Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2017

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2017 [1].

Green rosella

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a nice parrot from Tasmania. It's come together nicely and I reckon is comprehensive and a nice read. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

A few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may be obvious to an Ozzie that the range map shows Tasmania, but not to me without reading the text. Add location to the caption?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13th edition of Systema Naturae—worth mentioning that Linnaeus wrote the earlier editions?
not sure how the best way to do it is..is it too far removed from subject. Could described it as Linnaeus' Systema Naturae I guess...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • has been recognized [13][8]'—refs in wrong order
switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also eats berries… They have also partaken… It may also eat insect larvae—wandering from singular to plural and back
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find rosellas not hugely bold but not hugely shy either. Have seen a few in Tassie. Did not see anything on this in writing. The main psittacines that are shy are black cockatoos. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Beruldsen is a self-published source, what makes this a high quality reliable source?
Gordon Beruldsen was a notable expert on birds. He is often cited in other bird publications Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is widely published in respectable journals. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, two uncontroversial facts referenced to an accepted expert on the subject don't seem a source of concern to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give locations for two of the three "cited texts" but not for Forshaw - consistency.
Whoops, added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll review this soon. First thing I noticed was that some of the captions begin without capital letters? I fixed the taxobox image, but now I see it's in the image under description too, so is it somehow deliberate? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
given they were not sentences, they don't have to start with a capital, but I got called out on that as while ago. Just a lazy hangover from times past and fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He based in on the description of la Perruche à large queue, "the long-tailed parrot" by French naturalist François Levaillant in his 1805 work Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets." There seems to be a typo there, but also, if he had a specimen, why did he base the species on a description in a book?
"in --> it" - also good question, they seem to base them on a combination of specimen and non-complying museum description. It's weird. Not sure if the person actually eyeballed the specimen. But this seems to happen quite a bit early on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems there are enough synonyms to warrant a list in the taxobox.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The green rosella was first collected" Maybe state this was a single specimen? Because you refer to "the specimen" later.
clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what grounds are the pictured individuals sexed? The dimorphism seems to be very subtle?
the differences in plumage are subtle but consistent if you see them often - females just that tiny bit duller. Also the reddish patches around the face. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are sometimes share the company of eastern rosellas" Seems something is wrong.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is notable enough to mention that the specific name is a misnomer in the intro?
Yeah I did muse on this before. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so described it as P. c. henriettae." When?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is the largest species of the rosella genus, Platycercus." Only stated in intro.
added to body and reffed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the green rosella rated as least concern" Seems a word is missing.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Hi. I started reading with the intention of doing a spot check as you requested (I likely may still be able to do one) but this sentence jumped out at me from the lead: "The back is mostly black and green back and long tail blue and green." I've read it several times and not sure how to parse it. Should this be something like "The back is mostly black and green, and its long tail blue and green"? Moisejp (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yep, and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "ships' surgeon": I'm not that familiar with nautical things, but I just wanted to confirm ships' is correct—he was the surgeon of multiple ships?
Yes, there were two ships on the Third voyage of James Cook Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tasked as the expedition's naturalist, Anderson collected many bird specimens but had died of tuberculosis in 1778 before the return home." May I suggest "but died of tuberculosis"? I'd argue there's no need to use the past perfect here, as the events are chronological as is: 1. he collected bird specimens; 2. he died; 3. the ship returned home.
yes/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the rest of the article very soon, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feeding, first paragraph: "It also eats the seed of the soft tree fern... It also eats berries, nuts and fruit... It has also partaken of... It may also eat..." The structure seems a bit repetitive here. Could you consider varying the structure and replacing some of the instances of "also"? Moisejp (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Birds generally forage in the canopy or understory of forested areas, or in hedges, shrubs and trees in more open areas. They come to the ground to eat fallen fruit or spilt grain in orchards or farmland. They keep quiet while on the ground, and are quite noisy when in trees." Is this talking about all birds, or just green rosellas? If the latter, I think it would be better to specify this. Even if it's the former, it might be better to clarify as well, partly because the next sentence talks about "under 20 birds... 50 to 70 birds" which does seem to be specifically about green rosellas. Moisejp (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As it breeds late in the season, chicks are often small in the heat of summer and can suffer as a result." I wasn't sure whether this sentence was supposed to be related to the previous one about sunflower seeds, and if so, how. Or definitely how it is related to keeping the birds as pets. Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
summers are often hot. small/young chicks are more vulnerable to extremes of temperature. Hence, as they breed late, the chicks are at greater risk (as they are younger) if there is a hot spell. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, it's not related to the previous sentence about sunflower seeds, right? Is it related to keep the birds as pets, which I understand is the theme of the paragraph? Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - the section is called Aviculture which is "In Capitivity". I could change the header to make it clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • "The green rosella has yellow head, neck and underparts": A bit awkward because it should probably be "a yellow head, neck" but a doesn't work with underparts. How about "The green rosella's head, neck and underparts are yellow, and it has a red band above the beak and violet-blue cheeks."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This has since been reclassified as a synonym of P. c. brownii as its status as distinct from the Tasmanian mainland taxon—now known as P. c. caledonicus—has been recognised." Could you consider rearranging this to be "This has since been reclassified as a synonym of P. c. brownii, as its status has been recognized as distinct from the Tasmanian mainland taxon—now known as P. c. caledonicus"? I find this would be less effort for the reader to follow.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistent use of the serial comma throughout the article. Here are just a few examples:
  • (NS) "The green rosella has yellow head, neck and underparts"
  • (S) "Alternative common names include Tasmanian rosella, yellow-breasted parakeet, and mountain parrot."
  • (S) "it also eats the seed of the soft tree fern (Dicksonia antarctica), cranberry heath (Astroloma humifusum), myrtle beech (Lophozonia cunninghamii), Australian blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon),[28] silver wattle (Acacia dealbata),[29] and buttercups (Ranunculus)."
  • (NS) "It also eats berries, nuts and fruit, as well as flowers and new buds of southern sassafras (Atherosperma moschatum), mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium), shining tea-tree (Leptospermum nitidum), swamp honey-myrtle (Melaleuca squamea), Tasmanian bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus), Smithton peppermint (Eucalyptus nitida), messmate stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora), manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), small-fruit hakea (Hakea microcarpa) and native plum (Cenarrhenes nitida)." Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hate oxford commas but they are very good to slot refs behind...I will have aligned by removing all I could find. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about half way through my second read-through. I may still have more comments. Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead says "The King Island subspecies has been classed as vulnerable as much of its habitat on King Island has been lost", and thus seems to explicitly say that the loss of habitat was the main cause. The Distribution and habitat section says "It has become rare on King Island, possibly due to land clearing and competition with the introduced common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) for nesting sites." The Status and conversation section says "The King Island subspecies is listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as vulnerable,[32] and its population thought to number fewer than 500 birds.[33] Around 70% of King Island's native vegetation has been cleared, and the remainder is highly fragmented and at risk of too-frequent bushfires." It does not explicitly say the clearing of vegetation was the cause (although, granted, it is implied). Throughout these sections there may be different levels of certainty implied about what the cause was. And I wonder if the cause needs to be repeated in both the Distribution/habitat and Status/conversion and section (but this is a smaller issue). Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
have rejigged as the connection between loss of habitat and decline is pretty unequivocal in source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find the final sentence about chicks suffering not clear about how this is specifically an aviculture issue, as opposed to an issue that could also happen in the wild. Plus, as I mentioned, it is confusing as to whether it is supposed to be related to the sentence that precedes it, about sunflower seeds. If it were me, I might consider removing the sentence, but if you are very comfortable that it belongs, that's okay.
Okay, here's the thing. We don't know if it's an issue in the wild but we do in capitivity. Also, I suspect that the parent allow for climate/ventilation etc. in the wild. But again, I can only go on what is in the sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now happy to support this article. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check: You did a source spot check for my last FAC nomination, and I'm very happy to return the favour here. I checked the first three refs (BirdLife International, Stresemann, Cook) and all the information cited was correct per the sources. I am satisfied and consider the source spot check passed. Moisejp (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx/appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2017 [2].

SMS Weissenburg

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on a German battleship, this one had a rather lengthy career, under the German, Ottoman, and Turkish flags, and was involved in some fairly significant events (the Boxer Rebellion, the Balkan Wars, and World War I to name a few). The article just passed a MILHIST A-class review, after having been heavily rewritten since it originally became a GA back in 2009. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Brassey's should be italicized
    • Done
  • Suggest scaling up both maps
    • Done
  • File:Brandenburg_Brassey's.png: what was the author's date of death?
    • Added
  • File:SMS_Weissenburg_steaming_at_high_speed_NH_65755.tiff: when/where was this first published? Same with File:SMS_Weissenburg_NH_48568.tiff, File:SMS_Weissenburg_NH_88653.jpg, File:SMS_Weissenburg_NH_47896.tiff. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
I bring no special expertise in naval matters to this review, but the article's prose is quite good, and the content seems comprehensive. I have a few questions and suggestions.
General
  • The images need alt text.
Design
  • ¶2 "...heavier than other capital ships of the period..." – Link capital ship?
  • Good idea
Construction to 1900
  • ¶1 The six repetitions of "she" in this paragraph seem a bit much.
  • Good catch, reworded a few of those.
  • ¶4" While steaming back to Kiel, a severe storm hit the fleet, causing significant damage to many ships and sinking the torpedo boat S58." – Since the storm wasn't steaming, maybe recast as "A severe storm, striking the fleet as it steamed back to Kiel, caused significant damage to many ships and sank the torpedo boat S58."
  • Good idea
  • ¶6 "included stops in the Shetlands" – Link Shetland?
  • Done
Boxer Rebellion
  • ¶2 "The four battleships and the aviso..." – Link aviso, recasting to avoid link bump with Hela?
  • Linked, but I think the general rule of thumb is three adjacent links, and I can't really think of a way to reword it to avoid two links that isn't clunkier.
1901–1910
  • ¶1 "in an accident that damaged her ram bow..." – Link ram bow?
  • Done
Italo-Turkish War
  • ¶1 "Italy declared war on the Ottoman Empire..." – Why? What was the war about?
  • A land grab, in a nutshell - clarified that in the text
  • ¶1 Link "central battery"?
  • Done
  • ¶1 "Unaware that a war had begun..." – This surprised me. No radio? If not, why not?
  • No clear reason why - the ship was originally fitted with a wireless set, and I'd assume it would have remained aboard when the Germans sold the vessel to the Ottomans. Later on in the article, there is a reference to the poor condition of the ship by the start of the Balkan Wars in 1912, and given the general level of neglect the Ottoman fleet was famous for, I'd think the wireless sets were simply inoperable.
  • ¶1 "the fleet returned to Nagara" – Might be good to say where Nagara is. It's included in the World War 1 map later in the article, but it might be nice to know the location on first mention of Nagara.
  • Good idea
Balkan Wars
  • ¶1 "The Balkan League declared war on the Ottoman Empire..." – Maybe a sentence or half-sentence what the war was about? The link helps, but just a bit of an explanation would be nice.
  • Added a bit to clarify this.
Battle of Elli
  • ¶2 "completed a 16-point turn" − I think this should be explained, perhaps in a footnote. Does this mean 16 degrees of the compass? Is it important to say whether the turn was clockwise or counterclockwise? It's hard for someone unversed in these matters to imagine the layout of the battle scene. The illustration of the Battle of Lemnos is really helpful in that regard, though it depicts only one instant in time rather than a set of maneuvers.
  • Linked to points of the compass - it should be pointed out that the Lemnos illustration is simply the order of battle, not representative of anything that occurred. Unfortunately there don't appear to be any maps of either battle
World War I
  • ¶1 "the actions of the German battlecruiser Goeben – What actions?
  • All looks good except for the missing alt text. Very interesting article that caused me to link through to articles such as Boxer Rebellion to brush up on my history. Assuming you'll do something about the alt text, I'm happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

[edit]
  • In the lead, suggest replacing "along with" with "which also included"
    • Good idea
  • the ihp and kW conversions in the infobox don't match the body
    • Good catch
  • link Ship commissioning, Kiel Canal, Queenstown (Cobh), Qingdao (Tsingtau)
    • Done
  • "Wörth and the other ships"? Should this be Weissenburg?
    • Yup, good catch
  • "was in a state of disrepair"
    • Fixed
  • per MOS:TIME, there should be a leading 0 in 9:50 etc
    • Think I've gotten all of these
  • could probably dispense with Greek in "Greek Georgios Averof"
    • Good idea
  • decapitalise "and the Navy"
    • Done
  • "By (when in) 1915, some of Turgut Reis's guns" Perhaps "At some point during 1915" if that is what is meant?
    • Works for me.

That's me done. Great work on this article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by Gerda

[edit]

Nice readable ship life story! I made a few changes, - revert if you don't like. Only minor points, and already mentioned above, such as please supply alternate texts for all images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supplying the alts, and fixing the other minor points. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Hmlarson

[edit]

Few comments mostly related to prose:

  1. Can you work the one book listed under Further Reading into the article as a reference and omit the Further Reading section? (Wikipedia:Further reading)
    1. I guess I don't really see the point - there's nothing wrong with a Further Reading section, and it seems sort of artificial to add a citation that isn't necessary.
      1. Seems superfluous for just one book. Hmlarson (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        1. A fair point - I've added a couple of other books to the section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Under Design - Can you provide a brief summary of the design background and who designed it before describing dimensions? Looks like there's some info that could be briefly summarized in a sentence or two in the Design section of Brandenburg-class battleship without duplicating the lead sentence of the Construction to 1900 section.
    1. Added a few lines on that
      1. Good addition. Hmlarson (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Under Service History
    1. Suggested re-wording of second sentence: "Ordered as battleship "C", she was laid down at the AG Vulcan shipyard in Stettin in May 1890 under construction number 199."
      1. Works for me
    2. Three consecutive sentences start with "The ship" and could be slightly re-worded for better flow/readability.
      1. Done, good idea.
  4. Under Battle of Lemnos
    1. Are there sufficient references for a Ramiz Numan Bey article?
      1. Probably, yes - he was a Fleet Commander of the Ottoman Navy, and general assumption is that individuals of that sort of rank will be notable.
  5. Under World War I
    1. Add WP:INTERWIKI link to Guido von Usedom
      1. Done
    2. Are there sufficient references for an SS Üsküdar (1907) article?
      1. More than likely, yes - resources like Miramar should be able to provide a good deal of information.

Hmlarson (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Solid work. Looks good to me. Hmlarson (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking these, Ealdgyth. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2017 [3].

Cyclone Ada

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a natural disaster that can be considered a precursor to the subject of my most recent FAC, Cyclone Althea. Taking place one year earlier and a little to the south, Ada destroyed just about every resort in the booming Whitsunday Islands, ruining lots of holidays/vacations. Though all traces of the cyclone are long gone, it still periodically breaches the surface of the public consciousness when politicians talk about how nice it would be to erect a memorial somewhere, or belatedly honor particularly brave helpers in the storm's aftermath. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "A$12 million": I wrote that, changed from ... (1970 AUD), per MOSNUM. I think that's been in MOSNUM a while, but I respect that people don't want to flip back and forth. It would also be fine to drop the "A", since many readers (but not all) will assume Australian dollars from the start. I'm not sure if the meaning of "normalised" is clear, but I generally avoid the tougher usage questions in FAC reviews.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A really good tropical cyclone article, about an important Australian storm. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the normalized figure from the intro, since it's non-essential and a bit technical, like you say. As for MOSNUM, yeah, it's been a while since I've brushed up... I'll try to ensure better MoS compliance before my next nom. Thanks for the edits and prose review. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp:
First read-through:
Aftermath: "The destruction of resorts in the Whitsundays triggered a sharp decline in Australian tourism revenue, described as one of the worst in the industry's history at the time." Does this mean the year 1970 had one of the worst yearly revenues so far? Moisejp (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any statistics to quantify the economic impact, so I just removed the second part of that sentence, which I agree is too vague to be of much use. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written and comprehensive; I'm happy to give my support. In my second read-through my only other mini-suggestion is in the lead, "guest accommodation cabins" could be shortened to just "guest cabins"; but feel free to use or reject this idea as you wish. I also made a few small edits myself to the text. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support. Agree about the redundancy there – edited as suggested. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Edwininlondon

[edit]

A fine article. To the point. Just a few comments:

  • Lead opening: Severe Tropical Cyclone Ada -> I don’t want to be too fussy, but should all of this be bold?
  • Ada devastated multiple resort islands -> Surely loss of life comes first
  • Well, conventionally with natural disaster articles, we place the most important figures (ie. loss of life and monetary damage) at or close to the end of the paragraph/passage/blurb as a logical place to round out the storm's effects. I'm willing to make the suggested change if you consider it crucial, but I do think it would be a bit strange to mention the number of deaths before placing the disaster in proper context. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Ada reached North Queensland -> was there no prep at all for the islands?
  • There were generally no preparations anywhere except by the BoM. I was grouping together the islands as part of North Queensland, but since that wasn't clear, I linked the North Queensland article which does discuss the Whitsundays as part of the region. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Findings from studies of -> Would this not be better in the aftermath section?
  • Perhaps from a purely chronological standpoint, but the placement of that line was deliberate as it's closely related to the rest of the preps info. I wouldn't even know how to incorporate it into "Aftermath" without compromising the flow of the text. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • was identified near Long Island. -> definitely a link, but maybe even a modifier such as “one of the Whitsunday Islands”
  • may have exceeded 220 km/h -> should this not be in the Met section?
  • a woman in one of the structures was killed -> again I would describe loss of life first, definitely before trees
  • Well, the first few sentences of that section describe the overall impact before transitioning to a by-island breakdown, including individual fatalities. I've added a line break to hopefully make that transition more apparent. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and suggestions! – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. I support.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
Looks good. I especially like the tracking image for this one: a mind-changing storm? Reads well. I have but three minor suggestions.
General
  • Images need alt text.
Meteorological history
  • "Beginning around 14:00 UTC, the core of Ada crossed the Whitsunday Islands." – As I read the lede and this section, I found myself wondering just how far off the coast the islands are. Since Hayman Island is the first individual island mentioned, perhaps adding the approximate distance to the coast from there would be helpful.
Preparations
  • "and public awareness was overall inadequate" – Slightly smoother as "and public awareness was generally inadequate"?

Coordinator comment: Have I missed an image review anywhere? And just to note that there are still some unaddressed comments by Finetooth; the alt text is one that I'd also be raising. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2017 [4].

Battle of Kunersdorf

[edit]
Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Frederick the Great's catastrophes, brought about by his dismissal of Russian and Austrian military skills and his belief in their inferiority. The article is one of four I'm working on: Battle of Hochkirch just passed the rigors of Featured article assessment. One of Frederick's great successes, the Battle of Leuthen is currently undergoing its A class review. The Battle of Rossbach, another success, is presently in puberty. I present it to you for your consideration and look forward to your comments. auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

[edit]

This article is in fine shape. I have a few comments/nitpicks:
Lead

  • the citation in the lead shouldn't be necessary, the material should be in the body done. added during discussion at A class review.
  • According to the body, Frankfurt was already in Russian hands at the time of the battle done

Seven Years' War

  • suggest replacing "the Silesian province" with "Silesia" done
  • link Company (military unit) I'm not sure what you want here. None of the units have articles (yet). To further confuse things, the units werenot numbered until 1806.'
  • Prussia had achieved done
  • "to pay himFrederick" done
  • suggest "to reinforce the army of Frederick's brother-in-law, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel." done
  • "and thehis brief occupation" done
  • "the successful" done
  • suggest "carve out a piece" done
  • suggest "had resulted in a draw" ok.done
  • I'm a bit bemused by the anglicisation of Feldmarshalleutnant. This is a unique rank, like the pre-NATO Generalmajor and Generalleutnant, that is easily mistaken for something else when anglicised. I prefer to see it in the original German. Iwould too. It came out in the GA review. I think I have them all now.
  • I would still pipe a link to Lieutenant field marshal, which is, in my view at the wrong title (for the same reason), but that is another matter.
  • suggest "Prussia was strategically on the defense;" done
  • Lieutenant General is not linked to Generalleutnant, but suffers from the same confusion. Modern readers would think this was equivalent to a modern-day LTGEN, when it was not, until NATO at least. the ranks were not even the same then. Generalfeldwachtmeister, etc. it's confusing.

Dispositions

  • In the situation in 1759 section, it says that Laudon joined Saltykov on 5 August, but in this section it says the two armies joined on 2 August. fixed. It actually takes a couple of days for armies to joinup.
  • commander-in-chief' needs an s after it done
  • unscrutable is an archaic form of inscrutable, which I think would be more familiar to casual readers done
  • suggest "they mistrusted each other's intentions" done
  • we've already had the ground explained, so "a ridge of small hills" is a repetition done
  • suggest "by using fallen trees to break up the ground on the approaches" done
  • "that the Frederick" done
  • perhaps "to the south east of the Allied position"? done
  • "feigning", do you mean "feinting"? done
  • one more in this section, the sentence that explains the plan for marching around the Allied position is confusing. It should include where he started from, and how he got from there to the start line for the assault. At present none of this is clear. It appears from map #1 that he started from Müllrose, marched north, skirting around to the west of Frankfurt, then crossed the Oder at Göritz then marched east to an assembly area north of the Allied position. Is that right? It needs to be explained in a similar way.
  • I have to say that the maps do not really help here. With no legend, I can't tell which units belong to the Allies and which ones are Prussian.

Battle

  • suggest the section starts with "The battle" rather than "It"
  • the description of the modified plan begs a few questions. From what directions were the two pincers to approach? I suggest referring to the pincers as left pincer and right pincer. The earlier confusion doesn't help.
  • yes, there are some better maps in Die Kriege Friedrichs des Großen. Dritter Teil: Der Siebenjährige Krieg 1756–1763. Berlin 1903 - 1912 but I don't have access to them.There's a series of 4 or 5 that show the entire battle laid out. auntieruth (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PM, see if this makes better sense. I tried to clarify. Also could put in a bit on the effort to hold Frankfurt, and the orders Wunsch had to take Frankfurt back....21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest stating that the semi-circle was around the eastern flank of the Allied positions
  • suggest "attack from the southeast" rather than approach, and a comma after southeast
  • the explanation that the three columns exposed them to Russian firepower might not be in the right spot, as battle hadn't been joined at this point
  • shtetl is an unfamiliar term that hasn't been introduced at this point. Could the fact that it was a Jewish settlement and its location be introduced under Dispositions? yes good idea
  • I might not be understanding the ground well, but if Saltykov's left flank was at the shtetl, wouldn't he have been facing northwest?
  • so Finck was going to attack as well, not just demonstrate? Was his the "northerly line" mentioned?
  • suggest the ground was uneven rather than unstable sources say unstable. I think there was quicksand
  • "the horse carriages" should have an initial cap
  • Seydlitz should be in full when first introduced

Turning the Russian flank

  • If Frederick emerged at 08:00 am, then how were the guns in place at dawn? different guns....clarified'
  • what was "the field" the Russian guns were trained on? fixed
  • what sort of soldiers were the first wave? grenadiers? 'probably. He favored mixed troops---guys with muskets, guys with swords,,, and grenadiers.
  • should it be from the Walkberge and...?
  • suggest "assault the well-defended" yep
  • I get lost again when the pincer's are mentioned. I thought the Russian left had been defeated by this point, yet there is mention of the second half of the pincer squeezing the Russian left. Was this Finck's corps attacking from the north, or another force element? It isn't clear what the left and right wings were or where they were located. I'm afraid this needs more work.
once the left was defeated a "new" left formed.  :) I need better maps. but have a look and see

Cavalry attack

  • suggest massed rather than massive, which is a bit puffy

Evening action

  • just check all the examples of Muhlberge for the umlaut yep
  • italicise the German ranks consistently throughout (or not). Rittmeister is italicised, but Generalleutnant isn't. yep

Aftermath

  • who was Frederick's brother? Prince Henry? This should be mentioned when he is first mentioned in the text fixed
  • The format of Duffy (2015b) doesn't match the other citations. I suggest, "The historian/author Christopher Duffy places..." then use the usual citation at the end of the sentence cited to him. Ok, that was some fancy smancy stuff another editor wanted me to use. I'm happier with simplicity
  • Carl Heinrich von Wedel should just be von Wedel or Wedel at this point fixed
  • I think it should be "Prussian kingdom"

Assessment

  • link abatis, which could bear being introduced in the Dispositions section fixed
  • this is the first mention of the causeway, this should also be mentioned in the Dispositions sectionfixed
  • the redans and bastions should also be mentioned in the Dispositions section fixed
  • this assessment should also mention the blunders pointed out earlier. Perhaps they could be moved to here, not sure...
  • here it is mentioned that the cavalry attack was piecemeal, but earlier it is "massive". I hadn't got the sense that it was piecemeal or that the abatis etc had broken up the cavalry charges until now.
  • Prussian Army should be Prussian army
  • Redman (2015) should be treated the same as Duffy above fixed

Overall

  • I'll let you work through these comments and I'll then re-read the article as a whole in a few days to see if there are any other suggestions I have. The lack of an easily interpreted map really detracts from the article overall, as the dispositions and Frederick's scheme of manoeuvre and the various attacks are fairly complex in my view. I'm still struggling to get a sense of all of the moving parts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi PM, @Peacemaker67: I've overhauled dispositions and added a section on terrain, massively expanding the explanation of the ground. I found a couple of different maps, tried them out. See if this helps? Also incorporated your suggestions above. auntieruth (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I'm just working through now, making minor c/e type tweaks here and there. Please check my work so I haven't changed meaning or inserted errors. A few more points:
  • One thing that still confuses me is in Allied dispositions; it says that Saltykov faced his troops to the northwest, and so did Laudon. Is that right? If he expected the attack from Frankfurt at that stage, wouldn't he have faced his troops to the west? basicallly the attack occurred in the reverse of what Saltykov originally expected.
  • Perhaps mention that Reitwein is 28 km north of Frankfurt when it is first mentioned rather than a sentence or two later.done
  • It now says that the assault across the Kuhgrund was Frederick's second blunder, but I believe the first blunder is no longer highlighted above. Perhaps it would be better to relocate the assessments of Frederick's mistakes to the Assessment section? done
  • Most of the references in the Bibliography don't have locations, and the foreign language ones could do with title translationsI don't believe in translating the titles. if someone can read German, the title is obvious, and if someone cannot, the title is superfluous. Lingzi convinced me to use this *&FO#HG template and this is what it gave me re publications. I read in one of the guidelines too that location was not necessary. auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done (finally...). You've really improved this article significantly, Ruth. It is easy to follow now, a great read and captures the key aspects well. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Joachim-Bernhard-vp-2.jpg: when/where was this first published? Added
  • Same with File:Brief_von_Friedrich_der_Große.jpg added a publication don't know if it's the first though.,

File:Kleist-fällt-bei-kunersdorf.jpg. added publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • In general, it's probably better to just give the page range rather than use "pp. 400 ff"
  • Be consistent in using pp. for multiple page ranges in the citations (curent ref 19 at least is inconsistent) fixed
  • In the notes - you have no citation for note 2 I added the harvtxt into the note.
  • In the notes - you are inconsistent in using parenthetical refs - some have the year and page # in parenthesis, others have name, year and page # in parentheseis. Also, why do you use parenthetical referencing in the notes but regular footnotes in the body of the article? the template did that. And this is (probably) the last time I use that template!
  • I'm not seeing that Zabecki is used as a citation anywhere? If not, it needs to be in the further reading. moved
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: responses to your comments. Thank you!! auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HAve you tried using the Template:efn for explanatory notes? It lets you use references like the rest of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually pretty easy - you put in {{efn|Text for your footnote.<ref as usual>}} and it handles the refs as usual - either using ref tags, or sfn or harv. The default is to use little letters, but you can specify some other type of superscript if you'd like, the details are at the templates page. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Hi, I'll review this soon. At first glance, it could perhaps be nice to add date to the various artworks throughout the article, as you do in the infobox, and perhaps author. This will help put them in context, and show if they are for example contemporary or retrospective works. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the comment here, looks fine, I'm in the process of reading the rest, will comment soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the flag icon says it is 1750, and I don't have a clue how to mess with icons, nor would I want to change an icon that has wide use across wikipedia
Alright, I see the filename now, I ended up elsewhere when I clicked on the icon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Judenberge (Jews Hill), Mühlberge (Mill Hill) and Walkberge (also spelled Walckberg)" "Berge" is "mountains" in plural, what does the source specifically say? Sure "hills" wouldn't be more accurate? My German is pretty rusty these days, but it seemed odd to me.
  • sources from 18th century have variations of spellings. There is also the Prussian variant of German. Any spelling in that century would be irregular in German or in English (or French-Spanish-Italian for that matter). If you look at the maps (which were done in the late 19th century), they all say ...berge....
I'm talking about their English translations, though, not the German words themselves. Why are they translated as singular (mountain, which would be "berg") instead of plural (mountains, "berge")? Pinging GermanJoe for advice, a regular at FAC who is also a native German-speaker. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kuhgrund (cow hollow)" Why "hollow" and not "ground"? The source states it is a ravine, but gives no translation. it is a ravine with two hillsides where they grazed cattle. Have you been to West Virginia?
Nope, but I have never seen "grund" translates as "hollow", which is what I'm puzzled about. Perhaps GermanJoe has something to add here too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I am probably of not much help here. These location names stem from older German dialects, so modern German-English translations might often be imprecise (some of the more obscure medieval terms don't even have a modern-German equivalent, let alone an English one). The translations here seem OK, but I am no expert. GermanJoe (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that goes for "berge" as "hill" (plural) above too? FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(moved your response into sequential order) The answer was meant for both questions, should have made that clearer. GermanJoe (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Hühner was joined by another stream" If this is the "Hühner Fleiss" mentioned later, why not spell it out here at first mention? I will fix that
  • "around the eastern flank of Russian line" The Russian line? the line of troops. They were set in a line. linked to Line (formation)
You say "the Russian line" everywhere else in the article, though, so this outlier seemed odd. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that was the problem. I didn't understand your comment. Added a the to the sentence.
  • "he sent no reconnaissance, not a single hussar or dragoon" Isn't the latter part of the sentence superfluous? no. Not only did he not send a patrol, he didn't send out a single man to investigate. Very poorly done on his part.
  • "The day was already hot and sultry, and the men were already tired. " Double "already" seems a bit repetitive. emphasis
  • "Avec moi, Avec moi!" Shouldn't the exclamation mark be in italics? ok: it's been moved about a bit.
Added some further comments above and below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recovered to a strength of 32,000 men and 50 cannon." Cannons? either way would be fine. Cannon is more slangish, so I added an s...
  • "was arguably Frederick's worst defeat." Only stated in intro. Could it be specifically stated somewhere in the article body, with citation? ok, will put in exact text. auntieruth (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk comments! thanks. auntieruth (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
I find this article to be fascinating, professionally written, and well-illustrated. I'm certainly leaning toward support, but I have a small number of suggestions, as follows:
Lede
  • ¶3 "the penultimate success..." – The word "penultimate" doesn't seem quite right here since it suggests that some sort of ultimate success followed the penultimate. The rest of the article suggests that there was no ultimate success for the Russians beyond this battle.
  • So little is made in the article of the Russian capture of the fortress at Kolberg, that I, perhaps wrongly, thought of it as inconsequential. Maybe "last major" rather than "penultimate"? Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Situation in 1759
  • ¶1"west to occupy Frankfurt an der Oder, Prussia's second largest city, on 31 July." – For 21st century readers more familiar with Frankfurt am Main, it might be good to head off the confusion by inserting a clarification here. Otherwise readers might find themselves wondering how the Russians got by Berlin to attack Frankfurt. fixed
Terrain
  • ¶1 "and to the far right of Kunersdorf" – Should this be "south of Kunersdorf" or "on the southern edge of Kunersdorf" for clarity? "Right" would depend on where the observer was standing.
Prussian plans
  • ¶1 "the Prussians reached Reitwein, some 28 km (17 mi) of Frankfurt...". – Missing word between "(17 mi)" and "of"? south
  • ¶1 "north-northeast the Kunersdorf on 11 August...". – Missing word between "north-northeast" and "the"? fixed
Cavalry attack
  • ¶1 "His scouts had discovered a crossing past the chain of ponds south of Kunersdorf, but would have to deal with the artillery batteries on the Grosser Spitzberg." – The "but" part of this sentence doesn't quite fit the "scouts" part. Maybe "His scouts had discovered a crossing past the chain of ponds south of Kunersdorf, but it lay in full view of the artillery batteries on the Grosser Spitzberg." Or something like that. fixed
Casualties
  • ¶2 Note 5 "Of the non commissioned..." – Since "non commissioned" is in a direct quote, I didn't change it. The correct spelling today would be "non-commissioned".
Yes, but since it is a direct quote, I didn't either. However, it is also a translation. Advise please. auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Manual of Style doesn't seem clear on this exceedingly minor question. I'd add the hyphen on grounds that no one will notice it, but someone like me might gritch about its absence. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment
  • A good fraction of this section seems to repeat what has already been said earlier in the article. A more concise assessment would be nice. I think most of paragraph 2 could be deleted and perhaps another sentence or two here and there. I tweaked this down a bit.
  • Looking good. Your addition of compass directions is really helpful to me in understanding the complex troop dispositions and movements. I'm going to do another complete read-through later today to search for low-level stuff like new typos. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the latest pass, I made a few minor copyedits. Please revert if any seem wrongheaded. I found three new things worth mentioning:
  • ¶2 of the Terrain section says, "East of the Kuhgrund, the ground rose again..." – If I'm reading the map correctly, that should be "West of the Kuhgrund...". yes....Also defined "Fleiss'
  • Link redan in ¶2 of the Assessment section?
  • ¶5 of the Assessment section says, "After Hochkirch, he had no one to blame but himself." – Shouldn't this say, "After Kunersdorf..."? clarified this paragraph
  • Switching to support, as noted above. This and the Hochkirch article are quite well-done. The maps seem essential. Looking forward to the next article in the series. Finetooth (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Reference 57 is dead; I think we are good to go after that is sorted. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2017 [5].

Boogeyman 2

[edit]
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the horror film Boogeyman 2. A sequel to the 2005 film, Boogeyman 2 takes place in a mental health facilty and focuses on a woman named Laura Porter who wintessed her parents' murder as a child and believes their killer to have been the Boogeyman. She currently is in the asylum to get over her phobia of the creature. This being a horror movie however, things quickly turn to shit, with her fellow patients being murdered one by one and their fears being used against them. I started working on the article in March and after about a month of editing, was able to get it to GA-status a few weeks ago in April. I also had it copy-edited very recently. I'm nominating for FA because I genuinely believe that, considering this is a relatively obscure direct-to-video horror sequel, the article is as informative as it can be. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • Please add ALT text for the image in the infobox and the image in the body of the article.
  • Done, though I kind of suck at alternative descriptions. I'm pretty sure I messed up the description for the second image.
  • In the sentence (Casting began in December of the same year with the casting of O'Connor, and Savre was cast as the star in January 2007.), I would avoid the repetition of "casting" and "cast" in the same sentence.
  • I think I might be having a brain freeze but I really can't think of any other way to write this.
  • Found good alternative. :D
  • Could you clarify the meaning of a "more grounded" version of the character? I am thinking that means a more realistic interpretation of the character, but some context or further information would be greatly appreciated.
  • Rewrote to "grounded and realistic".
  • Please link the Boogeyman in its first reference in the body of the article (i.e. the first sentence of the "Plot" section).
  • Done.
  • Please use the characters' full name when you first introduce them in the "Plot" section (where the characters have full names of course).
  • Done.
  • I would combine some of the paragraphs in the "Plot" section together as I am not sure the separation into smaller paragraphs is necessary beneficial to the reader, specifically the one sentence paragraph at the end.
  • Done. Though from what I've seen, mid or end-credits scenes are always placed alone.
  • I am a little confused by what you mean by "bogyphobia". A little more context would be greatly appreciated.
  • Added that bogyphobia is a fear/phobia of the Boogeyman. I did google it and it appears to be a legitimate phobia.
  • I am not sure that the separate subsections in the "Production" section are entirely necessary as they are pretty short. It may be better to remove them to avoid make the material appear choppy to the reader. Same comment applies to the "Release" section.
  • Followed the "Production" style (which usually goes: Development, Casting, Filming, Effect etc.) presented in other articles. Same goes for "Release", removing the sub-sections and placing them all together would muddle things and information up.
  • Makes sense to me; I will leave this up to more experienced reviewers to look at further. I actually think the subsections negatively affect the article more than help it as having one-sentence subsections (i.e. the "Box office" subsection" and short one-paragraph subsections (i.e. the "Effects" subsection) makes the information come across as choppy and a little underdeveloped. Removing the subsections and interweaving the information into a more cohesive narrative would be beneficial in my opinion to the article. I just wanted to clarify this point; I will keep my support vote up, but I would like a more experienced reviewer to provide some input on this matter if possible. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any information on how Bell modeled his performance after Dick Cheney?
  • Sadly not as this was the director's comment and he doesn't elaborate further.
  • The phrase "got cast" sounds a little too informal to me so I would revise this.
  • Rewrote to "was cast".
  • I am not sure the identifier "former Heroes actress" is appropriate for the article unless her ties back to the show was influential to the casting process in any way. I would just say American actress or just actress.
  • removed Heroes reference.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do you have any information on how the film performed commercially after debuting in theaters in Russia and Italy? I understand that this information may not be available, but I just wanted to ask about this.
  • I didn't find anything about Italy but in Russia it apparently made 362,724 dollars. However, the Box Office Mojo link to the movie's international gross does list Russia there. Additionaly, the amount of gross for Russia provided at Box Office Mojo is different than the one shown at KinoPoisk.
  • The "Reception" section needs to be revised to make it have a cohesive narrative tied together by clear topics (i.e. common areas that the critics pointed out or putting all of the negative reviews in one paragraph and the positive reviews in another). I would also use topic sentences to make this clear. I would highly encourage you to use this resource as a guide for revising this section.
  • The reviewes were placed in negative-positive order. However, in both paragraphs I placed the reasons for the reviewers liking/disliking the film and which elements were generally praised or criticized.
  • I would highly encourage you to archive all of your links to avoid having your work being lost due to link decay or link rot.
  • Trust me, I've learned to do that with every article.
  • Amazon.com and Rotten Tomatoes should not be in italics in the references. Same goes for Google Play and MovieWeb and Dread Central.
  • Done.

These are the primary things that I noticed while reading through the article. You have done wonderful work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've attempted to fix all of your comments. I'm not sure if the changes I've made are satisfactory, if not just let me know. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. Great job with this article. I will support it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments for my current FAC? Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Paleface Jack

[edit]

Interesting choice for a featured article candidate. I've always said that every article has the potential to become FA or GA, and I did like the first film (hopefully that one gets worked on to GA status)... That being said, regrettably, I don't think this article can go beyond GA status considering there's not a lot of sources that make this stand out as FA material (From what I've seen, Featured Articles usually have a bare minimum of 50 references, although I have seen some with a slightly smaller number). Even though it's a great article, I think GA status is probably the best and highest grade this article can be given since, to me, doesn't feel like FA status material. Sorry man, although this is a good starting point, I wish you best of luck with all your other article projects.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: Sorry for intruding on this discussion, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this. I also believe that every article has the potential to become a FA if it fulfills all of the requirements in the FA criteria. I would disagree that only articles with a set amount of sources or more can reach the status of an FA. If the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written with a lower amount of resources (either from the subject matter not receiving a lot of coverage or any other reason), then it should still be in the running for becoming a FA. There are articles that have passed that use lower than 50 sources (respectfully, I do not agree with requirement for " a bare minimum of 50 references"), and some examples are Troy McClure, MissingNo., and Michael Tritter (I primarily cite articles on fictional characters as that is one of my primary focuses on here). I have even brought up an article through the FAC process with a lower number of sources than this nomination and had them successfully promoted. Number of resources is not a part of the FA criteria so I do not believe the commentary and discussion on here should more so focus on the prose and other elements listed in the criteria. Thank you for putting up your comment, and this may be an interesting discussion for the FA talk page, but again I just have to respectfully disagree with you on this point of a source number requirement. Hopefully, a more experienced FA reviewer (and Wikipedia user/contributor) than myself will better address the point, but I just wanted to add my two cents to this. I apologize if I sound rude, and this will most likely be my last comment in this discussion to keep the focus on the review process. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean Jack, I too at first thought that if an article doesn't have enough sources, then it would be hard or impossible for it to become a featured article. However, as Aoba pointed out, featured articles are not about how many sources an article has. As I said on the film's talk page, featured articles need to meet four criteria in order to be considered for FA-status; having a bare minumun number of sources is not required and I do believe that Boogeyman 2 meets the four criteria necessary. This is my own opinion - outside of the criteria - but I believe that if an article, regardless of its overall length, provides enough information on the subject that it's talking about, in all important areas, then it has the potential to become a FA. This being a film we're talking about, the article does provide info on development, release and reception. Granted, the information provided is not as much as, for example Alien vs. Predator, but those are two very different movies. PanagiotisZois (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bluesphere

[edit]
  • Use the Plainlist template where it is required in the infobox (i.e, producer, starring), and the gross should be condensed, rounded value ($4.3 million vs $4,282,637). Also, I don't think the runtime you provide is correct. The BBFC, which is the most cited reference for a film's runtime here, says it's 89 minutes. [6]
  • Alright, fixed all three points. I hope I used the right plainlist.
  • I notice that the article is not using a consistent date format. (On the one hand the inline citations use the dmy, and on the other uses mdy in the prose.) Since this is an article about an American film, dates should be formatted accordingly using the mdy format. And while we're at it, please add the publishers of those references you added.
  • Regarding the publisher, I believe I've added all of them, at least where possible. Regarding the date format, I might be confused a little but what you're saying is that while the text itself uses the MDY format, the references use DMY?
  • I took care of the date formats for you. What I meant about the publisher concern was that you separate the original work of the reference (putting it in the |work parameter), and the owner/entity of the source in the |publisher in the inline citation. For instance, ref 2 cites Bloody Disgusting which, according to its own article, says it's owned by The Collective. So Bloody Disgusting should be in the |work param while The Collective is in the |publisher. All the other ref must observe this accordingly.
  • As for the prose, everything is flawless. It's like I was enticed to watch the movie just by reading its introductory section. And I must say the same with the plot section. Bluesphere 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just took care of the last concern, although I'm not sure if I was allowed to do so. The references appear to be delicate so I archived them. Btw, you've done a pretty decent job with this article, and for that I give you my Support. Best of luck with the other reviewers. While you wait for the other reviewers, perhaps you could take a look at my FL nomination here? Bluesphere 07:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was very kind of you to fix the references though you didn't have to. I would have done it by the end of the day. I believe large edits aren't encouraged with FAR but those were relatively minor edits and only to the references so I believe it's alright. Thank you for support and I will look into the list; hopefully by the end of the weekend. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, unless I'm mistaken, this would be the nominators first FA. So we will also need a spot check for accurate usage and close paraphrasing. These can be requested in the same place. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image/Source review etc. from Cas Liber

[edit]
  • Both images have suitable Fair Use rationales.
  • References formatted consistently.
  • Earwigs ok, raised score due to (attributed) quotes.
  • FN 10 cited once, faithful to source.
  • FN 13 cited twice, faithful to source.
  • FN 29 cited once, faithful to source.
  • FN 27 unavailable (needs archive?)
First of all, thank you for performing the image & source reviews. As for FN 27, I'm assuming it's the one for the film's digital release on Amazon Video. I checked it today and it seems fine. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 [7].

Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

[edit]
Nominator(s): czar 06:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the most complete resource on the web for the Japanese sequel to Nintendo's 1985 smash hit Super Mario Bros. Critics say the title is best known for its extreme difficulty, but I'd wager it's better known for being confused with Super Mario Bros. 2, a completely different game. The Lost Levels was so difficult as to convince Nintendo of America against releasing the title in North America (that's how the "lost levels" were lost, until its re-introduction to English-speaking regions in 1993). But despite The Lost Levels' cultural confinement, the game performed a fair amount of forecasting for the series: its sadistic poison mushroom power-ups and differentiated abilities for Luigi persisted into other series games, but perhaps more salient is how the game served as a precursor to the contemporary fan community that creates challenging (read: impossible) Mario levels for each other, as well as the speedrunning community that attempted not just to finish these sadistic challenges, but with prowess.

The original Mario pulled the video game industry from the crash several years prior, and there was little games journalism infrastructure in place in 1986, nevertheless in English on a Japan-only title. As a result, most extant coverage of this game is retrospective, though I have delved into print media (especially books) to explore a history that isn't profitable for blogs. The writing is polished, direct, and I believe the prose approaches the "brilliance" we once required of FACs. In any event, it is ready for review, as the article is complete and revised. czar 06:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Czar:Something appears to be broken here, as this nomination is not showing up on the main FAC page. I only chanced across it because it was listed as a FAC at the video game project. Indrian (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian, my fault—forgot to transclude czar 00:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IDV

[edit]
Resolved

Looks good! I only found a few parts I'm unsure about:

  • The construction the bottom of the Mario series and Nintendo's top games is a bit hard to parse - am I correct in reading it as "it is among the worst Mario titles, and also the worst among the best Nintendo games"? What does that mean?
  • joined Miyamoto to develop a sequel to the game: obviously "the game" is meant to refer to Super Mario Bros., but the last mentioned game is The Legend of Zelda - might want to tweak the wording here.
  • Nintendo "cleaned up" parts of the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 is vague, do we know what exactly they did?

--IDVtalk 08:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IDV, thanks! re: bottom, I thought that "worst" would be too much of a value judgment, even though that is the implication. (It's awkward to say it was at the bottom of a list of Nintendo's best games.) The point was that they were included in the lower rungs of these ranked lists, which I read as an important indication of its legacy: important enough to include on the list but not important enough to be one of the list's best. Open to suggestions, if you have a better way of expressing it. Tweaked #2, and re: #3, this was explained at the end of the paragraph (All-Stars additions), so I've rearranged the order for better reading. czar 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the addition of "of" in "and of Nintendo's top games" is an improvement, but I still find it hard to parse. Would possibly be easier if "Nintendo's top games" came first, so that we get "the bottom of Nintendo's top games and of the Mario series" - "bottom of the Mario series" is a much more straight-forward concept than "bottom of Nintendo's top games", so the readability of it isn't really hurt by being pushed into the end of the sentence.--IDVtalk 20:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IDV, I think the sentence was trying to do too much. I removed the "Nintendo's top" clause so it only refers to the series, which I think does a better job. czar 22:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The sentence also appears in the reception/legacy section, though, where it has the same problems.--IDVtalk 22:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IDV, I had already rephrased it there too czar 22:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this! I now support this FAC on prose.--IDVtalk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Resolved
  • This is a really minor note, but the "like" connector in the phrase "like extra challenge levels tacked on its end" sounds a little strange to me. I understand what you mean in the full context, but I would imagine that a better connector word or phrase could be used in this instance. Maybe something like "citing additional challenge levels tacked on its end".
  • The phrase "famous difficulty" sounds a little odd to me, and reads a little too closely to the phrase used in the cited source (i.e. "famously difficult"). I would recommend adding another descriptor to this part to avoid this, or you could just directly quote the "famously difficult" part.
  • In the phrase "those who would appreciate painful challenge", should "appreciate painful challenge" read as "appreciate a painful challenge"?
  • ALT text is required for all of the images in the article.
  • I would connect the final two lines of the first paragraph in the "Gameplay" section, as it can read a little choppy. I would say something like " Luigi, designed for skilled players, has less ground friction and higher jump height, while Mario is faster." The short three word sentence is a little jarring from the rest of the paragraph in my opinion.

Wonderful work with this article! It was a very interesting read. My comments are relatively minor and nitpicky, and once they are addressed, then I would be more than happy to support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Aoba47! I think I've addressed your points, if you'll take a look. Re: painful, it's not a singular challenge, hence the lack of article. Would you have time to do an image review? czar 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to my comments. I support this nomination. Great job with this. I will do the image review later today if that is okay with you. If possible, could you provide some comments to my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

[edit]
  • Extremely minor, but there is a sentence in the reception section which begins with "indeed". I feel this is sort of un-encyclopedic. Other than that, this page looks great! Good work on this. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think "indeed" helps underscore the point, and its use is grammatically correct. czar 22:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Wonderful work with this article. This passes all of the requirements for the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

[edit]
Resolved

Within four months, it had sold tens of millions of Nintendo Entertainment System ... video game consoles and signaled the end of the 1983 video game crash.[10]

@AJona1992, given the text/sourcing, I think it describes the nature of its "success" quite succinctly. Open to improvements, though czar 22:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say the concern with the phrase "smash hit" is not necessarily on its accuracy (as the quote that you included clearly indicates that this is correct). However, it does sound somewhat informal for a Wikipedia article, and can lean a little bit on POV issues. It may be better to say something along the lines of commercially successful. I apologize for intruding on this discussion. Just wanted to add my two cents to the question/comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008

[edit]
Resolved

Comments – Ah, here's a video game I'm actually in the process of playing on my old Game Boy Advance (on the Game Boy Color version, which works on the Advance). I'm really good at it, too—it only took me about five restarts to get through the fourth castle. :-) Here's the couple of issues I found:

  • Rereleases: Feels like "and" should be inserted before "features such as the wind and the five bonus worlds are omitted."
  • "Challenge modes are added." Do me a favor and double-check this to the source, as I haven't gotten far enough into the game yet to know if a challenge mode exists, and haven't encountered any evidence that it does, at least for The Lost Levels. The challenge mode may be referring to a feature related to the original Super Mario Bros. game, which I am also playing on that cartridge. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Giants2008, thanks! The ref that immediately follows that statement is openly accessible and verifies the claim: "Also new are Challenge Mode and You Vs. Boo. ..." czar 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Challenge Mode" is for the original Super Mario Bros., not The Lost Levels. Unless something unlocks once The Lost Levels are beaten, I don't think that has anything to do with The Lost Levels. You Vs. Boo is a race mode with what I would call original courses based on Super Mario Bros. backgrounds. There's more details on these modes here, but based on my knowledge of the game I don't believe the challenge modes relate to this game. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008, that's fine--I removed it czar 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Since that was my only remaining concern with the article, and it appears that AJona's issue was also resolved, I see no reason not to support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber

[edit]
  • References formatted consistently, and webrefs archived.
  • Earwig's copyvio clear.
  • FN 15 - used twice, material faithful to source.
  • FN 16 - used three times, material faithful to source.
  • FN 25 - used twice, material faithful to source.

Spot check ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: , is this one good to go? Wanted to make sure bases are covered before Wikicup deadline (in a few days) czar 07:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: A couple of issues for me. First, not all of the refs are in numerical order. Was this a conscious choice, as most articles use ascending numerical order for their refs. Also, I have a little issue with "Journalists have ranked The Lost Levels among the least important in the Mario series[38][39] and of Nintendo's top games" as this is referenced to a "125 top games" article. There is no indication in that article that the reviewer intends to make a negative "worst in series" comment, or is in fact making any such judgement on its importance (the article specifically says that it is explaining why each article is important). At a stretch, if all the other Mario games were in that article and listed above this one, I could just about accept the Mario comment except that there are 3 more "Mario" games below it in the list. And given that Nintendo has surely released substantially more than 125 games, I really cannot accept "least important of Nintendo's top games". Such an apparent misrepresentation of the source does worry me slightly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sarastro1, thanks. Yes, the refs are ordered by pertinence, not numerically. The "top games" sentence was discussed with IDV's comments above. I specifically avoided making a "worst in series" claim (what would "worst" mean?) but the articles did call the game among the "bottom tier" (#26 of 35) of the series and the other source implied the same (#16 of 18). Based on that, it wouldn't be appropriate to describe its legacy as illustrious or even lukewarm, and short of more descriptive language, the rankings do clearly show that the game was among the least important in the series. The argument is similar for the listing at #117 of 125—the least important of Nintendo's top games, though that's a mouthful. I think it would be more deceptive to omit that it was at the bottom of the list by saying only that it was just included in a list of top games without describing where it stood in that list. (And for what it's worth, I think that writing "ranked 117 of 125" instead of the qualitative description would make for shoddy prose. The sentence is also not written declaratively, with its rank/position as incontrovertible fact, but neutrally offers that journalists have ranked it in this position, which the sources support and which other sources can certainly refute, were they to exist.) Happy to discuss further, but know that it has indeed been discussed here, in the edit history, and on the article's talk page. czar 00:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion now (this is why it's not always helpful to collapse comments, but never mind). I'm still not entirely convinced that the reference really justifies saying it is one of the least important of Nintendo's top games, but I doubt it's worth holding the review up over this. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2017 [8].

Octopus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth and LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

This article is about the octopus, one of the most intelligent invertebrates, rivaled only by other cephalopods. The article was expanded, improved on, and passed a GA review. We feel it is ready for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

[edit]
Drive by Comment - It looks like the taxonomy list is a bit out of alignment. For example Suborder Cirrina is at the 3rd level of indentation and Suborder Incirrina is at the second level. Shouldn't all suborders be aligned, all families be aligned, etc? It's mostly aligned just Cirrina. Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I aligned the suborders. The families of the two suborders can't be align as one order is divided into superfamilies. LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti says

[edit]
  • I'm not happy that the article states blankly "is a cephalopod mollusc of the order Octopoda." without explaining what "cephalopod" means. I think other examples of cephalapods would help (squid, nautiluses). Also it would be good to work in soft-bodied (Coleoidea) near the top because that characteristic is high-level than octopodae. Also try to avoid WP:consecutive blue links Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's much better IMO. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: do it again please, maybe after "centre point of the arms" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because later it says " known as arms (mistakenly called tentacles)". It seems like 'The modern convention however, is to speak of appendages as "tentacles" when they have relatively thin "peduncles" or "stalks" with "clubs" at their tips'. (from tentacle) so they might be referred to as "tentacles" but don't match this strict definition. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made further changes. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it was depicted more like an octopus. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So actually the arm/tentacle thing is the primary difference? Squid have "specialised feeding tentacles" and octopies don't? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the difference that's mentioned in the literature I've come across. LittleJerry (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the thing I'd like best is to go through the whole thing, adding "as with other cephalopods" and linking to "X in cephalopods" where appropriate, I keep wondering whether things are specific to octopuses or not. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the "as with other cephalopods". Much of what is true about octopuses is true about other cephalopods. We can't keep adding in this phrase to every section as it is tiresome and redundant. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about "unlike other cephalopods" then? they can't both be redundant... 212.250.152.37 (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Major differences between octopuses and other cephalopods is already noted in taxonomy. That's as far as I can go. LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap would probably be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

Great article!

  • Pronunciation. (/ˈɒktəpʊs/ or ~/pəs/) seems like the wrong order. Cambridge, Macmillan, and Oxford seem to favour ~/pəs/ although the Beatles pronounced it /ˈɒktəpʊs/. Could these be swapped?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skin consists of a thin outer epidermis overlying a connective tissue dermis. The epidermis contains mucous cells and sensory cells and the dermis consists largely of collagen fibres and various chromatic organs; chromatophores, leucophores, iridophores, reflector cells and photophores. says the same thing twice. There is a bit too much redundancy in general; we get the coconut shells and the mortality experiment twice each and there are (I think) a few things like that.
Fixed. The coconut shell mention is relevant to both locomotion and intelligence. I removed the part in locomotion about it being used for shelter since it is not relevant there. LittleJerry (talk)
I also slit information on the ink. Anat&Phys talks about its contents while defense mentions its effects. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved information on mimicry to defense. The major redundancies should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was very overlinked and there is likely some more work to be done in honing links to the really useful ones.
Did some. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more, seems to be about right now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Octopuses may be preyed on by fishes, seabirds, pinnipeds and cetaceans; I think humans' role should be mentioned if it is a significant one which I suspect it is.
The source doesn't mention humans as predators. Anyway, we usually don't mention humans as predators in animal article expect in relation to conservation, hunting, ect. The consumption of octopuses is mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely happy with this, but let me think about it. Regardless of what other articles do, human predation should be mentioned in these terms if it is important, and we imply it is by discussing the role in cuisine. Let me think about it some more.--John (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other zoologists thought it a spermatophore; the German zoologist Heinrich Müller believed it was designed to detach during copulation. "Designed" is rather jarring here. Do we need it?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is "adapted" better? What language does the source use? --John (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It quotes Muller. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth would be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less worried about this now that I have found and wikilinked the cleavage (embryo) article. It should ideally still be explained for the lay reader if it is important enough to mention. --John (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better. --John (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this makes sense. Octopuses generally avoid humans, but attacks have occasionally been verified. For example, an 2.4-metre (8 ft) Pacific octopus, said to be nearly perfectly camouflaged, "lunged" at a diver and "wrangled" over his camera before it let go. It seems rather lame as "attacks" go. Is there a better example? Or is this example individually notable so as to need recorded? --John (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that real attacks do exist but have this rather tame character, very different from the overdramatised versions in film and fiction. Seems well worth having. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Does the source refer to it as an "attack"? Maybe "incident" is fairer? --John (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. It uses the word "ambush" which is a type of attack, e.g. the cougar is an ambush predator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but I don't like the use of this low-quality source to support either "attack" or "ambush" on a biology article. --John (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, incident it is then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does Several questionable size records would suggest the giant Pacific octopus is the largest of all known octopus species by a considerable margin... mean? If they are questionable, why are we referring to them? In a philosophical sense, all information is questionable. Can we clarify this? --John (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Said "Much larger sizes ... have been claimed": the situation is that reliable sources report a history of somewhat doubtful claims. Hope this wording is satisfactory! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These seem entirely good to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I now support on prose, apparent completeness, sourcing and images. It's been a pleasure to work with such a collegial team. Thanks for working on this important article and making it so good.--John (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a number missing here. Also, a more modern source would be good. "Octopus fisheries exist around the world with total catches varying between 245,320 and 322,99 metric tons from 1986–1995." --John (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Source says 322,999 mt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Tremoctopus_violaceus5.jpg needs a US PD tag, and what is the author's date of death?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with File:Octopus_vulgaris_Merculiano.jpg
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:AMI_-_Oktopusvase.jpg: should include an explicit tag for the vase itself
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Colossal_octopus_by_Pierre_Denys_de_Montfort.jpg needs a US PD tag.
PD-US. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same with File:Tako_to_ama_(detail).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added a new image which was uploaded by the author. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's support comments

[edit]
Resolved

Always good to see the higher level taxa being taken on. Some comments:

Many thanks!
  • , after which he goes into a decline. a touch euphemistic. after which he dies?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reasonably familiar with behavioural language and I'm uncertain what and behaviourally diverse " means
This was discussed at the GA review. It refers to their ability to mimic other animals, problem solving ect. LittleJerry (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is locomotion divided between the first and third paragraphs of the lead?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to ask why global distribution and habita wasn't covered in the main article but instead I'll ask why it doesn't have its own section but is instead crammed into the front of behaviour and ecology. I'd separate.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On distribution, are there any patterns in distribution? (More diverse in the tropics, or in the abyssal plain?)
Sources don't say but presumably its like other groups of animals. More diversity at coral reefs and tropical areas, ect. LittleJerry (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the octopus body is made of soft material Material? Maybe tissue?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the larger species can squeeze through any opening close to 2.5 cm (1 in) in diameter.[ I think it would be better to introduce the idea that they can do this before showing how impressively they can do it. This allows octopuses extreme flexibility and the ability to squeeze through tiny gaps; even the larger...
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the section on ink sacs separate the senses and nervous system, surely those two should be linked or possibly a single section?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some more reading tomorrow. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The respiration system could be clearer about why various states increase or decrease the percentage the amount of respiration through the skin
Clarified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point but it makes more sense to have ingestion before excretion
Done, always nice to have a sense of, er, progress, in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • to vary from species to species, being present in O. aegina but absent in O. vulgaris. I think a for example is needed before introducing examples here
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sense of touch is touched (badoom) on paragraph one and three of the senses section. I can see why, but maybe they could be merged?
Moved the offending sentence into the touch paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, long day. Will finish soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second wind!
  • In most species, fertilisation occurs in the mantle cavity feels like it would sit better in the section on sex itself
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The young paralarvae are planktonic for a while, feeding on copepods, arthropod larvae and other zooplankton. They then sink to the seabed to continue their development; some deep sea species do not have a planktonic stage.[56] Maybe this instead. Most young paralarvae are planktonic for a while, but some deep sea species do not have a planktonic stage. Planktonic young feed on copepods, arthropod larvae and other zooplankton. They then sink to the seabed to continue their development or something like that
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • adopted by the argonaut. I think paper nautilus is a more commonly known name and should be used here as well
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Octopuses are not territorial and may leave an area in search of food. an area? What area? Maybe they travel widely to feed, or are nomadic?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other creatures often share the den with the octopus, either because they have arrived as scavengers, or because they have survived capture. They include fish, crabs, molluscs and echinoderms Maybe move the examples into the first sentence after other creatures
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major items in the diet of the giant Pacific octopus include bivalve molluscs such as the cockle Clinocardium nuttallii, clams and scallops, and crustaceans such as crabs and spider crabs. why does this article about the whole group suddenly narrow down to a single species?
Because the behaviour of so few species of octopus have been studied in detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prey likely to be rejected include moon snails, is this referring to the group or just the giant species again?
Still the giant species. Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The predation line seems a bit thin. If there's not more to say, maybe move it to the defence section and rename that section parasites and disease.
A good suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the relationship with humans needs a bit more structure. Maybe general (danger and legal) cultural (history, myth, literature, erotica and metaphor), economic (food, captivity and science).
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also needs a prune. Try and find concepts that octopuses represent (gods, danger etc) and find examples to illustrate them, rather than just listing every occurrence of octopuses in human society.
Done. Incidentally, I removed the section on metaphor but an uninvolved editor has just added it back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the relationship with humans section needed reorganization, I don't think the way it was done was an improvement. The new "dangerous sea-monster" section mixes monster stories, creation myths, and scientific information about actual danger to humans. The important "metaphor" section was removed entirely (I have re-added it). My suggestion would be to split an "in culture" level 2 section off of "relationship with humans" to contain myths, stories, symbol, and erotic fantasy. "Relationship with humans" would retain danger to humans, food, and science and technology. I will do this myself when I get off work if there are no objections. A2soup (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I now need to wait for you and Sabine's Sunbird to agree on the structure the section is to have. I will do my best to implement whatever you agree. However, I have added a section heading 'As an actual danger' to separate myth from science (the text remains unchanged). I note in passing that food, science and other human interactions are all part of our culture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't mean to be a bother. Don't feel like you need to be the one to implement my suggestions - I can do it myself, followed by you and Sunbird revising or rejecting it (by comment here or by edit) per the normal wiki process. A2soup (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you, but since we're here we'll have to proceed by consensus now. If you mean that (like me) you'll now accept whatever Sunbird proposes, then obviously that makes consensus easy. I imagine they'll take your suggestions into account. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made some chances. I hope nobody minds. LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes - I think the organization is good now, thanks! I will add a (cited) sentence or two to the symbol paragraph if I can find the time. A2soup (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The structure is much better now. I have one final point below but from my perspective this issue is resolved. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he supposed attack on a Staten Island ferry in New York, leading to the loss of the ferry and commemorated by a bronze sculpture, never occurred, nor was there any such ferry disaster This is odd and trivia-ish and I'd remove it. If its kept then some context is badly needed.
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Octopuses were often depicted in the art of the Moche people of ancient Peru (100 – 700 AD), who worshipped the sea and its animals.[117] I am fairly sure I've seen this line in lots of other animal articles. So what?
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of the see also.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's me. Thanks for being responsive to my other points, should be good to go when this is done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, one final section that needs tightening - As food:
    • I don't like the title. Maybe fisheries or economic importance
    • They are a common food in Mediterranean and Asian sea areas Asian sea areas? Maybe just around the Mediterranean and in Asia.
    • The intro of this section focuses on their foodstuff role - you need to briefly touch on their fisheries, how they are caught (which I was curious about and then interested when I learnt), economic importance (for jobs and subsistence) and fisheries management.
All done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What units are the numbers for fisheries? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that should be it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: Can you elaborate on why you don't like "as food" as a section title and why you think "fisheries" or "economic importance" is better? The section is not just about fishing, it is about catching and eating octopuses. The unifying theme is octopuses as a food for humans, which comprises both fishing and culinary aspects. IMO, your suggested titles only cover the first of these and do not tell the reader that the section also covers octopus dishes. A2soup (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As food doesn't really cover fisheries or economic importance. The economic, ecological and logistical background of any natural foodstuff is separate from their culinary nature. To avoid getting bogged down I didn't insist on it but I would prefer the section touched on overfishing, economic size and jobs, and so on. Also - as food only really works as a title if you start with Relationship with humans - as food. If you insist on keeping it then Octopuses as food would read better. Although Cuisine and fisheries is better than that. Or something else. I don't really care, if you really prefer as food then switch it back. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have been resolved by the choice of 'Fisheries and cuisine'. Good as any. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber (and spot check/source review)

[edit]
  • If possible, avoid having all four paras of lead starting with "Octopuses..."
Fixed one of 'em. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that helps Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • one specimen was recorded as 272 kg (600 lb) with an arm span of 9 m (30 ft). - I would clarify how/why this is unsubstantiated.
  • I also don't think you need standalone sentences in this section.
Closed up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd link circulatory system somewhere...
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do all species have inksacs? Be good to know and reference that...
Its mentioned that Cirrate octopuses don't have ink sacs. LittleJerry (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did classical folks call them octopuses? Or is it a modern construct (i.e. when were they first called octopuses?) Be good to note in the Etymology and pluralisation section
Yes, it's ancient Greek, linked in that section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, did they call them that or was it a medieval or later invention of word by joining two ancient Greek words...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's new Latin transcribed from genuine ancient Greek as spoken and written by the ancients, such as Alexander of Tralles, as oktopous or more usually oktapous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any species endangered? Are any invasive?
Can't seem to find much on either. I mostly find articles on the "endangered" Pacific Northwest tree octopus, which is a hoax. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwigs threw up a result at copyvio check. Hard to tell if it is a mirror but there are a few segments it might be prudent to change.
The YouTube text is certainly copied from here. I'm basically sure that the World Animal Foundation text is too, but copyedited just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref formatting ok, though could we add some more info to web refs? (FN 136, 137)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 18 used once, faithful to source (NB: has the material to elaborate on largest Pacific octopus above).
  • FN 46 used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 104 used once, faithful to source.

Happy with spot check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

[edit]

Ref 13 is dead and a couple of the external links are dead. Also, while not an absolute requirement, I think that FAs should use alt text as they are an example of best practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13 removed; ref 14 covers sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2 dead external links removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supplied alt texts for all the images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2017 [9].

250t-class torpedo boat

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 250t-class were torpedo boats built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the lead-up to and early stages of World War I. Almost all of them saw a fair bit of action during the war, but none were lost. They were divided among the Allied nations of Yugoslavia, Portugal, Romania and Greece after the war, with some surviving to see action in World War II. The last of them didn't go out of service until the early 1960s. The World War I section of this article has been expanded in recent months thanks to a series of articles in Warship magazine that provided details of their engagements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dan, as always! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Niehorster himself has a Ph.D in history, and has several books regarding German and US orders of battle published by Military Press (UK) and held by libraries like Oxford University and the US Air Force Academy. Used quite a bit in Featured Articles/Lists already. I've found him to be highly consistent with other sources when it comes order of battle information.
  • Smillie, John (2012). World War II Sea War, Vol 4: Germany Sends Russia to the Allies. Dayton, Ohio: Lulu.com. Lulu.com is a self-publishing site - what makes this a high quality reliable source? Note the lack of library holdings also.
  • Quite so. Deleted.
  • I also note the lack of citations on a number of the notes - (a through f)
  • They were relying on the citation for the whole table, but I've added them to each note for completeness.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Flag_of_Portugal.svg needs a US PD tag and date of death for the creator
  • Date of death of the designer was already there (1929), added PD-1923 as it was officially adopted in 1910.

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll review this soon. At first glance, the highlight duplinks tool shows a lot of duplicate links, but it also seems to be acting strangely lately, but maybe worth checking out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it is acting strangely and counting links in the lead (which it didn't before if I understand it right). I'm pretty sure that's what the prob is, as this article was checked for duplinks when it went through Milhist ACR. I'll mention it to the script writers. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps footnote one could have a citation.
  • I'm working on WP:BLUE for that, it is a widely accepted measurement of the length of a gun barrel.
  • What does the name "250t" refer to?
  • Great question. It just appears to be the label they were given in sources, particularly Greger, although sometimes the three groups are considered separate classes and named after the first of each group. Perhaps it was a rounded displacement in long tons at the design stage, but that is a bit of a reach...
  • "and damage from accidents" maybe I missed it, but I don't think I saw accidents mentioned in the article body?
  • the collision between 74 T and 83 F.
  • "and refused to follow orders to sail to the Bay of Kotor" Why?
  • I imagine they were too afraid of being sunk by aircraft en route, but the sources don't really explain.
  • "She was either crewed exclusively by Croatian officers and sailors under German control,[1] or repossessed by the Germans on 14 December 1944 from the Croatian navy" Not sure what the either/or signifies here.
  • I'm trying to explain that there are two versions in sources. The first being she was always under German (Kriegsmarine) command but had a Croatian crew, the second that she was actually transferred to Croatian navy control and later recovered from them because they were considered unreliable (by the Germans).
Perhaps explicitly state there are two versions of events? A bit hard to understand as is. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her crew came under the influence of the Yugoslav Partisans" In what way?
  • The Partisans were insurgents, who used propaganda and agents of influence to convince pro-Axis forces to desert and join them. Do I need to explicitly state that?
I was uncertain whether this influence was direct (actual partisans aboard the ship) or indirect (propaganda), so could perhaps be good to clarify if possible. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added two comments. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk addressed, I think. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

[edit]
  • I copyedited and reviewed at both GAN and MilHist ACR; a bit has changed since the latter and I've copyedited a little further but generally happy with rhe changes.
  • There seem to be a fair few duplinks -- do you have the script to highlight them and rationalise as needed?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • G'day Ian. Thanks for taking a look through. The original Ucucha script is playing up (I've reported it). I am running User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js now, which is a tweaked version, and it doesn't pick anything up. Can you list a couple and I'll manually check? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, tks for that about Ucucha's script -- I was running that to check things so don't worry (now I look it's evidently counting instances in the lead as well as the main body) ... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one looks about good to go. Can I have a dispensation to start another nom? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, no problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2017 [10].

Death of Leelah Alcorn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a transgender teenager living in Ohio who committed suicide in 2014, attracting international attention. It is not a particularly long article but it is comprehensive and has been GA-rated since October 2015. Some additional tweaking and formatting has since taken place, and I believe that it is worthy of Featured Article status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I think there needs to be an ALT text for the infobox image. ALT text should also be applied for the rest of the images in the article.
  • I would suggest using Leelah Alcorn’s full first name in the caption for the infobox image.
  • In the quote box in the “Life” section, I would suggest clearly marking that it is a part of her suicide note.
  • In the sentence about the Boston Globe’s response to the sucide note, I would recommend saying the writer’s name (Maura Johnston) rather than referencing the entire newspaper as a while.
  • I think the caption for the memorial/vigil image should include the year (and ideally the month if known) to better contextually it for the reader.

This is a very wonderful and important article; it was an interesting read (not to sound belittling or inappropriate). I only have a few relatively minor notes, and I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your suggestions and kind comments, Aoba47. I am glad that you found the article to be of interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

I've read the article two times and didn't find anything to change. About the prose, I can say the article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and focused. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the article! Only minor comments:

General

  • Perhaps I am the only one, but two, maximum three refs for one fact would do it for me. If I see four and more, I don't know where to look ;)
  • I have trimmed a few of the four-reference blocks down to three. There are a few cases where I have avoided doing so because it would entail losing a reference altogether (i.e. all of the references appear only once in the article or are 'primary sources'). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I am not too familiar with he/she in her case, but "she was raised" sounds wrong because those who raised her raised him. Saying "she" when talking about her from age 14, when she came out as a girl, sounds right.
  • I think that that would conflict with MOS:Identity, which I have tried to adhere to here. I also think that readers might be confused if we switch between gender pronouns in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would not be the only case where I disagree with the MOS. Can we find perhaps a different approach: using the given name? saying "raised the child"? Ideas welcome. I'd agree to moving that to the "life" section, see below. - When a person changes a name, such as a woman by marriage, we don't use the later name from the beginning, only after the change happened. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conservative Christian" - in German that would not be equal to "fundamentalist Christian", so the piped link seems a bit like an Easter egg. If it was fundamentalist, then say so.
  • I would mention the names of her parents, and the birth name, already in the sentence about birth.
  • I have added her birth name but am not convinced that the names of her parents really need to be mentioned here. They are mentioned in the very next sentence and I am concerned that moving their names in the opening sentence of paragraph two would overly lengthen that sentence. Happy to discuss this issue further, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about moving the names of the parents away from the lead and create a "normal" beginning of "Life": given name, born where, parents, raised? - The lead should summarize the body, not replace it. ---GA
  • Given that a lot of the debate around the topic has involved Cara and Doug Alcorn, I think it appropriate that we retain their names in the lead. If we were to remove those names, then I believe that we might not be summarising in the article in a manner in accordance with WP:Lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support names of the parents in the lead, but think of something more chronological for the beginning of the body, please consider:
Alcorn was born to Cara and Doug Alcorn as one of several children. Assigned male at birth, the baby was given the name Joshua Ryan Alcorn. She eventually rejected this forename, and in her suicide note signed "(Leelah) Josh Alcorn". The family attended the Northeast Church of Christ in Cincinnati, a conservative Christian environment, and had been featured in a profile of that church published in a 2011 article in The Christian Chronicle.
Unless we don't even mention suicide (it's in the lead) and signature that early. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christian beliefs" - how about "Christian belief" or Christian values?

Life

  • Churches of Christ - I suggest to mention that in the lead, instead of the link to Christian fundamentalism, because it's a specific kind of Christianity which explains the stance of the parents better than general "Christian".
  • I don't think the link for God is needed after having mentioned Christianity a few times.
  • That's what I mean. After having talked about Christianity a few time, it should be clear that God in the context means God in Christianity. A link seems rather distracting attention, imo. ---GA
  • "but there "only got more Christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong ..." - that is no sentence, due to the combination of prose and quote.
  • not quite, the quote lacks a subject, - some "I" needs to be added before the quotation, - better word it completely different, perhaps one sentence with the fact, another for her reaction. ---GA
  • (new) The quote block should be moved higher, not appearing after age 16. ---GA
  • "Aged sixteen, she requested that she be allowed to undergo transition treatment, but was denied permission: "I felt hopeless, that I was just going to look like a man in drag for the rest of my life. ..." - The quote is unprepared as her reaction to the denied permission, we don't even know who's saying "I" at the beginning.
  • I've added "in her words" before the quote. 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Could her school be mentioned sooner, not when she leaves it?
  • "There, she revealed that while her parents had never physically assaulted her, "they always talked to me in a very derogatory tone" " - the mix of "her" and "me" leaves me a bit uneasy, grammar-wise.
  • it includes another "her" which the parents would not not have supported. Better leave "me", - perhaps a ":" before the quote explains enough, relating to "she revealed". ---GA
  • "that overlooks Interstate 71" - what does it mean? other than "crosses I-71"?

Death

  • Could her home be mentioned sooner than after her death?

Criticism of Alcorn's parents

  • How about simply: Alcorn's parents? - There's a lot about what they did, not only criticism.
  • "stating that she had banned Leelah's internet access" - you can't say that right after "stated that she had never heard her child use the name "Leelah".
  • I'm not sure how to rephrase this without the sentence feeling clunky. At present it reads "but defended her actions in dealing with her child, stating that she had banned Leelah's internet access to prevent her accessing "inappropriate" things." If we remove "Leelah" then we might to replace it with "her child", which will create duplication; if we if we use "her" it again could get a little confusing as there are two females in the sentence. We could use "her daughter" but that presents us with similar problems to using "Leelah" (i.e. it is not a term recognised by the mother). I think that the current wording is thus the best option available, unless you can think of anything that allows us to remove "Leelah" without resulting in any of these other problems? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say "but defended her actions in dealing with her child, stating for example that she had banned internet access to prevent access to 'inappropriate" things'." Once it's clear that it is about her child, we don't need any repetition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leelah's Law

  • I could imagine an image of Obama with less smile as more appropriate to the tragic situation.
  • All of the close-up photos of Obama (that I can find) have him smiling in one form or another. This image was taken in 2012, which is closer to the date of Alcorn's death (2014) than some of the other images. I can certainly keep looking, but still think that the close-up official portraits are better than other options that can be found on the Obama article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked, and found many images of Obama, indeed most smiling, but the official 2009 image looks more thoughtful, - I wouldn't mind the little difference in time, for expression. ---GA

Again: thank you for the account told in factual engaging prose! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Gerda! I will let you know when I have made my way through all of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on everything; feel free to get back to me if you find any of my responses unsatisfactory. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responses and actions, most of them convincing. One is missing just above Leelah's Law. I'll get back to it after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I missed your responses for days, and thank you for detailed explanations and many changes that I like. Little is left, one small question is new. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, Gerda. I think that I have now dealt with each one of your concerns. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you want to use of the last suggestions, I support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This FAC has been open for two and a half weeks and has received three statements of support. All concerns raised have been dealt with. Unless there are any further comments forthcoming then it might be worth considering upgrading the article as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have we had a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a request for one at WT:FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • ref #4 missing article date: April 10, 2015.
  • ref #6, #7, #12, #18, #35, #38 missing retrieval date
  • ref #20 retrieval date follows different date format
  • ref #32 missing article date: January 4, 2015
  • ref #40, #68 article date follows different date format
  • ref #60 missing author: Zoe Mintz
  • ref #64 missing author: Mitch Kellaway

All the sources seem to be reliable. Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super, the source review now passes! Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2017 [11].

Red-billed tropicbird

[edit]
Nominator(s): RileyBugz & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another bird collaboration. Two of us will answer queries pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • The "description" header in the subspecies box seems like it could be renamed. At first, I thought it contained a physical description, so could it maybe be called "naming", "scientific description", or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "discovery". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that box, why is there no info on the description of the nominate subspecies? I know it goes under Linneaus' original species description, but do we know what he based it on?
Need to look into this. Be good if a source said "known from antiquity" or something found some old stuff but better in chronological order - added nominate to the box to indicate it is the default I guess..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't show the egg, but perhaps the illustration of an egg could be extracted from this[12] image and used?
It is a good idea, but there are a few problems. First, I'm pretty sure that the bird in the image is actually a red-tailed tropicbird, based on the red tail and lack of barring on the back. It might be ok, then, if the egg of the red-billed tropicbird and the red-tailed tropicbird where the same, but, no. The red-tailed tropicbird's egg (at least to my eye) is a bit more white than the red-billed tropicbird's egg, even when the egg of the latter is of the more purple (and thus pale) variety. So, I don't think that it can be used. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, in that case, perhaps leave a note on the file description page to prevent future confusion? FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to figure out where Matilda island is...but yes, is a red-tailed tropicbird. Have made a note on the page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem the status and threat sections should be subsections of the human relationsections (as in other articles), which is now hanging alone as a single sentence for some reason. I can see it is grouped like that because you have grouped all possible threats against the bird together in one section (unlike what is done in most articles). But it would make more sense to have one section for natural threats, and then leave the text about human caused threats (including from introduced species) with the status section.
Done. Not the best fix but agree is better than what we had for the reasons outlined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The range section for the nominate need a citation.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The legs and feet are two colours, orangey-yellow and black; the orangey-yellow colour is found on the legs, base of the central toe, and parts of the outer toes, with the black colour being found everywhere else." This seems a bit repetitive. Why not just state where these colours are, instead of listing the colours twice?
Done/trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The young chicks are usually missing their tail streamers" Does this mean it is random whether they are born with them or not?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nd without the tail streamers that are distinctive on the adult." But you imply earlier that some have them?
  • There seems to be a mix of UK and US English, for example "grey" and "ize", check throughout and make consistent.
I Americanised it as it mostly a New World species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Palaearctic should be Pale?--FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it was dark he, missed that one. Got it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The red-billed tropicbird can reach speeds of 44 kilometres per hour (27 mph) when flying out at sea,[22] cruising a minimum of 30 metres (100 ft) above the sea. [23] It is unable to walk easily on land, and requires a cliff, like those that it nests on, to take off without complications.[19] Conversely it can lift off the sea without much effort. Its plumage is waterproof and it floats on water.[22]" This seems to belong in the behaviour section.
Yeah this can be tricky...usually if there is a brief note on flight we put in Description section as it helps with identification, but when we start adding to it it starts to really go beyond that and (I agree) is better in behaviour. I had just found some more stuff to add. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and attempted breeding on the Îles des Madeleines off Senegal." They repeatedly attempt to breed there without success, or what?
Must have read the source too quickly - does breed there, according to source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 2005, one was found in eastern New Brunswick, Canada, and another sighting at Matinicus Rock, Maine." The wording seems weird in the last part of the sentence. Also, why not year for the second sighing?
Couldn't find a date for the latter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The population is declining, mainly due to use by humans" What is meant by use?
It means this now reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of tweaking to make it flow better now. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the region that the red-billed tropicbird is inhabiting is abnormally hot when it is nesting, although, the hatching success can drop to about 35%." Something seems wrong with this sentence.
Better now? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start the sentence with "though if the region...", the "although" in the middle seems a bit confusing, since it isn't clear it refers to the earlier sentence.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rejigged again Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have added that Linnaeus discovered the bird, which of course isn't true (as the taxonomy section makes clear), he "only" named it and described it.
Oops, fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A graceful bird" You don't call it graceful outside the intro, is there a source backing this up? Seems a bit hyperbolic.
what have you got againstr tropicbirds? trimmed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. Fixed in the text. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
got 'em all.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sabine's Sunbird

[edit]

Moral or otherwise Support. I was the reviewer for the GAN, and I've added a missing fact based on that review. One comment.

I have now trimmed that. I found the Grew reference first as it is mentioned in the OED as the first mention of tropicbird in English...Grew mentioned Willughby and so I found that with more info in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Generally sound, but a few infelicities Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see some inconsistency in variety of English, eg "gray", "behaviour"
I missed the second in Americanizing the article. Done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orangey—I'd prefer "more orange", as you have in the text
Done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the nest itself a scrape found on cliffs faces that are easy to fly out of. —clunky, perhaps " the nest is a scrape found on an open cliff face that is easy to fly from"
Done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the age groups of this species feed on fish and squid. —"birds of all ages…"
Done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the red-billed tropicbird will work with surface-feeding predators—implies conscious collaborate, actually opportunist
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centimetres—why spelt out at every use?
abbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spear and Ainley—No nationality or occupation, why do their views matter?
they did 15 years of field observations. I called them "researchers" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unable to walk easily on land, and requires a cliff, —not strictly true. They can walk adequately but can't get through vegetation, so it's unobstructed access to the sea they need
the source (stonehouse) say they can't walk easily and are unable to stand. Given it is subjective, I went with the more conservative "proficient" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chicks are fed increasingly larger quantities of fish and squid by their parent—"As they grow…"
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nests are usually able to be flown out of directly—clunky, see above
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • shearwaters, petrels, —links needed
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes are fine. I've seen this species on Little Tobago, where you can stand next to the nests and the adult "walked" from the nest a few metres to the cliff edge. Like fulmars and shearwaters, they are fine for short distances on flat surfaces, but can get trapped in all but the shortest vegetation. changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's tricky when observations vary from written sources...thx 4 support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Edwininlondon

[edit]

I am an absolute lay person when it comes to birds. I read the lead only and then asked myself some questions and tried to answer them. Then I read the whole thing to see if I was right.

  • one of three closely related tropicbirds -> It seems there are both 3 species of tropicbirds and 3 subspecies of the red-billed, 3 and 3 unfortunately. But I didn't get this from the lead. I suspect partly because you never mention the names of the other species in the lead.
I tweaked this to clarify there are three species and three subspecies. I felt it'd be a tad overinclusive to list all species in the lead... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • distinguished from the nominate -> I don't know what nominate is. Link at least?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three subspecies are recognized. The subspecies ... and the subspecies .. -> Because I didn't know what nominate is I found it odd that you announce 3 subspecies and then only describe 2
Added "including the nominate", and then linked the first occurrence of nominate. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the Indian Ocean -> and in the Indian Ocean?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • cliffs faces -> cliff faces is what you have in main body
a typo. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are usually caught -> bit ambiguous who they refers to. How about this: "All of the age groups of this species feed on fish and squid, which are usually caught by diving from the air into the water. Sometimes, however, the red-billed tropicbird .."
I tweaked it like this, how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waldo Lee McAtee proposed -> when was this? And has it been accepted?
1945, and added. Not really taken up as the title still "red-billed tropicbird", which is a bit silly as the red-tailed tropicbird also has a red bill...(there is no source that will say it is not taken up...but the name is not mentioned elsewhere). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Column heading Trinomial name could be a link
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allan Octavian Hume wrote -> when? in this column the other 2 rows have a year
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Description section maybe make a few more things a link: lores, mottling, primaries and tertials
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red-billed tropicbird can be identified by its red bill -> Something to consider for this paragraph: maybe say explicitly first that there are two other species of tropicbirds, with their trinomial names, and links. Then it’s instantly obvious you will be talking about other species, not subspecies.
Added "can be differentiated from the other tropicbirds". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominate subspecies P. aethereus aethereus breeds on islands -> Bit odd that only here do you start using trinomial for the nominate, not in previous sections?
Just some different wording. Also, I expanded "P.", but that wasn't what your comment was about. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ascension, and St. Helena on the Atlantic Ridge, and Fernando Noronha and Abrolhos -> maybe a few of these places could be linked
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total numbers in 2000 -> not clear what this is the total of
Made it clear. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • diving from the air -> where else could they dive from?
penguins and seals dive from the water to deeper water...it's that it's high in the air, but am in two minds as a subjective word that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • this bird will work with predators -> Is this really collaboration or just opportunism?
Seems it was changed to "follows" by somebody. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the original owners declare themselves -> Just as side note, I found it remarkable that intruders always lose
the normans didn't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red-tailed tropicbirds are aggressive at nest -> So the other species nest at the same places? Maybe say so. It is so easy to miss that you switch species here.
that was a typo for "-billed". fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the egg cannot survive -> What are the signs that it can’t? Or do you mean perhaps "does not"?
the latter - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relationship with humans -> While informative, is this really that’s all there is to say about the human-bird relationship? Looks a bit odd.
I looked a lot. Very hard to find anything at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • human exploitation of their environment, and predation by -> being a non-native speaker, I can never get where the commas go. I would not have put a comma here. Just checking if you're sure about this one.
I fixed this earlier. The comma is in fact very weird (at least as I see it). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it seems worthy of FA status. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting: overall ok.

  • there are some initials without punctation, some with
found one periodless...added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not all publishers have a location
locations added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:
File:Red-billed tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus mesonauta) with chick.jpg: License and usage seem fine for me.
File:Rotschnabeltropikvogel 8-7-2008 Abrolhos (R.Graf).jpg: License and use seem fine for me. No EXIF.
File:RED BILLED TROPIC BIRD.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, my pet peeve of these "Wiki Loves Whatever" uploads with shoddy titles and descriptions nonwithstanding. No EXIF.
File:Red-billed tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus mesonauta) chick.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
File:Red-billed tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus mesonauta) nesting.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, again.
No ALT text as far as I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks! I added alt text to all of the images. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I saw a check of reference formatting above but can someone sign off on source reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
Of the folks managing the website, one is the author of bird guide books and another was the chair of a local branch of an ornithological society. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LEaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 31 is a dead link. (BND)
Well that was fortuitous, we can update the story as the critter keeps coming back... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CUrrent ref 42 says its the Wall Street Journal, but takes me to a login scree for The Australian? It also needs a notice that a subscription is required.
Will add subscription thing. But, the URL does in fact lead to a story by the Wall Street Journal. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45 is a journal or a website? Either way, it's not formatted the same as the other journals or websites used
It's a report. It uses the "cite report" format. I added some parameters Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2017 [13].

Guadeloupe amazon

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers two obscure, extinct parrots for the price of one; one was found to be based on a description of the other in 2015, after being the source of speculation for more than a century. Little is known about this bird, but it is associated with some nice historical artwork and some interesting contemporary accounts, so I found it worthwhile to flesh out the article anyway. It is also a sort of companion piece to the article about the Lesser Antillean macaw from the same island, which was promoted last year. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

[edit]

Like I usually do, I will just give some quick comments to start, with the disclaimer that if I stop reviewing, feel free to, as long as all of the comments are answered, count this as a neutral or weak support.

  • In the lead, it would be best to describe what a ruff is; you mention it in the sentence "It had iridescent feathers, and was able to raise a 'ruff' around its neck."
It basically just means "feathers around the neck which resemble a ruff (clothing), so I'm not sure how to describe, but I've clarified by saying "ruff of feathers", and linked to the clothing... Seems the ruff bird is even named after the clothes. Perhaps something that could be added to the Glossary of bird terms? Perhaps in an entry with hackles, which is not listed there either (and are not restricted to chickens, as the article implies)... FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "It fed on fruits and nuts, and the male and female took turns sitting on the nest", it might be good to append to the end of it something like "and incubating the egg", as non-birders might wonder why a bird would sit on a nest.
I would, but none of the sources actually mention eggs, so even though it may seem obvious, it might border on WP:original research... All we have is what the old quote says, none of the later sources comment on it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After "likely" in the sentence "Due to the fact that Maria-Galante shares many modern bird species with Guadeloupe, they found it likely that the bone belonged to the Guadeloupe amazon, and assigned it to A. cf. violacea (which implies the classification is uncertain)", it might be best to add "but not certain", as otherwise readers might be confused about the uncertainty of the classification.
Isn't this already implied by "(which implies the classification is uncertain)"? We would call it uncertain twice in a sentence... Anyway, I said "suggested" instead of "found it likely", so it shows their uncertainty better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've tried to address the issues, but some of them are a bit tricky... FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph after the quotations in the description section doesn't really seem needed. The end of the paragraph seems relevant, but it probably needs merged. Basically, the first part of that paragraph seems to be about other birds. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the paragraph is about comparing the bird described in the quote with extant relatives, to make sense of the old quote, and to show how it differed from the other birds. I tweaked it to make the relevance clearer to the Guadeloupe bird. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since you have shown how the paragraph is relevant, it looks good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "In 1916, the American ornithologist Robert Ridgway criticised the illustration for differing from Du Tertre's description by, for example, showing all the covert feathers as yellow, apart from a red edge, whereas Ridgway thought Du Tertre had only meant that the proximal primary feathers were yellow", doesn't really make sense. It sounds like you are saying that Du Tertre's description said that the covert feathers were yellow. It makes sense after looking at it for a bit, but I suppose that you could get it better. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged to make it clearer what is what, better? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - One of the most interesting bird articles that I have ever read. I especially like the last sentence of the article—shows how birds are still in danger today, and how this could soon be just another extinct amazon. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, thought it might be a bit too dry for most readers, but nice you liked it! --FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's Support

[edit]

Okay. I reviewed this and my points are so minor that I am going to support with quibbles rather than just comment. Good work!

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2008 the ornithologists Storrs Olson and Edgar Maíz suggested that the Guadeloupe amazon was probably the same as the imperial amazon This whole section is kind of choppy. Maybe this line could be Ornithologists Storrs Olson and Edgar Maíz, writing in 2008, felt that the Guadeloupe amazon was probably the same as the imperial amazon. In contrast the English ornithologist Julian P. Hume wrote in 2012 that...
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediately after this I would make a subsection header for violet macaw
Added section. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • as freshly killed amazon species also show this to a greater or lesser degree If all amazons do this (to a greater or lesser degree) then drop the species from this sentence.
Removed species. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the text quoted in Behaviour and ecology, the bit about the flavour of the bird might be better in the hunting section bellow (ignore this if you disagree).
I gave this some thought when I added it, and though it isn't Du Tertre's point, he lists various food items the bird ate, and I thought this was more important to its lifestyle than its extinction. Du Tertre was mainly concerned about the effects of these items, but to us (and a biology article), it is more important in the context of what it actually ate. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

I have no special knowledge of biology, but I can comment on prose and Manual of Style issues and throw in an odd question or two. Leaning toward support. Here are my brief questions and suggestions:
"Layman" comments are always useful and welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • It would be interesting to know why the parrots in the genus are called Amazona even when they are not endemic to the Amazon basin.
Pinging Casliber to see if his bird dictionaries have anything on this... FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I have only Ancient Greek and Latin dictionaries, and many of my Australian plant and mushrioom books give derivations. Birds I have used these and some google books. I just looked up the (Longer) Oxford English Dictionary and to my surprise, "Amazon" meaning the parrot wasn't in there (!). I'll start digging as it has always intrigued me too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images need alt text.
Added, though I'm not an expert on this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • ¶1 "It was mentioned and described by 17th and 18th century writers, and received a scientific name in 1789." – To eliminate starting two sentences in a row with "it was", maybe recast slightly to "Mentioned and described by 17th and 18th century writers, it received a scientific name in 1789."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "It was rare by 1779, and appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century." – Ditto for this one. Maybe "Rare by 1779, it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • ¶2 "that Buffon stated the parrot of Guadeloupe was not found..." – Add another "that" after "stated"?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶5 The direct quote needs a citation immediately after the end of the sentence in which it appears.
I'm not sure I follow, which quote is this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, it had been flagged with a "citation needed" tag by another editor. The tag has since disappeared and, looking at this again, I see that the text identifies Breton as the author and that a citation to his book appears at the end of the paragraph. To avoid confusion, I usually place a citation right after a direct quote, but the way you have handled this is clear enough. Finetooth (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • ¶3 "may have been scattered feathers in the wing coverts" – Link "covert" here on first use in the article rather than two paragraphs later?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • The ISBNs in citations 4, 7, 8, and 14 should be converted to 13 digits. A converter lives here.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All looks fine. Happy to switch to support on prose, as noted above. If you or Casliber are later able to answer the Amazona question, that would be nice but not necessary for my support. Finetooth (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Incidentally, I remember there was a fairly long discussion about the name of the amazon parrots at the bird project:[14] I was about to write that the Amazon parrot page doesn't have an etymology, but seems this source is actually used:[15] So I will add that soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Lead:

  • "In 1905, a species of extinct violet macaw was also claimed to have lived on Guadeloupe, but in 2015 it was shown to have been based on a description of the Guadeloupe amazon." Is shown too definitive here? The main text says that Lenoble "concluded" this was so, but could it be argued there was some degree of speculation on Lenoble's part? Moisejp (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "shown" to "suggested". FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead describes the Guadeloupe amazon as a hypothetical extinct species (and says directly that "it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century"), but also says it may well have been the same as the imperial amazon. We learn at the end of the article that the imperial amazon is still alive today. Would it be good to add a precision in the lead about this as well, so its clear that Guadeloupe/imperial amazon may not be extinct after all? Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added "extant" in front of imperial amazon a few places, does that suffice? FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely a help, and I think there is probably no perfect solution for this. But I note that the text seems possibly contradictory/confusing in that on one hand the text says explicitly that it was "possibly the same as the extant imperial amazon" (in the lead) and that Patricia Ottens-Wainright, Storrs Olson and Edgar Maíz all thought it was very possible or likely that the Guadeloupe amazon and imperial amazons were the same; on the other hand it says explicitly (in the lead and in the Extinction section) that "it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century". I'm not insisting on any of the following, but here are some ideas that may or may not be helpful:
  • Lead: "it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century" → "it may have become extinct by the end of the 18th century" or "it may have become extinct, and this by the end of the 18th century" or (but this could possibly open other cans of worms, even if it doesn't contradict the main text) "the amazons living in Guadeloupe appear to have died off by the end of the 18th century"?
  • "Extinction" heading → change to "Presumed extinction"?
  • "Because of this, there would have been a greater pressure on the Guadeloupe amazon, and it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century" → "Because of this, there would have been a greater pressure on the amazons in the Guadeloupe region, and it appears none survived beyond the end of the 18th century"? Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the issue, but you can also look at it this way; whether it was a distinct species or not, the population of amazons on Guadeloupe is no doubt extinct. So for example changing the title to "presumed extinction" would be wrong, because whatever it was, a local population of imperial amazons or a distinct species, it is extinct (see also local extinction, though none of the sources specifically mention this). So I think the current text is "true" and more "inclusive" of each theory either way, especially since only one source specifically states the two species were most likely the same, the others are much more cautious. FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy:

  • "In contrast the English ornithologist Julian P. Hume wrote in 2012 that though the amazons of Guadeloupe and Martinique were based on accounts rather than physical remains, he found it likely they once existed, having been mentioned by trusted observers, and on zoogeographical grounds." Does this mean Hume said the amazons of Guadeloupe and Martinique existed as separate species from the imperial amazon (as opposed to the theory by Olson and Maíz)? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly is being contrasted here—and if it's possible to clarify this in the text, that would be great. Moisejp (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added "species", to make it clear that we're not talking about mere populations, but distinct taxa. Is that enough? The source doesn't clarify further. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all my comments. The article is very well written and I expect I'll support when the issues above are addressed. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Answered above. As for consistency in taxobox authorities, it's a bit complex, original combinations should not have parenthesis around the authority, but when it comes to new combinations, it seems to be done in various ways, at least on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • File:Amazona.violacea.jpg: License appears to be correct, but given that it is busier perhaps one of the single-bird drawings would work better as the head image?
The current taxobox image is the only drawing by someone who saw the bird alive, so I think it was the most approipriate. The coloured one is speculative (and perhaps not accurate), and the other B/W drawing is derivative of the first. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the signature (JGK, John Gerrard Keulemans) in both. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have just added a bit more info with this edit[16], which reviewers are of course welcome to check. First is a reference to another bone that may belong to this bird (but which was confusingly written about in the sources), and the rest is some discussion of the misleading citation Rothschild gave for the violet macaw, which I found a bit too esoteric before, but added in for good measure anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I can see a bit on ref formatting above but has anyone checked source reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been listed at the source review request page for some time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source/ref review

[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decide whether you want second author to be "J. Smith" (as in refs 9 & 11) or "Smith, J." (0thers)
  • Sources otherwise consistently formatted.
  • Earwig's copyvio clear
  • FN 11 coming up as "file not found"
  • FN 1, FN 13 and and FN 20 - faithful to source(s)
Thanks for review, I removed the dead link and fixed outlier refs 9 and 11. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2017 [17].

Coalhouse Fort

[edit]
Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coalhouse Fort is one of the best preserved Victorian forts in the UK and is a place I've come to know well, both through the literature and on the ground. I wrote this article to provide a comprehensive overview, as part of a personal project to document the Thames forts, and also provided almost all of the images included in it. Hopefully it does the place justice. It became a Good Article nearly two years ago, so with a bit of luck it should also be suitable for consideration as a Featured Article. Prioryman (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Well-written and comprehensive. I fixed a couple of obvious typos, please check. A few suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • it would be helpful if the Hoo Peninsula were added to the map. It's also the only overlinked article in the text
  • Rifled Muzzle Loader (RML) and Rifled Breech Loader are lower case in their own articles, which I suggest is correct. Depression Range Finder I think is also mis-capitalised.
  • en barbette — explain, or link to barbette

Support with minor comments

[edit]

(NB: I reviewed at GA if memory serves)

  • I'd expand "pdr."

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations - the big red "problem" is a facebook page and looks like someone copied the wikipedia article into the comments.
  • Normally the last source (the leaflet) would be a problem but considering it's just sourcing a description of the path, it's okay, but I'm not sure the information its sourcing is really needed for the article.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
Very interesting, nicely written and illustrated. I have a few comments and questions, nothing big.
General
  • Could you add something about the origin of the name? Why "Coalhouse"?
  • The images need alt text.
Lede
  • ¶3 "...and use it for a variety of heritage and educational purposes. It can be visited by the public on regular open days and houses a number of reconstructions, small military museums and open-air displays of military equipment. Funding for its restoration has come from a number of sources..." – Delete "a variety of", "a number of", and a second "a number of" in this sequence? Too vague to be meaningful.
Coalhouse Battery
  • ¶1 "to prevent enemies reaching that far down the Thames..." – Reaching that far "up" the river rather than "down"?
First Coalhouse Fort
  • ¶1 "In the case of the Coalhouse battery, it was substantially extended..." – Perhaps "expanded" rather than "extended"?
  • ¶1 "Progress was slow due to the marshy ground again causing problems with subsidence and cracking the foundations, as well as the contractor proving unsatisfactory." – A bit awkward. Better might be "Subsidence and foundation cracking related to the marshy ground slowed the work as did problems with the project contractor." Or something like that.
  • ¶1 "The fort was surrounded by a wide water-filled ditch, with a bridge on the west (landward) side providing the only access route." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "A wide water-filled ditch surrounded the fort; a bridge on the west (landward) side provided the only access route."
Second Coalhouse Fort
  • ¶1 "including the victualling yards..." – Link "victualling yards"?
  • ¶3 "Its final phases of construction were supervised by Colonel Charles George Gordon, who was later to die in the Siege of Khartoum." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Colonel Charles George Gordon, who was later to die in the Siege of Khartoum, supervised the final phases of construction."
19th century
  • ¶2 "The guns were controlled from a Battery Commander's Post situated on the roof..." – Delete "situated"?
1920s to 1940s
  • ¶3 "were installed at the fort's gorge..." – Please briefly explain in parentheses what "fort's gorge" refers to, or link to an explanation.
External facilities
  • ¶2 "A corresponding post was located on the Kent shore. A small concrete structure located..." – You could safely delete "located" and "located" without changing the meaning.
Current status
  • ¶ "It was purchased in 1962 by Thurrock Urban District Council (now Thurrock Council), who remain its owners to this day." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Thurrock Urban District Council (now Thurrock Council), the current owners, bought it in 1962."

Support. I made a few small edits but have no further suggestions. It is very comprehensive and well written. Moisejp (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2017 [18].

Illinois Centennial half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the only classic commemorative to show Abraham Lincoln, and the handsome portrait of Lincoln without the beard is worth the four bits. Although they'll run you a bit more than that today ... enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

First read-through:

  • In the lead, possibly you wanted to have the designers in the first paragraph and the design in the second paragraph? But did you think about maybe combining "The obverse was designed by Chief Engraver George T. Morgan; the reverse by his assistant and successor, John R. Sinnock" and "The adopted design features Abraham Lincoln on the obverse, based on the statue by Andrew O'Connor, and an adaptation of the Seal of Illinois on the reverse." There is some overlap there. But it's just an idea.
  • The lead seems possibly a little short. The whole long Legislation section is summarized in one sentence. Would it be worthwhile to find more details to add? Right now I'm just reading through quickly and don't have any immediate suggestions. But I'm sure I could come up with some.
I've played with the lede some to address both concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some details about the design and the text on the coin are repeated in both the Preparation and Design sections. I understand that some of the details are relevant to the design negotiations in the Preparation section, but I wonder if there is any clever way to avoid the repetition.
I've done that. See what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a second, more detailed read-through soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've done those things. I'm grateful for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • "A bill that would accomplish this, H.R. 8742, was introduced into the House of Representatives on January 16, 1918 by that state's Loren E. Wheeler." / "James L. Slayden of Texas asked what the cost to the government would be, but Wheeler did not know." Perhaps make it clearer for the reader that the House of Representatives and "the government" refers to the federal government. If a reader doesn't catch onto this, it may be confusing about costs to the state vs. the country. Moisejp (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. I saw your edit. I'm a bit dubious about "be" instead of "were" but I'll let it sit a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, "be" is what I would naturally use as the subjunctive form with "on condition that". But there may be regional differences vis-a-vis the usage of the subjunctive? If "be" sounds very odd to you, by all means, please revert. I'm almost done my review. There are just a couple of places I want to have a final peek at, probably in the next day or two. Moisejp (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment:

  • "He had been to see Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo and Mint Director Raymond T. Baker. Neither had any objection to the legislation, though McAdoo explained that the problem with commemorative coins was that they did not sell as well as expected, and many were returned to the Mint for melting. Wheeler stated that the coins would be taken by the State Treasurer of Illinois and that there would be no returns. James L. Slayden of Texas asked what the cost to the federal government would be, but Wheeler did not know." It sounds like Wheeler saw McAdoo and Baker previous to going to speak before the committee, and that McAdoo also told him his concern previously. Then it sounds like Slayden spoke at the committee hearing, but it's not clear where the transition is between the interaction previous to the hearing and the interaction at the hearing. Was it at the hearing that Wheeler said there would be no returns? Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super. I'm happy to support now. Moisejp (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon

[edit]

Nice article. Very little to quibble with. Clear prose. Which is all I can talk about.

  • I would make State of Illinois and the Union both links
  • with an amendment, and the bill was considered on May 21, 1918. -> this threw me off a little, as I thought you were not going to describe what the amendment was. I had to read the next sentence before I realised that. So perhaps a little rephrasing would help? Perhaps the "bill was considered on May 21, 1918." bit can come later?
  • to be replaced with E PLURIBUS UNUM -> although a link, it would be good to add a little bit here along the lines of "motto of the .."
  • exceptional specimen -> this makes me curious: what is so special about it?
  • formatting of the references seems impeccable. Something I aspire to :)
  • I will do a spot check of sources later.

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done those things. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I support.Edwininlondon (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Two niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • to aid those in need of aid because of World War I.—close repeat of "aid"
  • many of her sons—I think we have abandoned pseudo-genders for ships, countries etc, perhaps write as a direct quote
I've gotten those. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • refs 1&4 (House hearings) links to the source listing of "United States House of Representatives Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures (1918). Commission to Standardize Screw Threads. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office." - this is an easter egg link - if someone prints out the article/etc they won't be able to figure out what reference citation #1 is pointing to.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I've deleted the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All the images look good. The five images are all public domain and have proper licensing details. The three non-infobox ones have suitable alt text. The two infobox images are required to be over 150% of their 30.61 mm diameter, which they are. Moisejp (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 [19].

The Million Second Quiz

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I present my third attempt at bringing a game show to FA status: The Million Second Quiz. This short-lived series aired over 11 straight days in 2013. Ryan Seacrest of American Idol fame hosted the show, which only lasted for the one season. As always, all feedback is welcome; the show's criticism was largely based on the show's confusing format so please don't hesitate to ask questions. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • About.com should not be in italics in the references. Same goes for The Futon Critic. I would go through the references to make sure what should be in italics is in italics, and what should not be in italics is not italics. For the majority, it looks good, but it is always good to double-check this.
  • Remember to avoid shouting in the reference title (reference titles should not be in all caps even it is presented that way in the source (i.e. Reference 18).
  • I have received this note in previous FACs and even GANs, but make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use.
  • I would expand on the alt text for the Ryan Seacrest image as it does not really illustrate much to the reader (saying the person’s name and occupation and the year does not exactly provide a clear description of the image at hand) if you decide to keep it (see below comment on this).
  • The “the Olympics of quiz” quote in the lead needs a citation.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph in the “Gameplay” section is lacking a citation.
  • I am a little confused by the caption for the studio as it says “original version”. Was there a revised version of the studio, a second version? Are you referencing the set used during non-primetime portions? If so, original to me sounds like this was replaced by something else and I do not believe that was the case here. Some clarification would be helpful.
  • Would it be helpful to break up the “Gameplay” section into one or two more subsections as there is a lot for a reader to take in and some guidance may be helpful (I can understand the criticism against the rules after reading through it). Maybe something for the “Winners’ Row” and “Winner’s Defense” section or something else. This is just a suggestion so feel free to disagree, as I am just trying to think of a way to make this section more approachable rather than a wall of paragraphs of text.
  • It would seem that the image of the hourglass structure would be more appropriate for the “Production” section as that is where the structure is discussed. I know you want to keep the images of the hosts on all of the game show articles for consistency, but I believe the move would be better as I was slightly confused by the positioning of the image in a place where the gameplay is the focus rather than the picture structured, and I do not see how an image of Ryan Seacrest really illustrates anything further to a reader. This could also help with the confusion that I had with the caption possibly.
  • I will leave the decision regarding the Seacrest image to other more experienced users (i.e. FAC reviewers). I still do not see the value of it necessarily, but that is just my personal opinion and I do not want to enforce that on you or the article so I will leave that up to your personal preference and to other people who comment on here. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what happened to the structure after the show’s cancellation?
  • I figured that there would not be much information about this, but I just wanted to make sure. My best bet is that it was disassembled/demolished after the cancellation of the program. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for you note, and wonderful job with this article. You inspire me to work on a game show article in the future (I have a few in mind actually lol). I will leave the discussion regarding the Seacrest image to other users as it would be better to get a more experienced viewpoint on that matter. I will support this for promotion. Good luck with getting this promoted and have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smurrayinchester

[edit]

A nicely written article about a very odd gameshow (almost Touch the Truck levels of odd, in fact). There is however one fairly big gap, I think: there's not much about how the show actually worked when it wasn't being shown live. The description of prime time bouts is quite detailed, but the explanation of off-screen ones is very offhand. Did the quizzes really go on 24 hours a day? How did contestants sleep? Were there "Challenger", "Line Jumper", and "Winner's Defense" bouts outside of prime time? This needs more explanation before I can support. Smurrayinchester 12:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smurrayinchester: Thank you for this; yes, it's quite odd....... Anyway, I don't really have the time to do much research now but I should within a few days or so. I can tell you right away that all the non-prime time bouts were all the same (no Challenger, Winner's Defense, etc) and that several contestants were unhappy with how they were treated and couldn't really get too much sleep (in hindsight, this show was a cool idea but it was horribly executed). Now to find sources for that information... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smurrayinchester: This source seems to have some insider information...would this be an acceptable source for me to use? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcschneider53: My understanding of the sourcing rules is that it's OK if you make clear in the text that it's a primary source and only shows one guy's perspective. So something like "Seth Stevenson, a journalist for Slate, took part in a nighttime slot and described...". It shouldn't be used as a general citation to explain what the show was like, because it's just one guy's perspective. Smurrayinchester 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smurrayinchester: Sounds great. Thanks again. My apologies for being so slow for a seemingly simple task. RL work always comes first...and there has been quite a lot of it recently. Still not sure when I'll have time to do this, but I haven't forgotten! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smurrayinchester: I have done my best to expand the non-primetime part of the gameplay section, and have also added to the Reception section with the Slate article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me. Support Smurrayinchester 07:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

What a weird show! Am reading and I think you've done a good job trying to make sense of the confusing format for the reader. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add a conversion of 500 seconds to minutes to help readers.
Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"out-scores" is one word with no hyphen
Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seacrest then announced that Kravis's winnings would be increased to $2,600,000 - was any reason given?
Because they felt like it. (Actually, they wanted to surpass Jennings' original Jeopardy! total, but still...) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if there was any source material for a legacy/postscript section, either that shows copied it or avoided it as a cautionary tale...or something.

A nice read overall. Within striking distance of FA-hood methinks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Hopefully the first three are amended. I've done some pretty extensive searching so I'm afraid there's not much more I can add, though I can tell you the show's "legacy" (if it even has one) is not very good. But as you said, this show was ridiculously weird, so... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if we have nothing we have nothing. Anyway, I can't see anything else to fix, so support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Will request. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
OK alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mymis
Comments by Mymis
  • "Original network: Webcast (internet)" -> Webcast is not a channel. Should be NBC.com, and Internet is always capitalized.
  • "... day earlier at 7:17 AM EDT" -> Link EDT.
  • Ref 22 needs author, same with 23.
  • Forbes Magazine -> Forbes
  • Engadget has an article
  • What is the source for "Theme music composer" and "Opening theme"?
  • Only three reviews in "Critical reception" section?? And you devote the entire paragraph for each one of them?? What about cutting them by at least half, and add other reviews from, let's say, Variety, Digital Spy, The Hollywood Reporter etc etc etc.

Mymis (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I meant to wikilink Engadget, but you did that already.
  • Oh, ok.
  • Still no source for "Theme music composer".
  • Yes there is. The source is a compilation of facts about Icona Pop, stating that "their song" All Night is the show's theme.
  • Go ahead an trout me for this...I think I fixed it now. My apologies :)
  • "negative reviews from television critics and the public alike," -> you don't discuss the public's reaction anywhere, only television critics' opinion.
  • Removed public note.
  • There is very little about the ratings of the show. Now there is only information about how each episode compares to one another. Were the ratings of the show in general good or bad? How did the ratings compare to other shows of similar format or shows that aired in the same timeslot on other networks etc? Did NBC air any similar game shows afterwards?
  • I will add the timeslot ranks if available.
  • Done, comparable to other shows in its timeslot but not to any other similar game shows that I can think of.

Mymis (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Responded above. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mymis: I believe all has been amended and it is ready for another look-through. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Icona Pop performed the song, it does not mean they wrote it too. In "Opening theme" put ""All Night" by Icona Pop", and then just don't use "Theme music composer" parameter at all.
  • Done
  • In terms of ratings, there is still no indication if the ratings were "good" or "bad". There must be some article that evaluates the ratings. Then you could put "XX described the ratings as XXX".
  • Done with the O'Connell source.

Mymis (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: They say third time's the charm. Is this better? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and Sarastro1: I'm competing in the WikiCup and am borderline on making it to the next round. By my calculations I believe I have 4 supports, and both an image review and a source review have been completed. Are there any outstanding issues that would prevent this from being promoted within the next couple of days? Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2017 [20].

Mother's Day (Rugrats)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. This article is on the Mother’s Day special from the animated television series Rugrats, which aired on May 6, 1997. In the episode, it revolves around the holiday from the Rugrats' perspective. It is revealed that Chuckie Finster’s mother had died of a terminal illness shortly after his birth.

The production history was relatively recently brought up through a 2016 interview with the series co-creator Paul Germain. According to Germain, Chuckie’s mother was originally absent from the first season to avoid the work required to animate a new character. When the character’s absence became more noticeable as the series progressed, Germain and fellow co-creator Arlene Klasky developed pitches for storylines on the mother’s death or her divorce from Chuckie’s father Chaz. While Nickelodeon executives rejected their idea as too dark and mature for the audience, the idea was eventually developed into an episode. “Mother’s Day” received a positive reception for the treatment of the subject matter, especially from retrospective reviews. Media commentators also highlighted the positive representation of breastfeeding in the episode and Chuckie’s perception of his father as the perfect mother.

I recently created this article and had it promoted following a very helpful review. I greatly enjoyed this episode when I first watched it as a child, and I still greatly enjoy it now. I had a lot of fun creating this article, and I was inspired by "A Rugrats Passover" and "A Rugrats Chanukah" to create and work on this. This is my third FAC for an article on a television episode, with my other two being successful FACs for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" and "Faces" (Star Trek: Voyager). I believe that it satisifies all of the parts of the FAC criterea. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this nomination. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from fourthords

[edit]
Resolved comments from fourthords | =Λ= |

I figure the third time's the charm. In August, Aoba47 asked me to provide input on their FAC for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?". I said I would, and I did not. Then, despite being a fanatical Trekkie, when Aoba47 asked WT:TREK to provide input on "Faces" in April, I failed then too. So here I am! I've never commented on an FAC before, and don't really know what I'm doing, but here it goes!

  • "telling the Rugrats that the meaning of the holiday."

    I'm assuming this is supposed to be either "telling the Rugrats the meaning of the holiday." (though "explaining to the Rugrats…" would be better, I think) or "telling the Rugrats that the meaning of the holiday is SOMETHING PERTINENT."

    I can't believe I read over that one lol. I have changed it according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 23-minute, 46-second episode[4] was written by: Jon Cooksey, Ali Marie Matheson, J. David Stem, David N. Weiss, Susan Hood, and Ed Resto."

    This is a perfectly cromulent sentence without the colon; is it performing a function I don't otherwise understand?

    I think that the colon was put in to introduce the list of the writers, but I agree that it is not necessary and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, actually that's all I have. Reads as a great article! I'll keep an eye out here and there to see what Aoba47 says about my questions, but based on my observations of this contributor, I don't foresee any reasons not to support its promotion. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourthords: Thank you for your comments! It is always cool to meet another Trekkie. One of these days, we will have to a Trek discussion lol. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do. I look forward to working with you further in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks great to me! I heartily endorse promotion of this article as featured. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

[edit]

This was a very interesting read, and is incredibly well written. I believe this is among the best articles on a television episode on Wikipedia I've ever read, so I'm going to say that I support this article's promotion. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

This only seems to have gotten better since passing for GA. Just two things:

  • With regards to prior mentions of Chuckie's mother, there's also the episode "My Friend Barney", where Chaz states "You know Chuckie, your mother never liked this fish much, but hey, I guess now we can put it back up in the dining room" after the Rugrats find his fish on a board, clearly indicating she's no longer in the house at that point (but of course doesn't state or even suggest anything about death). Given the other episodes listed that include minor mentions of her, I'd say this is also worth including.
  • Thank you for pointing this out! I added into the article (I made a redirect for the episode "My Friend Barney" so I could link it to keep it consistent with the other two episodes in the sentence). Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If at all possible, I'd see what offline magazines/newspapers discuss the episode (even if just briefly) in a similar vein to what the Chanukah and Passover episodes include.
  • I have tried again to look for offline magazines/newspapers/other resources, and I unfortunately could not find anything new. I am assuming that the Chanukah and Passover episodes given the content as I do not believe many children shows as this time were discussing Jewish themes, especially that overtly. I am pretty sure that I have a majority if not all of the usable sources that discuss this particular episode. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's overall a splendid article. You definitely have my applause. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your comments and for your kind words. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be improved with the article. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You now have my support. As for images, File:Kim Catrall Meet Monica Velour 1.jpg is also appropriately licensed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]
Resolved comments from Midnightblueowl
  • "with her mom Minka and Stu Pickles and Betty DeVille" - it reads a little like Stu Pickles and Betty are planning the event with the mom. Maybe a comma could make clear that we are dealing with two separate plotlines here? Or the "and" could become a "while". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Writing A Children's Special or Series" - given that the "or" is not capitalised, I would expect the "A" to be lower case too. This issue appears in both the lede and the "Critical response" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Aoba47. I now feel confident that I can support this article as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Every source appears to be reliable and all are reliable. I think the article passes. Still, the last reference lacks the page number. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gen. Quon

[edit]
Resolved comments from Gen. Quon (Talk)
  • Quotation marks within quotation marks should be single instead of double (e.g. reference 2).
  • Thank you for the note. I have fixed reference 2. I did not see any other cases of this in the article, but please direct my knowledge to anything that I overlooked. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Germain said that he was disappointed about being unable to cover the topic during his time on the series." Perhaps mention that he had left prior to this sentence?
  • Perhaps include voice actor info? Who voices whom?
  • That is a really good question. I primarily used "A Rugrats Chanukah" as a template (and it was actually my main inspiration for creating this article in the first place). That particular article did not include the voice actor info (either in the Plot section or as a separate section). I would imagine that the information on voice actors would only brought up if something about them was particularly notable in the episode itself (such as Cattrall's appearance in this episode). Let me know if that makes any sense as I am more than open to hear suggestions about this, as it is something that I completely overlooked/didn't think about when making and expanding this article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the sentence "Kim Cattrall provided the voice for Chuckie's mother, Melinda Finster" fits better as the a capper to the first paragraph in "Production". Also, is there any more about her role?
  • Moved the sentence down. Unfortunately, I cannot find much more information on her role in the series, other than media outlets being surprised that an actor who really became famous in Sex and the City was in an episode of Rugrats. It would be really cool if someone interviewed her about this role one day to get her side of things (I doubt it though). Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think the second sentence of the second paragraph in "Production" should read: "The studio also vetoed a reveal that the mother was dead, contending that such an idea would be "scary" and that "children [would not] want to see that." Also, I've always been taught that direct quotes require immediate citation, even if it's the following source.
  • "...in the episodes 'Real or Robots?', 'Chuckie vs. the Potty', and 'My Friend Barney'" Perhaps add the years that these aired in parentheses after each (like you did in "Broadcast history and release")?
  • I feel like the sentence "Even though the episode portrays Chuckie's mother as having died from a terminal illness, the word "dead" was never used by any of the characters" is sort of oddly stuck into that last paragraph in "Production"
  • Good point. I moved it up to the part with the network executives' concerns as they somewhat deal with the same topic. Let me know if this requires further revisions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Ref 32 should be formatted "Drescher, Glazer, Crespi & Schwartz (2013)", as I believe the excess ampersands are unnecessary.
As you can perhaps tell, most of my comments are suggests and things that I think might need changing, but aren't killers. This is a pretty solid article, and I hadn't thought about this episode in a long time (I remember watching it on TV many years ago).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

[edit]
Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak
  • fourth season of the American animated → "the" can be removed here
  • the show's sixty-seventh overall → numbers above 10 should not be spelled out (67th)
  • revolves around the holiday from the Rugrats' perspective. The Rugrats attempt to → you can link these two sentences (perspective, attempting to... for example)
  • Chuckie Finster the perfect mother → what do you mean here?
  • The episode focuses on the characters' attempts to find Chuckie a mother figure as he does not have one (i.e. his mother died prior to the events in this episode). Hope that clears it up. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Susan Hood, and Ed Resto → no comma here
  • release Rugrats: Mommy Mania, and was later → no comma
  • Amazon Video, and Hulu → no comma
  • Writing a Children's Special or Series, and was also → no comma here
  • box of his wife's belongings because he fears → replace "because" with "as", as it's more of a FA level
  • Chuckie will find it → Chuckie would find it
  • Chuckie will find it. Chaz does not feel he is ready to talk to Chuckie about his mother. While helping the other babies look for the perfect gifts for their mothers, Chuckie feels uncertain about how he should celebrate Mother's Day. Tommy Pickles and twins Phil and Lil share their favorite memories of their mothers with Chuckie. → 4 times "Chuckie" in these 4 sentences, please alternate
  • The babies hatch a plan to find Chuckie a new mother → this sentence is very short; can you link it with the next one?
  • to decorate her sculpture. He is unable to collect it → to decorate her sculpture, with him unable to collect it
  • a journal of pressed flowers, and a photograph → no comma
  • Chuckie gives Chaz the picture of his mother as a Mother's Day present. Chaz decides to talk to Chuckie → the word repetition here does not read well
  • to talk to Chuckie about his mother. He tells Chuckie that his mother died → to talk to Chuckie about his mother, telling him that she had died
  • 23-minute, 46-second → 23-minute and 46-second
  • J. David Stem, and David N. Weiss → no comma
  • "Chuckie vs. the Potty" (1992), and "My Friend Barney" (1993) → no comma
  • At this time, Nickelodeon → At that time, Nickelodeon
  • on May 6, 1997, on Nickelodeon → no comma
  • The Los Angeles Times' → Remove "The"
  • "A Rugrats Passover" (1993), and "Rugrats: The Santa Experience" (1996). → no coma
  • like "Mother's Day," → including "Mother's Day,"
  • The releases were distributed by Viacom.[5] → The sentence is kind of short; can you link it with another one?
  • It is also available on streaming video on demand services → use "released" here to avoid word repetition
  • nominated for Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program → add "the" before "Primetime..."
  • Jon Cooksey, Ali Marie Matheson, J. David Stem, and David N. Weiss → remove last comma + haven't you mentioned all these people before with full names?
  • Nickelodeon's potential to a cover serious subject → Nickelodeon's potential to cover a serious subject
  • agreed with Anderson's sentiment → "agreed" is wrong here because it implies they met each other and discussed together on that matter; try somehing like "echoed Anderson's sentiment"
  • the show's third, fourth, and fifth seasons → no comma
  • and included in a list → with him including it in a list (word repetition)
  • Lee Crespi, and David Schwartz → no comma
  • that his father is his mother → that his father was his mother
  • Maybe you should add a image of that breastfeeding scene as it was so critically commended
  • I do not particularly think that this would be helpful, especially since the scene was discussed by only two critics so I do not want to give it undue weight. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: These are my comments! Excellent job with the article; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have either addressed them in the article or provided my reasoning for disagreeing with a few. Just for clarity, I use the Oxford comma throughout my writing so I prefer to keep the comma in the list of three or more items. Please let me know if there is any thing else I can do to improve the article. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me as well. Great job with the article; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise

[edit]

Plot:

  • I got lost here, and a little bit in the lead, because it wasn't clear to me what everyone's relationships are, and which characters are kids or adults. I also didn't realize until "The babies hatch a plan to find Chuckie a new mother" that some of the characters were babies. Would it be possible to clarify these things more?
  • "Angelica tasks Chuckie to pick a dandelion to decorate her sculpture. He is unable to collect it after being chased by a bee and Stu's malfunctioning Mother's Day invention." Is it a specific dandelion, or any dandelion? I also wasn't sure whether "collect" is the most appropriate word. Moisejp (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) "Betty DeVille and Stu Pickles work on an invention to help mothers" / "He is unable to collect it after being chased by a bee and Stu's malfunctioning Mother's Day invention" / "Meanwhile, Stu's invention vacuums up mud and explodes inside the house." The text kind of skirts around what type of invention it is a couple of times before finally revealing that it is a vacuum-like machine. Moisejp (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, and thank you for bringing it up as I kept reading over that part. I have tried to work it out, but let me know there needs to be more clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production:

  • "Kim Cattrall has a guest role as Chuckie Finster's mother Melinda in the episode." Is there a flashback or something with her during the episode? There's no mention of it in the Plot section. Also, it's only an idea, but would just after "The development of the Rugrats Mother's Day television special was announced on December 7, 1996" be a better place for the sentence? See what you think. It feels a little out of place to me in its current position. Moisejp (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a bit to the Plot section about this.

Broadcast history and release:

  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate your feedback as it helped to improve the article a great deal. If there is anything else that needs improvement, please let me know. I hope you have a wonderful day, and I look forward to working with you more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot (pt. 2):

  • "Angelica orders the babies to stay in the closet after Chuckie breaks her macaroni head. While the babies console Chuckie, he realizes that his dad meets all the requirements of a good mother. The babies open Chaz's box, finding a spade, a journal of pressed flowers, and a photograph of Chuckie's mother." Who specifically are the babies here? (Chuckie, Tommy, Phil, and Lil?) From her wikipedia page, I thought Angelica was also a toddler/baby. Moisejp (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for bringing this point up. I would actually not put Chuckie, Tommy, Phil, and Lil and Angelica in the same category. Angelica is shown as a year old. She is characterized as knowledgeable about more things (she already knows about Mother's Day from the start of the episode) and she can communicate with both the babies and adults. I would actually call Chuckie, Tommy, Phil, and Lil babies rather than toddlers, as I feel that is a better descriptor for them as they are directly referenced as babies on the show. Hopefully that makes so sense. Aoba47 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Lead and Plot): "Released as a Mother's Day special, it revolves around the holiday from the perspective of a group of toddlers—Tommy Pickles, Chuckie Finster, Phil and Lil Deville, and Angelica Pickles. They attempt to find Chuckie the perfect mother..." / "Angelica orders the babies to stay in the closet after Chuckie breaks her macaroni head. While the babies console Chuckie, he realizes that his dad meets all the requirements of a good mother." In both these instances Chuckie first seems to be included in the group of toddlers/babies, and then not included ("They attempt to find Chuckie the perfect mother "—or is he also involved in the searching?—and "the babies console Chuckie").
  • Throughout the article, it might be good to mix up the use of "toddlers" and "babies" more to show clearly they're being used as synonyms (I know, I also added a couple of instances of "toddler", before I noticed there were three instances of "babies" in a row in the Plot section). Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I referenced Tommy, Chuckie, Phil, and Lil as babies and Angelica as a toddler as they are characterized differently from one another on the show, but I would be more than happy to look at it again. I think it might actually be more beneficial to separate them out like this to clarify things in the plot, such as why Angelica is shown as being in opposition or separate from the rest of the characters for instance as she is older. Thank you again, and I look forward to your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and Plot sections mostly look good now. The only thing I noticed was that sometimes the invention is referred to as Stu's and sometimes Betty and Stu's. In the Production section I still medium-strongly feel the sentence "Kim Cattrall provided the voice for Chuckie's mother, Melinda Finster" would be better if moved; you didn't comment on that and I wasn't sure if you saw that suggestion. I will continue my review ASAP. Moisejp (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Moisejp: Thank you for reminding me to move the sentence about Kim Cattrall. For some reason, I completely read over that part. I have moved the sentence, and I agree that it works better this way. I have also attempted to fix everything so the invention is better described as being Stu's with Betty as more of a helper (as she is only shown to be helping Stu in one particular scene). Hope this helps. I look forward to the rest of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response:

  • "Rugrats was nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program for the 49th Primetime Emmy Awards, after submitting the special for consideration,[5] but lost to The Simpsons." Here "after submitting the special for consideration" needs a subject. Was it the network that submitted it?

I'm almost done my review. I'd just like to do one more read-through of the article to see whether anything else jumps out at me. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your patience and your time during this review. I greatly appreciate all of your comments. I believe that it was the network that choose and submitted the episode so I made the adjustments in the lead and "Critical response" subsection. I hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an earlier version in the Plot section you had the line "While the babies console Chuckie, he realizes that his dad meets all the requirements of a good mother." Without this line, the bit at the end about "In their essay "What Is a Mother? Gay and Lesbian Perspectives on Parenting", scholars Jack Drescher, Deborah F. Glazer, Lee Crespi, and David Schwartz analyzed "Mother's Day" as an extension of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott's theories on early childhood. They highlighted Chuckie's realization that his father is his mother as "a moment of postmodern insight" that expands the definition of motherhood" is less clear. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to review this. I have added in the sentence that you mentioned above. I am not sure how it got lost in the shuffle. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mymis

[edit]
  • ""Mother's Day" was nominated for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program for the 49th Primetime Emmy Awards" -> The episode itself was not nominated, the show was, wasn't it? Emmy article says: "Each series is allowed to submit one episode and a special". Maybe the sentence could be slightly paraphrased?
  • Thank you for pointing this out. This is something that I actually just noticed when looking through the article today. I have revised, but let me know if further work is needed here. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kristy Anderson placed it... -> just Anderson because you mentioned the person already.
  • "Chuckie's mother" is mentioned seven times in "Production" section. Some may be changed? With "the character" or something like that.
  • "on the iTunes Store, Amazon Video, and Hulu" in intro -> is it necessary to mention these specific websites in the introduction?
  • "Primetime Emmy Award" is repeated twice in one sentence in the introduction.
  • genre is usually linked "Animated series" in this case.

Mymis (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

[edit]
  • "Kim Cattrall has a guest role as Chuckie Finster's mother Melinda in the episode." --> This is the photo caption for Ms. Cattrall; 'Melinda' should be surrounded by commas because there is no need for additional distinction – he has only had one mom so there is no other one to be confused over
  • In Reference #4, I think you should clarify that is the US iTunes Store, so perhaps "iTunes Store (US)" in the publisher field would suffice
  • I'm not sure how reliable Reference #31 is, but perhaps it is – IDK?
  • That is a good point, and I would be more than happy to hear others' opinions on its acceptability. I included it as the articles appear to go through a team of editors as shown in this page here, but let me know what you think about this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm just late to the party, but why are there not any access dates for the sources?
  • I was advised that when references are archived that the archive dates replace access dates to avoid making the reference section too long with three separate dates. The access dates are only really there in case a link goes dead, then it gives a reference point to when you could possibly find it through a website archive. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbrera (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Support from IndianBio

[edit]

I did some minor MOS related changes here, but I don't see any outstanding issues here and it was a very good read, thorough research. I can gladly support this article for a featured promotion. —IB [ Poke ] 07:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2017 [21].

Inaccessible Island rail

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:BIRD nomination and another esoteric small rail (we do so love them on the project). Hopefully you'll enjoy the story of its discovery, and the variety of images we're grateful people have released on Wikipedia friendly licences or such a hard to see species. Just passed WP:GAN. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Riley

[edit]

As always, some quick comments and if I stop the review and all comments of mine are either done or have an explanation as to why they are not done, feel free to disregard this or count this as a weak support.

  • Maybe change the section entitled "Discovery and description" to something else, as a normal reader would think that you will include the actual description (plumage, voice, etc.) in that section.
I thought about that during the development of the article but decided it was fine. I've changed it now... Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in the Evolution and taxonomy section, "Prior to its collection it had been assumed by Thomson that the species was close to the other 'island hens' known in the Atlantic, possibly a gallinule, but on examination Lowe felt 'compelled to refer it to a new genus'. The generic name Atlantisia was named for the fabled island of Atlantis, destroyed by volcano. The specific name rogersi honours the Rev. Rogers who collected and sent the first specimens of the species to Lowe," feels like it would do better in the section above it. And honestly, one should likely just make the section above "Discovery" and then merge the description part of it with the taxonomy section.
It originally was up there but as it was taking about its placement in the rail family I felt t was better here and I stand by that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Looks good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of saying "destroyed by a volcano" in the sentence "The generic name Atlantisia was named for the fabled island of Atlantis, destroyed by volcano," it might be better to say "supposedly destroyed by a volcano", as the current sentence implies that it was in fact destroyed by a volcano, and in fact did exist.
I've changed the fabled island to mythical island which should make it explicit that it didn't exist. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the fact that there is an implied contradicting statement in "destroyed by volcano". Also, you might want to add "a" before volcano. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the preceding words stating that the words to those make it explicit that this is mythical. An event happening to a mythical place is itself obviously legendary. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now, I will return with more later. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC) And more:[reply]

That's fine. It is pretty easy, just create the page User:Sabine's Sunbird/common.js and then paste the script (you can view how I have it on my page) on the page. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Smurrayinchester

[edit]

Saw the title, thought it was the world's most pointless transport system. Good article - congratulations getting pictures of such literally inaccessible birds. A few comments:

  • @WolfmanSF and Smurrayinchester: I'm impressed that you saw thought of it and managed to find a reference. Full disclosure, I spent 5 years on a (failed) PhD examining among other things the effects of isolation on insular birds... In the time that I saw this and me getting back from work WolfmanSF added the text. That was nice, but I'm going to remove it and I don't think it should be the article (I'll transcribe this to the talk page of the article too). My reasoning is thus:
  • Foster's rule is generally applied to closely related taxa. You'd say make a comparison between members of the same genus or closely related genera. This makes sense, as animals exhibit ranges of sizes so one best describes a species unusual size in relation to closely related species (Is an aardvark a giant or a dwarf? Who knows?). This species is monotypic and its closest relatives are uncertain and considerable time has passed since it diverged from them so in that regards the application of Foster's rule to this species is problematic.
  • With regards to its closest relatives as currently understood, the genus Laterallus is itself tiny and mouselike. The black rail and Junin crake are comparable in size if not slightly smaller, and the other members of the genus are around the same size or very slightly larger. So if the species is roughly the same size as their relatives, how can they be a good example of insular dwarfism? I would guess that the suggestion that they are an example of insular dwarfs is based on an earlier taxonomy?
  • Finally, Foster's rule would suggest that small species get larger on islands, not smaller. This obviously didn't happen either.
  • I don't think it's worth even including it as a "it has been suggested that it is an example of". I don't wish to disparage the book, but in the context of this species the book is not a reliable source (even if it's otherwise good). Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the genus Mundia was erected" - Are genuses really "erected"? (If that's a standard term, ignore this).
  • "and a red eye." - "red eyes"? (If it's normal to refer to the eyes in the singular, ignore this too)
  • "The Inaccessible Island rail is territorial, although given the high densities of the birds the boundaries may be loose and flexible." This doesn't make sense to me, and it seems to be contradicted a couple of sentences later by the claim that the birds frequently confront each other about boundaries.
  • " The scientists responsible for the study speculated that the low BMR was not as a result of flightlessness, as flightlessness does not result in this in other bird species, [...] A comparison of flighted and flightless rails, including the Inaccessible Island rail, found that rails that lose the ability to fly also have low BMRs" - Seems to contradict itself?
  • "The foraging method used by the Inaccessible Island rail is slow and deliberate and has been compared to that of a mouse. In fact the species has actually been compared ecologically to a mouse as well." This would probably would work better as a single sentence, and a link to ecological niche might help explain what "compared ecologically" actually means.
Looks good! Questions have been answered, so Support. Smurrayinchester 08:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support comments from JC

[edit]

I agree, it's remarkable that we have so many high-quality photos of this very "inaccessible" bird (I wouldn't complain if you removed File:Atlantisia rogersi russ.jpg given the extremely low resolution of that image compared to all the others, but I won't insist upon it). I'll read through and list any comments or questions as I go along...

  • By 1955 it was accepted that it was the descendent of flying ancestors that had reached Inaccessible Island a long time ago – the writing is generally clear and engaging, but this took me a couple passes to parse properly. Is there any way to reword, or at least tighten, it? Also, according to wikt:descendant#Usage notes, it should be spelled "descendant" with an a in this case.
  • The most recent study to include the genus, in 1998, compared the morphology of the rails and other Gruiformes placed it in the crake clade, subtribe Crecina. – Seems like there's a missing connecting word here.
  • Males are larger and weigh more than females – "and weigh more than" → "and heavier than"?
  • was not as a result of flightlessness, as flightlessness does not result in this in other bird species – A little clunky. I'd suggest "was not as a result of flightlessness, which does not have this effect in other bird species".
  • at all altitudes, from 449 m (1,473 ft). – I'm not sure what is meant here.
  • "tussock-grass" is sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not. Is this deliberate?
  • I think it would be useful to mention the size/area of Inaccessible Island so we get the full context.
  • but has not been found in the short dry grasses on the cinder cones (but the scientists making the observations cautioned that this does not mean that they never use the habitat). – Try to avoid the recursive "but".
  • The territories in the tussock-grass habitats around Blenden Hall [...] extending to 0.01–0.04 ha (0.025–0.099 acres). – Should this just be "extend"?
  • encounters between families and individuals frequent and encounters and territorial calling are common. – Nothing wrong here, but it might be nice to avoid three uses of "and" so close together.
  • On meeting confrontations – I believe a comma is needed here for clarity.
  • an introduced species of centipede forms an important part of their diet. – Do we know which one?
  • by this Tristan da Cunha Island Council in 1994 – "this" → "the"?

I think that's about it. Overall, a very interesting and informative article. The writing is generally sound, but I got tripped up in a few places as described above. Once these points are addressed, I'll be happy to support. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

I'm happy to support, just a couple of niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • pro-Rallus?— I'd have expected proto-Rallus; please strike this comment if the source says pro-Rallus
  • The sentence beginning The Ascension crake (Mundia elpenor)... seems a little convoluted, I had to read it twice
  • 0.01–0.04 ha (0.025–0.099 acres) conversion to hundredths of an acre seems over-precise

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • current ref 12's (Taylor and Sharp) formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the references - I assume this is a journal article or article in a book collection?
  • It had done it that way because the citation template is obnoxious about displaying editors if there is more than one author on web pages. I have simply eliminated the editors, which isn't ideal but what can you do? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - seems I'm a bit late for the game, so I'll do the image review. All the sourcing and licensing looks good, but this image[22] has a pretty strange double infobox template, which could be merged into one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Calls:

  • "They also make a variety of calls while incubating, including trilling calls and particularly when pairs swapped placed during incubation." I think there may be a grammar mistake or missing or extra word in the second half of this sentence, as I couldn't quite follow what it is supposed to mean. Moisejp (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morphology:

  • "Males are larger and heavier than females, weighing 35–49 g (1.2–1.7 oz) (average 40.5 g (1.43 oz)), compared to 34–42 g (1.2–1.5 oz) (average 37 g (1.3 oz)) in females." Having two sets of opened and closed parentheses directly side by side feels a little bit awkward. Possibly dashes or commas could be used somewhere in there to substitute for some of the parentheses? But if that doesn't work, or if the side-by-side parentheses really don't bother you at all, then no worries.

Breeding:

  • "The nests are domed and oval or pear shaped, with the entrances near the narrow end of the nest. From the entrance of the nest an entrance track or tunnel can go up to half a metre from the nest. The nests are typically built entirely of the same material the nest is found in; for example tussock leaves or sedges. Where tussock leaves are used larger leaves are used on the outside and finer leaves are used to line the nest." There is a really a lot of repetition of words in these four sentences, especially the words "nest", "entrance", "leaves", and "used". If possible, it would be nice to reduce the repetition at least a little, perhaps by restructuring the sentences, and/or using pronouns or synonyms. The final sentence is where I would most strongly urge you to try to do something, although the other sentences could be touched as well.

Those are all of my comments, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sabine's Sunbird. I'm now happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2017 [23].

Isabelle Eberhardt

[edit]
Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an incredibly unique woman. Eberhardt challenged both gender and racial norms, explored extensively, spoke five language fluently, survived an assassination attempt and became a successful writer before a tragic death in 1904 at the age of 27. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose:, @Sarastro1: This review has four votes of support, a source check and an image review. Is there anything else you'd like me to address? Sorry to be impatient but I'm confident this article meets all the criteria and I've got another article I'm keen to nominate here. Freikorp (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Isabelle_Eberhardt.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
I've no idea when this was first published. It was the only image already in this Wikipedia article before I started working on it. See my last comment below regarding author death.
  • File:IsEberhardt.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Done (regarding tag). See my comments below regarding author death.
The image of Slimane Ehni is the only one I uploaded. As per the details at the file, I got it from a book published in 1968. The author met with people who knew Isabelle in order to write the book; I assume he got it from one of them. To the best of my knowledge, this is where it was first published, though I can't prove this.
@Nikkimaria: As for all the images in regards to the author being dead for 70 years: I can't explicitly prove the authors died more than 70 years since we don't know who the author is. That being said the images were taken at the very latest in 1897, 1904 and 1907 respectively, but in all three cases probably several years prior to that. The average life expectancy in the year 1900 was 31. Personally I think it's a reasonable assumption the authors died before 1947 (70 years ago), but as no author is given for any image this cannot be explicitly proven. If this is an issue, I'm happy to delete all the images and upload the infobox one again under fair-use, which I'm sure would be justifiable since the subject has been dead for 113 years. Let me know what the best course of action is considering the circumstances. Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion on Commons. If we don't have a confirmed pre-1923 publication date, and/or a confirmed author date of death, absent another rationale it would seem we can't use any of the three as PD. An upload under {{non-free biog-pic}} would likely be justifiable. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all 3 commons photos. Re-uploaded infobox image under fair use. Freikorp (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've since discovered the infobox image was taken by a photographer named Louis David in 1895, but I can't find any information about when he died. Freikorp (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems there are many interesting images that could be used which have been removed, which seems a shame. If they were first published before 1923, they could be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as PD-US, though not Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

This is an interesting article about an interesting woman. I have a few comments and questions, below. Most are minor, but in some cases I yearn for more detail or clarification. Sources may or may not be available to answer all of my questions, but I thought other readers would be curious about the same things.
Lede
  • ¶1 "Eberhardt, educated in Switzerland by her father, published short stories under a male pseudonym as a teenager." - Slightly smoother would be "As a teenager, Eberhardt, educated in Switzerland by her father, published short stories under a male pseudonym."
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • ¶1 "made her an outcast by European settlers" - "to" rather than "by"?
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • ¶2 "She was accepted by the Qadiriyya, an Islamic order, which convinced the French administration that she was a spy or an agitator." – Since the Islamic order didn't convince the French, maybe re-wording to "Her acceptance by the Qadiriyya, an Islamic order, convinced the French administration that she was a spy or an agitator."
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • ¶2 "In 1901 she was ordered to leave Algeria by the French administration, but was allowed... "– Flip to active voice as in "In 1901 the French administration ordered her to leave Algeria, but she was allowed..."?
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • ¶3 "Eberhardt had been in possession of several manuscripts..." – Better make clear that she wrote these. Maybe "Eberhardt's poss<essions included several of her unpublished manuscripts...".
Another editor has taken it upon themselves to reword this (see here). Let me know if you think this isn't an improvement or if you still think it could be better. Freikorp (talk)
Yes. That's better. I added one more clarifying word. Please revert or alter if you disagree. Finetooth (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and family background
  • ¶2 "de Moerder accepted the son as his own" – "Accepted" in what sense? A legal sense? In writing?
Clarified that he gave the child his last name, hopefully this clears up any confusion. Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "was registered as Nathalie's illegitimate daughter to avoid acknowledging Trophimowsky's paternity" – Why was it important to avoid acknowledging Trophimowsky's paternity? The reason for the lie is unclear to me.
I have no idea. This is what the article looked like before I overhauled it: [24] That line was one of the few things I kept, and I can't read the source since it's a PDF in German. I've deleted this, and expanded the paragraph with additional info on the overall subject of paternity.
  • "... speculated that Eberhardt's biological father was the poet Arthur Rimbaud, who was in Switzerland at the time. Other historians consider this unlikely, also citing Nathalie and Trophimovsky rarely being apart, Isabelle's birth not impacting negatively on their relationship, and that fact Eberhardt was also Trophimovsky's favorite child as evidence he was her father." - Unfortunately, this creates more questions than answers. It was not clear to me until I read the Choutien biographical essay that you cite that Nathalie and Trophimowsky emigrated from Russia nor was it clear that Nathalie was a member of the Russian aristocracy. Knowing the latter perhaps helps makes sense of the Arthur Rimbaud speculation since Rimbaud's presence in Geneva at the same time as Nathalie would otherwise make her no more likely to meet him than any other man who happened to be in Geneva. There seem to be important contextual things like this that are missing from the article. (This is a more minor point, but you have spelled Trophimowsky as Trophimovsky in this sentence. I don't know which is correct. The sentence has other errors as well; e.g., "that fact Eberhardt was also". Finetooth (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar error corrected. Spelling made consistent. Different sources spell it differently; It's probably an issue with translation - I'm guessing either could be considered correct. Working on other issues now. Freikorp (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off to work now; back in several hours. I've tried to do the best job addressing this issue that I can right now, let me know if you think it needs more work. Freikorp (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "were forbidden to learn anything not approved by him" – Such as? What sorts of things would Trophimowsky want to keep his daughter from considering? I ask partly because of the conflict between "well-educated" and "forbidden to learn".
I don't know. The source reads "He forbade them any schooling except that which was filtered through his own violently personal prejudices. Isabelle learned six languages (...) philosophy, metaphysics and chemistry were thrown in as makeweights." I'm happy to just cut the statement about forbidding non-approved education if you like. Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More would be better than less, but if no reliable source exists for this missing information, I'd leave out "were forbidden to learn anything not approved by him". His biases are partly apparent from your description of him, and children who have only one teacher and no other significant input will have an unusually filtered view of the world. Finetooth (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed for the time being. I'll add it back with more detail if I find a more detailed source. Freikorp (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to North Africa
  • ¶1 "Nouvelle Revue Moderne" – This journal appears in the last paragraph of the preceding section as La Nouvelle Revue Moderne. Which is correct?
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • ¶2 "Eberhardt travelled to Bône with her mother in May 1897." – Was this meant to be a temporary excursion, or did the two intend to stay permanently? Does the trip imply a split with Trophimowsky?
I've clarified that they reolcated there rather than traveleld, and I've also added information about her mother's split with Trophimowsky to the eralier section. Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "disapproved of the amount of time Eberhardt and her mother spent with Arabic people" – Why not "Arabs" rather than "Arabic people"?
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • ¶2 "Eberhardt and her mother converted to Islam, and she published stories in the local French newspapers." – Are the two halves of this sentence connected logically? Were the stories about Islam?
No, they're not connected. I've separated them into two separate sentences. Freikorp (talk)
I can't find overly specific information on timing, though I have found the name of a novel she started writing at the time and the name of a story that was published. Freikorp (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "Her mother died on 28 November 1897" – What did she die of? Did she know she was ill when she left Europe for Africa?
I found a source that says it was a heart attack and have added this accordingly. My existing source doesn't mention the cause of death, though states she "had been ailing for some time", without giving any further indication of the time frame. Freikorp (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Travels to Europe
  • ¶2 "However, Eberhardt met the widow of Marquis de Morès." – Maybe "While in Paris," rather than "However,"?
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • ¶3 "This ostracised Eberhardt from the French authorities..." – "This ostracised Eberhardt from" doesn't seem right. How about "This alienated Eberhardt from"?
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • ¶4 "...the French inexplicably ordered her to leave North Africa..." – Why "inexplicably"? The expulsion seems to follow naturally, given the French concerns about her.
 Done. Freikorp (talk)
Legacy
  • ¶1 "Eberhardt had a number of manuscripts when she died." – To avoid confusion, maybe "Eberhardt's estate at the time of her death included several of her unpublished manuscripts."
I'm not sure if 'estate' is the right term; it strikes me as too formal. I mean, we're talking about a handful of possessions in a destroyed rented mud hut. She had no property to speak of. Do you think there's a better term or do you think that is the most appropriate? Freikorp (talk)
On reflection, I think "possessions" would be better than "estate", which, as you say, is too formal. Finetooth (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Freikorp (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Finetooth. I've addressed most of your concerns and will hopefully get to the remaining ones soon. Freikorp (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so far. Just a friendly heads-up: those "done" image templates slow down the page loading. A similar  Done. text template is better. Finetooth (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid confusion about who said what, adding them on the line below my comments, and adding your signature would be better as well. Finetooth (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed images to text templates and retroactively added non-date signatures to previous replies. Freikorp (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Finetooth: I've attempted to address everything. Let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All look fine now. A most interesting article. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Ref 9 (Review by Eve) is not formatted consistently with the other refs - the author isn't first, date's not after author, etc. See ref 47 & 48
  • Ref 44 (Bayer) should have the same bibliographic information as the refs in the bibliography
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors.
  • Earwig's tool shows a couple of spots of concern that should probably be looked at and corrected.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Thanks so much for your review. I've fixed the reference issues, and I've gotten the copyright violations from that one source down by over 20%. Most of what seems to be matching now is the titles from her books, as that particular source contains her full bibliography, as does the Wikipedia article. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do. Freikorp (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was mostly the titles, but better to point out and do some tweaks than have a mob come after you if it's on the main page....Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work with this article. As with what was said at the peer review, I think this article meets the FA criteria on prose. I couldn't find any issues with it at all. Well done! JAGUAR  11:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Bluesphere

Definitely an interesting read. There is, however, a wee bit typo in the Early life and family background: Aroundy 1872 Nathalie gave birth to Augustin;... Also, probably best if you could just use the {{sic}} template instead of enclosing it with box brackets on this sentence clause found under Move to North Africa: In 1895 she published "Vision du Moghreb" [sic] (English: Vision of the Maghreb). Other than that, the nominator did a fine job with this article, so I give him my Support. Bluesphere 06:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. A very fascinating read. I made a few mini-edits but did not see anything else needing changing. Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2017 [25].

Name-letter effect

[edit]
Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an interesting effect from psychology: it turns out that people tend to, unknowingly, prefer letters from their own name. I have documented the origin and current state of research into the effect, as well as the research into wider implications into real life, e.g., Does St. Louis have a disproportional number of residents called Louis? Do baseball players with a 'K' in their name strike out more often than those who don't? Were people called Kate or Kyle over-represented in the list of people who donated to disaster relief after hurricane Katrina? I look forward to your comments to improve the article. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A fascinating article, well researched and clearly written. One very minor quibble is that multiple references should be in numerical order, several instances where that is not the case Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, Jimfbleak. I have put the ones you refer to in the right chronological order now. Good spot. Thanks Edwininlondon (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

[edit]
This is a fascinating article, well-written and apparently comprehensive. I found a small number of MOS glitches, noted below.
Lede
  • ¶3 "In the lab, people disproportionally favor brands matching their initials." – Should that be "disproportionately"?
Background
  • ¶1 "While there wasn't a great deal of agreement..." – The MOS prefers "was not".
  • ¶3 and ¶4 "Stimulus" and "stimuli" link to the same article. You probably don't need both links.
First study: Discussion
  • ¶1 "Nuttin concluded the experiments showed that..." – Perhaps smoother as "Nuttin concluded that the experiments showed that...".
Mere exposure
  • ¶1 "showed that mere exposure can't be the cause..." – Another contraction.
Mastery pleasure
  • ¶1 "They found the time students had learned the second alphabet made no difference to the strength... " – This bumped a little. Maybe "They found that the time at which students had learned the second alphabet made no difference in the strength..."
Implicit self-esteem
  • ¶1 "a person's disposition to evaluate themselves" – Singular-plural disagreement here and two sentences later: "when a person recognizes the letters in their name...". Maybe substituting "his or her" for "them, their"? Or recasting if you don't like the awkwardness of "her or his".
Application
  • ¶4 "Stieger, Voracek, and Formann recommend that the task is administered twice..." – "Be" rather than "is"?
In the lab
  • ¶1 "He found that people were disproportionally more..." – "Disproportionately"?
  • ¶1 "an individual's name-letter effect and the strength of their name-letter-branding effect..." – Another singular-plural mismatch: individual-their.
Controversial studies
  • ¶2 "a disproportionally high number of dentists..." and " for disproportionally more "Den" dentists" – "Disproportionately"?
  • ¶3 "a disproportionally large number..." – another instance
  • ¶4 "However, Dyjas et al. disputed people gravitate towards cities of their surname..." – A bit smoother if you insert "that" before "people".
Footnotes
  • C "The exceptions being a study by Albers, Rotteveel, and Dijksterhuis, and one by Stieger, Preyss, and Voracek." – "Are" rather than "being"?
  • F "That is, an adult's name is read or written a very small amount compared to all other words." – "Infrequently" rather than "a very small amount"?
  • L "Similarly, Smith found statistical errors had led Abel and Kruger wrongly conclude that..." – Missing word "to" before "conclude"?
Thanks for your kind words and helpful comments. I have addressed all of them. Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors.
  • Earwig's tool shows a couple of spots of concern that should probably be looked at and corrected. They aren't terribly serious but a bit of rewording will keep them from being brought up later.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so kind to take the effort and check. It seems Earwig is highlighting mostly titles and fragments, none seem serious indeed, but I did change the wording of the biggest matching string. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, didn't figure it was a bit issue, but better to tweak now than have a mob after you if its on the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • It strikes me that the first paragraph would benefit from splitting, possibly at the word "Discovered"
Yes, that looks better.
  • "The infrequent letters QXYZ were never used as non-name letters." this seems contradicted by the next paragraph. Also in English, Y is hardly infrequent, at least if you ask the makers of Scrabble.
I made it clear it is infrequent in Dutch. Also removed the first mention, as it was confusing matters.
  • Were the university students also Dutch speakers?
Yes. Added.
More soon. Seems very well written on a subject I had not given much thought to.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "partner-name letters" This may be unclear to those reading first time through, though you discuss a "halo effect", it is later in the article.
  • I guess I have created confusion by using "partner" in 2 different ways: first it refers to the other test subject, yoked to the first. Later, in the implicit self-esteem section, it refers to a spouse. I have changed the wording for the first case.
  • "school children to students" I imagine you mean university students here for students. American English doesn't draw a clear distinction between schoolchildren and students, so you may slightly confuse or mislead the reader.
  • Done
  • " In all cases a name-letter effect was found.[27][36][35]" citations should be in numerical order.
  • Done
  • "The effect is thought to arise from unconscious, automatic processes of self-evaluation, with different research groups coming at it from two different angles." I think a citation is needed at least for the first half of the sentence.
  • Done
  • "The effect was found to be weaker in the second alphabet" I don't think you mention this when you discuss the matter more fully a few paragraphs before, and this should probably be stated then (you only mention it was found in the second language). Why is it necessary to recap the Cyrillic and Thai studies in such detail when the original mention is so close before? Does not a mention suffice?
  • I don't think it's a recap, but happy to change things if to you it seems so. It's not so much about the studies, more about the points they make: In Mastery pleasure it is about the timing, here about connectedness to the self. If you feel it is repetitive I could put the Thai-English study in Mastery pleasure in a footnote, or put the one here in a footnote.
  • "Unconscious self-regulation" do we have a suitable article for link here?
  • Linked
Up to the start of "reception", will continue soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back at it.
  • "(e.g., Judy did not like things starting with J, such as jam, more than Doug)" this is ambiguous, does Doug like stuff or does Judy like Doug?
  • Reworded
  • "(recorded on the scoreboard with a 'K')" Although it may be shown on the scoreboard, it would more likely be recorded in the scorebook, or on a scorecard.
  • Reworded
  • "They reported that today's Smiths still tend to have the physical capabilities of their ancestors who were smiths." possibility this overstates the case. Some guy named Smith, the muscles on his brawny arms are strong as iron bands? It may be in the ambiguity of the word "capabilities". I gather that what is meant is that Smith could still do it if he was swinging a hammer all day every day from the age of 14, but it also could mean that Smith could right now grab a hammer and have at it.
  • Reworded into: They reported that today's Smiths, whose ancestors once were smiths, have higher than expected ratings for strength-related activities.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your detailed comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done. Quite scholarly.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moisejp

[edit]

Background:

  • "Systematic letter-preference research began in 1959 with brand-preference studies by Mecherikoff and Horton." Would it be an idea to include their first names and job title as a mini-introduction to who they were (although "researcher" probably wouldn't be ideal since "research" is already used in the sentence)?"
  • That would certainly be an idea. I tweaked the wording a bit so I can call them researchers. I do have their first names, but if I do theirs, I really ought to do the first name of all researchers in the article, but for a handful I do not have their first name. That is why I decided to only provide last names for all researchers in the article, with the exception of the one who discovered the effect.

Method:

  • "All 16 conditions gave a name-letter effect, with a stronger effect when QXYZ were included and the less preferred letter was crossed out—the latter mainly due to the rejection of the name letters of the other person." I think that means since there were 4 either-or factors, there are 2 to the 4th power (=16) possible combinations of the either-or results for the factors? Will that be clear to all readers that "all 16 conditions" refers to that (if indeed my understanding is correct)?
  • I see. I dropped the 16 altogether, it is not really needed to get the point across.

More comments to follow, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time. Much appreciated.Edwininlondon (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Method:

  • "For example, for the fictitious pair Irma Maes and Jef Jacobs the first stimulus was A and U: the last letter in Irma's first name and a letter not in her name. Both subjects had to circle the letter they preferred. The next stimulus was M and D": Just checking, but is this all a fictitious example that Nuttin provided? It starts off being described as "fictitious" but then sounds very real with "the first stimulus was A and U... the next stimulus was M and D".
  • Yes, it's fictitious. Rewording wasn't easy as it quickly ends up with loads of conditionals. So I brought in the table. Now the verb "is" can be used.
  • "All conditions gave a name-letter effect, with a stronger effect when QXYZ were included and the less preferred letter was crossed out—the latter mainly due to the rejection of the name letters of the other person." Overall this confused me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but from the words here this sounds like the subjects were consciously rejecting the name letters of the other person?? But that doesn't seem to make sense either in the context. Or if it's just that they were crossing out letters not in their own name, can you remove "the latter mainly due to the rejection of the name letters of the other person"?
  • I see this is confusing. It's too much detail, so I just dropped the "the latter mainly due .." bit. It actually matters in the 3 stimuli rather than 2 condition.

Characteristics:

  • I found it slightly jarring that most of the article up to now has been solely about Nuttin's handful of studies, then suddenly we jump to Hoorens analyzing dozens of studies, with no transition between.
  • I moved the Reception section up, to make the story chronologically correct.

Mere ownership:

  • "If that were true, then various verifiable predictions could be made and tested": I'm not sure if everybody uses it this way—and please ignore this comment if you disagree—but for me the hypothetical were implies that the opposite is true. But the statements before and after this appear to be true, so I would not use were here. Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded

Application:

  • "Stieger, Voracek, and Formann recommend that the task be administered twice, that the effects are calculated separately for first-name initial and last-name initial, that the task is accompanied with the birthday-number task, and that the instructions focus on liking rather than attractiveness." The article uses the subjunctive be after "recommend that the task". Should the verbs that follow also follow this pattern ("that the effects be calculated", "that the task be accompanied")? Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

I believe those are all my comments, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these insightful suggestions.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good. Happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2017 [26].

Nil Battey Sannata

[edit]
Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2016 Bollywood film, which was an independent production that incidently got the backing of a big distribution house. The article has been listed a GA, and was recently copy-edited by an independent user to ensure neutrality and the prose issues that might have been overlooked earlier. Looking forward to constructive comments to improve the article, thank you.

Note : As I said, this was a low-budget independent production, and bevause of the lack of coverage for such productions in the newspapers and media, the article might not be as detailed as the ones concerning some of the Bollywood blockbusters. Still it is thorough with the subject and covers all the important aspects of the film. NumerounovedantTalk 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It sounds like a wonderful film. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits Dank, and yes the film is a pure delight! I am glad you could make that out after reading this. NumerounovedantTalk 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • I have received this note in previous FACs and even GANs, but make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use.
  • I would add the year of the release for the Tamil remake in the lead (the final sentence of the lead's final paragraph).
  • Just a clarification question, but I am assuming that not all of the characters in the film have their full names given (i.e. Dr. Diwan and Sweety). I just want to make sure that is the case.
Yes, that is just how they are addressed throughout.
  • Would it be useful to link "pre-board" in the "Plot" section to the article on board examination, as this is a concept that I am unfamiliar with and readers from other parts of the world may not have a familiarity with either? This is more a question, so feel free to say no to this.
  • I am not sure what you mean by this phrase "that the subject becomes easier if it is understood well". Could you provide some clarify on this, particularly the "if it is understood well" part as it seems somewhat vague in this context? I am sure any subject would be easier if you can understand it better.
Couldn't agree more, it was really vague. I have rephrased here, and although it's practically impossible to translate what the film wanted to say about math as such into words here, I hope the wording works better.
  • This is a nitpicky comment, but in the description "quiet and shy", I believe you could could just cut one of the two adjectives as it seems a little repetitive (you don't hear of a lot of loud shy people lol).
  • Would it be better to revise the phrase "too soon in her career" to "early in her career" just to make it more concise?
  • I would revise the sentence (Because "the story stayed in [her] mind", she agreed to the project.) to (She agree to the project because "the story stayed in [her] mind"). Something about starting with the dependent phrase in that context sounds a little off and breaks the flow of the paragraph in my opinion.
  • Did her friends provide any further reasons on why the role would be "career suicide"?
It's mostly because a household help, and mother of a 15 year old isn't the glamorous role, and if course the age difference bit had a lot of role to play. But, I chose to omit this because (a) it's mostly implied and never really quoted directly in the sources, and (b) the age difference bit will lead to repetition.
  • For the phrase (Joginder Tuteja's mixed review for the Bollywood Hungama), I would revise it to (In a mixed review, Joginder Tuteja of the Bollywood Hungama) as it seems a little odd to say that the "review" did something when it was really the reviewer/writer of the review.
  • I would revise one of the instance of "first look" as you repeat it twice in close proximity to one another.
  • You say the trailer earned positive reviews from critics and viewers. Do you have any information on what exactly from the trailer earned positive reviews?
I added a tiny little "review", but i don't want to get into a whole new conversation about sources with putting a more general statement regarding what aspects were praised. I am a 100% sure that there will be no source good enough to substantiate such a claim.
  • I do not believe the "pleasant" and "catchy" quotes are necessary in the "Soundtrack and reception" section and I would cut them as there are a lot of quotes being used in the article and it is always better to go with less if possible.
  • In the sentence (While Gautaman Bhaskaran of Hindustan Times gave it 4 stars out of 5 and remarked that the film "is a powerful and honest work", Shubhra Gupta of The Indian Express noted that, "the film relies on keeping things real".), I do not believe "while" is the best start/transition as it implies that the two reviewers have contrasting ideas and I do not believe that is the case here.
  • The topic sentence for the second paragraph of the "Reception" section is about the mother-daughter relationship, but the actual content of the paragraph seems to focus more on the message of the film. I would make sure the topic sentence matches the content of the paragraph.
  • I am not sure the information about the remake belongs in the "Reception" section. Maybe make it into its own section and add any information on the comparisons between the original and remake? This is just an idea so feel free to say no to this. I can restore i, if you like the version.
That is how it was before the GA, but the reviewer was really insisted on this version. I, for one, liked it before as well.
  • Wonderful work with this article. The film sounds very motivational and positive, which is always good to hear. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks for taking out the time for the review, all your comments really improved the article. I have (hopefully) fixed everything, and left comments wherever required. Let me know if you have any more concerns. NumerounovedantTalk 20:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review. NumerounovedantTalk 06:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash

Right now I don't have anything to say, but when I do, you'll know. I'll make some minor c/e and hope they look satisfactory to you. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. NumerounovedantTalk 08:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vedant, how is it that the film was released in April 2016, but principal photography commenced in May 2016? Also, actors cannot be linked in "Plot" and "Production" sections at the same time, as it borders on WP:OVERLINK. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing the mistake Kailash, fixed the year. I also removed the repetitive links form the plot section.NumerounovedantTalk 08:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other comments by me:

  • Swara Bhaskar started? Or starred?
  • Be consistent in the usage of crores and millions. I'd prefer the latter, based on MOS:COMMONALITY.
  • Perhaps you could mention in the lead that Tiwari also directed the Tamil remake?
  • The film's title translates to "Zero Divided by Zero Equals Nothing", and is a slang for "Good For Nothing" - Among the two sources supporting this statement, source 1 does not use the exact phrase and instead reads, "Nil means zero. Bata/ Battey is a word for division. And `sannata’ is, of course, silence. Or ‘shoonya’. Zero divided by zero is equal to? Yep. Zero." source 2 says it is "slang for a good-for-nothing person". Perhaps you could replace them both (in this instance only) with this source which uses both the exact phrases? And do remove the "}}" which you intended to put in the lead but missed.
  • "Bhaskar stayed with professional domestic helpers from Agra, where the film is set" - You could write "Agra, Uttar Pradesh" here instead of the upcoming "principal photography" sentence.
  • "Principal photography for the Nil Battey Sannata commenced in May 2014 in the city of Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The filming was completed by the end of November" - the Nil Battey Sannata?! Besides, the supporting source does not use the terms "May" and "November". But this November 2014 source (which is already in use) mentions the film "took off in May this year", so you could cite it again, after the sentence "end of November".
  • "Chanda Theme" has lyrics by Nitesh Tiwari, yet it is an instrumental? Over here (Eros Now's official YouTube channel), the song is not mentioned as having any lyricist, just "Music: Rohan & Vinayak" (lyricists for the other songs are credited though).
  • Please re-arrange the tracklist as per the CD cover or any reliable source with all the songs (the above-mentioned link may help).
  • The image under "Marketing and release" may have "L to R" in its caption to denote who's who.
  • "The film was declared a "hit" in its second weekend as the modest collection continued" - by who? Perhaps you could write it officially became a commercial success in the second week.
  • All the Times of India archives have been negated due to robots.txt. Please replace them with archives from archive.is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything but the last. Don't quite follow you there, the links seem to be working fine. NumerounovedantTalk 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will that be all Kailash? NumerounovedantTalk 19:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some refs are not archived (please do so using the Bot), and whenever I click an archive.org TOI archive, it says "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt". You may see yourself, then replace them with working archives from archive.is. And as discussed at Trisha filmography, it may be a good option to link the publisher/work field in every reference if they have a Wiki article. I think that's all the comments I have, the rest is just c.e./overlinking related which I'll take care of. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: Fixed everything (hopefully). Also, Kailash do the images look okay? NumerounovedantTalk 16:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All the best for this FAC's success. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AffeL

Support Looks good, great job with this article. A minor problem is that their does not seem to be any sources in the cast section. - AffeL (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AffeL: I've added one. Thank you for taking out time to review this, I really appreciate it. NumerounovedantTalk 16:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • At ref 38, International Business Times India --> International Business Times.
  • At ref 48, Bangalore Mirror Bureau --> Bangalore Mirror.
  • Again, I don't feel Koimoi is a reliable source, atleast for a FA-level article.
  • Remove the third external link, since its a non-RS.
  • Fix these green links.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher​: Thank you. I hope all the comments have been addressed. The TOI links seem to have no issues on my server, and i am not sure what's​ wrong there I corrected all the other links. NumerounovedantTalk 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. NumerounovedantTalk 13:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
  • "Swara Bhaskar essays the lead role" Odd verb choice
  • "The film was declared a "hit" after its second weekend." I don't really know what this means; if it's a direct quote, it should be cited. Does it definitely belong in the lead?
Well that's just how movies are rated as agar as BO figures in India go, bit yes I agree that it's not the best choice. I've rephrased to make it clear.
  • "She steals the money that Chanda has been collecting to pay for her tuition" The "her" is a little ambiguous, here.
replaced with "the math", as there is already a reference to it previously in the plot.
  • "for companionship ... not hard-earned". I'm guessing these are euphemisms; why not spell it out?
Done

Thanks for taking a look Josh, I appreciate it. Looking forward to hearing from you. NumerounovedantTalk 09:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Do you have any more comments? NumerounovedantTalk 18:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The screenplay and the dialogue for the film was written by Iyer, Neeraj Singh, Pranjal Choudhary and Nitesh Tiwari." A little clumsy; also, would the screenplay not include the dialogue?
  • I do think the production section could be a little smoother; perhaps it'd be worth going over a few times to iron out any creases? Sorry if this is a little vague.
  • "Bhaskar stayed with the domestic help from Agra, where the film is set" This needs to be reworked a little. "stayed with professional domestic helpers from Agra", or something.
  • "She agreed to the project because" Agreed to participate in the project, perhaps? Also, this paragraph feels slightly repetitive.
  • "After a thorough search, Ria Shukla was selected for the role after auditions in Lucknow" After after
  • "Principal photography for the Nil Battey Sannata" The?
  • Repetition of link to Agra
  • "a course of the next seven months" This doesn't work
  • "The editing process began immediately after, and was done by Chandrashekhar Prajapati of the Pixon Studios" Is done really the best word?
  • final cut is a dablink
  • "for the Bollywood Hungama was" Why the? Also, is this a review of the soundtrack or the film?
  • "The release of the first look of the film" What does this mean?
Well, here in India the earliest of the promotional material (stills, posters, teasers) are referred to as the first look.
  • "In an interview with The Indian Express, Iyer said that "the story of Nil Battey Sannata is relevant as well as inspiring"." It's not clear to me that this belongs where you have put it.
  • Are you italicising the names of websites or not? There seems to be some inconsistency.
I believe everything is appropriately italicised, certain sites Bolywood Hungama and Rediff.com are not to be italicised if that's what you mean.
  • "titled Amma Kanakku, which released" was released? I'm inclined to think that the discussion of the remake belongs elsewhere in the article, perhaps even its own section. I don't really see why it belongs in reception. Perhaps, too, the discussion could be more than two sentences?
It did have a separate section, but the GA reviewer insisted against it. As Aoba47 too suggested a separate section, I have restored the earlier version.

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything (hopefully). NumerounovedantTalk 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "also known as" - wouldn't​ "released internationally as" work better, that is how i see them in other articles?
  • "Swara Bhaskar played the lead role" - "Swara Bhaskar started as" - A lot less words, and no repetition of "played".
  • "performances of the cast, including Bhaskar" - do you mean "Bhaskar in particular"?
  • The plot reads beautifully, no problems with the flow at all.
  • I went through the production section and it looked mostly fine to me. There's already been a lot of commentary on how to improve it, and I think it's good enough the way it stands at the moment.
  • I have a feeling that the film went to a number of other film festivals too, if you decide to add them, the part from the first look's release can be a separate paragraph.
I have just added the two film festivals that were already present in the sources. I do think that I might have missed out on a couple more, but there aren't any reliable sources to substantiate them.
  • I couldn't help but notice some of the prominent reviews being left out. Fir instance, The Hindu. You could look through the archives and maybe add a couple more, atleast the really significant ones?
Added the Namrata Joshi review in the section, also added the year end list bit, though that too is by Joshi, I tried to incorporate the bits together in best possible way together.
  • I am not sure about the table structure here, why not follow the traditional one. The date is really not adding much expect for column space to the article. I'd rathers have the conventional structure.
I have restructured the table (to a more conventional one). Let me know how you feel about it now.

I am sorry, I haven't been around much. Really good work though on the article. It was a lovely film as well. Callietorres (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes in the lead, going through the rest. NumerounovedantTalk 09:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callietorres: Fixed everything (hopefully) Thanks for taking out time for the review, I appreciate it. NumerounovedantTalk 10:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I can support this nomination. Good luck getting this promoted. Callietorres (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

All the images are properly liscened and have appropriate alt descriptions, but make sure you are consistent with the use periods in the captions. Callietorres (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, I'd just like to check if J Milburn has any further comments to make? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't hold up the review on my account; I neither support nor oppose, but can't promise I'll be back for another look soon. I do think the article has improved since my first look! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: The source and image reviews have been done. Can you take a look? Thank you. NumerounovedantTalk 16:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Although I believe that the article has received enough commentary, including an image and source review, I think it would be great if you guys could take a look. IndianBio has offered to do another source review if you feel necessary. NumerounovedantTalk 14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IndianBio

  • In the production you have used an image of Bhaskar where she is looking away from the article. MOS:IMAGES guides us to "place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. Do not achieve this by reversing the image". We have enough image to chose from in commons.
  • There is an empty notes section now without anything displaying in it.
  • The instrumental notation for "Maa Theme" and "Chanda Theme" are under Lyrics and singer, which is incorrect. It should be just in braces along side the music name.
  • The em-dash in the awards tables for the categories, those should all be en-dash.

That's all I could see. This is a nice read and I will support once they are addressed. —IB [ Poke ] 06:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for looking at the article, I greatly appreciate your comments and kind words. I believe Ssven2 has addressed all your comments. NumerounovedantTalk 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to support this article now. —IB [ Poke ] 08:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IndianBio Can you also do an image review? Thanks a lot again. NumerounovedantTalk 13:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Numerounovedant: I see that an image review was already done above. Sarastro1 mentioned a source review was also needed. Do you want me to look into that? —IB [ Poke ] 12:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me IndianBio, Kailash did go through the sources once, but if you have some spare time you might as well take a look. NumerounovedantTalk 14:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2017 [27].

1966 New York City smog

[edit]
Nominator(s): —BLZ · talk 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, during an introductory lecture for a law school course on environmental policy, I listened as the professor called this smog event one of the defining moments that kickstarted America's awareness of environmental problems. Surprised to find that there was no Wikipedia page for it yet, I started to do some research. I drafted up this article just in time for it to be sit on the homepage for DYK on its 50th anniversary. Since then, it's passed GA and expanded to a point that I believe is FA-worthy. This is my first time working at length on an article about something other than music, so I enjoyed the challenge and change of pace tackling a subject matter other than music for once (and I hope any FA reviewers do, too.)

I believe I have given this topic the thorough treatment that it warrants, given its somewhat under-appreciated status as a major disaster that spurred effective political change at the national level. I believe this article meets all the FA criteria, particularly for research and comprehensiveness. Several sources are either behind the NY Times archive paywall or are law review articles that I accessed through the Westlaw database; please let me know if there are any subscription barriers that I can assist with if you have a question about a source. Most of the relevant passages of book sources are available through Google Books or Amazon preview. My sincere thanks in advance to any and all reviewers. —BLZ · talk 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88

[edit]

This is a very good, extensively researched article which I have little doubt I will support. In the meantime, some comments:

  • "City health officials initially maintained that the smog had not caused any excess deaths." – "deaths" might be better than "excess deaths" here. We haven't yet reached the footnote that explains what excess deaths are. And a death caused by the smog is by definition an "excess death", so "excess" seems unnecessary anyway.
  • You are exactly right, "excess death" is just the method to measure causation of deaths and is redundant or even misleading in that sentence. Good catch.
  • "The smog served as a catalyst for greater national awareness of air pollution as a serious health problem and political issue." – I’m not sure you intend to say there was "greater national awareness of air pollution as a … political issue". Rather, air pollution simply became a bigger (however described) political issue.
  • Maybe an alternate wording would be clearer, but I think that the wording is accurate. The situation prior to 1966 wasn't that environmental issues were at the forefront of political discourse, but popular support of environmentalism happened to be low. Rather, problems like pollution were not widely conceived of as political issues—that is, problems with a political solution—at all, certainly not to the extent that it became a hot political topic in the late 60s and early 70s. So there was not only an increase in political support, but also an increase in general understanding of environmental problems as political.
  • "An estimated 220–240 people died during the six-day 1953 smog, and an estimated 300–405 people died during the two-week 1963 fog." – This sentence needs to make it clear that the numbers given are for excess deaths, not total deaths. Also, is "fog" correct?
  • Fog is definitely not correct! My mind must have been foggy when I typed that. I've reworded the sentence to describe the causal relationship more accurately.
  • "Other episodes of smog occurred in the city" – "had occurred"?... to make it clear that we are still talking about pre-1963 episodes?
  • Fixed.
  • "Starting in 1953, the city opened a laboratory to monitor pollution..." – not sure what "starting in..." is doing here. Did it not simply open in 1953?
  • I removed "starting," but kept "in 1953" at the beginning of the sentence. It could also be worded "opened in 1953" if you think that's better, I don't have a strong preference.
  • There is a sentence with two mentions of the word "corresponding", which isn’t ideal for readability.
  • Fixed.
  • "served as a poor gauge of the air across all of New York City." Is "all of" necessary?
  • I've reworded this sentence with a few changes. The relevant part now reads: "the index reflected conditions in that small area, but served as a poor gauge of overall air quality across the entire city." The phrasing "all of" was not ideal, but I think there should be wording that suggests the entire area of the city.
  • "Scientists, city officials, and the public knew that New York City had a serious air-pollution problem prior to the 1966 smog episode." – I'd suggest re-arranging this sentence so that it is clear that “prior to” attaches not to the problem but the scientists, etc, knowing about it.
  • I've reworded this, let me know if you think the newer version is better.
  • Yes - this looks good now.
  • The purpose served by the comparison with the Donora and London smogs is not entirely clear to me.
  • I'll elaborate a bit about why I included that paragraph. In the aftermath of this smog, which shocked the public (and the media) in its severity, people went in search of precedents to understand the problem. Since air pollution had not been so widely publicized before, there was no frame of reference or yardstick by which to understand the present. An alarmed public was asking, "has something like this ever happened before?" The two points of reference at hand were Donora (which occurred in a small town, but was very severe and was American) and London (which was very severe and occurred in a global metropolis). The paragraph also informs modern readers, who likely want to know how bad smog events from roughly the same era had been. Since intense episodes of smog are now rare in the English-speaking world, I think the comparison is useful for most readers.
  • "It is difficult to address a given environmental problem without affecting others. Those undesired side effects can be foreseeable or unforeseeable, and are often related to a city's limited resources." – These sentences don’t have a reference. It’s not clear whether they are expressing the views of Mayor Lindsay or are in the voice of Wikipedia.
  • I've reworded and cited that passage.
  • "Despite general awareness of the health and environmental impacts of smog, other problems took priority" – This summary of the New York Times quote that follows is unnecessary and repetitive (to the point of using largely the same words).
  • You're right; I've reworded it to chop down most of the quote, but retained the part that lists what the other priorities were.
  • The final four paragraphs of the article get progressively less relevant, in my view. The second paragraph says no more than "other things have been compared to the 1966 smog" and mentions ad hoc journalistic comparisons that aren't likely to be of much significance. The third paragraph lowers the tone of an otherwise sober, scientific article. The fourth and final paragraph places too much weight upon recent political events and reads to the cynical eye like an opportunistic way to talk about Donald Trump. The discussion in that paragraph certainly belongs in Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, but does it belong here?
  • I've responded to your comment on the legacy section at length below. I'm responding in general terms, mostly on broad POV or notability grounds since those are your concerns. If you have specific feedback about the wording in a sentence, sourcing, or another issue, I can respond again more specifically; I'm certainly open to editing the text if you think specific parts could be improved, but in the big picture I think these paragraphs are justified.
Response re: "Legacy" section
  • On the paragraphs about comparisons to China: smog events are generally rare compared to, for example, hurricanes (which I choose because they are 1. disasters and 2. a well-covered topic on Wikipedia). It would be inappropriate to include a whole section in a hurricane article about when that hurricane was referenced in the press as a comparison; a sentence like "Other hurricanes have been compared to Hurricane Katrina" would be silly because hurricanes occur annually and the meteorological methods used to measure hurricanes are more precise and widely understood. If I say "category five," non-experts immediately know what that means; similarly, the "Richter scale" is a household term; but methods of measuring smog are not as familiar or universal.
  • Since these events are not as familiar, people and the press seek out past historical events to use as yardsticks. Just like comparisons to Donora and London in the past, we look backward—have to look backward—to contextualize modern air pollution. Newspaper readers see shocking photos of heavy smog in China, but they may not know that the problem was once nearly as bad in places like the United States or England (in fact, it was worse in London). And unlike hurricanes or earthquakes, air pollution is a more readily solvable problem: the reason American readers aren't acquainted with extreme smog events is the Clean Air Act. Including these comparisons is especially because smog in China is often treated as a "foreign" problem, something unique to Asia, rather than a problem of the whole industrialized world and Anglo-American history particularly.
  • I think the pop culture references are useful to include because it shows that the smog was notable enough to factor into the contemporary cultural imagination. If the tone differs from the rest of the article, it is only to suit a different aspect than the scientific and political discussion that prevails. To give a digression that fleshes out the importance of this paragraph, in my mind: a problem I had while writing this article was that "smog" can mean both the general condition and a particular episode/event—imagine having the word "rain," but not "storm." Smog tends to be thought of as a chronic condition like weather (LA is "hazy" or "smoggy" just as Seattle is "rainy") rather than as a force that can erupt into intense, fatal "storms" that can become part of history as discrete events. The pop-culture references are remembrances not just of smog, but a particular smog that is notable and remembered in its own right. The Mad Men episode is notable for a few reasons: 1) Mad Men is a major, epic, and widely popular narrative work about New York in the 1960s, and the show's cultural importance makes the episode-long treatment of the smog notable; 2) including the smog is an example of the show's commendable historical accuracy; and 3) most interesting to me personally, the episode (as analyzed by the AV Club critic) is a demonstration that air pollution can have literary qualities (symbolic/thematic significance, parallels to a human character's mood or circumstances) as weather and disasters often do in fiction. For comparison, Hurricane Katrina in fiction is its own separate article because that hurricane weighs tremendously on the popular imagination (although looking at that article for the first time I'm sad to report that it's currently just a list rather than an article-length exploration of the topic in all its dimensions.) Of course, this smog is not nearly as prominent in the American imagination as Hurricane Katrina, but it's critical to note the few important ways it has manifested in culture.
  • Finally, I justify the final paragraph about Trump on similar grounds as the section on Donora/London and the section on China. Every once in a while, something happens that makes past smog events like this one bubble up in the collective memory. It is notable that this smog has come up repeatedly in discussion of Trump's policies, or more precisely, that it is used as a case-in-point. The sources certainly have a POV, but all I've done is reported their POV and how this smog has factored into political discourse. I don't believe any of those sources are so marginal or so wildly off-base that they don't merit a mention. What is notable here (that would not be notable in the article Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration) is that this smog is an event chosen by writers to illustrate potential problems. It makes abstractions like environmental policy more real to readers who may not otherwise recognize or remember a pre-EPA world and may take the EPA "for granted" because accomplishments like clean air are literally invisible.
  • Here's why I think the Trump discussion is not merely "cynical" or "opportunistic," a concern I take seriously since he has only recently taken office and is highly controversial. First, I took care to write that paragraph in a way that avoids the pitfalls of weasel words: I've precisely attributed the sources in the main text and described their commentary and rhetorical use of the smog in measured, accurate terms. Second, the cited discussion is, while POV, proportional to Trump's articulated proposals and very real power, so it is not mere sensationalism or hand-wringing. It would be cynical or opportunistic if these sources had all evoked the smog in light of modest environmental-regulatory rollbacks, but what Trump has pitched is more severe than past administrations. Analogously, we might say that it would be cynical or opportunistic if a writer evoked the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire because a conservative president proposed minor budget cuts to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, but the comparison might be less cynical if a president proposed more drastic cuts or the rollback of long-established regulations. That's why the comparisons are proportional: just as the problem of smog was once addressed by specific federal political action, it may very well be reintroduced by an opposite political force. That is, Trump's policies have occasioned reflections on this smog not just because Trump is conservative and/or because the writers dislike him—no doubt those same writers did not like George W. Bush's environmental policies either, but Bush's policies did not go so far as to threaten the existence of the agency credited with dramatically reducing air pollution, and thus did not evoke a specific threat of a resurgence of urban smog. As written, I don't believe the paragraph has POV or recentism problems: the focus is not undue or biased (I don't extrapolate, or say that Trump's proposed policies will bring smog back to New York), nor does the paragraph disproportionately dominate the article, it just explains another purpose that this event has served as a historical memory. The long-term "legacy" of a disaster, after all, is just a description of why and when "we" remember it.

I also made some minor copy-edits. --Syek88 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Syek88: Thank you for your prompt feedback and thorough copyediting. I've responded to all of your comments above, at length where necessary. —BLZ · talk 21:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for taking so long to return to this. I haven't had much time available lately, and did not want to do a quick skim. I don't quite agree with the justifications for the final four paragraphs, especially the final two, but the justifications are certainly reasonable, and it would be most unreasonable for me to withhold support merely because I do not agree with them all. I am also mindful that no other reviewer has joined the issue. In these circumstances deference to the author is appropriate. Overall the article is in my opinion better than the average successful Featured Article candidate that I have seen recently. It meets the criteria. I am happy to support. Syek88 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

I'm doing this offline and my some of my comments may have been cleared up already.

  • "It was the third major smog event in New York City, following smogs of similar scale in 1953 and 1963." I would lose the repetition, that is the "smogs", by substituting some synonym, or possibly "events".
  • I've reworded it to "It was the third major smog in New York City, following events of similar scale in 1953 and 1963."
  • " Today, the smog has served as a milestone" I might say, "The 1966 smog is now a milestone" as "today" feels awkward with "has served".
  • Reworded, now reads: "The 1966 smog is a milestone that has been used for comparison with . . ."
  • I would suggest re-ordering the subsections in the Background section to put the "Warnings" first. It contains basic information, such as the sources of the smog, that help the reader understand what things were like in 1966.
  • I see what you mean; I've rearranged a bit and retitled a subsection. The "basic information" parts of the "Warnings" section has been moved to the first section, which I've retitled from "Previous smogs" to "Smog before 1966". I've left "Warnings" as the last section, and now that title is more strictly accurate as a section just about specific warnings about the possibility of a disaster, not just general awareness of smog as a problem. I want to keep "Warnings" last because it keeps the Background section as a whole roughly chronological, and I think it should follow the "City air monitoring" since the warnings were only possible with the ability to measure smog.
  • "Starting in 1953, the city opened a laboratory to monitor pollution" I would omit "Starting".
  • Fixed by a prior edit responding to Syek88's review
  • "the city developed a corresponding air-pollution alert system with three stages of alert, matching increasingly severe levels of pollution with corresponding city countermeasures." I would strike the second-to-last word, "city" as not needed.
  • Agree, fixed
  • "headquartered in Columbus Circle" I would suggest "at" for "in".
  • Fixed
  • "was authorized in 1962 by New York and New Jersey to oversee air pollution issues" The state of New York or the city?
  • The state. I haven't written about New York (city or state) prior to this article, so I wasn't sure about the best way to avoid confusion between the two. I chose to always call the city "New York City" or "the city" and reserved "New York" for the state. I also tried to limit instances where using "New York" alone could be confusing, so it typically comes up in relation to other states or with other cues that indicate the sentence is about the state. In that paragraph, I intended "Interstate Sanitation Commission" and "New York and New Jersey" would clear up that it's the state.
  • "The sources of the smog were particulate and chemical matter from factories, chimneys, and vehicles" "matter" reads oddly. Can we say "pollutants"?
  • Reworded to "The material sources of the smog were particulates and chemicals from . . ." The word "pollutants" would be too general here, since that word describes what the matter does (matter that pollutes) rather than what it is (what kind of material it is).
  • "The unusually heavy smog was evident to the crowd of one million onlookers at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on November 24.[2] Tabloids and newspapers that ordinarily ran front-page stories about the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade instead carried stories about the smog." consider shortening the second Macy's etc. to "parade".
  • Fixed
  • "requesting an emergency meeting with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, New Jersey Governor Richard J. Hughes, and other regional leaders." for clarity, I would add "be held" after "meeting" and "present" at the end of the sentence.
  • Reworded
  • "for the New York metropolitan area, including areas in New Jersey and Connecticut," to avoid repetition, I would suggest "parts of" for "areas in".
  • Reworded
  • "the city asked commuters to voluntarily stop driving unless necessary, apartment buildings to stop incinerating their residents' garbage, and apartment buildings to reduce their heating to 60 °F." I might suggest, "the city asked commuters to stay home unless necessary, and apartment buildings to stop burning residents' garbage and turn heating down 60°F.".
  • Reworded (used your suggestion except "to stay home" —> "to avoid driving")
  • "New Jersey and Connecticut asked their residents to voluntarily reduce consumption of heating, electricity, and transportation." maybe "New Jersey and Connecticut asked their residents not to travel, and to use less power and heat."
  • Reworded
  • "if the wind did not come, a first-stage alert would likely remain in effect and it may become necessary to declare a second-stage alert" "may" should be "might".
  • Fixed
  • " chocked up" This seems a bit informal. Maybe "attributed"?
  • Reworded
  • "Hundreds of sanitation workers worked overtime to transport garbage to landfills in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island,[24] with the bulk going to Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island." I might simply refer to it as "Fresh Kills" to avoid the repetition. It's clear from context it was a landfill.
  • Reworded
  • "The earliest report of casualties came when President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a message delivered to Congress on January 30, 1967. " There is a redundancy problem in this sentence ("delivered" x2) Was this his State of the Union speech? If so, I would mention it as that increases the importance placed on it.
  • A "special message" from the president to Congress is formal, but is not necessarily delivered as a speech; it can just be a written letter. Such messages typically address a specific problem and request legislative action; while these messages are formal, they are less formal than State of the Union messages (which are constitutionally required and expected to be delivered as speeches) and less sweeping due to their focus on a single subject matter. There's no indication that this particular message was delivered as a speech. This source discusses LBJ's decision to deliver a voting-rights message as a speech, and helpfully notes that "[p]residents rarely deliver special messages to Congress in person to advocate for a specific bill, especially on domestic policy." In addition to removing the duplicate word, I switched out the ambiguous "delivered" (since both a speech or letter can be "delivered") and replaced it with "sent".
  • "Two major medical studies have analyzed . Leonard Greenburg — " There is a stray space before the period, but also "analyzed" requires something to analyze.
  • Another reviewer fixed this.
  • There is uncited matter in the "Urban Life" section.
  • I tightened up the sourcing there in response to Syek88's comments.
  • I might tighten that section a bit by citing examples from New York City of how white flight and the other urban harms affected things, if you have statistics available, and make it clearer when this was going on.
  • I wish I could! That section is a bit more general than I'd prefer, but I'm a bit limited by the sources. I have a bit of a catch-22 in that section. Any sources that discuss mid-century white flight in more depth would focus on general sociological forces other than the smog, while the sources that discuss the 1966 smog and white flight are very general. Any more detailed discussion would stray from the smog. White flight (and the roughly opposite trend, gentrification) are very complex topics with multiple overlapping causes; I doubt that any sociologists had studied the impact of this single smog, if such a study could even isolate the motivation of migrating populations to single causes. It may be that a source that discusses the smog and white flight exists in the academic literature somewhere, but if it does I haven't found it. Nevertheless, I thought it would be valuable to reflect the sources that indicate pollution, and this smog specifically, was likely among the many factors that motivated affluent residents to leave New York City around that time. If readers want more detailed discussion of white flight, they are going to have to turn elsewhere on Wikipedia or other sources. —BLZ · talk 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remainder soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "back-up". I would just say "backup".
  • Fixed.
  • Can something be said about the actual steps taken by the city, what the laws required? This seems a bit glossed over in the discussion of the effects of the legislation.
  • The actual steps, other than increasing monitoring or setting limits on emissions/requiring different fuels, are not widely discussed in the sources I've found. I'm sure the laws themselves are highly technical and dense, and I didn't want to bog down too far into those details. It's a similar catch-22 as I faced with the "white flight" sources
  • Since we discuss interstate compacts in such detail, I'm wondering if the Sanitary Commission was one and if therefore interstate compacts should be mentioned when you introduce that body.
  • I chose to discuss interstate compacts in detail later for a few reasons:
  • 1) Interstate compacts are kinda a niche topic. They are somewhat unusual in American government, or at least unfamiliar, even to American readers, and even to American readers who are well-versed in politics, government, and the Constitution. Even if the concept of an interstate agency is intuitive and familiar, the underlying legislative procedure to create one is not.
  • 2) Explaining the failure of the Mid-Atlantic States Air Pollution Control Compact proposal requires an understanding of the (formidable) procedural requirements that it couldn't meet. The states couldn't just pass it themselves, they depended on the approval of the whole national Congress, even though it didn't affect the whole nation.
  • 3) I think that a general reader, with general knowledge and intuition, would probably be left wondering what stopped the states from just making the interstate compact that they wanted. But that doesn't apply to the earlier mention of the Sanitary Commission, since the existence of interstate agencies can be "taken for granted" by a reader. If I didn't feel bound to explain what an interstate compact was only by the nitty-gritty failure of one to pass, I would have avoided the details altogether.
  • I'm not sure the caption explains the relevance of the Graveshead Bay incinerator photo. Was it shut down? Is the trash waiting for its doom or is it there because the plant's been shut down?
  • It's not really directly connected, other than serving as a general illustration of an over-burdened incinerator from the same era. The section discusses the problems caused by interaction between environmentally motivated actions and other duties of a city. The smog did cause some specific examples of those problems, but more importantly, it prompted general thinking about those undesired interactions as a general principle of city management. I thought using an era-appropriate (but not directly historically connected) photo as an illustration would work, because it complements the sort of general, textbook-like ideas of that section. However, if you think it doesn't work I'm open to that too, I was just brainstorming other free images I could use to dress up the page a bit more.
  • " but further action was opposed by members of congress" Congress is capped. In this case, I'd cut the last two words anyway, it's clear where this debate is taking place.
  • Fixed the capitalization, but I left "members of Congress" intact. You're right that it's clear "where" it's taking place, but the phrase is really about "who". It is important to clarify the opposition was from members of Congress, not members of the public, industry representatives, or some other group that can exert influence on Congress. As for the wording: using "members" by itself is sort of awkward, and "members of Congress" rolls off the tongue even if it looks repetitive (substituting the non-gender-neutral synonym, "congressmen," also shows this).
  • I don't think it's a good idea for the first sentence of a "Legacy" section to start off with a sentence that does not mention the subject of the article. Start more strongly. Maybe start by saying the smog was recalled after 9/11 and served as a basis of comparison. Is there any chance of beginning the section with a short paragraph on the "big picture" legacy of the smog, perhaps with a quote or two? Because the items listed all seem not hugely significant.
  • I drafted a brief introductory paragraph; let me know if you think it works. "Legacy" as a word, though technically accurate, connotes something different than I wanted, it has a vibe that is too "grand". The word "legacy" is usually used for an influence that has increased over time (for example an album's "legacy" would be, quintessentially, a The Velvet Underground & Nico-esque snowballing from toiling obscurity to ubiquitous recognition of genius and clout) or come to be recognized more and more over time (an individual politician's contributions may have been misunderstood or under-estimated in their own time). The word certainly primes a reader to expect something more than a list of, I'll admit, "not hugely significant" recollections, but I don't know what other word to use. This smog's real "legacy" is what resulted immediately (deaths and politics) rather than any "significance" or "influence" that appreciated in value/increased over time, and by the end of the article I've already exhausted all the analysis and quotes about the real long-term significance. The "legacy" section is really more of a list of "when this smog does get mentioned decades later (outside of strictly historical recounting), this is how and why it has been remembered." Maybe there's a better title, something that would set up reader expectations better? I just don't know what alternate word would work.
  • " his administration's environmental policy" maybe "proposals" for "policy", especially as you use "Trump's policies" a little later.
  • Reworded.
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited in response to all of the above, let me know what you think. I've also added a bit more text in light of sources I had not come across until now and only found through happenstance. —BLZ · talk 02:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good enough for me. I was in Beijing last fall, hope it wasn't as bad as that. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

First read-through:
Warnings:

  • "Open topography and favorable wind conditions prevented New York City's smog from concentrating to an uninhabitable extent." This sentence does not seem to flow well with what what comes before and after it, which talk about how New York's smog was a problem. In fact, the sentence seems contradictory with the whole article, which is about how for a few days New York's smog did become uninhabitable, to the point where it may have killed dozens of people.
    • I've added a few sentences to clarify what I mean. Basically, NYC polluted more than LA, but LA's pollutants concentrated while NYC's would normally escape with the wind. The air pollution didn't seem as bad as LA's because something unusual would have to happen for the smog in NYC to become dramatically visible or acutely lethal. NYC's intense episodes of smog occurred when abnormal weather prevented the usual escape of smog.

November 24: Thanksgiving Day

  • First sentence uses "close call" which sounds a little colloquial, but maybe okay. But when "close call" is repeated in footnote g, I feel the repetition pushes this to the point where one wants a more encyclopedic term. Could you replace at least the instance in the footnote?
    • I fixed this by rewording those sentences and substituting two quoted phrases from the article: "on the verge" and "very, very close"

November 25: first-stage alert declared:

  • "Thomas R. Glenn Jr., the commission's director and chief engineer, recommended the alert at 11:25 a.m. after seeing instruments in New York and New Jersey that showed carbon monoxide greater than 10 ppm and smoke greater than 7.5 ppm, both for more than four consecutive hours." I know that ppm is spelled out and wiki-linked in footnote 4, which is technically before this, but for readers who don't read the footnotes, how would you feel about also wiki-linking here?
    • I think that makes a lot of sense, fixed.

Impact:

  • The first sub-heading is "Initial estimates of health effect and casualties" and the next one is simply "Casualties". Would it be an idea to change the second sub-heading to something like "Casualties: subsequent estimates" or "Subsequent estimates of casualties" to distinguish the topic more clearly from the first section?
    • Agreed, I went with "Subsequent estimates of casualties"

National attention:

  • Third paragraph: two sentences in a row beginning with "According to".
    • Reworded.

That's all for the first read-through. The reviewers above already caught a couple of other points I was going to mention. I'll try to have a second read-through soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've addressed your points above and I look forward to your second run-through. —BLZ · talk 01:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:
Just a few more comments. Address these and I will support.

  • I don't have a strong opinion about this, but have you considered including conversions to Celsius throughout the article? This could make the information more understandable to English-speaking readers around the world living in countries where Fahrenheit is not used. For reference, the lead of Global warming is one place that uses such conversion templates.
  • Great idea, I've added conversions (although I did them manually).

November 24: Thanksgiving Day:

  • "Representative William Fitts Ryan of Manhattan sent a telegram to Secretary of Health and Human Services John W. Gardner requesting an emergency meeting be held with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, New Jersey Governor Richard J. Hughes, and other regional leaders present." It's not clear to me where the other regional leaders were "present".
  • I'm not sure what you mean. I reworded the sentence slightly, let me know if that got at what you thought was confusing.
  • That fixed my concern, great. What I had meant was that "present" implies being present in a particular place, but I couldn't figure out what specifically that place was supposed to be. Moisejp (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent estimates of casualties:

  • "Pollution experts estimated that if a smog as strong as the Donora smog occurred in the much more populous New York City, the death toll could have been as high as 11,000 with four million ill." Should this possibly be "Pollution experts estimated that if a smog as strong as the Donora smog had occurred in the much more populous New York City, the death toll could have been as high as 11,000 with four million ill." Or "Pollution experts estimated that if a smog as strong as the Donora smog occurred in the much more populous New York City, the death toll could be as high as 11,000 with four million ill." Those would be the regular patterns of the 3rd and 2nd conditional. The first would be talking about a hypothetical past event, and the second about a hypothetical future event (in relation to the experts saying this). As it is now, it's not clear whether the hypothetical event is meant to be in the past or future.
  • I think the former is closer to the sentence structure in the source; I've reworded it to that. Or, maybe, "Pollution experts estimated that if a smog as strong as the Donora smog were to occur in the much more populous New York City, the death toll could be as high as 11,000 with four million ill."

Legacy:

  • "The New York City-based indie pop band Vampire Weekend used a photograph of the smog over the city skyline, taken by Neal Boenzi and originally published in The New York Times, for the cover of their 2013 album Modern Vampires of the City." I don't know what is best for this, but did you consider explicitly stating that this is the same photo (or not) shown in the infobox at the beginning of the article? Perceptive readers may see from the infobox's caption that this photo was also taken by Neal Boenzi, and may wonder whether it is the same one. Moisejp (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did consider this, but it seemed too obvious. I figure that if people know the album already, they will probably recognize it when they click the link; and if readers have gotten that far in the article and are interested in seeing the cover, it should click for them if they click through to the VW album article. —BLZ · talk 07:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. All of my concerns are addressed. This is a really, really nice article. Moisejp (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The ed17

[edit]
  • Support on sourcing - looks really good overall; only random thoughts and one optional recommendation from me. Note that I haven't assessed the content. This article, written from scratch about an event that checks just about every box in our systemic bias (not a criticism!), is proof that Wikipedia is not finished.
    • Not a fan of how {{citation}} handles dates with vs without authors (why one uses parenthesis and one doesn't is beyond me). Not something in your control.
    • Bibliography does not include publisher locations, but those are marked as optional over at WP:HOWCITE.
    • Getting your hands on an original copy of Wise would be useful, as iUniverse is a self-publishing house.
    • Love the use of the subscription lock icons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support!
    • I added the publisher locations to the bibliography section; it was a good exercise to double-check each of the references and make sure all the information was thorough and accurate. I also updated all the ISBNs to the ISBN13 standards (with the dashes!), which is preferred. I found that one of my references cited an editor as an author and that two had the wrong year (one because there was a second edition, the other probably a typo).
    • I will look into Wise. My school's online catalog says our library has a copy, so I should be able to check on that tomorrow.
    • I'm a big fan of the subscription lock icons too. I never knew they existed until midway through writing this article. I relied extensively on NY Times' archive and initially cited the old print articles without links, since most readers wouldn't be able to access the articles anyway. I updated those sources with links later when I realized the subscription lock could indicate that they were behind a paywall. —BLZ · talk 01:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The ed17: I was able to get my hands on the print edition of Wise; the source now reflects the first edition, and I was able to draw a little more from the book than what I had been able to find online. —BLZ · talk 02:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorology pedantry from JC

[edit]

Echoing the previous comments that the article appears to be in great shape overall. Anyone who knows me could have guessed that I'd be immediately drawn to the weather maps, and I did notice a few things in the meteorological narrative that could stand to be clarified.

  • An anticyclonic thermal inversion[28] — in other words, a stationary, warm mass of air – Perhaps it could be clarified that this warm mass of air is located above the ground/atop a cooler airmass.
  • Reworded.
  • Inversions can act like a lid, preventing the usual process of lower, warm air rising. Such weather events are common, and they are usually followed by a cold front that blows them away. – This seems to misrepresent the source material slightly. Cold fronts can actually help strengthen thermal inversions, so the hope would have been for the front to "blow away" the smog near the ground instead of the inversion itself.
  • Ah, I misunderstood the source originally. Let me know if the new wording makes sense.
  • Surface weather analysis maps showing wind at a height of 18,000 feet – Surface weather maps show the weather at the surface; data from above the ground, as in these illustrations, are plotted on an upper air map/chart. It might also be worth clarifying that the height level is "approximately" 18,000 feet, since the geopotential height is dynamic and can vary by thousands of feet across a continent.
  • Reworded.
  • Shortly after 9 a.m. the wind arrived, moving mostly from the northeast between 5–6 miles per hour and bringing cooler temperatures in the 50s °F (10–15 °C). – A few questions: first, cooler relative to what? In looking at the daily records for KJFK, the temperature had not reached 60°F since November 11. Second, it might be worth noting that winds increased to a more formidable 15 mph sustained by midday (source). Finally, I can't access the cited NYT article, but in a cold front passage the winds wouldn't be mainly out of the northeast; they'd shift from southwesterly to northwestern (which is what the actual wind observations from JFK generally show).
  • This is the passage that I relied on from the NYT source (this paragraph begins on the second page of the story under the subheading "Winds Fairly Gentle," for anyone with access who would want to check):
  • "Actually, the wind that cleared out the smog never became too strong, and the temperature did not fall too much. The wind, mostly from the northeast, varied between 6 and 10 miles and hour, as compared with the sluggish atmosphere of Friday that was sometimes a dead calm. The temperature was generally in the fifties, whereas on Friday it had reached 64, a record for the date."
  • To answer your questions in turn: "cooler" means cooler relative to the claimed record high of 64 on that Friday, the 25th. The NYT doesn't precisely attribute the statement above, but I would presume that it was the city's health/pollution officials since they are the prevailing source for this article and others about the smog. I requested NOAA climate records for New York City from November 1–30, and most of the recording stations put it in about the same ranges, even if the "cooler" difference may be a matter of only a few degrees: most recording stations put the high for the 25th somewhere above 62, and most stations put the high for the 26th at or below 59. I corrected the wind speed based on the source to 5–10 mph rather than 5–6 mph (typo on my part). Finally, though it may be strange, the NYT reported that the wind was "mostly from the northeast".
  • Just as a suggestion – feel free to disregard – it may be helpful to include a chart like this (probably qualifies under {{PD-ineligible}}) which shows the inversion conditions in the northeast. That particular graph is for Albany as I can only find raw data for NYC, but it would look quite similar. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link doesn't work right now, so I don't know what kind of chart it is or what data it shows :(. I'd love to include more weather data, but I'm woefully under-qualified to determine what data (and data visualizations) would actually be useful. Can the NOAA data I requested above be used?
  • @Juliancolton: Your review is very appreciated. Meteoreology pedantry is just what the doctor ordered. It was the subject matter I felt the most shaky about while writing this article. I'd considered going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones for assistance since I knew hurricanes were pretty well represented at FA, but never got around to it; by some luck, a hurricane contributor ended up helping me anyway. Thank you! Let me know if you have any further questions, and I'd be happy to incorporate more weather data or images if there's some data set in particular that you think I can use or adapt. —BLZ · talk 02:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

I think we still need a couple of checks:

  • Firstly, an image review.
  • Secondly, given it looks like it's been several years since your last FAC, Brandt, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

You can post requests for both at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appear to be quite a few duplinks in the article; I won't hold up promotion over them but pls check and rationalise as appropriate (you can use this script to highlight the duplicates in red). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

[edit]

I'll do a source spotcheck. Just give me a day or two, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at two random sources so far. The second one seems probably mostly good, and I will wait until my next time at the keyboard to comment on it. But I have some concerns with the first source I spotchecked, which is Goklany 1999, p. 24 (available on Google Books)—ref #8. Some of the statements seem mostly OK, but I have larger concerns with other ones.

  • "Smog is the name of a type of air pollution commonly found in urban and industrialized areas." If one removes "urban", I think this is pretty much encompassed in the following statement from the source, and should be OK: "In the early 1940s, Los Angeles began experiencing a new kind of smog quite unlike the traditional smoke problem experienced elsewhere in the industrialized world."
  • Supplemented by Wise 176 to reinforce that smog is common to urban areas. This was implied but not stated directly in Goklany 24, so good catch.
  • "b. Smog is the product of "secondary" pollutants (ozone, oxidants) that form when hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides react together in sunlight." / "A combination of several distinct chemical pollutants,[b] smog arrived in modern cities in the 1940s and 1950s with the popularization of motor vehicles and development of new power plants." Here the source discusses these things in terms of experts accepting them to be true about the smog in Los Angeles in the 1950s. I just looked at the source quickly, but I'm not sure that the source supports that these facts are globally true of all cases of smog.
  • "Although smog is a chronic condition, unfavorable weather conditions and excessive pollutants can cause intense concentrations of smog that can cause acute illness and death; because of their unusual visibility and lethality, these intense smog events are often publicized in the media and are typically described as disasters." This is all there at the bottom of page 24, except for the concept of disaster, which in good faith I will assume is in one or more of the other three sources cited together with this one.
  • Two of the other sources, Freeman and Fensterstock & Fankhauser, reinforce the concept of intense smog episodes resulting in heightened publicity. Although I don't have a copy of the Wise book with me at the moment and I don't believe the earlier pages are available online, I know that that the concept of these smogs "as disasters" is contained in those pages and that I relied on it for that idea. The title of the book itself is Killer Smog: The World's Worst Air Pollution Disaster. I've split where the references appear in the sentence so that it is more clear which sources are used for which ideas. I've also added Popkin p. 27, which is available online, for additional support for the notion that these episodes were/are commonly understood as disasters. Popkin p. 27 twice uses the word "disaster," once to refer to the 1948 Donora smog ("This episode was recognized immediately as a disaster") and once for the 1953 NYC smog ("... less than six weeks before the disaster").
  • "Even before the 1966 smog episode in New York City, it was known by scientists, city officials, and the public that the city—and most major American cities—had a serious air-pollution problem." Unfortunately, I'm really not sure what on page 24 is meant to support this statement.
  • The other two sources are more significant here.
  • Wise gives an overview of smog in America and lists several American cities that had been known to have pervasive air pollution problems (including NYC); the sentences that follow contain this evidence, and more quotes backing up this idea are cited from the same pages in the "Warnings" subsection. This primarily supports the awareness among scientists. I believe Wise also refers to city officials, but I've added a source from NYT that reinforces that idea (the fact that this section is followed by an entire section on the monitoring system developed by the city should also suffice to support that idea). I believe, but am not certain at the moment, that some of the text in Wise would support the idea of awareness among the general public.
  • The Life editorial (accessible via Google Books) summarizes the state of scientific knowledge about the dangers and extent of air and water pollution in the United States, including in New York City, and urges public action to address the problem. I take the publication of an editorial in Life, a magazine with a weekly circulation of millions of copies and a general readership (i.e. nonspecialized, intended to be read by a general audience), as constructive evidence that there was pre-existing awareness of the problem among "the general public". The fact that there were laws on the books about pollution also supports some pre-existing awareness among the public. Journalistic publications and political bodies are quintessential "public institutions".
  • The Goklany source here mainly works as backup for two already-supported ideas: that scientists were aware of the problem of smog, and that the public had some awareness of it as well. I thought the source was useful for support because it describes the genesis of scientific study of the newer photochemical smog in American cities, which began in LA. Not only does it state that there is scientific awareness, but it traces a meaningful starting point for a phase of deeper scientific study of the topic. This sentence on that page (indirectly) supports the idea of public awareness: "Third, a series of air pollution episodes occurred in which excess deaths and sicknesses were noted and covered almost immediately by newspapers."
  • I found text on page 25 of Goklany that more explicitly supports the notion of pre-existing public awareness, a paragraph which ends with "... increasing affluence made the general public more desirous of a better quality of life and less tolerant of pollution". I peeked at Goklany's source, a book called Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985 by Samuel P Hays, through Amazon. Hays, on the pages cited by Goklany, describes a trend of increasing environmental awareness/intolerance of pollution from the 19th century into the early 20th century, which the author notes rose concurrently with the transition to a "consumer" economy. Hays does not connect that general awareness/economic trend to the specific problem of air pollution... But Goklany does. He uses it to explain why smog episodes were being noticed with increasing frequency, which strongly supports the ideas of public and scientific awareness. I've now amended the citation to include 24–25 and the quotes I relied on.

BLZ, please let me know if I have possibly missed context or other passages in the text in my spotchecking of this page. Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded above and made some changes. The last change I'm going to make is to the definition of smog: you're right that the definition of "smog" offered is slightly misleading because it's a little too narrow. What I describe there is "photochemical smog," a type of smog that is usually just called "smog," which (as you noted) is quintessentially an LA-style smog. The word "smog" is also used to refer to a "smokier" smog, or London-style smog. The New York smog was a little bit of both in terms of the composition of the chemical pollutants at work, so I think defining the scope of the term warrants a slightly more thorough treatment than I've given so far. I've already rounded up a few sources that I think are helpful to unpack what "smog" means for the purposes of this article, without going overboard and doing some of the work that might be better suited for the main Smog article. I'll draft that bit later today, and also respond to your second spotcheck below —BLZ · talk 20:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second source I've spotchecked is ref #28—Anderson 1999, p. 472. There is just part of a paragraph at the bottom of the page about the 1966 New York smog, and the first, third, and fourth statements for ref #28 are all clearly stated in the source, but I couldn't find info about the second statement. The next page (473) is not available to me in Google Books, but I wonder whether the second statement may be covered later in the paragraph (i.e., on page 473)? Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BLZ. I've read your comments above and will try to dive back into your sources in the next few days to check the changes/explanations you made. I had been planning to wait until you finished responding to the second spotcheck, but depending on timing I may just go ahead and start it. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update about my spotcheck of Goklany 1999, p. 24 (spotchecked source #1): I've looked over BLZ's explanations and changes, and where accessible, supporting sources for that section, and I am satisfied that the text related to this source is now problem-free. To be prudent (because the spotcheck for this source initially didn't obtain perfect results), today I additionally spotchecked refs 16–18 (McCarroll 1967) and 30, 32–34 (Fensterstock & Fankhauser 1968). For the most part, it all looks good. The only concern I have, BLZ, is for ref #17, regarding the statement "There was a smog event in November 1962, but Greenburg's studies found it had not resulted in significant excess deaths." It's true that it says (in the first column on page 205), "The episode has also been described by Dr. Greenburg who concluded that no effect on mortality could be demonstrated assuming a three-day lag from the onset of the air pollution episode." But a little later it discusses the spike in deaths on December 1 and says, "The peak in mortality on December 1 occurs also simultaneously with the peak in pollution." The graph on page 204 shows December 1 having about 50 deaths above the average, and December 1 appears to be the tail end of the November 1962 smog event. The text is dense and I'm not sure I have caught all relevant details, but is it definitely true that "Greenburg's studies found [the November 1962 smog event] had not resulted in significant excess deaths"? Moisejp (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like Brandt has edited this nom or the article itself for a couple of weeks -- Moisejp am I right in understanding that apart from the point immediately above you're quite satisfied with the spotchecking over all? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:1966 NYC smog by Neal Boenzi NYT.jpg: NFCR seems fine, as is use. Wondering whether there are any images of that smog that are freely licensed. Is there a reason why "cloud" does not appear in the search function of the source that backs up the second part of the caption?
  • I went searching in vain for a free 1966 smog image, but I don't believe (to the best of my combing through flickr and various public domain archives) that any exist. In fact, that same copyrighted NYT image used to be on Commons because a user at Flickr is falsely claiming it as their own free image, and I requested that it be deleted. The reason that the search function couldn't find it is because that link was using EPA's very wonky and antiquated document reader, which requires that you go to a new URL every time you turn to a new page of a PDF. Therefore, I linked to the first page of the sourced article (page 27), even though the source for that particular information was on page 28. I recently discovered how to actually access the PDF files themselves, but hadn't yet fixed it so the URL for that source pointed to the PDF; I have now done so. You should be able to find the caption that I used for that quote in the caption at the top-right hand corner of page 28, and the caption refers to their reprint of the image on page 29.
@The ed17: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I agree with The ed17; if a sufficient free image were found, I would still argue for the inclusion of the NYT image (but not in the infobox, it would have to appear later in the piece, probably within the timeline section on the corresponding day). I'm pretty familiar with the fair use doctrine as applied on Wikipedia and I wanted to really establish that this particular image has more value than "merely" illustrating the smog in the absence of free options. For that purpose alone it would be, at least theoretically, replaceable if a free image turns up. But whether that happens or not, I wanted to include the kind of substantive, third-party commentary that would generally support the importance of a copyrighted photo as a unique historic photo in its own right. Even independent of our circumstantial reliance on it as one of the few available images to show the smog, this photo has some independent notability. I'm glad that The ed17 picked up on that in the caption and article. All that said, I don't think there's a strong chance of a free image (much less a high-quality one) turning up out of the blue anyway, so this is all a bit speculative. —BLZ · talk 20:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not enough for an article, no, but quoting from NFC: "Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are: ... where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article ..." :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source of the caption is also the exact source of the maps (which I arranged into a grid and labeled myself) and their corresponding captions that describe their contents.
  • You're the second person to comment on this image seeming slightly non-germane. I have no strong feeling about including it. I included it in the first placebecause it illustrates the general problem of trash management in NYC and is from roughly the same era; I wouldn't defend it as specifically related to "environmental problems + trash problems" (it's just illustrating trash problems) or tightly contemporaneous (it is years apart from the 1966 smog). If you think it should go, I'm happy to take this one out.
  • Source should be fixed for this one as well.
  • File:Rockefeller and Johnson.jpg: Use of image seems fine. Regarding the caption, I am not sure if the "became a major policy objective" text in the caption gels with the "already a priority" of the article. Source link broken.
  • I didn't upload this image or the image below; is retrieval of those links (through archive.org or other means) necessary to complete the image review?'
  • Regarding the caption and the article body: I wrote "already a priority" because it had been something Johnson had spoken about several times, and it would be misleading to suggest that his post-1966 statements and actions on air pollution were a completely newfound revelation on the issue. That said, with the wind of Congress behind him he was certainly newly empowered to act, and so it "became a major policy objective" at that time. It would be like if Obama had been able to sign major gun-control legislation after his fifth or so speech commemorating victims of a massacre and calling for increased gun control; in that fantasy world, it would be misleading to represent that Obama had never or hardly seen gun control as a priority (since he would have already talked about it five or so times by then), but it would also be accurate to say that (while it had "already" been a priority) it still became a "major" priority after the massacre. I could tweak the wording from "became a major policy objective" to "more pressing" or "more urgent policy objective," if you think that one of those or another alternate would express the idea better.
  • Same question as above on broken source link.

None of the images is currently using ALT text seems like. Some captions sourced to offline sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I figured out what was wrong with the broken links. The photo gallery page is a searchable database, but each individual photo doesn't have (at least, doesn't seem to have so far as I can tell) a unique permalink of its own. What I've done is find those photos within the gallery and then include their unique serial numbers with the link in the source. Someone trying to access the photos just has to copy-paste the serial number to find it. —BLZ · talk 04:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've now added alt captions for each image. —BLZ · talk 05:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, seems like source links and ALTs check out now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2017 [28].

Louis Leblanc

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated, and closed after two months due to last-minute commentary. I've now addressed that, and everything from the previous nomination. I also have contacted the users who left comments last time to ensure they see that the changes were made. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Hi. I'll start my review now. I see you've made some changes but my impression is that there is still a lot left unexplained or left for the reader to guess at. Here are some comments about the first section: Lead:

  • Would it be an idea to make the hierarchy of the leagues clearer?
  • "Eligible for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft, he was selected 18th overall by the Montreal Canadiens." If a reader doesn't know that the NHL is the top league, will the full context be clear that he was moving up in his career? One idea could be to "major league NHL..." or something.
  • "Leblanc spent three seasons with the Canadiens, mainly playing for their American Hockey League (AHL) affiliates, before being traded in 2014 to the Anaheim Ducks, who kept Leblanc in the AHL." Again, this wording assumes the reader knows the AHL is lower down than the NHL. I guess if they click on the wiki-link you provide for American Hockey League, that helps, but the reader should be able to get some of the context within the current article itself.
I'll address both of the above here. I feel that defining the NHL anymore here isn't necessary; it isn't something other sports-related articles do, and I feel its something that can easily be found through the NHL article itself. Regarding the AHL, while the lead doesn't specify it too much, it is the lead, and the body of the article does clarify the NHL-AHL relationship, or at least attempts to.

Junior:

  • "Leblanc was selected 18th overall by the Val-d'Or Foreurs in the 2007 QMJHL Draft, but instead went to the Omaha Lancers of the United States Hockey League (USHL)" If he was selected by one team, why did he have a choice to go to another team? Readers may wonder.
Moved some words around, but not sure how to make it much clearer.
  • OK, thanks. I appreciate you're trying to make it clearer. I'm just trying to understand this part for myself: He had to be selected for the Val-d'Or Foreurs in a draft—and he rejected being picked by them—but he was able to go to the Omaha Lancers without any kind of draft process? Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In short, there are separate junior leagues in Canada and the US, and teams can have the rights to players in their respective country, but it doesn't apply in the other. So Leblanc was drafted, and had his Canadian rights, owned by Val-d'Or, assigned in the draft, whereas he was free to sign with any US-based team (of course its more nuanced than that, but this is not the place for that discussion). Now that said, I have seen reference that there was a similar draft for player rights in the US, but I am unable to get anything resembling a source to back that. But to keep it simple, he was free to move to the US because the draft only covered his playing rights for Canadian teams. I hope that makes sense.
  • "At the end of the season, Leblanc was ranked by the National Hockey League (NHL) Central Scouting Bureau as a top prospect for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft;" Again, it would be nice to be clearer that the NHL is the top of the hierarchy, and what most players strive to reach.
See the first note; the reader is either going to know the status of the NHL, or the relevant article will do better explaining than anything here could.
  • "their final list had him 13th overall among North American skaters" I guess that "skaters" simply means "players" here, and is used to add variety. But I'd like to suggest "players" might be the more encyclopedic term.
I agree, however it is a specific term used for the ranking: they are divided amongst "skaters" and "goalies," and so to use "players" would be incorrect and wrong.
  • "Canadiens General Manager Bob Gainey also applauded Leblanc's decision to move to the United States and play in the USHL rather than stay in Quebec with the QMJHL. Gainey felt it was a more difficult choice that helped Leblanc's development as a player, and showed his good character in making such a decision." Again, it's not clear why Leblanc was able to decide this when the QMJHL had selected him. Also, I was left wondering in what way this would have been a more difficult choice.
Tried to add some context, but again without adding massive notes to this that distorts everything it becomes challenging to get specific.
  • Is there any minimal extra context that could be added in a footnote? Then it wouldn't disrupt the flow. But I'm not sure exactly how much extra explanation this would actually involve, so if you still think it's not feasible, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it goes against the traditional narrative in hockey circles, in which it is almost hearsay to suggest a junior player go anywhere but a Canadian team. For Gainey to have said that kind of goes against the established narrative, which if I had to speculate is possibly why he said it, as Leblanc defined convention; but that isn't exactly backed by a source.
  • "On July 30, 2010, Leblanc signed a three-year contract with the Canadiens. By agreeing to an NHL contract, he forfeited his NCAA eligibility and had to leave Harvard, being considered a professional according to NCAA standards." I see that you tweaked this slightly based on my comment last time, but I still don't feel it's clear. If he signed to the Canadiens, doesn't that mean he wanted to imminently pursue a career with an NHL team? If so, saying that he "had to" leave Harvard and he "forfeited his NCAA eligibility" ("forfeited" suggests a possible sacrifice made) sounds misleading or at least confusing.
Changed wording to "professional," as that is the issue regarding NCAA eligibility.
  • It's undeniable that he was no longer eligible for the NCAA. But my point was, wasn't his dream presumably to succeed in the NHL? If so, saying he "forfeited" (which has a somewhat negative connotation) his NCAA eligibility seems to put a little emphasis where it doesn't belong. Why would anyone want to play in the NCAA when they had a chance to make it big in the NHL? Trading one's NCAA eligibility for a spot in the NHL is a positive thing, not negative. Anyway, this is minor and maybe I'm getting too hung up on semantics. If you're comfortable with this part, I won't press this any further. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. This mainly stems from the fact that most younger players spend a few years in the minor leagues before they make the NHL, if ever. This includes playing in the NCAA, which has a four-year limit; and unlike the Canadian major junior leagues or AHL, players can not play briefly in the NHL to see how good they are and return to the NCAA, but must either remain at the university level or "turn pro" (NCAA policy regards the Canadian leagues as pro for reasons that aren't relevant here).
  • "After attending his first training camp with the Canadiens in September 2010, Leblanc was sent to the Montreal Junior Hockey Club (Montreal Juniors) of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) for the 2010–11 season." We learn later that it was Chicoutimi that sent him to the Juniors. Would it be clearer to explain that now rather than saying "was sent to" here?
Changed wording, think it may better reflect the situation.
  • "In the off-season the team relocated to Boisbriand, a suburb of Montreal, and were renamed the Blainville-Boisbriand Armada; the team would subsequently trade Leblanc's major junior rights to the Shawinigan Cataractes, though he never played for them." Readers may wonder why he never played for them.
  • I'd like to still think about whether there's a way the info about his various QMJHL contracts could be explained less confusedly more clearly. I'll get back to you if I have any ideas. Moisejp (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to clarify better what I meant for my last point. I was suddenly called away to attend to something and wasn't able to choose my words carefully. I meant that there is a lot of activity described with Leblanc changing teams lots of times in a short period of time, plus there is some jumping back and forth in the chronological time line. Confusing is a strong word, but it's less easy to follow than would be ideal. It may be that this can't be helped—these are the events that happened and the article is describing them. But what I meant to say is I'd like to give another think about whether any further tweaking can be done—for example, by adding helpful transitions to the prose, or by rearranging the order the descriptions a bit—to help the reader as much as possible. If I can't think of any specific solutions for this, then no worries. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you mean regarding the transactions, in that they don't really have a clear place to go. However I feel that as they are really inconsequential to his career, it would be disruptive to put them chronologically, as it would just be some random note in the middle of relevant things happening. That said, they are still important enough to mention, as they clearly had an effect on his career (it was why he played in Montreal and not rural Quebec, after all; and if I can speculate, that may have influenced his choice to leave Harvard, as the team was close to the Canadiens). Thus I'd feel it wrong to outright remove the information, but to plant the trades sporadically seems an equally poor choice. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think they might work in a footnote? Maybe the most important information in the main text, and then a clarification in a footnote about how he had changed QMJHL contracts a couple of times before that. Just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Let me look at it.
  • I've got some ideas for possibly rearranging this section a bit. I'd like to give a whirl at editing it in the next couple of days when I have time. If my edits aren't an improvement, we can always revert back. Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please go for it, I'm interested in what you got in mind. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See what you think: User:Moisejp/sandbox3. Unfortunately in my editing I stripped all the inline sources. I hope it wouldn't be too much of a hassle for you to add them back in. Maybe I can help with it, but I didn't want to do any work on that until I find out if you like the edit. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that looks pretty good actually, and is still clear on what happened. And its no issue regarding the sources, I can add them if you import that into the article itself. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and either changed things up or left my own opinion on some matters, and hope to hear what you think on them. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Kasier matias. I have been a bit busy the last few days, but hope to respond to your replies and continue the review as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I can relate to a busy schedule, so take your time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answered you're queries above, so let me know what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaiser matias. I have imported the text we discussed in. I hope to begin reviewing the second half of the article in the coming days. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ultimately" is used three times in the article. Does it add any real meaning to any of the instances?
    • I got rid of two of them. The first instance I kept just because I feel when discussing his pre-draft ranking and his actual spot in the draft it makes sense.
  • "He was invited to the summer camp the following year in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and was one of the better players at the camp." Sounds possibly subjective, though I haven't checked what the source says. Could you make it more objective by maybe saying "So-and-so said that..."
    • Changed the wording, and the link as apparently the previous one is dead now.
  • "He later notched an assist in the gold medal game, where Canada lost to Russia 5–3." "Notched" sounds fine for sports newspaper writing, but I am unsure about encyclopedia writing (it sounds a bit casual to me). How would you feel about changing it?
    • Changed

Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Your changes look good. Moisejp (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking such a detailed look at the article, really glad to have someone do that and put such effort in, really makes a difference. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I noticed this article failing to receive much attention, so I wanted to give it a look. It make take a few days before I can come back, so please be patient with the article, coordinators.

  • United States really doesn't need the link in the lead, as it is so well-known. This is a prime example of overlinking.
  • "Leblanc joined the Montreal Canadiens later that year, who had earlier acquired his Quebec Major Junior Hockey League playing rights." For a better order in this sentence, try "Later that year Leblanc joined the Montreal Canadiens, who had...". This puts "who" right after the team name, which it is referring to.
  • Don't know if anyone has brought this up to this point, but the body jumps right into his playing career without any mention of anything that happened earlier in his life. There's a healthy paragraph in the personal life section about his early years, which would be of great help in providing some context for the playing career sections. How would you feel about splitting that paragraph into an Early life section at the start of the body? It would leave a shorter personal life section, but it would still be a whole paragraph (still long enough to be worthwhile) and the article as a whole would have a logical order.
  • Junior: NCAA should be spelled out in its first use, as is done with the other abbreviations.
  • Professional: "the overtime winner" could be seen as an example of sportswriter-type prose, which in my experience hasn't been rewarded often at FAC. A longer-but-simpler "the game-winning goal in overtime" would be more formal.
  • "for the Canadiens, where he had 5 goals and 5 assists". The Canadiens aren't a place, so we need something other than "where". Perhaps "for whom he had 5 goals and 5 assists" would work?
  • There's a similar usage after Norfolk Admirals, which could use a similar fix.
  • Remove the comma in "January, 2013".
  • International play: "and" is needed before "was one of the top scorers at the camp."
  • Reference 13 needs an access date. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. Everything here's been addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for coordinators: This has been up for nearly two months now, and has only two supports. As I'd prefer to not have to relist it a third time, is there anything that can be done to help move this along? Kaiser matias (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: Recusing as coordinator from this one, and I've done some light copy-editing. I've read it a couple of times, and there is nothing glaringly wrong. However, there is something that I can't quite put my finger on that isn't quite working. It could be in my imagination, but I'd like to have one last look before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think part of the problem is a slightly repetitive sentence structure: too many sentences begin "Leblanc", "he" or with a simple subject. I've reworked some, and this should be less of an issue now.
  • One area where I think we might be a little weak is in judging his effectiveness. We have plenty of stats, albeit fairly meaningless unless you follow hockey as there is understandably no context to what makes a "good" total. However, there is not very much that says "he played well" or "he played badly" or "the coaches thought he was terrible". I think, if possible, we need much more on this or it is simply a list of appearances and goals scored without any commentary. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That should be something that can be worked on, will just need a couple days to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so went and added some details about how he was seen as failing to meet his potential, and a bit about being a draft bust. There isn't a lot out there that explicitly says he was bad though, just thoughts on his future career and allusions, which I've tried to quantify best as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think those last changes were what was needed. I'm still not entirely taken with something, probably the prose, but I think we're into matters of taste now. I may pick at it a little more, but I think it meets the criteria and so I'm switching to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Everything is cited that needs to be. Sources are all of the appropriate quality. I tweaked a few dates to match the article's formatting scheme, but everything else looks to be in order. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2017 [29].

Evita (1996 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...the 1996 film depicting the life of Eva Perón, from her beginnings, rise to power and death at the age of 33. FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

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

  • "June 21, 1978": See WP:MOS. Here (and elsewhere), a comma is needed afterwards if there's no other punctuation there.
  • "they are upset": About?
  • "Lader taught Madonna how to sing using her diaphragm rather than just her throat, allowing her to project her voice in a much more cohesive manner.": I'm dubious that this was the first time she heard about singing from the diaphragm, and I think readers will need clarification even if it's true.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chrishonduras

[edit]

Comments I think even though the film received according to review aggregation websites an average of mixed reviews, the protagonism of Madonna has had attracted an universal acclaim. There is some yesterday and today sources like this: 1 and 2. So, one of the most important things in an article is to be neutral, and there is not something to treat it lightly, specially when some source claims that Madonna "popularised" Argentinian politics. So, my request is to mention in the lead and critical response section, this specification about her acting (as they do in other articles, like Suicide Squad with "Robbie and Leto's performances"). Thanks Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Here's an image review:

There thankfully are no glaring concerns that I can find. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Stone caption has thankfully been trimmed. Let me know when the other concerns are addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some updates: I replaced File:Evita color.jpg since I could not find any details regarding the original author. I could remove the image File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg if the file source is a concern. FrankRizzo (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Eva Perón Retrato Oficial.jpg definitely was a good substitute to include as all publication details are known. As for the Alan Parker image, it would probably be best to remove if no other file source can be found. Feel free to also replace it with another image of him with a more accessible file source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS:, OTRS is an extremely reliable way of accepting content in Wikipedia. File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg has actually been verified by an admin or a trusted reviewer in Commons, hence the OTRS tag is added. —IB [ Poke ] 03:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, scratch my previous comment about removing the Alan Parker pic; it can stay. I'm still not sure if the Casa Rosada Buenos Aires photo has much (if any) benefit, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS:, it was I who had added it. My reason was that the Casa was an important portion for the filming of this movie, and there's much written about how they obtained permission, key sequences like Eva's "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" etc all being shot there, as well as a poignant locale all through out the film. Hence, unlike picture of any other filming location, I thought that the Casa would actually aid reader's understanding of the article and they would benefit in knowing how the Casa looked like. I'm ambivalent towards its keeping or removal, you can suggest either but just wanted to let you know my reasoning for adding the image. —IB [ Poke ] 05:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK that helps. Seeing no further issues in the article, I now can gladly support for FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snuggums, can I clarify: is your support for the article overall or purely from an image perspective? Tks/cheers, 11:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's both as I couldn't find any further concerns outside of image comments Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from FrB.TG

[edit]

Source review for formatting and reliability (concerns addressed)

  • Ref 8 lacks publisher.
  • There are instances of WP:SHOUTING in titles of source 9, 11.
  • Every publisher should be (or that is practiced here, well almost) linked to its respective page at the time of its first occurrence (e.g. Newsweek should not be linked further in ref 13 and The Independent should be linked in ref 40). These two are just examples so go through each source to spot the other inconsistencies.
  • Ref 19 - same case as 8.
  • I don't understand the purpose of Nixon in ref 20.
  • Ref 61 has no publisher.
  • Ref 68 - "Weekend Box Office Results for January 17–20, 1997 – Box Office Mojo" - the name of the website can go. Same with ref 92.
  • The publisher of ref 93 should be called Golden Globe Awards. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Abovementioned concerns regarding sources have been addressed as per my previoua edit to the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

I was originally going to just tweak a word or two but then decided to do a more somewhat more extensive copyedit, so will recuse from coord duties now. Pls let me know if I've inadvertently altered any meaning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing

  • FN9a,b,c -- source supports article text in all cases, rephrased appropriately
  • FN9d -- source supports article text but:
    • Source: "Russell and Stigwood at first focused on the eight "Evitas" then appearing in stage productions worldwide"
    • Article: "Russell and Stigwood first focused on the eight lead actresses from the musical's worldwide stage productions" -- bit close for my liking
  • FN12g -- source supports article text but:
    • Source: "whereby she would be paid for her commitment of time whether the film was shot or not"
    • Article: "whereby she would be paid for her commitment of time whether the film was shot or not"
  • FN13a -- source supports article text although be nice if we could find an alternative to repeating "elaborate gown"
  • FN13b -- I don't know that the source explicitly supports "impressed with her determination" but it certainly supports simply "impressed"
  • FN13c,f -- source supports article text in both cases, rephrased appropriately

Based on the above, I think the sources generally support the article text but you'll need walk through it checking for other instances of close paraphrasing or indeed copying of the sources; let me know when done and I'll take another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks a lot @Ian Rose:, I will do another spotcheck and reference verification and maybe use Earwig's tool to prune out any Copyvios. —IB [ Poke ] 16:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoping my previous contributions to the article have helped, @IndianBio:. I have been making edits to cut down on close paraphrases and using Earwig's tool to shorten Copyvios. My only concern is that Earwig's tool is indicating CopyVios from this website, which appears to have copied and pasted details from Wikipedia. Would it possible to exclude the website from Earwig's tool? FrankRizzo (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @FrankRizzo2006: that's okay, editors and reviewers can see that a website called Madonnaglam.com has obviously copy pasted it from Wikipedia itself, so no worries there. @Ian Rose: would you be kind enough to take another look into the article now? —IB [ Poke ] 07:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Returning...

  • I've checked over the changes (mostly quote-cutting) since I last edited, tweaked a few things. One query...
    • Under Music and soundtrack', we say "Rice declined to change the song, but rewrote it five to six times" -- I haven't been able to check the source so I have to ask: how did Rice rewrite the song multiple times without changing it?
  • Following up on the source spotcheck...
    • FN05b -- source supports article text but:
      • Source: "didn't want to do back-to-back musicals"
      • Article: "did not want to make back-to-back musicals" -- I'd suggest just use his exact words from the source and quote 'em...
    • FN05e -- source supports article text but:
      • Source: "my script—which called for 146 changes to the original score and lyrics"
      • Article: "The script called for 146 changes to the original score and lyrics"
    • FN10b -- perhaps my search facility isn't firing on all cylinders but I couldn't find mention of Nixon anywhere...

Sorry but I have to oppose now -- the first three spotchecks I've made after the initial one are problematic; it just doesn't look to me as though the article has been inspected to reduce instances of close paraphrasing as I recommended. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok since I have done with all the spotchecks now I can respond to you @Ian Rose:. Your spotchecks found some of the close paraphrases which I have changed all through out the article, as well as eliminating some content which did not stick to source. Coming to FN10b, no the Nixon part was not there. It is in FN19 with the quote "Both of those Stone projects – Evita with New Regency and Cinergi at Hollywood Pictures and Noriega with New Regency at Warner Bros. – fell apart over budget and casting last year. But, the source said, Nixon is really at the center of this." I have completely brushed through the whole article now and I am very much confident now that it has every thing in place. Let me know your thoughts. Just one thing, there are a couple of places where it was impossible to change the wording, so I have rather made them as quotes to the original source. —IB [ Poke ] 14:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, back again. A lot of changes since my last visit, and not all for the better prose-wise in my opinion, so I've copyedited again. Spotchecking once more:
  • Wasn't entirely happy with FN5k so modified the article text slightly, but not a showstopper.
  • FN35a, FN38, FN76 and FN87 all checked out okay.
Given these latest results, I'm about ready to withdraw my oppose once the outstanding point from my first check is addressed. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ian Rose: thanks for your comments. FrankRizzo has responded to the first point. See if the article is fine for procedural action now. —IB [ Poke ] 04:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, oppose struck. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looks good, not finding much to complain about...

In January 1996, Madonna travelled to Buenos Aires to research Eva's life, and met with several people who knew her before her passing - "passing" sounds lame here, I would say "death", or "several people who had known her ( ± during her lifetime)"
Is it worth discussing how elements of the plot differ from history (i.e what is fact and what is fictional? This is what I always wanna know when watching a biopic..)?

Otherwise a good read and nothing else to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]
  • "Evita is a 1996 American musical drama film based on Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical of the same name." But the Development section specifically says Parker decided not to base the film on the musical, but rather was inspired by the concept album.
  • "In response to the controversy surrounding the film, the production held a press conference in Buenos Aires on February 6, 1996." I haven't looked at your source, but is there info available about what specifically was talked about at the press conference, and whether it had any degree of success in allaying the Argentinian public's concerns?
  • "In the United States and Canada, it was the 32nd highest-grossing film of 1996[69] and the sixth highest-grossing PG-rated film of that year.[70] Worldwide, it was the twenty-third highest-grossing film of the year." But the main duration of its release was in 1997. That seems like the year that would be most relevant for box office rankings.
  • Is ref #59 a reliable source? I haven't looked at any of the other sources, but happened to stumble on that one, and it gives me concern. Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch about source #59. I have removed it as the SF Examiner itself was able to source it. I will allow FrankRizzo to respond to the rest of the queries you have @Moisejp:. —IB [ Poke ] 05:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that besides the issues above, I think the article is very good. If you can resolve or address these, I expect to support. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Moisejp:, In response to your comments: I could rewrite the lead summary to something along the lines of "Evita is a 1996 American musical drama film based on the 1976 concept album of the same name produced by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, which inspired a 1978 musical." Yes, the film's release duration was in 1997, though I couldn't find specific sources to help me convey the box office rankings of that year.FrankRizzo (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "which also inspired a 1978 musical"? Would that work for you?
  • If it was me, I would consider just taking out the 1996 rankings because they seem to give undue influence on its short 1996 run in the absence of data on its much longer 1997 run. But if you disagree, it's not a deal breaker for me. Moisejp (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good. I'm happy to support now. Moisejp (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: As we have an oppose on close paraphrasing, this will not be promoted until the issues have been addressed or we have a consensus that this is no longer an issue. I would recommend that any new reviewers concentrate on this issue rather than on prose or content. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sarastro1:, me and FrankRizzo is checking the article and will revert back once done so that it can be checked by Ian. —IB [ Poke ] 04:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How are we progressing here? If nothing is happening I'm afraid, with an oppose on close paraphrasing, this will be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging FrankRizzo2006 in case he hasn't already seen this notice Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro1, please give me till this weekend time and I will finish the prose issues. If after that you see anything glaring, please go ahead and archive it as desired. —IB [ Poke ] 10:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'm working on the spotcheck issues now. —IB [ Poke ] 05:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1:, finished the spotchecking now. Waiting for Ian's response. —IB [ Poke ] 14:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-checks – Since there was a request for more input in this regard, I decided to look at some of the sources and compare them to the article. This is what I found:

  • Reference 10 (Newsweek) and 11 (New York Times): From the first cite to the Newsweek source, I see no mention of RSO Films, or that it is Stigwood's production company, and the NYT article doesn't mention it either. The second cite to the Newsweek article supports the relevant sentence, and there's no close paraphrasing in either source.
  • Reference 16 (Los Angeles Times): Minor point, but I don't see anything about Cinergi being an independent studio.
  • Reference 24 (Manila Standard): This supports the fact that Banderas was involved when Stone was directing; there's another source here that I didn't review, and I'll assume that this covers the rest of this bit. For the second usage, it supports the fact being cited, but please note that Google News put up a bad date. The bar on top of the page says it's dated July 1, but a look at the newspaper reveals that the paper was published on July 5. That will need to be fixed, although the content is adequately supported with no paraphrasing concerns.
  • Reference 75 (New York Daily News): This says reviews were mixed, although it seems to be saying in that general and doesn't mention anything about "mainstream" critics. I suppose that's what they meant, however, as they probably wouldn't have been referring to non-mainstream critics.
  • Reference 78 (Hartford Courant): The quotation from this source is supported just fine.
  • Reference 86 (New York Times): All of the information cited to this source is adequately supported; the quote appears as one would expect, and the non-quoted bits have no close paraphrasing.

So there are a couple of issues from this batch that should be looked at, although I saw no close paraphrasing concerns at all. I'll leave it up to the coordinators to decide whether they're satisfied with the work that has been done since Ian's oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2017 [30].

Fallout 4: Far Harbor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the second Featured Article nomination for this article. Since the previous nomination, the article has gone through a few small expansions, and been proof-read multiple times by a couple of editors. I think it's at the standard of an FA, though I'd love to hear the opinions of everyone else. If you've got any ideas for the article, please list them! Recently, I've received a bit of FAC mentoring from HJ Mitchell, who also helped with the final stretch. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments from Aoba47
  • I think the infobox image should have an ALT description/text (I have heard some uncertainty about the value of ALT text, but I would still recommend it for the time being). I would also make sure that all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
  • In the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph, the repetition of "Commonwealth" makes the sentence read a little awkwardly. I would suggest revising this to avoid the repetition.
  • Avoid contractions, such "wasn't" in the lead, by spelling it out completely.
  • Something about this sentence reads a little awkwardly to me (The development team also noticed players' interest in expansions that added large amounts of explorable territory, and, due to the size of Far Harbor, the price of Fallout 4's season pass was increased). I understand why you put these two ideas together, but something about the way it is currently pulled together seems a little off to me and does not mesh these two ideas together as strongly as it could be.
  • Is the "fog" in this expansion pack similar to the gameplay mechanic the "fog of war". If so, do you think it would be useful to link "fog" to "fog of war" (especially since the "fog of war" article includes a section on its use in video games)? I could be over-thinking this though.
It's just fog.
  • What do you mean by "Unlike the previous iterations in the Fallout series,"? Did the previous game include more factions/fewer factions? I would make this part a little clearer to those unfamiliar with the series.
    I removed that preface as it's a tad unnecessary.
  • Add a citation for the last portion of the first paragraph in the "Setting and characters" subsection. Same goes for the end of the second paragraph in the same subsection.
    Don't synopsis/plot sections not need sources at all, or is it different when talking about the settings or characters?
    Oh, duh! Sorry for missing that. For some reason, I did not read that as synopsis/plot. You are correct with your comment that they do not need sources. I apologize for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but should titles of quests from the game be put in italics or quotations? I am referencing the reference to Brain Dead in the "Similarities with Autumn Leaves" subsection. Just wanted to make sure.
    I'm not sure. I put them there just to be safe.
    Cool, just wanted to check about this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work with this article. It is a very interesting read, and it is cool to read an article about downloadable content. A majority of comments are rather minor and nitpicky. I will support this nomination once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input, Aoba47 I've addressed all of your concerns, though I left two replies which you might want to look at. I've collapsed what I believe to be complete, if that's okay with you. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. from Czar

[edit]
  • There is a lot of weight put on the setting/endings (if not the plot too)—it's longer than the other sourced sections... I can't imagine why it shouldn't be shorter. Also are there really no sources available for these unsourced parts? Plot doesn't need to be sourced, but it should be verifiable in text if it can. Even a player's guide for the endings, if one's available, would work. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I've shortened both sections and added a few sources. IMO the length isn't undue, it only talks about what is necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read through (still deciding whether I want to spoil the ending) but sources like "Fallout 4: Far Harbor DLC – how to get the best ending" are exactly what I had in mind, so should be good. Those sources also make make the section a good example of how to source plot. A few other cursory points: I'd remove Game Rant (unreliable). Also from what I see at a glance, check the current WT:VG thread about FAC Reception writing re: removing some of the reviewer names, combining sentences & refs, etc. (I know I've gave comments last year, but it's a brave new FAC world) czar 02:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I've removed the Game Rant source. As for the reception section, I based it off your FA Blast Corps, in a way. I'll read over the discussion you linked me and I'll attempt to make the section more stream-lined. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Okay, I've gone through and tried to streamline some of the contents. I've also bundled up the references to be at the end of the sentence if it mentions two different websites, unless there's a quotation. Opinion? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The combinations look good but I'd go further and crunch the sentences to remove the reviewer names. However, it's fine to wait and see what other readers would think first. Even as someone familiar with games, I hate carrying the reviewer name in my head when the individual is not necessarily important to understanding the statement. The sentiment is more that one reliable reviewer made a claim, and perhaps that reviewer is associated with a publication (hence why the Blast Corps Reception is light on reviewer names—notice that Donkey Kong 64's Reception is even lighter). So I hesitate at giving a strong prescription on those points, but I do think it's easier to read the fog paragraph, for instance, when I'm not juggling reviewer names and am instead focusing on how it annoyed one reviewer, was complimented by another, and was deemed manageable by yet another. (It's also unclear whether "atmosphere" is referring to the game's ambiance or the literal foggy atmosphere, based on the paragraph.) czar 16:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I see where you're coming from, but if we remove who said what doesn't it become an issue of "reviewers[who?] thought that x was good but y was bad"? I'll see what other's opinions are first. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. To answer the question, not necessarily. If the answer is to replace reviewers with two surnames that mean nothing to the reader, it both doesn't illuminate new information while simultaneously making the prose worse (heat without light, etc.) And if "reviewers" is too summative or creates bias, "some reviewers thought" or a variation is an alternative. It's easy to tell which from the references. The point is to explain the game's reception when no source sums it up for us, not necessarily to give an accounting of who thought what. czar 06:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Famous Hobo

[edit]
Addressed comments from Famous Hobo

Lead

  • Why do we need to know when Far Harbor was announced? This isn't information the reader needs to know immediately. Just list the release date, what systems it was released for, and then move on.
  • The end of the first paragraph feels a bit clunky. For example, you don't mention the game's nuclear fallout setting, which is rather crucial to the game as a whole. I would write something like "The game is set in the year 2287, in the aftermath of a nuclear fallout that destroys most of the United States. In the expansion, the player character is recruited by a detective agency to investigate the disappearance of a young girl living in a remote area." Other things to note: We don't need to know the name of the detective agency right off the bat; we also don't need to know where the detective agency operates, especially if most of the expansion doesn't take place in the Commonwealth.
    I copied your example verbatim, is that fine?
  • The player controls the protagonist throughout their investigation on the Island, a landmass off the coast of Maine where the town of Far Harbor is situated. Perhaps remove the bit about the city of Far Harbor, since you haven't introduced the reader to the city yet.
  • Do you only receive bottle caps and experience points from side quests? Having played Fallout 4, I don't think that's right. Also, delink sidequest and link the first use of quest (the sidequest link just goes to the quest article anyway).
    Changed to simply say quests.
  • There is no mention of the Autumn Leaves debacle in the lead.
    Added one sentence.

Gameplay

  • I don't like the current screenshot. It's too dark and could be hard for a casual reader to make out what's going on. Try and find a screenshot that's better lit, but still shows the fog effects.
    @Famous Hobo: The three in this article are good, personally, I like the sunny one on the shoreline because it's easy to view and the fog is still visible. The first one is still dark, though it shows off the fog better. What do you think?
  • Fallout 4 is the fifth installment in the Fallout series and takes place after the events in Fallout 3[2] and is set 210 years after "The Great War", which resulted in the nuclear devastation across the United States. No need to mention its connection to Fallout 3, as it has no relevance to this article. Also, do you really need to link United States? I think everyone knows what the US is.
  • Puzzle sections were not featured in the base game and thus were a new feature. No need to mention they are a new feature. If they weren't in the game originally, then of course its new content.
  • Again with only receiving money and points after completing sidequests and not main quests. I may be wrong though, I don't remember exactly.
    I've changed it to simply say quests, as even if some of them are sidequests, they're still technically quests.

Synopsis

  • There are three major conflicting factions present in the expansion, all residing in separate areas: the Harbormen of Far Harbor; the synth colony of Acadia; and the Church of the Children of Atom. I know what a synth is, but I don't think the reader will.
    Added a short description.
  • The expansion starts after the player completes the "Getting a Clue" quest, in which the Sole Survivor meets private detective Nick Valentine, who offers him employment.[19] This entire sentence needs to go. Feels like WP:GAMEGUIDE.

Development

  • Far Harbor was developed by Bethesda Game Studios and was announced three months after the official release of Fallout 4—alongside Automatron, Wasteland Workshop, and teasers of other upcoming expansions—in a blog post on February 16, 2016.[24] The expansion was released on May 19, 2016 for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. For the release date, just say May 19. Don't include 2016, as you already mentioned the year in the previous date. If events occurred in the same year, then you can just say the year for the first date.
  • On June 2, 2016, two weeks after the expansion's official release... Drop the date, as just saying two weeks after its release is enough information.

Reception

  • I won't get into this section too much, as it seems you're doing some cleanup with the suggestions Czar gave, but I will say that you mention that reviewers disliked the puzzle sections in both the first and second paragraphs.
    I'm using the first paragraph somewhat like a lead for the rest of the reception. I've already reworded the first paragraph's mention, so IMO it's fine. Also, what's your opinion on the removal of reviewer's names (per the conversation with Czar)? Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That should be a good first read through. Looks promising so far. The article seems to be in better condition then when it was first nominated, and I think it's almost there. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Thanks for the review! I've left a few replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo: I've collapsed the issues that I've fixed, if you believe they're not solved, feel free to remove them from the template. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good work so far. Here's another batch of comments.

  • The box art has alt text, but the three other images also need alt text.
Added some alt text, no idea how to check if it works though.
  • The reception section has some issues in regards to the listed websites. For example, Post Arcade links to The Financial Post, which folded nearly 20 years ago. Instead, you should link it to the National Post, like you do later in the reception section. Also, decide whether to use GameCentral or Metro, as Game Central redirects to Metro, and you interchange the publications throughout the reception section. Finally there is some overlinking of the websites (Destructoid and PC Gamer from what I saw). While your at it, Minecraft should also be delinked, as this was linked in the gameplay section.
    Is it better now?
  • The external links seem to be freaking out, but from I've noticed, you've archived all the sources, so good for you.
Seems like that tool doesn't like Archive.is, which is what all of those blue highlighted links were.
  • As for whether the prose in the reception section is good, honestly, this has always been difficult for me to decide. Before Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward was promoted, IDV and I had to completely rewrite the reception section twice, because neither of us were that good at it. If you want an expert review on the reception section, I recommend asking Czar to take a look at it again, or politely invite PresN to take a look at it. As for what I think, honestly I think it does its job. It discusses what reviewers liked and disliked, and I felt it was a smooth read. Also, I could go either way when it comes to including reviewer names, but I guess if I had to choose, I prefer at least having the reviewers last name mentioned. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in that the reception does the job well, and I'd rather leave it as is with the occasional last name and so-on because that's what I'm used to writing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo: Cheers for the new points. I've left replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we're getting really close, just a few more things I need to bring up.

  • This is my fault since I edited this bit, but I just noticed the definition of nuclear fallout doesn't accurately describe the Fallout setting. Perhaps instead include nuclear war? It doesn't roll off the tongue as well, but the change should be made.
  • Regarding the screenshot, the Geek article has some good ones, but none of them show the HUD, which a vital aspect of the game. One of my friends owns Far Harbor, and I can get a better lit screenshot if you'd like showing the HUD, but at this point, I don't think the screenshot as is will be an issue.
I don't mind changing the screenshot, but I believe the current one portrays the content well enough. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A really small nitpick, but in the external links section, their is no Far Harbor website. It simply links to the Fallout 4 website. Perhaps change it to Official Fallout 4 website.
  • I noticed the Vice article on the talk page. Were you going to use that at some point? By the looks of it, it seems to be just a review, and the reception section is already solid. Unless it brings up any new points, I don't think you need to include it.
Yeah, I normally just throw sites on there that I think I might get around to using, but I didn't need it. I've removed it from the page.

Once those points are addressed, I'll support. BTW, you can check alt text with the handy dandy altviewer. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Cheers for the analysis, I've fixed up all the issues and left replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop pestering you about the screenshot, as it does it's job. Since all of my comments have been addressed, I'll Support. Good job, and I hope everything goes well from here on out. I know the struggle of working on an FAC. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Well, it's been open for a while and it hasn't received any more comments, opinions? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is a bit of a waiting game. A month to six weeks is not unusual but I doubt the FAC coordinators would consider this to have had sufficient input yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]
Addressed comments from Jaguar
  • All three paragraphs of the lead begin with "Far Harbor"; I'd recommend mixing it up once
  • "The player controls the protagonist throughout their investigation on the Island" - shouldn't 'The' be capitalised her as per how it's stylised throughout the rest of the article?
  • " but some had mixed opinions on the atmosphere and expansion's use of fog" - how about but some had mixed opinions on the expansion's atmosphere and its use of fog
  • "for the action role-playing single-player video game Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is the fifth installment in the Fallout series" - I think there's a repetition of Fallout 4 in too much of a close proximity here. Perhaps change it to It is the fifth installment or The game is the fifth installment? Feel free to ignore if you disagree
  • "The player's character also gains experience points" - not 'player character'?
  • "The expansion took influence from the player's feedback regarding the dialogue system in Fallout 4, and how it "didn't work as well as other features"" - I think you can safely lose the quotes here and paraphrase this
I think this is fine as-is.
  • Refs 38 and 39 are lacking publishers (the publisher is Ziff Davis)

Those were all of the minor nitpicks I could find during my first read through this article. Overall it is comprehensive, well written and engaging. I noticed a couple of refs are missing publishers but that's minor. Once all of the above are out of the way then I'll take another look at this and will most likely support! JAGUAR  10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the review, Jaguar. I've fixed up everything. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing them! I'll happily lend my support now. Quite impressed with the reception section too—it reads as cohesive prose rather than a list of reviewers themselves. Definitely preferable for a FA in my opinion. JAGUAR  14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I was looking at this with a view to promotion but hit a few issues in the lead. I think I'd like a few more eyes on the prose before we promote this.

Addressed comments from Sarastro1
  • "There are a variety of puzzles, some utilize lasers and others allow building using blocks." Something not right here.
How about now?
  • "Far Harbor was announced three months after the release of Fallout 4...": Maybe this is video game speak, but saying that the game was announced does not seem to work; perhaps something like "the release of Far Harbor was announced"?
I didn't see too much wrong with what it was originally, but is it better now?
  • "...and was influenced by player feedback on the base game's dialogue system, and how it was believed that it was not as successful as the other mechanics" And this makes the sentence very long, with two "and"s.
Is it better now?
  • "The development team also noticed players' interest in expansions that added large amounts of explorable territory.": I can't quite see the link between this sentence and the ones around it.
Is it better now?
  • "Due to the size of Far Harbor, the price of Fallout 4's season pass was increased": Can we say why? (I appreciate it's quite obvious, but it would be nice to spell it out)
Is it better now?
  • "The PlayStation 4 version was re-released in June 2016 to fix performance issues.": Another sentence seeming a little disconnected from the ones around it.
I couldn't think of any way to replace this, so I've removed it for now.

Nothing major, but I'd like someone to take another look just to be sure. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Cheers for the pointers. I've tried to fix them up. What's your opinion now? Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: In case you forgot. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't forget, but I was looking for further comment on this rather than doing so myself, for it needs further review. I'd rather not give further examples for the moment or I'd have to recuse as coordinator. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

[edit]
Addressed comments from Moisejp

Lead:

  • "This sparked controversy, though Veer said that he was not upset with the similarities in the games." Does the main text clearly establish that there any real controversy? I would argue that it doesn't.
Changed to "discussion".
  • It may be a matter of personal preference, but how would you feel about using small mid-sentence t for the Island, the Institute, etc.? If you don't want to, know worries. I guess the most important thing is that you are consistent.
Capitals are fine, IMO.

Gameplay:

  • Is it explained why the Sole Survivor is called as such when there are apparently other humans still alive?
I'm not sure, but that'd be too much detail for an expansion anyway. It might be a good idea to include it in the Fallout 4 article, though.
  • "The expansion is set on a radioactive, smog-smothered island": There are 15 occurrences of "fog" or "foggy" in the article, but this is the only occurrence of "smog". Is it really fog, not smog? Or if it's smog, should the other occurrences describe it as such?
Changed all to "fog".
  • "A quick completion by killing the other characters is not always the best option as the player will find options to resolve things peacefully by completing more quests given by the factions." Possibly OK (as an interesting turn of phrase), but it a little bit sounds like the reader would initially assume that killing other characters quickly was a good method. Maybe consider rephrasing a bit to put more emphasis on there being different strategies, each with its own potential pitfalls, rather than starting by saying killing is not necessarily the best way.
Added "There are different ways to complete quests, all with their own pitfalls." to the start.
  • "To use more stamina-hungry actions, the player must let it regenerate." What does "it" refer to here?
Already mentioned: Using V.A.T.S. lowers the stamina
  • It's a bit awkward because stamina is singular but Action Points is plural. Also "regenerate one's stamina" may be used in roleplaying games but is not a common collocation in everyday life. So together I feel these make it less clear what "it" refers to. How about "the player must let the AP regenerate"? Moisejp (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to: the player must wait until their action points regenerate. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endings:

  • We are told there are eight possible endings, but it's not clear to me which details of what follows are the endings themselves, and which are possible steps towards one (or more than one) of the possible endings. Moisejp (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The ending section is written fine, in my opinion. Do you have any specific changes for it (or could you rephrase this?)
  • Well, the first sentence says that there are eight possible endings, and I kind of then expected to get a clear idea what each of the endings was. But as I was reading, I wasn't sure which details were the endings themselves, and which were details leading up to endings. For example, as I was reading the second sentence ("The Sole Survivor is faced with a choice: to destroy Far Harbor, to destroy the Children of Atom, or to inform the people of Far Harbor of DiMA's crime and trigger a feud between the Harbormen and Acadia."), I thought, "OK, these are three of the endings." Then I got to the next sentence ("Should the player choose to detonate the warhead, the Harbormen will take control of the island, while if the player destroys the fog condensers, the Children will become dominant.") and I thought, "Wait, are these two more of the endings, or does detonating the warhead refer back a possible way to destroy Far Harbor or destroy the Children on Atom in the previous sentence?" Then I read the next sentence ("In both scenarios, Acadia will be spared, though DiMA will disapprove of the player's choices.") I thought, "Is it relevant if DiMA disapproves? Surely DiMA just disapproving in itself can't be an ending, and must be leading up to another ending, but what?" And so on... I think knowing that there are eight possible endings is interesting to know, but it set my expectations up for a certain kind of follow-up that wasn't delivered—and maybe that's just me. So I guess if anything my suggestion might be to change the first sentence. But as I said, the fact that there are eight possible endings is interesting, so if you decide to keep the paragraph as is, I won't object. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I primarily used this page for the reconstruction of that section a few weeks ago. In my opinion the section is a good summary of what that article contains. With this said, I've removed the bit that said that DiMA wouldn't be happy because I couldn't find anything in the article to say what comes of it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release:

  • In what way did the dialogue system not work satisfyingly in the original Fallout 4, and what specifically was improved for Far Harbor that gave players more flexibility for the game's ending? I'm guessing maybe simply the options for what to say, and the possible resulting interactions, were more limited in the original? If so, it could be good to clarify this more explicitly. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded a bit.

Reception:

  • "In particular, Stapleton expressed admiration for the new quests but said that the puzzle rooms were "so hard to fail I'm not sure why Bethesda bothered with [them]"." What if you put this sentence in the next paragraph, which also seems to be all about quests and puzzles?
Done.
  • The two below sentences are some big overlap in content. What if you tried to merge them—e.g., "Both Peter Brown (GameSpot) and the staff of Game Central noted (favorably?—currently it's not clear about Game Central) the many additional hours of play the side quests provided." Or, if Game Central didn't necessarily praise the feature, at least put the two side by side: "Peter Brown (GameSpot) liked how the side quests provided hours of additional play, a feature that the staff of Game Central likewise noted." These are just ideas, but it feels like currently the section randomly jumps around too much, and then revisits ideas already covered, without apparent awareness of what was already mentioned.
Merged.
  • "Peter Brown (GameSpot) commended the addition of "hours of side quests driven by curious characters". "
  • "While GameCentral disliked the puzzle sections, they believed that the DLC added "dozens of hours" through the means of side-quests and other activities." Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David Ambrosini (IGN) complimented it." This feels weak here to just say he "complimented" it when all other citations get into more specifics about what aspect of a feature each reviewer did or didn't like.
Now?
I'm using their words exactly for that part. The article is written in Spanish, so from looking over the translation I can't find what he meant specifically.

Similarities with Autumn Leaves:

  • "Other similarities were discussed in an article by Mat Paget (GameSpot), some of them being that both Far Habor and Autumn Leaves include a "mysterious death of the prime financier of the Vault" ": This sentence begins with "other similarities" but this similarity sounds a lot like what Veer mentioned a few sentences earlier about a "Vault where a strange murder happened".
Removed.
  • "He also said that he would have been comfortable even if Bethesda had deliberately used content from Autumn Leaves." This third conditional construction "would have been comfortable even if Bethesda had deliberately used" sounds like Veer is saying he now believes Bethesda didn't deliberately use it, but other quotations contradict this. I think "He also said that he was comfortable even if Bethesda did deliberately use content from Autumn Leaves" probably fits the context better.
Replaced.

That's all my comments for now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Thank you very much for the comments. I've addressed some and I'll visit the rest soon. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: I've gone over the remaining ones. I've collapsed some of the completed ones, hope you don't mind. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staisfied with all of your above changes and replies, thank you. Remaining minor comments:

  • The article mentions the same specifics of the who the three factions are twice: first in Gameplay, then again soon after in Setting and characters.
Is this better?
  • "Non-player characters" is wiki-linked in Gameplay and then again in Development and release.
  • Your merging of content in the Reception section is an improvement. Thank you for putting the Stapleton sentence into the second paragraph. Sorry I didn't notice this before, but it seems like the following sentence also belongs in the second paragraph: "Some, such as Nic Rowen (Destructoid) and Christopher Livingston (PC Gamer), highly praised the addition of new quests[5][6] but many, including Jack de Quidt (Rock, Paper, Shotgun), Chad Sapieha (Post Arcade), and the reviewers for Metro.co.uk's GameCentral, disliked the newly introduced puzzle sections." Another idea: there are so many people praising the new quests and criticizing the puzzles, maybe you don't need to mention all of them. Moisejp (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about now?
Thank you for the review, Moisejp. I've responded to the new comments above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm ready to support now. You've addressed all of my concerns, and I feel the article is much better shape. I've also made several copy-edits myself during the review. Nice work on the article. Moisejp (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

Hi, unless I've missed them, we'll need the following checks before considering promotion:

  • Image licensing review
  • Source review for formatting and reliability
  • Spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing (an extra hoop to jump through as I believe this would be the nominator's first FA if successful)

All of these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are in order. Three non-free images is maybe more than normal for an article of this size, but all are used to illustrate vital concepts for which text alone wouldn't be adequate and all have appropriate fair-use rationales. The remaining image is freely licensed via Flickr. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Jaguar
[edit]

As requested, I'll comb through the article's sources to see if they're all reliable and formatted correctly:

Addressed source review from Jaguar
  • Ref 3's publisher is Ziff Davis
  • Same goes with ref 6, but IGN is not linked here
  • Age verification needed for ref 24
Already has a disclaimer.
  • Ref 46 says "National Post", but clicking the link affirms that it's from Financial Post. Although not listed at WP:VG/RS, it is reliable

All of the sources are listed at WP:VG/S and are therefore reliable. I've spent some time checking the sources to make sure they back up what is mentioned in the article and everything checks out, just like I thought it would. The above points are minor nitpicks so with that aside I'll be more than happy to support on the sourcing side of things. JAGUAR  11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thank you for the source review. I've gone ahead and fixed up everything you mentioned . Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: A fairly minor couple of points, but still seeing little issues. First, the link for Nuka-Cola redirects to the List of fictional beverages but this does not include Nuka-Cola. Also, Nuka-Cola is named in the lead but not in the main body. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks. I've fixed them both. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
Addressed comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited; please revert anything I messed up. I got rid of the spelling error in the quote from Veer; per Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting it's OK to correct trivial spelling errors where they don't affect the meaning. A couple of remaining points:

  • "Quickly completing a quest by killing the other characters is not always the best option as the player will find options to resolve things peacefully by completing more quests given by the factions": do you mean that choosing a peaceful resolution instead of a violent one will lead to getting more quests, which is necessary to progress in the game?
    No, it's saying that after more quests are completed, more peaceful resolutions will become available. I think that sentence is fine as-is.
    Actually I'm struggling to parse this now. I thought it made sense when I went over it before FAC but now I think at the very least the sentence needs splitting up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Harry; I don't think this is clear. For one thing, it doesn't explain why it's not a good idea to kill the other characters. If killing them completes the quest, and completing quests means more peaceful options become available, then what difference does it make if the player kills them? And why are more peaceful resolutions desirable in any case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie and HJ Mitchell: I've removed it. I think the next sentence does a better job of explaining why it's not always a good idea to peacefully resolve things. The sources don't really have much on why killing everyone is bad, besides it being immoral. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Game Revolution stating that it negatively tested the limits of the control scheme": not sure what this means.
    Is it better now?
    I don't think that does it. I assume the source for this is "this section has five stages and, as they get harder, the limitations of using this mode becomes frustrating. Movement in particular can be way too confining" from the Game Revolution review. Here's a suggested rewrite of this sentence and the one before: "The reviewers for Game Revolution and GameCentral disliked the puzzles, as did Jack de Quidt of Rock, Paper, Shotgun, who regarded them as very frustrating even though he felt they were "a small part of the release". Both de Quidt and the Game Revolution reviewer considered the engine insufficient for the intricate puzzle sequences." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've replaced it with that. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reviewers including Dan Stapleton (IGN), Chad Sapieha (Post Arcade), Trace Cowen (Complex) and Charles Battersby (Geek) mentioned comparisons to the video game Minecraft when talking about the block-related content added in the expansion": generally I think you could cut a lot of reviewer names in the reception section, but this one stands out in particular -- can't we just say "Several reviewers made comparisons to..."? It's clunky as it stands.
    Fixed.

-- Otherwise this looks in pretty good shape; I expect to support once these points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for the points. I've addressed them all above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck one point; replied to the other two above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've replied above. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The points I raised have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2017 [31].

Jerome, Arizona

[edit]
Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the boom and bust town of Jerome, Arizona, site of two of the richest copper deposits ever discovered. William A. Clark, one of the Copper Kings of Montana, owned the first, and James Douglas, Jr., a friend of Georges Clemenceau, owned the second. Both men financed mines, railroads, smelters, and company towns (Clarksville and Clemenceau) in or near Jerome. When the mines played out, the workers left, and Jerome's population shrank from about 5,000 in 1930 to about 250 in 1960. Today the town is home to about 450 people who rely mainly on a tourist economy. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in light of this RfC, some additional sourcing will be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

One comment so far:

  • "In the 21st century, the natural rock features in and around Jerome have been greatly altered by mining." I think this is meant to mean that the state of the rocks in the 21st century is changed compared to an earlier state due to mining in an unspecified period. But it kind of sounds like the mining occurred in the 21st century, while we later learn it actually ended in the 20th century. Could you consider removing this discrepancy for the reader? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I've read through the article twice, and that was the only issue I found. I'm very happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the ore deposits became exhausted.. - sounds a little funny to my ears, I'd say " As the ore deposits were exhausted" or " As the ore deposits ran out"...not a deal-breaker though
660 °F (349 °C), - err, probably wanna make this 350 C as it is rounded.....
After four major fires between 1894 and 1898 destroyed much of the business district and, in 1898, half of the community's homes, Jerome was incorporated as a town in 1899 - this sentence threw me. I realised on the third reading that its grammar was ok, but still might be better rejigged...
Probably better (if possible) not to use Precambrian any more as it is a bit of a broad band of time that has been since subdivided. However, we can't rejig if no source allows us to so this might not be actionable.
  • Interesting catch. I found and added a source for the more narrow band of time, Proterozoic, and inserted it into the Precambrian sentence, I hope not too awkwardly. Finetooth (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend melding the several smaller paras in the Government section into fewer larger ones. Also, is there any source that says it is traditionally republican? Be good to add if true or findable, but not a deal-breaker if none exists.
Regarding the pop culture issue. I love pop culture so in my ideal I'd leave it in, but using primary sources only is generally a bit iffy in this situation. Still, it is a minor town so secondary sources are unlikely...anyway, just my 2c. Not a deal-breaker if not in.
Figured it'd be lean pickings. No biggie. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All in all looks pretty good - all these are pretty minor. Nice work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments from edwininlondon

[edit]

Having driven through it once, I can’t resist this one. I enjoyed the article. Just a few comments:

  • of Yavapai County in the State of Arizona -> adding US would probably be better: of Yavapai County in the U.S. state Arizona
  • for various reasons -> Doesn’t add anything, might as well remove
  • base of the hills is the Verde Valley and the communities -> base of the hills are the Verde Valley and the communities
  • to perhaps 660 °F -> I find it a bit odd that perhaps
  • Hickey Formation basalts -> I think this could benefit from a link or explanation: special type of basalts or simply basalts in an area called Hickey Formation?
  • during first half of the 20th century -> during the first half of the 20th century
  • were filed in 1876 -> by whom?
  • Frederick Augustus Tritle -> would it not be nicer, for consistency, to say Frederick A. Tritle perhaps?
  • a governor -> were there more than one? The governor perhaps?
  • the company ceased operations -> of mining? Smelting? Transporting? Everything?
  • William A. Clark caption-> Add a bit of context for people who are picture scanners. Eg “. Owner of Jerome’s first mine from x to y”
  • bought the United Verde properties -> when?
  • amounted to "some of the richest ever found on Earth". -> Says who? I am not convinced you need to quote here
  • Rawhide Jimmy -> nicknamed Rawhide Jimmy
  • Clemenceau, a part of Cottonwood -> modern-day or already back in 1918?
  • The labor situation in Jerome was complicated -> Maybe start the paragraph with this sentence. It might flow a bit better I think
  • Nine were arrested -> Nine IWW members I presume
  • third big mine, Verde Central, closed completely -> probably better if it was introduced in previous section
  • Jimmy Douglas -> he was introduced as James, so should be James here too

Edwininlondon (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Finetooth. Just two more questions:
  • Is there anything reliable about the connection between Eugene Jerome and Winston Churchill?
  • Is there a photo of Eugene Jerome?
Edwininlondon (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a source spot check:

  • #17: Clements 2003 - all fine, except for "In addition to banks, hotels, and stores, among the thriving businesses were many associated with alcohol, gambling, and prostitution", which I could not find on pages 45-47.
    Corrected. Steuber says much the same thing on her p. 63, which I've now cited. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • #22 ok
  • #30 Clements 2003, pp. 47–49. ok
  • #33 Clements 2003, p. 48. ok
  • #35 Clements 2003, p. 49. Just a bit of clarification needed I think. Source says open-pit operation began in 1919. The article does not quite make that clear, more likely the reader thinks that started in 1915 or possible 1918.
  • #39 Clements 2003, p. 44. ok
  • #42 Clements 2003, p. 51. ok
  • #45 Clements 2003, pp. 54–55. ok
  • #60 ok

Edwininlondon (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Edwininlondon: I'm not sure if you have something further to add about citations 39, 42, and 45 or if they are OK. I have a question about something else. Do you think I should get rid of the silly hyperbolic quote about Jerome being the wickedest town in the West? Finetooth (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I meant to say those source spot checks are ok. I think you should keep the silly hyperbole. All is fine for me now. I support the promotion to FA. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, I think we still need an image review and a source review for formatting and reliability. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review no earlier than tomorrow given the large number thereof. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
  • File:United Verde Smelter (Jerome, Arizona).png: Nihil obstat, but I must say that the Library of Congress ought to keep the dates of creation and publication separate, as the latter is more important in terms of copyright.
  • File:High street Jerome, Arizona.jpg: The coordinates seem off to me - from the coordinate locality the San Francisco Peaks would be to the north-northeast, but there are no buildings in that direction from the coordinate locality.
  • Interesting catch. I altered the coordinates to the corner of Main Street and Jerome Avenue, which is where the two buildings actually are. I altered the caption to identify the corner. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though the jpg name says "High Street", I don't think Jerome has a street by that name. The photographer might have been thinking of Hill Street, which is further up the hill from where this photo was taken. Finetooth (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good ALT text. Nihil obstat means that I don't see any licensing or pertinence issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from PaleCloudedWhite

[edit]

Cas Liber suggested I have a look at this as I might submit an article for FAC myself for the first time.

  • I wonder if some sentences might read more naturally if less use was made of the town's name (e.g. the second paragraph of the climate section - seeing as it's already established that the article is talking about Jerome, I would've thought that the first three mentions of "Jerome" could perhaps be dropped? i.e. "Although most precipitation arrives as rain, snow and fog sometimes occur. On average, about 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) of snow falls in January and lesser amounts in February, March, April, November, and December. Even so, the average depth of snow on the ground between 1897 and 2005 was so close to zero that it is reported as zero. Jerome is often windy, especially in spring and fall. Summer thunderstorms can be violent.")
  • Again looking at the climate section, I'm intrigued by the snowfall data. Three questions. The article states that "On average, about 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) of snow falls in January", but I can't see this in the source - it states over 5 inches. Some of the other months also don't tally. Secondly, do you have any insight as to why no snow lies on the ground, even though nearly 18 inches of snow falls in Jerome every year on average? Is it because the ground is too warm for snow to settle? Thirdly, I can't see anything in the source that supports the specificity of the phrase "the average depth of snow on the ground between 1897 and 2005 was so close to zero that it is reported as zero" - I can only see figures showing a line of zeros, rather than figures very close to zero. Has another source been used, with more detailed data? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2.5 inches was a data-entry error, which I've now corrected to 5 inches. Thank you for spotting this. The snow-depth questions involve the difference between instantaneous measurements and averages. If 18 inches of snow falls every year on Jerome, it follows that there must be snow on the ground there at times. The stated claim in the article is not about those moments; it's about monthly averages, which are reported as zero, according to the cited source. The source also supports the claim that the average high temperature in Jerome is no lower than 51F in the coldest month, January, well above freezing. Although it seems logical to assume that snow temporarily accumulates on the ground in Jerome, on average it melts so soon thereafter that it never raises the average monthly accumulation above some number so close to zero that it is simply reported as zero. I have found no other source that says this more directly. I re-checked all the numbers in the table and found a rounding error in one and an annual average data-entry error. I fixed them both. Do you see anything else amiss? Finetooth (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added a note explaining what to click on to see a temperature table that shows the maximum highs and lows for each month for the period of record. There is no separate URL for this table, and it is not easy to find without guidance. Finetooth (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the geology section is the sentence "The United Verde open pit, about 300 feet (91 m) deep, is on the edge of town next to Cleopatra Hill, marked with a large "J""; I read this as saying that the pit is marked with a large J, rather than the hill, and only realised my error when I looked at the panorama image lower down the page. Is the information about the J required here? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's maintained by a local service organization known as the J Club. I added mention of the club to the panorama caption. The source does not give the dimensions or say when the J first appeared or what it's made of. It looks like stone to me. Finetooth (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some collapsed, as noted in the "After 1920" section of the article. Some were restored, as is suggested by the turn to galleries, restaurants, and tourism. The town isn't full of deserted buildings. Adding more about individual buildings would, I think, introduce unnecessary detail to the article. Finetooth (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what can I say? After further review, I added a note with info about what happened to the housing stock and other buildings. Putting this in a note adds the info without disrupting the flow of the prose in the main text. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steuber says that before the mines opened, Jerome "was covered with pine, oak, and manzanita trees". After the mines opened, the trees were cut for lumber and mine timbers, and fumes and smoke from the smelter killed much of the smaller vegetation. The "After 1920" section of the article mentions the vegetation kill. The trees and bushes in and adjacent to Jerome today do not seem noteworthy, and it's not surprising that the flora here does not resemble the forested wilderness areas at higher elevation west of Jerome. Finetooth (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the town now derive all its income from tourism? The end of the history section and the lead state that tourism has become important (the lead does this more explicitly than the main text), but do any other sectors provide employment? Have there ever been any agricultural or forestry activities, or any manufacturing of any kind? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from whatever income or savings the local people have, there are no notable economic sectors in Jerome other than tourism. The tourists pay for lodging, food, drink, art, museum entry fees, and selective retail items like belts, hats, T-shirts, books, postcards, boots. No timber cutting. No manufacturing. No supermarket. No gas station. Finetooth (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be great if the article could have an economy section - it would allow insertion of data that wouldn't fit anywhere else. I'm used to writing about UK settlements, and the UK Geography WikiProject has a sort of template for how to assemble info in articles, which I usually find helpful (though I don't agree with everything it says). I had a very brief look online and found this source which has some interesting facts - such as the recent(ish) size of the labour force and unemployment rates, major public employers, the number of rooms available, the nearest airport (also suitable for a transport section), etc. Would you not consider this sort of information worthy of incorporation into the article? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This source has similar info to the other one I found, though in addition it has a breakdown of employment sectors in the town, which reveals that perhaps only a little more than half of Jerome's labour force are employed in work directly catering to tourists. There are even a few people employed in manufacturing - does that mean there are commuters living here? I'm sure a brief economy section could quickly be assembled, to give readers a more detailed idea of how Jerome functions and earns its living today. The article is strong on historical aspects but is less strong I think on the present day - there's also no sections on culture or media (the community profile I linked to refers to a "Paso De Casas (home tour)" that occurs every May, a "3-day reunion for former mining families" in October, and a "Festival of Lights" in December, and this source mentions a thrice-weekly newspaper, plus gives info on local TV and radio). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I take your point, but I think that adding small sections of trivial information would make the article worse rather than better. I'm willing to consider adding specific bits of info where a strong case can be made for inclusion. I see only negative value in listing the number of available hotel rooms or listing remote employers such as the Safeway store in Cottonwood or listing the TV channels and radio stations it is possible to receive in Jerome. I don't see these matters as worthy of incorporation. Finetooth (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the size of the labour force, unemployment rates, how employment breaks down per sector etc. can be considered trivial information, and, considering that Jerome's economy is dominated by tourism, facts such as the number of rooms available can, in absence of other information, give an indication of that importance. Look at Bath, Somerset, which is a touristy town and an FA: it has an economy section which includes the lines, "The size of the tourist industry is reflected in the almost 300 places of accommodation – including more than 80 hotels, two of which have 'five-star' ratings, over 180 bed and breakfasts – many of which are located in Georgian buildings, and two campsites located on the western edge of the city." If you look further down at the media section, it gives information on the local newspaper ("Bath's local newspaper is the Bath Chronicle, owned by Local World") and lists four local radio stations, including one for a student campus. Jerome is much smaller than Bath, meaning the stats are going to be smaller, but that doesn't necessarily make all such stats trivial. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Below is an example of the sort of addition I have had in mind. It could be expanded. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economy and society (example)

[edit]

Jerome's economy is focused on recreation and tourism. Figures published in 2015 showed that more than 50% of the labor force worked in arts, entertainment, retail, food and recreation services, while manufacturing and construction employed just over 10%.[1] Between 1990 and 2006 the value of taxable sales increased from $4.8 million to $15.5 million,[2] and between 1990 and 2014 the unemployment rate fell from 4.2% to 1.4%.[1] Buildings on the Main Street that previously were vacant now house boutiques, gift shops, antique and craft shops;[2] the town also has five art galleries, an archive research center, a library, three parks and two museums, including the Mine Museum run by the Jerome Historical Society.[1] Annual events in the town include a home tour ("Paso De Casas") in May, a reunion for former mining families in October, and a Festival of Lights in December.[2]

That's great! I hope it hasn't felt like I was trying to wear you down through a process of attrition - the truth is that I find Jerome a fascinating little place and, if it weren't halfway round the world from me, would probably visit it as a result of reading the article. As visiting isn't an immediate option, I wanted to get a clearer picture of what it's like today; obviously there was already info in the article about this, as well as the images (the panorama picture that you took really catches the imagination), but I wanted to know a little more. Do you think there is a way to insert info about the 'sliding jail' that I have read about elsewhere? Is it the same 'lost' jail that the history section refers to? It sounds fascinating. Anyway I shall add my support for FA status. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words and support. I will add something about the jail, and if I can find another source that supports the claim that Jerome has a working newspaper, I will add that too. I've encountered no other mention of a contemporary Jerome newspaper, and I think the first source might be referencing a Chamber of Commerce newsletter or something of the sort. If you ever get to Jerome, you will probably find the whole region fascinating. For my own part, I would enjoy a visit to Bath. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I might have missed it, but I didn't see a review for source reliability; however, I looked myself and we look fine on that front. I must compliment both the nominator and reviewers on this FAC as there has been healthy back-and-forth and compromise on both sides. Something of a model of how to do it, I must say. Any further issues or additions can be discussed on the talk page after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2017 [32].

Arlington, Washington

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington is a small town of 19,000 located at the edge of Seattle's metropolitan area, and as a result has seen huge population changes and suburbanization in recent decades. Despite this, it has managed to keep its small town image and boasts a pretty nice little downtown full of historic buildings. It's one of the places I can call a hometown, and I feel like I've done it justice in this article. SounderBruce 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness

This is very well-written, organized, and illustrated and appears to be comprehensive or nearly so. I made a couple dozen tiny changes; please revert any that you think are not improvements. Below are my questions and suggestions; none should be terribly difficult.
Lede
  • Paragraph 3: "seven city councilmembers" – Two words, "council members"?
  • Official city documents use "councilmember" as one word, so I opted not to split it into two.
History
  • Paragraph 1: "while following fish runs" – Link "fish runs" to fish migration?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 2: "relocating the Stillaguamish tribe to trust lands" – What are "trust lands"?
  • Linked to term.
  • Paragraph 6: " The Great Depression of the 1930s forced all but one of the mills to close, causing unemployment to rise in Arlington and the establishment of a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp near Darrington." – The cause-effect link between the mill closings and the CCC camp is a bit tenuous. Could the connection be made more clear?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 6: Link Darrington here on first use rather than in the last paragraph of this section.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 6: "brought the U.S. Navy to Arlington, who converted the municipal airport" – "Which" rather than "who"?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 7: "The plane was being flown by Boeing test pilots who were instructing a Braniff International Airways captain, suffering from the loss of three engines..." – The captain wasn't suffering from the loss of three engines. Maybe "The plane, flown by Boeing test pilots instructing a Braniff International Airways captain, lost three engines and suffered a fire in the fourth after a dutch roll exceeded maximum bank restrictions."
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 8: "in 1999 after a lengthy court battle with Marysville, who instead claimed Lakewood to the west" – Marysville is a "which", not a "who", and probably "in 1999" would scan better at the beginning of the sentence.
  • Done.
Geography
  • Paragraph 2: "Downtown Arlington is located at a bluff..." – Maybe "Downtown Arlington is along a bluff"?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: "During a recent eruption 13,000 years ago..." – Even though this is geologically recent, it might be less confusing to say simply, "During an eruption 13,000 years ago...".
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: " more than 7 feet (2.1 m) of sediment" – I would round this to 2 m since the 7 feet is approximate.
  • Done.
Subareas and neighborhoods
  • Paragraph 1:"The city of Arlington divides the urban growth area into 10 planning subareas in its comprehensive plan, which each contain neighborhoods and subdivisions of their own." – Better as "In its comprehensive plan, the city of Arlington divides the urban growth area into 10 planning subareas, each containing neighborhoods and subdivisions."?
  • Done.
Climate
  • Paragraph 1: "with an average of 7 inches (180 mm) per year" – Unlike rainfall or general precipitation, snowfall is generally listed in cm rather than mm.
  • Done.
2000 Census
  • Paragraph 1: "As of the 2000 census, there were 12,750 people..." – The "Historical population" table to the right of this subsection says the 2000 population was 11,713. One or the other is mistaken, it appears.
  • Corrected the statistics based on the 2000 census data. Someone must have forgot to cross-check between the city proper and urban growth area.
Economy
  • Paragraph 1: It would probably be good to specify a year for these statistics. They will vary from year to year.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 1: "with approximately 19.3 percent, followed by manufacturing (18.5%), retail (11.3%), and food services (10.4%)." – It might make sense to round these for readability, especially since the numbers are approximate.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 1: "Only 12 percent of employed Arlington residents work within city limits..." – The fractions listed in this sentence total 51 percent; where do the other 49 percent work?
  • Mentioned "other cities", which all have under 2 percent of Arlington workers each.
  • Paragraph 2: "The economy of Arlington relied heavily on timber harvesting and processing from its founding..." – A bit awkward. Maybe "Arlington's early economy relied heavily on timber harvesting and processing..."?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: "As of 2012, the airport has 570 on-site businesses that employ 590 people, with a total output of $94.5 million annually.[72]" – The source seems to support this, but 570 seems awfully high, and it seems odd that 570 businesses would only employ a total of 590 people. In the Transportation subsection later in the article is a sentence saying, "Approximately 130 businesses are located on airport property...". This number sounds more plausible. In any case, I don't see how both numbers could be correct.
  • I mis-read the statistic as number of businesses when it was in fact number of jobs from on-site businesses. I've matched the number, but I feel that it could be redundant and repetitive.
Government and politics
  • Paragraph 4: "...50.6 percent of Arlington voters elected Republican Donald Trump, while 39.5 percent elected Democrat Hillary Clinton..." – Is "elected" the right word? Maybe "voted for"?
  • Done.
Notable residents
  • "2nd Snohomish County Executive" – I'm not sure what this means. Is "2nd Executive" a title?
  • Simplified down to politician, without title.
  • Suggestion: Include only notable residents for whom separate Wikipedia articles exist. Without this limit, the list will eventually balloon out of proportion to its importance.
Education
  • ¶3: "...but was put on hold and later cancelled..." – Ambiguous. Perhaps "but the offer was put on hold and later declined"? Or does this mean that Arlington put the offer on hold and later cancelled it?
  • Done.
Transportation
  • ¶1: "which serve as the main highways to the city. State Route 9 travels north..." – Since the direction in the first sentence is "to" the city, perhaps starting the next sentence with "From Arlington, State Route 9 goes north..."?
  • Done.
Utilities
  • ¶1: "a consumer-owned public utility that sources most of its electricity from the federal Bonneville Power Administration..." – What is the meaning of the word "sources" in this context? Does it mean "buys"?
  • Sourcing means both purchasing and the producer of the electricity. Reworded accordingly.
General
  • In the Utilities section, you might add something about Arlington's internet-service providers and telephone-service providers if reliable sources can be found.
  • Done.
  • The images need alt text.
  • Yes. This all looks fine to me. I made two minor changes to your changes, as noted above. Please check those two for accuracy. I'm happy to support this article on prose and comprehensiveness. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JC

[edit]

At a glance, the article looks great. I'm doubtful Finetooth left any meat on the bones, but we'll see if I can't find some things to complain about...

  • Maybe "northwestern" instead of "northern" in the lead, for precision plus consistency with the "Geography" section?
    • The "Northern" (North County) area is more of a cultural term than strictly geographic, like northwestern. As the eastern two-thirds of the county is mountainous and mostly uninhabited, Arlington is referred to as being part of "northern Snohomish County" far more often than "northwestern".
  • Arlington was established in the 1880s by settlers - Aren't all settlements settled by... well, settlers? Perhaps I'm overlooking some nuance in that term, but if not, I'd like to see something a little more specific.
    • Changed to entrepreneurs (the initial wave, described in following sentences). Actual residents didn't arrive in significant numbers until after platting.
  • What is "street foliage"?
    • Added a link to the term.
  • making it the ninth largest city in Snohomish County. - ninth out of how many? This is a bit of a jolt for someone from the northeast, where you're lucky if your county has one city...
    • Added the total, tabulated from the same reference. Out west, suburbs are just a patchwork of small towns that grew into each other.
  • Do we really need to present the 450% population increase fact twice (not including the lede)? I don't think anything would be lost if it were removed from the "Demographics" section.
    • I think it provides context for the next sentence (about 2025's projected population) and belongs more in the demographics section than the history. It's a pretty important indication of just how much suburanization has affected Arlington since the 1980s.
  • Was there a predominate species of timber that was used for the shingle production?
    • Added mention of cedar shingles (with a reference).
  • a safe swimming area - What will make this swimming area safer than non-safe swimming areas?
    • It's common for fast-moving streams to have designated swimming areas, but I can't find the term in anything mentioned about the park specifically. Removed and replaced.
  • I'm not normally a stickler for overlinking, especially in relatively long articles, but it might be good to take a look and see where you can eliminate any truly excessive linking. Arlington School District is linked four times, for instances.
    • Took a stab at removing links that were easy to access through nearby links. Will look over with a proper tool and keep paring down the links.

I think that's about it. I'm very impressed with the quality of the article, especially in terms of comprehensiveness... every noteworthy aspect of the city is discussed in suitable proportions, and the "History" section in particular tells a clear and engaging story without going into unwanted detail. A great deal of research clearly went into the crafting of this article. I'll be happy to support once my above points have been addressed. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Juliancolton. I am uncertain on how to respond to two of your comments, but feel they can be resolved quickly with a decision from you or another editor. SounderBruce 03:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work, and thanks for the quick edits. I'm not concerned about the two outstanding points. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • What makes http://www.historylink.org/File/8416 a high quality, reliable source? Also the other sources from historylink:
  • What makes Hastie, Thomas P.; Batey, David; Sisson, E.A.; Graham, Albert L., eds. (1906). "Chapter VI: Cities and Towns". An Illustrated History of Skagit and Snohomish Counties a high quality reliable source? I'll just note that these are local history books produced pretty much to a template, and it's unclear how reliable the "history" of them is. The goal of them was to sell the books to local people - so they are not strictly speaking produced by anyone we'd call a historian.
    • Finding high-quality sources for local histories that isn't sourced from residents is near-impossible, especially in smaller towns like Arlington. The acknowledgements seem to indicate that the book's authors collected "accounts" from local newspapers and historians, which would be as accurate as anything you would find. Note that the book was published only 26 years after Washington had become a state (and Arlington had been established), so I consider this to be a contemporary source.
    • I can replace some of the references with a modern book (written in 2003), but it probably sources some of its information from the Illustrated History (as does a lot of local history books).
      • If the modern book is written by a historian, that would be better. They are trained to weigh sources such as these local histories and figure out what is good and what is bad in them. The point with all of these is that 1) we need high quality sources and 2) history has matured in the last 100 years or so, and we are always better off citing modern works when they are available. Much progress has been made in history in using archival documents for research. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The facts of Arlington's founding and early history have remained unchanged from the time the book was written, to the point where local libraries still point to this book as the best resource for the area's early history.
  • Same for Hunt, Herbert; Kaylor, Floyd C. (1917). Washington, West of the Cascades: Historical and Descriptive.
    • The foreword/acknowledgements seem to indicate that the book's authors sought out the Washington State Historical Society for assistance, as well as local newspapermen and the dean of the University of Washington.
    • Removed and replaced with a citation from the Washington Historical Quarterly.
  • Likewise for Prosser, William Farrand (1903). A History of the Puget Sound Country: Its Resources, Its Commerce and Its People, Volume I.
    • Written by the founder of the state's historical society, which I think counts as a professional historian of the era.
    • Since this one is only being used to verify the first mayor, I can consider removing it entirely.
  • What makes http://www.livearlington.com/tabid/5559/Default.aspx a high quality reliable source?
    • Replaced with a search from the NCES and a map.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Thanks for your source review. I'm unsure if I can find suitable replacements for the books mentioned, as they themselves are a major source on the one modern book on Arlington's history (Arlington Centennial, A Pictorial History), which itself is a source for HistoryLink. SounderBruce 02:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus

[edit]

Seems like everything got an ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. The downtown image is of Olympic Avenue, the city's main street, so I feel it's appropriate. I might replace it with a better picture of Olympic shot from a hill when I have time to go shoot one. I also pared down the caption for the Lumber store to fit with the history a bit better. SounderBruce 20:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've replaced the infobox image with a new image shot from the same location, with a tiny bit of nature in the background to emphasize the city's "mountain town" atmosphere. SounderBruce 02:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newer file is also fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by Comment - The historic population table has uneven intervals (7 years, 10 years, and 5 years), but has the same calculation for percent. This is an error. There are two possible solutions: the best method would be to just stick to the official US census numbers which are at regular 10 year intervals, or you can use the per annum function (%pa) in the historic population template (built for this reason). Mattximus (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: I've decided to remove both non-decennial figures and merge them back into the prose. SounderBruce 20:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]

Looking good..I'll jot any queries I find below:

During the late 1890s, the claim dispute was settled and merchants from Haller City began moving to the larger, more prosperous Arlington, signalling the end for Haller City - be good if we could not use two "Haller City"s in the one sentence.
Dropped the first "Haller City", as context should be sufficient. SounderBruce 23:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all good on comprehensiveness and prose methinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the article! Only minor points:

History

  • That is a long section, perhaps a few subtitles?
  • Maybe it's my English: "the new, $44 million Arlington High School building" - comma? really use price tag as an adjective?
  • Similar: "In 2007, the city of Arlington renovated six blocks of downtown's Olympic Avenue with wider sidewalks, improved street foliage, and new street lights", - I don't get which verb goes with the street lights.

General: I'd appreciate a few more images, such a historic building, for flavour. Nothing not to support as it is, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the review. I don't feel the history section needs to be split up, given that the subsections would be fairly short. Regarding your minor points, I've re-done those two sentences to hopefully read less awkwardly. I'll also try to upload and add some pictures of outlying areas, since the images are rather downtown-centric. SounderBruce 21:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sound like a good plan ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are just about there but I believe this would be the nominator's first FA were it promoted, so I'd like the usual spot-checks of sources for copyvio and accurate use. Also, if the person doing that check, and anyone else who looks in, could have a look at Ealdgyth's points above to see if they have been addressed or need further action, I would be very grateful. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added sauce notes from Cas Liber

[edit]

Often researching little towns and esoteric things we are stuck with a dilemma, some small locally-produced book by local enthusiasts or amateur historians or nothing for some material to satisfy comprehensiveness. Our Reliable Source guidelines are just that - and if claims are unremarkable (e.g. some house 'X' was built in 1875) then am inclined to leave them in to fulfil comprehensiveness. However if they were remarkable claims ("that house was built by George Washington") then..yeah, I'd discount them. Will opine on specifics anon. need coffee. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I have looked. In an ideal world we'd replace many items with peer-reviewed material, however given we have an article on a settlement in Washington state about which I suspect not a huge amount has been written, we have to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and quality somewhere. The historylink source is ok for the unremarkable material it cites. I can also see some sentences with more than one citation, @SounderBruce: is this to show inter-reference reliability too? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Yes, that was my intention. I tried not to pair citations that seem to use each other as references (e.g. HistoryLink uses the Pictoral History for a good amount of its information). SounderBruce 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 20 - material faithful to source.
  • FN 22 - material faithful to source.
  • FN 80 - material faithful to source.
  • FN 91 - material faithful to source.

Spot check ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this is good to go now. While I agree with Ealdgyth that the highest quality sources are preferably at FA level, I take the point that we are using the best sources available here, made by the nominator and by Casliber. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2017 [33].

Adventure Time

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Adventure Time, an American animated television series created by Pendleton Ward that follows the adventures of Finn (a human boy) and Jake (a magical, shape-shifting dog and Finn's adoptive brother) in a post-apocalyptic world of Ooo. The show has been quite the pop culture phenomenon these last few years, and has won numerous awards, including a Peabody and several Emmys. When I first started working on the article in 2012, it looked like this. Since then, I have greatly expanded it, both in terms of size as well as coverage. I have used the highest-quality sources (all of which are archived, if applicable), and I have had it copy-edited a handful of times, both by myself as well as others. The content is solid, the prose reads well, and it is accurate. While it is currently a good article, I believe it is ready for the next step. Also, if anyone wishes to do source spot-checks, I have access to many of the books, and I'd be willing to send out scans to expedite the process.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. MCMLXXXIX 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: Good catch. I have added alt text to all the images.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! -- MCMLXXXIX 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • Replace the (rare) curly quotes with straight quotes.
Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not certain about the last one-sentence paragraph of the lead. Would it be possible to integrate that information into the above paragraphs instead? It could fit in the second paragraph.
  • I am not certain about the value of the ukulele image as it does not add that much to the reader's understanding of the material. It seems to be there more for padding/break up a large amount of text.
  • I really like the content of the "Critical reviews" section, but I would suggest trying to make this more accessible to an unfamiliar reader. I would suggest revising this section around topic as this can come across as a list of reviewer's thoughts. I would recommend looking at the following resource for help on this matter: here
  • Are there any negative reviews of the series? This is more of a clarification question. Just want to make sure to make this as comprehensive as possible.
  • I'm sure there are, but honestly, I can't really find any from major sources; most places like the show a lot. The one negative thing I did come across was from Perlmutter. I bet there is some controversy about the show's content (e.g. cartoon violence, mild language, fart jokes, etc.) so I'll look into that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. I just want to make sure that the section satisfies the "comprehensive" aspect of the FA criteria. If you cannot find anything from a reliable source, then it is fine. I just wanted to check and clarify about this in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gen. Quon: Everything looks good. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to work on the rest tomorrow. If I forget, feel free to ping me, but I'll try not to!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Twofingered Typist

I did a major c/e of this article for the GOCE in late February. It has had dozens of edits since, most by the article's main author. I had a quick read through it today and it appears to continue to meet the WP|MOS standards. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by Jo-Jo Eumerus

ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I forgot to ping you. I fixed the issues you pointed out and also tried to improve the NFCC#8 rationale on another image.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the text in the image is not readable and while often that is not an issue, the NFCC rationale seems to say that it is important here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which 'text in the image' are you referring to?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Mea culpa, I missed that in my first go-through. I re-sized it so that it is now 800 × 471. How does it look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. However, I would also like to see more commentary on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c as I'm not sure we have quite covered how far the article meets these yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I have asked for a source review at WT:FAC. I'll see if I can get some others to leave comments/suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: How does everything look now? Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from 97198
  • The studio approached Cartoon Network, which said it would be willing to produce a series if Ward could prove the short could be expanded into a full series while maintaining elements of the pilot. – this is cited to ref #19, which doesn't seem to support this claim.
    Good catch! An instance of a mixed-up source. I have fixed it, and the source attached to this claim is now appropriate. I think this might've gotten mixed up during a copy-edit or renovation phase.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the above point, it would be useful to make it clear that the original short film is also considered the pilot episode – I was confused when I came across the first mention of the pilot before realising it referred to the short.
    This is kind of a weird thing, since it wasn't created as a pilot, merely a short. When the full series was commissioned, the short was post facto considered the pilot. How is this sentence: "Adventure Time began as a seven-minute, stand-alone animated short film of the same name (this short would later be identified as the show's pilot)."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world" – I would add an "according to ..." in here because it's obviously a subjective opinion.
    I have done as you suggested.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a review of season four, for instance, LeChevallier complimented the show for "growing up" with its characters. - LeChevallier needs to be introduced as he isn't mentioned before this point.
    When I was rearranging the critical reception section, I moved some stuff around, and forgot to include LeChevallier's full name and publication affiliation before he's introduced. I have corrected this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many critics have called the show one of the best animated series that has ever been made – only two publications are named so either "many critics" needs to be reworded or more sourcing added.
    I have rewritten this as: "The series has also been included on a number of best-of lists." How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first game based on the series Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!! – there appear to be some words missing in this sentence.
    Whoops! I have combined this with the next sentence so that it now makes sense: "The first game based on the series, Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!!, was announced by Pendleton Ward on his Twitter account in March 2012." How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On September 27, 2011, Cartoon Network released the region 1 DVD My Two Favorite People, which features a random selection of 12 episodes from the series' first two seasons. The success of this DVD led to the release of several other region-1 compilation DVDs... – ref #234, to which this is cited, includes the title and release date of the DVD but doesn't appear to support the other claims.
    I removed "The success of this DVD led to..." as it was extrapolation beyond what the source supports.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that the source supports "features a random selection of 12 episodes from the series' first two seasons". I'm sceptical about the use of "random", since I'm sure there was some level of decision making involved in choosing which episodes to include. 97198 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @97198: I added a source that lists the episodes included. I also excised "random".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of copyedits myself (mostly grammar, spelling and MOS things). I haven't checked any sources apart from the two I mentioned above, but the fact that in both of these cases there was information not supported by the references gives me pause. I don't have the time or motivation to check 238 references so I'm not sure what the solution is here unless somebody volunteers to do a full source review. 97198 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments @97198: I have modified/corrected most of the issues that you raise. Concerning the sources, it appears that you unfortunately found a couple that did have issues, but in regards to a vast majority of the sources on this page (especially those that are book sources, or web sources), I've actually included the source that I quote/reference in the citation itself. Hopefully the ones you considered were the exception.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delayed response. Since I don't have the time to look through the sources more thoroughly, I might wait until the article passes a source review to confidently voice my support. For clarity, though, I am satisfied with the article in all other respects – I would just like some reassurance from another reviewer about the quality and use of sources. 97198 (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. I understand. I'll look into getting someone to source check this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @97198: Grapple X has carried out a source-review below. Does this reassure you about the quality of the sources?--17:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @97198: Pinging one more time just to check! Does the source-review reassure you?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mymis
  • Co-Executive Producers, Supervising Producers -> No need to capitalize all words
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cartoon Network commissioned a full-length series, which previewed on March 11, 2010 -> What does "previewed" mean? Within the article you mention the word once and in quotation marks.
    I rewrote to explain that it was effectively an advance screening that the network advertised as a "preview".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".... has developed a strong following among children, teenagers, and adults; fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world"." -> whose quote is that? also, why is it worth mentioning this anyway? the section is called "Critical reviews".
    I've included who said and the pub.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an article for the LA Times, " -> Los Angeles Times
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many critics have called the show one of the best animated series that has ever been made." -> "Many"? You only give one example from Entertainment Weekly, and the other one from The A.V. Club that says "currently on the air" which is not equal to "best animated series that has ever been made".
    I have rewritten this as: "The series has also been included on a number of best-of lists." How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Perlmutter -> Who is he, and why his opinion matter?
    I have explained who he is and why he is important in regards to this article (i.e. indep. cartoon scholar and critic).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You ignored my comment about the Critical reception section. "....and has developed a strong following among children, teenagers, and adults; according to A.V. Club critic Noel Murray, fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world"" ---> It is out of place. The section is for critical reviews. It could be moved to "Fandom" section, or something.
    I misread your initial comment. I have moved it to the start of the "Fandom" section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, "Similarly, in a run-down of the "best animated series ever", .." does not match the reference.
    I don't understand the issue here. The article in question is called "The best animated series ever".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the need for "Industry impact" section? You only provide one vague source with no actual examples. Could be merged with "Critical reception", with shortened quote.
    I disagree. I don't really see how the source is vague (I mean, it specifically discusses how Adventure Time caused networks to rethink their hiring practices, as well as the tone of their shows). I also don't think that discussing the show's impact on the industry makes sense in a section about what critics have to say about it. I did, however, reformat the section a bit, converting the quote to a block quote, and tying it directly into the topic at hand—how Adventure Time has influenced the industry.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a feature-length film is in development.", in the intro. Is there any update? It's been two years since that announcement.
    At this time, no.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "animation style to that of Felix the Cat" -> I believe it should be linked to Felix the Cat (TV series)
    Good catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Executive producer Fred Seibert compared the show's animation style to that of Felix the Cat and various Max Fleischer cartoons" -> This sentence is under "Writing". Could be moved to "Animation" section. Or by "show's animation style" they meant their general concept?
    I have moved this to the end of the first paragraph in the "Animation" section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mymis (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mymis: Sorry that I missed a few of these. Is it looking any better?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not that I think that "Industry impact" is not an appropriate subject to include, but it's the sourcing is what I was referring to. It's merely an opinion, the section does not include any facts or actual examples. For instance, what about mentioning creators of other shows that were inspired by Adventure Time? Also, was it Adventure Time the only show that caused that gold rush? Because the article discusses many shows. Mymis (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mymis: I have reworded and expanded the section accordingly.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The websites should not be italicized, such as emmys.com or AnnieAwards.org. Also, the reference list itself takes up a third of the article, some parameters within the references could be scrapped, for instance, accessdates are redundant for refs with archived links. Locations for companies that own the websites (for instance, "Madison, Wisconsin") are also highly unnecessary.

Mymis (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "website=" parameter that the refs use results in italicization, so that's not my call. As to the rest of your comment, I feel you are imposing your own personal preferences, as the featured article criteria merely calls for "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes", which I have included.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of the criteria, it was just a suggestion in order to simplify the reference list as it is extremely long with many redundant parameter usage, in my opinion; that's why I said "could be". And you're right, you do not have to listen. Adding "Madison, Wisconsin" is confusing, because A.V. Club, publisher of the article, is based in Chicago. There are some inconsistencies within references:
  • If you wish to add all the companies that own the newspapers used in articles, ref 178 does not have one, and it's Los Angeles Times without "the", and Tribune Publishing does not exist anymore, it's Tronc now or whatnot.
  • For usage of XXXX.com, it is not consistent. Theouthousers.com, emmys.org etc are in italics but TheMarySue.com, All-Comic.com etc are not.
  • Mitch Metcalf has an article, Showbuzz Daily does not.
  • TV by the Numbers is not owned by zap2it (which also does not exist anymore) but by Tribune.
  • It is Deadline.com, not Deadline or Deadline Hollywood.
  • The Washington Post is not owned by The Washington Post Company. ->Jeff Bezos
  • Slate is not owned by The Washington Post Company. ->Graham Holdings Company
  • CartoonNetwork.com, CartoonNetwork.com, Cartoon Network. Not consistent. Choose one.
  • Huffington Post -> The Huffington Post or is it called HuffPost now
  • MovieWeb has an article
  • IndieWire, not Indiewire. And why is it in italics within the references but not within the article's body?
@Mymis: I just went ahead and acquiesced. How does this look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does look way better. Great job on the article. You have my support. Good luck! Mymis (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Grapple X
  • Source review: There are over 200 sources used here so I haven't checked them all, but I've taken a randomly-chosen representative sample to see if things check out.
    Fn 156: simple fact, present in source
    Fns 192, 193, 195: Collectively support a summary sentence
    Fn 2: Used twice to support genre classifications, both present in source
    Fn 50: Twitter source. Seems to be fine under WP:SELFSOURCE as it originates from an animator on the series discussing its animation technique.
    Fn 44: Quote present in source, as is paraphrased material.
    Fn 130: Used twice, both supporting quotes and paraphrased material. Both times accurately used.
    Fn 62: Once supports a quote, and once a summary, both times the information is present.
    Fn 112: Twice used to support quotes, both present in source and accurately used
This is just a sampling and if it is deemed not to be broad enough I can check further sources in addition to these. GRAPPLE X 17:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, Grapple X -- would you also able to check/comment on the formatting of the references, and their reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting looks up to snuff. Citations are templated and used consistently. There are examples of quotes nested in citations, and bundled citations, but these seem perfectly fine. Reliability also looks good—there are some citations to Twitter but these seem to be confined to sources which meet WP:SELFSOURCE, otherwise the sources used comply with reliable sourcing. Web sources are archived for additional longevity as well. GRAPPLE X 19:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Moisejp

Lead:

  • I haven't read everybody else's comments (maybe this is already explained), but is there a reason "Eight seasons of the program have aired, and a ninth and final season premiered on April 21, 2017" is cited in the lead?
    The show just recently wasn't renewed for a tenth season, so it's still somewhat fresh news.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and creation:

  • "Rynda quickly began designing characters that fell in line with "Pen's natural aesthetic" but that were also "iconic [and] that any kid could draw and identify with".[20] Rynda and McHale also began drafting artistic guidelines for the show, so that its animation style would always be somewhat consistent."
  • Both sentences have "also" in them (sounds repetitive).
  • "characters that fell in line with "Pen's natural aesthetic" but that were also "iconic [and] that any kid could draw and identify with" " feels quite awkward to me. I'm not convinced "that were also iconic and that..." works grammatically, but even if it does, it feels awkward.
  • I changed the second "also" to "additionally", and moved it to the start of the sentence. For the first sentence, I re-wrote it as: "With the producers satisfied, Rynda quickly began designing characters that fell in line with "Pen's natural aesthetic". At the same time, he also sought to craft simple designs "that any kid could draw and identify with".

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Just let me know, and I'll try my best to respond/change things.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conception and creation:

  • "Eventually, the studio's rights to commission a full series expired, and Frederator—the short's production animation studio—pitched it to other channels." I got lost here. Frederator is the production animation studio, and their rights to commission (=produce?) a full Adventure Times series expired (how does that work and where do the rights go to?) so they were trying to get another channel to take over production? Also, I was wondering whether the fact that Frederator was the short's production animation studio should be included with one of the two earlier mentions of the company? Moisejp (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. The first instance of 'studio' should really be network, so I changed it to read "Eventually, Nicktoon's rights to commission..." Basically, the network had the privilege of 'first dibs', but once that privilege (which was on a time limit) ran out, Frederator was free to shop it elsewhere.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hoping to improve upon the "pre-school vibe" that he felt defined the original short" / "When [the Adventure Time production staff] started designing the series, we tried to keep the good things about the original short and improve on it." Sounds a bit repetitive. Would it be worthwhile to consider combining these somehow? Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It now reads, "Hoping to improve upon the 'pre-school vibe' that he felt defined the original short, Ward and his production team attempted to 'keep the good things about the original short and improve on [them]' while developing the series."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adam Muto, a storyboard artist and creative director for the show since the first season, became the show's new showrunner." It kind of sounds here like Muto is being introduced for the first time, but actually he is mentioned a couple of times earlier in the section. Maybe mention earlier about him being storyboard artist and creative director for the first five seasons, and here only mention that he became the new showrunner? Just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing:

  • "Ward has said he does not want to push the show's PG rating." Possibly OK, but I was wondering whether this meaning of "push" could be colloquial and/or whether it will be clear to all readers which meaning of "push" is intended. If you're confident it's OK, no worries, but if you have any doubt, you could reword it. Moisejp (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion. It now reads, "Ward has said he does not want to push the boundaries of the PG rating, noting, 'I've never really even thought about the rating ... we don't like stuff that's overly gross. We like cute stuff and nice things.'"--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Setting and mythology:

  • "After the broadcast of "Business Time", in which an iceberg containing reanimated businessmen floats to the surface of a lake, the show became post-apocalyptic; Ward said the production crew "just ran with it". " I see from the list of episodes that this was the eighth episode of the first season. This might be useful to include so readers get an idea of how far into the series it got before the post-apocalyptic setting was adopted. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read a little bit father and saw "Business Time" was a preview episode before the series started, and also remembered episodes are made concurrently, so maybe my comment above doesn't make sense. I still wonder if there's a way to clarify for the reader how far into the development of the series the post-apocalyptic setting was adopted. But if it's not feasible, no big deal. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was an oversight on my part. It now reads, After the production of the episode 'Business Time'...", since the change was made after the episode was worked on, not after it aired.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title sequence and music:

  • "The show's title sequence and theme song have stayed mostly consistent throughout its run, with three major exceptions." Are there also additional minor exceptions? If not, "major" could be dropped here. Also, is it three exceptions or four: "Fiona and Cake", Stakes, Islands, and Elements?
  • "Frederator, Seibert's production company, often posted demos and full versions of songs sung by the characters." Here does "posted" mean put them somewhere online? If so, on their official website? Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The show also rarely, but occasionally, refers to popular music." I'm not sure that this sentence adds a lot, but if you want to keep it, I won't argue. Moisejp (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still making my way through the article... now up to Critical reviews:

  • "In 2011, Entertainment Weekly named Adventure Time number 20 on its 25 "Greatest Animated Series Ever" list.[106][114] Similarly, in a run-down of the "best animated series ever", The A.V. Club included Adventure Time and called it "one of the most distinctive cartoons currently on the air." " These two sentences sound quite repetitive to me: one talks about the "Greatest Animated Series Ever" list, and the second about the "best animated series ever". One idea could be to merge these together, possibly something like: "The series has been included on lists of the best animated series of all time. These include a number 20 (out of 25) ranking by Entertainment Weekly, and a listing by The A.V. Club, which called it "one of the most distinctive cartoons currently on the air". “ Or if you have another idea for how to merge them, that could work too. Moisejp (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I incorporated your suggestion, although I left the first sentence as "The series has also been included on a number of best-of lists," as a previous reviewer didn't like the "best animated series of all time" idea.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic interest:

  • Consider specifying "Researcher Emma A. Jane" (or whatever title is appropriate) and to Carolyn Leslie to make it all the clearer that the quotes passages are indeed academic discussions?

Fandom:

  • "Reporter Emma-Lee Moss said, "This year's [2014] Comic-Con schedule reflected Adventure Time's growing success, with several screenings, a dramatic reading with the show's voice talent and a special Adventure Time Cosplay ball."[130] The show is also popular with cosplayers, or performance artists who wear costumes and fashion accessories to represent characters from the Adventure Time universe." The first sentence mentions cosplay, but the second sentence is written as though it is introducing cosplay for the first time (it uses "also" and it gives a definition of cosplay for those who may not be familiar with it). I'm not sure the best solution to suggest, but it doesn't flow well for me as is. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and removed the "and a special Adventure Time Cosplay ball" bit from the quote. My reasoning is that the very next sentence expands upon cosplay, so there's no need to really mention it prior. The quote now shows what was going on at the 2014 Comic-Con, but has been rephrased so as to not imply that only those things were occurring.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to finish this review off in the next couple of days if possible. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #206 has a date that hasn't occurred yet. I understand that is the announced date of the book. But would it be more appropriate to use a press release or something for ref #206? Moisejp (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I thought of a work around. I have hidden the template citation, and manually recreated it. However, I have also added "forthcoming" after the date. Does that look OK?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes:

  • "In 2017, during its eighth season, another miniseries debuted, which was entitled Islands." Minor comment, but this wording sounds like you are introducing Islands for the first time, but it has already been mentioned a few paragraphs up. Moisejp (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed this whole section to read: "During the latter part of its run, the show began to experiment with the miniseries format. The first of these was Stakes (2015), which aired during the show's seventh season; the following season, both Islands (2016) and Elements (2016) aired."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm satisfied now, thanks. It looks good. Moisejp (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2017 [34].

Battle of Prokhorovka

[edit]
Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the largest tank battles in history, which occurred between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in July 1943, during the Second World War in the Eastern Front. It was the climax of the wider Battle of Kursk, after which the Soviets permanently gained the strategic initiative, while the Germans permanently lost the capacity to launch any more major offensives of such size in the Eastern Front.

This was nominated before but got bogged down on portrait copyright issues, and was ultimately closed due to prolonged inactivity. Image copyright issues have now been resolved with the appropriate fair use tag. EyeTruth (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by K.e.coffman

[edit]
  • Initial comments -- this is after a quick glance, so some are more general than others.
  • There are some cases of over-citations, such as: "this is incorrect as the battle simply did not involve that many tanks.[217][218][219][220][221]". I think this impacts readability, as well as when citations break up sentences: "They eventually succeeded by the morning of 6 July,[32] but the delay in their advance kept them from protecting the east flank of the II SS-Panzer Corps.[24]" These are both cited to Clark, so I'd just combine into one citation.
Response. Some instances of over-citations are due to a decade-long history of arguments and edit wars over numbers, outcome, etc. What've I've done is to merge citations. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: It seems that the edit warring / disputes have stopped. It's been quiet at the main article (Battle of Kursk), too. Hope it stays this way. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My general observations is that most of the recent historiography agrees on what occurred. I don't think that the content is generally controversial, so that such close citing is not needed. For example, I read both Showalter and Clark and there were no major disagreements that I could recall. I'd pick up two sources and reduce citations, randomly if needed. I think 3 citations per sentence should be an absolute max, ideally two or less.
Response. Fixed. Merged some more too.
  • From the lead: "...breaking through the third defensive belt to achieve operational freedom" -- would that not be tactical freedom? Soviets still had three belts (not as strong, but still) & plenty of reserves. I think "operational freedom", a la Blau, would be pretty generous.
Response. Need to dig around to verify if this was specifically from any source. However, the last three belts were mostly empty before 5 July, except for some garrison near Kursk itself. Also, the third belt from the front line was scantily occupied until 9/10 July when three armies moved into position. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Removed mention of operational freedom from the lede. Could only find two sources that say the Germans could have achieved freedom of movement if things went as planned, i.e. they barged through the three belts in the first two or three days. EyeTruth (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Operational' freedom, though, comports with Glantz's writing on this. The Germans' immediate point was to break through the Soviet tactical zone into their operational depths. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DMorpheus2: I do feel like I've read something along those lines somewhere before, which is why I had initially allowed it to stay in the article for so long. However, I'm unable to find a source that explicitly shows that the German were in the verge of breaking into a free rear on 12 July. Instead, I keep finding contrary information. EyeTruth (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is consistent with what I read; to speak of 'operational freedom' in the face of the failure of the northern pincer would be odd. Freedom to nowhere? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the infobox: 1st Tank Army; 6th Guards Army; 69th Army -- is their inclusion justified in the infobox? They do not appear to be discussed in the article & are mentioned only in footnotes.
Response. Only included for consistent format, because the main units (5th GTA and 5th GA) are in that format. The real focus are the subordinate corps and divisions. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The reason that I originally asked was because the infobox was creating an impression as if the Soviets had multiple armies counter-attacking several German divisions. I still think that the infobox can be streamlined by removing, for example: 6th Guards Army[h]: 23rd Guards Rifle Corps; 69th Army: 48th Rifle Corps. Both of these corps are mentioned only once in the article. In general, I don't think that the infobox needs to provide the full ORBAT; this can be covered in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, everything that's not under the 5th GTA and 5th GA could all get grouped together under "other units", and the bigger units they were subordinated to gets dropped. EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the background section: "...with Field Marshal Erich von Manstein arguing for a mobile defence..."; from my reading of literature, the situation was more complex, with some German commanders arguing for, some against, while Manstein was first for Citadel, then against it, then sort of for it, etc. I think the mentioning on Manstein only is undue; he was just one of the field commanders. If anything, Kurt Zeitzler, as head of OKH, or Guderian, with whom Hitler appeared to have consulted closely (IIRC), would be more appropriate here. Alternatively, I would put a general statement in there, and not mention specific German commanders, as the situation was muddled. Along the lines of: the opinions were divided. Putting the blame for Citadel solely in Hitler's lap is not in line with what I read (for example, in Citino). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Manstein did hold that view in Feb/Mar 1943. And yes the situation was complex with competing views. But Manstein is the relevant commander here: Haussar → Hoth → Manstein. Hence the focus on just him, Hoth and Hassaur, with a brief mention of Hitler. The broader details of the German planning for Citadel and their operations during the Donets Campaign are (or should be) covered in the Battle of Kursk. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now why Manstein was chosen. Still, I think it's a bit simplistic to highlight his idea in this fashion. IIRC, Citino made fun of this proposal, as in: what if the Soviets "refused to cooperate"? In his view, this idea was Wehrmacht's search for Bewegungskrieg at a time when its time has already passed. Etc.
In general, I wonder if the background section is attempting to do too much: two maps, a photo, etc. I would almost start with the section "German advance to Prokhorovka" as it was really the "prelude" to the battle. I don't advocate drastically chopping the Background section at this point, but wonder if you may get similar feedback from other reviewers. If not, then I'd stand corrected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't go into whether his idea would've work or not, and it doesn't strike me as something this article should cover (maybe Battle of Kursk if necessary). EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background is definitely needed for Prokhorovka. A new reader—say they've finished watching a number of documentaries about the eastern front—should be able to read the first section and not get lost. Jumping straight into the 5th of July 1943 will beg the question of why the Germans are attacking Kursk. EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Thank you for addressing the above. Conditional support pending further input on the structure / scope of the Background section. I don't have further comments on the contents; sourcing and citations are solid. Nice job! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria

[edit]
Done. Only the infobox has fixed image size (because when I changed to "upright" it became toooo oversized). EyeTruth (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

[edit]

This article is in fine shape. I have a few prose nitpicks and other queries:

  • what data was File:Kursk-1943-Plan-GE.svg drawn from? The original map or works consulted in creating the map is what I am getting at here. This information should be added to the description field of the image file
No clue what the map is based on. But placements of units appears to be roughly fine for 4 July, but there are still some inaccuracies (e.g. placement of 5th GTA and 10th TC). I've always felt a little iffy for the blue arrows. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I've always wanted to remove it, but can't find a replacement that's good enough. If you know of any hidding away somewhere in Commons, please share. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, did the "coinciding one" have a name?
No name. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • you could probably dispense with "inside the Soviet Union"
  • I don't think you need scare quotes around "Operation Citadel", as it is already in parentheses
  • suggest linking II SS-Panzer Corps when mentioned for the first time in the body
  • suggest "Behind the first three belts were an additional three belts; these were mostly unoccupied and less fortified."
  • suggest "and the 11th Motorized Rifle Brigade"
  • suggest "anti-tank" rather than "antitank" for consistency
  • suggest "The arrival of the 5th Guards Tank Army"
Response. All done except for the first. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

  • General Paul Hausser should just be Hausser at this point per WP:SURNAME
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in what respect was the battle manoeuvre ordered by Hausser "classic"? Because it was a left flanker?
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "was to concentrate its main effort"
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest a comma after "On the night of 11 July"
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest reducing or eliminating words like "massive" as being a bit WP:FLOWERY. Show don't tell, use the number of tanks, for example.
Response. Changed from nonspecific quantitative ("massive") to qualitative ("major"). Numbers are covered in detail in another section. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the capitalisation of SS-panzer corps in the map caption is a little weird. I'd suggest using II SS-Panzer Corps, you'd only be repeating two more characters.
  • suggest "go over onto" is repetitive. "go over to" is all that is needed.
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would be worth stating that the offensive by the Voronezh Front was on the southern side of the salient. Also, what was this offensive called?
Response. Done. Wasn't it already clear that Voronezh Front is in the southern side? May need to clarify elsewhere in the article if so. The offensive was unnamed and almost impromptu. When Stavka, on 9 July, gave the greenlight for Kutuzov, Vasilevsky (Stavka rep in the south) was also told to make sure something big happened in the southern side as well. That's part of the reason Roitmistrov didn't lose his head after losing half of his fresh tank army in less than 24 hours. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing forces

  • suggest "divided Leibstandarte's area"
  • "1st SS-Panzerjäger battalion" is the title, so it should be Battalion
  • give Wittmann's rank
  • 6th SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment should be Theodor Eicke
  • "120 surviving tanks" indicates previous fighting which I don't think has been explained. I'd suggest dropping "surviving"
  • suggest "the 26th Guards Tank Brigade of that corps,"
  • suggest "The remainder of the 2nd Guards Tank Corps, supported..."
  • suggest "commit their main effort toward checking"
Response. All done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

  • personal bugbear re: "At around". "Around" is all that is needed.
  • "massive" again, also the second wave wasn't massive. Let the numbers do the talking.
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest dropping "hotly contested". No doubt it was, but we already get that from the description of the numbers opposing.
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the italicisation of the State Farms is inconsistent, I suggest dropping them all, as they are place names
Response. Italicisation made consistent for state farm non-English names across the whole article. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • anti-tank fire is by definition direct. If it was field artillery firing direct, that is a different matter.
Response. The mentioned doesn't seem detrimental or constitute as overemphasis. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • what was the "reconnaissance group"? The 1st SS-Panzer Reconnaissance Battalion?
Response. Yes. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there any information about the numbers of Soviet tanks claimed by Wittmann's Tigers?
Response. Nothing for 12 July that I've seen. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Leibstandarte tactically withdrew" It could be argued that a division could not operationally withdraw in its own right.
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "inhibited air operations over Prokhorovka"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "small number of the G-2 variant"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest breaking the sentence at "the Soviet formations. They were joined by..."
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • worth mentioning at "8 kilometres (5.0 mi) northwest of Prokhorovka" that this was in accordance with the plan
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "massed artilleries" should be "massed their artillery". While strictly speaking, artilleries is a word, it just isn't commonly used.
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "to push Totenkopf back"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "having him court-martialled"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georgiy Zhukov should just be Zhukov per WP:SURNAME
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the main engagement

  • suggest "repelled by concentrated anti-tank artillery fire"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "more defensible positions"
Response. Replaced "more defendable" with "tenable". EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Field Marshal Günther von Kluge" needs commas either side
Response. Put en dashes on either side. Is that OK? EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "on the northern side"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest dropping violent from "violent house-to-house", all fighting is violent
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties and losses

  • "2672" should be "2,672"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German historian"
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

  • no points

Misconceptions and disputations

  • "subsequent postwar accounts"
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historians David..."
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immense Soviet resistance", and I'd suggest changing "immense" to significant or heavy
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the historian Steven"
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest replacing "Pulling from" with "Using"
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Other historians have supported these conclusions." Narrative is repetitive here.
Not all of Newton's stated conclusions are being corroborated. Changing to "conclusions" will require moving sentences around a little. But I gave it a shot. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Glantz, David (2012) needs a location
fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are some inconsistencies with locations, at least one has the state designator as well as USA, others don't have USA, others don't have the state designator; UK books, some have UK, others England, some nothing
all fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Licari is out of alphaorder, and what is it about Licari that makes him a reliable source?
I left it there out of respect to some editors from a long time ago. It wasn't really a citation for anything in the article. Moved to external links section. Licari was an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Northern Iowa. His article is a good start, but not completely accurate, and has absolutely no inline citations (especially for figures and historic information). EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Showalter needs an isbn
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes ww2.dk a reliable source?
Nothing. It's cited only for the name the VIII Fliegerkorps' commander. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and background

Comments by Kges1901

[edit]

Support - My concerns have been addressed. Kges1901 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German attack toward Prokhorovka

  • If 95th Guards Rifle Division is linked, then why is 183rd Rifle Division not linked?
Fixed. Removed wikilink. The Soviets created way too many divisions during WWII. Better to unlink, at least for now. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disposition of Soviet forces

See response above. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I missed it somewhere, I think we still need a source review here. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, unless I'm mistaken, this would be the nominator's first FA so I'd like the usual spot-check of sourcing for close paraphrasing and accurate use. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a SR because K.e. Coffman said above "I don't have further comments on the contents; sourcing and citations are solid. Nice job!" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take my comment is as a SR; I've read some of the books being cited, so that was my general impression. It might be best to follow the standard protocol. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OKay, I'll try to get to this tomorrow ... but we're painting. It might be Wednesday. If someone else steps up, that's not a problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the nominator, so I don't know if my source review counts. I did one back when I was taking the article through A-Class review, and since then I've kept a close eyes at sources. Except for a few sources, I've verified that all the information in the article can be found in the respective citations where there are any. The few sources that I couldn't check were Bergström, Healy, Molony et al., and Overy. But for the most part, the passages they are cited for are consistent with what other sources say. EyeTruth (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EyeTruth: Unfortunately your review does not count as you are the nominator. However, Ealdgyth has done a source review below, and there is just one issue to address. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: As we still need a spot check of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, do you have access to any of the sources used? If so, would it be possible for you to check 4 or 5 references? Some reviewers post the content of the article and the content of the source which verifies it so that other reviewers can check (for example in this current FAC) but that isn't strictly necessary. But I'd like to try and wrap this one up now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I've addressed every issue directed at the nominator that I know of. Is there anything else needed from me? EyeTruth (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needed from you at the moment, we are still looking for a spot check. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Note G - "It is not uncommon for this formation to be portrayed as part of the 5th Guards Army during the Battle of Prokhorovka, but that is a metachronistic error." is unsourced and probably needs one as it's an opinion.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed that statement. EyeTruth (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More from Casliber (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Ref formatting consistent.

Ok spot check looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this is pretty much ready to go. I've made a few minor tweaks, and I noticed a few places where the references were not in numerical order. I've tweaked these, but feel free to revert this if they were intentionally in that order. Also, I might have missed a few and I would recommend checking for other instances if it was not intentional; but this isn't worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2017 [35].

Kalākaua coinage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC), Maile66 (talk)[reply]

This article is about... four of five of Hawaii's official coins, so liked for their beauty they were incorporated into spoons, cuff links and the like, but which caused a monetary crisis when issued to refill Hawaii's treasury. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. --Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

I think what I spotted is mostly minor stuff:

  • It's specified in three places that a dime is a ten-cent piece (in the lead, the third paragraph of Preparation, and at the end of Design). The lead and the third one (which also ties in with the Hawaiian phrase) seem worthwhile. It's not a big deal, but is the second one possibly too much?
  • "Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono" is mentioned and wiki-linked twice, but different information is given for each mention ("The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness" and "words spoken by Kamehameha following a time of distress"). The description for the second occurrence feels kind of like it's giving new information without acknowledging the reader has already been presented the term in a different context.
  • Again , minor but: "The dollar, half dollar and quarter dollar bear the royal arms, set forth most elaborately on the dollar". In editing you and I went back and forth a bit with this sentence, and now I understand what you mean. But the first time I read it, I interpreted "most" in its less common usage meaning "very"—that's why I initially thought it was a peacocky usage. How about if you used "the most", then there is definitely no confusion. But if you disagree, I won't insist.
  • The Mintages table has a Net Distribution of $176,165.70. That doesn't quite match the $185,000 mentioned in the main text. I see these are from different sources, but would it be worthwhile to explicitly say that different sources do not agree on the exact figure? (Or is my understanding wrong, and those numbers aren't talking about the same thing?)
  • I went back and took a look at the source, Part II of Adler's article, and he cites that to the Report of the Governor of Hawaii in 1907, which is online here. It looks to me like coins were still coming in, though the exchange period had ended. So I don't think Adler had the final figures, and I'll delete his number figure. Nice catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have had one or two other small comments or copy-edits to make. I'll have to read through the article again to remember. Anyway, this is all for now. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marvin suggested a more appropriate choice as national mantle than the fur would be the famous feather cloak worn by Kamehameha the Great." Should this be "would have been"? He reported on the coins in 1883 after they were already complete? Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are all addressed and now support. Moisejp (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KAVEBEAR

[edit]

This is going to be sporadic comments as read the article for the first time:

  • Can you link Hawaiian dollar and Coins of the Hawaiian dollar either in the text or as a main article template in Background?
  • Why not mention the use of nails as currency during the early barter economy period at post-contact?
Medcalf mentions that more as a trade item without a set rate of exchange. Is there some online source you can recommend on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. I just remember that nails were an important trade currency at this period base on past readings. . I can look into it a bit to see what I find specifically. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good citation in this: "Money of Hawaii Including a Preliminary Check List of Hawaiian Currency, Coins, Patterns, Scrip and Tokens* by Donald Billam-Walker in the Forty-eighth annual report of the Hawaiian Historical Society for the year 1939. Can you include this source for the sake of thoroughness and comprehensiveness in the references and add anything new (if any) it may provide to this article? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt Did you see my above comment? I am not going to be a stickler about it if you disagree. Just pointing out an additional source that might given some more support. Let me know either way. Other than this, I support this page's nomination.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, overlooked it. Let me look it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR, I've added it as a source and used it in three places, including on the nails. Sorry about the delay. Thanks for bringing that up.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks for the great work on the article.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistency of kingdom vs Kingdom as a stand alone noun without "of Hawaii".
  • ...A number of businessmen, including Sanford B. Dole, objected" – Dole was a lawyer and government official not a businessman. The source seems to list him as the spokesman for the business community.
I've adjusted those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support. And the patience.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR, do you have anything more to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b c "Community Profile for Jerome". Arizona Commerce Authority. Retrieved 6 June 2017.
  2. ^ a b c "Jerome". Arizona Department of Commerce. Retrieved 6 June 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2017&oldid=788288154"