Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2018

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2018 [1].

---

Isis

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From FunkMonk

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

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

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

User:Jeff Dahl's images of Egyptian deities are composites. By eyeballing them, not because of anything he himself said, I can tell they lean heavily on the imagery from the tomb of Nefertari. In this case, everything except the ankh and papyrus staff corresponds very closely to a pair of images from that tomb (visible here in the third and fourth clickable images). I've added something to that effect to the Commons description.

• "Philae as seen from Bigeh Island in the early 19th century" I think exact date and artist should be given here.

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

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

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

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nature is capitalised inconsistently.

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

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

Comment by Nergaal

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

Support by Squeamish Ossifrage

This is pretty cursory at the moment.

• First off, I have concerns about the overall structure of the article, which might be solved by restructuring the existing sections underneath broader categories, as suggested by Nergaal above. For example, right now, you have "§Relationships with other gods" and "§Adherents and priests". Those names are location-neutral, and so one might expect to see a discussion of both Egyptian and Greco-Roman aspects of those topics in those sections. But that's not how the article is constructed; those are exclusively Greco-Roman material. It doesn't help that the Egyptian and Greco-Roman material are not organized into exactly parallel section structures.

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

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

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

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

I'll work on this over the weekend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done.

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

Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support by PericlesofAthens

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

Support by Jens Lallensack

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

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

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

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

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

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

For now, I have two more minor notes:

• I miss something about the Iconography in the lead.

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Johnbod

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

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

This has several useful pages on access in the Greek world, evidently very varied, and generally fairly poorly evidenced, it seems. I think it might be enough to tone down the language here though. Or there's this which other books refer to, & I don't think I can access. Mind you this pp. 212-220 supports fairly general access & praying before statues. Maybe our Greek temple needs rewriting somewhat. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources review

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

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

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

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

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

• Ref. 78 returns a harv error

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

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

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

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

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

Support by Katolophyromai

This is an excellent article; it is well-written, meticulously cited to reliable sources, well-organized, a good length, and illustrated with plenty of insightful images. Though I have tried, I simply cannot really find any faults in it that I would consider significant enough to possibly hinder its promotion to "Featured Article" status. I think this is definitely suitable for "Featured Article" status beyond a doubt. Excellent work! --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Modernist

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

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

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

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

Support by Cas Liber

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

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

Tks for the ping, I think we're good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2018 [8].

---

Catopsbaatar

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

This is the first article about a multituberculate mammal to be nominated here (if we don't count Ucucha's Ferugliotherium, which may or may not belong to the group). These extinct mammals lived alongside the dinosaurs and survived them, and the article covers one of the more completely known members of the group. All the relevant literature I know of has been cited, and all the images are from a CC-licenced journal. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ulaanbaatar—link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack

Reviewing now, more to follow the next days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see, my mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "It was a member" — what’s the it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "mandible" — link to mandible?

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

• "warmblooded" — why the quotation marks?

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

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

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

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

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

Taxonomy

• "species;" — should be a colon

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

• "creating the" — suggest "and created"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "rather complete" — mostly complete?

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skull

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dentition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoops, that’s what I meant though.

• "( with their alveoli)" — extra space

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Postcranial skeleton

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "deep excavation" — depression?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palaeobiology

• "basal (or "primitive")" — could this just be "basal (primitive)"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feeding and diet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posture and locomotion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palaeoecology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources review

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

Thanks, not sure what happened there, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2018 [12].

---

Lady Blue (TV series)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The above article is about an American detective and action-adventure television series, with David Gerber as executive producer, which originally aired for one season on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network from September 15, 1985 to January 25, 1986. The series revolves around Chicago detective Katy Mahoney (Jamie Rose) and her violent methods of handling cases. The supporting cast includes Danny Aiello, Ron Dean, Diane Dorsey, Bruce A. Young, Nan Woods, and Ricardo Gutierrez. After the pilot aired, Lady Blue was criticized by several watchdog organizations (particularly the National Coalition on Television Violence), as the most violent show on television.

This FAC is part of my interest in working on short-lived television series and hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Chetsford

I'm struggling to find much on which to comment. This, I think, is a testament to the quality of the article. In particular, Aoba47 has an impressive command of MOS:COMMAs. Further, they write in an engaging and stylistically fluid manner that allows the article to be easily digested. While the show itself seems a little schlocky, the treatment of its premise by Aoba47 is interesting enough that I fancy seeing an episode or two now out of curiosity. I support contingent on a few corrections or clarifications, which I've listed below.

• Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of this length should have a lead of one or two paragraphs and this has a lead of three paragraphs. While LEADLENGTH is not a fast rule, it seems a good one to follow except under extraordinary circumstances which don't seem to occur here.

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

• Some of the images don't have ALT text.

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

• The first sentence in the section "Production" is very complex and difficult to read with the two conjunctions: "The executive producer of Lady Blue was television producer David Gerber; and directors Guy Magar and Gary Nelson also worked on the series, and Jack Priestley was the cinematographer.. I wonder if there's a way to simplify it?

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

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

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

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

Comments Support by Freikorp

• I don't think it's necessary to call her both "Dirty Harriet" and the alternate spelling "Dirty Harriette" in the lead. For the lead, I'd say just "Dirty Harriet" will do.

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

• "in her 2013 book" - I'd add the book's title, or say "a book" instead of "the book".

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

• I'd mention that Eastwood gave her advise on how to fire guns in the lead, but up to you.

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

• Should 'Violent Crimes Division' be linked to Violent crimes? I was expecting to link to an actual division. This issue won't stop me from supporting, just bringing it up.

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

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

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

• "Reesman noted that the latter" - I'd change "noted" to "stated" as per WP:WORDS

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

• "was less graphic than future television programs" - were examples of more violent shows given?

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

• "author David Inman called Lady Blue "one of the dumbest shows ever on ABC" - this is interesting, it is possible to use the source to expand on why he thought it was so dumb?

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

Looks great; will be happy to support after issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Freikorp: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you are having a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comments from Vedant

• The opening sentence is awfully long and unnecessarily complex. It could be better as: "Lady Blue is an American detective and action-adventure television series. Produces by David Gerber..."

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

• It's not the most natural transition from the supporting cast to filming to critical commentary and back to the cast. Why not have three paragraphs and have production details in the second.

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

• "Critical response to the series was primarily negative during its run, but feminist author Cary O'Dell questioned whether that stemmed from contemporary sexism in a 2013 book" - It reads as if contemporary sexism stemmed from the book and not the writer's view.

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

• While I encourage the mention of writers and critics some of them are breaking the flow here and could be done away with as long as we have in-line citations for direct quotes. Case in point: 1. "John J. O'Connor of The New York Times" 2. "Jon Anderson of the Chicago Tribune" by removing attribution you'd be able to help with the flow.

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

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

Continued:

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

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

• "The executive producer of Lady Blue was television producer David Gerber." - do we need two "producer"s in the sentence?

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

• "Produced by MGM Television and David Gerber Productions." - a comma.

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

• "Rose recalled having a difficult time in Cabrini Green since the residents threatened the cast and crew and threw bottles at them during filming." - wow what? do we know why?

• According to the source, "the people who lived there started getting restless and tired of us". I would imagine that people living in the projects would probably be mad at a film crew in their space, especially since they were facing some pretty severe issues with poverty and crime at that point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• "According to the actress, Lady Blue had the same concept as the" - you might want to reintroduce her.

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

• the television film Get Christie Love! - maybe the release year.

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

• "however, the actress" - "the actress" isn't very encyclopediac.

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from JM

• Not at all a must, but I'd consider mentioning Depp in the lead. An early appearance by someone of his stature gives a general audience a reason to care about the topic.

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

• I wonder whether O'Dell's area of expertise is more important than the fact he's a feminist. (Lead and reception section.)

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

• "how to mimic using a gun from the director" Is "the director" Eastwood, here? If so, specify earlier on that she worked with him as a director.

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

• Bit of a silly point, but did Rose get advice from Eastwood at a shooting range, or get advice from him and then have a go independently? There's some ambiguity in the article.

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

• "John J. O'Connor" Who is he? A journalist? Critic? Film studies scholar?

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

• "her former lover. Mahoney discovers that her ex-partner" Ambiguous; I'm assuming the former lover and ex-partner are the same person, but are they formerly involved with Mahoney or the mastermind?

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

• Is there a reason you don't have a date for the final episode?

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

• "include a female private detective in Veronica Clare and Partners in Crime" would female private detectives not be better than a female private detective?

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

• I wouldn't bother including publishers for journals/magazines, but, if you do, do so consistently!

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

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

• @J Milburn: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope that you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Tintor2

• The lead is kinda long for only two paragraphs. Maybe it would be better to split one.

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

• Is it possible to reduce the amount of quotes and try using more object remarks? It's a critcism I often be told.

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

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

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

• @Tintor2: Any further comments on this? Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

Source review- spotchecks not done

• What's your source for the non-plot details in the episodes table?

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

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

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

• Print newspaper sources should include page number but do not need publisher.

• I have removed the publisher. I do not have access to the sources for the page numbers. @J Milburn: could you please help me with this as you provided the sources? Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• What makes NewNowNext a high-quality reliable source?

• NewNowNext is a website for the channel Logo TV. Here is the link to the about page. I can remove the source if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nikkimaria: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have answered your comments. Hope you have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks. I would prefer to see cites for the air dates, and I wonder whether Josh could provide permalinks for the newspaper refs without page numbers. I'm also not quite convinced about NewNowNext - you might consider posting it to RSN for other opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Nikkimaria: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that this has been updated. Apologies for the multiple pings over the past few days. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, and @Sarastro1: Hello. Almost all of the concerns posed in the source review have been cleared, except for a question about the NewNowNext source. I have posted a message on the RSN as requested, but I have yet to receive a response and I believe that it may be buried under more recent posts. I was wondering if any of you could provide feedback on the source. I have found evidence that the source has editors, but I would also be perfectly fine with removing it if absolutely necessary. I believe that once the source review is cleared, this should be ready for promotion (as it has already received an image review and a fair amount fo commentary). I apologize for being a bother (and for the long message), and I hope that all of you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

• @Laser brain:@Nikkimaria: I have removed the source completely. There is already information on the watchdog groups in the article so I think that I am fine on that front. Thank you for the response! I think that this should be ready for promotion then. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for a status update

• @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, and @Sarastro1: Could I have a status update for this as I believe that it is ready for promotion? Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2018 [13].

---

Death of Ms Dhu

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a sad chapter in the Australian government's treatment of Aboriginal women. I rewrote this article from scratch in April this year, and it has since passed a GA nomination and received a copyedit from GOCE. I now believe it meets featured standards. Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ian Rose. So I have five six seven supports, an image and source check and no opposition. Is there anything else you'd like on this one? I ask as I'll start making trade offers for whatever is still needed if that is the case. Also I've got another article I wish to nominate. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Hi again Ian Rose. So seven supports now and I think it's pretty unlikely anyone else will comment on it before it gets to the bottom of the list. Any chance it can be passed now? Don't worry I won't bug you about it a third time if not haha, I'm just very keen to nominate my next article. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, each time I think we might be ready to close someone else has stopped by, and of course I'm glad to see as much commentary as possible -- I may not be able to run through it till the weekend but in the meantime you're welcome to post a new nom if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

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

• Fixed now. Freikorp (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

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

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

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

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

Specifically for reasons of flow, I think it's appropriate to break up the background section between the information on Dhu and the information on Western Australian incarceration, both of which the reader needs a background knowledge of to understand the rest of the article. I thought the best way to do this would be with sub-headers. I think the section will read awkwardly if it goes from straight talking about Dhu to talking about fines. If 'Incarceration in Western Australia' is an editorial POV (can you also explain why this heading is POV? I am assuming good faith but I don't see the problem, I accept that my judgement may be impaired because I've been following this case for some time though) can you suggest a more neutral alternative? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Freikorp,

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

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

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

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

• Thanks so much for your comments JennyOz. I've made all the recommended changes. Let me know if you have any further concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Support from FunkMonk

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

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

• For the background, is it known which Aboriginal ethnic group she belonged to? In any case, I think it could be repeated under background that she was Aboriginal, I'm pretty sure it should be possible to read the article body as a stand alone entity without having read the lead (which is only supposed to be a summary of the article body itself).

• Hey that's a really good point. Several sources describe her as Yamatji so I've added this to the article. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The payment does not prevent Dhu's family from taking further legal action, and is separate from a civil suit lodged in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in July 2017 by them." It seems a bit out of place that you suddenly change to present tense here (everything around it is past tense). Yes, the issues discussed there are recent, but this article will probably exist for many years to come.

• Good point; done.

• "Kelly-Ryder believes the publicity surrounding her case caused the withdrawal, though she asked" Likewise, mix of tenses, which I think is unneeded.

• Done.

• "As of May 2018" Do you plan to change this sentence every month? Seems unnecessary, why not just say "presently" or similar?

• It's my understanding that I can't use terms like 'presently' as per WP:REALTIME, and that I will have to keep updating it.

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

• Good idea FunkMonk; done. Freikorp (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

• The above four issues have been fixed.

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

• I've moved the citation placement.

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

• The above four issues have been fixed.

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

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

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate help with my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review Aoba47. I'll be happy to review your nomination shortly. Freikorp (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Support from KJP1

A very well-written article on a sad subject. Imprisonment for fines non-payment is also a controversial issue in England, but the number of recent aboriginal deaths in custody is the truly awful figure. Some comments, but nothing to stand in the way of support.

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background - Ms Dhu

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

Coroner's inquest

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

Aftermath

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

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

Thanks so much for your comments and support. I've addressed all concerns, with the exception of the two I've replied to above instead. Freikorp (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment from 122.108.141.214

Hi @Freikorp:, well done on this article. Has the scholarly literature been surveyed for articles on Ms Dhu, to more fully cover the subject? I found a couple and put them in the article as further reading. Ethan Blue's journal article discusses Ms Dhu's treatment as part of the international Black Lives Matter, SayHerName and Idle No More activist movements. Thank you. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your comment. Searching through my universities library catalogue with the search field "Ms Dhu" and the parameter of 'peer reviewed journals' gets me four hits. One is a false positive, of the other three, one is the 'Klippmark' source you added to the article as further reading. My university does not have access to the Ethan Blue article, though I've managed to obtain a copy via the Resource Exchange. I'll start looking through all the journal articles. I'll expand the article however I can with them and will reply here again once I am done. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I've finished making use of the Klippmark source and the other two I found myself (one didn't have anything worth using). Let me know if you have any concerns about these changes so far. Hopefully I can integrate the Blue source into the article tomorrow. :) Freikorp (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, the edits look good, I'm glad it's been a simple fix. The listing of the activist movements looks a bit overly summarised, perhaps, but maybe further commentary from the Blue article can be used there. I've added in a bit about female fine defaulters in WA over the decade 2006-2016 from The Conversation Australia. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've finished expanding the article with academic sources. Thanks again for finding these. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Holy shit. About three weeks ago the WA state government announced a CNS would be introduced by the end of 2018! I thought such an announcement would get nationwide coverage (I keep up to date with Australian news) but looks like only a couple smaller time sources reported on the matter. As of today though, the CNS is not up and running. I've updated the article accordingly. As of today, there's no update on the end to jailing people for unpaid fines beyond what's already in the article. I'll try and address your concerns about wikilinks and the further reading sources tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's Western Australia: the eastern states are catered to, but WA has to threaten to secede to be heard. Glad it's in there now. For an additional nitpick on wikilinks, are there any red links that could be added to the article? (Like for the coroner's name?) 122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added wikilinks to this article at Black Lives Matter, Felix Riebl and Joe Francis (politician). As a result of this article being nominated for FAC, another editor created the article Custody Notification Scheme. The only new articles that I can see potentially coming out of this now are for the coroner and possibly for the academic journal "Settler Colonial Studies". I can link them if you like; I'm not fussed either way. Will try and look at the further reading sources later today. Freikorp (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Well, yes I suppose it could. I'll consider doing that when I get a chance but this isn't the place to discuss improvements to other articles, this is just a review to access whether the current article meets the featured article criteria and accordingly whether people support or oppose its promotion. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your appreciation :), and thanks for expanding those other articles to have links to this one. I've looked through those three further reading sources now. I saw some good information to add in one and integrated it into the body, and furthermore one of the internal links at that article led me to a new source which I have also added to the article. I'm finished adding the information that I think is appropriate. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Hmm as far as I'm concerned they're not hurting anyone, and while I didn't find anything in them that I thought would improve the article they may very well be of interest to readers, so I was just going to leave them there. You're most welcome to remove them though if you like. :) Freikorp (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "While in custody, Dhu complained of pain and was taken to hospital twice" - missing "the"; also which hospital?
• "Hospital staff believed her complaints" - odd to repeat hospital twice in such close proximity
• " A coronial inquest found that she had suffered "unprofessional and inhumane" handling by police and "deficient" treatment from hospital staff." - you should cite directly after a direct quote
• "She was described as a "cheerful" child whose only health issue was mild asthma." - link asthma?
• "She was bailed the next day " - shouldn't this be released on bail?
• "over 1,000 people were sent to prison" - more than, not over
• "Over the next 20 hours, witnesses saw Dhu crying, calling for help, asking to return to hospital and vomiting." - "the" hospital
• "Dr Vafa Naderi" - there should be a period after Dr, and why is doctor spelled out for Annie Lang but not here?
• "Dhu asked to go to hospital again on the morning of 4 August" - "the" before hospital again
• "Her death marked around 340 Aboriginal deaths" - oddly phrased, shouldn't it be 'the X Aboriginal death'; also get rid of "around" and say roughly the X death or something like that to indicate uncertainty
• "and for more money to be invested into communities, rather than prisons." - can you be more specific? into "communities"? what did they mean by that?

• The source isn't any more specific than that I'm afraid. I've removed this.

• "and promised to make sure that "the full truth will come out". " - citation after direct quote would be ideal
• "and the then upcoming inquest." - rm "then" it's redundant
• I'd replace septicaemia with "sepsis" since AFAIK septicemia isn't really used much anymore
• "11 police offers" -- think this is a typo for "officers"

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

Thanks so much for your comments. I've made all the recommended changes. Freikorp (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Added back with direct quote. Feel free to reword it if you like. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Interesting article on a subject I knew nothing about, nicely put together. There is just one point which you could consider (although it doesn't affect my support):

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

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

Many thanks for your comment and support. Unfortunately the source that mentions the apprehended violence order (AVO) doesn't state when it was taken out, and the inquest into her death doesn't mention it at all. Upon re-reading the source given it doesn't actually explicitly state the AVO was taken out by Dhu. Theoretically, it could have been taken out by a former partner. I've reworded the article accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking for the further details. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2018 [17].

---

The Bill (Inside No. 9)

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

In "The Bill", four men argue over who is going to pay a restaurant bill. Things go from eccentric to shocking when some knives are brought out from the kitchen, and then shocking to bizarre when a "corpse" lets out a yelp. And the final scene, in the eyes of some viewers if not the episode's writers, is incomprehensible. As a whole, "The Bill" is very witty, though a good bit of the humour relies on understanding the English north/south divide. I'm very pleased with how this article has come together, and I feel that it easily matches my other Inside No. 9 FAs: "Sardines" (Inside No. 9), "A Quiet Night In", "Last Gasp" (Inside No. 9), and "The Riddle of the Sphinx" (Inside No. 9). Thanks in advance for any comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

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

Production

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

Writing and filming

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

Cast

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

Plot

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

Analysis

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

Reception

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

Further thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

Great work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Support from Argento Surfer

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

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

Sources review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2018 [18].

---

Oxenfree

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

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

Comment and Support

I suppose, since it's a video game, I go into it expecting lots of garish imags; ironic, then, that it only has one small screenshot! I do understand that's due to its fair use; howver, do you think it would be possible to find a couple more images to break up some of the (if you don't mind me saying) slightly—plain looking paragraps / sections? Perhaps photos of the creators, designers, etc., or soem packaging, advertising? Just a stylistic suggestion though.

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

I hope you find this helpful. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comments from Epicgenius

I haven't played this video game. I have only a PS3 and a Nintendo Wii from 2008, plus I'm more of a Cities: Skylines guy. Sounds like a very cool game, though. Anyway, on with the review:

Lead:

• PlayStation 4 and Linux versions of the game released later in 2016 - do you mean "were released later in 2016", or is this some video gaming lingo where the games release themselves?
• assume the role of teenager Alex - I'd suggest "a teenage girl named Alex". You do use "her" in the very next sentence.
• developer Night School Studio - not sure the "developer" part is necessary, you already described Night School as a "developer" earlier on.
• collectors edition - does this need an apostrophe after "collectors"?

Gameplay:

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

Plot:

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

Endings:

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

Developments:

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

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

Audio:

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

Promotion and release:

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

Reception:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support from ProtoDrake

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

Comments from Salvidrim

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

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

Feel free to respond in-line :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Than, looks great. I whole-heartedly support FA. Awesome work! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Comments from Mike Christie

I commented at the peer review, and I felt then that the article was close to FA quality, but that the reception section needed some work. I think that's still the case; the reception section has the "A said B" problem in places; see WP:RECEPTION. There are more than half a dozen sentences like Wired's Chris Kohler wrote that "Oxenfree shows some smart thinking about the relationship between games and players," and that as Night School's first game, it was an "auspicious debut". There is some thematic organization, and in some places the reviewer comments are assembled into more complicated constructs, but it's still not what it should be: an overall description of the game's reception that uses quotes to support and illustrate that description. There's not enough "scaffold" to hang the quotes on, to borrow a phrase from Czar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Hey Mike, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately I'm at a bit of an impasse as to what can be done to address your points. The "A said B" format is in there because it's not like there's a lot of definitive sources that describe Oxenfree's reception, and I can't really combine sentiments without attributing them as I don't have sources for generalized reception beyond the Metacritic scores and that's not good for anything other than a snapshot of overall reception. It's great and all for WP:RECEPTION to suggest avoiding them, but I don't see any way around at least the attribution aspect, if not the quotes. Reviews said X is not really an improvement and readers would understandably want to know who these nebulous "reviewers" are. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources review

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

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

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

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

SC

Oppose on prose at the moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Anarchyte

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

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

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

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2018 [20].

---

Ham Wall

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

Support from KJP1

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

Infobox

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

Lead

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

Landscape

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

History

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

Reserve creation

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

Birds

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

References

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

Cited texts

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

External links

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

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

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

From FunkMonk

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "The formerly rare great white egret" Link.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source review and subsequent support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt

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

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

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

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

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

• Many thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2018 [29].

---

Jørgen Jensen (soldier)

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

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

Support Comments by Ian

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

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

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

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

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

• Do you think you'd be able to dig out any specifics on the war-related injuries that eventually killed him?

• I imagine it was the head wound, but none of the sources say exactly what it was, the answer is probably only in his repatriation file. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That's it for a quick first pass. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Returning, leaning support...

• I've taken two passes at the prose and am pretty happy with it now as long as I haven't misinterpreted anything -- feel free to argue with me about my tweaks.
• Haven't exactly spotchecked sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing but I did pay close attention to anything cited to his personnel file at the National Archives and felt a couple of tweaks to the prose were needed to comply with the black-and-white facts presented therein. Of course if you think I missed something pls let me know.
• Structure and level of detail seem appropriate for the subject.
• Sources generally look reliable although there are a few I'm not familiar with; also I'd prefer to see Nikki or Brian appraise ref formatting if they can spare the time, as some of the styling isn't my cup of tea but may well be acceptable.

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to support now, well done PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Danish speaker here, so I guess I have to comment. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Christiane Sorensen" There is no such name as "Sorensen", it should be "Sørensen". but what does the source say?

• One source says "son of Joergen Christian Jensen, farmer and wool merchant, and Christiane, known as Jensen.", the other says Christiana Sorensen with a dot above the first o.

A dot, like "ó" or something? Strong indication that whoever wrote the source simply didn't have an ø on his keyboard/typewriter (like those that wrote "Joergen" and "Logstor")... The name "Sorensen" doesn't exist written that way in Danish (only used when Scandinavians move to countries that don't use ø). FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• "who was apparently also known as Jensen" Wasn't that just because she took the name from her husband? What does the source say specifically?

• See above.

• Could the citation be moved to the end of the quote instead of before it?

• I prefer to do all quotes in this way

• "In April 1922, a photograph of Jensen and his horse-drawn cart, with "J. C. Jensen V.C." painted on the side, was published on the front page of The Sunday Times newspaper in Sydney" This photo should be in the public domain now, is it available? Seems a bit of a tease to describe a photo in such detail without showing it.

• No doubt it is PD, but as you can see [30] it is of really poor quality, which is why I didn't clip it.

Hmmm, yeah, that does seem pretty awful. The original photo may exist somewhere, but of course, that doesn't mean you have to find it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Jensen died of war-related causes" That's very vague, the intro at least says "injuries", so it could be specified here too. Are there really no more details than that?

• changed to injuries. There isn't anything more specific in the sources, but he was shot in the head, so probably related to that.

• Any children?

• Not mentioned in any of the sources.

• There seem to be more good photos on Commons[31], why not use any? Plenty of room in the article. Though the images on Commons are small for some reason, I see they exist in larger res at the source pages.

• I'll look at the licensing again, but when I first looked they didn't seem right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This one[32], for example, specifically says "This item is in the Public Domain". In any case, all non-artistic photos published in Australia before 1 January 1955 are PD, so we should be safe with everything involving this man. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Added a pic on his way home, after I swapped in the new PD-AustGov license which applies worldwide. The other portrait with sergeant rank is difficult as we don't have publication details so it can have a PD-US license. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, perhaps add the date to the caption? I uploaded the higher res version. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Done.

• I'll continue the review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• "and joined the battalion at Gallipoli" State this is in Turkey. All readers may not know such details.

• Done.

• Any info on where in the head he was hit?

• No, unfortunately.

• "He married Katy Herman" Spelled "Katey" on his gravestone for some reason...

• Yes, I saw that, but checked his marriage record online and it says Katy.

• Not sure if it is relevant enough, but I found this 2005 Danish article about the Danish crown prince and his Australian born wife visiting the Canberra war museum and hearing about Jørgen Jensen:[33]

• I think it is a bit marginal for inclusion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I think this looks quite good now, and I guess there is not really much more information to add about him. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review, FunkMonk! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry to be back, but I just googled some Danish sources about Jensen, and found some info which might be of use, and you could perhaps see if it is corroborated in your sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing this, always keen to use non-English sources where available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• He seems to have had the distinction of being the first person born outside a Commonwealth country to receive the Victoria Cross (out of only 14), as well as the first of three Danes to receive it:[34][35]

• This is interesting, but I don't think milhist.dk would be a reliable source for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This[36] source (a site for local news) also states he is one of only 14 people outside the Commonwealth to receive the cross, and one of three Danes. The source also states specifically that no letters or diaries are known to document Jensen's life, only military journals. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk I added it, but now I'm thinking about whether we need a better source than a local news website for this claim, as I looked at List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality and there seems to be at least 14 non-Commonwealth ones, and four Danes (given it doesn't currently include Jensen as a Dane, having him as Australian). I would add that the list I've linked isn't well cited, so could be incorrect. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That list also has another 58 with "uncertain nationality". I think I'm going to treat it as an exceptional claim, and set it aside on the talk page for the present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's probably wise. I've been caught out once or twice using claims of "one of only <insert number here> recipients" from otherwise reliable sources only to have someone discover another recipient the first source hadn't accounted for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is a memorial monument for him in Løgstør that was unveiled by the Australian ambassador in 2006[37], and every year a wreath is placed there on the anniversary of the war's end:[38] In 2014, the 100th anniversary of the war, a wreath was placed by the Australian ambassador.
• According to this[39] source, his mother was a single parent and an agricultural servant. Jensen himself is said to have grown up under troubled circumstances, but was a good student, and went to sea through working in the fishing industry.
• The above source also states that as a partial invalid he received a small pension, worked various jobs, and died from illness directly and indirectly related to his serious war injury.
• A Danish book about Jensen was published in 2006[40], I could imagine it has more info about his life from before he left Denmark. It was supposedly the writing of that book which sparked local interest in the man and the erection of the monument, as few had heard of him before.

• G'day FunkMonk. Have now added material from these two articles, but could you check I've got the translations right? Also not sure whether to give the title of the book in the narrative, or to create a Further reading section and include it there. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the additions look good! I think the mention of the book is enough, this is the English Wikipedia after all, so I dont think adding it to further reading will help many people. As for better sources, I'll be on the look-out, but it seems Jensen isn't particularly well-known across Denmark, and those local news sources were the most reliable ones I could find that mentioned the Commonwealth (and the further details about the man). FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I've checked the formats and the links, all is well there. I converted a 10-digit isbn to 13-digit form, to maintain consistency. I think the source listed as "P00398.001" should have its proper title, as do the other AWM sources. Incidentally, I notice that in the caption for the P00398.001 image, Jensen is recorded as "Capt. J.C. Jensen", even though he is clearly wearing a corporal's stripes. But that's AWM's lookout, not ours. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look through, Brian. I've adjusted the title of the photographic source. I've raised this error with the AWM, but they haven't got around to fixing it yet. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• What's the significance of regimental number? It needs to be explained or deleted.
• Explain bombers
• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Sturm. Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. User:Laser brain (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2018‎ (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2018 [41].

---

It Is the Law

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a lost 1924 silent film, the final work of the prolific but largely-forgotten director J. Gordon Edwards. This is admittedly quite short as far as potential Featured Article, although it would be far from the shortest FA if awarded the bronze star. Despite its length, this is a considerably more comprehensive treatment of the film than any single modern source offers (lost films obviously have fewer retrospective analyses), and I believe I have reviewed all significant period sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Chetsford

This is a very nice, concise article about a film lost to history. The only issues I have ...

• Several of the cast members appear to be unsourced?

• Everything except Fernandez / Valerie should be sourceable to the AFI page; I agree that's not entirely clear given the formatting, but I'd rather not spam up the cast list with a reference tag on each line. Thoughts? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Should "This was Herbert Heyes final silent film ..." have a possessive apostrophe after "Heyes"?

• That, plus an s. Corrected. To my embarrassment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The line "the Library of Congress is not aware of any extant copies" is sourced to this [42] which only seems to indicate the LOC is not in possession of any copies, not that it's not aware of any copies.

• Actually, that is what it means. The LoC's Silent Feature Film Database lists archival copies in the possession of other holders if it lacks such a copy itself; indeed, that was the primary purpose of the database and the surveys that populated it. "No holdings located in archives" means "none exist that we know of." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay sounds good, I support. Chetsford (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:It Is the Law lobby cards.jpg: Use and assuming that there was no copyright notice tagged version license are fine for me.
• File:It Is the Law lantern slide.jpg: Use and assuming that there was no copyright notice tagged version license are fine for me.

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, the all-numeric date format generally shouldn't be used for publication date, but only access/archivedate

• Is this a recent MOS change? ISO 8601 publication dates were formerly acceptable, as I recall (presumably as "the format expected in the citation style being used"?). I'll change this if really required, but... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Never mind, I've misremembered the guidance. Fine as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you list McFarland as a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Fixed. "Company" removed from publishers, per... some guideline, somewhere, I think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

An interesting story - notes below:

• In 1922, theatrical agent Walter Jordan encouraged Elmer Rice to dramatize an unpublished novel by Hayden Talbot. - I'd add descriptors for Rice and Talbot - who are they?

• Tried to improve on this. Rice was a pretty big name in theater even in 1922 (although it would be several more years until he would be a Pulitzer winner). I'd like to think that the article gives sufficient context to him (and the link has plenty more for those interested). Talbot... was an occasional screenwriter and dubiously successful novelist (I have mixed opinions whether he's worth retaining as a redlink), but it feels clunky to introduce him as a novelist who wrote an unpublished novel. Let me know if you'd like me to rework this section further. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree applying a descriptor to Talbot sounds tricky. "Would-be novelist" is probably most accurate but comes across as pejorative...sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Arthur Hohl reprised the role of Woodruff from Broadway - the Broadway production has only been mentioned in the lead at this point - it's hard as production comes lower down in the article than cast, but some introduction might be good here.

• Hopefully handled without being too badly redundant? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

perfect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rice's adaptation of Talbot's work, It Is the Law, again featured a story told in flashback - do we have any info here on whether the novel had the same name or did Rice coin it for the play?

:* Per Palmieri, all this stuff shared the same title. Reworded to make that clear. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Curtis Benson wrote the screenplay who is Benson?

• Benson had a long and storied career as a typographical error for Curtis Benton, which I've corrected. As far as Benton goes... he did a handful of screenplays for minor films and had a couple of bit acting parts. I've delinked him, as there's really not much else to say about him (Solomon's monograph of Fox Films doesn't even mention him except in credit lists) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• was there a particular time where it was found to be lost?

• Nothing from reliable sources, which isn't surprising. Very few films have a set time or date when it was realized that they were lost; rather, as the history of the film industry gradually became more important, efforts to locate much of the early catalog failed. The Library of Congress survey (circa 2013) was probably the official confirmation that the film is believed lost, although reliable sources universally agree that any silent-era Fox film with no obviously extant copy was probably destroyed in the 1937 vault fire, as noted in the article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok - all looks good comprehensiveness and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

SN54129

It's true that it is rather short  :) and of course, by the nature of the topic, there's not much to be done about that. But, to be fully compliant with 1b, I'd suggest a little more context. In fact, any context! A section preceeding the plot; perhaps describing contemporaneous trends, where this film was similar / different to others of its vintage. Has anything of that ilk been discussed in the literature? The Receptionn section touches on soe this and acts as a sufficient "aftermath." Nice article, all things considered. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure this is possible. Quite a few films of this era are demonstrably part of industry trends (vamp films, super-budget historical epics), or were part of studio-designated series (such as the Fox ultra-low-budget line marketed as Excel Films). This... isn't one of those films. But perhaps more were made simply because the studio could, without any real context for why they were selected. Solomon's monograph on Fox Films is probably the definitive work on the company's early years, and doesn't give any hints. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim

A short article picked over by some experienced editors seems to have left little of consequence for me. I did wonder why some of the cast without wikipedia articles are unlinked and some are red-linked. What's your criterion? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I try to redlink people who I believe might reasonable earn their article at some point. It's always a tough game to play, because our coverage of actors from the silent film era is just about as terrible as our coverage of films from the silent film era! To that end, though, I've delinked Byron Douglas, who never had a starring role or much of a career despite two dozen-ish credits. Mona Palma (née Mimi Palmieri) had a short, but higher profile, acting career. I don't have enough material to write a bio stub for her at the moment, but I think it's reasonably likely that one is possible in future. In any case, thanks for taking a look and offering support! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought it would be something like that, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2018 [43].

---

Quebec Agreement

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Quebec Agreement, which merged the British (Tube Alloys) and Canadian (Montreal Laboratory) nuclear weapons projects with the American one (Manhattan Project). All of which are now Featured articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Vannevar_Bush_portrait.jpg is currently nominated for deletion on Commons - is there any merit to the claim made there?

  None whatsover. It was taken by the Office for Emergency Management, a US government agency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Probably shortly after the conference. As a crown copyright photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957 it is in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  The current tags in use require publication, not simply creation - is anything more known about publication history? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  I don't know anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, are there other applicable tags given what is known about the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  We know when, where, why and how it was taken. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments: I'm inclined to support, while I've got some questions here:

• Why "basic science and advanced engineering", but not "basic engineering and advanced science"? Any sources?

  Turning to the agreement itself, "in the field of scientific research and development there shall be full and effective interchange of information and ideas" but "In the field of design, construction and operation of large-scale plants, interchange of information and ideas shall be regulated by such ad hoc arrangements as may, in each section of the field, appear to be necessary or desirable if the project is to be brought to fruition at the earliest moment". Changed to just "science and engineering". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Kenneth Bainbridge attended ... and was surprised ... but why mention him here?

  Added "The Uranium Committee met at Harvard on 5 May, and Bainbridge presented his report." The whole point is that the British were ahead of the Americans at this point, and were sharing information that kept the American project going. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oliphant prodded the American programme into action - did he manage to do so, or he tried & failed?

  Yes. Re-worded the paragraph a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• as Frederick Lindemann was now known - who knows whom?

  The King made him a baron, so Frederick Lindemann became Lord Cherwell. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ironically - is it WP:EDITORIAL?

  Don't think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• the British had other concerns about... Why? US is isolated - US won't use atomic bomb against UK - UK is safe. Isn't this inference more stratight-forward?

  Having fought World War II alone, Britain now contemplates the possibility of fighting World War III alone. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• What are engineer districts? Electoral district or School district or what?

  Linked to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers article, which explains that: "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is organized geographically into eight permanent divisions, one provisional division, one provisional district, and one research command reporting directly to the HQ. Within each division, there are several districts." In fact, the Manhattan District had the organisation and authority of a division. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• follow suit - is it WP:IDIOM?

  Changed to "The project soon adopted the name "Manhattan" as well" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• This adversely impacted the work of the Montreal Laboratory - never mentioned Montreal Laboratory before, what's that? Why Canada?

  That's explained in the Montreal Laboratory article. Added "the joint British and Canadian project that was investigating nuclear reactor design."

• anything up to £50 million to build in wartime Britain - predicate missing? Did you mean "Anything that costs up to £50 million to build in wartime Britain requires special approval from the congress" or else?

  "was estimated to cost up to £3 million in research and development, and anything up to £50 million to build in wartime Britain." Looks okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Kellogg still wanted something - never mentioned Kellogg before, what's that? Why "still"?

  Deleted "still" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Will come back later when I finish reading sections 3-7. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 12:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: All problems are addressed and no more are found in sections 3-7. Overall it is well written, neutral and stable, though I'm not an expert on this topic and would like a second opinion on source review. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the review process seems still ongoing, I'm leaving a few more questions here.

• Uranium Committee - is that the same committee as Advisory Committee on Uranium? Never mentioned it.

  Added a bit explaining that the Advisory Committee became the Uranium Committee when it became part of the NDRC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Groves briefed the S-1 Executive Committee - maybe we need a few words about its background. It was S-1 Section, but we don't know when it became S-1 Executive Committee.

  On June 19, 1942. Added a few words of explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oliphant then met with Allison, Coolidge, Conant and Fermi - who is Coolidge? Fermi? and Allison somehow.

  Added a bit about Coolidge. Fermi originally appeared in the first paragraph, but was removed during the review. Linked his name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Timeline in "Early American efforts" is kind of problematic - everything was ordered by date but "Kenneth Bainbridge from Harvard University attended ... to investigate further" seems to be inserted into the wrong place. We know Bush went to NDRC in June 1940, but "Bush engaged Arthur Compton" in May 1941 - what was Bush acting as?

  Typo. Bainbridge attended the MAUD Committee meeting on 9 April 1941, not 1940. Bush chaired the NDRC from its formation in June 1940 until he became director of the OSRD in June 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll check back, while I'm happy to find this article promoted and the questions answered in the talk page. Thanks, --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 18:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

More questions..

• In particular, it could benefit enough from assistance from Chadwick and one or two other British scientists to warrant the risk of revealing weapon design secrets. - Why? If I understand correctly: without assistance from Chadwick, weapon design secrets would be possibly revealed. How does that happen?

  I don't see how it could be read that way. The Americans decided that the benefits outweighed the risks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Groves might tell Stimson.. - Why "our misty island", "our brilliant Prime Minister"? Isn't Groves American, and isn't it "their misty island" and "their brilliant Prime Minister"?

  "Anderson feared that Groves might tell Stimson and Bush that 'like all Americans who come to our misty island, they have been taken in by our hypocritical cunning and carried away by our brilliant Prime Minister'" Anderson is talking. It indicates the way that the British thought about their country and their relationship with the US. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• When Conant found out about it - about what? And I don't get the logic of the first three sentences in this paragraph.

  Re-worded to "When Conant found out about the agreement" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Conant's objections - of what?

  "Conant's objections to Anderson's proposed arrangements for information interchange" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Citadelle note paper - In the source it is "Citadelle notepaper". And what is that? I can't find anything on Google.

  wikt:notepaper? It's just the writing paper supplied by the hotel. The point is that it must have been typed on the spot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• would be built as a joint venture - I guess JV is a term used on business entities only, but not on Manhattan Project?

  Changed to "The Quebec Agreement stipulated that the US and UK would pool their resources to develop nuclear weapons" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 16:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

More questions..

• Negotiations on the terms of technical interchange dragged on - are these terms part of another agreement? If they are part of Quebec Agreement, are they signed on Aug 19 or some time later?

  On 14 December. They were the implementation of the Quebec Agreement. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Chadwick, Peierls, Oliphant and Simon arrived on 19 August, and by December 1943 they had already commenced working - what about the 4 months from Aug to Dec? What did they do?

  Returned to the UK. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• The first occasion was on 8 September 1943... - did Stimson discover that he was the chairman that morning? or did he discover the fact earlier?

  That very morning. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 17:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

More questions..

• There remained the issue ... Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago and the Montreal Laboratory. - the following paragraph is about Chalk River Laboratories, and there's nothing about Met lab?

  No, there is. The Met Lab was responsible for the research reactors at Argonne and the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• While the pace of research eased as the war entered its final phase, these scientists were still in great demand - who are "these scientists"? "these scientists" moved to another project, and Anderson, Cherwell and Appleton moved to Manhattan project, am I right?

  No. The scientists referred to are the missions to Berkeley, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• retrospective to the signing of the Quebec Agreement - could you explain more? Did it copy-and-paste most terms of Quebec Agreement besides adding Canada as signatory, or did it just mention Quebec Agreement as a courtesy?

  No, this agreement was all about patents. A retrospective agreement (also called retroactive or ex post facto because lawyers like Latin) is one that becomes effective at a specified time in the past. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• ... agreed to transfer to the others any rights it held in the others' countries - could you correct me if I were wrong (which is very likely): US government forced US scientists to transfer all their patent rights registered in UK to UK scientists, and so did UK/Canada governments.

  No, the US government forced all scientists to surrender patents rights to nuclear technology registered in the US to the US, UK and Canadian governments. The UK and Canadian governments did likewise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 18:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

More questions..

• Dill died in Washington - DC or WA state?

  DC. Linked Washington. "DC" isn't used in British English. He's still there though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• The British sent Stimson a photocopy on 18 July 1945 - by telegram or by postal mail? Is it really Photocopy?

  Almost certainly in a diplomatic bag, but I don't have a source for that. You couldn't send a photocopy by telegram. And yes, it was a photocopy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson - should be United States Under Secretary of War?

  Already linked above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Both "atomic energy" and "nuclear energy" / "atomic bomb" and "nuclear weapon" are used in the article. Are there any differences between "atomic" and "nuclear" terms?

  No. The scientists preferred "nuclear energy" from the start, but this was rejected in favour of "atomic energy", which was more familiar to the public. Notably in the Smyth Report. Over the years, "nuclear energy" has slowly overtaken its rival. See Google ngrams. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• The reputation of the British Mission to Los Alamos was tarnished - it looks better just saying "The reputation of the British was tarnished". The source mentions Los Alamos only twice, and doesn't look like they are about reputation.

  Uh, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 06:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

The sources used are wide ranging, of the appropriate quality and reliability. Presentation is faultless. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Review by Carabinieri

Hi, thanks for the article. It was an interesting read. I just have a few comments:

• "In May 1939, a few months before the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe in September 1939, George Paget Thomson, at Imperial College London, and Mark Oliphant, an Australian physicist at the University of Birmingham, were tasked with carrying out a series of experiments on uranium" Tasked by whom?

  Tizard. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm generally a big fan of articles giving a very short introduction when new people or organizations are mentioned. It need only consist of a few words, just enough to give the reader a rough idea of who someone is or why they are worth mentioning. I like that this article generally does that, but not for Vannevar Bush, Harry Hopkins, Arthur Compton, James B. Conant, Samuel K. Allison, Ernest O. Lawrence, Enrico Fermi, Kellogg, C. D. Howe, Klaus Fuchs, Francis Simon, Chalk River Laboratories, Argonne, X-10 Graphite Reactor, Hanford Site, Geoffrey Taylor, James Tuck, Niels Bohr, William Penney, Hans von Halban, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Ronald Ian Campbell, Robert P. Patterson, Malcolm MacDonald, Roger Makins and Denis Rickett.

  Vannevar Bush: "the president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington"

  Harry Hopkins: good question. Officially, he had no job. Unofficially, the most important person in the White House after the president. "a key advisor to the president"

  Arthur Compton "a Nobel laureate in physics and chairman of the Department of Physics at the University of Chicago"

  James B. Conant "the President of Harvard University"

  Samuel K. Allison "a colleague of Compton's at the University of Chicago"

  Ernest O. Lawrence "the director of the Radiation Laboratory"

  Kellogg "construction company"

  C. D. Howe, "the Canadian Minister of Munitions and Supply"

  Klaus Fuchs "fellow German refugee scientist"

  "to build a nuclear reactor at what is now known as the Chalk River Laboratories"

  "the research reactors at Argonne and the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge , but not from the production reactors at the Hanford Site"

  "a multinational team of distinguished scientists that included Sir Geoffrey Taylor, James Tuck, Niels Bohr, William Penney, Frisch, and Fuchs"

  Hans von Halban "refugee French scientist"

  "French physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie and his Collège de France team."

  "Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson"

  "Roger Makins from the British Embassy in Washington"

  Denis Rickett "Anderson's assistant"

• "It absorbed the Advisory Committee on Uranium, which was indeed one of its purposes" I didn't quite understand that sentence. What was one of its purposes?

  Taking over responsibility for the Advisory Committee on Uranium. This is because it had shifted away from being an advisory committee and was now directing research. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  Re-worded this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• The "Tube Alloys" section discusses British research done prior to collaboration with the Americans. I was expecting the "Early American efforts" to do the same for American research, but it mostly discusses early discussions about collaboration. Had the US already done any real research by that point? The section implies that it had (it speaks of an exchange of technical information and mentions an "American atomic bomb project"), but doesn't really discuss that research.

  Yes, as collaboration is what the article is about. Added a bit on British and US activities. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• "It was agreed that in 1942–1943, the United States Army would fund $53 million of an $85 million program" Program to do what?
• And isn't the British spelling of that word programme?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• The article sometimes uses dollars and sometimes pounds to denote the cost of various things, which makes a lot of sense in an article that is both about the US and Britain. But it did leave me wondering how those sums relate to one another.

  Officially, a pound sterling was worth US $4.03. However, since there was a war on, there was no real trade, so the true value was hard to determine. But the pound was probably actually worth much less. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Anderson extracted one important concession: the creation of a Combined Policy Committee to oversee the joint project with representation from the United States, Britain and Canada" There seems to be no real reason for the bold font to me. The same thing goes for Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire.

  Because these are redirects to this article. Unbolded outside the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• "This bothered Cherwell too.[75] The American veto over post-war British commercial and industrial uses made it clear that Britain was the junior partner in the Grand Alliance." I'm not sure understand this. What exactly bothered Cherwell?'

  That Britain was becoming the junior partner in the Grand Alliance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  The way it was phrased it seemed like "This" was referring to the requirement for mutual consent. I've rephrased it somewhat.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  Cherwell didn't like that either. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• "This first meeting established a Technical Subcommittee chaired by Major General Wilhelm D. Styer" Maybe mention that Styer was an American?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all of my previous concerns have been taken care of. I've checked a few of the sources in three random paragraphs from the article.

• Concerning the paragraph that starts with "Oliphant took the Frisch–Peierls...": As far as I can tell, none of the information is actually from Hewlett/Anderson. The part about Oliphant taking the memo to Tizard is on pg. 41 of the Lauch book (not pg. 42-45).

  Replaced with a reference from Gowing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find the claim that the University of Liverpool worked on isotope separation.

  p. 42: "Chadwick and his collaborators Joseph Rotblat and Otto Frisch, who had transferred there from the University of Birmingham, began a comprehensive test program... among other things Frisch worked on isotope separation through thermal diffusion."

• Sorry, I must've missed that.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  No worries. I was embarrassed at the two typos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• The book doesn't say that Oxford had the world's only supply of heavy water, but only its main supply.

  Changed to "main"; Gowing (p. 49) says "the world's stock of heavy water". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• The paragraph with "Churchill took up the matter with...": pg. 204 of the Bernstein paper is about 1940-41, not 1943.

  Typo. Should be p. 214: "On May 25, the day that Cherwell and Bush negotiated, Roosevelt acceded to Churchill's pleading and, in Churchill's later words, "agreed that the exchange of information ... should be resumed and that the enterprise should be a joint one."" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• "The next meeting of the Combined Policy...": No issues found.
• Also: the Bernstein paper is on pg. 202–230, yet fn 80 cites pg. 119.

  Typo. Should be p. 219: "Stimson's Diary, August 10, 1943 indicates that the secretary was troubled by only one provision - the requirement for joint Anglo-American approval before the bomb could be used in combat." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz Hi Hawkeye, mostly gnomish as usual...

• Coolidge, who was acting in Compton's place while the latter was in South America) - remove leftover closing bracket

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• momentum the Manhattan project had assumed - Project

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• replaced the S-1 Committee on June 19, 1942 - flip date

  Flipped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• retrospective to the signing of the Quebec Agreement in September 1943 - August?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• but it also provided for "...should continue ..." - would read better if 'provided that' instead of 'provided for'?

  Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• sent Stimson a photocopy on 18 July 1945 - but not what we know as a photocopy. What would it have been?

  It would have been an electrophotographic photocopy rather than a xerographic photocopy. Should I link to photocopier? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  Nope, just me being curious JennyOz (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Alsos Mission - wlink?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Groves's scientific adviser - advisor for consistency (all others, UK & US, use or)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Harvey Bundy - add his position?

  Added "Stimson's special assistant" As his article states, he is best known today as the father of William and McGeorge Bundy

• Roosevelt's estate - insert Springwood before estate?

  Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Atomic Energy Act - wlink?

  Changed to "McMahon Act" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ref Gott, Richard - author link

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Canada–United States relations?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• and on 19 September 1944 signed the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire - when readers look at the image of the A-M and see the September 18 in type and the red signatures 18.9, they might be inclined to edit date in prose from 19 to 18. Is it worth adding a note to caption per the explanation given in note 2 in 2nd ext link?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• talking of 19 Sept 1944 - is date of A-M and "This arrangement was formally approved by the Combined Policy Committee meeting on 19 September 1944." just a coincidence?

  The wartime meetings of Churchill and Roosevelt provided an opportunity for everyone to get together. Unfortunately, the minutes of the meeting are not available online; Foreign Relations refers you to Gowing, which is my source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• there are a number of piped links that go via redirects. (I admit Notbroken confuses me every third time I read it) but I have seen edit summaries 'avoid dab redirect'. Should I add a list of them here or are you fine with them?

  If the piping on the left is a redirect, go ahead and list. A link like [[James L. Tuck|James Tuck]] is fine, as the left is not a redirect, and the right is not a redirect to the correct article. Normally a Bot complains if I link toi a disambiguation page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your patient explanation. These 3 are piped to redirects.

• J. J. Llewellin
• Lord Halifax
• war in Europe

Al;l done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

but what about links, that are not piped, that go via redirects? For example, should Otto Frisch, which goes via a redirect, be piped to Otto Robert Frisch, ie similar treatment to your Tuck illustration? (I definitely appreciate that what appears on the 'right' is what editor intends to be rendered.) Thanks sincerely for helping me to understand. JennyOz (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Those are fine, per WP:NOTBROKEN, which explains the rationale for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

• I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, have looked at the changes since, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2018 [44].

---

Nicholas Hoult

Nominator(s): VedantTalk 09:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the English actor Nicholas Hoult. It passed the GA review by Ssven2 in March. It has been copy edited by the GOCE and received additional pros-related comments from Ceranthor at a Peer Review. Looking forward to the comments.

Note: There is an active discussion at the article's talk page regarding the inclusion of an infobox, but it should not affect the article's quality otherwise and should be eventually resolved with a consensus. VedantTalk 09:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN20 should include bibliographic details for the original source

I am sorry, I don't understand.

The citation is to a website which republishes an article originally published elsewhere - the citation should include details about where the article was originally published. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how. Could you guide me? VedantTalk 18:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The easiest way would be to just build a regular citation based on the details of the original source, and then use |via= for the website. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry for troubling you so much, but I am not sure of the original source. VedantTalk 18:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's here, page 116. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the help Nikkimaria. VedantTalk 10:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• FN47: check publication name?
• What makes the Daily Express a high-quality reliable source?
• Deadline and RogerEbert.com should both be italicized; Tribeca Film Festival should not
• FN98: why include location here, and not in most other citations? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed everything/Left comments. Thank you, Nikkimaria. VedantTalk 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• The mentioning of his birthplace in the opening sentence in the lead seems a bit odd to me. Only date of birth will suffice.
• "Hoult received wide recognition for his portrayal of Tony Stonem in the E4 teenage-drama series Skins." Avoid using words like 'portrayal' unless its a real life or author-backed character he's playing.
• "has been his greatest commercial success to date." Greatest or biggest? It should be more neutrally worded.
• One of the image needs an alt text.

I'm not very good with prose so that's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking a look Yash. VedantTalk 10:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support great work, all the best. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• My concerns were resolved during the GAR itself. You have my support for this article's promotion to FAC.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping by, Ssven2. I hope you're better. VedantTalk 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Still taking it in. Its been hard.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

• Why does "Early career (1996–2005)" begin with Nicholas' acting potential? Please comply with WP:SURNAME.

It is to avoid confusion between the two Hoult brothers in the opening couple of sentences.

• 2002 comedy-drama film About a Boy - Please rewrite as 2002 comedy-drama film About a Boy to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE.

I have removed the link altogether.

• He was eventually cast in the role of Hank McCoy/Beast for the X-Men film series - Hank McCoy redirects to Beast, so you may write "Hank McCoy / Beast".

I think I'll use Hank itself.

• Hoult reprised his role as Hank McCoy in Bryan Singer's X-Men: Days Of Future Past - chose whether you want to say Beast or Hank McCoy.
• It was also a top-grossing production outside the US - say United States.
• It will be a four-part serial that will be broadcast on BBC One in the United Kingdom and will stream internationally on Netflix in 2017 - Delink Netflix, since it is linked in an earlier sentence: "Released on Netflix in April 2017, the film garnered mixed reviews".
• He will also reprise his role as Beast in the 2019 film X-Men: Dark Phoenix - end it as the X-Men film Dark Phoenix, scheduled for a 2019 release, since "X-Men" is not (currently) part of the film's title. Also add a source, since this source talks about the Watership Down adaptation, not the X-Men film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Kailash29792. I've fixed everything, let me know if there is anything else. VedantTalk 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Support: My prime comments have been resolved. Although I'd prefer if you wrote "[[Beast (comics)|Hank McCoy / Beast]]" to avoid a redirect and because that's the way most Marvel-related GA/FAs list characters, this shouldn't affect the chances of attaining FA status. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Kailash, it was really helpful. I've fixed the last issue with the link too. Thanks again. VedantTalk 06:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Lead

• "One of the highest grossing English actors of 2013, he was included in the Forbes 30 under 30 list." - there must be a smoother way to incorporate this, since the focus on 2013 - five years in the past - comes out of nowhere; maybe better to just leave it out of the lead or better integrate it into the flow
• "Although he initially wanted to study English, Hoult chose to pursue a career in acting and briefly attended the Sylvia Young Theatre School." - Feels like something's missing here; did he drop out or just never attend university?
• "Although dismissive of his character, he garnered praise" - for clarity, maybe better as "Although Hoult was dismissive..."

Early life

• "His paternal[2] great-aunt was Dame Anna Neagle, a stage and film actor active in the 1930s and 1940s." - nitpick, but move the [2] to the end of the sentence?

Career

• "Hoult began attending auditions and at the age of five was cast in the 1996 drama Intimate Relations; his first feature-film role." - should be a comma, not a semicolon at the end
• ""woolly-hatted, oddball son of a suicidal, hippy-ish single mother, [who] he gets bullied horribly at school".[12]" - why the [who] if it doesn't make the quote make grammatical sense?
• "grossing more than $130 million worldwide and being praised by film critics.[11][13]" - receiving praise would be better than "being praised"
• "directors and producers said his performance led them to cast him in their projects.[21]" - such as?

I have removed the whole bit as it was both vague and rather unsubstantiated.

• "It was variously described by media outlets as the first adult role for Hoult, who described Kenny as a "spontaneous" character who is not simply defined by his sexuality.[28][29][30]" - I'd cut the second "who" and just make it "character not simply defined..."
• "An adaptation of Isaac Marion's novel of the same name, the film is presented from point of view of the central character, mostly through narration]." - did you mean to link to something with the bracket at the end here?

I must have, but I can't seem to recall what so I have removed it.

Got down to everything before "Transition to biographical and independent films (2017–present)." Will be sure to finish with a few more comments, but looking great so far. ceranthor 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The action film Collide was released in the United States in February 2017 to a poor response from audiences and critics" - what role did Hoult play?
• "writing that director Eran Creevy and Hoult would get better offers despite the failure of films like Collide, as opposed to the minority group, who are either ignored or stereotyped.[82] " - should be more clear here... I think you're referring to the women in the film, but it's unclear what you exactly mean by "the minority group" (all women, just women of color, etc.)

Personal life

• "In April 2018, the couple had their first child together.[100] " - any idea the kid's name?

Not really.

• "Hoult lives in a flat in north-west London;[92] he also made an unsuccessful offer to buy a house in the London Borough of Camden in 2012.[92][101]" - I'd cut the "also"

Accolades

• Has he received any other major awards since 2010?

Nothing but nominations for the People and Teen Choices.

Looks good. ceranthor 01:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have hopefully fixed everything Ceranthor. Thanks for taking another look. VedantTalk 12:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Support on the prose. ceranthor 00:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Some spelling points: "instalment" is twice given as "installment", "tape" (I'm assuming) as "tapel", and "performance" appears as "perfomance" at one point.

sorry for this, my Google keyboard seems to remember and repeat my typos. xD

• Early life
  • "to piano teacher Glenis (née Brown) and British Airways pilot Roger Hoult" – clunky false titles
  • "and was involved in productions of Swan Lake" – involved? Strange word. Do you mean he took part?
  • "Richard E Grant" – bravo for omitting the otiose full stop, but the MoS police won't like it.
• Skins and West End debut (2006–10)
  • "quitting acting … quit school" – unexpected, and not especially welcome Americanism in an article on an English topic.
• Upcoming films (why the Americanism rather than the English "forthcoming", one wonders): Watership Down "will stream internationally on Netflix in 2017" – curious retrospective prediction.
• Trivia – it is appropriate for an encyclopaedia article to record that someone "made an unsuccessful offer to buy a house in the London Borough of Camden in 2012"?; as to the first part of the same sentence, see WP:DATED.

Excellently balanced coverage of the subject's press reviews. I was half-expecting to find only the raves mentioned, and am impressed by the even-handedness of the article. – Tim riley talk 09:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully addressed all your comments Tim riley. Thank you for taking the time our for the review and appreciating the article! Let me know if you have any further comments. VedantTalk 11:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No other comments. Tim riley talk 15:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks gor being so thorough Tim, issues like typos require a keen eye! VedantTalk 06:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Please use Hoult’s full name on the first mention in the body of the article.

Done

• The image caption in the “Early life” section requires punctuation as it is a full sentence.
• I am a little confused by this sentence (In a January 2013 episode of the twelfth series of The Graham Norton Show, Nicholas revealed that his middle name is Caradoc (pronounced /ka.rɑː'dɔk/), a Welsh name that translates to "The Beloved One”.). It makes me think that he was keeping his middle name a secret for some reason, particularly due to the verbage “revealed”. Also, why is the full context (i.e. his appearance on The Graham Norton Show) necessary to tell the reader the actor’s middle name? It interprets the flow of the paragraph to talk about his childhoold in one sentence, jump ahead to a 2013 context, and then jump back into the past to talk about his parents.

I've done away with most of the sentence, let me know if that's an improvement.

• Reference 3 is not working for me. It leads to the following error screen for me (404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.). I would mark it as a dead url so the archived version takes precedence.

Yes, not working for me either. I've changed the parameters.

• I have a question for this sentence (He has three siblings: an elder brother James, who is a United States-based biology student; and two sisters, Rosanna and Clarista, both of whom are television actors.). In the sources provided, I found information on the siblings’ names and they all had acting experience (which is rather generic), but I could not find where the information about their jobs (i.e. biology student and television actors) is supported. I am probably overlooking so could you please point it out in the source for me?

I've added he ref and removed the redundant citation.

• I would rephrase this part (Hoult thought the role was unlike any of his previous roles) to avoid the repetition of the word “role” in such cloxe proximity.
• Was there any notable critical response to Hoult’s role in X-Men: Days of Future Past?

Not really, mostly frivolous information for cast performances and barely anything on him in particular.

• For this part ( Forbes' Scott Mendelson analysed the film's failure and said Hoult did not necessarily have enough "star power”), I would move reference 81 to the end of the sentence rather than have it awkwardly in the middle.
• Shouldn’t the article include information on his role in The Favourite?
• In the “Forthcoming films” subsection, I would include information on the Tolkien biopic and the The True History of the Kelly Gang film.

Added.

Wonderful work with this article. Ironically enough, I have only seen this actor in the film Collide. I actually enjoyed that movie; it is a very generic action movie, but it is fun and worth a watch just for Ben Kingsley’s performance lol. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. I hope this helps, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully addressed all your comments Aoba47. I've seen a lot of his work but Collide isn't among the films thai I have seen. Will watch it eventually. xD Thanks for taking out time and reviewing the article. Let me know if there's anything else. Cheers, VedantTalk 11:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything, and I support this based on prose. You have done a wonderful job with this article. It definitely inspires me to possibly work on this type of article in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and your kind words Aoba47. I appreciate it. VedantTalk 06:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for the article! Will read and comment, and guess it will be not much, with all the fixes I see above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• "Hoult's continued associations with big-budget productions have yielded varying results." - that's not clear to me. The following, that one film was a flop, another a success, had probably nothing to do with his performance, no?

Yes Gerda, but it explains the shift to the independent cinema and how even in the artcile it says that he did not have the "star power" to pull off a film on his shoulders. I think it just put things in perspective.

I wasn't clear enough, sorry, - my problem is the "have yielded varying results" bit, - I added the other only to find it.

I still think it's a strange wording, but if I#m the only one - who am I?

Early life

• I am surprised to see him go to nursery after ballet with the ENB, - is that the chronology?
• wl Church of England? Church of England's?
• "part of ... choir" - how about "member"?

Early career

• "that starred the former's brother" - perhaps better repeat the name?
• I'd say "age three" in the first sentence.
• Now we have the Church linked, - please move up.
• I wonder how he got to Hollywood?

There's​ nothing available on this bit except for how he continued to audition for roles as a kid.

Skins

• "a mixed response from critics" or "mixed responses from critics"?
• "It was variously described by media outlets as the first adult role for Hoult" - not happy with "it" at the beginning, which leaves open what "it" may be.
• General remark: if a critic says nothing more specific than "beautiful performance", - is it worth a quote? (There are others, similarly too general.)

Transition

• "he was intrigued by the film's script and Salinger's life, of which he had little knowledge" sounds like a contradiction

Finally: I wonder how many of these details will remain when - as we hope - he does more substantial things in the next 20 years ;) - As said before: I'd prefer a few long substantial critic's quotes to 2-word-snippets that say almost nothing. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gerda, I am real busy in RL (shifting places), but I'll try and get to the rest of your comments ASAP. Thanks for being so patient. VedantTalk 03:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed everything Gerda. I've added reviews to his performances in some of his earlier roles, but have left out film where his performance was barely reviewed in the first place i.e. most action/supporting roles. Let me know if you have any further comments, thanks. VedantTalk 06:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look, but may be tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I like to see that you are still polishing. How is this: you ping me when you think you are done, and I look again? What do you think of more precise edit summaries, to let us know which issue(s) gets resolved in which edit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I have addressed everything Gerda. VedantTalk 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in the middle (or rather at the beginning) of expanding a person who recently died, will look when I'm done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Looked now, support. You could still think about "yielding results" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Made the necessary tweak Gerda. Thanks for your thorough review, I appreciate it. VedantTalk 06:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Query

@FAC coordinators: Hey guys, I was hoping to add the article to my Wikicup submissions and was wondering if you guys could take a look and let me know if anything else needs to done here (Gerda is yet to take another look). Thanks. VedantTalk 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure about Ian but I'm out of time today for going through nominations. I will likely revisit the list mid-week. --Laser brain (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2018 [45].

---

Hoodening

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a Kentish folk custom performed at Christmas time during the nineteenth century. It involved a troupe of young men dressing up, one of them as the "hooden horse" in a hobby horse costume, and knocking at people's doors, prancing around and requesting payment. The original custom died out in the early twentieth century, although hooden horses have since been incorporated into newly devised forms of Kentish folk culture, such as various Kentish May Day parades and Morris dances. It has been GA rated for some time now and I believe meets the FA criteria; it would be nice if it could join the Dorset Ooser article as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are in complete sentences should end in periods

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• File:Flag_of_Kent.svg should include a tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• The flag is a traditional design; it isn't possible to attribute it to an original author. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review

All sources evidently meet the criteria for quality, reliability and verifiability. The citation method is consistent. Satisfactory on all counts. (Some ISBNs are hyphenated and some are not, which would drive me potty if it were my FAC, but consistency in this respect is not an MoS requirement.) – Tim riley talk 10:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• But it is still, of course, a good idea! I've gone through and ensured that the ISBNs are now all consistently formatted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Blue links
  • Should British Isles be linked? WP:OVERLINK in my view.
    • Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • St-Nicholas-at-Wade is linked in successive sections.
    • Removed duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Godmersham too is linked twice in the main text.
    • Removed duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Likewise West Kent, Folkestone and Broadstairs.
    • Removed duplinks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Regional restrictions
  • Cawte pops up unannounced and unexplained in the first paragraph. You tell us in the following para who he is: it would be better if you did so at first mention.
    • Oops, that's a result of one of my recent rearrangements. Fixed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Etymology and origins
  • "However, Maylam … Maylam, however" in close proximity
    • I've removed one of those instances of "however". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Possible Early Medieval origins
  • "to the putative Anglo-Saxon god Woden" – in what way is Woden more putative than any other religious deity?
    • There's a lack of very clear evidence of Woden being a deity that was worshipped in Anglo-Saxon England, and his existence as a deity in this period has been questioned. Nonetheless, I can see that "putative" is perhaps not really helpful here. I'll remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You tell us in the first and third paras of this section that Geoff Doel is a folklorist. Saying so once will suffice.
    • The first instance is in the image caption, rather than in a paragraph of text. I think it still works fine to have this fact mentioned twice, once in the infobox caption and once in the main text, but if you disagree I shall remove it from the former. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Latter nineteenth-century
  • Is the double t in the header deliberate?
    • It was, but actually "Later" might work better than "Latter". Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "at a house named Updown that was near to Margate" – perhaps trim to "at a house named Updown, near Margate"?
    • Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • the Kentish Gazette – but later The Bromley Record and The Church Times have their definite articles duly capitalised.
    • I've double checked and it seems that the correct thing to do here is to remove the capitalisation of the lede from the latter two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Good God! How perfectly frightful. I admit to being a Guardian reader, but I abominate its naff policy on capitalisation (or italicising). Of course definite articles at the start of titles should be capitalised. I do not wish to read a review of the Mikado in the Times, as The Guardian would have it. It's The Mikado and The Times. But if you wish to sell your soul to The Grauniad I can hardly make that a pretext for withholding my support. Tim riley talk 18:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Percy Maylam's investigations
  • "working as a professional solicitor at Canterbury" – they had amateur ones?
    • Well, perhaps they did. But I'll remove "professional" anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Twentieth-century revival
  • "modeled" – surprising AmE spelling in such a BrE article.
    • Next you know we'll be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in Parliament Square and celebrating the Fourth of July... Changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. I look forward to adding my support when I look in again. – Tim riley talk 10:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks for giving this article a read through, Tim! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Happy to support promotion to FA, notwithstanding apoplectic comments on capitalisation, above. Tim riley talk 18:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Really interesting stuff. I was talking about this tradition just last weekend with some friends...

• "while chasing any girls present" Children, or young women? If the latter, I fear "girls" is a little informal.
  • I'll need to check Cawte on this, but if I put down "girls" I was probably following the source; it's not really a term that I use for young women. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, Cawte uses the term "girls" here. I would want to avoid "women" here because the term "girls" could imply children, but how about "females"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • No, I don't like females; let's stick with girls, then, and I'll just bite my tongue! young women is another possibility, but that might be too limited. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• I wonder whether there could be a little more talk of the wider "hooded animal" tradition, perhaps with some links to other, similar customs?
  • Good idea. I'll get around to expanding it with reference to the Mari Lwyd and other related traditions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• You introduce "The folklorist Percy Maylam" after he's already been mentioned a couple of times.
  • Ah, that's an error caused by me moving around of several sections recently. I've corrected it now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Presumably, the Frederic Madden you mention is this Frederic Madden? A wikilink would be useful.
  • Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• "The anonymously authored work was repeated" Work seems an odd way to describe a letter; why not simply letter? Or, "description from the letter"?
  • I've gone with "anonymously authored account". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I like it. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• "ringing of Handbells," Why caps?
  • Not sure. I've changed this to the lower-case "handbells". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• "to chase any girls" As above
  • "females"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Let's leave it as is, as above! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Ramsgate, St. Lawrence, Minster, St. Nicholas, Acol, Monkton, and Birchington." ... "Deal and Walmer". Could we have wikilinks to any of these settlements not previously mentioned?

• Done, and I've also linked some of the names in this list which were otherwise only linked at a later mention in the article (and removed the duplinks that resulted from this course of action). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• "contradicting this was a number of letters" were?

Walking into a linguistic minefield here, I think, Josh. Like you, I'd write "a number of thingummies were", but logically a singular number takes a singular verb. And where does one draw the line? A collection of thingummies was or were? With the utmost pusillanimity I always pass over "a number were/was" when I'm reviewing. The current edition of Fowler has this to say:

number, as a noun of multitude in the structure 'a number of' + pl. noun, normally governs a plural verb in both BrE and AmE because the plural noun is regarded as the 'head' of the noun phrase and therefore as the real subject.

This supports your practice (and mine) but note that Fowler says "normally" and is not prescriptive about it; I wouldn't censure the singular verb here. Tim riley talk 16:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this; very useful! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Supreme Court" Wikilink?
  • Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Percy Maylam was born into a farming family in 1865 at Pivington Farm in Pluckley, and in 1890 became a solicitor of the Supreme Court before working as a professional solicitor at Canterbury.[49] Married to Kate Pearch, who had been born in Hastings, together they had two sons, Robert and James.[49] Outside of his professional life, Maylam was a keen cricketer, coin collector, and amateur historian, and in 1892 joined the Kent Archaeological Society.[49]" I'm not sure this belongs in the article. You could put together an article on Maylem, but I don't think his background is actually necessary. You could open the next paragraph with something like "During the 1880s, Henry Maylam [dash] a solicitor and amateur historian who was a member of the Kent Archaeological Society [dash] came". A long footnote is another possibility.
  • I doubt that Maylam is significant enough for an article all of his own. For notability purposes, he is significant for writing the book on hoodening, and that's about it. I could push the information into a long note, but I'm not convinced if this is the best way to deal with it. Do any other editors have a view on this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've trimmed down this paragraph quite considerably and merged it with some sentences from the following paragraph. I feel that that probably deals with the situation, but do let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• "St Nicholas-at-Wade, Walmer, and Deal" Some of these have already been linked (or not linked!)
  • Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• "of which Percy was a member" Why first name? I'm not sure this is necessary.
  • Changed "Percy" to "Maylam". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and Fran and Geoff Doel as "a very enlightened piece of Edwardian folk research"." Are you missing some words, here?

• Reading it back through, I thought that the wording was okay, but I've amended the sentence in question anyway. The new variant is probably cleaner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• "In later life, Maylam focused his attentions on exploring his family history, privately publishing Maylam Family Records in 1932, before dying in 1939.[49]" Probably not needed- again, this isn't an article about Maylam, though you could surely write one.

• It's not essential information, certainly. But given how central Maylam is to the preservation and promotion of knowledge about hoodening, I think that some readers might find it to be of passing interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is "Handbell Ringers" a proper noun? I am not keen on the rather cryptic link, not least because handbell has already been linked in the article.
  • In this case it is a proper noun as it is the name of a specific group; however, there could also be "handbell ringers" in the broader sense of the term who are not members of the group. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Ok; if you're referring to a particular group's name, though, there probably shouldn't be any links other than a link to the article on the group (if any). Consider: "Manchester United" would be an odd way to refer to the football team! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed the link, which proved to be a duplink anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• The descriptions of Field and Rigby are a little lengthy; again, a footnote would be a possibility.

• Rigby? I see what you mean about Field, but I'm still unsure about what to do about it. A note is a possibility, but would that hamper the text in some way? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant Ridley. I'll not force it if you want the descriptions there, but it'll be interesting to see if anyone else picks up on it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ridley only receives a very passing mention and I think it helps to set the scene in which the hoodening revival has taken place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder whether a better picture or two could be found to illustrate the final section. A picture of one of the pubs named after the tradition or or one of the currently used horses would be great. There are some pictures of a Morris troupe with a "Mollie" in Commons:Category:Broadstairs Folk Week, but I don't think any of them have a horse. File:Hooden Horses at the Clock Tower (geograph 5502334).jpg, though, does have some contemporary hooden horses in the festival! Maybe that would be preferable to the church image.
  • That's great. I couldn't find any free images of the contemporary horses when I did a search of Wikimedia Commons. I'll use the horses image in place of the church. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what jumps out from a first read-through. Very interesting article. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for offering your thoughts, Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Support. If I was being critical, I might say that we could do with more about the contemporary use of hooden horses, but I've no doubt that your approach mirrors that of the academic literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it would be great to have more on the contemporary uses, but unfortunately that research just doesn't seem to have been carried out thus far. In part, that may be part due to the rather sorry state of British folkloristics, which lacks the institutionalised framework that we see in both the United States and parts of continental Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

I love unusual topics, so thanks for bringing it here. A few comments so far:

• This approach, however, -> is idea not a better choice of word than approach? I assume you don't want to use theory as the suggestion does not come from academics?

• A good idea, I'll change "approach" to "idea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• "a well populated area" -> why the quotes?

• The idea of what is well populated and what is not is perhaps subjective; sociologists and human geographers may have specific criteria. Thus, I thought the safe bet was to make clear that this is a term that Cawte has used rather than putting it in 'Wikipedia voice'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• the areas in which the tradition were found -> was found

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• late medieval -> inconsistent with capitalisation of Early Medieval used before (not that I know what is better, but consistency is required)

• Both the upper case and lower case are acceptable, but you're right, consistency is required. I've gone with lower case throughout the article, but won't object is someone wishes to convert them all to upper case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• some Medieval Morris -> medieval?

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• The first printed reference -> when was this?

• I will need to check this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've checked, and the year was 1859, mention of which I have now added into the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• but which been discontinued in the 1860s -> is this grammatically correct? Looks odd to me as non-native speaker

• Ah, I've missed a word here. Changed to "but which had been discontinued in the 1860s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• at least the least -> ?

• I've removed "the least" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Not much more to add actually. Just this:

• Married to Kate Pearch, who had been born in Hastings, together they had two sons, Robert and James-> not sure if we need this extra detail, I'm not convinced it is relevant. It's a different story for Barnett Field, because his wife is part of the revival story.

• I'll scrap it altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Much to my surprise did I bump into a hooden horse today at the May Day festivities in Whitstable. I took a photo and have included it on my talk page: User_talk:Edwininlondon#Hooden_horse Edwininlondon (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

What a great photo! I don't think that it could be counted as a hooden horse per se, but it's definitely interesting to see. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts, Edwininlondon. I'm glad that you found the article to be of some interest and I hope that you enjoyed your time in Whitstable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Midnightblueowl. I support on prose. I think this would make a great article on the home page. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: We're a few days away from this having been open for a month. There are three statements of support and none of opposition. All issues raised appear to have been taken care of. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Brianboulton

A fascinating article which I ought to have picked up sooner. I read it with great interest, and picked up a few minor prose issue on the way. Don't feel you have to adopt all of them, but take a look:

• The phrase "modern Kentish folk traditions" is a little odd, as traditions are by definition long-standing, so there's a hint of an oxymoron. Perhaps replace "traditions" with "customs"?

• I disagree to some extent here. The first issue I would raise is that traditions can be comparatively recent (hence Eric Hobsbawm's idea of the "invented tradition") while presenting themselves as being connected to the past. The other is that the folk traditions in question get repeated every year (May Day Morris dances and such like), while still having "modern" (i.e. 20th or 21st century origins). For those reasons, I think the present wording is best, although would be happy to discuss further if you like. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Surviving sources testify to the fact that while there was clear variation in the hoodening tradition as it was practiced by different individuals in different parts of East Kent, it was nevertheless "on the whole remarkably uniform". The sentence seems to be contradicting itself; can there be "clear variations" in a tradition that is at the same time "remarkably uniform"? I'd consider replacing "clear" with "some".

• A good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "As part of the hoodening custom, a team of "hoodeners", consisting of between four and eight men, would carry the horse through the streets. This team included the horse with a "hoodener"..." There's quite a bit of repetition here (hoodening, hoodeners, hoodener). Suggest amend the start of the second sentence to "This team included the horse operater, the Groom..." etc.

• Also changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "They performed...": paragraphs should not begin with pronouns, thus "The team performed..."

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "the Mollie swept the floor with their broom..." – I'd make that "a broom" to avoid the awkward gender-inspecific pronoun

• Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "at this point" seems to be a redundant phrase.

• Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that "Regional restrictions" is the most appropriate section heading, as the section is mainly concerned with variations of the tradition rather than restrictions

• I've changed it to "Regional distribution", which I think works much more nicely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason for encircling the word "ignored" with quotes.

• I wanted to reflect that this was Maylam's own choice of words, given that the term is a little emotionally loaded, perhaps. The quote marks are probably not entirely necessary, certainly, but if we removed them then some might think the term "ignored" was too loaded for Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Ultimately, he stated that..." – I'd delete "ultimately" as I'm sure he said later things. Perhaps "He concluded that..."?

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "an anonymous individual who was describing their encounter" – for reasons stated above I'd prefer "an encounter"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "However, contradicting this was a number of letters..." I think that's a "were"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "a man named Robert Laming who lead the horse itself" – should be "led"

• Well spotted (I've corrected it). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Another "ultimately" in "Ultimately, Maylam believed..."

• Removed the "ultimately". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "republished under the altered title of The Kent Hooden Horse in 2009 by The History Press." suggest tweak to "republished in 1909 by The History Press, under the altered title of The Kent Hooden Horse."

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Morris' is an AmEng construction. In BritEng we'd say "Morris's"

• Oh I didn't know that this was a BritEng/AmEng thing. Always thought that the latter was just a more archaic way of doing it. You learn something new every day. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "had been born" → "was born"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "while the vicar bridled the horse itself" – can you clarify?

• The source being cited simply says "The Hooden Horse is bridled by the vicar". I'll try to make it clearer by changing the article prose a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Unnecessary quotes around "due largely".

• Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent and unusual. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: many thanks for taking the time to read through this article and for offering your thoughts. It's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Other than the changes you've made, I see no need to do anything further. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This looks about ready but I'm finding minor MoS issues and there seems to be a mixture of inconsistent dash usage throughout, including at least one em dash incorrectly used to express a page range. Please go through the article and polish these items up. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Laser brain; I have gone through the article and think that I have dealt with every instance of inconsistency in the dashes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2018 [46].

---

Gevninge helmet fragment

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Gevninge helmet fragment, a gilded piece of metal that would fit in the palm of your hand, is seemingly ripped from the charred pages of the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf. It was found in Gevninge, a coastal Danish village by Lejre, the contemporary royal capital and thought to be the site of the fabled mead hall Heorot. Beowulf’s trip to the hall takes him by such an outpost, where a “noble warrior”, brandishing a spear, rides down to meet him. If ever there were an artifact that one could imagine as singularly identifiable with a place and a person in Beowulf, the Gevninge helmet fragment is it.

Short and complete, this article covers all the relevant literature, much of which is in Danish. It has been expanded since its recognition as a good article last year, and is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• It's finally here! I'll review soon, and of course, if you have any issues with the Danish, let me know. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks FunkMonk, glad to finally take this one here! --Usernameunique (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Eight centimeters wide and five tall" Give conversions? Also in the infobox.

• Done.

• "three kilometers" Also convert, twice.

• Done.

• "to the west of Roskilde." Perhaps Roskilde, Denmark, since you only name the country in the infobox prior to that.

• Changed to "modern-day village in Denmark to the west of Roskilde."

• "the dexter" Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.

• Added to "Description".

• "The Gevninge helmet fragment therefore exists at the intersection of myth and reality" Only stated in intro.

• Added to "Context and Beowulf ("evidence of both historical fact and of legend").

• " glittering in the light." Only stated in intro, seems a bit flowery.

• Can't argue with you there; every time I've read it I've wondered if I should take it out. Gone.

• Support - that was quick! Comprehensive for such a tiny piece. One last thing, perhaps state who found it? FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review and support, FunkMonk. I assume that it was discovered during excavations led by Tom Christensen, but I haven't seen that explicitly stated; just sent him a email asking exactly when it was found, and by whom. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Short comment from Brianboulton

As an uninformed reader of this topic, I think the specific notability of this artefact needs to be more clearly highlighted in the lead, preferably in the opening paragraph. Is it a question of age? Or because it's the only one of its kind? Or does it have particular historical significance? Or some other reason? Some early clarification would give me better guidance in reading the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Brianboulton. I added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph, please let me know what you think. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OpposeSupport by Richard Nevell

That's a fascinating find, I can see why it caught your attention. The article is detailed, and while I am not familiar with the literature in this area of archaeology it looks to be well researched. While this page is an interesting read, the prose needs a bit more work to improve its readability and it would be worth considering the weight given to Beowulf in this context.

• The term 'dexter' is used and while it is linked, I wonder if this could be changed to 'right' for a more general audience. Price & Mortimer 2014 doesn't use 'dexter' at all, preferring 'right' instead.

• The problem with "right" and "left," which dexter and sinister solves, is that they do not give an indication of orientation. "Right" can be from the perspective of the wearer or from the perspective of an observer, who may herself be oriented in any direction. Some (e.g., Price & Mortimer) deal with this by adding a footnote or explanation saying that the orientation of the wearer is assumed, others (e.g., Maryon 1947) deal with this by using dexter and sinister. A benefit of this is that once it is explained it remains clear, while a footnote or tangential explanation can get lost. Another benefit of this is consistency; this terminology hasn't been an issue in two other similar articles that have gone through FAC, Pioneer helmet and Shorwell helmet.

• Fair enough, that's a good reason to keep it as it is. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• The lead describes Lejre as the royal capital and 'believed to be ... the contemporaneous capital'. The first instance is gives the impression of certainty. I changed the sentence as part of a copy edit, but the previous version didn't have a qualifier either. Lejre is also referred to as the royal capital in the 'discovery' section.

• Added qualifiers and a citation. Qualification is appropriate in the absence of definitive knowledge, but there aren't really any competing candidates.

• In the 'discovery' section, which organisation carried out the excavations?

• Not entirely clear, but as said in the above comments, I sent Christensen an email asking this. Haven't yet heard back.

• It would be interesting to include if Christensen does reply, but if not then we of course have to work within the limits of the sources. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• 'The excavation was occasioned by the impending construction of houses on an undeveloped hectare of land in the middle of the village' is a bit clunky. I don't know the context of the excavations, but would it be reasonable to rephrase it to 'Before houses were built on undeveloped land, archaeologists were asked to investigate the site and record any archaeological remains. They discovered...'?

• Rephrased. The undeveloped hectare has some significance. If you click on the coordinates in the infobox and select a satellite view, you'll see how the undeveloped plot stands out as one of the few such areas in the middle of the village.

• When explaining the deposition of the fragment may have been deliberate, it would be worth explaining why (ie: Price & Mortimer note it's unusual for eyepieces to be found on their own).

• The article says "If buried alone, it might have been an allusion to the one-eyed god Odin who sacrificed an eye in exchange for wisdom and intelligence in Norse mythology." What else are you looking for? Price & Mortimer make a convincing case that from the sixth century to the Viking Age there was a deliberate practice of eye removal or alteration in a variety of objects, and that this was connected in some way to the belief that Odin had one eye. The significance is much less clear. Price & Mortimer (and others), on this and other evidence, attempt to connect the Sutton Hoo helmet to the face of Odin, and suggest that its wearer—likely a king—was invoking divine kinship and authority. Yet enough objects have been found, in enough different circumstances, that it is clear the meaning transcended rulers trying to say they were divine. Price & Mortimer interpret the similar eyebrow from Uppåkra in the context of its discovery near a building "interpreted as having cultic functions," and among a deposit of weapons. As they argue, "[g]iven the context of military sacrifice, the eyebrow must represent a deliberate deposit and was likely removed from its helmet for that purpose." That's not much to go on—really, it's the context for the significance rather than the significance itself—and given that the area around the Gevninge fragment was only explored with metal detectors, the significance for this piece is even less clear.

My thinking is less about the allusion to Odin (which IMO is pretty clear) but why finding an eyepiece on its own might indicate it was deliberately deposited. To the general reader, loss might sound very plausible so a small addition might be worthwhile. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Are readers going to know what a 'shielding' is?

• Linked to Scylding.

• I think it's worth reconsidering how the article discusses Beowulf. I'm not really comfortable with the article saying 'Adornments like the Gevninge helmet fragment [are] evidence of both historical fact and of legend'. It makes it sounds like the eyepiece proves that the legend is true – which is one issue – and what the cited source says cultural affinity between Sutton Hoo, Uppsala and Lejre woven together in the heroic poem, Beowulf. The point is not that the eyepiece is evidence of the legend, but it is part of a culture which had links to England and Denmark.

• After my changes and the copy edit, the phrase now reads "the fragment provides a nexus between legend and historical fact."

• I can't read Danish, so even if I had Christensen's works I wouldn't be able to read them. But I would be interested in how he approaches the fragment and Beowulf. Price & Mortimer use Beowulf to show how helmets were used; does Christensen do something similar or is he trying to explicitly link this fragment to the poem? This article's section on 'context and Beowulf' is mostly about how the settlement of Gevninge may be the capital's port, and rather than providing context to the fragment it feels tangential. It builds up to saying that the eyepiece was from a helmet which would have demonstrated the owner's rank. This is an interesting point and could be developed further. Would this have belonged to someone high ranking? The lead goes into more detail on Beowulf than I would expect.

• You'll see some of the relevant text from Christensen 2002, along with a translation, at the Gevninge DYK nomination. As you will see, he explicitly links the fragment to the poem, and includes lines from the same passage quoted in this article. Christensen also includes more of a discussion of decorated helmets serving as status symbols and objects connected to ceremonies, which is briefly discussed in this article but could be expanded upon; it's always tenuous to discuss the social significance of prehistoric objects, however. To the extent that what Beowulf says about helmets is relevant, it is generally included in the relevant articles: see, e.g., Sutton Hoo helmet#Beowulf, Guilden Morden boar#Boar-crests in Beowulf, and Pioneer Helmet#Boar-crests in Beowulf.

• What do you mean by Discovered by itself, the Gevninge helmet fragment has little to contextualize it? Are we saying that the excavations recovered not other archaeological finds, or is it simply that the rest of the helmet is missing? Either way we need to be clear. Either way, it would be worth explaining the results of the rescue excavation to give context.

• It now reads "The Gevninge helmet fragment was discovered by itself, with no other nearby artefacts to give it some context." I'll add some more information on the other finds.

• What information is there on post-excavation work on the fragment? Are there any challenges in conservation, has it been cleaned up, and who carried out the work?

• Nothing that has been published. I can ask Christensen if he responds; I can also ask the museum, with whom I have been in contact. The latter I'd prefer to leave until after we clear up the major aspects of your comments, however.

I've made some changes to the text myself, but I think it would be worth getting another editor to give the article a copy edit. The article is an interesting read and I left it feeling more informed about Viking helmets, and there are some fascinating details in there, but for me the issues with the weight on Beowulf and the need for some extra copyediting pushed me to oppose. I hope these comments are useful because this has the makings of a fine article. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Richard Nevell, specific comments are above. Dilidor has kindly copy-edited the article, which hopefully addresses your readability concerns. From what I can tell of your comments, your main concern is the article's treatment of Beowulf. Perhaps the Christensen translation linked above will help allay this concern, for he treats the connection between Gevninge, the Gevninge helmet fragment, and Beowulf both seriously and explicitly. That's the main significance of the Gevninge fragment. We could always add a section discussing social significance/function (see, e.g., second paragraph of Shorwell helmet#Function), but the Gevninge fragment isn't the best conduit for that discussion. That discussion is better suited for better-preserved helmets, for trying to analyze the significance of an entire object when only a fragment of it remains introduces a second layer of speculation. Moreover, the Gevninge fragment is uniquely suited to the discussion of Beowulf, for it is a military piece from a military outpost akin to the military outpost visited by Beowulf and his men. In other words, the fragment tells us nothing new about the social status of helmets and those who wore them during the Nordic Iron Age and Viking Age, but it does tell us something new about Gevninge, something new about Beowulf, and something new about the relationship between the two of them. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Richard Nevell, I have now reformatted and added to the article. The primary addition is a "Function" section, which discusses how the fragment would have demonstrated rank and status. This level of discussion has been removed from "Context and Beowulf", which now focuses solely on the role of Gevninge and the role of the place Beowulf passes through, and the relationship between them. Now that I believe all your concerns have been addressed I would welcome your response. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Striking my oppose as the article has clearly changed - holding off changing to support until I've had a chance to reread the article properly. Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy few weeks. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for striking the oppose, Richard Nevell. Take your time on the second read; been busy over here too! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I've had a chance to re-read the article and the prose is much smoother. If the emphasis on Beowulf reflects Christensen's work then it's reasonable to take that approach here. Good work with the article, it's interesting to see how one can be structured around a small find. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Nice work on this, Usernameunique. Good to see these articles being expanded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In the lede:

• "during the minor excavation" - I'd scrap the "minor" at this juncture, it really isn't important enough for such a mention in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Done.

• I'd also wikilink excavation to Excavation (archaeology). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Done.

• "The Gevninge helmet fragment therefore exists at the intersection of myth and reality, shedding light on both historical fact and legend." - a nice turn of phrase, but not really in keeping with Wikipedia's standard style. I'd probably scrap it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Changed to "The Gevninge helmet fragment, a military piece from a riverside outpost, therefore sheds light on the relationship between historical fact and legend."

Description:

• "8 centimetres (3 in)" - if you spell out "centimetres", then spell out "inches" too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Abbreviated both.

• "and gilded" - gilded in what? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Linked to gilding, which should make clear that the coating is of gold.

• " found on Danish soil," - perhaps a bit literary for Wikipedia. I'd just say "Denmark". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Done.

• "In the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf," - this is the first mention of the poem in the main body of the text, so warrants a Wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Unlinked Beowulf in "Context and Beowulf".

• "The dying words of Beowulf," - ditto, this is the first mention of the hero; it needs a link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Done.

• "Yet one guarding Gevninge," - the "one" in question being a person, right? As the paragraph is currently structured it implies that the "one" is a helmet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's being used as an indefinite pronoun meaning "a person," are you sure that's not correct?

• "Adornments like the Gevninge helmet fragment would have identified the rank of such a person,[24] as well as adding decoration to a helmet.[22][13]" - "helmet" gets repeated here, so perhaps alter the latter part to "as well as adding decoration to the headpiece" or something. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Changed to "Adornments like the Gevninge helmet fragment..."

Thanks for your comments, Midnightblueowl. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Support. Good work, Usernameunique. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Gevninge helmet fragment - 150x105.png: Use is fine, I see that the license is pending.
• File:Sutton Hoo helmet 2016.png: Use and license are fine (one could more cleanly delineate between the artifact's copyright and the photographer's copyright).

• Would {{PD-art-3d}} work?

• Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Done. —Usernameunique (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Beowulf folio 137r.png: License and use are fine for me. I take that the quoted text is from the photographed text.

• Yes; added a footnote to the caption to make it clear.

ALT text is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I hope I haven't missed the party!

• I think the lead is much too long for an article of this length. I think the third paragraph could be dropped altogether, the fourth merged into the first two, and the remainder trimmed a little.
• I'm struck that the word "Denmark" doesn't appear in the opening sentences!
• Is Lejre Museum worth a wikilink? Don't be scared of redlinks!
• It feels like there's a little repetition between the discovery and context sections.

Very nice. I particularly enjoyed the way the helmet has been linked so closely with Beowulf! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

The sources look to be in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. My only (trivial ) query: is there a reason for the absence of "p." or "pp." in the Beowolf citations? Brianboulton (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review of yet another of my FAC nominations, Brianboulton. The citations are to the lines, which is more precise, and the way in which Beowulf is normally cited; pages differ per edition, but the lines are always the same. I've given pages for Heaney's translation, by contrast, as it's one edition rather than a general work, but could change that to the lines as well if you think it better. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of readers, you could precede the Beowulf numbers with "line", but the point is small and I'll leave it to you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2018 [47].

---

Ceratosaurus

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the more important dinosaur articles: A large meat-eater with nose horn. It just went through a rigorous GA review, and I feel it is ready now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the comparison diagram, and also elaborating on data sources on the image description page

Agreed, and in progress. User:PaleoGeekSquared kindly offered to create a new one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• File:CeratosaurusSkeleton.jpg: what was the author's date of death? Same with File:Outdated_Ceratosaurus.jpg

Added date of death for the CeratosaurusSkeleton.jpg. It is however unknown for Outdated_Ceratosaurus.jpg, or at least I couldn't find any info on the author. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Joseph M. Gleeson, who could also be linked in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How couldn't I find that, thanks FunkMonk! Resolved now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• File:Limusaurus_runner_(flipped).jpg needs a data source as does File:Aucasaurus_garridoi_by_Paleocolour.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help here: I thought indicating that it is the author's own work was sufficient? Where is the issue here exactly? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think what is meant is a citation for what the image is based on in the Commons description, or what it can be checked up against (such as a skeletal reconstruction). Like the citation I added to the restoration:[48] That said, those images are part of a transcluded template which is not part of this article itself, so I wonder if that issue should be part of this FAC, and not taken up elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, solved now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually an article citation is meant (rather than specimen numbers), personally I don't think it's a big deal, but I'm not the reviewer, so... FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I assumed this was OK since Rajasaurus restoration.jpg, which does just that, was not objected. But on a general note, I think we should be very careful with adding sources to life reconstructions of other artists when we cannot be sure that the drawing was indeed based on the source we want to cite. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and made the same point here[49], but it seems to be the only compromise found acceptable by FAC reviewers (when the issue is brought up). To quote one commentator in the linked discussion, which the others seem to have agreed with: "I'm far less worried about what the original artist did, or didn't, put in the image file, and more about ensuring that someone checking the image today has a reliable source to refer back to and verify the depiction against." FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

I'm not a dinosaur guy, so please be patient with me for not knowing about one of the more important dinosaur articles. Anyway, here is the review.

Lead:

• The first paragraph of the lead is a little long. Is this normal for dinosaur articles? If not, I think it would be better to split the text after the sentence beginning with, This specimen remains the most complete skeleton, into a new paragraph. Then the sentence can be rephrased like this: "The Garden Park specimen remains the most complete skeleton known from the genus, and only a handful of additional specimens have been described since."

OK, splitted.

• estimated at 5.3 m (17 ft) in length, at around 8.8 m (29 ft) in length - would it be better if you said "estimated to be 5.3 m (17 ft) long", and "at around 8.8 m (29 ft) long"?

OK, changed.

• is now found to be unrelated to the latter - This should be either past tense ("was later found..."), or should be "known" if it's kept in present tense ("is now known..."). Usually, "found" is a verb that can apply to one-time event, whereas "known" is a verb that can apply at any time.

Yes, changed!

• more likely served in display - This is confusing to me, I guess you meant "more likely served an aesthetic function" or "more likely was used solely for display".

Of course you are right, changed.

Description:

• bauplan - This is not a well known word. To be more clear, you can say "body plan", or explain what a bauplan is.

Some of the weird words introduced from German. Use "body plan" now!

• estimated at 5.3 m (17 ft) or 5.69 m (18.7 ft) in length by separate authors - This is passive voice that conflicts with the active voice at the beginning of the sentence. How about this: "that separate authors have estimated to be 5.3 m (17 ft) or 5.69 m (18.7 ft) in length"

All right, changed.

• it was estimated at 418 kilograms (922 lb), 524 kg (1,155 lb) and 670 kg (1,480 lb) - Do you mean "or" instead of "and"? After all, these are separate estimations.

Yes, changed.

• estimated this specimen 7 m (23 ft) in length - missing a few words. I suggest using either "estimated this specimen to be 7 m (23 ft) in length" or "estimated this specimen's length to be 7 m (23 ft)". This also works if you use "at" instead of "to be".

New sentence I added two days ago … repaired!

• The upwards projecting spinous processes were comparatively large, and, in the dorsal (back) vertebrae, were as tall as the vertebral centra were long. - What is the height?

The exact heights of the neural spines are not explicitly given in the main description of 1920, unfortunately. The relevance of this feature was only noticed in a much later review that is to general to include many measurements (which will change from vertebra to vertebra anyways).

• In contrast to most more derived theropods, which showed only three digits on each manus, that of Ceratosaurus retained four digits. - (1) I think it should be "most more-derived" since "more" is an adverb that qualifies "derived", rather than being a measure of quantity. (2) "that of Ceratosaurus" is awkward diction compared to the rest of the sentence. 95% of readers will not mind if you say "Ceratosaurus retained four digits". or something like that. Technically this is incorrect sentence structure, and for that reason, you can say "those of Ceratosaurus...". (3) By the way, manus leads to a disambiguation page instead of to the correct link, Manus (anatomy). This appears earlier in the paragraph, though.

all fixed!

• digits (digits II–IV) - the parentheses is awkward. How about this: "digits, numbered II–IV"?

perfect, changed!

• Although most of these ossicles were found at most five meters apart from the skeleton, they were not, unlike in the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, directly associated with any vertebrae; their original position on the body thus cannot be inferred from this specimen - This sentence is still pretty long even with the semicolon. A workaround is to use a period instead of a semicolon, or to rephrase like this: "Although most of these ossicles were found at most five meters apart from the skeleton, they were not directly associated with any vertebrae, unlike in the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, and so their original position on the body cannot be inferred from this specimen."

Took your second suggestion, thanks!

More later. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, epicgenius! I really try to remember all these language details, so that I won't repeat the same mistakes next time. And btw, reviews from non-experts are really essential to ensure comprehensibility. Please feel free to simply post sentences which you do not fully understand, I will try my best to make it clearer! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's nice to be of help. Here's the next batch of comments. epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Skull:

• The first paragraph is very long (even factoring in the picture). You should consider splitting it.

Did that!

• The lacrimal bone does not only form - I suggest "not only forms" or "forms not only".

Yes, much better.

• This also lead to a broadening of the base - did you mean "leads"?

Put everything in past tense now!

• What's "rugose"?

I changed to "wrinkled".

• would have contained blood vessels in life - "when alive"

Changed accordingly.

• The first eight of these teeth were very long and robust, but from the ninth teeth onward they gradually decrease in size. - This would be "from the ninth tooth onward".

Sure, corrected.

• which are however poorly preserved - this is an awkward structure as compared to the rest of the sentence. In fact, this seems like a ripe opportunity to use a semicolon. "In the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype, each half of the dentary (the tooth-bearing bone of the mandible) was equipped with 15 teeth; however, they are poorly preserved."

Thanks, took your wording!

History of discovery (excluding subheader):

• The paragraphs in this section are pretty long, specifically the first paragraph.

splitted all longer paragraphs.

• There are also a lot of parenthetical side notes as well. While I don't object to these side notes, I find that reading them will interrupt the flow of the sentence. For instance, Found in articulation (bones still connected to each other), it was nearly complete, including the skull could be "Found in articulation, with the bones still connected to each other, it was nearly complete, including the skull" or something.

These are solely for explaining the meaning of technical terms. I removed the parentheses for all of these that are longer than three words throughout the article.

• The timeline jumps back and forth, but I understand the paragraph structure. First paragraph is for the first specimen; second paragraph is for reconstruction; third paragraph is for newer finds; and so on. This has to do with the long paragraphs, though, so maybe these can be separate sections. (Or maybe not, depending on how other dinosaur FA's are structured.)

Added subheadings, it is really better this way, thanks. This also gives me space for another image, which I will add later.

• The holotype was mounted by Gilmore in 1910 and 1911 and since was on exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History. - This sentence needs punctuation and maybe a bit of rewording. "The holotype was mounted by Gilmore in 1910 and 1911, and since then, had been on exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History."

Took your wording. But are you sure we need the comma in "then, had been on exhibit"?

I think the comma would make it flow better, but feel free to disagree. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• A second, articulated specimen including the skull (MWC 1) was discovered by Thor Erikson, the son of paleontologist Lance Erikson, in 1976 near Fruita, Colorado - I think you should put "In 1976" at the beginning of the sentence. Otherwise, the end of the sentence seems like it has too much information.

Changed.

• Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000, claim that the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype was in fact a juvenile individual, with the two larger species representing the adult state of a single species.[21] Oliver Rauhut, in 2003, and Matthew Carrano and Scott Sampson, in 2008, consider the anatomical differences cited by Madsen and Welles to support these additional species to represent ontogenetic (age related) or individual variation. - A lot of infighting there, I see. Anyway, two things. (1) I think "Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000," should start a new sentence. (2) Also, if you are putting dates like this, then you should use the past tense, e.g. "Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000, claimed that..." Or you can note that these were when the reports were written: "writing in 2000".

Thanks, all done.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much! Looking forward to the next bunch of comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. This is a long article so it will take some time. Here are my comments for the next section: epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• In the years 1909 to 1913, German expeditions of the Berlin Museum für Naturkunde brought to light a diverse dinosaur fauna from the Tendaguru Formation in German East Africa, today Tanzania. - 3 things here. (1) "In the years 1909 to 1913" is redundant, and you can just say "From 1909 to 1913". (2) "brought to light" is a little too colloquial for a FA, and so I suggest something like "uncovered" or "popularized" (or a synonym), whichever is more accurate. (3) "German East Africa, today Tanzania" is also awkward. I would think there is some better way to say this, like "German East Africa, now known as Tanzania", "German East Africa, in what is now Tanzania", or something similar.

All changed accordingly.

• and additionally ascribed several teeth to the genus which had originally been described by Janensch as - Two things. (1) "and additionally" is awkward, because "in addition" is how it's usually phrased. (2) At least in American English, "the genus which had" and "the genus that had" have different connotations, even though they technically mean similar things. "Which" implied that there is only one genus, and requires a comma before it, "the genus, which had". "That" implied that there are more than one genus, so it would be "the genus that had".

Ok, the "which" was referring to the teeth, not to the genus; I hope it is clear this way now.

It is. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Labrosaurus (?) stechowi - I noticed that the question mark is not in italics so it must mean something. What does it mean, though?

Simply that the author was unsure about this assignment. Added "possible species of Labrosaurus".

• Janensch, however, did in fact not refer this species to Ceratosaurus but to Megalosaurus; this name therefore might be a simple copying error - This is another very convoluted wording, with several things to point out, so instead I will say what I interpreted this sentence as: "However, Janensch referred to this species as Ceratosaurus, not as Megalosaurus; therefore, this name might be a simple copying error".

Thanks, almost! Took your wording with few modifications.

• not closely related to neither Megalosaurus nor Ceratosaurus - "neither ... nor" is not usually preceded by a negative, simply because you then have a double negative. So the sentence can be either "...not closely related to either Megalosaurus or Ceratosaurus", or "...closely related to neither Megalosaurus nor Ceratosaurus".

Oh right, thanks for pointing that out.

• were exposed since due to progressing cliff erosion - also awkward. I actually thought this was a typo at first, but I think you can just flip two words: "were since exposed due to progressing cliff erosion".

All right, I will remember that.

I will review the other sections later. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you, looking forward to the remaining points! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just realized this now, but you may want to place alternative text for each of the images in this entire article. This is what the alternative text in this article looks like now. It's helpful for readers who are vision-impaired. Anyway, more comments below: epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Added alt texts to all images.

Classification:

• This first paragraph is also very long. Same for the second paragraph of "Ecology and feeding" and the only paragraph of "Brain and senses".

Splitted all

• Two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were, however, known in from modern-day birds, and, according to Marsh, clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs. - This is a comma overload. My father once said that if you need to use that many commas in a sentence, it's either written awkwardly or should be two sentences (unless it's a list). You can cut down the commas: "However, two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were known in from modern-day birds, and according to Marsh, clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs." Or you can go further and make two sentences: "However, two of these features, the fused pelvis and co-ossified metatarsus, were known in from modern-day birds. According to Marsh, these clearly demonstrate the close relationship between the latter and dinosaurs."

Took your first suggestion.

• Over the years, separate authors referred the genus to the Deinodontidae as a close relative of Allosaurus; the Megalosauridae; the Coelurosauria; the Carnosauria; and to the Deinodontoidea. - (1) Could you rephrase this: "referred the genus to the Deinodontidae"? Was the genus classified under the Deinodontidae? It seems to be grammatically correct, but this part of the sentence is confusing, which may explain why at first I thought it was incorrect grammar. (2) I think you should also be consistent with the sentence structure here, and remove "to" in "to the Deinodontoidea". I.e.: "Over the years, separate authors referred the genus to the Deinodontidae as a close relative of Allosaurus; the Megalosauridae; the Coelurosauria; the Carnosauria; and the Deinodontoidea."

Rephrased, hope its better now.

• Both the Ceratosauridae and Ceratosauria remained to be not widely accepted - In particular, the wording of "remained to be not widely accepted" is convoluted. Would it be better if you said something like this? "Both the Ceratosauridae and Ceratosauria were still not widely accepted..."

Moved the sentence to the beginning of the paragraph, and took your wording.

• It was not before the establishment of cladistic analysis in the 1980s - would "not before" be "not until"?

Right. Corrected.

• Gauthier, in 1986, recognized the Coelophysoidea to be closely related to Ceratosaurus, although this clade falls outside of Ceratosauria in most recent analyses. In 1985, the newly discovered South American genus Abelisaurus was found to be closely related to Ceratosaurus - Should this be chronological? Honest question.

It was not in chronological order in the source. Did that now.

• Oliver Rauhut, in 2004, proposes - if we're still going with past-tense for previous studies, it should be "proposed".

Corrected.

I will return with more comments. epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Great, and many thanks as always, looking forward to the rest! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that I haven't forgotten about this review and will come back to it later, either today or tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! I'm looking forward to the next comments :) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ecology and feeding:

• in sites where it co-occurs with Allosaurus, it is outnumbered by the latter by 7.5 to 1 on average - It seems like there are too many "it"s here. I guess you can say something like, "Ceratosaurus was a rare element of the theropod fauna; it is outnumbered by Allosaurus at an average rate of 7.5 to 1 in sites where they co-occur."

Thanks, took your wording!

• This is, according to these researchers, also evidenced by different proportions of the skull, teeth, and forelimb - You can also say "According to the researchers, this is also..."

Yes, that is better

• Ceratosaurus and megalosaurids must have predominantly hunted at and within the water - The phrase "hunted at the water" is weird. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that they hunted on the banks of waterways?

The source is not precise, so I changed it to "hunted near and within waterbodies", hope that is better.

• This section jumps over the place chronologically: you describe Henderson 1998, Foster and Chure 2006, Carpenter 2010, Bakker and Bir 2004, Bakker 1986, and Holliday and Witmer 1986. It is probably easier to read when you clarify that the study was made that year, so that it doesn't have to necessarily be read chronologically. E.g. "in a 1986 study". versus "in 2004".

Ok, did that. I decided not to go chronologically here but group these studies by "topic", as some of them are responses/evaluations of the main studies.

Function of the nasal horn and osteoderms: No problems that I can see.

Forelimb function: No problems here, either.

Brain and senses:

• A cast of the brain cavity of the holotype was made under supervision of Marsh probably during preparation of the skull, allowing Marsh to conclude that the brain "was of medium size, but comparatively much larger than in the herbivorous Dinosaurs". - The middle portion of this sentence (made under supervision of Marsh probably during preparation of the skull) doesn't flow well. This is a place where commas or reorganization would be helpful. E.g. "A cast of the brain cavity of the holotype was made under Marsh's supervision, probably during preparation of the skull, allowing Marsh..."

Thanks for the suggestion, changed!

Fusion of metatarsals and paleopathology: Everything here is all good.

Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography:

• All North American Ceratosaurus finds come from the Morrison Formation, a sequence of shallow marine and alluvial sediments which, according to radiometric dating, ranges between 156.3 million years old (Ma) at its base,[53] and 146.8 million years old at the top,[54] which places it in the late Oxfordian, Kimmeridgian, and early Tithonian stages of the Late Jurassic period. - This is a pretty long sentence. I think the best place to split it is after reference 54.

Splitted and added a bit of general information.

• I suggest that for some sentences, you can use a serial semicolon if comma-separated list-items do themselves contain commas, or even if some of these list items are phrases. E.g.
  • "...the theropods Koparion, Stokesosaurus, Ornitholestes, Allosaurus, and Torvosaurus; the sauropods Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus, and Diplodocus; and the ornithischians Camptosaurus, Dryosaurus, Othnielia, Gargoyleosaurus, and Stegosaurus."
  • "...ray-finned fishes; frogs; salamanders; turtles, like Dorsetochelys; sphenodonts; lizards; terrestrial and aquatic crocodylomorphans, such as Hoplosuchus; and several species of pterosaur, like Harpactognathus and Mesadactylus."

Did that!

That's all for now. Once these issues are responded to, I will be happy to support. epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks again for your very constructive review, I think your points improved the prose and reading flow a lot! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I now support this featured article nomination. 23:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SuperTurboChampionshipEdition

User:SuperTurboChampionshipEdition

Are the numbers next to the inline citations page numbers of the sources? It makes it look a bit messy. If they are page numbers, then it doesn't make complete sense because you show different page numbers in the citations, for example [2] or [4]. Also, what do you mean exactly by "contemporary Allosaurus"? As both Allosaurus and Ceratosaurus lived in roughly the same time period. Is it referring to the Allosaurus as we know it today?

Yes, these are the page numbers, see Template:Rp. They are consistently used when 1) the source has too many pages and thus needs more precise referencing and 2) it is a journal article, or a book that is cited multiple times. The page numbers in the references always give the full range of the respective paper within the journal; this is the standard in scientific literature (and it would be highly confusing if we do it otherwise). Regarding your second question: "Contemporary" is used in the sense of "coexistent in time". Should I formulate it differently? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• You mention 5.69 m in lead but two estimates in body of article

Fixed.

• I'd be inclined to link "validity"

Linked.

• Maybe link "characterised" to Phenotypic trait?

Linked.

• ...although originally described as a presumed antecedent of Ceratosaurus, was later found to be unrelated to the latter. - "to the latter" is redundant here

Removed

• The characteristic nasal horn was probably not used... - is "characteristic" necessary here?

Removed

• The third, yet undescribed, specimen BYUVP 12893 was claimed to be the largest yet discovered, although estimates have not been published - there is alot of "estimating" going on in this paragraph. Perhaps change this word to "measurements"?

Used more varied wording, to avoid some of them.

• in their 2000 monography - should this be "in their 2000 monograph"?

Changed.

• I made these changes and hope they are okay.

All good, thanks for that!

Overall a good read and on track to gain FA status once issues resolved...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review! Everything resolved today, let me know if there are further issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Axl

• From the lead section, paragraph 3: "The tail was deep in profile." What does this mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Should mean "deep in side view", I just removed the "in profile". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, I still don't understand what this means. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm no native speaker, so forgive me that I do not always spot this kind of problem immediately. I now tried with "the tail was deep from top to bottom", is that better? I use "deep" in the sense of "vertically wide". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "thick"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Thick" would be misleading, as the tail is only broad from top to bottom, while being flat from side to side. That's why I used "deep". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• From the lead section, paragraph 4: "Ceratosaurus is the eponymous genus of the Ceratosauria." I don't think that this is the correct use of the word "eponymous". "Eponymous" means that it is named after a person, place or other proper noun. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It means exactly that (the group is named after the genus). This formulation is at least common in the technical literature; should I reformulate? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

How about: "The genus Ceratosaurus gives its name to the ceratosauria"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, not entirely happy. Would "Ceratosaurus is eponymous for the Ceratosauria" be better?

No, not really. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed to your suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• From the lead section, paragraph 4: "Ceratosaurus may have preyed upon plant-eating dinosaurs, although it was also suggested to have primarily hunted aquatic prey such as fish." The latter half of the sentence is somewhat clumsy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

reformulated.

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "Description", paragraph 3: "Only the first phalanx of digits II, III and IV is preserved in the holotype, respectively." What does "respectively" mean here? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

that all three phalanges (one of each digit) are not preserved. Put the holotype at the beginning of the sentence, did that solve the issue?

No. The word "respectively" is not required. Also, "phalanx" should be plural: "phalanges". "In the holotype, only the proximal phalanges of digits II, III and IV are preserved." Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "Description", paragraph 4: "Although most of these ossicles were found at most five meters apart from the skeleton." I am not sure that "ossicles" is the right word to use here. Would "osteoderms" be okay? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That is the commonly used technical term for small osteoderm. Linked it provisionally to osteoderm, better?

The linked page, "Osteoderm", does not mention ossicles at all. Meanwhile, "Ossicles" describes only the tiny bones in the ear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "Description", subsection "Skull", paragraph 3: "In contrast, several members of the Abelisauridae feature very low tooth crowns." Perhaps this should be "short" rather than "low"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. Changed.

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "History of discovery", subsection "The holotype specimen of Ceratosaurus nasicornis", paragraph 1: "Significant missing parts include... the humerus... and most of the foot." Should this be "humeri" and "feet" (plural)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed "parts" to "bones" to avoid this, as I would have to add quite some more elements which are only preserved on one side of the body; important are the completely unknown bones.

Ah, then the problem lies with the use of the definite article "the". The phrases "the humerus" and "the foot" imply that the specimen should only have one humerus and one foot. Perhaps the sentence should be changed to "a humerus... and most of a foot"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, when writing "a foot is missing" it is unclear if both or only one is missing. I therefore took your first suggestion, and amended the list to include both left and right elements. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The end of the first paragraph of "History of discovery", subsection "The holotype specimen of Ceratosaurus nasicornis", requires an inline citation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-added (missing citation resulted from split of the paragraph suggested during review). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the review and for the improvements you made directly in the article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• From "History of discovery", subsection "Additional finds in North America", paragraph 2: "Brooks Britt and colleagues, in 2000, claimed that the Ceratosaurus nasicornis holotype was in fact a juvenile individual, with the two larger species representing the adult state of a single species." I can't seem to find the referenced paper with the authors' names online. Is the first author's name definitely Brooks Britt? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a conference Abstract, not a paper. Here is the online access: [50]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources are of the approipriate quality and reliability. Just a few minor issues:

• General: although not strictly an FAC requirement, 10-digit ISBNs are best converted to their modern 13-digit form, to provide unity of presentation. The converter gizmo is here

All converted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 3: Is this a spelling error (Cerantosaurs)?

It says "Ceratosaurs", and that is correct (re-checked the title). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 18: You should italicise and w/link The Washington Post, and also add a (subscription required) template

Uhh, it was not paywall-hidden a few months ago … added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 33: Add (subscription required) template.

No need here, the fulltext pdf can be downloaded without subscription. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Link does now point directly to PDF. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "other large-sized theropod genera" I would delete "-sized".

True, thanks for finding that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• The present tense is normally used for current opinions. Does the past tense in the fourth paragraph of the lead as, for example, in "some paleontologists proposed" mean that these opinions are out-dated?

I was told to better use past tense throughout. I cannot use both mixed as I usually cannot decide what is outdated and what is not without introducing my own OR. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• a link for 'caudal' would be helpful.

Linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "co-ossified". I assume that this means fused. I suggest explaining with "co-ossified (fused)" (The article which the term links to does not appear helpful.)

I changed to "fusion" throughout, as this appears to be easier to understand than co-ossification. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am not clear about the distinction between basal and derived. Does basal mean similar to early ancestors and derived as having evolved to be more different?

Precisely. Unfortunately, there is no suitable article to link "derived" other than the general apomorphy. For the future, we plan to solve these and other issues with the help of a glossary. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• "a stress fracture in a referred foot bone". What does 'referred' mean in this context?

Changed to "foot bone referred to the genus" to be clearer. It means the bone was found isolated, not part of one of the skeletons, but could still be assigned to the genus.

• A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Great to hear that. Thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. My only other quibble is that I found the word "refer" in this context jarring. Is it USAmer or a technical paleontological term? It does not seem to be listed in this sense in UK dictionaries. I would prefer a word such as "attribute" as "an isolated foot bone attributed to the genus", and in the lead "their attribution as Ceratosaurus" rather than "their referral to Ceratosaurus". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yes, "attributed" is commonly used in this sense, but might be technical speech. I changed to "assigned" throughout. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2018 [51].

---

Cleopatra

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[Epic Shakespearean announcer's voice:] BEHOLD! Cleopatra, seventh of her name! The pharaoh of Egypt; descendant of Alexander the Great's companion Ptolemy I Soter; the pious goddess who loves her father; the Living Isis (no, not that ISIS, you pleb); the Queen of Kings and mother of Julius Caesar's child Caesarion and three little rugrats belonging to Mark Antony. This article has recently succeeded in passing the Good Article nomination hurdle. Since the time that I have rewritten it and created the sub-articles "Early life of Cleopatra" and "Reign of Cleopatra" (along with a total rewrite of "Death of Cleopatra", a current GA nominee), the article has seen major improvements thanks to lively talk page discussion, debate, and consensus-building. The prose body of the article is a bit large, but I am still in the process of slightly reducing its overall size, which is roughly the same as my Featured Article on Octavian/Augustus. Given Cleopatra's enormous importance to history and impact on modern popular culture, the queen perhaps deserves a larger article than most; don't you agree? You better. Or it's off to the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus with you! Where you will have plenty of time to complain about the article's length while exiled alongside the likes of Arsinoe IV. I eagerly await the image review, because I think I have finally nailed the appropriate licensing thing for each image. If not I'm happy to make any quick, necessary fixes. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from Factotem

First off, I like the idea of listing the online sources separately. I've not noticed this done before, but it makes reviewing the sources a whole lot easier than sifting through the list of refs for the web-based sourcing.

• behindthename.com looks like a hobbyist site. What makes it reliable?
• Page ranges in refs use hyphens. They need to be endashes per MOS:DASH
• Inconsistent use of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. I understand that it's preferred at FAC for all ISBN refs to be consistently formatted.
• Refs #4, #147, #398 p. -> pp.
• Ref #400 pp. -> p.
• The ISBN for Ashton's Cleopatra and Egypt refers to the Blackwell (Oxford) edition (219 pages), but the GBooks link you provide takes us to the John Wiley & Sons (New York) edition (240 pages).
• The ISBN for Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great: The Woman Behind the Legend refers to the 454-page US edition published by Harper (NY), but the GBooks link you provide refers to the 300-page(!?) edition published by Hodder & Staughton in 2009.
• For Grant's Cleopatra, did you actually use the 1992 B&N edition, or did you use the original, online version as linked in the list of printed resources? If the latter, the publisher and ISBN ref you provide are incorrect - the correct info can be found on the Worldcat listing here. I'm curious, though. B&N appears to be a self-publishing outfit, but I don't believe, based on the year or what little I've found out about Michael Grant, that this can possibly be self-published.
• The Gbooks link you provide for Hölbl's A History of the Ptolemaic Empire does not have the same ISBN as the one you provide.
• An OCLC ref for Lippold's Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums can be found at Worldcat.
• The Gbooks link you provide for Roller's Cleopatra: a biography has a different ISBN and publication date than those listed.
• An OCLC ref for Sartain's On the Antique Painting in Encaustic of Cleopatra: Discovered in 1818 can be found at Worldcat.
• The ISBN you provide for Schiff's Cleopatra: A Life appears to be for the 2010 edition published by Little, Brown and Co (NY). The 2011 Random House edition has the ISBN 9780753539569.
• There is a doi ref for Skeat's The Last Days of Cleopatra: A Chronological Problem, according to the link to the JSTOR record you provided, which could be added.
• In the citation for Walker's Cleopatra in Pompeii, you can add the parameter "|jstor=40311128" to add the jstor ref for this publication.

This is just a partial source review for now. I may complete a few more checks in due course. Factotem (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: thanks for the source review! I'll try my best to address these issues by the end of the day. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional

• Another inconsistency between editions linked to, this time for Royster's Becoming Cleopatra: The Shifting Image of an Icon. The Gbook you link to is for an edition published in 2016 by Springer, which has a different ISBN. This appears to be the correct GBook link for the edition cited. Factotem (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• • @Factotem: I see what's going on here now. It's actually not my fault (or only partially my fault for trusting Google Books to do things correctly). It's the fault of Google Books. If you actually follow the "preview" link in the case of not only Royster but also Hölbl and Roller (the latter of which I own a personal, physical copy), it brings you to the correct edition that I cited. You can clearly see the correct ISBN numbers there in the previewed pages of the books. I'm not sure how to resolve this; you tell me! Because I would rather retain the GB links than get rid of them simply because the folks over at Google Books were too lazy, sleep-deprived, or drunk to care about doing things properly (lol). Should I just provide direct URLs to the previewed pages instead? Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You can usually locate the relevant edition in Gbooks by googling for it. For instance, this search for Roller's Cleopatra: A Biography returns the book as the first result, with a link for More editions. It's then a case of searching through those more editions for the correct GBook listing, in this case the 4th result gets you to the Gbook entry with the correct ISBN ref you provided. I can see that Gbooks does seem to list one edition, but links its preview to a different edition. I would argue that if you are going to provide a Gbook link (and you are not obliged to for FAC), then it should correspond to the edition you actually used. Having said that, I'm not sure how much of an issue this is. I've posted a question on the FAC talk page to seek clarification. Factotem (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool. In the meantime I have removed the URLs for Royster, Hölbl and Roller, because it is better to have no URL than one to a different edition of the book. I might add appropriate URLs at a later date, but I don't think it's important or necessary, as you suggest. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if you've been keeping up with the discussion on the FAC talk page, but the consensus seems to be that we don't need to be so strict in matching the exact GBook edition to the one used to source the article. The caveats are that the different editions must contain the same number of pages, and the GBook must have a preview. Fundamentally, if the preview can be used to verify the sourcing, it's useful if you want to link it. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I might add the URLs back to the reference section. We'll see. I don't think it's a pressing issue. I'm a bit busy reading and citing Grant (1972) at the moment. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• • I am happy to announce that I have removed Behindthename.com entirely from the article and replaced it with scholarly sources instead. That Harvard University website for the Center for Hellenic Studies was a real lifesaver here.
  • User:Graham Beards was kind enough to remove hyphens and add dashes to the inline citations and refs! You can check and see if there are any remaining hyphens, but they seem to have all been removed.
  • User:Ssven2 recently changed the refs in the "Further reading" section from "citation" to "cite book" instead. Should I do the same for the main "References" section?

Don't know what the difference between the two is, and the results look fine to me. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• • I have fixed the instances where "pp" needed to be "p" and vice versa.
  • I have removed the URL for Fletcher (2008), since I cannot find a suitable online alternative and I used my own physical copy of the book published by Harper. It's better to have no URL than a false one leading to a different edition of the book.
  • I have changed Grant's ref from the 1992 B&N version to the 1972 version by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, which is most certainly not a self-published source.
  • I have added OCLC numbers for Lippold and Sartain as requested.
  • I have changed the ISBN for Schiff (2011).
  • I have added a DOI number for Skeat (1953) and a JSTOR link for Walker (2008).
  • I am still in the process of converting all ISBN-10 numbers to ISBN-13 ones instead. Give me a little more time on that. I should be able to finish that very soon, most likely before the end of the day. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to announce that I have changed all ISBN-10 numbers to ISBN-13 ones instead! It didn't take nearly as long as I thought it would, thanks to the handy navigation tool Worldcat. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: as far as citations and sources are concerned, is everything in good standing now? Or do you have further concerns that need to be addressed? Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You've addressed all the issues I've identified above. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! Glad to hear it. Thank you. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding criteria 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"), I'm no egyptologist and know nothing of the historography, so I googled Cleopatra and found Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt by Joyce Tyldesley. To my uneducated eyes this seems to be a high quality source but does not appear to have been used. Is there any reason for this? Other than that, I did not find anything to suggest that any important source has been neglected. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a good question! To be honest, I wouldn't put Tyldesley's Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt, published by "Profile Books", in the same league as the academic heavyweights cited in the article, those which were published strictly by university presses, museum presses, or scholarly journals. That includes T. C. Skeat's "The Last Days of Cleopatra: a Chronological Problem" (1953) published by The Journal of Roman Studies, Diana Kleiner's Cleopatra and Rome (2005) published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006) published by the University of Oklahoma Press, Susan Walker's "Cleopatra in Pompeii?" (2008) published by the Papers of the British School at Rome, Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a Biography (2010) published by the Oxford University Press, and Margaret M. Miles' Cleopatra: a sphinx revisited (2011) published by the University of California Press.
  • I would instead compare Tyldesley's book to those of Michael Grant's Cleopatra (1972) published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Jaynie Anderson's Tiepolo's Cleopatra (2003) published by Macmillan, Stanley M. Burstein's Reign of Cleopatra (2004) published by the Greenwood Press, Dodson and Hilton's The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (2004), published by Thames & Hudson, and Joann Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great (2008) published by Harper. These are legitimate book publishing companies that produce WP:Reliable sources, but they perhaps don't have the same amount of academic rigor as the first group that I listed.
  • Then we have book publishing companies that are recognized as purely academic ones, like Routledge, which published Whitehorne's Cleopatras (1994) and Günther Hölbl's History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001), the Cambridge "Polity Press" that published Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic (2007), Oxford's Blackwell that published Sally Ann-Ashton's Cleopatra and Egypt (2008), and Bloomsbury Academic that published Knippschild and Morcillo's Seduction and Power: Antiquity in the Visual and Performing Arts (2013). Again, these are to be trusted a bit more than the regular book publishing companies.
  • I wouldn't mind perusing a copy of Tyldesley's book if I had access to it, but I think the currently-cited 35 print sources and 9 online sources sufficiently demonstrate that academic consensus on each issue was investigated and a representative survey of relevant literature was at least attempted. It should be emphasized that having a decent amount of quality sources is better than having as many sources as possible. At this point adding Tyldesley's book to the pile almost seems like overkill, but I will entertain the idea if my university library has a physical copy of it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with that answer. The Gbooks listing has a preview (at least from here) that might save you a trip to the library. I did scan a few pages and compared what they said with how you covered it in the article. It was only a very cursory review, but I didn't get any sense that you had missed anything by not using Tyldesley's work. So far so good, but I intend at some stage to check a few random refs in the article against the sources. Won't be doing that in the immediate future, though. Factotem (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to do that, I would highly suggest obtaining a copy of Roller's book, which more or less serves as a backbone for much of the article, certainly the biographical part. If not that, then I would suggest looking into Fletcher or Burstein's respective works, which are also heavily cited in the article. They really helped to reinforce Roller's assertions, and I made a conscious effort, as you may see in the footnotes, to blend the ideas of various sources where they may disagree on certain points. For instance, the most glaring disagreement among these sources usually involves dates, even the months in which certain events took place. Please be wary of that, and also cognizant of the fact that the sub-articles also explain these things in greater detail (naturally). Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've recently added Michel Chauveau's Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra (2000) to the article. I'll probably cite it a few more times as well. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That checks out OK. I just noticed though that the ISBN formatting is a mix of hyphened and hyphenless. I think it's preferred to be consistent here too. I don't understand the ISBN hyphen rules myself, and tend to just remove all hyphens in articles I edit. The magic link still functions, and someone usually comes along and hyphenates them anyway. I would also ask, is this article really ready for FAC? There seems to be a significant number of edits being made every day since it was submitted. Factotem (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: Actually, the prose body of the article has been basically static since the FA nomination. I've been adding lots of footnotes and citations lately, but that doesn't change the core nature of the article. It just reinforces the scholarly citations that were already in place. The only other editing I've done lately was tinkering with the lead, to make it a bit shorter and to include a salient point about Cleopatra's multilingualism that is explained more fully in the body of the article. As for ISBNs, I have removed all hyphens as you have suggested, in order to be consistent. If someone wants to add them back they are welcome to do so, so long as they change every one of them and not just a sampling. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to let you know that I've created an article for Duane W. Roller, as a supplement just in case anyone is curious about his credentials. He is perhaps cited more than any one author in this article, so it would be a crime not to make an article for him. If someone complains about not having a GB link to his book I might add it back, but I don't feel the need to do so, especially if it's a slightly different edition than the physical print copy in my possession that I used. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Small side note: is Wikipedia dead? I appreciate all your commentary, Factotem, but you're the only one doing so. What happened to this website? At this point I'd be excited just to get someone opposing my article, let alone supporting it. At least having someone opposing it would be an indication that somebody has read it and gives a damn. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I would like to think that Wikipedia is not dead. I have been paying some attention to this article as it has progressed in status. I would add feedback, but I know nothing at all about the "Featured Article" process and I am not sure if I fully understand the criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing to say that you can't review simply on criteria 1a (well-written), which seems to be the basis of many reviews I've seen. Whether we who are not professional writers can validly assess whether an article is of a professional standard is perhaps a matter of debate, but every one of us can have a valid opinion on whether it is engaging, not to mention the ease with which a fresh pair of eyes can root out infelicitous prose that the main editor is too involved to spot. Factotem (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: hello again! In light of the five supporting votes given by reviewers below, especially by "A. Parrot" who provided his own source review, I would kindly ask that you please resume the source review that you started here. I could be wrong in judging the inner thoughts of the Wiki gods perched high above, but I believe this article will soon pass as a Featured Article Candidate. Since the reviewer "Septentrionalis" seems unresponsive after I furnished him with a lengthy reply, you appear to be the last piece to the puzzle here. Do you have any outstanding issues with the prose or sourcing? Have you been able to personally access any number of the scholarly sources cited in the article? Judging by the silence of reviewers here about images, I'm assuming that everything checks out and an image review will not be necessary. Is that correct? I look forward to your response. High regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I was going to complete my source review with a few spot checks, but I see that that's been done now by another reviewer. All my issues re: sourcing have been addressed, so happy to support on 1c. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: wow! Awesome! Thank you for your review of the article. I'm very glad to have your support. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

I am far from being an expert on the period, but I think I am well versed about the Hellenistic era, the late Roman Republic, and the people and events treated here. As such, I found the article overall well written, well researched, and quite comprehensive. There was nothing major that stood out immediately as missing, and in the sources section I see many of the same works that I know or have myself read as the chief scholarly sources about the period and subject. However, as the bibliography about the period is huge, and scholarly debate about Cleopatra's role in it is ongoing, I can only WP:AGF on the coverage. A few relatively minor observations on content and style follow:

• One thing I would like to see is whether there is any information about her domestic governance; in the article, as in the general historiography, she is mostly treated via her interactions with the Roman world, but how did she govern Egypt? I assume the ancient authors, or at least the papyri, have some indications about this. Also, what were her relations to the native Egyptians? Given that the native population was politically marginalized, and that the main domestic political audience were the Greco-Macedonian colonists, there may not be much there to set her apart from her predecessors, but it would be worth to at least state so explicitly, so far as possible.
• "Ptolemaic pharaohs spoke Greek and governed Egypt as Hellenistic-Greek monarchs from the multicultural and largely-Greek city of Alexandria established by Alexander the Great of Macedon, refusing to learn the native Egyptian language" This sentence is over-long and mixes two different things: one, the status of the Ptolemaic pharaohs, and two, that Alexandria was a largely Greek city established by Alexander the Great. I strongly recommend separating these two facts in distinct sentences, per my reverted edit.
• "with the legal status of friendly and allied monarchs to Rome" to be more techniclaly correct, I would suggest "with the legal status of a 'friend and ally of the Roman people' (Latin: socius et amicus populi Romani), in effect a client king of Rome" or something like that, as that is a specific technical term that the Romans used with a number of client rulers.
• "Domitius Ahenobarbus, wary of Octavian's propaganda, attempted to persuade Antony to have Cleopatra excluded from the campaign against Octavian." Does this mean that Ahenobarbus had been influenced by Octavian's propaganda, or that he judged Cleopatra's presence as sort of confirming Octavian's slanders? In view of his defection, his motivation is important
• "Cicero's writings provide an unflattering portrait of Cleopatra, who knew him personally." I would suggest "The writings of Cicero, who knew her personally, provide..."
• "Hellenistic-Greek", "Ptolemaic-Egyptian", "Macedonian-Greek", etc. I've come across such compounds a few times in the article and I think they are, if not incorrect, then certainly unusual. AFAIK, the common term is without the hyphens. Compounds like "largely-Greek" are definitely wrong and discouraged by MOS:HYPHEN; also "the Classical-style of the painting": either a "Classical-style painting" (like "Renaissance-period painter" that follows), or "the Classical style of the painting".
• Somewhere in the "Depictions in ancient art" section a link to damnatio memoriae would be fitting
• "Surviving coinage of Cleopatra's reign include those from every regnal year, from 51 to 30 BC" somewhat awkward, perhaps "Surviving coinage of Cleopatra's reign includes coins/specimens e from every regnal year, from 51 to 30 BC"
• In the "Depictions in ancient art" section there are, IMO, too many images, which break up the continuity of the article to the detriment of reader experience. Four views of the Vatican Cleopatra are definitely too much in any article that is not specifically about that bust. Sincere kudos for finding and uploading so many images of her, but they should accompany the article and illustrate the narrative, not dominate it. We can leave the rest to the Commons category, or articles dedicated to her artistic representations or even individual works of art.
• When linking to articles in other-language Wikipedias, I strongly suggest using the {{ill}} template rather than including them as external links. This leaves the WP:REDLINK locally for enwiki and makes clear that it is an article in a foreign language
• "dating back to [[English Renaissance theatre|the Renaissance]]" the Renaissance as a whole is a European phenomenon; if you link specifically to English theatre, make it explicit.
• "[[Macedonians (Greeks)|Macedonian-Greek]] dynasty of the Ptolemies" I recommend altering the link to Ancient Macedonians, the Macedonians (Greeks) article refers rather to the modern regional identity. Also, as a general rule, since the same term comes further along later ("the Macedonian-Greek founder") with a different link, I caution against linking the same term to two different articles. It is potentially confusing to the uninitiated reader.
• "whose relatives are described as "honey skinned"" by whom?
• " Ancient sources also describe Cleopatra as having had a stronger personality" is that only Plutarch, or also found in other authors?
• A small addition that Egypt was annexed as Augustus' personal domain rather than as a regular province might be useful, as well as Cornelius Gallus' appointment as the first praefectus augustalis, to give a connection to the new political regime of Egypt for any interested reader.

I will go over the article a couple of time over the next few days, to better digest its content and make sure I have not missed something. Otherwise, it is a splendid piece of work and PericlesofAthens deserves great praise for it. Eglerio! Constantine ✍ 11:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• • @Cplakidas: thanks for the review! I am happy to announce that I have amended the article according to all of your suggestions barring the first, where you suggested that I add information about Cleopatra's role as a monarch and administrator (and builder, lawgiver, chief religious authority, etc.). That information can already be found in the sub/split article, Reign of Cleopatra#Egypt under the monarchy of Cleopatra. I placed this link and suggestion in the "See also" section. Is that not enough? The main article is about the person Cleopatra, not about the Ptolemaic kingdom, although the "Reign" article seemed like a good place to elucidate this and provide intricate details about her role within her kingdom. If you want me to add a new section about it in this, the main article, I'd like to see the suggestions of others first, because User:Factotem has already raised concerns about the rather large size of the prose body of this article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I reverted your edit about the founding of Alexandria (and Greek as the official language of the Ptolemies) due to the fact that you split the sentence in half without connecting the previous statement to the train of inline citations and source information provided in the lengthy footnote that accompanied it. I have since resolved this problem and added yet another footnote to parse this information correctly. I hope you appreciate the enormous headache involved in this, because I had to go back and reread numerous passages throughout four different books to make sure each statement is aligned with the correct pagination of each source. This task was not as simple as just splitting a sentence and being done with it.
    • I have reworded the part about the 'friend and ally of the Roman people' (Latin: socius et amicus populi Romani); thanks for the suggestion and Latin language text for the title!
    • I have clarified the bit regarding Domitius Ahenobarbus being worried about the impact of Octavian's propaganda.
    • I reworded the sentence about the writings of Cicero.
    • I have done a thorough sweep of the article and removed all seemingly unnecessary instances where hyphens have been used. Thanks for pointing this out. This sort of habitual tick of mine is not apparent to me when I'm reading my own work, so I appreciate your efforts in pointing towards specific examples. I have fixed many others that you did not mention.
    • I have added a link to damnatio memoriae where it was most appropriate, in the "Statues" subsection.
    • I reworded the part about coinage and regnal years.
    • Per your suggestion, I have removed four images from the "Ancient depictions of Cleopatra" section. I hope it is to your liking now.
    • I have added the {{ill}} template to links leading to foreign-language Wiki articles.
    • I have placed the link "English Renaissance theatre" in a more appropriate location. It's a shame that there is no general article about Renaissance theatre. If I had all the spare time in the world I would create such an article and flesh it out, but I do not have the time to give it that sort of love and attention, the kind that it deserves.
    • I have removed the link Macedonians (Greeks) and retained the link Ancient Macedonians instead.
    • I have removed the phrase "honey-skinned" for now. This was one of the few statements added to the article by another editor, who cited the biography by Stacy Schiff, although I do not possess a copy of it. Since I cannot validate it or elaborate on which ancient source said this, I have decided to remove it for the time being, until that editor can explain his edit and reintroduce this properly.
    • I have changed "ancient sources" to "Plutarch" as you suggested, since I think he is the only one who explains this. It certainly appears that way after reading the source book from Jones.
    • In this article, I have added a footnote about Cornelius Gallus being the first governor of Egypt, ruled directly by Octavian/Augustus, while placing it prominently (outside of a footnote) in the sub-article Reign of Cleopatra.
    • Please let me know if there's anything else you think needs to be amended, removed, or added to the article! Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• • • • I've had a look at the article again, as well as the changes made in the meantime. The changes/additions satisfy most of my points. Outstanding issues and a couple of new ones follow:
      • The request about details on the governance of Egypt under Cleopatra remains. As the main article on the subject, it should at least touch upon and provide a summary of all pertinent aspects, and right now domestic governance is missing almost entirely. For instance, the debasement of the currency and the financial troubles are important, given the ambitious foreign policy she pursued, and the precedent of Auletes; I don't know or remember how far this is touched upon in the literature (of which you clearly have a better and more recent grasp), but if Egyptian finances were precarious, then her position was more unstable than usually assumed by the average reader, who probably has an image of Cleopatra and Egypt shaped more by the ostentatiousness shown in movies than by anything else. Perhaps simply mention this at some opportune point in the narrative? I leave how yo to your discretion how you best accomplish this, as the article is already very complex and information-heavy.
      • I still recommend purging more of the busts and the images of the Portland Vase. They are interesting, but not integral to the article. For example, why is a possible depiction of Mark Antony's legendary ancestor necessary at all? I think WP:SS applies here on the visual material.
      • You write that Cleopatra wanted to reclaim North Africa. Presumably you mean Cyrenaica? Then state this explicitly, because the Ptolemies never actually controlled any part of North Africa in the narrow modern sense (the Maghreb).
      • The article is very much in need of at least an overview map that shows the Eastern Mediterranean and the localities mentioned in it. Two or three maps, judiciously chosen to focus on specific areas and subjects, would be even better.
      • Other than that I could not find any further points of note for improvement content-wise. I have a concern that the article "looks" too complex and will frighten away the average reader, but I fully understand the fine line you have to tread here between providing a historical narrative and scholarly opinions. That said, for me at least the article is very readable and understandable once you get down to actually reading it. Constantine ✍ 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Response by Pericles

• @Cplakidas: hello and thank you once again for your thoughtful and refreshingly cerebral review of the article. Your argument for a new small section on Cleopatra's role as an administrator and monarch of her kingdom has persuaded me to establish a small new section at the end of the article, "Cleopatra's kingdom and role as a monarch". It contains a main article link to Reign of Cleopatra VII#Egypt under the monarchy of Cleopatra in case our readers would like to know more about the subject in greater detail. I think it neatly and sufficiently wraps up the whole article, which is now better for it.
• As stated before, User:Factotem has raised concerns on his talk page about the overall prose size of the body of the article. In order to appease his concerns as well as yours, I have also recently moved a large chunk of text in the "paintings" sub-section into a footnote. Hopefully that removal of text will help to balance out the new material that has been added at your request. I can also make further trimmings to some of the sub-sections in the "Legacy" section if it is requested. Quite frankly I think the article is of a reasonable size given the massive scope of materials that have to be summarized. Further details are obviously provided in the sub-articles Early life of Cleopatra, Reign of Cleopatra, and Death of Cleopatra.
• As you requested, I have decided to remove three more images, all from the "Portland Vase" section, scrapping the gallery but retaining the most relevant image to illustrate the topic. I hope you find this sufficient, because I think the amount of pictures in the "Greco-Roman busts" section is of a reasonable amount after removing four of them previously. I could perhaps remove the British Museum bust image and just retain the Berlin and Vatican busts, but I would rather not do that since the British Museum bust, although disputed, is heavily described in the prose of that sub-section.
• I actually made no such claim that Cleopatra wanted to reclaim "North Africa" itself. Reflecting the almost exact language of the source material (Roller, 2010), I merely stated in one instance (while discussing learned languages) that she desired to reclaim North African AND West Asian territories (which is preferably terse statement that avoids offering a litany of previous Ptolemaic territories in those areas that she desired to control). Further down I do mention Cyrenaica ("Cyrene") on multiple occasions, including in relation to the Donations of Alexandria, so I don't think our readers are being misled on this issue. Ancient Libya was in fact part of North Africa, which technically encompasses a far greater region than just the Maghreb. Roller's chosen terminology is even backed up here by Michael Grant (classicist) (1972: pp. 7–8), if you would like me to provide a citation from him as well.
• You raise an excellent point about maps, but unfortunately, I am way ahead of you and have already scoured Wikimedia Commons for a suitable map with proper sourcing. I was unable to locate even ONE suitable map of the Ptolemaic Kingdom during the 1st century BC and particularly during the reign of Cleopatra. You can even check on this yourself: commons:Category:Maps_of_Ptolemaic_Egypt. I'm almost 100% positive I did not overlook anything there. A featured article obviously is held to higher standards than other articles. I simply cannot add a map image to the article that would raise problems in regards to sourcing and accuracy. Unfortunately I am not talented enough to create my own maps based on scholarly sources. If you can locate a Wiki map maker who is competent and capable in that regard, by all means I would gladly add his/her hypothetical map. As it stands, though, this will not be possible with the available map images.
• If there are any other issues, please feel free to raise them and I will happily tackle them for you. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have alerted Constantine about this, but in case anyone else might be interested, I have lodged a formal request with Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for a decent, well-sourced map of the Ptolemaic Kingdom (in the 1st century BC) to be created. Hopefully one of our trusty Wiki map makers will accept the job. If not, not a huge deal, but I agree with Constantine that it would provide a very useful visual aid to the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I have had a couple more read-throughs, including the recent changes/additions. The map notwithstanding, I am very close to supporting the article's candidacy as FA. A few comments on the busts: I would not normally ask for such trimming, except that the large number of images generates a huge whitespace that breaks the article in two. This is not only aesthetically a problem, but actually interrupts the reading experience. Again, either trim them to keep only those directly mentioned in the text, or condense the images that are now on the sides of the article into galleries below each relevant section, to avoid creating this whitespace. I think the latter solution is the better one, since it saves space and allows for a side-by-side presentation of the specimens. Also, I am not sure whether the Roman Republican portraiture is relevant when discussing her busts. Not my area of expertise, so I may be wrong, but IIRC, Roman portraiture was quite different from the somewhat idealized forms seen in Hellenistic sculpture, to which Cleopatra's busts definitely belong. Finally, the placement of "Cleopatra's kingdom and role as a monarch" is a bit odd, almost as an afterthought. I would definitely consider it as belonging right after the "Biography" super-section, or worked within it (after "Accession to the throne" perhaps?). PS, please email me about source material on the map(s). Constantine ✍ 09:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: thanks for responding! Per your suggestion, I have removed the Roman Republican portraiture link from the "further information" link in the "Greco-Roman busts" sub-section, placing it in a more relevant location within a footnote. I have also moved the new "Cleopatra's kingdom and role as a monarch" further up so that it is placed just below the main "Biography" section. In regards to images in the "Legacy" section, we are still at an impasse here, because I do not want to delete more images than I already have, and double-checking, I've noticed that the only images that aren't directly described in the text or extremely related to it are the paintings by Alexandre Cabanel, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, and William Etty. However, the latter two images are high quality, illustrative of the eras in which they belong, and since they are the only ones in those sub-sections, hardly an abuse of Wiki's image policies. As for giant gaps of white space between text and images, I have tested multiple browsers on my own computer (Firefox, Chrome, even Internet Explorer) and have even resized the windows in them, and yet I fail to see this issue that you are having (in my browsers the images align normally with the text). I think I know the source of your problem, though, and have since removed a {{clear}} template from the "Greco-Roman busts" sub-section that was placed right above the gallery. Please tell me if this has fixed your problem or not. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That has indeed fixed the whitespace situation, well done. Consequently, I am moving to support at this time. Constantine ✍ 15:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Awesome! Thank you very much for your support and detailed critique of the article. It is now a much better, well-rounded article due to your suggestions. Best wishes, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Векочел

You have worked hard on the article and provided sources. I cannot think of anything negative about the article. This reflects your commitment to Wikipedia.
Векочел (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Векочел: Well that's fantastic! Thank you for the compliment, and for both reading and editing the article. I'm glad you have enjoyed it. I'm assuming this means you "support" the nomination, then? Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do support the nomination of "Cleopatra" as a featured article. Векочел (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Векочел: Awesome! Once again, thank you for reviewing the article and providing helpful edits as well. Best wishes, Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Septentrionalis

Do the modern books you have chosen to follow discuss the primary sources?

The problem with any work on Cleopatra is that the ancient evidence conflicts; one example of this is the death of Caesarion, where Cassius Dio (51.15.5) tells a different narrative than Suetonius or Plutarch. We should follow the judgment of secondary sources on which one is right, but one test of the reliability of secondary sources is whether they express doubt. In this case, whether Caesarion succeeded to his mother (whatever that means under the circumstances) is not so certain that it belongs in the lead. More should follow, but doing this properly would take longer than FA's generally permit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Response by Pericles

• "Do the modern books you have chosen to follow discuss the primary sources?" Yes, some of these terrible, awful, no-good, very bad and just downright evil secondary sources just so happen to thoroughly cite the primary sources at their disposal. The strongest example of that would be Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006), which, as the title implies, is a repository for numerous translated passages from various primary sources relating the events surrounding the life of Cleopatra.
• Without getting bogged down by providing the input of every ancient historian who ever wrote about the subject, I believe the footnote solution I just made (here as well) is a far more reasonable approach for the likes of Wikipedia. I think Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a biography (2010) passes your proposed "test" for reliability, as expounded in the new footnote. Roller, citing Theodore Cressy Skeat and in a footnote naming the Stromata by Clement of Alexandria as an example source, states the following (p. 149): "With the death of Cleopatra, the kingdom legally passed to Caesarion, who ruled for 18 days as Ptolemy XV. Yet this reign was essentially a fiction created by Egyptian chronographers to close the gap between her death and official Roman control of Egypt (under the new pharaoh, Octavian). Caesarion in fact had been sent away, with ample funding, to Upper Egypt, perhaps with Ethiopia or India as an ultimate destination; making these arrangements for him was one of his mother's last actions."
• I also provided a quotation from Plutarch, translated by Jones, as an example of what one major primary source has to say about the topic. Should we list every single one that might say something different or contradict the assertion of Clement of Alexandria that Caesarion had his 18 days as a monarch? I'd rather not produce that laundry list, not without a better justification than the one you have provided.
• I also amended the lead section a bit to emphasize that Caesarion's reign was "nominal", not just "brief", as it was worded before. I think that is sufficient enough for our readers. I honestly hope it is sufficient enough for you, because the sort of verbose exposition about primary source materials that you are suggesting is best left to a footnote instead of the prose body of the article, the latter of which is already too lengthy and wordy as is. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You may also notice that the article is currently littered with footnotes that thoroughly explain various instances where either primary sources or even secondary sources disagree with each other. For instance, the date of Cleopatra's death occurring on either 10 August or 12 August 30 BC has a hefty footnote divulging the scholarly sources that support either date. There may come a point, however, when there are perhaps too many footnotes for the average Wikipedia reader to digest. The average reader probably doesn't make it very far past the lead section of the article. Not every contentious issue needs to have a lengthy footnote, especially since there are so many contentious issues among the ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern academic sources about Cleopatra. I'll entertain the idea of tackling important issues if you can spot them, but I believe our readers will have no interest in knowing the minutiae and various problems presented by conflicting reports in the vast corpus of primary sources discussing Cleopatra. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pmanderson/Septentrionalis: do you have any more concerns with the article? It has been roughly six weeks since you left a comment here. Now that it has eight supporting votes, I'd like to wrap things up, but I think your input could still be useful. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review and support by A. Parrot

I didn't get to this review as soon as I wanted to, so I'm not finished with it yet, but I can say that all of the sources look reliable. Their general quality level is very high (university presses and so forth) and most are pretty recent. However, I looked specifically for reviews of Roller, because this article leans on it so heavily, and I found one that raises questions. The reviewer says of Roller's account of the Donations of Alexandria, "A reader would not learn how vexatious modern scholars have found interpreting what Plutarch and Dio record." I dug a little deeper and started mulling how scholars evaluate the accuracy of after-the-fact ancient accounts like Plutarch's. I know Pericles has done a lot to address conflicting factual details in the accounts, but authorial biases may be trickier, particularly if all the after-the-fact authors have been influenced by Augustan propaganda. Fortunately I've located a source that discusses this very problem in some detail: the Pelling mentioned in the BMCR review wrote a chapter on it in yet another book on Cleopatra that I should be able to get in a few days. Sorry to drag this out, but the better I understand the state of the scholarship, the more I'll feel able to assess the article fairly. A. Parrot (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: better late than never! Good find! Funnily enough I already cite a British Museum web page by Susan Walker and Peter Higgs, so it would be nice to incorporate material from their Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth (2011). Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a Biography is a solid academic tome and an Oxford University Press publication to boot, but no scholar is infallible and majority consensus, if it can be discerned, is more important to Wikipedia than the input of a single work. Josiah Osgood's review of Roller's book raises interesting points and, like with any book review, the reviewer naturally has to offer some criticism. Otherwise, why write a review? Roller has a small habit of glossing over controversies and/or discrepancies in primary sources, relegating and reducing them to footnotes (for instance, the death date of Cleopatra and the numbering of Ptolemy XII's wife as either Cleopatra VII or V Tryphaena). I would like to think my Wiki article, incorporating the input of many sources (including the recent addition of Pat Southern: 2009), offers a more balanced view of things, but by all means I am all ears on how to improve various parts such as the entry on the Donations of Alexandria. The article does mention at various points the confusion about certain events thanks to Augustan-period propaganda, but this could have potentially affected other accounts of Cleopatra's reign and her relationship with Mark Antony, ones that I may not be aware of. In either case, thanks for initiating a source review. Talk to you again soon! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I noticed another salient point made by Osgood in his review. Roller identifies the person in the tax exemption document signed by Cleopatra as Canidius Crassus, but I read recently in Stanley M. Burstein's Reign of Cleopatra (2004) that the person was named Quintus Cascellius. I didn't know if this was a typo or Burstein high on the influence of drugs (lol), because the name was so different from the one provided by Roller. Lo and behold the book review by Osgood makes it clear that Klaus Zimmerman (2002) was the first to identify the person in the document as Cascellius. Roller seems to have made no note of this contention. Perhaps he is unaware of it or even disagrees with it, but he provides no indication that it could have possibly been Cascellius. I will therefore provide a footnote from Burstein about this fact and hopefully I can access Zimmerman's work too (although I generally find it more difficult to find German language sources online). Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I added the footnote using Burstein (2004) as promised: see the edit here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've spot-checked some of the references and found problems with a few of them. They're not huge, but the text tends goes slightly beyond what the sources say. I wasn't able to check many refs, because the article leans so heavily on Roller and Burstein, and not having them, I maxed out the Google Books previews for each of them pretty quickly. I recommend looking over the article again for passages that may be overstating what's said in the sources.

• Ref 167: The article text says Caesar was silent on the subject of Caesarion, but the cited text actually says the ancient accounts of Caesar's responses are contradictory, though it considers it most likely that Caesar didn't say much about it.
• Refs 259 and 260: The cited sources express more doubt than the article text does, so I recommend changing "Antony and Cleopatra were probably wed during this ceremony" to "Antony and Cleopatra may have been wed during this ceremony."
• Ref 442: The opera doesn't follow Cleopatra's entire life (Caesar is alive throughout it) so "and outlined the lifelong career of the queen" can be deleted.

On a more general level, I'd really be more comfortable if I knew of a source whose primary focus was historiographical problems with Cleopatra. (The library book that I checked out hoping it would address that problem doesn't. Naturally.) Like I say, the article goes into plenty of depth about factual details and differences between the secondary sources, but problems with the primary narrative sources don't feel as well covered because, from what I can tell, the secondary sources on which the article most relies don't discuss these problems much. All ancient authors have agendas and, to a greater or lesser extent, shape their narratives to fit; Plutarch's biographies, for instance, are all about moralizing. I've never known where to look for modern sources that discern the truth underneath that agenda. Pelling's commentary on the Life of Antony would be one such source, but I don't know where else to look. It's not something I want to oppose over, but it makes me feel uneasy. A. Parrot (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Response by Pericles

• @A. Parrot: hello! Thanks for the response. Now let's get down to business!
• "Ref 167: The article text says Caesar was silent on the subject of Caesarion, but the cited text actually says the ancient accounts of Caesar's responses are contradictory, though it considers it most likely that Caesar didn't say much about it."
  • Yes, there's that, but I deliberately wrote "publicly silent" here, which most sources that touch upon this matter agree upon at least. What they don't agree on is whether or not he privately accepted Caesarion as his son. If readers want to know more they can consult a new footnote that I have provided here from Roller explaining this. Just to let you know, this assertion that sources provided conflicting information was originally in the article and can still be found in the sub-article Reign of Cleopatra VII, but I deleted it, along with a ton of other information in various sections, because certain reviewers cannot accept an article that is so large and lengthy. It's a delicate balance, I suppose, but I simply cannot address every conflict that has ever existed in every primary source relating the life and times of Cleopatra. Please do point out any further specific problems that you think are very important, though. This was a strong example of that, I will admit.
• "Refs 259 and 260: The cited sources express more doubt than the article text does, so I recommend changing "Antony and Cleopatra were probably wed during this ceremony" to "Antony and Cleopatra may have been wed during this ceremony."
  • Sure, I see nothing wrong with that (although I see nothing terribly wrong with the previous text). I have edited the article per your suggestion.
• "Ref 442: The opera doesn't follow Cleopatra's entire life (Caesar is alive throughout it) so "and outlined the lifelong career of the queen" can be deleted."
  • I have edited the article according to your suggestion, but I'm not entirely happy about it. I think I could have simply changed "lifelong career" to "early career" and it would have been fine, but at least it is less wordy this way.
• Do you have access to a university library? Are you doing this entirely through Google Books and with the aid of the Walker/Higgs book you've obtained by now? Perhaps I could suggest some books, but I'm not sure if you would be able to access them. I'm not entirely sure if they'd be helpful either in elucidating the myriad of problems with primary sources used for constructing Cleopatra's reign. If you're looking for a critique of various primary sources, I'd suggest you get a copy of Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006). However, she's not very critical of the sources she cites in lengthy passages; she offers a more bare-bones explanatory role with her prefaces to each chapter and passage cited. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion, and I very well understand the tension between thoroughness and article size. I do have access to a university library, but it's not especially convenient for me to get to and I'm not sure I'm allowed to check books out. I need to visit it anyway (need to copy some pages of this) but won't be able to until next weekend. If you don't mind waiting that long, I'll see if I can copy the most important pages from it. A. Parrot (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: you're welcome! Thanks for explaining your difficulties in acquiring sources. I don't mind the wait, especially since this Featured Article candidacy probably won't get wrapped up until a few weeks from now anyway, given the current rate of commenting and supports given. I will do everything in my power to earn your support, though, so please bring up any issues you may spot in the article even before your trip to the library. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: hello again! Were you able to access that book from the library? I'm interested to see if it contradicts anything found in the article (considering the disagreements I found among Roller, Burstein, and Fletcher). Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I found it, though I wasn't able to check it out and compare it to the article. The only change to the article I can suggest (actually based on a footnote on Plutarch's Life of Antony that I found at the same library) is the text shouldn't indicate that the provisions of Antony's will were genuine. That Octavian seized Antony's will is not in dispute, but no one can know whether the text that Octavian read out was genuine. Anyway, I now have a copy of Burstein and will be spot-checking today, and then I'll decide whether to support on sourcing. A. Parrot (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've spot-checked a bunch of Burstein references, and they all support or, more often, partially support the statements they follow. I originally thought that two or three citations for most sentences in the article was overkill, but apparently most sentences incorporate facts from two or three sources. I'm going to assume that the other sources are cited as accurately as Burstein is and support on sourcing. A. Parrot (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: fantastic! Thank you for your thoughtful review and support of the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jens Lallensack

Great to see this highly important article here, which is truly a good read already. Still, some comments below, and some more to follow:

• I found the paragraph starting with Roman interventionism in Egypt predated the reign of Cleopatra VII a bit convoluted. For me, it was a bit difficult to follow, and I'm not always sure what the point is.

• The incestuous Ptolemaic practice of sibling marriage … – This information is of course very relevant for the reader to know; however, it is sandwiched between the storry of Ptelemy X1 and Berenice III, which makes the latter a bit difficult to follow. It might be better to point the two points (roman interventionism and sibling marriage) separately, point by point.
• I found all the different Ptolemy rulers very difficult to tell apart (and not only them, you mention a lot of different names in this article); I repeatedly had to re-read the paragraph to find out who it was as you cannot remember all of them. Would it be an idea to always cite them with full name (i.e., Ptolemy IX Lathyros instead of just Ptolemy IX), or to add a bit more redundancy (e.g., "father of Ptolemy XI")? Can be a great help to the reader.

so that the Romans had legal grounds to take over Egypt – I would add "after the assassination of Ptolemy XI" for clarity. I took a while to notice the link here.

• The second and third paragraphs of "Childhood, tutelage, and exile" provide background information about the Ptolemeic empire, but are not what the heading would suggest (no direct relevance for Cleopatra). As a result, there is no chronological order, and the information on Cleopatra are split by this side note. Might it be an idea to move the info to an section "Background", or add subheadings, for clarity?

• … but he sent them back to Cleopatra and chastised her for interfering in affairs that should have been handled by the Roman Senate. – I do not fully understand. How did he chatised her? And what affairs?

• After returning to Italy from the wars in Gaul and crossing the Rubicon in January of 49 BC, Caesar unleashed a civil war … – Caesar's civil war was already mentioned before this: Bibulus, siding with Pompey in Caesar's Civil War, …. This is a bit confusing, as it does not appear to be in chronological order. The civil war should be explained at first mention.

• … perhaps right around the time of Caesar's arrival – The chronology is hard to follow. According to the information provided before this sentence, Pompey is still in Greece. If Caesar arrives now, it does mean Pompey even arrived before him, but that was not mentioned. The first time I read this, I was wondering why Caesar arrived in the first place. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Response by Pericles

• @Jens Lallensack: hello and thanks for offering to review the article!
• "I found the paragraph starting with Roman interventionism in Egypt predated the reign of Cleopatra VII a bit convoluted. For me, it was a bit difficult to follow, and I'm not always sure what the point is."
  • There are several reasons why this background information is critical. Aside from generally showing the role of the Roman Republic in Egypt before Cleopatra even took the throne, that paragraph explains the financial troubles of the Ptolemies and their loan debts owed to Rome, a recurring theme in the article that becomes relevant for Cleopatra's reign. The paragraph also introduces Ptolemy XII Auletes and his brother Ptolemy of Cyprus and how they came to rule Egypt and Cyprus, respectively. It would be odd (if not the troubling signs of a senile and/or mindlessly sloppy Wikipedia editor) to just start discussing the suicide of Ptolemy of Cyprus later on without first indicating who he even was, correct?
• "The incestuous Ptolemaic practice of sibling marriage … – This information is of course very relevant for the reader to know; however, it is sandwiched between the storry of Ptelemy X1 and Berenice III, which makes the latter a bit difficult to follow. It might be better to point the two points (roman interventionism and sibling marriage) separately, point by point."
  • Now this is a good point! Per your suggestion, I have moved these statements about sibling marriage further down into the "Accession to the throne" sub-section where they are more relevant. I think the overall narrative flow of the article has been greatly improved by this one little move, actually. Thanks for pointing this out! It's hard for me to really notice these things, even when rereading the article.
• "I found all the different Ptolemy rulers very difficult to tell apart (and not only them, you mention a lot of different names in this article); I repeatedly had to re-read the paragraph to find out who it was as you cannot remember all of them. Would it be an idea to always cite them with full name (i.e., Ptolemy IX Lathyros instead of just Ptolemy IX), or to add a bit more redundancy (e.g., "father of Ptolemy XI")? Can be a great help to the reader."
  • Hmm...I'm not sure if adding their epithets and nicknames in each instance is such a good idea (and we would have to be consistent about that throughout the entire article). I'd rather avoid verbosity and repetitiveness as much as possible, especially considering the source reviewer's concerns about the overall size of the article. You can blame it on the Ptolemies, and their insistence on naming all the pharaohs the same way!
• "so that the Romans had legal grounds to take over Egypt – I would add "after the assassination of Ptolemy XI" for clarity. I took a while to notice the link here."
  • Good suggestion! I've amended the article accordingly.
• The second and third paragraphs of "Childhood, tutelage, and exile" provide background information about the Ptolemeic empire, but are not what the heading would suggest (no direct relevance for Cleopatra). As a result, there is no chronological order, and the information on Cleopatra are split by this side note. Might it be an idea to move the info to an section "Background", or add subheadings, for clarity?
  • This is one of those things I wouldn't have really noticed, so thanks for the suggestion! I have since added new sub-section headings and rearranged material so that it fits into a more chronological order. Again, great suggestion!
• … but he sent them back to Cleopatra and chastised her for interfering in affairs that should have been handled by the Roman Senate. – I do not fully understand. How did he chatised her? And what affairs?
  • For your convenience and for others, I have slightly reworded this part (i.e. "Cleopatra sent the Gabiniani culprits to Bibulus as prisoners awaiting his judgment, but he sent them back to Cleopatra and chastised her for interfering in their adjudication, which was the prerogative of the Roman Senate."). It seems as though you had trouble here understanding that Cleopatra figured Bibulus would be interested in judging and sentencing the prisoners who had just killed two of his sons. That said, you should know that this part directly reflects the exact language of the source material at my disposal. Duane W. Roller (2010: p. 56) writes the following: "[Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus] took up his post in Syria in 51 B.C., accompanied by his two older sons. The sons were sent to Egypt probably to return the Gabinians to active duty, as Bibulus needed more troops because of problems in his province, since Crassus's disaster in 53 B.C. had not only seriously reduced Roman military strength but emboldened the Parthians. But the sons were killed, probably with the approval of the powers in Egypt, not the quarreling Ptolemaic siblings but the senior members of the administration, especially the regent Potheinos and the military commander Achillas. Cleopatra, in her first recorded diplomatic act regarding Rome, had the killers sent in chains to Bibulus in Syria, but he returned them to her, stating that punishment was the role of the Senate, a strange rebuke to the queen for having interfered in internal Roman affairs, something that must have been confusing to her given the history of entanglements between Rome and Egypt." As you can see, this was a "strange rebuke" for Cleopatra, and "chastise" is a synonym of "rebuke", simply meaning that he reprimanded her (it is unclear if this was done verbally via a diplomat or in the form of a written message, but the wording still makes perfect sense).
• After returning to Italy from the wars in Gaul and crossing the Rubicon in January of 49 BC, Caesar unleashed a civil war … – Caesar's civil war was already mentioned before this: Bibulus, siding with Pompey in Caesar's Civil War, …. This is a bit confusing, as it does not appear to be in chronological order. The civil war should be explained at first mention.
  • I completely agree and have reworded that part per your suggestion. In fact, I simply restored the original wording of that sentence that has been preserved in the sub-article Reign of Cleopatra. The GAC reviewer actually reworded this part in the main article and I did not like it very much, but I decided not to challenge him over something that seemed rather trivial at the time.
• … perhaps right around the time of Caesar's arrival – The chronology is hard to follow. According to the information provided before this sentence, Pompey is still in Greece. If Caesar arrives now, it does mean Pompey even arrived before him, but that was not mentioned. The first time I read this, I was wondering why Caesar arrived in the first place.
  • I can see how this could confuse some readers and thus I have decided, per your suggestion, to simply remove this phrase from that sentence. It's not an incredibly important detail anyway, only a suggestion by Roller (an uncertain one at that). Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:PericlesofAthens, for the improvements. I read through the remainder of the article, but could not find anything substantial. Great work. I am happy to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: thank you for your review and support! I'm glad that you enjoyed the article and that I was able to address all of your concerns. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hrodvarsson

I agree with Jens Lallensack that the somewhat tangential detail may be better suited to a "background" section. I also agree with some of the concerns about chronology, though I do not think the biography section is confusing when taken as a whole.

Additionally, I have some specific comments:

• What is the reason for "Syriac?" in parentheses beside "the Syrian language"? This stuck out as unusual, and disrupted reading.

• "her little sister Arsinoe IV". Little sister seems slightly informal to me. I prefer "younger sister", which is currently used in the lead.

• "view of Cleopatra— that became". No spaces for em dashes.

• I think there are some instances of mishyphenation, Ctrl+F "-century" to look them over. I should have been more specific. Regardless, this has been fixed.

• I am not sure if this is MOS, but I think the references should be ordered numerically, if possible. (There might be an automated way of doing this.)

On review, this article is of high quality. I have not reviewed an FA before so I am not well accustomed to the process but I believe it meets the FA criteria, provided the minor issues are fixed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Response by Pericles

• @Hrodvarsson: thank you kindly for reviewing the article!
• What is the reason for "Syriac?" in parentheses beside "the Syrian language"? This stuck out as unusual, and disrupted reading.
  • Good point. I have decided to reword this to "(perhaps Syriac)" instead, because we are unsure what the ancient historian Plutarch meant by Cleopatra's knowledge of the "Syrian" language.
• "her little sister Arsinoe IV". Little sister seems slightly informal to me. I prefer "younger sister", which is currently used in the lead.
  • Another good point! I have amended the article per your suggestion.
• "view of Cleopatra— that became". No spaces for em dashes.
  • I have fixed this per your suggestion.
• I think there are some instances of mishyphenation, Ctrl+F "-century" to look them over. I should have been more specific. Regardless, this has been fixed.
  • Yep, I followed your suggestion and have amended the article as such.
• I am not sure if this is MOS, but I think the references should be ordered numerically, if possible. (There might be an automated way of doing this.)
  • I have looked through Help:Citation tools and there doesn't seem to be any quick way of numerically reordering all of the inline citations with the SFNP template that I have chosen for the article. It would be an enormous task (and quite a headache) to reorder them as they stand now. There's another problem with this, though, considering the gradually shifting nature of the article, even during the FAC process. Per your suggestions and those of User:Jens Lallensack, just today I rearranged a significant amount of text in the article, which in turn reordered tons of different citations and footnotes. That means I would have to numerically reorder the inline citations and footnotes, perhaps in various places throughout the article, virtually every time there is any significant shifting of material. There's also no guarantee that another reviewer won't just come along in the near future and request that further material should be shifted around, necessitating the reordering of citations once again. If someone knows an easier way to handle this, please speak up right now! Before I embark on the arduous journey of reordering all the citations in the article (ouch). Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If it is not mandated by MOS/FA criteria/etc., do not trouble yourself with the ordering. It is just something I do, though I am usually editing articles 1/20th the size so it does not require much time or effort. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: I found it! Apparently this is not a rule or guideline of the MOS. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text–source_integrity: "Editors should exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained. References need not be moved solely to maintain the chronological order of footnotes as they appear in the article, and should not be moved if doing so might break the text-source relationship." Exactly! In many cases, the first citation given in my article is usually the most important or the first one that was used, with others tacked on as ancillary sources that support the first one. I'd rather keep it that way, if you don't mind, especially since Wikipedia policy and guidelines urge us to do things this way. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. As all of my suggestions have been implemented or otherwise resolved, I support the nomination of this article as an FA. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: You're welcome, and thank you for reviewing and supporting the article! I'm glad that you enjoyed reading it and your suggestions have led to significant improvement. Best wishes, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Johnbod

• The lead is very dense, paras 2 & 3 especially, but also 4. Pretty late to complain about that, I know, though I think I have done so before.
• She "featured heavily in ancient Latin poetry". Did she? Later "... Vergil, Horace, Propertius, and Ovid perpetuated the negative views of Cleopatra approved by the ruling Roman regime,[370][373] although Vergil established the idea of Cleopatra as a figure of romance and epic melodrama.[374] Horace also viewed Cleopatra's suicide as a positive choice," but I suspect these are pretty brief references, and all from the Augustan period? If so, should be toned down. Lucan seems to have something too.
• "ostensibly accompanied by his then 11-year-old daughter Cleopatra" - "ostensibly" seems the wrong word here, & flow is poor. Better: "ostensibly accompanied by his daughter Cleopatra, then about 11."
• "evidence that she had rejected her brother Ptolemy XIII as a co-ruler.[91][93][95] Cleopatra probably wedded her brother Ptolemy XIII,[74] but it is unknown if their marriage ever took place." - reads oddly. Rejig, say "evidence that she had rejected her brother Ptolemy XIII as a co-ruler.[91][93][95] She had probably married him, but there is no record of this."
• More later. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply by Pericles

@Johnbod: hi John! Nice to see you. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. These are great suggestions! Allow me to explain my recent edits per your advice given above:

• Although it pains me to remove what I consider to be important details in the lead section, I noticed a sentence that could be put on the chopping block and removed entirely without harming the overall narrative flow of the lead. The hosting of the mock Roman triumph of Antony in Alexandria celebrating his victory over Armenia (with the Armenian king as a paraded prisoner in his procession) was an important event in Cleopatra's reign and is rightly covered in the body of the article. However, when weighed against other pivotal details like the love affair with Julius Caesar, or Donations of Alexandria, or the killing of her own siblings, I think an explanation of the triumph in the lead isn't as necessary as explaining these other facts. Check the lead section now; I think this recent trimming has made it look much tidier!
• I have removed the phrase "featured heavily" before "Latin poetry" in the lead section. Although this was my assessment based on the numerous passages I read in Jones' primary source book and other publications, perhaps you're right in thinking that it was mostly Augustan-period poetry and not necessarily all subsequent Roman poetry.
• Per your suggestion, I have amended the sentence about Ptolemy XII's visit to Rome so that it now reads as thus: ""ostensibly accompanied by his daughter Cleopatra, then about 11." I think the word ostensibly is the correct adjective to use here, given the footnote that follows this sentence: Fletcher 2008, pp. 76–77 expresses little doubt about this: "deposed in late summer 58 BC and fearing for his life, Auletes had fled both his palace and his kingdom, although he was not completely alone. For one Greek source reveals he had been accompanied 'by one of his daughters', and since his eldest Berenice IV, was monarch, and the youngest, Arisone, little more than a toddler, it is generally assumed that this must have been his middle daughter and favourite child, eleven-year-old Cleopatra."
• Per your suggestion, I have reworded that sentence about Cleopatra possibly marrying her brother.
• I eagerly await the rest of your review! It has already led to some significant improvements in regards to the prose and reduction of the admittedly lengthy lead section. Warm regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: hi again, John. Any other concerns with the article? Are you busy this week? Since the article has now received its seventh supporting vote, I am eager to wrap things up here. Sorry to be pushy about it! If you have any spare time this week I'd love to see your response and further suggestions for improving the article. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll just have to be patient. Hard I know. I've only read through as far as I've commented. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Has the recent reduction of the lead section been sufficient enough in your view? I think it looks much better now and is finally of a reasonable size. Also, it has been two weeks since your initial comments here. Is the article too lengthy for you to digest in that amount of time? Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Continuing: Anthony's divorce from Octavia should be worked in - currently it first appears (re 34 BC) in note 44 "while Burstein 2004, p. 29 says that the marriage publicly sealed Antony's alliance with Cleopatra, in defiance of Octavian now that he was divorced from Octavia". - but then later "During the spring of 32 BC Antony and Cleopatra traveled to Athens, where she persuaded Antony to send Octavia an official declaration of divorce."
• The account of the Battle of Actium is rather unclear. The article on the battle suggests the idea was to get their fleet to Egypt, rather than defeat Anthony's fleet, though this meant abandoning Anthony's large land army. This at least makes more sense of C's leaving the scene, but both leaders leaving seems to have left the rest of their fleet becoming disheartened. What do the sources say?
• Note 56 reads "For further information, see ." !
• The fiddly stuff about the two hands on the papyrus could be made clearer, esp. in the caption. Amazing we have this though.
• You several times call sculpted heads of C and others "busts" ("bust" gets 38 hits). A bust has to include, well, the bust area, and the shoulders, like the Bust of Cleopatra. If it stops halfway down the neck it's a "head". The Romans made busts for various purposes, but also left many heads that are usually broken off at a later point from full-length statues, and the article is full of these.
• As I've said before (article talk?), I have my doubts that all these Roman images actually do represent C, but the refs are all there.
• "Arguments in favor of it depicting Cleopatra include the strong connection of her house with that of the Numidian royal family, Masinissa and Ptolemy VIII having been associates and Cleopatra's own daughter marrying the Numidian prince Juba II" - is this because the men seem to be black Africans? If so, better say.
• A link to the steel engraving would great in the note, if we have one.
• "... negative depiction of Cleopatra in De Mulieribus Claris and De Casibus Virorum Illustrium by the 14th-century Italian poet Giovanni Boccaccio." Boccaccio is indeed a 14th-century Italian poet, but both of these very popular works are in Latin prose. Better make that clear.
• Shakespeare "provided a salacious view of Cleopatra "? Not really. I'm beginning to distrust Roller.
• " Bara's Cleopatra also incorporated elements of 19th-century Orientalism, such as despotism," a bit odd - if C wasn't a despot, who was? Don't blame the Orientalists!
• "Colbert's character of Cleopatra served as a glamour model for selling Egytpian-themed products in department stores in the 1930s, which can be linked to director Cecil B. DeMille's filming techniques and emphasis on consumer commodities targeting female moviegoers" - squeezing a bit too much in here, I think. Need to explain more expansively.
• Ok, that's it I think. Phew! Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply by Pericles

@Johnbod: hi John! Thanks for getting back to me.

• I fixed the Burstein 2004 p. 29 note (footnote #44), adding p. xxii for greater context, so that it clearly states that Antony did not divorce Octavia until 32 BC. You have a good eye for these things!
• Speaking of Burstein, I used his input to add the following about the Battle of Actium, in case it wasn't totally clear: "Burstein writes that partisan Roman writers would later accuse Cleopatra of cowardly deserting Antony, but their original intention of keeping their sails on board may have been to break the blockade and salvage as much of their fleet as possible." --> Essentially, Antony perhaps had every intention of staying in Greece or at least supporting and ferrying his troops where needed. I obviously don't think his intention from the start was to disastrously abandon his land armies in Greece. Do you think the article somehow gives that impression? I'd locate a source that explicitly says otherwise, but I can't seem to find any that says this exact statement as clear as day. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• I fixed note 56: apparently this was just a typo, where I wrote "sfnp" instead of "harvnb", rendering "Raia & Sebesta 2017" invisible on the page (i.e. when viewed outside of the editor).
• I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "fiddly stuff", but did you want me to clarify that the document is written in two different hands? I thought that was implied with the emphasis that it contained Cleopatra's signature "make it so", not that she wrote the entire thing. I would state this explicitly, but unfortunately I don't think my sources explain this lucidly. Perhaps you know of a source that does?
  • • I've fiddled with this; hope it's ok. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @Johnbod: yeah, that's fine. It reflects the source material I used well enough. Your version also reads better, I suppose. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• In regards to busts versus heads, I have considered it and I have to agree with you, so I changed Ptolemy XII's portrait caption along with the British Museum head one, but not the Vatican or Berlin portraits. They are unanimously described as "busts" by the sources cited there in that section, so my language reflects that of the source material. The British Museum portrait is most certainly just a head, as you suggest, since Walker and Higgs 2017 explicitly call it so and say that it was indeed removed from a full life-size statue.

I'm not happy about this, I must say. If it helps, here is a catalogue entry by a proper art historian of the Vatican head, which refrains from calling it that, unlike eg the coins in the next entry. Having just changed one, there are still 30 "busts" in the text - not all are wrong, but too many are. "Bust" includes "head" surely, so there is little harm in being cautious? Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I can't access the Google Books page that you linked to here. In either case, here is an example (James Grout, 2017, University of Chicago) where an academic source clearly labels both the Berlin and Vatican portraits as "busts", not "heads". I'm merely using the terminology accepted by the sources that I have used. Are we so sure that the Vatican and Berlin portraits are not busts that have been damaged? Investigating your own source for other pages, the previous page on the portrait of Pompey the Great calls it a "bust" even though most of the neck is gone, arguing that this is the case because it was originally a bust with the full neck (and presumably the shoulders too). You are welcome to change the wording of the article any way you like, since I don't really care either way, but just know that doing so directly contradicts the sources that I have used. Is there another source, via Google Books or better yet a more stable one like a university web page that exclusively calls these portraits heads instead? If so, I'd be more than willing to change the wording. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...on second thought, there is at least one source of mine that calls them heads, not busts. Raia and Sebesta (2017, College of New Rochelle) explicitly says this. Since there seems to be disagreement in the use of terminology among my sources, I suppose we can choose one or the other, and since you are rather adamant about it, we can use your choice of "heads" plus "portraits", which is a neutral term. I'll go ahead and edit the article now. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: although your suggested phrasing now reigns supreme throughout the article, I have nevertheless added a little footnote about the academic discrepancies among various sources in regards to the preferred terminology of either "busts" or "heads". I have also wrote more neutral labels such as "portrait" and "sculpture", which would be true of either a bust or a head broken off from a statue. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with the text now, except I think the footnote is excessive. I don't believe there is disagreement as to what is a bust and what is a head, I think it's more some writers are more precise than others (some are art historians and some not). Roman statue heads were very often made seperately from the body and then attached, but with a weak join. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to respond to the innate doubts and voices in your head, John (lol), but the sources in that section are all pretty clear about who these images depict and I have carefully worded each instance to note that many are highly likely representations of Cleopatra, not definitive ones like her coinage. We're still talking 90% certainty here for a lot of them, though. Her coins are obviously irrefutable since they were minted with her unmistakable written name in the legends.
• I previously added links to the steel engraving by John Sartain in both the image caption and main body prose, but I have also now added it to the footnote in that paragraph about the encaustic painting, as you have suggested.
• As you have suggested, I have clarified that the works by Boccaccio were indeed written in Latin (not Italian).
• You distrust Roller? Why? For starters he is not cited there for Shakespeare, that's Rowland, as in Ingrid D. Rowland. I can see where your eye got confused, since their surnames both begin with an R and they were published around the same time (Roller in 2010, Rowland in 2011), but they are completely separate sources. In either case, I softened the tone here to "somewhat salacious" since Cleopatra was being measured against the literal Virgin Queen of England, Elizabeth I. In comparison, yeah, she might have seemed a bit lusty and flirtatious. Lol. Have you seen the one with Timothy Dalton, back in the 80s? I think it's on Youtube. The woman actress playing Cleopatra in that rendition is definitely a lively, flirty gal.
• As for Bara's Cleopatra and Oriental despotism, I'm only reporting what Wyke & Montserrat (2011) had to say about it. Is there some way you would suggest rewording it? Personally I think it's a salient point, that along with the "overt female sexuality" that was embodied in Bara's character. Bara's Cleopatra was a sex-fiend who was also equally cruel and demanded abject obedience from her slaves. Heh. Outside of the scenes of the movie itself, they even did silly things in public to promote the film like having her poor "reincarnated" servant read announcements aloud for her.
• As for the whole Cecil B. DeMille thing, I decided just to remove that part, since the article is long enough and we don't need to make it longer by going off on a tangent about his film techniques. It's tangential compared to the idea (already plainly stated) that Colbert's Cleopatra was indeed used to sell products to female moviegoers, in subtle, subconsciously-planted ideas of course.
• Once again, thanks for reviewing the article! It has led to some rather noteworthy improvements (especially the clarification of the bust versus head thing). Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ooh! One last thing. I forgot to address your point about the painting from the House of Giuseppe II in Pompeii, the one with Cleopatra committing suicide by consuming poison. I'm not sure how to answer you here, though, since I don't see any black sub-Saharan Africans in the painting. Perhaps one of the two maidservants (Charmian?) has rather dark skin, but I'm not sure if she's supposed to be some Nubian/Kushite from Sudan, or an Ethiopian (right before the Kingdom of Aksum), or for that matter some West African tribeswoman from below the Sahara Desert (centuries before the region would become relevant or firmly connected to the Mediterranean with the Ghana Empire). The men in the painting also do not look black to me. Lol. They look like white/European/Mediterranean Romans and Greeks with bronzed skin and suntans (that was a common trope in conjunction with the light skin of Greek and Roman women and wives...in contrast to their suntanned husbands...an artistic trope going all the way back to the ancient Minoan civilization and ancient Egypt). The source cited here, Duane W. Roller (2010), doesn't say anything about black people or skin color for that matter. Also, Juba II of Mauretania was a Numidian. The Numidians were a Berber people. I think the vast majority of them at this point were brown or olive skinned Caucasians (from the same Neolithic farmer stock that populated the entire Mediterranean basin in prehistorical times). Black Africans from below the Sahara Desert did not migrate north in any significant numbers until the Early Middle Ages, thanks largely to intensified trade contacts and, unfortunately for them, the Muslim Arab slave trade. Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • My query about this comes from both the possible subjects given (Sophonisba & Cleopatra) set it in Africa, and you saying "Arguments in favor of it depicting Cleopatra include the strong connection of her house with that of the Numidian royal family,...", which only makes sense taking an African setting as a given. That is not especially obvious to me from the low-res pic. There is the alleged crocodile I suppose, but the other figures do seem rather dark compared to the two in the middle, so I thought it might be that. If not, does it really need to be given a history painting subject, or could it just be genre painting? I see your website source just describes it as "Wall painting of banquet scene in a colonnaded room". I'm still left wondering why Cleopatra's connections are "Arguments in favor of it depicting Cleopatra". Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Ok, that's it - I won't delay my support any longer, despite a couple of minor points above. A very fine piece of work - I hope it won't in fact be your swansong! Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: thank you kindly for the support, good sir! I'm glad that, in your view, the article has finally met the standards of FA quality. As for the painting from the House of Giuseppe II, the source "www.pompeiiinpictures.com" unfortunately relies on Wolfgang Helbig's 1868 Wandgemälde der vom Vesuv verschütteten Städte Campaniens, which is obviously very dated compared to the source I'm using by Roller (Oxford University Press, 2010). I know you and others have your qualms about Roller, but he's generally reliable and reasonable when it comes to explaining ancient works of art and Cleopatra's royal iconography. He rarely writes in definitive, absolute terms about these works, reserving that for obvious things like Cleopatra's coinage. As for this painting from Pompeii, it's rather ridiculous to portray it as a banquet scene. I mean, just look at it. Who else besides the woman in the center is drinking anything? Everyone has solemn looks about them, especially the two women in the center, who seem to be consoling each other or crying. Not exactly the lively scene one would expect of a banquet, especially one in an environment that curiously matches some of the descriptions of Cleopatra's tomb offered by Plutarch. Rather, this is the sort of image that springs to mind when speaking about an ancient Roman banquet as depicted in frescoes from Pompeii. The differences are about as stark as night and day. Anyways, cheers, good fellow! I'll also take into consideration your suggestion to stick around. ;) High regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Katolophyromai

My main concern initially was the length of the article since it was, if I remember correctly, over 230,000 bytes, which I thought was rather exuberant, but now it has been trimmed down to 180,089 bytes, which I think is a perfectly reasonable size for an article about a historical figure of Cleopatra's immense importance. (If we can afford a 335,573-byte article about Barack Obama and call it featured, I think 180,089 is plenty reasonable enough for Cleopatra, who I think has much greater long-term historical significance.) Another major concern I had was the length of the lead, which, before the GA review, was simply outlandish. Now, however, after much trimming, the lead seems to (finally) be a reasonable length. The article reads clearly, covers the topic very thoroughly, has plenty of insightful images, and, from what small amount of source-checking I have done, seems to be impeccably sourced, so I am going to go ahead and cast my vote in support. If this is not a Featured Article material, I honestly do not know what is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: thank you for the kind words of support! I'm glad that the article, especially the lead section, meets your expectations for a Featured article. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

IP comment

Congratulations on tackling an important subject such as this, with such a wide historical and cultural legacy. May I make three small comments as a reader:

• Sorry, but the lead is still quite long and heavy. Please, consider limiting it to only what must be said. At present, it also displays a tendency towards a sea of blue links.
• This is a purgatory of footnotes. 75 notes (if it is not worth saying in the text, do we really need the footnote? there is enough material there for a second article) and then nearly 400 citations (the vast majority of which simply link to different pages in one of the three main sources: Burstein, Fletcher, Roller). Please, can something be done to bundle them up together, so fewer sentences end with three or four blue numbers? If you have three biographers saying essentially the same thing,^{[118][119][120][note 87]} do you really need a separate citation to each?^{[121][122][123][note 88]}
• There is a wealth of images to pick from over the last 2,000 years, but do we need a bust of every historical figure mentioned, and quite so many 19th century paintings? Why are there three oil paintings and a mosaic Roman wall painting of her death, for example?

That said, it is a fine article, so well done. 213.205.240.209 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, most of the things listed by the IP editor above as flaws were things that I liked about the article. I liked that it had so many citations and images. I do think that the user may have a good point about the WP:OVERLINKing, though, since there are quite a few common terms in the lead that are linked that probably do not need to be, such as "poisoning" and the names of all the specific forms of visual art in which Cleopatra has been depicted. I thinking we can safely assume most people will already known what a "painting" is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, plus I'd already removed one link to History of painting, along with others that aren't really likely to help the reader. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am glad I can at least make one good point! Chacun à son goût, as they say. So you like the way each sentence ends with three footnotes, or the way that the same page might be referred to in four or five different combinations with the pages before or after? I find that awfully disruptive to the flow of the prose. (Yes, we know you have read the biographies. You don't have to cite every page.) Similarly, for me, so many images rushing in from left and right makes the article a bit of a slalom. Perhaps they could usefully be collected in a few galleries, like the busts of Cleopatra. But on that, we have List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra and Death of Cleopatra (both heavily illustrated) (and Category:Cultural depictions of Cleopatra) so perhaps we could get away with fewer of them here (Gérôme, Alma-Tadema, Renault, Arthur, Cabanel, Tiepolo, Etty, ...). 213.205.240.209 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Response by Pericles

Hello IP! Allow me to address each of your points:

• The lead section, believe it or not, has seen significant trimming over the past two months. If you would like for something to be removed at this point, could you offer us specific examples? From what I can tell it includes vital biographical details of the main body of text and summarizes the more salient points of the article. As mentioned above in my response to Johnbod, I recently excised an entire sentence from the third paragraph, but only because I weighed it against the others and decided that Mark Antony's triumph in Alexandria was not as important to Cleopatra's life and career as other things covered in the lead section.
• I'll see what I can do about over-linking, although to be honest I don't think it's enormously unreasonable at the moment. Many links have been removed in the course of this review, perhaps rightfully so, and perhaps there are others that should probably be removed, but I'd like to hear specific suggestions, because it is hard for me to judge or edit my own work.
• The footnotes and citations are actually a carefully-constructed compromise on the talk page. The inline citations are also not excessive, since Wikipedia:Citation overkill states that three is the maximum amount that is accepted, and the article does not deviate from this rule. In another review of this article (see above), I have also explained to another reviewer that in most cases many citations are needed not just for validation and scholarly consensus, but because many statements are a blending of ideas from multiple sources (for better balance and avoiding too much of a reliance on one source). The footnotes aren't just for lengthy additional explanations of the prose and source materials. As explained on the talk page, the footnotes are also an alternative to WP:BUNDLING, since the Template:Sfnp is the citation method used in this article. I do not plan on changing that to something else, like Template:harvnb, for instance. That would be an enormous task and a significant change to the article that I do not think is warranted.
• There is no mosaic in the article that I'm aware of but there is an ancient Roman painting of Cleopatra's death from Pompeii. Its inclusion is important given how it is described at length in the "paintings" sub-section. In either case, I'd like to hear the input of others here, because personally I don't think the article has an excessive amount of images. In fact many of them were removed, as you can see from the conversation I had above with User:Cplakidas (aka Constantine). You include examples like Tiepolo and Etty, and yet those images are the only ones that illustrate entire sub-sections (the Tiepolo painting being the only image demonstrating the Medieval/Early Modern period and the painting by Etty being the only example representing Modern artworks). Notice how the sub-section "written works" doesn't have an image at all, because none are available or relevant for that sub-section. I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with User:Katolophyromai about images and citations, but I will earnestly try to remove seemingly excessive links in the article as you have suggested. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Do ignore my comments if you must, but:

• The lead section is currently four dense paragraphs with a blow-by-blow account of her life, with almost a sentence on each year from 58BC to 30BC. I fear there is a "wood for the trees" issue here. Summarise, simplify: imagine your reader is 11 or 14 years old. The detail is below for the college students and the adults! If I have time, I'll have a stab at it myself.
• The same with the images: again, *why* three 17th-19th century paintings of the Death of Cleopatra? (I mistook the Pompeii wall painting for a mosaic: keep that!) What important perspectives are they adding? Surely they are not just eye-candy?
• As for the citations, Wikipedia:Citation Overkill does not require three citations for each sentence: it suggests three is the absolute maximum before bundling is better. It suggests one is usually ok, and two or three may be required for points that are controversial or likely to be challenged. You might want to think about a covering citation for whole paragraphs or sections, where they are largely reporting agreed material from the biographies, with more targeted specific citations for points of detail where there is disagreement. I find this unremitting density of citation - statement [1][2][3] statement [4][5][6] statement [7][8][9] - very off-putting.

And now I am repeating myself. Sounds like I am in a minority of one here, so I will let this go. 213.205.240.209 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, taking into consideration what you have said, I have begun the process of de-linking several things in the lead section and will do a full sweep of the article to remove links where they perhaps aren't terribly necessary. I have also decided to remove the painting by Reginald Arthur depicting Cleopatra's death, but I'm keeping the paintings by Cagnacci and Regnault, because I do not think their inclusion is excessive. I hope you find these changes to be suitable. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, while it may be easy for some articles to just have less citations and that's that, for Cleopatra it is a different story. There are a lot of competing and contradictory claims by scholars, hence the hefty amount of citations and explanatory footnotes. It's not really my fault that she's a controversial figure. A lot of details about her life are still hotly contested by academics. The sheer amount of disagreements between Roller and Burstein alone warrants the inclusion of both in many instances. Just look at the amount of scholars who can't even agree on the precise date of her death, for instance. Additionally, User:Factotem expressed concerns above (that I have thankfully addressed) that the article probably didn't have enough input from a wider variety of scholars. Do you see what I have to balance here? I'd like to accommodate everyone, but that is simply impossible. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2018 [52].

---

Hudson Sesquicentennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... another commemorative half dollar, but one that became controversial when the price was run up by coin dealers, as too often happened. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• One very small presentational point: I don't think 28 citations justifies 4 columns, and I'd reduce this to two. Otherwise, the sources are all of appropriate high quality, providing comprehensive voberage of the subject.

I intend to carry out a prose review in a few days, but I will be mainly offline during the next 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ive removed the columns. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

General review

• Lead, second para: I question the use of the conjunction "though". The purpose of "though" is to qualify or mitigate a statement with further information. In this case, "and" seems the more appropriate conjunction – if, indeed, the matter of the Rhode Island half-dollar is worthy of mention in the lead.
• Background etc

• Link Albany?
• "it was the responsible official or group to be designated by the Mayor of Hudson": I'm not sure that I fully understand this phrasing. Should it be "In the case of the Hudson half dollar, the responsible official or group was to be designated by the Mayor of Hudson"?
• "the two versions passed" – can you explain why two versions?

• Preparation

• The first sentence, which contains a massive subordinate clause, is hard to read as presently written. I wonder if all the info provided is really necessary? Could we perhaps omit the wording from "charged with..." to "including coins", leaving us with: "On the day Roosevelt signed the legislation, Congressman Goodwin wrote to Charles Moore, chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts, requesting the names of suitable artists to design the coin."
• "The company apparently contacted the Mint for advice as Chief Engraver Sinnock wrote on May 23." Again, curious phrasing. At the very least, there should be a comma after "advice", and perhaps add "to them" after "wrote"?
• "Beach quoted this passage" – what passage?

• Design

• "The seal design comes from the fact that Hudson was a whaling port" – a bit clunky; pehaps "The seal design reflects Hudson's character as a whaling port..."
• "the quint device" – presumably "quaint"
• Likewise "Straightforward faire" – "fare", surely?

• Production

• "bought 1,000 more" – delete "more"
• "and the Hudson piece was among those described to Congress..." – described in what sense? Also, "described" in the passive form normally requires an "as".

Not much else to say about this seemingly rather squalid episode, though at least nobody died. I'll be happy to support when these points are attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I've gotten everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

For some reason my intended support doesn't seem to have regiserede, so here it is. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

I've done my level best to find anything to carp at, but I failed. Excellent piece, evidently comprehensive, widely sourced, properly illustrated, and eminently readable. Clearly FA quality in my view. I worry that Wehwalt seems on the verge of taking over control of the entire US currency, but that need not prevent the promotion of this article. Tim riley talk 17:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reviewing support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I found a typo to fix, but otherwise have the same report as Tim riley. Like some others, the PCGS Coin guide has vastly superior photos we could add as an EL. Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add it as an EL later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I could find nothing to comment on, great job Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Hudson Sesquicentennial obverse.jpg: Use seems fine, the license may want to indicate what copyright/license the photographer (for such a 3D object they have an additional copyright) has.
• File:Hudson Sesquicentennial reverse.jpg: Use seems fine, the license may want to indicate what copyright/license the photographer (for such a 3D object they have an additional copyright) has.

No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I'm not sure how to add alt text to infobox images. As for the images, Bobby131313 did not leave explicit licenses on their images but when I asked for guidance at WT:MCQ a while back, the response I got was that uploading the image in that way indicated an intent to make them available per the Four Freedoms and that explanation has generally passed when I've had to use their images.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sent a few notifiers for Bobby131313. It seems like {{Infobox coin}} does not allow ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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