League. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Continuing his interest in sport, Mandela took up ballroom dancing,[32] performed in a drama society play about Abraham Lincoln,[33] and gave Bible classes in the local community as part of the Student Christian Association." This is a non-sequitur, implying that all these activities are sports.
  • Good point. I've changed the sentence to eradicate the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• "he was temporarily suspended from the university; he left without receiving a degree." Why did he leave - in protest at his suspension? Gave up in despair?
  • I've changed this to "he never returned to complete his degree". Hopefully the sentence is now a little clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "as the compound was visited by various chiefs, he once met the Queen Regent of Basutoland." Why is this significant?
  • Granted, this isn't of great importance, but it has been mentioned in the Mandela biographies and for that reason I put it in here. If you strongly disagree about its relevance then it can be removed, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• "including old friend Oliver Tambo." I would say his old friend.
  • Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• " Mandela and his cadres" What does 'cadre' mean here? None of the dictionary definitions seem to fit.
  • I did a quick Google search and the second definition which they provided was "a group of activists in a communist or other revolutionary organization". That fits nicely, no? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am still doubtful. Mandela was hardly a revolutionary at that point, and "his cadres" implies that he was a revolutionary commander. How about "his allies"? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think that "allies" might be too broad. Perhaps we should look for a second opinion; Vanamonde, perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• IMO "cadre" is appropriate, but "his cadre" is perhaps odd. "party cadre allied with him" is probably the most precise. Simply "Allies" does not get at the sense of what is being said. Vanamonde (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I do not see what is wrong with "his party allies" but how about "his party cadre allies"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• "He advised Sisulu to request weaponry from the People's Republic of China, which was denied; though the Chinese government supported the anti-apartheid struggle, they believed the movement insufficiently prepared for guerilla warfare." I suggest "He advised Sisulu to request weaponry from the People's Republic of China, which was denied. Although the Chinese government supported the anti-apartheid struggle, they believed the movement insufficiently prepared for guerilla warfare."
  • I've changed this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• "police cracked down on the event, but it remained a key part of Mandela's ideology" "cracked down" is vague. Closed it down? Arrested the delegates?
  • I've gone with "closed down". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• "and continued until adjourning in September" sounds a bit odd. Maybe "and continued until the case was adjourned in September"
  • Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Africanists dissatisfied with the ANC's united front approach founded the Pan-Africanist Congress" Did they leave the ANC?
  • I'm not entirely sure, but I would have presumed so. This information would be important on the Pan-Africanist Congress article but I am not sure that it would be so relevant on the Mandela article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• "claiming that there was insufficient evidence" "claiming" seems POV. Maybe "on the ground"
  • I've gone with "ruling" over "claiming", which fits with the legal environment being discussed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Further comments
• "but completed only two months before being recalled to South Africa" Presumably recalled by the ANC leadership but this should be spelled out.
  • A good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "who feared Mandela's associations with communism" Communism is an abstraction, and it sounds odd to speak of associations with an abstraction.
  • Would "association" work here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• How about "association with communists" Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that should work well. I'll amend the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• "December until February 1964" Eh?
  • I've changed this to "December 1963 until February 1964". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• "until he resumed his LLB degree studies in 1980" You have not said that they had stopped.
  • In the previous sentence it states "That year, he began his autobiography, which was smuggled to London, but remained unpublished at the time; prison authorities discovered several pages, and his study privileges were revoked for four years." Do you think that this latter wording needs to be made clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would say "his LLB study privileges". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Violence across the country escalated" You should specify when.
  • I've changed this to "The early 1980s witnessed an escalation of violence across the country, and many predicted civil war." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "with the ANC committing 231 attacks in 1986 and 235 in 1987." This is vague. What sort of attacks?
  • Sampson (p. 355), which is the source mentioning the number of attacks, only refers to them as "attacks" without giving any further information. I would assume that they were sabotage attacks on state and government infrastructure given the ANC's attempts to avoid civilian casualties, but I couldn't swear to that at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Mandela admitted the party's faults" What faults?
  • The sources don't seem to quote him at length here; it seems from the context in which they discuss the issue that he was referring to the disorganised nature of the ANC although this is not crystal clear. This being the case, I've only changed the prose to "admitted that the party had faults". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Winnie found guilty of kidnapping and assault and sentence to 2 years, but above you have said that she was head of an organisation which murdered and tortured opponents. The article on Winnie said that she was found guilty of torture and murder by the truth and reconciliation commission, but obviously not in the 1991 trial. This needs clarifying.
  • I'm not really sure how to go about this without the article going off on a bit of a tangent about the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in the "Pollsmoor Prison: 1982–88" section, which is something that I would really prefer to avoid. Generally I feel that interested readers can go to the Winnie Mandela article if they are interested in learning more about her and her activities, and that we do not need to go into too much detail here in the Nelson Mandela article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Although criticised by socialist ANC members, he was encouraged to embrace private enterprise by members of the Chinese and Vietnamese Communist parties at the January 1992 World Economic Forum in Switzerland." This is a bit confusing as you have been discussing 1993 - it would be better to say he had been encouraged.
  • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Mandela met with Afrikaner politicians and generals, including P. W. Botha, Pik Botha and Constand Viljoen, persuading many to work within the democratic system" This is unclear. Who does many refer to? People formerly supporters of violent revolution?
  • It refers to many Afrikaner politicians and generals. I will make an amendment to the article prose to clarify this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• A sentence on the reasons for the hostility between the ANC and Inkatha would be helpful.
  • The source at this juncture does not really make clear the reasons for the violent clashes and for that reason I would hesitate in adding anything new into the article. However, it would seem to be a combination of general rivalry between two competing factions, a broad ideological difference (ANC wanted a united multi-racial South Africa; Inkatha wanted an independent Zulu nation), different approaches to the apartheid government (ANC was totally against, whereas Inkatha were willing to work with them and their Banustan system) and the ethnic dimension (with Inkatha being fiercely Zulu and the ANC dominated by Xhosa). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Mandela as South Africa's first black chief executive" Elsewhere you say president.
  • Both are true. The issue here is that the position of President only became the chief executive position (replacing the Prime Minister) under P. W. Botha, so most chief executives in South African history have been Prime Ministers, not Presidents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think you need to explain this as it is confusing otherwise. It would be suitable for a footnote, but as you do not ahve any I would add it to the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure quite how to go about this, particularly as I lack a reference to say that this is the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would say "first black president". Chief executive is usually a different position, so it is confusing to introduce different terminology at that point. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• The prose now says "first black head of state", which I think works well here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• "scaremongering around crime" I would say about crime.
  • Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "the Springboks, as South Africa hosted the 1995 Rugby World Cup" You seem to imply here that Mandela only supported the Springboks because South Africa were hosts.
  • I've made some amendments to this wording, and I hope that it deals with the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "enabled people who had lost their property as a result of the Natives Land Act, 1913 to claim back their land" I am doubtful about this. The source does not look like an RS, and it would be surprising if there was no important later legislation, particularly after the introduction of Apartheid in 1948. The next sentence refers to the rights of tenants, which is a different issue.
  • I've removed this sentence. We don't have other RS that support it, so I'm comfortable with it being removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Recognising that arms manufacturing was a key industry in South Africa," This sounds POV.
  • I'm not really sure what you mean here; could you possibly clarify? The arms industry was one of SA's key industries, employing large numbers of people and bringing in substantial revenue. Mandela recognised that bringing an end to the industry would bring widespread unemployment and decreasing revenues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• How about "for the South African economy". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• That works. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• "although this was scuppered by the 1997 Asian financial crisis." I think "scuppered" is a bit too colloquial.
  • I'm considering "hindered" but I am not sure if that really does the trick. Have you any suggestions? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• How about "defeated"? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that "defeated" has quite the right connotations. "Prevented"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "President Suharto, whose regime was responsible for mass human rights abuses" Perhaps euphemistic for a genocide estimated to have killed a million meople.
  • That may be true, but I'm not sure the RS here use the words "genocide". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• "although he later reconciled his relationship with Blair" "reconciled" does not sound right to me in this context. Is it American usage?
  • How about "he later established a more amiable relationship with Blair"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would go with "improved". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• That works for me. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• "a Christian humanist, who relied more upon Ubuntu than Christian theology." I am not sure what this means.
  • I've reworded this sentence thusly: "On analysing Mandela's writings, the theologian Dion Forster described him as a Christian humanist, although added that his thought relied to a greater extent on the Southern African concept of Ubuntu than on Christian theology." Does that make things clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• "while his popularity had resulted in a cult of personality building up around him" I would say has resulted.
  • I get your reasoning here, but I'm a little worried about using the present tense when the cult may well die out. As a compromise between the two positions I've changed this to simply read "popularity resulted". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Concerns were raised that the personal respect and authority he accrued were in contrast to the ideals of democracy that he promoted,[440] and that he placed his own status and celebrity above the transformation of his country." This is vague. Who raised the concerns, how did respect for him constrast with ideals of democracy, and how did he (according to his critics) place his status above transformation?
  • I agree that there is a vagueness here, but in large part that is because the source material is algo vague on this point. According to Rita Barnard: "There is also a sense in which his chiefly bearing and mode of conduct, the very respect and authority he accrued in representing his nation in his own person, went against the spirit of democracy and, while he constantly insisted that he was a servant of the people and a loyal member of the ANC, his popularity nevertheless generated something of a cult of personality." Do you think that any more can be adopted from this quote for use in this article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to use the quote instead of your own words. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have now added the quote. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Castro, Gaddafi, and Suharto—deemed dictators by critics" Does anyone deny that they were dictators?
  • I don't know much about Suharto, but in the course of bringing both the Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi articles to GA status I've found that their supporters definitely reject the "dictator" label. Constitutionally, Castro held less power within Cuba's political system than the President does in the United States, while from the late 1970s onward Gaddafi's role in Libya's state apparatus was largely ceremonial and his official responsibilities were restricted primarily to the military. Of course, there are strong arguments that both figures wielded considerable unofficial influence that gave them near dictatorial power, but certainly the "dictator" label is not as clear cut in these cases as may be easily imagined. We must be careful not to push particular political/ideological viewpoints in Wikipedia's voice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • FWIW I agree with MBO here. I'm not particularly well-read about any but Castro, but even I know that the label is not one agreed upon. IMO the expression "dictator" is applied most frequently to Suharto among the three listed here, but I may be wrong. Vanamonde (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest "Mandela was also criticised for his friendship with controversial political leaders such as Castro, Gaddafi, and Suharto, and his refusal to condemn their governments' human rights violations." But it is not a major issue. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• My concern about that is that most political leaders are controversial; Mandela himself was highly controversial for many years. For this reason, I am more comfortable with the present wording as it specifies more clearly the reason why critics were concerned about Mandela's friendship with these individuals. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would merge the last two paragraphs of the 'Orders, decorations, and monuments' section.
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Mandela has also been depicted in cinema on multiple occasions." This sounds ungrammatical to me. "in films"?
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Refs 39, 260 and 308 are showing harv errors. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have fixed these three errors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that I have responded to every concern, Dudley. There are a few points on which you may well want to counter-respond. Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article for such care! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Dudley Miles; I think that this FAC might be wrapping up soon so were there any further issues that you wished to raise? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The one point I have been waiting on is a reply on cadres. I am still not happy with the implication that Mandela was the leader of a clique of revolutionaries at that point in his career. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oops - missed that one. I've changed it to the suggested wording. Thanks, Dudley. 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

• This is a phenomenally important article, thanks for bringing it here! I realize I'm a little late to the party, so I will try to be quick. At first glance this is impressive work.
  • Thank you for the thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Apologies, been kept off of Wikipedia by RL.
    • Okay, I'm very close to supporting this: just address the couple of points that remain. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Happy to support this solid piece of work.

Prose

• Perhaps "forename", as an unfamiliar term, should have a parenthetical explanation?
  • I've linked it to Given name. That should be the trick without any need for extra text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• "member of the amaMpemvu clan of Xhosa." Should it be "the Xhosa"?
  • I was under the impression that both would be okay, but I'll add the "the" anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "a Xhosa member of the ANC and Communist Party" should it not be the Communist Party?
  • I think that the current wording works okay, but maybe we could get a third opinion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "while Evelyn embraced the Jehovah's Witnesses and rejected Mandela's preoccupation with politics." I'm a little confused about this. She rejected his preoccupation: what does that mean?
  • She did not share Mandela's preoccupation with politics; do you think there is a better way of wording this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I guess it's not too important, but it seems to describe their relationship in terms more appropriate to an organized debate...Did she reduce her involvement in Mandela's politics? If so, I'd suggest saying so: otherwise, leave it.
• "He advised Sisulu to request weaponry from the People's Republic of China, which was denied" Slight oddity here; I would suggest "On his advice, Sisulu requested..."
  • I've changed the wording in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• "police closed down the event, but its tenets remained a key part of Mandela's ideology." I'd suggest breaking this up into two sentences: they are two not-very-related concepts, after all.
  • I definitely agree on this one. The two sentences have now been divided, and the latter fleshed out with an additional Mandela quote. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• "he began courting and politicising a social worker" The term "politicizing" is used and abused so many different ways, that I think a different way of saying this might be better, even if wordier.
  • I've gone ahead and removed "and politicising". I thought about various ways of changing this but I felt that they were all detrimental to the sentence itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Mandela gained ideas from Marxist literature on guerilla warfare by Mao and Che Guevara" I think some folks might take issue with that...are you sure the sources describe the literature as Marxist? Quite certain that the writings referred to are simply "literature on guerilla warfare".
  • I haven't re-checked every source but I agree that describing the literature itself as Marxist may not be the best way to phrase this. The sources emphasis the influence of Marxist revolutionary ideas on him at this juncture, so I will change the prose to "literature on guerrilla warfare by Marxist militants Mao and Che Guevara". Does that work for you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ideologues may quibble but this is certainly better.
• "but it was abandoned after the conspiracy was infiltrated by an agent" It would be great to have information on how the infiltration was discovered, but if it is unavailable, I understand.
  • I'm concerned about excessively lengthening the wording here with information that I feel may be a little tangential. If others think it is really necessary then I am happy to delve into the situation, but at present I'm not really convinced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay.
• "herself up as head of a criminal gang" I can understand why you use the word "criminal", but I would avoid it. Stricly speaking, a criminal is somebody who has comitted a crime: and that was true for essentially the entire movement against apartheid at some point. "violent" might be better. Or "militant".
  • I've removed the word "criminal". I think that "militant" might be misleading as it suggests a greater level of in-depth politicisation than I think the Mandela United Football Club actually had. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• ""Mandela United Football Club", who had been " Shouldnt it be which had been?
  • Indeed it should. I've amended the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• "In 1989, Botha suffered a stroke, retaining the state presidency" I'd separate the sentence into two: right now, it sounds like "retaining the state presidency" was a medical condition brought on by the stroke.
  • I've amended this to "In 1989, Botha suffered a stroke; although he would retain". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Can "COSAG" be linked?
  • I'm happy to link it, but it would become a redlink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe, as do others, that redlinks are quite critical in drawing attention to subjects which do not have articles: especially in cases such as this, wherein the absence of said articles is related to WP:CSB.
• There is some inconsistancy with the use of "US" and "U.S." Since you don't use the period for other abbreviations, I would suggest standardizing to the former.
  • I've standardised these as "US". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• "But finding such seclusion difficult" I still belong to the school of thought in which beginning a sentence with "But" is odd. Not compulsory.
  • I share your view on "But"; this must have been added in by another editor. I've removed the "But", and I think that the sentence works fine without it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm rather surprised that the US' official designation of Mandela as a terrorist (as opposed to just Reagan's opinion) is not in the article.
  • I'm unsure if the official designation applied specifically to Mandela or whether it was a blanket designation on the ANC and its members/leadership. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I do believe it was Mandela himself, in addition to the ANC: see for instance [42], [43], [44].
      • Many thanks for the links. I've used the NBC News piece to add a sentence on this into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'd avoid the use of the Mike Ketchum source: it's primary, and not needed, as there is another (I think).
  • I've removed Ketchum. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm uncertain about the reliability of "mamba online".
  • I think you're right. This isn't one of my additions to the article, but if there are no objections then I'll scrap it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• The "History of the ANC" link in the lead is a bit of an easter egg at the moment: I would prefer it if you included "served as President" within the piped link, or left it out altogether.
  • I've removed it altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• " Robben Island where Mandela and other prisoners were subjected to hard labour" in the caption strikes me as not very grammatical; isn't hard labor something you do, rather than something done to you?
  • I've altered this to "were forced to carry out hard labour". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "and his daughters first visited in December 1975." If I am not wrong, his daughters visited him regularly after reaching a certain age and being permitted to do so: is this worth mentioning?
  • I had a quick look at the Sampson biography, particularly at the pages cited here. I can't find any passages explicitly referring the daughters visiting regularly; it mentions Maki visiting when she turned 16 in 1970 (p. 255) but I cannot see it mentioning repeat visits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah well maybe I concocted this bit of trivia from the biopic.

Other

• Wondering if the pressure from within South Africa for his release is worth a mention in the lede
  • We already have "growing fear of a racial civil war", which to some extent deals with this issue (I think). I don't want to start lengthening the lede any more, but do you think this wording could be improved at all? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "Amid a strengthening internal movement against apartheid and growing international pressure, and with fears of a racial civil war..." This is admittedly longer, but from what I know of the literature, it was not simply fear, which frequently has no basis in reality, and it does not acknowledge the generally non-violent nature of the resistance. I'm not going to oppose over this, though.
      • I've gone with "growing domestic and international pressure". I think that that captures the necessary additional meaning while not making the sentence and paragraph excessively lengthy. Would you agree? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Not 100% convinced, but okay.
• There are at the moment three harv errors in the article. If you don't have the script which highlights such, I'd suggest installing it: it's very useful
  • I've had little luck in finding these, or the necessary script. Could I have a pointer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh wait, Dudley pointed them out above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• This is a more substantive point: there are several sources I have read which have argued that songs written in honour of Mandela in the 1970s and 1980s, such as Free Nelson Mandela, and Bring Him Back Home (Nelson Mandela), played a major role in increasing name recognition for him: as such, I would imagine the phenomenon at least warrants a mention.
  • Do you have any references that I could look at? If there are RS dealing with this issue then it may well be pertinent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There's some sources here, apologies for the disorganization of that page. I also took another look at some of the sources, and I realise that many of them mention the music in conjunction with other factors. Still think the music is worth a mention.
      • Thanks. I've used The Guardian article to create a sentence on this subject in the "Biographies and popular media" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from indopug

• This article is so thorough and well researched that my main complaint is that it goes too far in this aspect at times. What I mean by this is that at times, very trivial claims are extremely over-referenced. For example, take this sentence: He took up ballroom dancing, performed in a drama society play about Abraham Lincoln, and gave Bible classes in the local community as part of the Student Christian Association. Do we really need four refs for each of these? Since many of these are identical, why list them thrice? Another example is the sentence fragment "Mandela's second wife was the social worker Winnie Madikizela-Mandela" which is followed by six references.

• Are you sure the post-nominals in the infobox, "OMP RE OM AC CC OJ GCStJ QC GCIH BR", are accurate? Because I know that the Bharat Ratna has been deemed to not be a title, and thus cannot be used that way.—indopug (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced by these either. Given that we lack supporting references for them, I'll go ahead and scrap them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note

Just a reminder that -- unless I messed it -- we'll need a source review at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• References formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Earwigs has a false positive from a mirror site, as well as a couple with speeches. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• FN 441, used once. material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• FN 263, used once. material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• FN 280, used once. material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• FN 470, used once. material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Spot check ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tks Cas, do you (or any of our reviewers above) feel comfortable signing off on the reliability of all the sources employed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a self-published source but it only cites a speech. Others look RS. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 10 February 2017 (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) 15:04, 10 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2017 [45].

---

Wolfenstein 3D

Nominator(s): PresN 15:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Odd as it seems now in the era of ever-more realistic shooter games, churned out in yearly installments, back in 1992 there really wasn't such as thing as a "first person shooter"—not only did the name not exist, but what few first person video games with guns that existed were stealth ones, low on speed and violence; even the idea of a 3D game on computers at all was a novel one, confined to flight simulators and slow RPGs. So, when Wolfenstein 3D burst on to the scene with frenetic action and never-before-seen levels of blood and violence, it sent shockwaves through the industry, launching companies, distribution models, and genres into the mainstream. I rewrote the article on this classic game from top to bottom this July, took it through GA, and now I think it's ready to go for FAC. Thank you all for reviewing the article, and I hope it reminds you that sometimes you don't need a dramatic plot to make a game fun—sometimes you just have to shoot mecha-Hitler in the face with a chaingun while playing the "grandfather" of first person shooter games. --PresN 15:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

The article looks in good shape although I think the date "May 5" from the section "Release" lacks a year. Also, remember to add alts to the images. Still, I'll just support it. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Added alt text; the year is missing from the sentence because "May 5, 1992" is listed 2 sentences prior. Thanks! --PresN 03:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber

A nice read, a couple of minor quibbles below:

He and designer Tom Hall designed the game, built on Carmack's engine, to be fast, violent, and unlike other computer games on the market at the time. - if the speed and violence are the reason for the difference then the "and" should go...scans funny for me.

Some folks might think "sans Wilbur" a tad informal, but I don't mind...just sayin'

...led id to receive "five calls a month" from investment companies... - I'd rewrite to dequote.

Otherwise looking on target for FA-hood....

@Casliber: reworked to remove the "and", and dequoted the "five calls" quote. --PresN 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ok all good then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I spent an unwisely large chunk of my early teens playing Wolf 3D and this article does a good job of covering this landmark game. I have the following comments:

• "FormGen developed an additional two episodes for the game, while Apogee released a pack of over 800 fan-created levels" - is the extent of fan-editing and distribution worth noting in the lead and later in the article? I remember buying floppy disks full of levels for this game!
• The plot section is currently unreferenced.

MOS:PLOT says The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. (I'm not involved with this article at all, just happened to see the FAC page)--IDV^talk 00:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• This section also seems to credit the game with a bit more plot than I remember - do sources support saying that it had a fairly limited plot? It's notable that in the "Development" section it seems like the plot was added towards the end of the game's development.
• "that he felt kept the game from playing smooth and fast" - this wording is a bit awkward (also, the previous sentence uses "smoother and faster", so a bit more variation would be helpful)
• The "release" section doesn't cover the game's distribution via shareware (from memory, the first episode was widely distributed this way, often on disks on the covers of magazines)
• " While some prior computer shooter games existed, they were generally scrolling shooters, while Wolfenstein 3D helped move the market towards first-person shooters" - this could probably be rephrased to avoid repeating "while" and "shooters" in this sentence
• The exactly dates of publishing for books aren't needed in the "sources" section: please tweak this to just the years. The location the books were published at should also be noted. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: I will get to this review and the below image issue soon; between the holidays and real-life events I have limited Wikipedia time until January 10 so there may be a delay. --PresN 00:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, finally back in town. @Nick-D: responses in order:

• I don't have a good source for Wolf3D having a larger mod/distribution community than other games, moreso than the one line in Legacy "Although Wolfenstein 3D was not designed to be editable or modified, players developed character and level editors to create original alterations to the game's content." and the fact that Apogee sold a pack of levels. Modding/selling add-ons may have been rampant for the game (especially since id and Apogee loved it and didn't try to crack down at all), but its all anecdotal. One day maybe we'll have a big sourceable article on the history of video game mods/player levels...

• From a quick search in Google Books, Masters of Doom seems to have some material on modding of the game, and the material in the first paragraph here looks useful. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Google is telling me that page isn't available to view (probably because I'm in the US, not AUS); can you email me the information you see? MoD pp. 115-116 has a little bit, but it's not much more than "people made mods; Carmack and Romero use to do that before they made games, so they thought it was cool and id left it alone." --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've just emailed the relevent text to you. It basically says that while Wolf3D wasn't all that well set up for modding this happened anyway, and id quickly applied this experience as part of developing DOOM. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: alright, add a bit sourced to that book and to MoD, which I believe was your last point. --PresN 17:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Plot sections don't need to be referenced, as IDV mentions- it's usually not even possible except maybe to quotes from the game
• I'm not sure what you mean; each episode has maybe a sentence of plot listed. There wasn't more than a thin premise for the theme of that set of levels

• Yes, that's what I was getting at. The section should note that the plot was thin. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• OK, done. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rephrased
• Made it a bit clearer that the 1st episode was released as shareware, meaning that anyone could distribute it anywhere however they'd like
• Fixed the double "while", and one of the "shooters"
• I'd actually argue the opposite- having the exact publishing date doesn't hurt anything and may give readers some small contextual benefit similar to the full dates given for websites, while the city that the publishing house is based in is not useful information to readers (after all, I read all of these books online or on my phone, physical location notwithstanding) and does not help with tracking down the book itself (as the isbn is included)

• Please use standard practice for references. The exact date of publishing printed works is irrelevant given that this is based on publisher's schedules, not the date the work was actually completed (which is typically several months before the book is published). The location of publishing is needed to distinguish between different editions as it's fairly common for there to be minor differences in page numbers, and sometimes content, between editions published in, say, the US and UK. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, there's no such thing as "standard practice" for references (any consistent style is allowed), and if the date is supposed to reflect when the work was made rather than when it was available then using the publishing date/year doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place, but sure, done. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

--PresN 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Responded. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: pinging again. --PresN 17:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply - I was out of town for a few days. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• The images are CC licensed or have appropriate fair use rationales. There is one major issue, though. This[46] image is a crop of another photo that has been deleted from Commons, due to "missing source".[47] Since the original uploader was called "Romero"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Romero], it is pretty likely that it is the same person as on the photo. But this needs some looking into. The cropped photo can only stay on Commons if the original is restored. So it might be an idea to contact the deleting admin. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the parent photo was deleted despite being marked as the uploader's own work. Discussion here: commons:User talk:Jcb#File:Romero 3designers.jpg czar 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool. If it is concluded that the parent image was rightly deleted, the one in this article will have to be deleted too (as well as other crops[48]). If the other way around, the parent image should be restored. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I've removed the image and replaced it with a shot of Romero (File:John Romero - Jason Scott interview (6951215353) (cropped).jpg, itself a crop of File:John Romero - Jason Scott interview (6951215353).jpg, a flickr import purporting to be from an interview and posted by the interviewer). It appears that, other than possibly being uploaded by Romero, there's no justification for the original image being free-use, so all of the crops should be deleted. --PresN 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this article should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

 Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: ? --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: weekly ping. --PresN 17:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the long delay. Real world got crazy. Anyhow, thoughts and stuff:

• Prose:
  • I've gone through and made some tweaks previously. Nothing stood out on a re-read.
• Images:
  • All images appear appropriately licensed; alt text is included in the article. File:Wolfenstein-3d.jpg's FUR was a bit general and not compelling, but I made some changes.
• References:
  • All references used appear to be high-quality, reliable sources, formatted appropriately and consistently.
  • I did a spot-check of statements attributed to current refs 1, 4, 22, 28, 30, 50, 54, 57, and 60. I did not spot any issues with plagiarism. However, there appear to be issues with 1c compliance regarding accuracy. Problems found in the spot checks:
    • I think there needs to be some breakout of the attribution for current ref 1. It cites entire paragraphs to a multi-page review, and I've found that there's some generalization that's not in the original review (rudimentary 3D graphics, broken up into typically ten levels when the review says nine, etc.)
    • Ref 28 attributes a statement to "shareware distributors" when only one is quoted.
    • Ref 50 does not adequately source the statement attributed to it: After the game's release, id Software licensed the engine to other developers, like the Commander Keen engine before it, as part of a series of engine licensing deals that id has made throughout its history;
    • Ref 54 does not adequately source the statement attributed to it: Additionally, Softdisk produced three sequels to Catacomb 3-D in the Catacomb Adventure Series using the prototype Wolfenstein 3D engine from that game.
    • Ref 57 does not mention all the inspired Wolfenstein imitators that are listed in the Wikipedia article.

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • • Well, it's really just a two page review (pages 57, 58), there's just a single sentence on page 60 that I don't cite. I've adjusted the citation to be "pages=57–58", anyways. Will look into the generalizations.
        • Ok, I've pulled in a lot of other sources to handle individual sentences that Ref 1 was stretching to cover, especially an HG101 source that I didn't realize had been added to WP:VG/RS. Also adjusted the wording about the number of levels to be more precise. Rudimentary is going to have to stay, though I now have the Carmack commentary source covering it where he spends a couple minutes talking about the basic nature of the gameplay engine; I go into more detail later in the article, but I can't call it just "3D" without a qualifier because it's "3D except the height is faked and always the same and things can only be cubes on a grid all the same size except for the characters and decorations which are 2D sprites viewed from multiple angles", which is a mouthful and better suited to somewhere else besides the first sentence of gameplay.
      • Fixed.
      • Ref 50 is unnecessary; it cites only part of that phrase, but that bit's completely cited by ref 51 at the end of the sentence (the Quake section, which mentions that they licensed the Keen engine, the Wolf engine, and every engine since). Removed.
      • Corrected text to match what the source says more closely
      • Correct, Lethal Tender should be Terminal Terror (same engine, different game), and one was missing entirely and is now removed.

Addressed all but the "generalizations", will do so shortly. --PresN 21:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Done. --22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: How are we progressing? We are in danger of stalling I think, and there has not been much action on this FAC since early January. Unless Nick-D has much more to add, I'm afraid we might have to archive this. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just supported. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I can give a review more, if anyone thinks it is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: That would be very much appreciated, if you have the time. --PresN 19:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll begin soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

If you would like a review from me as well, just ping me back here. Freikorp (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Ok, I'll begin reviewing now, you should request a source review soon[49], since this can take a long wait. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• "pseudo-3D graphics." You only call it "pseudo" once in the article, but doe the sources actually refer to it as such? If this is an often used term for the graphics of this game, it seems absent form the development section.
• "though only a thin plot is presented to the player between episodes" This seems like subjective statement, considering no citation is provided? It perhaps exceeds the "no sources needed in plot-sections" guideline...
• "for Romero believed that due to the novelty of a 3D game and control scheme players would not be receptive to more complicated" Seems it could need a comma before "players".
• There seems to be very little info on the music? I remember the intro theme being Horst Wessel Lied, which almost seems to be notable in itself...
• Seems it could be mentioned that you can play some levels of W3D in Wolfenstein: The New Order?[50]
• "and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein" only mentioned in intro.
• "selling over 200,000 copies by the end of 1992." Only stated in intro.
• "basic run-and-gun archetype" Likewise.
• That should be it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed; that's a holdover from when I tweaked the lead and development to match each other and apparently missed Gameplay- calling it just "3D" or "pseudo-3D" is misleading.
• Yeah, a reviewer above pushed for it. Upon further consideration, I'm taking it back out, it is subjective.
• Done.
• There wasn't a lot of discussion of the music, which is something I usually look for as I've written a couple dozen GAs on video game music. I've added in a line about Horst-Wessel-Lied, though.
• Added
• Removed
• Should be 1993, which is what the Reception bit and the source say. Fixed. ("By the end of 1993, sales of the Apogee episodes of Wolfenstein 3D as well as Spear of Destiny had reached over 100,000 units each")
• Huh, I don't remember writing that but I clearly did. Fixed.
• @FunkMonk: responded below in order. --PresN 16:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - fixes look great. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Laser brain

• Looks mostly OK, but I do have a general comment/question about publishers. I noted that your practice is to list the current publisher of each publication rather than who was the publisher at the time of publication. I feel like we should be doing the latter for a correct citation. For example EGM at this time was published by Sendai Publications so any citation to EGM prior to 1996 has an incorrect publisher listed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Laser brain: Ah, it's because I'm used to web citations, where even if it was published under a different company, it is still available today under the current publisher. You're right, that's a bad idea for print publications, and arguably for web. Changing print and web sources to their contemporary publishers. To verify, changes made: pre-1996 Electronic Gaming Monthly was Sendai Publications (changed from Ziff Davis); pre-2013 IGN was IGN Entertainment (changed from Ziff Davis where applicable); Computer Gaming World was self-published prior to August 93 (changed from Ziff Davis where applicable); Planet Quake was still part of the Planet series of Mark Surfas sites until consolidated into Gamespy in ~2001. --PresN 18:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Seems right. Thanks for the changes. Everything looks great! --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I made a few little prose tweaks, and it might be worth checking after promotion if we are overusing "game". There were a few instances where it occurred twice or more in one sentence, and while this is not enough to hold up promotion, it might be worth just going over to check for similar examples. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2017 [51].

---

Prince Romerson

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Prince Romerson a Civil War soldier who saw service on land and sea and fought in the colored regiments during the war and after the war as a Buffalo Soldier in the frontier. He is uniquely claimed as a Filipino and a Hawaiian soldier who fought in the war today. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman and J. R. Kealoha and has been an A-list quality article for a while. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles.... KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Iry-Hor

I apologize if this is a stupid question with an obvious answer, but how is Prince Romerson particularly notable? I understand that the involvement of Hawaiian people in the civil war can be of interest and is notable within the history of Hawaii / US relations, but what makes any one of the involved soldiers important? Is there a reason why he stands out more than the other Hawaiian soldiers who served during the war? I have looked for an answer in the article, but couldn't find it. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, he might not be "particularly notable"...I mean I have chosen a few of the most notable combatants Pitman, Kealoha, Bush and Romerson to write quality articles for. And this was just my next step attempts to get another one of them to a feature article. They were not general just soldiers and none much known about them have survived or have been written about them, so a basic look may make them not so notable. Would this not qualify then for FAC? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

KAVEBEARThere is nothing in particular in the FA guidelines pertaining to this problem. As the article is well written, seems resonably complete and neutral and its sources are reliable etc. I would think it does meet these criteria. The guidelines state however that the article should also fulfill the criteria for standard wikipedia articles, including notability WP:N. However, I don't want to contest notability: i) I think individual biographies are important in as much as they provide illustrations of the broader history; ii) contesting notability could logically lead to deletion if the subject is seen as not notable, which would be a shame given the article quality; iii) I am an inclusionist. Could you somehow emphasize how Prince Romerson's life is an illustration of the involvment of Hawaiian in the civil war? I think you could write a small introductory section "Context" starting with the first paragraph of the section "Life". This context section could be further expanded to discuss Hawaiian people in the war and the broader implications their enlistment had. In any case, the first paragraph of the "Life" section would seem more at home in a "Context section". Iry-Hor (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Iry-Hor I have made some additional changes. The shortness of the context section has to do with the fact not much is known relating to the native recruits side of the story while much is written about the war's effect on the home front or why the missionary children joined for example which are not relevant here. Also other parts that I can think of adding to a context section like records of enlistment and segregation are already included in the life section sprinkled here and there. There isn't much written about the significance of Hawaiian participation and one can argue that it might be considered trivial considering how only a small number of them enlisted (100+ out of the three million who fought); what I can think of it is that it illustrated how Hawaii was a part of the early American story and how their contribution give modern Hawaiians something to be proud of. I have also brought in the quotes of McCunn speaking about him since she stated it best about how Prince Romerson's life is an illustration of the involvment of Hawaiian in the civil war: "The military records of Hawaii-born Prince Romerson reveal both his service the US and the diverse attitudes of officers toward people of color."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR Excellent, McCunn's remark is precisely what I was looking for as it places Prince Romerson in his historical context and gives him a role as an illustration of a topic of wider importance in US history. I think it would be good if you could include a remark in the lede, perhaps at the end, to emphasize this aspect, that is a short sentence, perhaps after "He died in 1872", with "Romerson's military career shows the diverse attitudes of officers toward people of color during and shortly after the civil war", although a less close paraphrasing of McCunn would be even better. I also have a remark concerning the two citations in the lede. The use of citations in the lede is discouraged by the MOS unless they pertain to a controversial statement that is likely to be challenged by a reader encountering it the first time, see WP:LEADCITE. I don't think your lede is controversial in anyway, so I would argue that these two citations need to be removed from the lede and put in the main body of the article, where relevant. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Iry-Hor I made the recommended changes. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I think you have well addressed my concerns and this article, while short, is of good enough quality to be FA. I wonder what Prince Romerson would have thought about this whole thing. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comment by Ian Rose

Recusing from coord duties, I supported at MilHist ACR and apart from a couple of minor things that I've tweaked I'm happy prose-wise with minor changes made since then. Not being an expert on the subject matter, I'm leaning support but would prefer someone more familiar with the subject matter (at least in general) to look it over before I commit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Is there anything else that you would recommend? Two users have added their opinions since. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm good, I just wanted people like Coemgenus and Wehwalt to have another look following their comments at the MilHist ACR -- no probs with the few changes since I last looked at it so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support by Coemgenus

As usual, I can find little to criticize about an article that has gone through a MILHIST A-class review. The subject's notability is borderline, as Iry-Hor mentions, but I think there has been enough written on him in reliable sources to qualify, if only barely. With that, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I don't find much to criticize:

• "Prince Romerson (c. 1840 – March 30, 1872) was an American Union Army soldier of Native Hawaiian descent. " the term "American" here may be mistaken as a nationality. I would say something like "Union Army soldier of Native Hawaiian descent during the American Civil War" or similar.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• "After being discharged from naval service, he continued fighting and reenlisted" I might cut "he continued fighting"

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Union Army is linked in the two first paragraphs of the lede.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• "USCC" this is short for?

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• "he fought in the frontier army" consider "he remained in the army on the frontier"

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• "several captured sailors" captured?

• @Wehwalt: What's wrong? There were a few sailors who were captured (sort of like impressment) from whaling ships who served on the Shenadoah.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing doesn't make that explanation clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I changed it to "sailors on whaling ships captured by the Confederate Navy who served on the CSS Shenandoah"--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly the two references to the missionaries could be consolidated.

• @Wehwalt: Not sure how. One reference is about the descendants who fought and the other is about the influence they themselves had on the pro-Union and abolitionist attitude of the Hawaiians.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "military's segregationist policy." I would cut the "ist"

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Confederate prison camp" I imagine this should be "prison camp for Confederates"

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is his grave marked? --Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not known.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support All my issues have been dealt with. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, this can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support from Maile

I believe this article to be well researched, well written, and within FA criteria requirements. Every once in a while, it's good to see an FA article that manages to be comprehensive without overwhelming on prose. Good job.

• Support - — Maile (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Cas Liber

• References formatted consistently.
• Earwigs copyvio too clear
• FN 10 used twice, checks out
• FN 13 used once, checks out
• Like most Native Hawaiians who participated in the war, he was assigned to the colored regiments probably because of his dark skin color and the military's segregation policy - has FN 4 & 14 as refs. Neither mention Romerson but do describe the policy. I think this needs rewording. - or adding FN 13 after the mention of his name in the colored section.

@Casliber: I've added FN5 to the sentence. This is a piece a piece in the NYT Opinionator which mentions: "native Hawaiians who fought for the Union risked segregation because of their skin color. One volunteer, Prince Romerson, served in the 5th Massachusetts Volunteer Cavalry, an all-black regiment, and mustered out as a sergeant". Please let me know if there any other concerns. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

all good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: I think this is ready for promotion, just a couple of little points before I do so. However, neither of them are worth delaying this for. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• "It is thought that he came to the United States..." and "Regardless, it is known that Romerson was living in New York...": Is there any reason that we can't just say "He came to..." and "Regardless, he was living..."? If there is any doubt, perhaps we need to attribute in the text where the thought comes from.
• "Romerson's military career shows the diverse attitudes of officers to the Native Hawaiians and people of color who served on segregated units during and shortly after the Civil War.": I'm a little uncomfortable with this in the lead; I think we need to say who is saying this, as we are currently using wikipedia's voice for a statement which is an interpretation. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2017 [52].

---

Yesterday's Enterprise

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about "Yesterday's Enterprise", a third-season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation commonly considered one of the best of the series, and part of the dramatic upswing in quality from previous seasons. Article has gone through GAN and PR and I'd like to see this get FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

• "Running 106 pages it was far longer than the usual 65-page submission guideline, but a special allowance was made since the script was double-spaced.": Several questions, but I guess the main one is: why would the typical reader care that the script was double-spaced?
• "is confronted with revealing to his guests their ultimate fate": He does it, or struggles with the decision and doesn't do it?
• "and there all victories come at a cost": and where ...?
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the look and edits, Dank. I've removed the page length note as it might be too inside baseball for a general overview and distracting from the salient points, and I've addressed the other two points with some slight modifications. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments. The References section shows three sources that have no matching inline citations: Captain's Logs: The Complete Trek Voyages; Beyond the Final Frontier : An Unauthorised Review of Star Trek; and Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Continuing Mission. If you have not already done so, you might want to add HarvErrors to your .js Then when you pull up any article, there are big red error messages when either the references section or the sfn citations have no matches. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the check. User:Miyagawa added those in, but I don't think he ended up pulling anything from them, so I've removed them. The .js file should come in handy in the future, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry! Yep, those should have been removed. I'd checked them for expansion but they were only reiterating information which was already in the article. Miyagawa (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments by Aoba47 I think you should combine the second and third sentences in the first paragraph of the lead, in a similar way to Space See, to avoid short and choppy sentences in the start. You repeat “featured” twice in the second paragraph of the lead, so I would recommend revising for variety. This may be a conscious choice for parallelism/repetition so this is more of a stylistic question/preference on your part. The Denise Crosby image needs an ALT description. Please make sure that all of the images have ALT descriptions. Should you mention in the “Media release” subsection that the episode was released in the following VHS and DVD releases: Star Trek: The Next Generation - 10th Anniversary Collector's Edition, Star Trek - Greatest Battles, and Star Trek: Fan Collective - Time Travel, Star Trek: Fan Collective - Alternate Realities? Not sure if this would be too trivial or not, but it would seem important to include information about the episode’s inclusion on numerous releases. Should you incorporate the information about the mission “Temporal Ambassador” from Star Trek Online that was brought up in the peer review as it was created as a sequel to this episode and was created as part of the game’s third year anniversary. Do you need to include the novels that reference this episode? I am not sure it would too trivial or not so I will leave this up to you. This is more of a clarification question. The episode was referenced in Back to Back, Q-Squared, Engines of Destiny, Q&A. This could be coupled with the Star Trek Online for a new section/subsection somewhere in the article if you feel this information is important/notable enough for inclusion. I would make sure to address the questions/comments posed at the References section by Maile. @David Fuchs: Great job with the article! I will definitely support this FAC once my comments are addressed. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and the whole FAC process so take my comments with a grain of salt. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47:: Thanks for the review, and thanks for participating in the FA process (I know it seems daunting, but the more people participating, the better the process is!) I've made some tweaks to the lead per your pointers, as well as added in the image alt text. As to the proposed additions, I can't find much in the way of reliable sourcing that suggests the various connections in STO and the like are worth including. Ditto goes for the various repackaging collections/home media release. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Thank you for your quick responses. I agree with assessment about STO and the home media releases, but just wanted to confirm it with you. Great work with the article! I support this nomination. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments. taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The studio decided to spend more than the average on the episode, which at that time was estimated by Daily Variety as $1.2 million per episode. - has two 'episode's - why not "The studio decided to exceed/increase the budget, which at that time was estimated by Daily Variety as $1.2 million per episode." - and then change the next sentence to "This gave the production departments added liberties beyond what had been expected in the script." - just trying to trim some wordiness

Other than that, looking on target, I massaged the prose a little. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the look Cas. Your suggestion looked good so I implemented it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• At the end of the Plot section, maybe it would help to note that Guinan is the only one who senses anything was ever wrong?
  • Done.
• Given that Trent Christopher Ganino was deleted via AfD, you can probable remove the redline.
  • Done.
• While it was not the review Ganino had hoped for, it was enough to keep the script in circulation. - The first bit seems like a somewhat unnecessary comment. I might have tried something like "The lukewarm review was sufficient to keep the script in circulation."
  • Reworded.
• The main issue was whether the producers wanted to do a show with time travel. - If possible, some context (like what reasons they might have had for avoiding a time travel plot) would be helpful.
  • Unfortunately there's no real elaboration to be found in the sources. I suspect it's because there had been a few time travel episodes before in the series run, but I don't have any sources to support that hunch.
• Sarek and the Vulcans on the surface are the only people not affected by the timeline change - The surface of what?
  • The planet where the Guardian of Forever is, which I realize was not explicitly stated, so I reworded.
• Some staff were convinced that with so many writers, the script would be a disaster. - This comes across as too informal for me, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it. Maybe something like "Some staff feared that the script would suffer because of the large writing team"?
  • I just removed the clause. It was an unnecessary aside from the rest of the paragraph anyhow.
• The studio decided to exceed/increase the budget - I know that "exceed" and "increase" are effectively the same here, but given that they conventionally mean two different things, I would just stick with the single more accurate term.
  • Done.
• Among the reasons for the increase - If there are other reasons, it would be good to include them I think.
  • The source doesn't really delve into the other reasons. I slightly reworded the clause.
• military-looking tables - Needs to be reworded, since I'm not sure how a table can look like military...
  • Reworded.
• in later Next Generation episodes ... one other The Next Generation episode - Should be consistent about whether to include the "the".
  • Made consistent.
• about how things should be done - "Things" too vague for me.
  • Clarified.
• The main cast enjoyed the opportunity to play their characters differently. The result was an unusual degree of friction between characters - That the cast enjoyed it resulted in friction? That seems counterintuitive, but I might be missing something.
  • Reworded.
• Berman, for example, was afraid that the episode was pushing the timeline too far. - Meaning the battle-tested warship timeline or the luxury hotel one? A direct quote from Berman might be helpful.
  • No direct quote to be had; clarified it's the "alternate" universe.
• It's a bit discrepant for the lead to say that "numerous" death scenes were too "costly to film" (which isn't cited later in the article, as far as I can tell - you only mention two unrealized deaths, and for time constraints), even though a seemingly major point of the "Design" section is that the production crew had lots of money to work with.
  • Removed.
• The episode is cited as a favorite among cast members - Another fact that isn't mentioned or cited in the article body, unless I've missed it.
  • Adjusted to crew members.
• Overall, the intro could stand to be fleshed out a little. There's tons of interesting info relating to this episode, but the lead just feels bare-bones.
  • I've added a few sentences about development and reception.

Otherwise, a very solid article on one of my favorite episodes (obviously). I've done some copyediting to improve flow and clarity, but feel free to revert me if I've inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. I look forward to supporting this very soon, but as it stands, not good enough, dammit, not good enough!! :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• • @Juliancolton:: Thanks for the review! I believe I've addressed your issues above (comments inline.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support - Looks good to me, thanks for the quick response. Nice work! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed them, we still need source and image reviews for this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• image review - both images are appropriately licenced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• formatting of references is consistent WRT dates, names etc. web refs are archived. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Earwigs copyvio tool is clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't do spotchecks for a few hours - if anyone has a burning desire to then great, otherwise later today Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• FN 7 - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 8 - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 19 - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 21 - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy - good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I'm not sure we are quite ready yet on prose. A very quick read-through showed several issues, including quite a few from the lead:

• "to prevent their own disastrous timeline from ever occurring.": There is no indication in the lead of what "disastrous timeline" might mean.
• "To complete the episode in time for sweeps, the final script was completed by a team of five writers": complete...completed
• "Filming of the episode lasted a week, with some elements of the script were ultimately not included due to time constraints"
• "with a 13.1 ranking, the third-highest number for the series at the time": This requires at least a link, but a better explanation would be preferable
• "In the plot, the crew of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) must decide": Would "story" not be better than plot here? Or episode? Or can we reword it to avoid this at all (I'm pretty sure that the plot is different to the story, but if I am wrong, please ignore this)
• "and is widely regarded as one of the best episodes of the series": There may be an issue here that, in the UK at least, series and season can be interchanged.

This was from a quick glance, so there may well be more. I think we might still need another copyedit, and maybe someone to have another look at the prose in this review. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• • I addressed the above prose comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll leave comments as I go through the article. Please revert my copyedits as needed.

• "Tasha Yar, who was killed years prior": I copyedited this to "years before", but is it really years? It's less than one-and-a-half seasons since her death. If there's no definitive in-universe way to establish the time more precisely then it's OK as is, but I thought I'd ask.
• "Yar dies a meaningless death in the alternate timeline": here "alternate timeline" means "the timeline the TV viewer sees on other episodes", which they're naturally going to think of as the main timeline. Perhaps "other timeline", or "original timeline"?
• "The foundation of their episode": this is the third "episode" in two sentences. How about "They came up with a story involving..."
• "Satisfied with the story, the writers decided to pitch the idea to Piller": Suggest cutting this, and instead starting the next paragraph with 'Before Ganino and Stilwell pitched the new story to him, Piller read "Yesterday's Enterprise"...' or some similar rephrase -- because the new story doesn't have a title, the current wording led me to think for a second that 'Piller read "Yesterday's Enterprise"' referred to it. Alternatively give the title, "Guardians of Forever", at the end of the paragraph describing that plot.
• "This gave the production departments added liberties beyond what had been expected in the script": seems to be imprecise phrasing; the liberties weren't expected in the script. Should this be "liberties in the script beyond..."? How about something like "This gave the production departments more leeway"? As it stands it's a bit vague -- of course more budget means more leeway. Can we be more specific about what the extra budget was used for?
• "The crew took several steps to differentiate the alternate universe from the original one": perhaps "production crew", since I assume that's what is meant.

-- Overall I think this is in pretty good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Mike. I'm open to suggestions on the Yar thing. Stardates are pretty fickle, and so we don't really have a clear idea how much time has passed. Sounds weird to just say something like "previously" though. I've made changes per your comments above as well; only thing I can't detail further is exactly what benefits the added money gave, since they never go into specifics in the source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. The changes look good to me, and I think this is FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 4 February 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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