Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2014

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Fifth Element

[edit]
Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1997 science fiction film. The first nomination for this article was archived just over 2 weeks ago; it did not pass as only two people were supporting it. Numerous concerns were originally brought up, 100% of which were addressed in order to obtain the support of the two reviewers. Naturally this was a time consuming process, and by the time I had the support of the second editor the nomination was at the bottom of the queue, ready to be closed. As all issues known issues have already been addressed, however, I anticipate this nomination being much smoother and quicker. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I was asked to support the nomination on my talk page, but I don't have a problem with that, since I supported the first nomination and the changes since then have been minor. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Back from an involuntary Wikibreak of several months, and I'm happy to dive right back into FAC. I love this film, and I'm really excited to see it here at FAC. Unfortunately, I don't quite think this is to the point where I can support its promotion. I'll start with references and reference formatting, as that's always been my primary evaluation demesne here:

collapsed round one of reference audit etc.
  • Most critically, you're very inconsistent about how you style online sources. I see at least four formatting styles: site name, not in italics (Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes); site name in italics (AllMovie); URL, not in italics (Rogerebert.suntimes.com, Slate.msn.com); URL in italics (dvdreview.com, dvdjournal.com).
    • The main problem here appeared to be the fact that in the cite web template, the parameter "work" (which defaults to italics) was used for some sources whilst "publisher" (no italics) was used synonymously for others. I have now made the cite web references consistent. Where the site name has a wiki article (e.g Rotten Tomatoes) I have put the site name as a wikilink. Where the site does not have a wiki article, I have used the URL (e.g dvdreview.com). This has always been my practice when using cite web. Is there a problem with this? I'll change them all to URL's if it will get your support :). Freikorp (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few of the references are incomplete. The Ebert review doesn't even site Roger Ebert as the author, nor include the publication date available. At least the Box Office Mojo reference lacks a retrieval date. Ah, there's an AllMusic reference lacking one also.
  • The Edelstein review at Slate is improperly titled; the work is not "Slate magazine review", but rather "Unmitigated Gaul: The Fifth Element and Irma Vep". Pretty much every website referenced needs to be re-checked for completeness and accuracy.
  • Henkel appears to be a dead link.
  • I'm not immediately convinced that some of these web sources constitute reliable sources. Or, rather, that they constitute the best quality reliable sources for the information provided. There are several, although I think [2] stands out on a quick look.
  • I think there are some sources with things to say that at least need to be considered, if not included:
    • Ott, Brian L., and Eric Aoki. "Counter-imagination as interpretive practice: Futuristic fantasy and The Fifth Element." Women's Studies in Communication 27.2 (2004): 149-176.
    • Brandt, Stefan. "American Culture X: Identity, homosexuality, and the search for a new American hero." In West, Russel and Frank Lay, eds. Subverting Masculinity. Hegemonic and Alternative Visions of Masculinity in Contemporary Culture. Rodopi BV (2000): 67-93. ISBN 978-9042012349.
      • I've added one sentence from this book to the article, and intend to work on adding more tomorrow. In the meantime, i'm not sure how to reference it, as the section cited is not written by the author of the book. For the time being i've simply formatted the book as if the section was written by the book's author. Is there a better way to do it or is this sufficient? Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brandt, Stefan (2000). "American Culture X: Identity, homosexuality, and the search for a new American hero". In West, Russell; Lay, Frank (eds.). Subverting Masculinity: Hegemonic and Alternative Visions of Masculinity in Contemporary Culture. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 67–93. ISBN 978-90-420-1234-9.
    • "Video Pleasure and Narrative Cinema: Luc Besson's The Fifth Element and Video Game Logic" by Warren Buckland. This article has been reprinted in several works, and I'm not sure which came first. Here is one.

Honestly, the reference formatting alone is enough for me to oppose (and I didn't check them very thoroughly, because there are some pretty fatal problems there), but I did a scan through the article body also:

  • In the plot summary, "It consists of four stones..." would have the Great Evil as an antecedent, not the weapon that it needs to refer to.
  • The process where Leeloo is restored is described as reconstruction throughout. I'm not sure whether I think that's the best word here, but in the plot section, "re-construct" is hyphenated, while later in Production, "reconstructed" is not. (I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be.)
  • "jumps off a ledge to land in the flying taxicab" (emphasis mine) implies that was her purpose, rather than a fortunate happenstance.
  • "Zorg kills the Mangalores..." but then "The publicity surrounding the contest attracts the Mangalores".
  • "Leeloo has become disenchanted with humanity". Perhaps say why, as it's sort of important to the point of the film?
  • In Themes, "eleventh hour" seems overly formal to my ear.
  • I have a weighting concern with the Themes section. The entire second paragraph is exclusively sourced to Hayward. I don't have any problems with that source in and of itself, but has no one else made any reliable commentary on these aspects of this film? I find the last sentence of this section fairly incomprehensible, personally.
    • No, as far as I can tell no other reliable source has commented on themes in the film. This was actually, by far, the hardest part of the article to expand. I started purchasing offline sources as a last resort to find some information on themes, as I knew the article would not survive FAC without a larger theme section, and of the three offline books I purchased this was the only one that contained information on themes. Thankfully, it contained a lot of information on them. The last sentence was reworded considerably on prose concerns in the original nomination; I can see your point, and i'm not opposed to removing it entirely. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do think you should try to examine the sources I suggested above. Brandt, in particular, has something different to say about the role of the masculine character in The Fifth Element than Hayward does. Buckland has an entirely different take on the film's themes and style. I don't have immediate access to Ott and Aoki, but I have high hopes there as well. I'll try to find time to attempt to scare up more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't locate a online copy of Buckland, but I have access to Ott and Aoki via my university. If you give me your email i'll happily send you a pdf copy. I intend to use Aoki and Brandt to expand the theme section tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've made a new paragraph, almost exactly the same size as the Hayward one, based about half on the Aoki reference and half on the Brandt one. Thanks for finding those btw. Freikorp (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for duplicate links. You've got some in Soundtrack, Critical response and legacy, and Accolades.

I know there's a lot of effort put into this, but at least at the moment, I regretfully oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I anticipate responding to all of your concerns by the end of the day, but i'll start with some of the easier ones now. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now attempted to address every issue except the additional sources you recommend/themes section. I'll get to those shortly. In the meantime if you could strikeout any issues you think have been resolved or let me know if you think there needs to be more work on any of them that would be appreciated. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zapped a bunch of them, and hopefully provided some help on the pesky cite book template. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think i'm finished. Your thoughts? :) Freikorp (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of those problems seem taken care of, so I've collapsed to make some room. I can still wish for content from that Buckland source, but I've only been able to track down excerpts on line. Pedantically, that's a mark against being a comprehensive literature review, but if it gets down to that being my only objection, I won't hold it against the article; FACR does not quite demand perfection, after all! Some of the references for things like DVD release dates aren't sites that I'd consider RS for broader purposes, but there's a longstanding tradition of tolerance for those sorts of relatively trivial, bare-fact details (and it is a tradition I've benefited from myself). Sourcing looks much better across the board at this point.

  • The "Milla's Tale" reference isn't cited adequately. What you've pointed at is Milla Jovovich republishing an article from a periodical on her website. We can, I think, AGF regarding the fidelity of the reprint. But, importantly, Harpers & Queen is the periodical title (so needs to be styled in italics). And Sara Buys should be credited as the author.
  • Moving on from sources, is there a reason this article doesn't fair use in an image from The Circles of Power? The screenshot used in here even has a FUR that explains it is being used to highlight the influence and comparison, and the other article uses both for that reason. It's a topic clearly discussed in the prose, so I would think a FUR there would be no problem at all.
    • No particular reason. Before I started overhauling The Fifth Element that image was the only one there, whereas the other article had both. Do you think it is acceptable for FAC to format the two pictures in the same manner they are formatted at the other article? It bothers my OCD that the two pictures are not even sizes, and they do take up a rather large chunk of space when set together the way that they are. Freikorp (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't do it exactly like it's currently done in the other article, no. Since the Circles image is more vertical, perhaps resize them to a consistent width and display them stacked in a column? I'm uncertain, but I do think we do the readers a disservice when we talk about the visual similarity between the two works, but then only illustrate half of that comparison. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to get back here in the near future for a more thorough prose review, but I caught one issue quickly:
  • From Plot, "The current Mondoshawan contact": This implies that Vito Cornelius is a Mondoshawan. Rather, consider "The Mondoshawan's current contact" or something to that end.

References are in a better place than they were previously. No official stance on the prose until I get some more time with the article, but striking my opposition; I am neutral on promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Sorry to bother you but i'm a bit anxious to get this passed. Were my previous edits enough to gain your support, or have you noticed more things that need work? :) Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get time for a prose read in the next couple of days. Don't feel anxious! This is still really high up on the FAC page. There's plenty of time (and there ought to be more reviewers) before the coordinators evaluate promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Hi, a good deal of time has passed now so if you're able to return it'd probably be helpful... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't made a edit to Wikipedia since October 2nd, and also hasn't left any clear indication on his user page of why he is currently absent, so i'm not filled with confidence that he will return before this review is closed. Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edgepedia

[edit]
  • This (could) be my first film article that I've reviewed, so please treat these as suggestions:
    • There appears to me too much blue in the lead. No sure why Earth and taxicab is blue, and we have science fiction action film and special forces major.
    • Plot: In the first paragraph "a Great Evil" seems wrong - surely grammatically it's either the Great Evil or a great evil? I can see what you're trying to say, but perhaps this can be re-phrased?
    • Themes: The quote: "echoe[d] stereotypical beliefs about gender"; don't you mean echo[ed] - i.e. you've added an 'ed'?
      • The original source said 'echoes'. Come to think of it it doesn't need to be passed tense, so i've changed it to 'echoes'. Freikorp (talk)
    • Production: "Besson envisioned the entire world...". Is 'entire' overkill? My brief glance at the source didn't justify it - surely he made up something during the film's development?
    • Effects: Does "20 feet" need conversion? e.g. {{convert|20|ft}} -> 20 feet (6.1 m)
    • Release:
      • Initial Screening: You have a repetition -> 100,000 square feet 100,000 square feet (9,300 m2). Does square feet really need linking?
      • "Gaumont spent between $1 million and $3 million"; I assume you mean US$ (As Cannes is in France it's not obvious as it is in the next paragraph).
    • Critical response and legacy: percent, per cent or %? (see WP:PERCENT). Also, in the same section "million euros in damages and interest and 2–5%".
      • Changed all variations to 'percent' for consistency. Freikorp (talk)
References
  • Books do not need an accessdate, as long as you've given the edition. See refs 8, 11, 13, 16, 31, 46, 55 (I may have missed some).
    • I didn't know that, but it makes sense. Removed. Freikorp (talk)

Thanks for the article, enjoyed reading it. Edgepedia (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. Thanks so much for reviewing. Please let me know if I haven't addressed any concern adequately enough. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. just following this up. Were my replies to your concerns adequate for you to support the nomination, or are there further concerns that you would like me to address? :) Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Freikorp, got your message on my talk page; unfortunately, I'm going to be busy travelling for the rest of October, so the time I have limited. However, I have had a chance to watch the DVD over the last week and I have a couple of a minor points:
      • When I was watching I never heard the evil planet thing being referred to as the "Great Evil". The sleeve notes call this "a planet-sized sphere of supreme evil" and the "Making of ..." special feature calls it a "dark and powerful force of evil". When I read it I though that the "Great Evil" (with capitals) was named as such. Perhaps the simplest thing to do is to lose the capital letters!
      • My DVD sleeve notes say most of the events take place in 2257 (The fifth element (Liner notes). Pathé. 1997. P8920DVD.). I can find sources on the internet for 2263, such as this one published in 2009; however by 2007 we have the 2263 date in the article and perhaps someone looked it up on wikipedia! Does this date come from elsewhere? Edgepedia (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm, it's interesting that it says 2257 in the dvd sleeve; 2263 is taken from the film itself. When Korben wakes up from his 'nightmare', you can see the time and date on his alarm clock. 2:00am 18 March 2263. The alarm clock clearly comes into focus at exactly the 16 minute and 58 second mark (at least on my iTunes copy of the film). Not sure what to do about these conflicting primary sources, i'm happy to leave it as it is but maybe we could just give an estimated date, describing the date as the mid 23rd century of something? Freikorp (talk)
PS: Can I echo Squeamish's "don't be anxious" – it took two months of my first FA to pass! The article is now a lot better than when I last looked at it! Edgepedia (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry to be on your case about it, maybe I should switch to decaf lol. Freikorp (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edgepedia. Just a friendly reminder about the review and also letting you know i'll be on vacation myself from 22 October until 2 November. I anticipate having no internet access on vacation (probably a good thing lol) so if you comment during this time I may not respond. Freikorp (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<------ unidented
Got your message Freikorp. On the subject of the date of the film's events, I think that needs at least a reference in the article; You could use {{cite AV media | people=Besson, Luc (Director) | year=1997 | title=The Fifth Element | time=16 minutes 58 seconds | medium=iTunes | publisher=Gaumont}}. When sources conflict, I usually give both sources and say they conflict – this could help in stopping editors getting confused and changing the article when they find the "wrong" source. So in this case the reference would be something like The year is shown on a clock in the the film (at 16 minutes 58 seconds in the iTunes version), although it is given as 2257 on the DVD sleeve notes published by Pathé in 1997. Edgepedia (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks Edgepedia. Was this the only outstanding concern? Can you support the nomination now? :) Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Friekorp, please do not solicit declarations of support, as you have multiple times here. Reviewers are quite capable of deciding for themselves if they wish to explicitly declare their support (or opposition) re. promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Ian Rose. Apologies, I didn't realise asking whether my changes were good enough for the article to be supported or whether I needed to do more work was not OK, I won't do so again. And yes, i'll stop doubling up with the headers from now on also. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado

[edit]

The proposer also asked me nicely to look again at this article. I have read it through from scratch and will be happy to support it again once the following points have been addressed:

  • Lead: It has been called the best and worst summer blockbuster of all time. I suggest "it has been called both the ..." as later in the article, to make it clearer that it is not one reaction being referred to.
  • Plot: divorcee: I don't see the relevance of mentioning this. It is presumably added to the script to explain why Dallas is living in a batchelor pad with a cat, but it plays no part in the plot or the rest of the film.
  • Effects: proprietary software: the wikilink refers to the difference between closed- and open-source software, but the reference is referring to Digital Domain's use of standard (including closed-source) packages as well as its own in-house software (that is my understanding of page 60 of the reference, not something I "know"). I think it will be clearer if we say "in-house software" here, or remove the wikilink
  • Soundtrack: The Fifth Element is amongst Besson's films that have been described as "intrinsically musical": this reads a bit clumsily, please rephrase, perhaps: "The Fifth Element is one of Besson's films which have been described as "intrinsically musical";" or say "among" instead of "amongst"

In this edit I have corrected the punctuation in "mixed or average reviews" and tweaked some source spacing for consistency. --Mirokado (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was quick!

  • In the update to Soundtrack: Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software was used by Digital Domain...: need another comma and "were" here: "Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software, were used by Digital Domain..."

Supporting now. Good luck with the proposal. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments support

[edit]

Love this movie! Here's my review.

  • Budget - Why not give a footnote instead of hidden text? This will allow you to hedge a bit more, rather than being verifiable but possibly incorrect.
  • Really light on production information in the lead. It took 22 years... did anything happen aside from people being hired? I mean, you dedicate so much text to it in the body, but the lead is sorely lacking.
    • Added some information the lead about why it may have taken so long. Freikorp (talk)
  • it remained the highest-grossing French film at the box-office until the release of The Intouchables in 2011. - what's with giving the reference here? Per WP:LEAD, this should be referenced in the body.
  • but their compatriots determine to seize them for themselves. - perhaps a way of making it clear that the stones are the "them" in question?
  • Plot section is a bit overly detailed. I know less than 700 words is recommended, but a lot of the 640 words of the current plot summary are fat. Is it really pertinent that he was a radio call-in winner (rigged or not?). Is their "consummating their love" (or, really, that whole paragraph) plot relevant, or is it just dénouement? I can imagine that this plot summary could be trimmed to 550 words.
  • While I'm discussing the plot: you don't explain why the Great Evil is returning sooner than "300 years".
    • To the best of my knowledge (which is considerable on this subject) there is no explanation. It is widely considered by fans (and wikipedia users I might add) to be a source of confusion. Freikorp (talk)
  • The book Science Fiction Film, published by Cambridge University Press, credited the film with exploring the theme of political corruption. - I'd expect the author to be the one we're supposed to mention in text, not the book. Mentioning only the book and publisher gives the impression that the book had no author. This goes for the rest of the journals etc. mentioned as well; these are ideas held by people, not necessarily the journals or the journals' editorial staff. Furthermore, this makes the mention of Susan Hayward and Phil Powrie appear WP:UNDUE, as they are the first authors actually named.
    • I have now specified authors as well as the book and journal. Freikorp (talk)
      • I'd probably trim the publishers though (Cambridge Uni. Press, etc.), but if you prefer them that's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, the only reason I added them was to give it some notability to the source, I mean 'Stefan Brandt' clearly isn't notable enough to have a wiki article, and neither is his book 'Subverting Masculinity'. I thought if I showed that the publisher was notable it would give some indication of why we should value his opinion - because a notable publisher thought it was worthy to print. Do you think this is unnecessary? I have no qualms with removing it, I just thought it serves a purpose of sorts. Freikorp (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMHO, people who are going to question the reliability and/or weight of the source are usually those who know enough to check the references section (where you have the publisher spelled out). That being said, I'm fine with the way things are now if you'd rather not remove the publishers, and I'm not aware of any policies against including them in-text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The love story within The Fifth Element was considered to be one of the main narratives in the film, and it faces the same deadline as the main storyline. - "was considered" begs the question "by whom". Just say "the authors considered it" or whatever.
  • The section #Related media is way too short and underdeveloped. It can probably be safely merged into the release section (actually; split off the legacy text as its own section; that should work, and allow you to incorporate these alternative media).
  • He states he was waiting to build a reputation for himself as a filmmaker before he commenced production of the film, so that he would be able to make it with creative control. - Well, after a sentence like that we'd expect to be introduced to one or more films that made Besson well enough known that he could take control. Instead we jump right into the budget, and only then do you mention a film he made.
  • Standardize whether your punctuation goes inside or outside of quotation marks.
  • Gaultier also borrowed designs from others to help create his effect. - any examples?
    • Not in the source quoted unfortunately. Text reads: "Gaultier explains that he pulls from past designs - not just his own - to create his effect." Happy to delete this mention entirely if that would be better than not being able to specify whose designs he borrowed. Freikorp (talk)
  • He relies heavily on the use of orchestral textures and exotic influences, such as the oboe and strings heard as the surgeons prepare to regenerate Leeloo, and the pizzicato as she is reconstructed, as well as the shawm sounds as Leeloo tries to communicate with Korben after she falls into his taxi, and the Middle-Eastern unison strings as he tries to convince her to give herself up. - What a mouthful! can we split this, please?
    • I just deleted the second half of that very long sentence - there are enough examples without the second half anyway. Freikorp (talk)
  • The soundtrack section jumps around a bit. Content then sales information then content again. Perhaps a somewhat more organized presentation would be in order. Also, worth mentioning any of the review comments?
  • Perhaps clarify what "exported" film means.
    • Changed to "As of 2011 it still held the record for the French film with the highest foreign box office gross." Freikorp (talk)
  • which called him "the summer's most outrageous special effect" - LA Times or Time?
  • The case was dismissed in 2004 on the grounds that only "tiny fragments" of Giraud's artwork had been used - What about Jodorowsky?
    • Clarified it was "tiny fragments" of the comic, rather than specifically Giraud's artwork. Freikorp (talk)
  • Anybody else give feedback regarding this film? If you mention only Oldman, it comes across as undue weight.
  • nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for both The Fifth Element and Money Talks. - be clear if this applies to both Tucker and Jovovich, or just one or the other.
    • I'm not 100% sure what the issue is here - i've reworded to "Conversely, Jovovich received a Razzie nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for his performances in both The Fifth Element and Money Talks." Does this address your concern? Freikorp (talk)
  • The second disc provides various special features, focusing on visual production, special effects, fashion in the film, featurettes and interviews with Willis, Jovovich, and Tucker, featurettes on the four different alien races in the film, and a featurette on Diva Plavalaguna. - can we avoid having featurettes stated three times in a row?
  • The Ultimate Edition was praised for its special features. - by whom?
  • Suggest linking to newspapers and/or reviewers with articles.
  • Any further details on the novelization (reviews? Changes in plots as mentioned in RSes? anything?)? How about the games? I'm sure they have reviews you can mention, at least one or two. I mean, you give sound bites for the DVD releases. (TV Tropes says that the PS1 game got on several "worst game of the year" lists... if we can cite that, it's fairly important).
    • Added two game reviews. You'll have to post a link to that TV Tropes article you're talking about if you want me to do anything about that; i'm not familiar with that website and I haven't heard anything else about these lists the game is apparently on. Freikorp (talk)
  • Why the discrepancy in film length? Infobox says 126 minutes, but Ebert says 127. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure how that happened - changed to 127. Freikorp (talk)
  • Duplicate links: Gary Oldman — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, i'll begin addressing these issues one at a time and will ping you when i'm done. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crisco 1492. I've either addressed everything or requested clarification on what you were after. Feel free to strikethrough any resolved issues so I know what you're pleased with. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you been able to consult The Adventure and Discovery of a Film: The Story of The Fifth Element or Valérian: Les Extras de Mézières, tome 2: Mon cinquième élément? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to (non-RSes) these two books have information on how Besson approached Mezieres, and on what Besson intended the fifth element to be... might be important. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm certainThe Adventure and Discovery of a Film would prove very useful, i've previously looked into buying a copy. Unfortunately it was limited edition and is out of print. The cheapest I can find a copy for sale is $200 [6]; my fiancé would kill me if I spent that much money on a book lol. Neither my local public or university library has a copy. The other book is not available at any library near me either, though it is more affordable to buy; I don't relish the idea of having to buy it though, and if I ordered a copy it probably wouldn't arrive at my house for a couple weeks anyway as i'd have to order from overseas. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about an inter-library loan? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't looked into that. I might get a chance to go to the library and ask the day after tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Managed to get to the library today. I put in a written request for both books, I was told someone would call me when the book(s) had either come in or if they knew they couldn't get a copy. I was told it might take a week or longer. I'm not sure if Ian Rose is happy for this nomination to stay open just on the chance that a) they can get the books in and b) that said book would have useful information. Would it be a massive problem to just let the issue of comprehensiveness slide for the time being? I mean, the article isn't obviously deficit without said sources, and as I have a clear interest in this article I can assure you that if I ever get a copy of either of the books, I will do my best to improve this article with their information, regardless of whether the article is already promoted to featured status or not. Freikorp (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comprehensiveness is part of the FAC criteria, so any objections on that count are prima facie actionable. How much a barrier to promotion it should be in this instance is therefore more in the hands of Crisco as an experienced film article editor/reviewer, than in mine as a FAC coordinator. No pressure, Crisco (honestly!) but if it's a stopper for you then given the time this has been open I'd be inclined to archive the nom until the books are obtained and worked into the article. If you think it does meet the criteria after all (but could simply be further improved with the additions) then we may still be on track for promotion shortly, pending image check and resolution of Nimbus' remaining points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Despite what my students may try and tell you, I'm not evil enough to oppose over that. Yeah, it would be a great addition, but this is already one of the most comprehensive single sources on the internet. I can easily assume that Freikorp will add further information as it becomes available. Images below are dealt with too, so
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I hope that the book does become available. I doubt it would cause a fundamental rewrite of the article, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage (for me, at least). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The public library just called me. It might interest you to know that there wasn't a copy of either of those books in any library in Australia, which is precisely why my local library has decided to purchase The Story of The Fifth Element for their collection. As they have to order it from overseas it will probably take 2-4 weeks to arrive, and they told me they'd put it aside for me so that I can borrow it first. Not surprisingly they weren't interested in ordering the other one as it isn't in English. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, any of the special features on the DVDs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used to own the original (no special features) version of the DVD; I now own the iTunes copy, which also has no special features. Thankfully, people have uploaded at least some of the special features from the Ultimate edition DVD to YouTube, hence why I was able to cite the interviews with Jovovich and Tucker in the 'Legacy' section. There are snippets for sure that could be added to the article (For example I was surprised to find out via Jovovich's special features interview that after 2 months of repeatedly bleaching her hair and dying it orange her hair started to fall out; she had to wear a wig in the second half of the film) but I don't recall hearing anything of vital importance. Was there a particular part of the 'Production' section that you think could use expanding with potential information from said special features? Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not exactly in a position to have the DVD features myself (Indonesia and all that). No, I am not aware of anything particularly important, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • K, so these "Comprehensiveness" questions are all I have left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nimbus

[edit]

Very nearly a 'support' from me. There are two cites in the lead, should not be there per WP:LEADCITE as long as the facts are cited later. Gaultier does not use the hyphen according to his official website. On the fictional date of the film is a date of the first Egyptian scene not given on screen then a cutaway says '200 years later' or similar? Been a while since I've seen it. The Cornelius/Zorg choking scene seems to have been left out of the plot? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I have removed the two cites in the lead, and the hyphen in Gualtier's name. Yes, you're right - the movie opens to the text on screen "Egypt 1914". Then when it cuts to the future it says "300 years later", though Korben's alarm clock clearly states the year is 2263. How Luc Besson managed to contradict the date that badly is completely beyond me. This 'movie mistake' has proved quite annoying for me to work around. As for the choking scene - I had to leave most of the non-vital scenes in the film out of the plot in order to shorten in to 550 words. Freikorp (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the date thing is covered now, perhaps it was deliberate?! I can't immediately learn where this was filmed, should be in the production section with a mention in the lead. The soundtrack infobox looks odd, it is not used in Blade Runner (a Featured Article) but is used at Blade Runner (soundtrack) at the top of the article where I would expect to see it.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm good point about the location of filming not being specified - i'll look for a source for that. No-one's mentioned anything about the soundtrack info-box before. After looking up about 15 featured film articles I did note the majority of them indeed do not have info-box, though two of the ones I looked at did (Manhunter (film) and Hoodwinked!). Does the info-box present a big problem? While there are only 2 notable reviews of the soundtrack, I do like how the inbox conveys the review scores with just a glance, and in this case there is not a separate article for the film's soundtrack; if there was i'd be willing to ditch the info-box immediately. I'd prefer the inbox to remain unless doing so would cost me your support, in which case I would be willing to permanently remove it. Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox album states that the coding should appear at the top of the page, reading between the lines I guess it is only intended for use in album articles. My worry is that editors follow other Featured Articles, they may do the same citing this one as the precedent. The template could be used in a new soundtrack article in the same way as the Blade Runner example mentioned. Look forward to learning more about filming locations.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the inbox and added information on filming locations. Freikorp (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll change to support when all the sources have been confirmed as reliable by a source checker. I'm seeing current cite 92 as a dead link (70th Academy Awards). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it was dead for me too; I replaced it. Freikorp (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Squeamish Ossifrage gave a source review already? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source in question was retrieved in July this year, and I double-checked everything was still live before nominating for FAC, so it looks like that source must have gone dead quite recently, but in any case it's fixed now. Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, righto. Yes, Squeamish Ossifrage did do a thorough source review. Is this issue resolved now Nimbus? Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read Squeamish Ossifrages review thoroughly, they had many points, some resolved, the collapsed dialogue box had an 'oppose' comment then later this changed to 'neutral' which I believe just related to the referencing, not the article as a whole (may be wrong). It is unfortunate that they have have not returned to close the reference review. My normal field of editing is aviation and I have a very good knowledge of what is and isn't considered a reliable source, we need a film article referencing expert in here to guide us. One website 'Encyclopedia of Fantastic Film and Television' seems to be a cross between a wiki and a one person self-published enthusiast site on reading the 'FAQ' there, is it a reliable source in the WP sense? I can't tell though I would not use a site like that myself for referencing. Sorry if this is causing pain but myself (and the FA delegates) would be much happier with a positive yes or no for WP:WIAFA 1c (Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eofftv is the only source i'm using that I wasn't completely sure was reliable. I only used it as a last resort; when I couldn't find any other sources. When you asked for information on filming locations it was one of two sources I found stating scenes in the film were filmed in Mauritania. The other was a (much more reliable) article in Cinefex. I only had a snippet preview of said article from Google books [7] though that was enough to confirm that filming did take place there. I found a copy of said article on sale on eBay for $5, so I ordered it. The reason I wasn't using it as a source yet is because until the article arrives, I don't know what the article's title is, or its author. It would be a good guess that the author is Don Shay and the title is The Fifth Element, but I didn't want to assume. As the used source has now been questioned, I will add the Cinefex source despite its temporarily missing parameters, and will fill in the blanks once my copy of the article arrives. In the meantime i'll see if I can find alternate sources for the two other facts that Eofftv currently backs up. Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found the correct author and title for the Cinefex article. I removed one of the other statements the Eofftv reference was backing up, it wasn't very significant anyway, and I found a reliable source for the last claim that reference backed up, so it's completely removed from the article now. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This has been open a long time but does appear to be close to reaching consensus so I'll allow some more time for Crisco's and Nimbus' comments to be resolved. In the meantime, did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Paraceratherium

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest land mammal that has ever lived. The article was in a sorry state before, but luckily the first semi-technical book devoted to this animal was published last year, which synthesised a lot of obscure information, and is the main basis for this article. Much of its history is very complicated, and I have tried to explain it in an understandable way. The article is part of the Wikipedia CD Selection, which may be of importance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Indricotherium.jpg: both of the links under the description are dead - they're not essential, but if you have updated links that would be nice
I'd rather just remove them, but do you prefer archive.org links perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "restoration" really the correct word for those drawings? It's not a usage I'm familiar with
It is widely used for "palaeoart". Palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs": "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Indricotherium11.jpg: this appears at deviantart under a different license, one not acceptable for Wikipedia
It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Commons. He has dozens of other images there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Russian Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - ooh goody, glad someone has buffed this. I'd planned to do it one day but pleased someone else has...I'll just order the book and read at my leisure :)

....comments below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the book is weirdly balanced I think, I'd have liked more info about specimens for example, but instead there's pages and pages of biographies... FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of sentences in para 2 of lead start with "It..." - it'd be good to vary the sentences a bit.
Ah, forgot this, varied a bit, does it need more? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the shoulder height was about 6 metres (20 feet), and the length about 8.0 metres (26.2 feet). - why 8.0 metres and not 8 here?
Not sure, conversion templates were added by the copyeditor. But their parameters seem to be set the same way? How can this be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I removed the .0, fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The classification of the genus and the species within has a long and complicated history. - I suspect "taxonomy" may be a more accurate word than "classification" here.....
Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
although the latter may be a distinct genus. - "latter" --> "last" as there are three not two items listed.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link taxonomy at first mention
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The superfamily Rhinocerotoidea can be traced back to the early Eocene age - "age" is redundant and misleading here - should be removed
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've erred slightly on the side of underlinking - I'd link vertebra, molar, premolar, incisor...some of the more obscure things in para 2 of skull section might have links too.
A lot links were removed and much was reworded during copyediting, I'll fix it. SOme words, like incisor, are already linked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything more on the habitat at all in the source?
I'll see if I can squeeze some more out. Perhaps the stuff about territories and "home ranges" could be moved into that section from behaviour as well? This: "Prothero suggests that animals as big as indricotheres would need very large home ranges or territories of at least 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres), and that because of a scarcity of resources, there would have been little room in Asia for many populations or a multitude of nearly identical species and genera. This principle is called competitive exclusion; it is used to explain how the black rhinoceros (a browser) and white rhinoceros (a grazer) exploit different niches in the same areas of Africa." FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that'd be good into a paleobiology section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant whether it should be moved from palaebiology to habitat/distribution? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry/yes/my bad/go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for the animal's extinction is unknown— "reasons... are"? Likely to be multiple according to your article
  • sizes ranged from dog-sized to the size of Paraceratherium.— rephrase to avoid three sizes in one sentence
  • pi (π) shaped— should be hyphenated, and I think piped "π-shaped" looks neater anyway
Thanks, fixed the two first suggestions. You don't think I would need to spell pi out? I'd believe not all people are familiar with the sign? FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the hyphen is obligatory, as with L-shaped later, so you need would pi- (π-) shaped, which is awful. I think that anyone reading this article would be familiar with what is probably the best known of all Greek letters, more so than with perissodactyl, and the link through to the article would immediately enlighten anyone who didn't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone.

  • Interesting beast, and interesting article. Quite a few prose/accessability issues
The article was thoroughly copy edited by bafflegab, so should be ok, but I'll fix these issues later today. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1908, he referred the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium, as the new species A. bugtiense." I couldn't understand this sentence; I am guessing the reason is an odd use of the word "referred", but can't be sure.
"Refer" is standard taxonomy language, changed to assigned or moved. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1913, Forster-Cooper named Thaumastotherium ("wonderful beast") osborni based on larger fossils from the same excavations..." Not sure what this is saying exactly. This appears to be talking about a new species called Thaumastotherium osborni - is that correct? If so, then the paragraph probably needs clearer signposting that we are going to be talking about multiple species. If not, then i don't understand what it's saying.
It is saying he named a new taxon, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a literally correct, but very unorthodox use of the term "preoccupied" that would be better replaced with something else, such as "the former name had already been used to describe..."
I'm not so sure, that is standard taxonomy language, and even has a good redirect. The taxonomy section uses taxonomic language, simplifying it will probably not be helpful to convey the exact meaning. But I have clarified this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... so fragmentary that Foster-Cooper was unsure what kind of perissodactyl they belonged to..." This isn't fair to the reader - it isn't enough to provide a link to such an obscure term, particularly when that link turns out to be a redirect. The text should explain more fully what the difficulty here was about.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1936, Walter Granger and William K. Gregory proposed that Forster-Cooper's Baluchitherium osborni was likely a junior synonym of Paraceratherium bugtiense because these specimens were collected at the same locality and were possibly part of the same morphologically variable species.[16] Forster-Cooper had expressed similar doubts.[17] This was also suggested by William Diller Matthew in 1931." - how can someone "also suggest" something before the other person proposes it? The chronology of this section needs to be reworked to put the proposals in chronological order, oldest first.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding the same passage, i think a plain English explanation of junior synonym will help readability.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar issue with nomina dubiae
Changed to the English term dubious names. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paraceratherium is considered the largest known land mammal that has ever existed" - very unusual to use the singular for a genus containing several species. Should it not read "are considered to have been the largest known land mammals ever to have existed"?
Well, it is a genus, singular, just like for example Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, etc. Likewise, you could say "the elephant is the largest living land mammal", or "Stegosaurus had spikes on its tail" even though the terms denote multiple species. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't look at the rest right now, but there's some to start with. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can I clarify: current literature recognises multiple species, is that correct? At least 3 and possibly as many as 7? It is hard to be clear from that section what the current view(s) are.
Four species. This is specifically mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and the second paragraph under Species and synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see an explanation or link for the reader to explain the Christian cross-shaped symbol used in the infobox. What is its significance?
(Animalparty responding) The dagger symbol (not a Christian cross) is a widely used symbol in biology and paleontology to indicate extinct taxa. Some articles have the dagger wikilinked to extinction, or have an HTML code that says "extinct" when a pointer hovers over it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is extinction. It has been added to most articles about extinct animals, so it is a wider issue that I have little to no control over. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I meant to say is, this should be explained and/or linked for readers. I've fixed that with a note in the box. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They used to be links, it seems the template has been altered. It should be relinked, then a note will be redundant. I'll see if I can fix it. See also this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_4#.22Extinction_dagger.22_guideline_needed Also see here[10], where I've proposed the dagger should be a link. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like User:Animalparty, I don't believe the article should begin with taxonomy. I don't believe any article about a thing should start with anything other than a description of that thing, a view I have expressed in the past at FAC. It is a pattern that has become mistakenly established in our articles about animals, and I don't really have the energy to try and turn all of them around. However, the pattern in plant FAs, such as Banksia marginata, which I do support, is to begin with the description. This is also the convention set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. Note also that the article template at Wikiproject animals also does not start with taxonomy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article template - instead it begins with anatomy and morphology, which is essentially description of the thing. I think it is crazy to have an encyclopedia for everyone that has articles that do not begin by telling the reader what it is we are talking about. I believe that this has resulted from our animal articles following the practice of the scientific literature. But Wikipedia isn't the scientific literature, it is written so that an everyday reader can access it. I propose the order to be: description - taxonomy - palaeobiology - distribution and habitat. In the case of the P. article I would have thought this would be particularly helpful, since the description (and its uncertaintly) would help the reader understand why the taxonomy is so complicated. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see my response to Animalparty, which he agreed with. Most other FAs about mammals start with taxonomy, so I prefer to follow this clear precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, i'm just wanting to be clear that I don't support the practice, in those precedents or here - i don udnerstand why you would want to follow it. One of the difficulties is in knowing how to change the practice, given that the approach isn't grounded in a Wikiproject template or guideline. But I'll leave this for delegates. :-)
I've actually reconsidered and think precedents should be questioned. There are relatively few paleo mammal FA, and while there does appear to be a common structure of having Taxonomy or classification before description, lets face it some go pretty deep into the minutiae. The trend appears reversed in dinosaur articles (e.g. Allosaurus, Iguanodon, Tyrannosaurus), which often delve deeply into the history of discovery well after the description, and I don't see why that can't be a precedent. The mammal taxa on average don't seem to have taxonomic histories as complex or detailed as Paraceratherium, and the length alone might suggest it be restructured. It may just come down to style differences (i.e. opinions), but I feel most readers would be interested in the size, description, and biology first, and care less about soldiers in Baluchistan (do we need to know his name was Vickaery?), nomenclatural nuances, and lots of names unfamiliar to the average reader (notable scientists be they may). Like I said below, I believe little to nothing would be lost by restructuring, and big-picture clarity might be improved. But I also don't think it's worth debating a whole lot, so I've said my piece. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then all it comes down to is taste, not policy. Dinosaur articles are structured quite differently from mammal and even bird articles overall, so I don't think they work as precedents. As also noted below, most sources about this animal start by untangling the taxonomic issue before anything else, which gives the subsequent info context. I think you can find as many people (including myself) who prefer taxonomy first as not, but I don't think this article should be a battleground for that. Better to bring it up on the tree of life wikiproject talk page or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Animalparty

[edit]

--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The taxomomic history is probably the least interesting and least useful to the majority of readers: I think it should be moved to below the Description and Paleobiology. I don't think any clarity is lost by doing so, i.e. there is little in the Taxonomy section that is crucial to understanding the description, etc. Moving the taxonomy to the end would also mirror the current layout of the lead, which is preferable for logical flow.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure, first, it follows the structure of most other mammal FAs (lion, elephant, giraffe, woolly mammoth, etc.), which almost always have the taxonomy sections first. Secondly, after its size, the taxonomy issue is the most often mentioned and potentially confusing issue regarding this animal, so it is therefore one of the most important things to clarify before the reader goes on to the rest of the article. Thirdly, the section flows naturally into evolution, which should definitely be at the beginning of the article. And I'd hesitate to claim that most people would find the section the least interesting, if they do, it is rather easy to skip it. Prothero 2013 devotes a very long chapter to taxonomic history, before even describing the animal and its biology. I think this article should follow the precedents set by other FAs and the sources cited. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I won't object to precedents.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a couple of red-linked terms in the Description section should be defined in plain English or omitted rather than left red-linked: e.g. "had pleurocoel-like openings" means virtually nothing unless the reader already knows what a pleurocel is, and "graviportal build" is similarly jargony.
Fixed those you mentioned. More? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I'd like to see a bit more nuance in the evolution section. Is the 1989 cladogram still the consensus (if there is any)? The cladogram shows one hypothesis, yet the following sentence suggests at least one opposing view. Is there anything more recent that resolves the conflict? Here, citations to review articles or secondary texts (like Prothero 2013) might be best to provide balance and context. If there is controversy, explain it!
Prothero strictly follows the 1989 cladogram, the other hypotheses, Holbrook and the Chinese ones (which are already explained as iffy in this article), are minority views. Not much more to say about Holbrook's view, because his conclusion regarding indricotheres was just a short side remark in a study about a wider group, including tapirs. Also, this article is about a specific genus, not the indicothere subfamily as a whole, so in depth discussion of classification issues for the entire group is best left for the subfamily page. But I've added a bit more clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the text above the cladogram, why is it emphasized that Triplopodinae was found to be the sister taxon to Indricotheriinae? Assuming there are only 2 subfamilies, isn't this a likely result?(oops, see below) or was this the first time Triplopodinae was proposed? Since Triplopodinae is red-linked, you may want to define or clarify it, and perhaps invert the sentence structure so that Indricotheriinae (the more relevant clade to Paraceratherium, and one which the readers will have encountered by this point) is mentioned before Triplopodinae (an otherwise foreign term for the reader).
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the cladogram itself: Why is the rest of Hyracodontidae omitted? Going only by that cladogram, one might assume (as I did) that Hyracodontidae consists only 2 families. The stem of the cladogram should be more clear.
The original source does not include more clades at the stem, so adding any would be original synthesis. But I have added the hyracodont name, as in the source, so should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 1999 study, Luke Holbrook instead found the indricotheres to be outside the hyracodontid group and wrote that the indricotheres may not be a monophyletic grouping. K. Heissig suggested that they were most closely related to rhinocerotids" - The form of these sentences gives the impression that Heissig' suggestion was published in Holbrook 1999, which presumably is not correct. Heissig should be individually referenced (or at least "Heissig (cited in Holbrook)"), and some kind of conjunction between the clauses (similarly? alternatively?) might also help flow.
I will add a year in front of Hessig's sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments. Reads a bit better now. P.S. there are some public domain tooth and bone illustrations in Forster-Cooper (1911) that may or may not be useful to include.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the illustration of a jaw is actually from that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: I noticed some of the old journal titles were incorrect (e.g. "Journal of Natural History" rather than "Annals and Magazine of Natural History"). I've fixed some, but more might need double-checking: e.g. "Records of the Geological Survey of India" might in fact be "Memoirs of ...". --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, especially since those refs are filled in by a bot. And by the way, DOIs are already links, so for example here[11], there are two links to the same page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's why you can't trust bots! :) Also, some DOIs link to Subscription sites, e.g. this one, because for some reason Taylor & Francis publishers demand payments for public domain works, even some over 100 years old!--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank the maker for archive.org and biodiversity library... FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Comment: The duration and time that Paraceratherium lived should be emphasized and clarified a bit: the lead mentions the Oligocene, the taxobox says 34–23Ma, but that seems to be the entire duration of the Oligocene. Do Paraceratherium fossils span the entire Oligocene or just a section? The Distribution and habitat mentions 11 million years but that has not been firmly stated in the article yet beyond the taxobox. Some dates (even if rough) in the lead and body would help, e.g. "...lived in the Oligocene epoch, from around XX to XX million years ago", with maybe some discussion of earliest and latest stage/age of occurrence in the body. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are a bit superficial when it comes to this issue, Prothero writes several pages about how some formations have been inaccurately dated in the past, but there is little about when the various species then actually existed. I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it a bit clearer now, and added a bit more info about other things. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and that it contains three discernible species; P. bugtiense (the type species), P. transouralicum, P. prohorovi, and P. orgosensis, although the last may be a distinct genus"- Did you mean four discernible species, or three discernable species with one equivocal species?
    • "The three species of Paraceratherium are mainly discernible through skull characteristics. P. bugtiense and P. orgosensis..." same as above, are there 3 or 4 in referering to P. orgosensis?
I was a bit unsure what to do with P. prohorovi, Prothero says it may not be possible to evaluate its placement, which I interpreted as him saying it was a dubious name, but he doesn't say this specifically, so I added the species anyway. So it should be four, I have fixed this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first fossils of Paraceratherium were discovered by the British geologist Guy Ellcock Pilgrim ... In 1908, he moved the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium..."- this might be clarified to something like: "The first fossils now recognized as Paraceratherium... In 1908 he placed the species in the extinct ...", since Pilgrim didn't really move anything yet.
Good catch, I implemented the first suggestion you made, but worded the rest a bit differently. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't P. bugtiense Pilgrim, 1908 be written as P. bugtiense (Pilgrim, 1908) due to Forster-Cooper's new combination?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and distinct crochets of its molars" -what's a crochet?
Good question, the source doesn't give a definition... I'll give it an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing... FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be a hook-like projection or hook-shaped structure, given the derivation of crochet. I've seen it mentioned in some paleo works but not clearly defined. I'll keep looking. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a question that's not mentioned: How many toes did Paraceratherium have?
I think one source specifically says that this is unknown, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It only said the front feet had three toes, but it seems all rhinos have both three front and hind toes on each limb, so I'm not sure if this is redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (No not yet. see below)- I think with the resolution of this last set of comments the article is readable, coherent, and complete. Some of the red-linked terms do stand out a bit, but not detrimentally, and I think the word graviportal can be omitted entirely, or at least unlinked, as the adjective seems an unlikely article to be created (Graviportality? List of large and heavy animals?) and all necessary context is in the article. I think it meets WP:FACR, although there is always room for future improvements: one might be to include views from other secondary sources besides Prothero's- recognized authority as he is- to ensure that a western bias or personal bias isn't inadvertently introduced, and to fairly reflect how other researchers synthesize primary literature, but I don't think this prevents FA promotion. Lastly, it would be really cool to get this image in the article, if allowable, to really hammer home the size of the beast! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We did actually have that image once, but I realised it was made after 1922, and therefore not PD US. In any case, we do have an image that shows the animal's size next to a museum crowd (with a cast of that skull in an armature), and we do have a photo of that exact skull, so it would be fairly redundant. As for competing hypotheses, I'll add which species and genera that are recognised by Chinese researchers soon. FunkMonk (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old skull image has been readded (from another source), see below... FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another set of comments (which is why I've temporarily stricken my support):
  • First, I don't think this should be passed on as FA until someone with access to the original references does at least a cursory review. I may be able to access a university library within the week, or otherwise obtain the subscription journal articles.
That is how FACs are always done (standard practice), there is a "source review" and an "image review". The source review is done before the article can be passed, so supports have no bearing on it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxobox mentions 4 species under Species, yet only 3 species under species synonyms. Is P. prohorovi without synonyms? (totally fine if so). But going solely from the info in the article (please verify), shouldn't P. transouralicum Pavlova, 1922 and ?P. orgosensis Chiu, 1973 be written P. transouralicum (Pavlova, 1922) and ?P. orgosensis (Chiu, 1973) since they were both originally in a different genus?
P. prohorovi has no junior synonyms. As for parenthesis, this is not done in the sources, though, but it is technically true. Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Paraceratherium/Indrocotherium synonymy debate seems a bit more equivocal than stated. Ye et al. (2003) mention that McKenna and Bell's classic Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level (1997) recognizes the two genera as distinct. A 2004 description of P. yagouense recognizes both genera as well as Dzungariotherium. Sen et al 2011 (p. 12) do appear to show that most authors favor synonymy, but mention that Fortelius and Kappelman 1993 considered the two genera distinct, which is evident in the abstract. A 1959 monograph by Gromova apparently makes a case for the distinction of the two. I haven't seen McKenna & Bell or Fortelius & Kappelman to evaluate, but they may have salient comments. I realize that these conflicting opinions make a single article harder to write, but that's what we're stuck with. I don't know if Prothero mentions this or if newer literature clarifies it, but to dismiss or understate the views of non-western paleontologists would make an imbalanced article. Even if the 2-3 genus view is a minority, I think it warrants more coverage than "a 2003 paper by Chinese researchers".
McKenna and Bella (and others) only used the names without any analysis, therefore it has little scientific weight. Prothero complains about this in his book. The Chinese researchers actually argue for it, but with arguments that are not considered valid by Prothero and others. I can add a little more commentary. Pre-1989 articles can't really be used to contest more recent opinions. Also, P. yagouense has since been moved to Urtinotherium.FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference of P. yagouense being reassigned? Not arguing, just curious. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth stating the most common synonym(s) at the top of the article, e.g. "Paraceratherium, also known as Indricotherium,.... " or perhaps at the end of the first paragraph. Both names (with and without "also known as...") are fairly prevalent both in popular and scientific literature: a Google Scholar search for Indricotherium -Paraceratherium in the last 20 years yields about 150 results, while the opposite yeilds about 100. A Google N-gram search similarly shows I. a little more common than P. (but both dwarfed by Baluchitherium!) --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to do this, these are not common names, they are synonyms (and are often mentioned in most works that don't even recognise them, therefore they get recent scholar hits) and they are already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead (which used to be the second, until someone complained on the talkpage it was too complicated for regular readers to start with). Baluchitherium is not considered valid by any researchers today, which also shows that scholar hits may not be entirely useful for determining anything here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review #2

[edit]

I'm sorry to repeat this when one was already done, but I found a big issue in the initial check, so... File:Paraceratherium.jpg - This is listed as PD-Old-70, but the death date for G. M. Woodward is not given, so there's no evidence it is. Possibilities:

  • If this was published in the U.S., say so, replace license with {{PD-US-1923}}
  • If it wasn't published in the U.S., find Woodward's death date, show he died over 70 years ago.
  • If neither apply, since it's from 1911, it can be hosted here, on English Wikipedia, but not commons. If moved to here, you must use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or {{notforcommons}}.

Unfortunately, This blocks promotion to FA.

Other images:

All the above need more documentation to be used.

Two that are fine to use, but which I have notes for:


Conclusion: Lots of problems, I'll see what I can do about documenting the problematic ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will check later. Doesn't seem like huge problems to me, just a matter of switching out licenses, checking if people are dead, and possibly cropping out armature in a few photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we can definitely deal with this. I'd say we should be able to salvage at least 80% of this (for example, the last one listed I've already saved. =) ) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped the mounted skull image to hide most of the armature. More later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Woodward might well be British - the journal the images appeared in was. Annoyingly, there's a more-famous G.M. Woodward who died about a century to be ours; best solution might be to move all his stuff to en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find more about him. By the way, Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is not a sculpture, it is a photo collage (made like this[13]), created by the uploader. Not sure if the base photos are selfmade, but I'd say they are different enough from the originals (every shape is changed) to not be considered derivative works. See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/04#Photo_collages FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A very good photo collage. I think that's acceptable then; since it looks like he sells them, I think it's safe to presume they're licensed if not self-made. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, I know her sister's work, actually. Alice B. Woodward. So it is a family of biological artists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support We've cleared all issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! So we can be pretty sure it's the same person? Thanks a lot! And I also thought of Alice Woodward (she drew many palaeontological restorations), but wasn't sure. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it was all but certain, given the list at that site. I mean, we know from that sample list of works that Gertrude Mary Woodward was an expert anatomical artist specializing in fossil bones. That's a fairly unique specialty. The artworks are signed, so we can compare to other works by her to be sure - she apparently did some of the initial illustrations for the Piltdown Man skull, so...Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is a photoshopped image composed of at least two source images. The providence of these source images and under what license terms they were obtained, is not indicated. Roman Uchytel, who contributed the image to the Russian Wikipedia, claims copyright for the composite image. However, the background is a picture taken by the Rowan family, on one of the visits they made to Ethiopia, and a high resolution version of the image was available from their blog. Tineye has the evidence. I'm not sure that re-using a scenery image as a background crosses the threshold of originality. The image therefore may constitute copyright violation. Samsara 16:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the image in question? That is a pretty long page. In case the background is too similar, I can just paint it white or otherwise alter it enough. Perhaps even a tight crop will do. The important part of the image are the animals, and they seem to be radically modified African rhinos. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found it myself.[15] So what do people think? White background, or close crop with blur effect on the bg photo? Here's an example of the latter, can be blurred and changed further if it is still too close.[16] FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say white would probably look better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. All are fine with that? Or how about black bg? Works pretty well here:[17] Also, what does that family's page say about photo copyright? Perhaps they use free licenses? FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and painted it black, so that it looks more distinct form the drawing under "description". FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Are we still awaiting a source review? If so pls request one at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate if I make the request? FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, saves me doing it... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now made the request. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

[edit]
  • I corrected one case of incorrectly formatted quotemarks. Otherwise, the sources all appear correctly formatted, although can we not get more specific than, say, Ref#34, which cites a page range of 164 pages for a single citation ("Vera Gromova published a more complete skeletal reconstruction in 1959, based on the P. transouralicum skeleton from the Aral Formation, but this also lacked several neck vertebrae.")? Can we not get the specific page(s) for the statement being cited? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Gromova. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - thanks for the thorough reviews. Are we all done and dusted here? Graham Beards (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems so... FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Léal Souvenir

[edit]
Nominators: Ceoil, Kafka Liz 23:128, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the most penetrating and careful represntations of a late medieval prole, even one so seemingly highly placed. Jan van Eyck signed and datd this oil on oak in 1432, leading the way for secular portraiture across centuries. But even this is to undersell the painting; there is a lot more bubbling underneeth the surface, given the apparent empathy in this man's expressive face. Co-nom with Kafka Liz who knows things about ancient languages and symbols I dont. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Tombstone_of_C._Vetienus_Urbiqus.jpg: since this is a 3D work, the photographer also holds a copyright - what is the licensing status of the photo?
  • Those aren't the sources for DufayBinchois.jpg. Two images that only show small parts of the image that they are claimed to be sources for can't, in fact, be the source. Where's the rest of the image come from? For that matter, they don't look much like the relevant bits of DufayBinchois. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi GermanJoe, good catch. Added that now. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments (Crisco 1492)

  • The stone parapet contains three separate layers of inscriptions, each painted in an illusionistic manner to give the impression that they had been chiseled into stone. - Avoid repeating "stone"?
  • letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory) - letters or words?
  • Apart from the dual portraits of the donors in his Ghent Altarpiece which were probably completed in 1431 or in the early months of the following year - source?
  • Bit of OR here; Ghent is his earliest ascribed panel, and it has a portrait. Also it was "completed in 1431...". Tried to find a source that says this all in one, but its a low value statement, might just remove. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8mm - worth using a convert template?
  • The oak panel consists of one board, vertical in grain and about 8mm thick. It is tightly cut at the edges of the paint surface, while at some point the support was cut in eight pieces. - didn't you just say this in the preceding paragraph?
  • Its - Your previous subject was "Infrared photography", which I doubt is the "its" you mean
  • original colour hard to read - is "read" the best term here?
  • Standardise whether you put periods after the c in circa (compare text and caption)
  • Dab links: canon, Lucchese
  • The first was on copper, an exact replica or original was found by Eastlake in the collection of the Lochis family of Bergamo in Italy. - not sure what you're saying here
  • over two horizontal - two horizontal whats?
  • Dup links: Erwin Panofsky, parapet, Erwin Panofsky, Bergamo, and Turin
sound Crisco, working, slowly through these. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the (really delayed!) feedback; I don't seem to have watchlisted this. The current revision is considerably better than the one I reviewed, and it looks ready to be promoted. Like Adam, I expect that the issue with the Greek can be worked out soon (at the very least, before this hits the MP). As such, I'm glad to support this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Crisco. Adam is on it, and I feel confident that it will be sorted out soon. He has been a great help so far. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and image review by Adam Cuerden

[edit]

This badly needs a proofreading. I've just caught two very big typos in the handling of the Greek ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A9al_Souvenir&diff=630324531&oldid=630319617 ) , which weren't even consistent [Timotheus in first sentence, the theta appeared in a different transcription. Perhaps it's just the Greek, but it's not a good sign. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues: "The middle inscription contains the letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory)," - Technically, it says "LEAL SOVVENIR" - I'd give the actual text, THEN convert to standard lettering. Also, what language is it? Latin? If it's Latin, where's the é coming from?

As for the images:

Otherwise, the images are fine. Oppose for the moment - we need to fix up that DufayBinchois image, and I'd like to know what's going on with the inconsistencies, and think knowing the language of the title matters. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all noted, and thinking. It's worth saying that the sources contradict each other, with Campbell IMO the most authorative and he does speak in meta at times, ie gives an overview, with refutations. The difficulty is that van eyck did not have a command of the languages, and made errors, which we had reproduced, but you 'copy edited'. Ceoil (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I looked at the image. That's clearly a theta, not an O on the artwork. "TγΜ.ωΟΕΟς" is patently wrong. I could understand discussion about the Sigma at the end, as it's weirdly shaped on the artwork, but if we're going to pretend an omnicron translates as th, but isn't a theta, and that, of two completely different figures on the artwork, both the theta and the omnicron are omnicrons, that's just patently wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
actually we are pretending nothing, just reading, interpreting and thinking. If you want to be cute I will ignore you from now and carry on. You can either help and be construive or be defensive and aggressive. Don't really care, because I hadn't asked you a question. No to what. [User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your comments, position, refractoring and temperament is noted, but this is not a simple matter, and is being addressed, but I hope not within the glare of such an aggressive reviewer. Noted adam, now get lost, and I will post back when I am happy that this is resolved. Ok? Ceoil (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, what the hell brought that on? If you're so sensitive that simply pointing out obvious-to-those-who-have-learnt-the-language errors in transcription of Byzantine Greek causes you to tell the reviewer to "get bent", "Get a grip", and even an attempted outing that would probably have worked better if everyone and their brother didn't know I used to edit under a pseudonym, one has to ask how you expect to get through an FAC. We may as well close this, because the nominator clearly isn't interested in dealing with the problems. There's quite a few issues in this article's handling of foreign languages, such as "It reads "LÉAL SOVVENIR" (Loyal Remembrance, or Faithful Souvenir)" - well, no, it doesn't. there isn't an accent mark on the painting. You can't state things are on the painting that quite simply aren't there, but when such things are pointed out, you're throwing a fit, and devolving into insulting the reviewer for no apparent reason. If you can't handle polite criticism, you shouldn't be here. I'm not going to drop the oppose, because the problems still haven't been dealt with; but I'm washing my hands of this article, as I don't want to deal with the nominator. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • Adam Cuerden, about the lettering: I think this file (the first page is visible) gives a good sense of how very difficult it is to write about Jan van Eyck's inscriptions. Suggest giving the nominators a chance to re-read the sources and sort it out. It's never easy with JvE (I looked at a few sources yesterday and they were all contradictory) - there isn't a deadline. Victoria (tk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Victoria. Guys, please just try to see the other's perspective. Ceoil, you may have found Adam's comments a bit overbearing but reviewers are here to help and there are other ways of asking for space without telling them to get lost. Adam, your oppose is helpful for the coordinators to judge your level of concern, so you can afford to give the nominators a chance to act on the comments in their own time. Consensus to promote is best reached through collegial discussion. Thanks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that's fair. I will not answer this person again, his oppose is welcome to stand, and his slander noted. I've always enjoyed the ruff and tuble of a challenging review, but something is very off here. The how dare you tone is one reveal, there are others. Yours in scumines, as stands on Ian's talk. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to out me. What the hell did you expect? I'm happy to keep this focused on the article, but you have acted abominably, and haven't shown the slightest sign of remorse for something WP:OUTING says should get you blocked. I don't want you blocked. It's a very open secret, and I've made the connection publicly a few times - but you apparently didn't know that, because you had absolutely no reason to bring it up. If you recognise your behaviour has been completely inappropriate, we can work on improving the article. But as it stands, you have shown no ability to handle minor criticisms of your article, and shouldn't be here if you're not actually interested in improving it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Adam Cuerden, I didnt know it, no. It was off the cuff, nothing behind it. Um, can we start again, considering there was no beef between us before this. I think Ian's advice is sound. If you were hurt or offended, thats not good, and I now apologise and retract. I felt somewhat dissed by your review comments, but I suppose, so what. The fact is, I would like your help on this article. I think its a very moving portrait, and would libe to give it exposure on the main page, in the best condition it can be in. You have knowledge. Deal? 12:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, deal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem is that File:DufayBinchois.jpg has more in it (the text at the top) than the two files listed as its source. It's obviously inaccurate, but it's not quite clear what's going on, and it's a bit of a blocker. I'm trying to decide if it was just really terribly documented - if we presume that the "sources" are "related images", then we can presume that the source is the book listed - but it would be good to know the image source - but I think it may have been cropped... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]
  • wanna hyphen in "inward looking" and "vertically cut"?
  • Today its varnish is severely degraded - "today" redundant here
  • link Infrared photography somehwere
  • link bourrelet and cornette too
  • Descriptors for Panofsky and Danens at first mention

Comments from Victoriaearle

[edit]
  • I've made a few edits; please feel free to revert anything that you don't agree with.
  • The description of pigments (red lake, etc) and fingers is repeated at the bottom of the "Description" and at the bottom of the "Portrait" - probably best to combine somehow
  • I've had a look at a few sources regarding the inscriptions and in my view everything that can be said is being said here: basically no one really understands the inscriptions but there has been plenty of speculation.
  • I've removed the accent from LEAL SOVVENIR - either JvE decided not to use it or it wasn't used in 15th cent French; but all the sources agree that is French, as indicated in the article. Sources seem to be split about 50/50 whether the accent is used in the title. fwiw.
  • I thought about suggesting italics for the foreign language words (and quotes for the translations) but I'm thinking for this article it's probably best not to follow that convention because "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς" is enough of a mystery without giving it a slant.

Otherwise looks good to me. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - after really thinking about how to handle the Greek lettering and reading the article mentioned below (much of which is taken into account in the text). Elisabeth Dhanens has the final Greek letter as a character that looks to me like a squared off C, and the lead here says "The first inscription is in a form of Greek and seems to spell "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς", which has not been satisfactorily interpreted but has inspired some to title the work Timotheus" (emphasis mine), so maybe mention too in the body that the final letter is difficult to read and perhaps a note about the various interpretations. Anyway, other than the small bit of repetition, no other quibbles. Victoria (tk) 19:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits and support. Re the accent; its odd that the NG gives Léal, but have decided agaist a page move, per commonname. I did toy with renaming it TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC, but life is too short. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I agree that it's odd about the accent, but no, I wouldn't do a page move. It's in enough sources with the accent. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy Halloween. I posted some musings about the inscriptions on the talk page nearly 18 months ago. I'm not sure if they have been taken into account already or quietly dismissed (no doubt we should be comparing and contrasting what the sources say about the inscription, rather than adding our own glosses anyway). The article I mentioned - Paviot - may be helpful, but perhaps it has already been included indirectly through the existing citations? -- Theramin (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, square sigma, now added. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article now gives "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC" in the lead, and later reads, The top lettering is in chalk white, and contains the Greek script "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC", however the last character is deliberately concealed by a chip in the imitation stone, a device described by Panofsky as a "terminal flourish".[25] This makes it difficult to discern, with a general consensus among art historians that it is a square C or sigma sign. Campbell cautions that the fact that the inscription is in Greek indicates that it's meaning was probably intended "to be obscure", and that there may be a significant reason why the final character is partially illegible. He cautions that it would be "rash to attempt to supply the missing verb".[26]. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also added - Art historian Lorne Campbell points out that van Eyck "appears to have employed the Greek alphabet systematically", and always employed the square sigma C for the Latin "S", and a majuscule omega ω (in the uncial form) for the Latin "O".[26].
The Paviot article found by Theramin is excellent, both for reviewing existing research and speculation, and throwing new light. Ceoil (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to rely a little too heavily on Campbell; it'd be nice to include the TγΜω ΘΕΟν "I honour God" interpretation from http://www.jstor.org/stable/750257 - even while mentioning this is doubtful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added...Panofsky considers the hypothesis the the final letter is a "N", and that the lettering forms two words rather than one. In this interpretation, the letters spell TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN, meaning "Honour God". While he admires the convience of the interpretation, and the fact that it would make interpretation more straight forward than if we accept "Timotheus", he rejects the posibility. He writes that "the presence of a shorter horizontal line connecting with the slightly tapering top of the vertical stroke and completing it into a Γ form... evidently precludes a "N".[29]. I wonder am I correct in using "Γ"? Ceoil (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing - this is a technical issue, but I'm a little worried that we may be mixing Greek letters and similar non-Greek letters, in ways that could be very confusing for screenreaders. To be fair, this is a very, very hard thing to do - lunate sigma, for example, isn't a standard character, much less square sigma. Would Ϲ be too likely to fail? Of course, there's a lot of awkwardness in transcribing very bad Greek - the lower-case gamma, γ, is arguably better transcribed as Υ, because not one source gives it a value of "g" in transcription. Upsilon, though, is shapped like a Y in upper case, and that's what the sources seem to be using? .
The second level of awkward is that TMOEN [Latin alphabet] and ΤΜΟΕΝ (Greek alphabet) are actually different characters in Unicode. For example, compare clicking on Ν and N - and, no, I didn't pipe the link text, that's just the letters linked. As I said, though, this is VERY bad Greek, mixing upper and lower cases, so we need to decide how accurate to get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Modernist. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to figure out Greek

[edit]

There's a lot of inconsistencies in how this article handles Greek. If we can sort these out, I'm actually quite happy to support, but, as it is, if you know the Greek alphabet, there's a lot of little errors and inconsistencies.

We have TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC, which appears several times, and TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN, which appears once.

First of all, γ is lower-case gamma. From the way the articles are transliterating it, it has to be Upsilon, Y [Or, more properly, Υ - yes, they look identical, but we'll get to that]. If it's γ, then the phrase becomes something like Tgmotheos when transliterated - Y gives Tymotheos or Tumotheos, depending on transliteration; Timotheos is within acceptable bounds of dealing with bad Greek. - Checked three sources, one used an explicit Upsilon, two used Y. Made the change.

Secondly, TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC and TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN are not as different as you're making them look. Ω is an upper-case ω. Consistency really is necessary here. Made the change.

Thirdly, The letters following the punctuation probably read 'THEOS' - this is just wrong. Θ is TH, ωΘΕΟC is OTHEOS, and if you're translating, you may as well go to lower-case. "theos" is, indeed, Greek for God, or, more properly, "god". Also, this is complete notSee Paviot 215 Original research, but O is basically the Greek word for "the". ω ΘΕΟC is the vocative. http://www.foundalis.com/lan/definart.htm - the vocative addresses someone.

Added a note, but we need a source. Found LOTS of errors when I checked sources in this section - please recheck Campbell. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The "o" probably indicates the past tense" - this really, really doesn't make much sense as written. The "o" probably indicates the past tense; put together the inscription may read "Timotheus, Then God" - what? - I don't know what scholar said that, but they can't know much Greek; the greek articles - O and ω being two of them that can be attached to Theos - are basically one of the first things you're taught. Or you're misinterpreting it. But that's... I really don't get it. Hell, in Greek grammar, ending a verb in ω is basically the first-person present. I don't have advanced Greek knowledge, but... I'd really want a LOT more text before accepting that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section this was part of wasn't in the sources! No clue where it came from. Deleted and added some material from the source that had related material. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthly, we can probably get away with T for tau, O for omicron and so on, but maybe we shouldn't? ΤΥΜ.ωΘΕΟ- looks the same, but is probably more accurate. I've added a -. I'll come to that.

Fifthly, there's a unicode character for the lunate sigma that's as near as we can get to square sigma. It's Ϲ - but I'm a bit worried on this one, as basic Greek is really, really widely supported, because of its use in maths and physics. Things like the lunate sigma? Not quite so much. On the other hand, C isn't particularly accurate. We may be best off just using ς, and explaining about square sigma earlier. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian specifically asked me to make my views on whether something should pass clear, after the incident where me not doing so led to something accidentally being promoted with a copyvio image which got to the main page. So oppose, because I think anyone with even a little bit of Greek will find this one aspect of the article really problematic, but we should be able to fix it, and the article is good outside of the Greek. But... well, see above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did, tks, I'll walk through recent comments when I get a chance. In the meantime though, one bolded oppose is enough -- I assume the original one has been overtaken by this, so could you strike or unbold the first pls, Adam? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although we do need to fix the image mentioned there. I still haven't figured that one out, although I think I might have a plan. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the image is from Martin le Franc's, "Champion des Dames", created in Arras in 1451. I dumped a comment about it over on article talk. The image has been removed from the article, though it's of a 570 plus year old page from an illuminated mss. Re the Greek: I ran the article through the screen-reader on my computer and it read all the Greek characters properly and "C" as "C". I ran the comment above with the unicode character through the screen reader and it skipped right over it (in other words, ignored, didn't recognize). I think if we can't create the character that looks like an "E" without the middle line, then we just can't, nor should we try to substitute with another character. My final remark is simply that we have to follow the sources. All the sources say the final letter is hard to distinguish, then various interpretations are given, and then various translations. But basically no-one is certain. I don't think our article can go beyond what is in the sources. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but, at the same time, the sources are a bit confused. If I'll be forgiven for not using proper Greek characters where unnecessary:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/750257 gives TYM.ΩθEO- [describing the missing letter]. that is, using a capital Upsilon, not a lower case gamma, but converting the lower-case omega of the painting to an upper-case one for some reason. It does, however, use C for square sigma later.
Paviot and Wood, rather horrifyingly, uses TYM.WθEOC - that W is meant to be a lower-case Omega. Let's not follow their example.
Also, when I checked sources - I literally couldn't find some of the claims cited to them, particularly the one I objected to. I only have access to the journal sources, but can the section "Inscriptions and identity of sitter" please be rechecked carefully, because two different sources were misrepresented in it. Both Paviot and Wood's interesting points are mangled, in particular, two separate ideas on Paviot 214-5 were mangled together in ways that completely change the argument. I can help out a bit, but when two of the sources I can check were completely mangled in the move to the article, I think we need to check all the sources related to the Greek in that section, because - to put bluntly - it was completely and totally wrong in several claims according to the cited sources. I'm also 100% convinced this is nothing more than an error produced from not knowing the Greek alphabet, without which the complicated arguments would be very, very hard to follow. Ceoil knows what they're doing. If you can e-mail me the relevant bits of Campbell, and any other sources talking about the Greek inscription that aren't the JSTOR sources, I will personally make sure that that section is fixed.Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds just great. I'll photocopy the pages from Campbell at work tomorrow and send on scans. It seems many of the subtitlies of your initial objection were lost on me. I have a good grasp of the history, incongraphy, context etc of the painting, but as you say not the the Greek alphabet. Thanks to you and Victoria both for stepping in. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the talk page. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • File:DufayBinchois.jpg has source info added. Couldn't find an actual link to the file at BnF but the book is there; I found mention of it.
  • Sorted Paviot, Wood, and Dhanens, [19].
  • Commented out Campbell for now, [20]. If the book is anything like the size of Dhanens, it's hard to make copies & scans, but sounds like Ceoil is trying. The other points in that section from Campbell are in line with what's said in other sources, so imo, should be fine. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I still think we need to do this, I'm also convinced it's going to get done. So long as it's not going to be rushed onto the main page, I really don't want my opposition causing this to be closed as not promoted, so am striking it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting out the Campbell quote seems like the sensible thing to me, until we get this sorted. Adam, no it wont be rushed to main page, not until you are happy with the section. Ceoil (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Ford Island

[edit]
Nominator(s): v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the island at the center of the attacks on Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. I recently got stationed on Pearl Harbor and for the first two months here I was staying on this island at the Navy Lodge. I initially wrote Admiral Clarey Bridge which leads to this island. Then I started improving this article and I realized there was a lot of material that could be covered outside of the attacks themselves. I received help from User:Mareklug and User:Mark Miller and they should both receive credit if this is accepted.

This article has been peer reviewed and given an A-class review by the MilHist project. I am trying to get this accepted before Dec 7 so it can be featured on the main page on that day. I know it's a tight schedule and it's my fault for sitting on the A-class review for 3 months. I apologize. I hope ya'all can work with me on this one.v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review here.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

Ooh, if you need it on the main page on December 7, it'll need to be accepted probably a couple of weeks before that, per the processing speed of WP:TFAR. I don't have time right this second (actually, I really need to be studying), but I'll try to start giving my opinions here later today, though I'm not a big MILHIST guy or World War II buff. Best of luck. Tezero (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Yeah, I gave Bencherlite a heads up a few months ago about what I was up to. I'm just hoping the stars align at this point. It's completely my fault for sitting on the ACR. Life had become pretty busy and I was trying to chip away at the ACR needs a few at a time.--v/r - TP 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have a GAN that's been on hold since, like, the start of August because I keep putting off working on it and don't have a whole lot of sources for things that the reviewer has decided are necessary to include. Actually, I should probably just request he fail it and thank him for his time until I can actually get it up to snuff, now that I think about it. Things happen. Tezero (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time to get down to business and defeat the Huns:

  • "with landfill from the dredging of Pearl Harbor." - a bit confusing
    • Can you tell me which part is confusing? Let me try to explain what that means: Pearl Harbor was originally called Pearl river. It was deep enough for the ships in the 1700s and 1800s to get through, but as the United States started to build battleships in the 1880s, it became necessary to deeper harbors. A underwater trench was dug (as seen in this map) to allow the ships to transverse the river up into the lochs. The east loch was also deepened to allow mooring within the loch and it was deepened around Ford Island, specifically, to allow ships to turn around and exit. Land that was dug up from under water was used to increase the size of Ford Island by nearly a full third.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization of the lead baffles me. It's... mostly chronological, but with stuff like the 2011 designation as an endangered site thrown in at odd places. Mind explaining what you were going for, or doing a clearer, more consistent organization scheme?
    • I organized it chronologically with grouping of similar topics. So because I mentioned it becoming a national historic landmark in 1964, I also mentioned the historic endangered list in the same sentence even though it's 2011. If I did it completely chronological then I'd have to use simple sentences and someone cautioned me against that. I'm willing to go with whatever you suggest though.--v/r - TP 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The island has been featured in films such as Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbor," - ditch the comma
  • "Ford Island is in the center of the East Loch of Pearl Harbor" - I know, stupid American who doesn't know his own history or geography reporting in, but... Pearl Harbor has lochs? Can you give a very brief rundown in the article of Pearl Harbor's structure? I don't imagine most Americans know, especially without even giving a link to Pearl Harbor there.
  • I wonder if Flora and fauna couldn't be expanded. I know nothing about the life forms in Pearl Harbor, other than that the humans there are probably either timid or tourists. Are any life forms typical of Pearl Harbor also found on Ford Island?
    • The island is quite barren since the Army took it over. Mostly pavement and building, grass and trees. I'll see if there is anything else I can dig up, but I really doubt it.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor note, but when discussing the name of the island you should probably throw a link to Hawaiian language somewhere.
OK, I think I have this figured out now. Originally there was some conflicting information about the interpretation or translation of the name and how to reference that. Reliable sources are firm on the interpretation but the direct translation and mention of the Hawaiian language is an important detail. No need to change any existing reference but simply add a small referenced line. I used both the online dictionary and a book source. For now I'll add both and we can trim off anything that doesn't work for FA. The translation is simply: "Moku (island, inlet) and 'ume (1- To draw, attract or entice. 2- Sexual game of the common people. Because opposite sexes are attracted to each other, the word ʻUme is used in the name ("kilu" is the game chiefs' would engage in). --Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Let me know if the addition needs more work.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't stand one-line paragraphs. Can you expand the middle one in Ancient Hawaiians or merge it somewhere?
  • Consider italicizing or double-quoting the various names used for the island when they're discussed as names, e.g. Rabbits Island, Moku'ume'ume.
  • "9 February 1818", "28 August 1865", etc. - pfft, you might as well just be burning an American flag, commie.
  • "who believed that the land was fertile, sacred and could not be owned by anyone" - grammar; it should be "was fertile, was sacred, and could not be owned by anyone" or "was fertile, sacred, and unable to be owned by anyone".
  • The empty space in the table's a little strange. I'd prefer making it a closed-in space and simply nulling it out with an em-dash or coloring it grey.
  • There are a few redlinks in the article. Yes, I know, this isn't a requirement, and I won't push it if you're not interested, but I think it'd look better if you either delinked them or redirected them somewhere.
  • "was headquarters of Patrol Wing Two" - shouldn't it be "was the headquarters"?
  • "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island" - I don't understand this section title. It might help if some of the words were de-capitalized.
    • NALF Ford Island was it's name. I could possibly cut out the "Ford Island" part of it and leave it as "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field". Would that help?--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I so want to chime in here with:  Not done. I was taught by my English Composition teacher (who also read in Anglo-Saxon to us for extra fun) that if something is at first confusing but on inspection passes muster, it is fine. This really is the name, and it is fine. One might consider reusing that full name in text soon after the heading to reinforce, but absolutely, Tom, don't fix what ain't broke. Kind regards, --Mareklug talk 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two short paragraphs again at the beginning of Film and television. You could probably just merge them.
  • Why is "F" used as an index for the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" category? The page is already called "Ford Island".
  • Likewise with the "United States Naval Auxiliary Landing Fields" category.

That's probably it for me; take a look at these when you have the time. Looks nice. Tezero (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Protonk

[edit]

I'll have some specific comments later, but I'll broadly support this for FA. See my comments on the A-Class review for some color on the suggestions I've made so far. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Garnet Malley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to commemorate the centenary of World War I, I offer another Australian fighter ace of that conflict to follow on from my earlier nominations of Elwyn Roy King and Roy Phillipps. Garnet Malley's score of victories never reached the heights of King and Phillipps but unlike them he did manage to live to a relatively ripe old age, and is probably of greater interest for his association with Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists during the 1930s than his exploits in World War I. His on-the-spot observations of air tactics in the Sino-Japanese War might've been of considerable assistance to Australia as war in the Pacific loomed but his apparent status-seeking in China seems to have led the Royal Australian Air Force to take his reports with a grain of salt. This has recently been through GAN and MilHist A-Class Review, and I'd like to acknowledge Georgejdorner for the initial work that got it to around B-Class. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4 and similar: this title shouldn't be italicized, as in the full citation
  • FN38: other short cites use fuller title - compare FN17
  • FN48: "shek" shouldn't be capitalized
  • Bean vs Cutlack: different editions but same publication year - is this correct?
  • Gill: which volume is this in that series? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a look at this article earlier at A-class and having reviewed the changes since then, I believe that it meets the FAC requirements. For the purposes of this review, I have checked the following images: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Garnet Malley 1930 (nla.pic-vn6256044-v cropped).jpg: source checks out, and licence seems appropriate;
  • File:GFMalley.jpg: licence seems fine, although the source does not appear to state 1918 explicitly. This date appears to be supported by the article, though, which mentions Garnet's posting to the unit in in 1918. Perhaps this could be explained on the image description page, or a citation added?
  • File:LukisRichmond1925.jpg: licence seems fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not responding sooner, Rupert. Tks for stopping by and supporting, I suspect I said 1918 because that's the only year he was instructing in England but I should indeed add that info to the image file, with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco

  • Madame Chiang Kai-shek - Why not name her directly, rather than identify her with her husband's name?
    • It was the sources' common way of mentioning her, and I did think she would be better known in En-WP by that, but no reason we shouldn't educate people, eh? I think the relationship should be made clear without opening the link though, so how about "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, Soong May-ling" or similar?
  • After the war he bought a plantation in Fiji, where he died in 1961. - died on the plantation or Fiji? This could mean both
    • Well, yes, but in the interests of brevity/flow I thought that since the plantation was on Fiji it was close enough for the lead. If you still think not I'll look at recasting...
  • the Oxford University air school - worth a redlink?
    • Maybe -- I don't think I'd be creating the article though.
  • was promoted lieutenant or was promoted to lieutenant
  • Malley's final victim, - victim? Erm... is there a more neutral word?
    • Pretty standard terminology in sources, and I thought it better than "kill" as a variation on the ubiquitous "victory", but will have a think...
  • by a bullet in March, and shrapnel in May. - any information on these?
    • The exact date for one of those was not given, from memory, and they weren't life-threatening, so I didn't go into more detail but I could if you think it'd work better.
  • Peace Loan - link?
  • The union would produce one son, Maldon. - worth saying "in 1940"?
  • Malley's Ltd - I believe the MOS recommends we drop "Limited" and such
    • Okay, tks.
  • Southern Cross (aircraft) - mention that it was successful?
    • Was probably concerned about over-detailing but happy to add something.
  • One of the tasks she assigned him was investigating corrupt procurement practices in the air force. - did he have an impact? Also, link something related to the Chinese air force?
    • Yes, could certainly add further detail to this bit.
  •  in attempting to evaluate his role and importance – both within the Australian aviation scene but more particularly the decade he spent in China ... it is plainly inappropriate to dismiss or discount his contribution; yet equally it is not possible to verify all that he claimed, and therefore to attach the same weight or significance as he did in assessing his impact and influence. - can we contextualize this a bit better? I mean, there's obviously commentary on his impact... but that's not evident from the article. Another paragraph would be grand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmm, I felt the quote tended to sum up quite well what had been said in the paragraphs on his time in China (which for instance spelt out that any details at all on his first five years there was sketchy at best). The point I get from Chris Coulthard-Clark -- author of that quote and evidently Australia's leading expert on Malley -- is that there is little independent commentary on his impact in China. Perhaps I've missed something though so by all means let's discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, I've copyedited; please see my edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [23].[reply]

William Beach Thomas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a war correspondent of WWI who gained both fame and infamy for his efforts and was also prominent as a writer of articles and books concerning rural affairs and nature. He was imprisoned for his activities in the early part of the war and also much parodied in the Wipers Times trench newspaper. He was later knighted by both the British and the French. It has been suggested that he may have been the inspiration for the character of William Boot in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop. -Sitush (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why are you italicizing the titles of periodical articles?
  • I've had a chat off-wiki about this issue with {{citation}} suddenly causing problems. The issue in this article will be resolved by amending the citation style but there are probably a lot of FAs and GAs that will require changing unless the bods who are into templates manage to fix this issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eric Corbett: has helped me enormously with this, for which I am grateful. We've now converted all of the citations affected by the recent bug in {{citation}} so that they use {{r}} instead. There is one outstanding issue, which is my dislike of how citation #35 appears. That should hopefully be fixed shortly, whether I am here or not. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • although it was also met with criticism and parodied by soldiers: was the criticism restricted to the soldiers?
  • No. With hindsight, I think that the lead needs a bit of work. The body makes it clear that the criticism continues to the present day. I'll update this point when I have modified the lead, although I'm really not very good at writing those things. IIRC, Drmies wrote up this one, at my request. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beach Thomas's real interest was countryside matters however.: I don't think the "however" is adding anythign here, and the "real" seems to imply his war correspondence was a "false" interest. Perhaps something like "Beach Thomas had a greater interest in countryside matters." or "Beach Thomas's primary interest was in countryside matters."?
  • in the county of Huntingdonshire, England on 22 May 1868: Looking throughout the article, you appear to be one of those who disagree, but many would insist on a comma after "England". You could move "on 22 May 1868" earlier in the sentence and not have to worry about people "fixing" it.
  • played [[Association football|football]], [[rugby union]]: any reason you'd shorten "association football" but not "rugby union"?
  • His exhibition was superseded by a scholarship but he was not academically successful: an "exhibition" appears to be a type of scholarship—can you clarify this second scholarship?
  • At Oxbridge, an exhibition is not a scholarship. I held an exhibition during my first year but it was replaced with a scholarship for the remaining years. At least at my college, an exhibition is an award of money (a tiny amount, nowadays - £60 in my case) but carries no other privileges or responsibilities: it is an award recognising ability and can be gained or lost in later years. Oxbridge scholarships generally do carry responsibilities, eg: reading grace at meals, playing the organ at chapel services, "officiating" in various other aspects of college life. I think this is something that would require elucidation at the relevant technical article rather than in this one. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • assisted him in getting his first job at a public school: the way this is worded, it seems to suggest that it helped him get a job at a public school rather than another kind of school; unless that's what you intended, I'd move Public school (United Kingdom) to the next sentence, qualifying Bradfield School.
  • his duties while he holidayed: if you're much interesting in WP:COMMONALITY, you might want to choose something like "took time off" instead of "holidayed".
  • published by [[Ward Lock & Co|Ward Lock]] in 1901, following his 1900 contribution: </nowiki>ou might want include the "& Co"—otherwise "his contribution" could appear to the contribution of a man named Ward Lock.
  • To his delight the newspaper's owner, Lord Northcliffe, recognised that for him to perform his duties well it would be necessary for him to live in a rural environment and thus limit his visits to London.: Lord Northcliffe appears the antecedent of those hims
  • he explained that ... We could not run: not a fan of changing from one voice in the main sentence to another in a "that" clause (read it aloud and you may hear why); perhaps change "explained that" to "expalined:"?
  • OK, I've changed it. I don't pretend to understand why it jars but the change is minor. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compare these sentences: "He said that he saw her."—"He said, 'I saw her'"—"He said that 'I saw her.'" A direct quotation is a direct object of "say", "explain", and thus cannot come after "that"; if it comes after "that" the quote must be indirect. Read "He said that 'I saw her.'" aloud and you'll hear that it parses very differently from how it reads. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He described the episode as "the longest walking tour of my life, and the queerest.": again, a queer switch in POV when read aloud
  • I do not understand the problem here, given that it is a quotation. sorry but could you elaborate or is it one of those things that is can really be appreciated only if spoken aloud? - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • downplayed the unpleasant aspects of the conflict such as the nature of death: surely not the actual "nature of death"?
  • I imagine Beach Thomas' war correspondence is in the Public Domain—would it be possible to have a snippet to show what people were criticizing and parodying?
  • The parodies of Beach Thomas in the Wipers Times were under the by-line of "Teech Bomas".: why shunt this into a footnote?
  • somewhat contrary to the official line that tried to emphasise that this was a British war rather than an English one.: this'll be lost on non-British readers, especially us colonial-types who were taught that when Empire went to war, we were all automatically on board. Is there perhaps an article on this issue that can be linked to?
  • In 1918 Northcliffe asked Beach Thomas to travel to the US.: Did he go? What happened if he did? The way it's worded, we have Beach Thomas being asked to go to the US and then suddenly accompanying the King to France.
  • Yes, he went. Details of what he actually did there are scarce but I will see if I can pump it up a bit. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added this. Ford and Roosevelt are also mentioned in the prior source used in that paragraph (a book review) but that source is less clear regarding whether he met them or was telling an anecdote. Other than this, I would have to rely on Beach Thomas's book itself and, well, we already know that he was not the most reliable of sources and was prone to self-promotion. I could always get the thing out from the library again, though, if that is what you need. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • including that "comparative wealth [there] is admired, not envied": I had to read this several times to figure out what appears to be its sense—could this be "stating" (or somesuch) rahter than "including"?
  • that catered both for those pursuing: is "cater for" (rather than "cater to") a BrEng thing?
  • Later, in 1946, he harked back to a lost world, perhaps even a world that was more of his imagination than it ever was fact.: in what way did he "hark back" in 1946? Everything that follows is rather general and vague.
  • I'm not sure that it can be improved. I don't understand your stress on 1946 and the entire issue seems clear enough to me (perhaps this is a failing attributable to me being a Brit? Some sort of innate understanding?). In large part, the rural revivalists seem to have engaged in invention of tradition but we'd need an explicit source to use such a loaded term. Perhaps we really need is an article that deals with the subject of rural revivalism itself, and that is a pretty big topic that encompasses art, architecture, philosophy, politics, economics, etc. It is also not limited to the inter-war years: for example, compare Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village to Thomas Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I'm asking is: what happened in 1946? Giving us this year makes it seem like you're about to follow up with something concrete—an event, the publication of a book, a declaration of something-or-other ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was in his book, A Countryman's Creed. I have requested a copy of the paper by Malcolm Chase - This is no claptrap: this is our heritage - in the hope that I can improve on the "invention of tradition" element. That paper is already cited but, rather stupidly, I didn't retain a copy after using it. Chase's paper was published in The Imagined Past: History and Nostalgia, a review of which in Victorian Studies journal (JSTOR 3828139) does say that the collection's theme is "pasts invented by the Victorians to serve their present needs" - is that too tenuous a connection to permit us to use the "invented tradition" phrase? - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the sons predeceased the parents, serving as a naval officer during the Second World War.: is this all we get? No date or cause of death?
  • who died at home: no cause of death?
  • Among the obituaries to Beach Thomas were those published in Nature and The Times.: short, one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon, and I don't see anything in this one that one grant it an exception. In fact, I might merge all three paragraphs in this section.

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

  • "he harked back to a lost world": Agreed with Curly. That means he turned back to an earlier topic; how did he do that? Did he write something? Say something?

Image review

[edit]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. I reviewed this for GA and am glad to see it here at FAC. A couple of minor points:

  • "preferring instead to control the media through the issue of official press releases": I think "issue" should be "issuance", but that sounds a little pompous. How about "control the media by issuing official press releases"?
  • "between 1992–2002": per MOS:ENDASH this needs to be changed to avoid mixing "between" with an en dash.
  • "Another potential model for the character of William Boot was Bill Deedes": this is uncited, and I think really needs a citation.
Added. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beach Thomas had worked under James Louis Garvin at The Outlook and it was he who brought him to The Observer": I can't tell whether Garvin is "he" or "him" here.
  • "In 1918 Northcliffe asked Beach Thomas to travel to the US": this paragraph says nothing about what Beach Thomas did for Northcliffe -- presumably he wrote dispatches, or articles?
  • ODNB says "he was sent on an American tour". He certainly filed some stories, eg: this, but I'm not sure that was necessarily his primary purpose. Northcliffe had himself been a special emissary to the US from the UK in 1917 and it is possible that Beach Thomas was furthering Northcliffe's work with meet-and-greets etc. I'm afraid that we would have to rely on what Beach Thomas himself says in his book if further elaboration is needed ... and BT is far from being a dispassionate documenter of his own activities. If you believe WorldCat, the nearest library to me that holds a copy of that book is 800 km away, in Germany (!), but I did find a copy in the university library at Cambridge. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck; if you've covered what the source says, I don't think we need Beach Thomas's own work to support it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a situation he considered analogous to that of Henry II and Thomas à Beckett": does the source actually say "analogous"? I can see "reminiscent" being reasonable, but "analogous" seems to go beyond the humour of the situation. Unless the photographer were subsequently killed, of course....
No need, your tweak is correct. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'considered writers such as him to be "so fond of the past that': I think this should be "such as he", though the usage is rather formal and it might be worth rephrasing to avoid it altogether.
  • "and in part echoed the concerns raised by Clough Williams-Ellis": you don't say what these concerns were -- the following sentence talks about national parks.
  • 'The new government, according to Robert Hemmings, saw the countryside "as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city."': is this Beach Thomas's opinion, or just a colourful background quote illuminating the general position? I think there needs to be some connection between Beach Thomas and this opinion; if his own published work says the same thing less pithily then that's fine.
  • I will do some reading for this point. "Less pithily" will probably be an understatement, though: everything that I have read of BT tends towards the long-winded. It may well turn out to be better just to dump the Hemmings quote. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, a more complete rendition of the Hemmings quote would be: "The tensions and anxieties of the present that shape Thomas's construction of this past include not only the aftermath of the war, its physical, psychological and moral destruction, but also the sweeping victory in 1945 of the Labour government, and its ideological threats to the rural English social tradition, in which the countryside is figured as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city." The "construction of this past" is the "invention of tradition" point that I've raised elsewhere on this page. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The longer quote makes it clear that Hemmings is using this in the context of Thomas's opinions, so I think there's no problem with the quote. It might be a bit easier on the reader to add an explanatory phrase, making it clear who Hemmings is and the relationship of the quote to Thomas. How about 'The new government was a threat to Beach Thomas's view of the world because, in the words of literary critic Robert Hemmings, it saw the countryside "as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city."'? (Not sure if "literary critic" is the right description for Hemmings.) How does that sound? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very brief bio of Hemmings here that would support "literary critic", although the book is pretty heavy on cultural history/psychology. I think your suggestion for rewording is great and I'm going to use it now. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of minor points left; I will support once those are cleaned up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've supported above. The article is a pleasure to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [24].[reply]

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last of the US Highways in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to come to FAC. It runs in the rural western UP, and it is the site of an alleged apparition according to local folklore. While it is not that long compared to other highways in Michigan, the resulting article is a good compact read. Imzadi 1979 → 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (1 question)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see I was reverted ... I don't know what "debuted in Michigan by 1935 on maps of the time" means; this isn't the usual usage of "debut". Random House (in dictionary.com) gives: "5. to make a debut, as in society or in a performing art: She decided to debut with several other violinists. 6. to appear for the first time, as on the market: A new product will debut next month." merriam-webster.com gives: "to appear in public for the first time : to make a debut". - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank:, this edit introduced an inaccuracy. First off, at that time, US 45 was extended northward from Illinois through Wisconsin and into Michigan, debuting in the state for the first time on those maps. Maps showing more than just the state of Michigan would have displayed the updated routing for the highway, so "Michigan maps" isn't quite accurate as maps of the general US Highway System, the Midwest, or even maps of Wisconsin would have shown the extension into Michigan. Sadly, AASHTO has only released committee minutes back to the 1960s, or we could avoid any reference to maps and cite the exact date of the extension. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that's helpful. I'm not going to make a call here, I'm just giving the dictionary definitions of "debut", in case people find the information relevant. I'm not sure that "debut" fits in this sentence (and if I had it to do over, I wouldn't have used the word myself). - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Australian raven

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a bird I see most every day..it got a good going-over at GAN and I am feeling pretty happy with it. I reckon any fixes will take less than seven days and promise to fix issues pronto. Have at it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • blamed of killing lambs—blamed for?
oops, changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the nest a bowl-shaped structure of sticks—missing word "is"
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The location that the type specimen was collected is not recorded—missing words "in which"
hmm, no but agree is ungainly. changed to "where" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He named this the crow and C. australis (as Corone australis) the raven.—reads strangely, quote marks round names perhaps
rejigged it a bit as is tricky. added quotes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the climate was cooler and dryer, the aridity of central Australia split them entirely. —"became" rather than "was" if I'm reading this correctly
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the eastern diverged into nomadic little ravens and, in forested refuges, forest ravens —missing word after "eastern"?
added a noun Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ornithologist Ian Rowley suggested the western populations may be older in origin as they lack the vigour of the eastern.[5]—How do you measure vigour, and why does it correlate with age of populations. Reads like something from 1870 rather than 1970
I have rejigged it some. Rowley said it - who knows, maybe he was working backwards after noting the western one has affinities with the little/forest raven. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • galahs and starlings—links to species, and binomials since you have done so for other birds
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the logic behind binomials for birds and ticks, but not red fox, yabbie or Christmas beetle
oops, oversight. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The base map is File:World map.jpg. I will get a page number for data shortly source for map range added now to image file too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco

[edit]

The Criscraven

Once upon a noonday dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of animal lore—
I thought of the species, of Vigors and Horsfield, and was rearing
The subject had been "the two subspecies" the sentence before
A shift in subject it was, from the sentence before
Only this and nothing more
Onward I trekked through my page and a half of taxonomical flair
And across Parramatta district did I stumble, then implore
This great name could surely be linked, if you dare
To Electoral district of Parramatta, and its lore
And "Corvus australis Gould to be preoccupied", the lore
Unclear for now, and evermore
Upon this statement I stumbled, of ravens of intermediate features
And wondered, if in western ravens interbreeding did occur
I tripped upon the mulga-eucalypt boundary line, and in tears
I called for information, for data, for more, more, more!
Knowing so little, I can only beg for a redlink or more
So let us see it, I must implore.

To be continued... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral
district of Parramatta
is political
Parramatta is
more faithful to the meaning
so I used instead
"the two subspecies"
has been shifted so it sits
more neatly in lead
no information
on hybridization could
I find - so unchanged
an explanation
for Corvus australis I
added as footnote
a redlink added
for mulga-eucalypt line
article to-be

There....six haikus....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about the end of October? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
heh...not sure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comments I have read
agree with them all, I do
let me continue
The night now young, I continue on, moving forth 3 cm
Yet the loss of inches that I face ... Despair to the core!
I dig into this animal lore, and still my mind wanders
Questing for a link to Brisbane, a city I admit I adore
Though Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, and Adeleide I adore
No standardized linking is something I so deplore
Confusion strikes me, as I read of spiders, caterpillars, and friends
Which of our many-legged fiends are eaten by ravens on the soar
And which, at the beaks of the crying young, meet their ends
And must we again say it is not feet that do their chore
Of feeling and grasping and turning, all the bill's chore
This repeated repetition repeatedly leaves my eyes sore
As the evening grows dark, I must admit that I grow leery
Not wanting to push too hard, should I be shown the door
Dare I say that two sections are too short and bleary
Lead of Crow, trickster of old, but no examples of folklore?
And of the European and immigrant Australian folklore
Are there not films, or legends, or tales of yore?
Quoth the Crisraven
Forever sore — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all done
but folkloric references
are non-specific
(damn...can't fit into haiku...problem is "crow/trickster" stories are often general for corvids.....will have another look....
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worry not, oh Cas
Question not specific birds
But specific tales — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
damn - this is proving hard to find some specific to ravens. We have Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology) already though....might need to go to library....or something... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]

Will add comments as I read along. Feels a bit anticlimactic commenting after the above, like being scheduled to play a concert after Led Zeppelin. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think all bird article should have a photo of how the animal looks in flight (when available, of course). Could only find this for the species here:[26]
added it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially interesting free Flickr images (article feels a bit empty): Individual harassing a rainbow lorikeet:[27] Individuals foraging on garbage (with an ibis in background?):[28] Some kind of social activity (caption says two adults with juveniles):[29] Individual with fish head:[30] Individual taking road kill (a Vanellus chick):[31]
hmm, need to think on these. none are as exciting as some others I've seen. I could also take my camera to work and see as ravens are everywhere (as are ibises and silver gulls, makes for some potential interesting pecking order type photos) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they're not great as photos, but they do show some interesting behaviour not depicted in the article. The one with the parrot I think is quite interesting, and showing them with garbage would make sense under human relations. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Gould noted a single species of corvid in Australia, Corvus australis". Is this a synonym of something? Same with Corone australis. Neither redirect to anything...
I tweaked it to see if it makes it clearer. Essentially he went with precedence using the oldest available name, which was Corvus australis Gmelin 1788 - which was listed as from Tonga but was from Tasmania (note this is actually the forest raven, which was only recognised in the 1960s.) Neither links to anything as neither is a recognised name and there are other links around to forest raven and I didn't want to labour it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above mentioned names should probably also be listed under synonyms in the taxobox, though they were preoccupied.
I added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after declaring Corvus australis Gould to be preoccupied" Preoccupied by what species? I see it is in a note, but would be nice to see in the article, by just adding "by the black nunbird".
I de-footnoted it as on reading it again think it flows better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why marianae was erected, when coronoides was already available as replacement name?
Mathews' egotism? Mathews was a heavy splitter, so has described many subspecies now not recognised - this was a case over oversplitting corvids Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, could the sentence about australis being preoccupied be moved up to where australis is discussed? Now it seems a bit disjointed.
These can be a real headache. In the past with complex naming situations like this, I have been told it makes most sense if listed chronologically. The final australis ruling was much later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the story behind the affinis and difficilis synonyms? Seems like an oversight, when other synonyms are treated in some detail.
Added material on difficilis now.Looking for other. Found initial entry in German.................. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for affinis, I can't say anything more than "Christian Ludwig Brehm described Corvus affinis in 1845, later determined to be this species". Shall I add it (or something similar?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good enough to me. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When this is implemented, I'll add my formal support. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although called a raven" Maybe it should be noted that the words raven and crow have little taxonomic meaning? Now readers could be led to believe that the species is somehow "misnamed" as a raven, as it is related to species called "crows", even though it just means a big member of Corvus...
good point...I just removed "although". Will look for a sentence on the interchangeability of crow/raven Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the sentence does not explain why it starts with "although". Two other ravens are listed with the crows.
agreed - just removed "although" and rejigged it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rowley noted that the western ravens had features intermediate between Australian and little ravens." A bit unclear, the western ravens are Australian ravens as well, so why is the eastern raven only named as such, and not as "eastern"?
first "western" is ancestral, so left as western, second is western ssp. Rewrote second bit to clarify. I was being a bit sloppy there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since so many different "ravens" are mentioned in that paragraph, I think it would be clearer if you added "Australian" after each time eastern or western is mentioned.
enough now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the subspecies have common names?
Sort of/not really. They are generally just known as "Australian raven" everywhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to note which subspecies are shown in the included photos?
all are eastern subspecies apart from a single photo from Perth - I did wonder about adding but mused it might look a little repetitive. I thought adding locale would be helpful.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the sections about evolution and genetic affinities should have an "evolution" subheading under taxonomy? It's quite a chunk...
Tempted to...done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything on when corvids entered Australia, and when this species diverged?
Aaah yes, the paper has it :))) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the feet large and well developed" What does "well developed" mean here?
the claws are described as "powerful" in the source, so maybe "strong" is better...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the other four species have" I would add "of Australian corvids" the first time "four other species" are mentioned, for clarity.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Torresian crow is linked to a second time under distribution. Should it be?
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video seems little relevant to the section it is next to.
been scratching my head 'bout that one...is nice to have a video...but the bird isn't doing anything specific.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that was banded and recovered 12 years and 5 months later" Live or dead?
alive! added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so trees taller than surrounding trees are selected." Isn't either and or so redunda
reworded to "tall or emergent trees" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lithistman

[edit]

While I prefer the form and structure of the "old days", when a reference wasn't breaking up the prose every sentence, I really found this article quite a pleasure. The image placement works very well, the prose is sound, and the content interesting. I love reading featured articles (and, in this case, featured article candidates) on such lesser-known topics. Given all this, and the improvements that have been made to an already well-crafted article based on Jimfbleak's suggestions above, I support making Australian raven a featured article. LHMask me a question 01:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Victoriaearle

[edit]

Support. Nice easy read, clearly explained - well, as clear as crows/ravens can be explained! I have flocks of something come through my backyard in the wintertime and have always wondered whether ravens or crows, but I'm still none the wiser. It's interesting too that the folklore/mythologies about crows/ravens down under seem to be identical to Native American mythologies. Anyway, nice job. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanx - typo catches much appreciated! I suspect yours will be carrion crows. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmanradio's comments

[edit]
mostly introduction
  • In the introduction; "Scavenging on ... as well as lamb faeces". Needs more explanation for clarity. I recall hearing about hungry ravens eating horse faeces at a time when they lived in towns and villages in England during the winter when food was sparse. For the body of the article, is there anything about what nutrition there is in this sort of animal faeces? Would Australian Ravens birds eat faeces only when other food is in short supply? Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources seems to be saying that they eat them pretty readily. It does not elaborate on their nutrition. The birds are omnivorous so I dn't think there are any particular nutrients they are getting. I suspect that a newborn lamb's first faeces might have a higher proportion of blood and contents like that but have not seen anything in the source to corroborate that. I will try and investigate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If it applies only to young lambs, then it might be undigested milk (and some protein in sloughed epithelial cells). Same as in humans. I have heard that some dogs in Africa eat (or lick-up) human babies faeces. I presume that the birds will not be able to digest lactose from milk, but it might be worth find out if this is a special case. I guess that, an adult sheep's digestion will be more effective and extract as much nutrition as is possible. Snowman (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I found some info about the faeces and have added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more understandable now, as least for the faeces of newborn lambs. Would this imply a lamb up to two or three days old or something like that? Is the faeces of older lambs nutritious? Do ravens eat the faces of a lamb that is a month old? In the case of dogs eating human babies faeces, I think that this can continue for babies up to several months old, as least. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It means the faeces of very young lambs - I don't think lamb faeces stay treacly for very long at all. I don't think it means more than a few days. Dogs eat all sorts of faeces of all ages so that is not a good comparison. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds a bit like meconium. Are you describing meconium? Snowman (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like. Pity the source doesn't make the link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "strong" - source uses "large and powerful" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the timing is not significant enough for the lead - the splitting and lumping of corvids in Australia is complex (not surprising as they are all very similar in appearance!) and the person who named the western subspecies (Mathews) was an extreme splitter, most of whose subspecies are no longer recognised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is more complicated than I first thought and probably best not featured in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the killing is very rare. This is the original paper. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, my book appears to have over simplified it. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the aritcle does mention it can be difficult. If a farmer finds a dead lamb in a field, it might be impossible to tell if it was weakend before it was attacked and died, or whether the ravens just found a dead one and ate it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Similar seen in introduction for re-phrasing. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
other
All corvids are intelligent and as far as I know I have not come across a source that suggests they are more intelligent than other corvids. If the book you are reading has a specific example of their capabilities I think that would be worth adding. Otherwise I have my doubts. If you do think we should add nonetheless where would you put a statement and what would it say? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that the peoples of ancient Australia noticed that raven was "the Watcher and was wily and unpredictable". This suggests they thought the ravens were intelligent. I would complement this with a comment about the intelligence of ravens in the main description in the "Behaviour section". My book just says that ravens are "resourceful and intelligent", so I would just add that. Snowman (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok if you give me a page number I can add it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence on page 351. Snowman (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pity we can't use clips like this really... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
update - have added a ref which mentions intelligence and innovative foraging Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its range is also highly correlated with the presence of sheep." Is anything known about its range before the arrival of sheep in Australia? Is there any association with the huge numbers of feral goats and camels in Australia now? Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rowley (an expert on Australian corvids) doesn't explain but he thinks it was expanding (I think, will double check on this). I just drove from Adelaide to Sydney via Broken Hill and was surprised at how many goats I did see. Goats and camels are spread right across the continent and often in dryer areas where there are no ravens, so no there isn't. The books don't link them either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the range before sheep a mystery? Snowman (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
pretty much - sheep have been around since the start of the colonies here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest and for a sense of completion of this topic, is there any association with this raven with kangaroo's including the extinct species of kangaroo or any other Australian mammals. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I have seen or read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • About juveniles; "... and sometimes have a pink fleshy gape.[30]". They may have pink gapes, but I think that this is a misunderstanding, because my book says that the bare skin on the sides of the neck and near the beak is pink. Snowman (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
which book do you have. HANZAB and rowley are the best sources for getting it right. Gape is inside the mouth. I have not seen a juvenile like that. I see these birds alot and even rescued a juvenile that couldn't fly last year at the end of my street. Maybe a very very little bird but juvenile usually means a 1 year old like this, which I took. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book I had been looking at is; Simpson, Ken (1986). Field Guide to the Birds of Australia: a Book of Identification. Illustrated by Trusler, Peter (2nd ed.). Australia: Viking O'Neil: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-670-900729.. I bought it a few weeks ago from a local secondhand book shop. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The exact words used in the book is; "1st year extensive pink skin on the sides of chin". Perhaps, that does mean gape, but "side of chin" sounds like outside the gape to me. The illustration shows some pink around the gape looking like some pink is outside of the birds mouth. Anyway, you should know what juveniles look like. I have never seen an Australian Raven. Snowman (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aah well, if you ever come to Australia, they are all over Sydney and very easy to see. They are shyer than magpies, which my mum feeds on her verandah - the ravens seem happy enough outside the dumpsters and garbage bins Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a juvenile on flickr and it has a pink chin as described in my book. My book says that the pink chin is seen in the first year, so it would not be apparent in the one you photographed, because it was one year old apparently. Surely, the description of the juvenile should include the first-year pink chin. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I have seen many ravens and never seen that. must be pretty young. I will check the source again and try to calibrate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
update - source checked and info on pink bare skin of birds recently left the nest added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australian ravens can kill birds as large as galahs (Eolophus roseicapillus)". It does not actually say that they kill Galahs, but birds as big as a Galah. A Galah is a strong quick bird, agile in the air, and its beak can give a strong bite. I am surprised that a raven can kill a healthy adult Galah, so could this be double checked please. Galahs form big flocks, so I do not know how a raven would isolate a healthy one. Snowman (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source says, "On two occasions a group of C. coronoides was watched attacking young galahs, Cacatua roseicapilla, and one of these attacks ended in hte galah being killed. On one occasiona a coronoides was seen to seize a starling, Sturnus vulgaris, from a flying flock; the prey was grasped in the feet and borne to the ground for dispatch." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a juvenile Galah would be slower and weaker than an adult. Snowman (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added "young" to galah Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
small pugnacious birds such as willie wagtails and noisy miners readily mob all/any bigger birds, so this is not specific to the raven. Mobbing is pretty common - two years ago I picked up a stunned barn owl off the ground just outside my work after it was mobbed by ravens and pied currawongs (funny coincidence as barn owl is at FAC too) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be specific to the raven, but it does happen. Article says that ravens eat birds' eggs. I think that it would be reasonable to say that smaller birds mob the raven as they would do any larger bird in defense. I think it would paint a better picture of the ravens going about their daily foraging. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any mention of this in hte HANZAB source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This thread may not have been fruitful. Often, I have no idea what will follow after I find a topic to discuss in a FA candidate review. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was worth checking. Sometimes we come up with dead ends Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are - the header above them (Evolution and systematics) is a level 3 subheading of Taxonomy and naming. Funkmonk suggested the subdivision of the section. It is very long otherwise. I thought the material on the subspecies belonged near the material on evloution Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the phylogram be headed Australian corvids and not Australasian corvids. The extinct New Zealand crow (Palaeocorax moriorum) and probably others would be included if the phylogram was for all the regional corvids. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that the Bismarck crow is native to New Britain and not Australia. The phylogram includes the Bismarck crow, so it can not titled "Australian Corvids. The phylogram does not have enough corvids to cover all the Australasian corvids, so the title Australasian corvids is also not suitable. It seems to me that "crow" and "raven" are somewhat random in the genus, so "crow ancestor" and "raven ancestor" on on the phylogram might be confusing. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I had "Australasian corvids" in the beginning as the Torresian crow is also from New Guinea. The Bismarck crow is only recently recognised as a species so is hard to incorporate if not discussed in systematic papers. Most people would assume that "Extant.." is implied in the heading. I don't think enough is known about the extinct NZ crow to consider it, and I would personally not see the need to add "Extant.." to cover it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a little more about Australasian corvids. Of course, it depends on how Australasia is defined, but lets use the traditional view as expressed on the Wiki page on Australasia is correct. Lets also look at the chart that is in one of the sources; see Figure 2. The source lists 7 species of corvids in Australasia. The article has 6 species of corvid, but spits one that is not split in the source. The species that are missing from the phylogram in the Wiki article are the grey crow (Corvus tristis) and the brown-headed crow (Corvus fuscicapillus), which are both native to the island of New Guinea and are therefore Australasian corvids. There is also the long-billed crow (Corvus validus) from the Northern Moluccas. I am not sure if this range in part of Australasia or not, but it is on the Australasian side of the Wallace Line. In short the phylogram in the article only features some of the Australasian corvids, and I have no idea why some have been missed off. Also, should the explanation in the article of the evolution of the regional corvids include all the Australasian corvids or just some of them? Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tricky. I have renamed to "Evolution of australian corvids" as it is what it's about. Thus, the fact that Bismarck crow is present does not contradict the article as it is a part of this evolutionary tree even though it does not occur in Australia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text is that bit more difficult to follow now that bird names are lower case. I am not sure if Tasmanian ravens means ravens in Tasmania or the species. Tasmanian ravens are now called forest ravens, so for me this leads to some confusion in the long section and subsection on Taxonomy. Should the article use the name forest raven instead of Tasmanian raven? Snowman (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they both meant forest ravens and are now changed. Tasmanian raven is an alternate common name often used but is confusing as it occurs outside Tasmania Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eating rubbish and scraps". Eating food scraps in rubbish? Eating discarded food in rubbish?
changed - "in rubbish" is redundant I just realised as mentioned a few words later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Eggs often don't hatch or yound birds die etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Something like; "During this time they produce two surviving young each year on average.[40]"? Snowman (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The introduction seems a little bare to me. I would think that either two or three paragraphs would be acceptable here. I suspect that a few more key facts could be added to the introduction, but I am not sure if a longer introduction would be better or not until it is expanded. ? colour of eggs. ? longevity of birds ? black bare skin on neck in adults? flocks of young? Aboriginal culture, more? This may not be an FA criteria based on length alone, but I am a left a little dissatisfied with the introduction, so my subjective impression would make it relevant here. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I am trying to think of facts that would be interesting. The egg colour and lifespan are pretty unremarkable and average for corvids....let me think..........I added eye colour to lead as it is a common misidentification issue...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the sources don't explicitly say but it would be Western on Rottnest and Eastern on Lord Howe. They are at opposite ends of the range so is easy to figure out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about on Kangaroo Island? Snowman (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be eastern - Kangaroo Island is well east of border area Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think that the article is interesting. It would be good to have replies to the last two topics, but even without those replies, I think that the article content has achieved FA status. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thankyou - I have been pretty busy IRL. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have read the new Stub, which explains where the line is in Western Australia. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's only recently being separated as a species, so there won't be any sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User Ceoil

[edit]

Generally very good, but one thing struck me - younger birds have dark brown eyes until fifteen months of age, and hazel eyes with an inner blue rim around each pupil until age two years and ten months. The two years and ten months sounds very specific, to such changes take place at this specificity? Note, I am not a scientist. Ceoil (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah...spun me out when I first read that too, but that was based on extensive studies of captive crows and ravens in Oz - and they found that all five do the same colour shift but at slightly different ages..cool eh? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Ceoil (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and would it be worth mentioning in the main text that the observations of eye colour were made on captive birds. I am not sure about ravens, but in some species of parrots the eye colour can be different between wild and captive birds - possibly owing to diet or other aspects of captivity that is different to the wild. Snowman (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
have added an explanatory footnote now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

[edit]
  • No issues with formatting.
  • No dead links.
  • No DAB links.
  • Reliable sources used throughout (as far as I can tell), including Higgins (2006) as apparent "standard" literature for the topic - OK.
  • Several source points have already been verified in earlier reviews - OK
  • fixed 2 minor nitpicks. GermanJoe (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iselilja

[edit]
  • Fine article; the eye change photos add a lot.
  • Regarding the Relationship with humans section.
It says "shot, killed or poisoned". Isn't shot and poisoned sub-groups of killed? What does "killed" refer to here? Also, would it be relevant to include something about regulations: as I understand poisoning is not allowed; for shootings there are some regulations (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950).

d'oh! - removed the "killed" as those are the two methods used - intrigued that poisoning is not allowed given how much 1080 is used sbout the place for feral animals.....will have a look and see. Not sure if this is too general. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the birds are listed as a declared pest to agriculture in Western Australia. Relevant to include?

yes! will add a bit later after I do some RL chores.... added now 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use level 1-3 headers (they corrupt the FAC-page). Level 4 headers are OK though. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [32].[reply]

Lightning (Final Fantasy)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This article concerns Lightning, a fictional character in the Final Fantasy series and the central character of the Final Fantasy XIII games, produced and published by Square Enix. Most references are both working and archived (exceptions are sites that won't allow archiving or won't archive properly: Square Enix-related pages, IGN, Complex), while those who had either flaky or not working anymore are archived and the archive pages work. The article was given GA status in October 2013, and was made part of the Final Fantasy XIII Good Topic in July of this year. The article has undergone a copyedit and its peer review has been archived. I feel that it is of sufficient quality to become a Featured Article. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing

[edit]

I'm not really qualified to review character articles—this stuff has never been my forte. However, this nom has been up awhile with no responses, and I still remember the Squall Leonhart FAC's slow and painful death on the vine. To prevent that from happening again, I'll be prose reviewing this article in the next few days. Letting you know now so that you don't think the nom's been abandoned. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1
  • "She first appears as a playable character and main protagonist of" — Why the present tense? Since we're discussing her first appearance as a historical entity (i.e. as a character created by Square Enix), it seems like past tense would be preferable. If there's a precedent for this phrasing, please feel free to let me know. Either way, I don't understand how "a ... main protagonist of" makes sense—isn't the main protagonist of a fictional work a singular entity, rather than one of many?
  • "Final Fantasy XIII, featuring" — This is an example of "noun plus -ing". See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing. It's a tenuously grammatical construction that suffers from ambiguity. Perhaps: "Final Fantasy XIII, in which she features".
  • "she and others are then chosen by the fal'Cie" — Is "she" Serah or Lightning? I can't figure it out.
  • "She reappears" — Serah or Lightning?
  • "Final Fantasy XIII-2, residing" — Another noun plus -ing.
  • "in which she sets out on a quest to save the people of her world, which is destined to end in thirteen days" —> "wherein she sets out to save her world, which is destined to end in thirteen days".
  • A sentence rewrite suggestion:
  • "She is also has featured in other Final Fantasy games within the series, as well, most notably the crossover game Dissidia 012 Final Fantasy." (Italics signify an addition.)
  • "Motomu Toriyama, the game's director" — Which game? It's been awhile since the original FFXIII was mentioned.
  • "create a female protagonist new to the series" — If they're creating her, then it goes without saying that she's new to the series.
  • "strong, good at fighting, and less feminine" — All three of these things are pretty similar, particularly "strong" and "good at fighting". I recommend merging a few or at least rephrasing them so that they're more distinct.
  • "changed or transferred to other characters" — Reads as "changed ... to other characters", which I don't think is on purpose.
  • A sentence rewrite suggestion:
  • "Lightning's design was changed over time, Over the course of the games, she went through multiple design changes, many of which were meant often to reflect her role and development in each successive game, particularly in Lightning Returns."
  • "Her Japanese name" — Since her name is the same in both English and Japanese, it's just confusing to specify that her "Japanese name" was placeholder.
  • "placeholder, but eventually" —> "placeholder, but it eventually".
  • "critics – much" — I haven't read the MOS in many years, but I'm pretty sure that spaceless emdashes (i.e. "critics—much") are the Wikipedia standard.
  • "mixed reception; some" — Grammatically, this should be a colon rather than a semicolon. Also, "some" is an incredibly vague word that doesn't really add anything. In this case, I'd recommend "certain", which is more definite.
  • "Nevertheless, her strength character development have been well received for allowing her to stand out among female video game characters." — I can't make heads or tails of this sentence.
  • "Lightning was designed ... character designer Tetsuya Nomura ... character designer for" — Too many instances of "design" in one sentence. Replace at least one of them with a synonym like "create", "conceive", "develop", etc.
  • "Conflicting accounts have been given on the ease of deciding on a design" — Is there a source to back up this specific claim? This is a larger point that the accounts themselves can't be used to source.
  • "some staff have claimed that multiple designs—including some by other staff members—were considered" —> "certain staff have claimed that multiple designs from Nomura and other team members were considered".
  • "one look at [Nomura's] design made [him] say 'This is it!' She looked so cool and strong that there was no need for any retakes." — The grammatical transition from the article to the quote is very hard to follow. Because at least the first part of this quote can be paraphrased without a loss in meaning, I recommend moving the quotation mark up to "she looked so cool etc." and turning the rest into standard prose.
  • "Because of the graphic capacities of the game's prospective platforms" — Which game? Final Fantasy XIII has not been mentioned since the lead. Also, it should be "graphical capacities".
  • "far more detail in her design than in previous Final Fantasy characters" — Did he include the detail in the characters themselves or in their designs? Current wording entails the former.
  • "Final Fantasy characters, including" — This is a bit of a dangling participle, since it's unclear as to which entity is "including".
  • "Commenting on her original design, Nomura explained that she is essentially a "cool character", meaning that she was serious and unforgiving, but that he couldn't make the character too masculine for fear of losing player empathy." — Several points. First, this is a very large snake that needs to be chopped. Second, her other designs haven't been introduced yet in the article body, so "original design" makes no sense. Third, contractions ("couldn't") aren't allowed outside of quotes.
  • "Her earlier characteristics" — Earlier compared to what? I'm lost on this one.
  • "included having blonde" —> "included blond". "Having" is unnecessary and "blonde" signifies a woman with blond hair (e.g. "a blonde walked in", "dumb blonde").
  • A rewrite:
  • "Her The final art design was made less Asian-looking than originally conceived these early drafts, and her hair color was changed to pink, while the silver hair color was given to Hope Estheim was given silver hair in favor of pink."
  • "hair color and hairstyle was made" —> "hair color and hairstyle were intended".
  • "balance against" —> "counterbalance".
  • "Her motif was roses." — I don't get it.
  • A rewrite:
  • "While writing the script for XIII, Daisuke Watanabe, while writing the script for XIII, paid particular attention to developing the character's fleshing out Lightning's non-romantic relationship with Snow Villiers and to showing her development as a person while protecting Hope."

That's all for now. The article could have used an outside copyedit before the nom, but it's not in terrible shape. Impressive work digging up all this material on a relatively minor Japanese video game character. I'll be back to look over the rest of the article in a day or two. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I could on you suggestions, and done some work of my own on the following paragraphs in the Character Design section. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I noticed that the noun plus -ing issue still needs to be fixed, though. I'll try to be back with more of my review soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2
  • "Lightning's real name was" — Should this be present tense? I can't tell whether her "real name" (is Lightning a codename?) was removed later in development.
  • "to keep her then-real name secret" —> "to keep this name a secret".
  • "was chosen over Eclair because the latter name was closely associated with a type of pastry" —> "was chosen because the name Éclair is associated with a type of pastry in English".
  • "common weather-related naming tradition for Final Fantasy protagonists" — Way too long of a wikilink. Also, try rewording this to "tradition of naming Final Fantasy protagonists after weather events".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Lightning's home never appeared in Final Fantasy XIII, but the original work by Isamu Kamikokuryo is contained in an artbook: Several models of Lightning's home were constructed for XIII before this aspect of Lightning's life was but were removed from the game due to space issues."
  • "created to mirror the transforming abilities of the game's summons, the Eidolons" — This is very vague. What's a "transforming ability"? And I'm not a stranger to Final Fantasy jargon, but nouning the word "summon" will make the average reader's life more difficult than it needs to be. Is there a better option?
  • "as well as the theme of transformation found within the gameplay" — I'm also lost on this. How can gameplay have a theme of transformation?
  • "Odin, Lightning's Eidolon, was designed around the concept of a father figure for the character." — Why is this Eidolon particular to Lightning? This is confusing even to someone who's played their share of pre-XIII Final Fantasy games. Also, try "designed as a father figure for the character".
  • "The original game ended with a lingering question: 'Is Lightning really happy?'" — Is the quoted sentence literally in the game? If not, then this construction is more suited to an essay than to an encyclopedia, and it should be revised somehow.
  • "The conclusion of the story in Final Fantasy XIII-2 was to have provided" — "Was to have"? I don't get it. That makes it sound like the ending failed to provide it. Perhaps "was intended to provide".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Toriyama revealed in an interview that, even before the decision was made to make a sequel was greenlit, he had wanted to create a happy ending for the character."
  • "Kamikokuryo, with a qipao and a science fiction-inspired designs both discarded as they clashed with the game's atmosphere." —> "Kamikokuryo: a qipao and a science-fiction-inspired design were both discarded because they clashed with the game's tone."
  • A rewrite:
  • "The resultant outfit was designed along the lines of a is a leather body suit bodysuit primarily colored white and red, with spinal column patterns on the sleeves the arms given patterns designed like a spinal column and with white and red as the primary colors."
  • A rewrite:
  • "Some ideas for the ending were to have The team considered ending the game with Lightning either meeting up with or speaking with her allies, but Toriyama wished the story to both start begin and end with her alone."
  • "a new type of female character" — Compared to what? Other Final Fantasy games? Games in general?
  • "less feminine nature" — I'm not sure what a "nature" is, in this case. A personality? An aura?
  • "For the last XIII game" — Which is? I assume it's Lightning Returns, but I'm no expert.
  • "a 'female warrior'" — Why is that necessary to mention? It's just a flat description of what Lightning is—it doesn't seem to add anything.
  • "Hillis was given the role of Lightning after reading a few of Lightning's lines" — Why was she reading them?
  • "a novel set before the main game" — What is "the main game"?
  • "discovers too late, on her 21st birthday," — Why is the birthday detail relevant?
  • "and a task to complete within a time limit" — I have no clue what this could mean.
  • "Pulse fal'Cie Anima" — Which is?
  • "initially thinking that Serah was using it as an excuse to get married." — Using what? And who is thinking this—Lightning or the "Pulse fal'Cie Anima"?
  • "contact with Anima" — Why is that important?
  • "surviving exiles" — From where?
  • "to save Cocoon" — This hasn't been introduced in the article body.
  • "Cocoon's main military force, destroys Anima" — Didn't the party just destroy it?
  • "Lightning abandons them" — Which group is she abandoning?
  • "the pair are rescued" — Which pair?
  • A rewrite:
  • "During their time together, she inadvertently summons Odin, and she unknowingly supports Hope's plan to kill Snow by protecting and training her protects and trains Hope to fight, inadvertently supporting Hope's plan to kill Snow."
  • "She realizes that she had been misdirecting her anger at being made an enemy of Cocoon, and resented herself for distrusting her sister." — I don't really understand any of this.

That's it for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best, and I think addressed the issues you raised. I've probably missed something. And in my defense about some of the terms, if I tried to explain them, it would bloat the article to an unhealthy degree. It's one of the XIII series' faults. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. You've done a solid job so far, in any case. I noticed that Cocoon still is not introduced in the article body, though, even when the lead defines it as "an artificial world". I'm also a bit baffled as to Anima's identity—is it a monster (like Sin from FFX) or a person? Both issues should be easy to solve. I'll do a little follow-up copyediting and return with Part 3 as soon as I can. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to introduce Cocoon and Gran Pulse, and explain the fal'Cie in the body of the article. It should make a little more sense now. --- Update: I've also found some more info about Odin's creation and his links to Lightning. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part 3

I made a few story-related tweaks while copyediting the article, based on my understanding of the text and a few glances at the other XIII articles. If I made any mistakes in the process, feel free to correct them.

  • "Lightning disappears from Gran Pulse" — I thought she was from Cocoon? Why is she in Gran Pulse?
  • "she saved Cocoon at the cost of her own life with Vanille and Fang" — The "with" conjunction here is extremely vague. I'm lost as to how Vanille and Fang fit into the picture.
  • "as a direct result of Etro releasing her and the others from being l'Cie" —> "as a consequence of Etro's releasing her and the others from their condition as l'Cie".
  • "This causes the timeline to become distorted and Lightning to be erased from that moment in history." — What timeline? Which moment in history?
  • "protect the dying Etro from Caius Ballad" — A word or two to introduce Caius would help.
  • "Valhalla's chaos" — What is that?
  • "In her DLC episode, Requiem of the Goddess," —> "In the DLC episode Requiem of the Goddess,".
  • "loses hope after learning of Serah's death and her role in it" — What? I know you want to avoid plot bloat, but stuff like this is so out of left field that it just leaves the uninitiated scratching their heads.
  • "who reassures her" — We just found out that the spirit comforts her. This is redundant.
  • "to not lose hope and preserve Serah's memory" — Reads "to not ... preserve Serah's memory".
  • "unaffected by the released chaos" — The chaos was released? When? Why? And what is it?
  • "chosen as the savior" —> "chosen as its savior".
  • "Aided by Hope, she frees her former allies" — Why are they still alive 500 years later?
  • A rewrite:
  • "During her journey, She begins to doubt her humanity, and, when she learns upon learning that Bhunivelze stole Serah's soul from her and manipulated Lightning's memories, she plans to betray him when he has finished building the new world."
  • "On the final day" — The final day before what? The end of the world?
  • "Though prepared to fulfill her new role, Lightning accepts Lumina as a part of herself and calls for aid." — I'm not sure what the contrast is supposed to be. Needs to be made clearer.
  • "unite with her" — "Everyone" is a singular, so this should be "unites".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Lightning then witnesses the creation of a new universe, into which she and goes with alongside her allies and the souls of humanity to a new world."
  • "a series of special Full Active Time Events (FATEs)" — I have no idea what that means.
  • "Lightning appears in the land of Eorzea along with many monsters during her time in crystal stasis between XIII-2 and Lightning Returns." — First, this is the second "Lightning appears" in two sentences. Second, I can't understand any of this. Is it Lightning or Eorzea that appears "along with many monsters"? Are the monsters "during her time", or is it the crystal stasis? Grammatically, all of them are possible.
  • "Lightning meets up with the Adventurer one last time" — Who is the Adventurer?
  • "Players who participated in the FATEs received gear" — The discussion so far has been in present tense. Why the switch to past tense? Is the event now over? If not, this should be present tense; if so, all of it should be changed to past tense.
  • "During speculation about her continued role in the series" — "During"? Perhaps "in response to" would be better. Either way, which series are we talking about? The XIII series or the Final Fantasy series as a whole?
  • "Lightning can be found within a minigame in Kingdom Hearts Re:coded where the player creates avatars for themselves" —> "Lightning can be found within a minigame in Kingdom Hearts Re:coded".
  • "In Dissidia 012, one of Lightning's alternate outfits was based on Aya Brea, made available as downloadable content by using a given password when purchasing The 3rd Birthday." — Is this relevant? Seems like material for Aya Brea's article; not this one.
  • "A version of Lightning's first outfit" — This is extremely vague. What is her first outfit? The final one used in XIII? The early drafts mentioned above? "A version of" makes it even more nebulous.
  • A rewrite:
  • "Lightning has been featured in used as the theme for multiple pieces of Final Fantasy XIII-themed merchandise produced by Square Enix."
  • "Play Arts Kai, who have" — This article is written in American English, so corporations should be referred to as singular objects ("which", "it", "has") rather than as collections of people.
  • "Lightning in her outfit for Final Fantasy XIII appeared in a live-action PlayStation commercial titled 'Michael'" — Why does it matter which outfit she's in here?
  • "portrayed the character in her XIII-2 attire" — Ditto.

I was hoping to finish the whole article by today, but my review was slowed down by unforeseen computer problems. I'll have to look through Reception tomorrow. Thanks for your patience and your hard work so far. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best with everything you mentioned, but there is one exception that I must explain. "Savior" in Lightning Returns is not just a word, but a formal title used for Lightning. She's not 'a' savior, but 'the' savior. I've capitalized the word to make that a little clearer. And I hope that there won't be many more plot-related expantions needed: what with one having lots of lore, one having time travel and one tying up loose ends from the other two, it can't be a headache using as few words as possible to get the point across. And thanks for catching that UK/US grammar slip: I'm UK-native so sometimes my spelling and grammar slip into what I write. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I doubt any more plot expansion will be needed; I'm into Reception, now. I'll do the usual follow-up and get back to you with the final part of the review ASAP. As for the US/UK thing—since you're a native speaker of British English, WP:ENGVAR entails that articles you've created and/or edited early can be written in British English. That doesn't apply in this case, but it's something to keep in mind for the future. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part 4
  • "Lightning's character has received mixed reviews." — Is there a citation for this specific claim?
  • "Anime News Network's writer Todd Ciolek expected Lightning's activities in the game to be insufficiently innovative, and he found Sazh's chocobo pet more likable than her." — I'm not sure what this means. He expected them to be derivative? Before he'd seen anything about her? But that reading doesn't make sense either, because he mentions something specific from the game (the pet chocobo) right afterwards. I'm confused.
  • "However, he admitted that after playing the game, Lightning becomes a more appealing lead character." — Didn't he play the game to form his "far too distant and cold" opinion? Or should "after playing the game" be read "by the game's end"?
  • A rewrite:
  • "Jeremy Parrish of 1UP.com's Jeremy Parrish commented that, barring if it were not for scenes where in which Lightning showed shows a thoughtful side, she was is "your typical, sullen [Square Enix] protagonist"."
  • "while commenting on her interactions with the other main characters of the game." — This is so vague that it seems meaningless. If there's more to it, I suggest adding it; otherwise, cut it all.
  • "'instantly endears herself' during the scenes where she punches Snow" — There's more than one? And wouldn't "instantly endears herself" refer only to the first time it happens?
  • "but commented that when her backstory 'gets bogged down in generic swash', the character of Sazh became more appealing than her" —> "but he commented that, when her backstory 'gets bogged down in generic swash', Sazh becomes a more appealing character".
  • A rewrite:
  • "GamesRadar's Carolyin Gudmundson was unenthusiastic,: she opined opining that, while Lightning's narrative had has its points merits, 'it certainly isn't above and beyond what we'd typically expect',. She later commenting commented that this lack of originality makes Lightning resulted in her coming off as 'one-dimensional and boring'."
  • "Her small amount of screen time in Final Fantasy XIII-2 was criticized by several outlets, especially in contrast to her large presence on the game's cover." — Is there a source to back this up?
  • "in favor of the likes of Serah and Hope" —> "in favor of Serah and Hope".
  • "Alexa Ray Corriea of DualShockers said that while the game's protagonists did a good job, she felt that fans" —> "Alexa Ray Corriea of DualShockers wrote that, while the game's protagonists are interesting, fans".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Simon Parkin of Eurogamer felt found that the game's story suffers suffered for lack of without the driving force of Lightning's single-track single-minded determination driving the pace."
  • "In his review, VanOrd" —> "VanOrd".
  • "Her appearance in Lightning Returns also received mixed reactions:" — Is this supported by an independent source?
  • "clashed violently" — A bit overdramatic.
  • A rewrite:
  • "In By contrast, Parkin commented that some of the game's certain side quests, such as herding sheep or helping find retrieving a girl's lost doll, helped to humanize Lightning and make her likable,. Similarly, while Destructoid's Dale North found that the costumes and dialogue available lightened her character,: he argued that these elements make her less making her 'not so 'flat and lifeless now, which is a big improvement.'"
  • "a better fit for her role in the game" — Better than what?
  • "Despite her relatively few and often minor appearances, Lightning has been widely ranked as a popular video game character." — Independent source for this specific claim?
  • "which the reviewer felt distanced her" — I thought this was a list? Why is it a reviewer?
  • "The gaming community has received her positively as a character." — Source?
  • "an RPG or JRPG" — Neither of these terms is defined in the article prior to these abbreviations.

Once these are done and I've followed up, we should be finished. Thanks for your cooperation during this long review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done and addressed, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: An excellent article. I find most Wikipedia pages on fictional characters very boring, but this one is different: all meaningful, interesting content; no cruft. The prose quality—my main complaint—is now easily 1a-level. You've hit it out of the park with this article, ProtoDrake. Before I get out of your hair, I should mention that some of my final prose tweaks may have misrepresented the sources. Feel free to correct any mistakes I made. Hope the rest of the FAC goes smoothly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Passed
  • File:Lightning CG.png - Fair Use of the character in question; I'd prefer if the source was more specific as to where the image was gotten from, rather than just the copyright holder
  • File:Lightning XIII-2 screenshot.png - Fair Use of the character in her second appearance; the resolution is a little high (Per WP:IMAGERES, shoot for width x height <= 100,000- right now you're at ~140,000, so you'll want something closer to 420x236 than 500x281). I'd like the purpose of use to be a bit longer, too; right now it's mainly "to show that Lightning looked different in the second game". Talk about what visual aspects changed that necessitate another image to show them.
  • File:Lightning LR screenshot.png - Fair Use of the character in her third appearance; same issues as the XIII-2 image.
--PresN 22:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done my best with all three. If the source for the main infobox image is not adequate, that can be sorted, I think. Image resize was easy enough, expanding the fair use was a bit more challenging. I also added sources for the other two images. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, now passed. --PresN 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]

Sorry for coming to this late. I think that all of the prose issues have already been addressed as reading through most of the article concludes no issues. I'll support this transition from GA to FA as the prose is flawless. However there was only one thing that confused me: ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "She was depicted as having transcended her human limits, making it "kind of hard to approach her" as a person." - why does this make it hard to approach her and where did the quote come from?
Done my best with that. I think, given the nature of the question that statement was part of an answer to, that they meant in approaching her depiction and characterization rather than physically approaching her. I've adjusted it accordingly. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

Nothing major.

  • Why are "fictional character" and "protagonist" linked?
  • "featuring as a resident" - strange wording
  • "She was also criticized for her relative absence in XIII-2." - use of "also" (which I'm surprised JimmyBlackwing didn't pick out) implies that the "mixed" reception attributed to her Cloud similarities previously was actually mostly negative.
  • " Famitsu, Square Enix and other organizations."/"Hope, Sazh Katzroy and Oerba Dia Vanille"/"strong, beautiful, and"/"a chibi figure in Final Fantasy in Itadaki Street Mobile,[79] and a character card"/etc. - I don't really care whether you include the Oxford comma or not, but keep it consistent.
  • "whose two factions " - do they have names? (I've played very little of Final Fantasy XIII.)
  • "like a female version of Cloud" - "Strife" is never used in the body text; consider including it here in brackets

Tezero (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted as best as I could. Thanks for catching those Oxford comma mistakes. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks great, especially with JB's large-scale prose spitshining. We haven't had a VG character FA in quite some time (although Lightning may not be alone in the fall 2014 crew), and this article deserves to break this sorrowful period of stagnation. Tezero (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Dead links
  • Explanatory notes should still have the references attached, particularly when they include direct quotes
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references
  • Fn11: publication name should be italicized. Same with FN89
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher locations
  • External link appears to fail WP:EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria:; I've fixed the dead links (also did some archiving for the Square Enix Store links), publisher locations, and italics. I think I've fixed the wikilinking, apart from the quotes: another editor recommended I not use links within those references, but it can easily be altered. I also deleted the external link as, as the Wikipedia article is now, the Wikia page doesn't seem the best thing to link to. But I don't know how to fix the notes. How do I attach the references to the notes? I tried putting the citation inside the note and they didn't display. How can I solve this problem? Also, is there anything in the article I haven't caught? I am still learning and am always willing to accept help. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinking isn't the same as external linking - you've now got some publication titles linked externally, some linked internally, and some not linked at all, and it isn't consistent (for example, sometimes Famitsu is linked and other times not). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I've fixed the external links and the Famitsu links, I think. But I can't link all of them sites used in references without leaving red links. Should I just remove the links outright? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If no article exists about the site, it's fine not to link it - this point is mostly concerned with consistency regarding linking of the same publication (ie. Famitsu should be either always linked or always not linked). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I've done a spotcheck, and it seems to be alright, with the only detections being deliberate quotes or repeats of the names of games. There is a url (3djuegos.com/foros/tema/33612126/21/especial-la-batalla-de-las-estrellas) that's at 82.4% violation, but it isn't part of the article. I don't understand. Other than that, I've gone through the references again and.... I think the rest of the issues have been sorted. I really, really hope this can be finished successfully. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, please could you give me a verdict some time, or tell me what else needs doing? I'm getting very nervous about this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ProtoDrake, source review is done, you're waiting for the delegates to either pass the article or tell you what else it needs to pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [33].[reply]

Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pah Wongso was a bit of an oddball, in many ways rather similar to myself. Although of ethnic European (Dutch, rather) heritage, he was very close with the indigenous and ethnic Chinese communities in the Indies and later Indonesia, and married an ethnic Chinese woman. His work promoting education for poor youth and raising funds to help war-torn China in 1938 led him to have great popularity within the Chinese diaspora community, and as such the Chinese-owned Star Film produced two films starring him. This article is about the first of these, Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman, and features (among other things) perhaps the most detailed plot synopsis of the film published since the 1940s. I hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoyed writing it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Too few nitpicks in this very readable article to defer support, just three comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Batavia—better linked at first occurrence rather than in "Production"
  • silat—not italicised in its own article, although personally I wouldn't call it an English word
  • only successful because of Wijnhamer's existing fame—"existing" is redundant
  • Meant to emphasise that this was the popularity/fame he had as a philanthropist before the film (his court trial was reported in both Sumatra and Java, which is interesting since it was a fairly small charge, and he knocked the sentence down to a 25-cent fine). Tried trimming it anyways, to see how it works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Comment Leaning support. A few comments.

Plot
  • The phrase "returns his affections" or a variant is used twice. Given that it is rather old-fashioned, I'd cut it to once. "loves him in return" would be an example.
  • "Hoping to eliminate any competition" I don't see how "any" is justified, as it would not deter a third suitor except possibly through intimidation. Suggest change "any" to "his" ("rival" might be considered an alternative for competition)
  • Done. I'd also considered "the", but I've gone with "his" here. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • "Wisnoe is arrested". A short sentence, easily mergeable into either the one preceding or following.
  • "a battle to the death". I assume I know who won, but perhaps spell it out. I imagine he also wins Siti's hand?
Production
  • "At the time, the Hollywood characters of Charlie Chan and Mr. Moto were popular in the Indies, as were imported detective films; however, no films in that genre had yet been produced domestically" I have several questions about this passage. First, are you considering the Chan/Moto style of film as not a detective series? In which case, it should be "genres". Or if you are considering it as such, I'd put an "other" before "imported". The sentence may benefit from a rewrite in any case. I'd also like to know, if known, why they were successful, given their Asian stereotyping, which in the case of Chan at least must have been clear to an ethnic Chinese audience. Even given that people were less hypersensitive about such things in that era, it strikes me as odd. If known, can a brief explanation be inserted as to why they were successful (which also lets the reader decide to what extent Pah Wong followed that formula for success)?
  • Nothing. I checked Biran, and S' article in Pertjatoeran Doenia dan Film, as well as the biography of Djamaluddin Malik. None of them give a reason, although S notes that Sherlock Holmes, Raffles (Lord Lister), and Nick Carter (all Caucasian) had been popular some time before that. I can think of several possible reasons, but including them would be OR. There does not seem to be anything on Jstor (the only article which refers Pah Wongso is already cited here), and I have not found anything on Google either. Archived newspapers from the Indies don't give a reason, but I note that this popularity extended to Dutch-language comics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Red Cross' aid" possibly simplify to "Red Cross aid" without the "the".
  • " to act as criminals" there's a bit of a double entendre here that I'm sure you don't want. Suggest "appear" for "act".
  • Release etc.
it was also screened internationally, including in China, Singapore and British Malaya" a bit clunky. Cannot the bit about "internationally" be deleted? It's surely implied by the next words. Unless you are hinting there may have been other countries it was screened in as well.
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. I might quibble that two of the three have doubled Licensing sections, but since the content is right that doesn't really matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One minor tweak made, and one question: why does explanatory note b. carry the citation as (Barnard 2010, p. 65), rather than in the short form? - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As in my previous nominations, footnotes use Harv rather than SFN because it allows for users to reach the original citation in the same number of clicks (rather than using SFN, forcing another two more clicks). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

Another high-quality piece of work, up to the usual standards. Just a few quibbles then I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "it followed the social worker Pah Wongso as he investigated a murder and cleared his protégé's name.": Maybe "it followed the social worker Pah Wongso as he investigated a murder to clear his protégé's name."? Not sure it’s much better, though.
  • "The first of its genre to be produced in the Indies": Perhaps "The first film of its genre…"?
  • "Upon its release in April 1941, it received popular acclaim but mixed critical reception": Maybe better as "Released in April 1941 to popular acclaim, it had a mixed critical reception"?
  • "A sequel to this possibly lost film": I think a touch more is needed about it possibly being lost. Something as simple as "The film is possibly lost" would do to explain this to the unfamiliar.

Plot

  • "Pah Wongso is a nut seller, social worker, and schoolmaster living in Batavia and taking care of the local poor.": Maybe "who takes care of the local poor"?
  • "Wisnoe saves the life of a young woman named Siti when she is almost hit by a carriage": Something doesn’t quite work here. It makes the life-saving and the carriage-hitting almost seem unconnected, so it may be better to say how he saves her if we know.
  • "stand out among his fellow employees": Better as "Stand out from his fellow employees"?
  • Are both "however"s needed in this section?

Production

  • "a studio which Jo and Cho' had established together in Prinsenland"
  • "This led Jo to direct a detective film": Is "direct" the right word here?

Release and reception

  • "a reviewer praised the film for keeping with Hollywood's quality criteria": This sounds a bit clunky.
  • "The critic and filmwriter Saeroen expressed concern that the film's success was not because of its quality, and opining that it was only successful because of Wijnhamer's fame": I think this should be "opined" here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My minor concerns having been addressed, I'm more than happy to support. This easily meets the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Unless I've missed it, I believe we're still awaiting e a source review, though I've had a request at WT:FAC for a little while. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC) [34].[reply]

Science Fiction Quarterly

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction Quarterly was one of four science fiction magazines that Louis Silberkleit, later one of the publishers of Archie Comics, published intermittently over a couple of decades. Two sister magazines were Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories; that article was just promoted, and because the publishing history of all these magazines is closely related there is quite a bit of overlap in the text -- I reused big chunks of the publication history section in particular. This is a situation that has occurred before at FAC: for example Astonishing Stories and Super Science Stories, which overlap for similar reasons, are both FAs. I don't believe it should cause an problems with the FA criteria, but I wanted to make sure any reviewer is aware of the overlap in case there is a concern there. As for SFQ itself, it was never a leader in its field, but it was a better magazine than would have been expected given the minuscule budget the editors were given. When it died in 1958, it was the end of an era: SFQ was the very last surviving science fiction pulp magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some small inconsistencies in page formatting - FN 5 needs space, FNs 15, 22, 25 should use "pp."
  • Ashley 1976: is this a separate edition or just a reprinting? If the former we need an edition statement, if the latter the origdate explanation needs amending. Same with Atheling. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed now; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've read this through a few times now and it looks good to me. Note: I'd read Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories too, somehow got distracted, and forgot to post to the FAC! This is very similar, but seems improved. The single question I have is whether it might be necessary to explain (very briefly) the difference between a digest and pulp format for readers who don't know? The usual fine work. Love the pics, btw! Victoria (tk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! I linked the first appearance of "digest format" to digest size, which I think should help; pulp magazine was already linked. I hope this is enough; it's hard to see how to get an aside about the format into the article, though perhaps it could be done as a note. Yes, the pictures are one of the fun things about these magazines; glad you like them! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's perfect. I tried searching for a link, but for some reason digest size didn't pop up. Victoria (tk) 15:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has there been an image review? Graham Beards (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just requested one at the FAC talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (I hate copyright renewal records)

  • All images are PD (US not renewed) and have sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • Spotchecked lead image and second image for copyright renewal:
  • lead image: 2 contributions within the magazine were copyright renewed (de Camp and a second author), but not the whole magazine or its cover - OK (for the cover).
  • second image: no copyright records found (both for original registration and renewal) - OK.
Thanks, much appreciated. Graham Beards (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Tony Hawk's Underground

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Todd said he wanted something big. This is it."

When asked, this is what I unfailingly name as my favorite video game of all time: it's got magically addictive gameplay, a killer soundtrack, a park editor that still hasn't been replicated, a set of diverse and very alive level maps, and probably the deepest, most relatable plot ever featured in an extreme sports game. Way back in the summer of 2006, when I was 11, this game introduced me to numerous rock bands I still dig, on top of the entire genre of rap. In other words, it was predictable by all estimates that I would pick this article up as a project, and I'm now ready to take it across the final border. I'm especially proud of this article in particular being brought here, as it would be the first FA (it's currently the only GA) in the Tony Hawk series, which is represented unusually poorly among Wikipedia's recognized content considering its popularity.

(There may be some issues with Sonic X's review not having officially closed yet; it was promoted this afternoon. If so, please be patient until it's all fixed up.) Tezero (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from URDNEXT

[edit]

Support as I believe the article is in such state that demonstrates Wikipedia's best work. I'll be making some comments throughout the next few days. URDNEXT (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JimmyBlackwing

[edit]

It's exciting to see a different kind of game at FAC. I'll start reviewing the prose in a few days; I just wanted to mention a concern about comprehensiveness. The development section is quite short, especially for a game with such a high profile. Have you tapped every available online source—GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, etc.? I'll have a look through my magazines to see if there's anything relevant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyBlackwing, I just found one article by GameSpot and one by GameSpy with a couple of useful snippets (they weren't focused on the development), but other than that, yeah, I've been disappointed with the paucity of development coverage. Please do look, though. And thanks; I generally work outside WP:VG's tradition of games that are critically acclaimed but often unknown and poor-selling, usually JRPGs or artsy indies - not that I don't enjoy those in my personal life (fun fact: I learned about BioShock and TWEWY years ago by perusing our FA list, and they're now among my favorite games ever made). One consequence of this is that there isn't a whole lot to use as a template when one's writing about a skateboarding game, but I think I pulled this one off pretty well. Tezero (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My magazines had surprisingly little of use: just a two-page article in EGM 172 (November 2003) with a few interesting quotes. Apparently, there was a cover story on the game in Game Informer June 2003, which I don't own—check with User:Surachit. Also found a short interview on 1UP and a longer one on CVG, which should beef up the Dev section a bit. It's strange that the development of a major game had so little coverage. I guess the press was burnt out on the Tony Hawk series by this point. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are becoming quite the helpful hands; thank you! (I figured out my charger's fine; I was just connected to a terminal that wasn't plugged in.) Tezero (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing, I've worked everything in and it's looking rather spiffy now. Have you got any prose complaints other than the lack of information on the sequel, which I'll fix once I've read more about it? Tezero (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that they were useful. I haven't actually checked out the prose yet. My schedule is packed right now, so expect to see me again in a few days. Thought it would be a good idea to eliminate any 1b issues ahead of time. One last thing for now: I found a source earlier ([36]) that might add a sentence or two to the Promotion and release subsection. Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading this one—After the Sequel was a fun article and an easy review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added that. See ya around. Tezero (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

Overall, looks pretty good. Here's some suggestions.....

Lead
  • "skateboarding/adventure video game"..... should be a comma or "and" per WP:SLASH
  • "with role-playing elements"..... something about this doesn't read very well
  • "Real-life pros"..... skateboarders would be a better term than "pros"
Plot
  • "Professionals" would be better to use than "pros"
Soundtrack
  • Mention the name of the "bonus track"
Reception
  • The awards could probably have an "accolades" subsection.
Sequel
  • This section is rather short. Maybe add some detail on its critical/commercial aspects in comparison to this one and/or some ways the two games are alike/different.

In addition to the above, I would suggest including some details on how well the game sold upon release. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, with the concession that I can't safely edit large sections like those of the main article from my iPod, I'll look at these when at my laptop. Regarding the sales, I looked for quite a while way back when and couldn't find anything not from the likes of VGChartz, but I can look again. Tezero (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, lemme know when you've edited accordingly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, looks better now, Tezero :). I'll support as soon as JimmyBlackwing's concerns are resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing

[edit]
Resolved (and horribly out-of-order) concerns from JimmyBlackwing

I'm back to look at the prose, and perhaps one or two other things I stumble across.

  • "Tony Hawk's Underground is a skateboarding-adventure video game with elements of role-playing gameplay, part of the Tony Hawk's series." — This is an unfortunate start to the article. I've seen FAC opening sentences with just a date and no mention of the developer or publisher, and lead sentences with no date and just the developer or publisher, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one with neither. Compounding its sketchy coverage is the too-extensive gameplay description, which could and should be discussed later in the lead. (Plus, the final clause makes no grammatical sense with the rest of the sentence.) Remember that the first sentence is all important: it's what defines the article scope, what shows up in the Google preview and what 90% of your readers will see.
  • It's an improvement. However, the opening line now says (unintentionally) that the Tony Hawk's series was published by Activision between 2003 and 2004. It should be fine after one more rework. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Activision published all versions" — Activision's role has already been mentioned with respect to the first versions, so why double up? Honestly, since Activision published them all, the company could be mentioned in the opening sentence and removed from the rest of the paragraph.
  • "A sequel, Tony Hawk's Underground 2, came out in 2004." — Perhaps better suited for the end of the section. Also, "came out" is very informal.
  • A sentence rewrite suggestion:
  • "Underground largely follows is built on the skateboarding formula of previous Tony Hawk's games: the player explores levels and completes goals to move on, and the bulk of the game is spent skating around and while performing various kinds of skateboarding tricks." (Italics signify an addition. Also, wikilink skateboarding trick.)
  • "customization; the player" — Grammatically, this should be a colon. However, since you just used a colon in the previous sentence, it might be better simply to restructure this one.
  • "the player cannot select a professional skater for the main game" — I don't understand what this means. What is the "main game", and can you select professional skaters outside of it as the sentence suggests?
  • I suggest removing the qualification from the lead entirely. Mention that the player creates a custom character and leave it at that. The nitty-gritty of using professional skaters can be left for the Gameplay section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead creating" — This is a dangling participle. It could be the player, the professional skater or the game "creating".
  • "The plot follows this character" — Which character? The feet? The skateboard? The player? These are the only options from the preceding sentence.
  • "strong theme of individuality, which was manifest in the rich customization options" — "strong theme" and "rich customization" are probably NPOV violations. I'd certainly describe them as such.
  • "Real-life professional" — I find "real-world" to be a more encyclopedic and grammatically stable phrase than "real-life". I'd suggest changing all of the article's uses of "real-life" to "real-world".
  • "their experiences to the plot's script" — Who are "they"? Also, "the plot's script" is a bit redundant, and could probably be rephrased to "the plot" or "the script".
  • "acclaimed; reviewers" — Another semicolon that should be a colon.
  • "praised it for its ability to appeal to a variety of players" —> "praised its wide appeal".
  • "walking and driving vehicles" — Suggests that you can "walk vehicles".
  • "PlayStation 2 incarnation" — Using "incarnation" as a synonym for "SKU" is very informal. Should be changed to "version", "release" or similar.
  • "centered around" — Admittedly a common error, but it still needs to be rewritten "centered on".
  • "while jumping, grinding on rails and edges, or freestyle skating, as well as wall jumps" — Grammatically: "while jumping ... as well as wall jumps". I'm not sure what this means, but this sentence needs to be broken up for clarity. It's a skateboarding game—let the skateboarding aspect breathe a little.
  • "the player falls with their board not landing on the ground" — I'm not sure how to read this. Is the player falling with the board? Also, the player does not fall: he or she remains seated on the couch.
  • "such as by climbing" — Another dangling participle. Who is doing the climbing?
  • "In addition, each level" — Drop the "in addition". If sentences make sense together, it's rarely necessary to use "also" or "in addition" to join them. Something I learned from Tony1.
  • "various cities and other locations" — I'm not sure I could have been less enlightened. Which cities? And what is an "other location"?
  • "the game's narrative before moving on" — Reads as though the narrative is "moving on".
  • "tasks are wide-ranging and include" — Just telling us what they include gets the point across—no need to preface with "wide-ranging".
  • "also houses" — See "in addition" above.
  • "who will provide the player with an optional goal that unlocks a trick" —> "who provides a sidequest that unlocks a trick".
  • "Due to the integration of goals into the story and the levels' large size" — First, "due to" means "caused by"; not "on account of" or "because of". Second, this reads: "goals into ... the levels' large size".
  • See here. It's a difference in grammar: "due to", like "caused by", modifies a noun or pronoun; "because of", like "on account of", modifies a verb. You don't say, "The park was closed caused by rain"—or, "Deaths on account of hot weather". As a rule of thumb, if you should only used "due to" if "caused by" makes sense in the same context. That is not the case with the "due to" I pointed out in this article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "professional skaters for the campaign" — What's a "campaign"? And, again, can you select professional skaters elsewhere?
  • "There is also a level editor in which the player creates skate parks" —> "A level editor allows the player to create skate parks".
  • "traditional skate park elements" — Such as? Not everyone knows their half-pipe from their grind rail.
  • "can also change" — Another pesky "also". Do a CTRL-F search of the article and remove all but the most critical instances of "also" and "in addition".
  • A sentence rewrite:
  • "Additional customization modes exist for tricks Tricks, skateboards, and level goals that can be placed in either existing or custom levels may be modified as well."
  • "Characters can level up their stats" — Paragraph should be split here. This sentence and everything after it make no sense with the discussion of customization earlier. The whole thing should probably be moved up and merged with paragraph 2 of Gameplay.
  • "include a series of multiplayer minigames" — "a series of" could be dropped without loss. I'm noticing a lot of redundant phrases like this in the article—a surprise after Sonic: AtS, which was very clean.
  • Done. Hmm, I guess one reason could be that AtS had already gotten two reviews by the time you came around, whereas you're the first here. I may also have been more impatient with pushing this from GA to FAC because (1) IPs have kept changing minor information about the soundtrack and release dates back and forth without reason and (2) I'm considerably busier now, both on- and off-Wiki, than I was then. Tezero (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. It definitely needs work: I see lots of unnecessary words and vague and/or labored phrasing. Nothing that can't be fixed—this is no Sleeping Dogs. Anyway, writing an article without a GA or FA model is always hard, and I think you've done a solid job on that front. Just let a bit more skateboarding "cruft" seep into the Gameplay section. I'll be back later (or tomorrow) with more prose comments. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyBlackwing, I've fixed/responded to everything. Tezero (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which had acquired Neversoft in 1999" — Given the large gap between 1999 and 2003, I'm not sure why this is needed.
  • "during the main story" — The professional skaters appear to be in the main story (given the sentence added to Gameplay), so this should be rephrased.
  • "While previous games in the series had included character editors, the individuality theme motivated Neversoft to implement face-scanning for the PlayStation 2 version" — I can't figure out how these two things are related. What's the contrast? Also, "character editor" is a bit arcane for a non-gamer.
  • The contrast is that Underground included both a character editor and face-scanning rather than just a character editor; I've cleared that up using your favorite word, "also", so if you have a better suggestion for restructuring, tell me. Reworded "character editor". Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "version; sending an email of one's face to faces@thugonline.com would get the player a texture for their character's face" —> "version: if the player emailed a photograph of their face to faces@thugonline.com, the company would digitize it for use in the game".
  • "true adventure game" — What's true about it?
  • "the developers used storytelling and exploration to distance their product from mere lists of tasks" — I'm not sure what a "mere list of tasks" is, or how a game could be just a list.
  • "At the time, the console version's levels" — The game's date has not been mentioned yet in the article body, so "the time" is ambiguous.
  • "Neversoft made sure to introduce the player to walking around on-foot and climbing along ledges during the first few missions of the game so that the player would become familiar with the new mechanics quickly and immediately notice Underground's differences from previous Tony Hawk's titles." — Quite possibly the longest run-on I've seen at FAC. Needs to be punctuated and/or chopped up.
  • "realistic and relatable for the most part, they added driving missions as a source of silly enjoyment" — Most people can relate to driving, and "silly" is not the first word I'd use to describe it. I'm a bit baffled—any clarification?
  • Erm, it's not something you'd normally see in a skateboarding game. I've reworded to "an enjoyable diversion", though, as the main point they were trying to get across was that driving is different from the main gameplay, not from real life. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to push boundaries of how much freedom could be expected from a skateboarding game" —> "to push the boundaries of freedom in skateboarding games".
  • A rewrite:
  • "Neversoft wanted novice players to be able to develop skills for higher difficulty settings on Too Easy while still enjoying progressing through the story."
  • "Throughout the series' history, the team had reliably created extremely difficult missions in each game" —> "Neversoft had included extremely difficult missions in each previous Tony Hawk's game".
  • "While the game's cutscenes are all animated in 3D, the real-world skateboarding teams were given original live-action video introductions so that players could understand the teams as well as possible before selecting one to join." —> "While the game's cutscenes are animated in 3D, the team recorded live-action videos to introduce the real-world skateboarding teams, so that players could better understand each team before selecting one to join."
  • "Neversoft invited professional skaters to its office to ask about their experiences becoming known in the skateboarding world, then compiled elements of these tales into an extensive script for the game." —> "Neversoft asked professional skateboarders about their early experiences in the sport, then compiled elements of those stories in the game's script."
  • A rewrite:
  • "used its engine to model the real-world skaters' performances" — What does that mean?
  • "immediately playable in the main game" — What is the main game, and what is it contrasted against?

That's it for now. I'll finish the rest tomorrow—time got away from me tonight. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why bother using the 1UP review for that single line, especially when most of it ("the plot's focus on an amateur skater as opposed to professionals") just repeats what we already know?
  • 1UP's a well-known website that wrote a full review, so I don't see why that should be left out. I would have extracted more from it (and I still can if you want); it just seems like 1UP kind of reiterated the same points as everyone else, but in somewhat less interesting and specific language. And yes, we already know that the game focuses on an amateur skater, but until 1UP shows up, we don't know that any critics cared about that. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite:
  • "Ben Silverman of Game Revolution, however, described it the game's plot as a 'silly' cross between those of the 1980s films North Shore and Gleaming the Cube, but he praised it for making the giving context to level goals flow naturally and keeping enough distance between various the skill unlocks."
  • "overwhelmingly positive" — Not really a neutral description.
  • "and animation, calling them 'nearly flawless' and praising the realism they brought to the inherently fantastical skateboarding genre" —> "and animation: he called them 'nearly flawless' and praised the realism they brought to the inherently fantastical skateboarding genre".
  • "In contrast, IGN's" — In this instance, "in contrast" should be replaced with "by contrast". See here.
  • "customization, summarizing" — Dangling participle.
  • "identified the level editor as 'extremely well-designed' and contributing" — There's a strange tense shift here.
  • "scenario mode whose" —> "scenario mode, whose".
  • "though he praised the diversions their gameplay modes brought" — Extremely vague.
  • "and Underground, overall" —> "and that Underground, overall".
  • "while joining in in criticizing the walking controls and mechanics" — This entire clause should be removed.
  • A rewrite:
  • "Simiarly, Famitsu reviewers noted that, although the game's fast pace overall speed of the game gave it a high degree of difficulty can be extremely challenging at times, the high difficulty provides it gave a true a sense of accomplishment when jumps and tricks are performed correctly to the player who correctly performed jumps and tricks."
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mediocre, though not unmanageable" —> "mediocre but manageable".
  • "perform a large variety of tricks" — Lots of vague and unnecessary words. Should be changed to "perform tricks" or "perform X tricks", wherein X is the relevant number. (Alternatively, just list some of the tricks that can be performed—it adds interest and specificity to the article. Something I did a few years ago on Flight Unlimited.)
  • For now I've just removed it, because adding trick names to the middle of a sentence like that would create a huge run-on, especially if I did it for all the categories of tricks (jumping, grinding, etc.). If you've got a suggestion for reorganization, I'm open. Tezero (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a few more sentences should be dedicated to the core mechanics. Explain in more detail how the player uses surfaces to trick; put in some info on the tricks you can perform. Nothing exhaustive—just give the reader something to chew on. I haven't played many Tony Hawk games (only bits of 1 and 3, years ago), but I've played enough to know that the real meat of the series (e.g. finding good surfaces, picking up speed, executing certain tricks) is brushed over too quickly here. I understand that it's hard to dig down and describe the core mechanics of a genre or franchise without a model, but the description of gameplay in this article isn't quite there yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I'll be back soon with the next part of my review. Also—I think the expanded gameplay discussion is a big improvement, but the descriptions of control inputs (i.e. "holding the analog stick in one direction and one of two buttons") are a bit too specific. It's better to give a more general summary of the controls, as in the fighting game FA Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars. Other than that, good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I'm not seeing how this is any more specific or crufty than Tatsunoko vs. Capcom's explanation of the controls - I mean, that article has almost a whole paragraph on them, and both this page and that one just refer to the joystick and nonspecific buttons. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The gameplay issue is still not quite resolved; see below. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be now; see below. Tezero (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some criticism" — In the majority of cases, "some" is a dead word: it adds nothing. That holds here.
  • I don't agree; just "criticism" implies that it received poor reception overall, or at least that most people complained about its difficulty. This isn't the case; it is IME (and presented in the article as) a notable minority viewpoint, like how some people, but certainly not most, dislike Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire for Hoenn having too much water or Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the "tripping" phenomenon. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some" does not modify "criticism" in the way you intend. The word indicates an almost entirely indefinite amount of something, which makes it correct (or "correct") when used for any non-total amount. You could, potentially with a straight face, say that "some water" got into Fukushima Daiichi during the 2011 disaster—and you'd be correct, because less than the entire plant was submerged. In any case, "criticism" signifies an amount indefinite enough to avoid the suggestion of universal or near-universal dislike. However, if you want to guarantee clarity, then just explicitly mention who criticized it and how big of a deal they made out of it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game's basic gameplay mechanics and structure were developed quickly at first, but this process was not finished by the end of August 2003, only two months before its American release." — I don't understand this at all. I think it's 2-3 sentences begging to be free.
  • I know I'm the one who recommended "faking" citations in dire situations, but use of OPM and Play here is far too obvious: no author names and only one disembodied quote from each review. Use this to fill out the OPM citation and add more quotes. Play's review isn't available online or in my magazines, but I'd be willing to scan the EGM review if you want to use that as a replacement. Alternatively, just use GMR, Game Informer or GamePro.
  • "specifically praised Neversoft's characterization of real-world skaters and the narrative's pervasive sense of humor" — If he singled out those things for praise, then it goes without saying that he "specifically" praised them. Also, I'm not sure what the "characterization of real-world skaters" means.
  • Well, he praised basically everything about it; those were just the parts he took care to elaborate on his love for. "Characterization of real-world skaters" means the funny, slightly edgy way they're portrayed in the game as characters. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware that we were arguing. You explained your decisions to me without clarifying them in the article. As a result, even though my own confusion over the passages has been resolved, no one else has been clued in. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few more, JimmyBlackwing. I may be able to find an internet cafe or other Wi-Fi location for a couple hours during the next few days, in which case I'll fix up as much more as possible. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good; I look forward to seeing your changes. Regarding the discussion of controls, I think the difference between Tatsunoko vs. Capcom and this article is small but critical. A comparison:
  • "Players use controller inputs to perform attacks; the most basic attacks are executed by pressing one of three attack buttons: light, medium, or strong. Players may augment basic attacks with joystick or control pad directional inputs; for example, a standard strong attack can become a sweep when the down input is added. Basic attacks can be strung together to perform combos."
  • "The player performs tricks via combinations of analog stick and button inputs. By holding the analog stick in one direction and one of two buttons while jumping, the player can perform either a flip trick (such as an impossible) or a grab trick, such as a benihana or nosegrab."
  • TVC uses a clear, basic example of control input for non-gamers; THUG's discussion of the controls is more complex ("holding the analog stick in one direction and one of two buttons while jumping") and it isn't formatted as an example. I haven't played the game, but perhaps: "For example, the player initiates an ollie by [performing input]." Then you're free to make generalized comments—mention that adding more complex inputs (no need to specify which) to an ollie converts it into a flip or grab trick, and so forth. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked; see what you think. I really don't think it's that specific, though; it just gives a very brief summary of how to perform each kind of trick without even specifying buttons. Tezero (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing, part 2

[edit]

I can already tell you that the plot section is too long. For example:

  • "Pro skater Chad Muska is in town for a skate demo, which the player and Eric are impressed by. Later, Muska is impressed to see the player's skating and suggests seeking a sponsorship from a skate shop."

This could be reduced to:

  • "Professional skater Chad Muska is impressed by the protagonist's talent, and he suggests that they seek a sponsorship from a skate shop."

Likewise:

  • "The closest shop belongs to Stacy Peralta, who will not sponsor the player if their video is shot locally. Suddenly, Eric implores the player to leave with him, as he has incurred the wrath of drug dealers while retrieving a stolen skateboard, and the two set off for Manhattan."

Reduced to:

  • "The protagonist fails to get sponsored by Stacy Peralta's nearby shop, and then travels to Manhattan with Eric, who is on the run from drug dealers."

Finally:

  • "Once there, they complete the sponsorship video over Manhattan's exotic locales; Stacy is impressed and tells the player and Eric to attend the Tampa AM skate event in Tampa, Florida."

And:

  • "There, they shoot a skating video that impresses Stacy, who tells the protagonist and Eric to attend a skate event in Tampa, Florida."

Apply a similar hatchet throughout the section. As it stands, the plot summary is crufty and, as a result, kind of a slog. I'll move on to Development.

  • "it was the first Tony Hawk's game to star an amateur skater in a true story mode rather than simply a team of professionals" — Two points. First, what is a "true story mode"? I naturally read this as "true-story mode", which makes no sense. Second, this clause states: "star an amateur skater in ... a team of professionals". I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds disturbing.
  • Added the verb "star" to disambiguate. As for your first point, it's a story mode with a plot as opposed to just "complete these tasks because we said so, then move on" - basically the difference between the first Professor Layton game and the rest of the series. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rewrite suggestion: "Underground was created with a theme of individuality: it stars an amateur skater in a true story mode, whereas each previous Tony Hawk's game had starred professional skaters and had lacked a plot." JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "archetypal locales" — "Archetype" is generally used to describe a concept rather than a place. Try "iconic".
  • Well... the concept is what I meant. They were trying to find a locale in each city that represented it, not necessarily one that was iconic. It's like the difference between Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Aneurysm" to represent what grunge sounds like, or why they might have chosen a generic New York City street instead of the Statue of Liberty or, assuming the game was in development by 2001, the Twin Towers. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tezero (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3

[edit]
  • Most paragraphs in Reception start with original research: "The story was well received", "The graphics and art received mixed opinions" and so forth. Unless there are sources to support those claims specifically (e.g. "The plot of Tony Hawk's Underground was praised widely by critics", "Critics were split on the game's visuals"), they can't be included.
  • Don't have much time for editing right now, but I strongly disagree that this is original research. I can say confidently and without checking that it's found in more video game FAs than not (and they were passed with this, mind you; it wasn't added afterwards), and since it's not making exceptionally bold statements like "every single critic loved the soundtrack", I don't see a problem. Tezero (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware that it's common in VG FAs. However, it's still a policy violation, and so I've started to target the practice in every FAC I review. The fact of the matter is that it's original research to summarize critical opinion without citations, unless you do it in the lead. If the removal of paragraph openers makes the section too disparate, in your view, then perhaps implement subsections as in Flight Unlimited. (This format originally appeared in Anachronox, before its reception section was gutted to prepare for FAC. It deserves to catch on, I think.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing you may not be considering is that they serve as cogent topic sentences. I mean, Flight Unlimited is a very nice article overall, but the Reception section has, like, zero flow. It's just opinion after opinion with nothing to bring it together. It's true that, in the case of such topic sentences as can be found here and in many, many other articles across all forms of media, there are not citations for these summaries of the available critics' opinions on these topics, but who would contest it as being false? Remember, not all statements on Wikipedia have to be cited, only challengeable ones. This is why, for example, we're allowed to cite games themselves for uncontroversial details and why language articles are allowed to use examples that aren't explicitly given in any source (because that could be plagiarism). It would be OR to summarize from four positive reviews of the game's graphics and three negative ones that their reception was "mostly positive"; it would not if the score was six-to-one instead. Tezero (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of the cogency issue; it comes with the territory. What you're describing is still OR. Here's the policy page:
  • "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."
  • None of your sources imply that the critical reception as a whole reached any particular consensus on the game's aspects. It's unlikely that such a source exists at all. The paragraph openers are OR and should be removed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't forgotten about this nom, and I'm back, though I do have a huge amount of homework to finish up. For now, I'll leave them in until the discussion finishes. It looks like it's heading your way. I'm becoming more accepting of the prospect of, say, introducing paragraphs with some kind of explicit declaration of the topic that isn't a full-on topic sentence, e.g. "Regarding the game's graphics," instead of just jumping cold into one opinion after another (which I firmly believe is, policy or no policy, completely against common sense and basic, grade-school-level writing skills - no offense; this goes for every time I see it). I dunno. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The licensed soundtrack and sound effects, however, were better received." — More OR.
  • And I agree that Sequel needs to be expanded.

That should be it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The size of this review is getting absolutely out of control. Tezero: if it's okay with you, I'll start archiving solved points with {{collapse top}}. That will keep things easier to follow for both of us. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a few more issues to hash out. The biggest thing left is a trim for the plot section. Once everything's done, I'll run through one last time with a bit of copyediting. I won't let the OR thing prevent me from supporting this nom—consensus takes time, and I've already put you through the wringer long enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut some excessive details and reworded some sentences for conciseness in Plot. Got any opinion there? Tezero (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A great article that very much deserves to be the first Tony Hawk FA. Kudos to Tezero for pushing through a truly nightmarish review; I would probably have quit Wikipedia if I was in his shoes. My reputation as the VG Reviewer from Hell undoubtedly has grown over the past week. However, thanks to Tezero's work, the final product has set a very high bar for articles about extreme sports video games. Hopefully the rest of the nom is smoother—I can't imagine that any nit has gone unpicked by now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review from ProtoDrake

[edit]

I've looked at the image licenses and they seem in order. The sources all seem to hold up from a look through them. I'll give this article a Support on that count, and on the article as a whole. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]

I know that I have come late to this review and please mark my words I have read through the whole article, and I see next to nothing wrong with the prose side of things so I'll support this transition from GA to FA. I have left what I found to be negligible below. Aha, I used to love this game when I was a kid. Best of luck, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Soundtrack section the paragraph breaks off with "The songs are as follows:" - would this be a wise thing to say as the track listing is collapsed?
  • ""The mobile version was released worldwide in 2004" - what month?

Comments from Crisco 1492

[edit]

Looks like I have more time than I thought today, so I can spend a bit of time here. Tezero (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Underground adds the ability to dismount one's board and explore on foot. - Clarify that the PC is the one who dismounts?
  • The plot follows the player character and their friend Eric Sparrow as the two become well-known professionals and grow apart as friends. - avoid repeating "friends" in the sentence
  • acid drops - per WP:EGG, this is probably not the best solution. I'd write acid drops, and then redirect that page to Peters' article
  • when it is full, the player is granted access to more elaborate tricks worth more points. - Worth mentioning an example? (The 900 probably being the most obvious choice)
  • The player creates a custom character for the story mode, and may not play as a pre-made professional skater outside a special scene late in the game. - Even in free skate mode and minigames?
  • Standardize spelling: half-pipe or halfpipe
  • To accomplish this, they introduced foot travel and the ability to climb along ledges in the first few missions of the game. - introduced here can be read as a game mechanic, or them actually having an indication in the game that "hey, look, you can do this". Which one is correct?
  • Soundtrack section feels very light
  • It is, but there's not much more to say about it. I didn't see anything on, say, the way the songs were chosen or the difficulty in securing rights to a few tracks. Pretty much just a couple of press releases on what the tracks were. Tezero (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scores for the GC version?
  • The scores for the GC version are in the table. They're not mentioned in prose because the game was released on a good few platforms, so it'd be a little unnecessarily bulky. The Xbox's scores were the lowest and the PS2's the highest. Tezero (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales and accolades also feels very light. Any more info?

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought in general you were supposed to keep it outside unless the enclosed text is a full sentence, or at least a clause that could stand on its own as one. I did, however, find two errors with that paradigm, which I've fixed. Tezero (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC) [37].[reply]

Barn owl

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well-known bird found nearly worldwide which here in the UK has almost iconic status. I have spent much time expanding the article and (hopefully) improving it and nominated it for GA back in July. Unfortunately the backlog there meant it has not been reviewed and after seven weeks I decided to bring it straight to FAC. This means you had better be extra pernickety in pointing out its faults! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

I'm very pleased to see a FAC for this important bird. These are some initial thoughts.

  • It would be better if the article used a structure similar to that recommended by WikiProject Birds: Taxonomy, Description, Distribution and habitat, Behaviour, Breeding, Food and feeding, Threats or Survival, Relationship to humans, Status. Some of this is arbitrary but many bird FAs use this model and the existing heading of Ecology with 5 subheadings is odd.
I have rearranged the sections and their titles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the "Lifespan and predators" section on the posturing of an angry owl seems out of place.
Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article in British English or US English? It has "colour" and "neighboring".
Its trying to be British! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to return with more comments. Aa77zz (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I look forward to more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more comments:

  • The taxonomy content of the Taxonomy and etymology section needs to be expanded. How does the barn owl relate to other owls?
Partially done. I have difficulty relating it to other species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Locally superabundant ..".[3][30][31][32][33][34]. Are six cites needed?
Reduced to 3. I could replace them all with the excellent Taylor but am endeavouring to use a variety of sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The References section has many small problems with inconsistency of the formatting.
Working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 7 and 12 cite Mátics & Hoffmann (2002) - which is only detailed in Fn 25.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources are not suitable - Fn 38 Physics Today, Fn 39 UF News
Removed or replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunning (1992) need page numbers
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography - formatting needs to be consistent - chapter title should be in quotes etc - I suggest cite book for all.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When these are sorted I'll read the whole article through carefully. Aa77zz (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The expandable subspecies list lacks citations for much of the content. Is this all from Bruce? If so then perhaps there should be a general cite somewhere at the top of the table. Aa77zz (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subspecies information all comes from Bruce. In a GAN I did recently I was told to give a citation for each of the subspecies in the table so I have done this for barn owl. However I have now put an additional citation before the collapsible table. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy and the IOC

The quote in the Taxonomy section "a review of the whole group [is] long overdue" dates from 1999. In the last 15 years a number of articles have been published that look at DNA sequences.

The Wikiproject guide states that the IOC World Bird List should be used for taxonomy. The current list (Version 4.3) divides the subspecies into two groups, one species Tyto alba called the Western Barn Owl and the other species Tyto delicatula called the Eastern Barn Owl. The Eastern species includes as subspecies T. d. sumbaensis, T. d. meeki, T. d. crassirostris and T. d. interposita. However, it seems that the IOC have doubts as a note states that the split of Tyto delicatula from T. alba "may need to be revisited". The reference to Wink et al 2004b in the notes appears to be an error as the article only has alba is here. A key article appears to be:

Wink, Michael; El-Sayed, Abdel-Aziz; Sauer-Gürth, Hedi; Gonzalez, Javier (2009). "Molecular Phylogeny of Owls (Strigiformes) Inferred from DNA Sequences of the Mitochondrial Cytochrome b and the Nuclear RAG-1 gene". Ardea. 97 (4): 581–591. doi:10.5253/078.097.0425. (if you don't have access send me an email)

From this article it appears that the subspecies are split in the book Weick F. 2006. Owls (Strigiformes). Annotated and illustrated checklist. Springer.

The delicatula split hasn't been adopted by the online version of Handbooks of Birds of the World which lists 28 subspecies of T. alba. I don't have a subscription and thus cannot see whether this is discussed in the article.

I have no experience of how these cases are handled on Wiki. Perhaps Jimfbleak may be able to advise. I know he has access to HBW. The wiki article certainly needs to mention the split and use up-to-date sources. Bruce is too old here. Aa77zz (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on this. I have access to the barn owl article in HBW which is said to have been updated in 2014. If I used that year rather than 1999 in the citation would that help? I don't have access to the article you mention above so am sending you an email. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a more recent reference (without the quote) would be an improvement. I also think that "While this may be warranted, such a move should await further research into barn owl phylogeography." seems a little like editorializing.
I do not know how closely wikipedia articles adhere to the IOC list but to do so would mean splitting off T. a. delicatula as a separate species (as has been done on French wiki). König & Weick (2008) also split off the American Barn Owl (T. furcata). The IOC note that the "split of American Barn Owl furcata from alba under consideration". I think we need input from other editors as to whether to follow the IOC. The fact that Tyco alba has the greatest distribution of any bird is suspicious - it seems a little surprising (to a very much non-expert) that a bird species that does not migrate could have a world-wide distribution. Aa77zz (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book splits the subspecies:

  • König, Claus; Weick, Friedhelm (2008). Owls of the World (2nd ed.). Christopher Helm. ISBN 978-0-7136-6548-2. (note that I've used the cite book template)

but uses "Common Barn Owl" for Tyto alba and "Austalian Barn Owl" for Tyto delicatula. The book contains an article on phylogeny by Michael Wink. A Google Preview is available here. Aa77zz (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to explain the situation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for addressing my queries so efficiently. "extra pernickety"? Aa77zz (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (1 request Done)

Thank you. I have added the source information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

This species needed a proper article, and you have put plenty of work into this. A few quibbles though.

  • It is also referred to as the common barn owl, to distinguish it from other species in the barn owl family Tytonidae which—You could avoid a repetition by something like "in its family Tytonidae"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and by some authors its Lesser Antilles populations insularis and nigrescens still are.—clunky structure
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a varying amount of tiny blackish-brown speckles—"speckle" is a countable noun, "number", not "amount"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • usually at altitudes below 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) ASL—the acronym and link seem unnecessarily complicated, either write out "sea level" or just leave it out as assumed
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a rocky island off the coast of California—named?
I don't know. The incident is mentioned at greater length in Taylor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the cited article the incident took place on Castle Rock, off Crescent City, California. The short paragraph published in the Condor is available online here. I checked the reference as only one page was specified - which turned out to be correct - but the author's name was misspelled and the year was wrong. The author "disposed of the owlets" - which isn't quite "was successfully reared" as stated in the wiki article. Aa77zz (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also available from JSTOR. Taylor provides an incorrect reference which has been copied into the article without checking. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article and reference have been changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pound for pound, barn owls consume more rodents—I don't like the US version, "weight for weight" or "kilo for kilo" would be better
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the nests of other birds such as the hamerkop—add "large" before "nest"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the barn owl is a prolific breeder and able to recover from short-term population decreases, they are
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about parasites, there is plenty out there, eg this
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [23][24][7]—This is not in numerical order (I didn't check whether there were others
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bruce, M. D. (1999) has the page numbers in the bibliography, the other books have them in the short form, looks inconsistent
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 has an incorrectly formatted link which appears to be dead anyway
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
It basically all comes from Handbook of Birds of the World which I have sourced at the beginning. I am just about to go away for the weekend. I will deal with your comments on my return. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Could the info be cited to that source, just to be safe? FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It always irks me a bit when images interfere with headings, could the one under description and the one under breeding be moved to the right?
  • On second thoughts, maybe the Audubon image is a bit inappropriate under description?. He was notorious for posing his birds in quite unlikely postures, for compositorial effect (see for example[38]), as also seems to be the case in that image. It is a nice image, but maybe of more cultural than anatomical value. At least a more representative image could come first under description. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be nice with a photo of the eggs, perhaps this one?[39] FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have quite a few more interesting "in flight" images than the one used.[40] In general, I think we have nice unused images on Commons that could make the article more visually interesting.
I have taken up most of these suggestions and made some changes to the images. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I'll add further comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seem to be worthy of recognition as long as the species is not split up." What is meant by this? They are only worthy of recognition if the species is not split up? How?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked the licenses and sources of the newly added images, they are fine, so further image review is not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a time when she flies little and the male feeds her so she does not need to fly." Isn't one of these redundant?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " an angry barn owl lowers its head and sways it from side to side, or the head may be lowered and stretched forward and the wings drooped while the bird emits hisses and makes snapping noises with its bill." Both adults and chicks? I've only seen videos of chicks doing this... FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently adults do it as well according to Witherby. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which forms one of the two main lineages of living owls, the other being the typical owls (Strigidae)" This info is only in the lead, but should be in the article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "except polar and desert regions, Asia north of the Himalayas, most of Indonesia and some Pacific islands." Likewise, there should be no info in the intro that is not found in the article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The information is the same but expressed in a different way but I have rephrased the info in the Distribution section slightly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]
  • Need to say it is either a species or species complex/superspecies in lead and in article, if it can be sourced - reflecting the split in current taxonomy.
I haven't found mention of it as a species complex. The word "species" is in the lead and I have added it to the beginning of the Taxonomy section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC currently lists it as two species, with a question mark over whether furcata should be split (and delicatula recombined). I don't think we can just ignore this in the lead - there should be a sentence along the lines that it is one, two or possibly three species - this is generally called a superspecies or species complex and I would be surprised if this can't be found in a source somewhere. I am travelling for another day or so and will have a look when I get a chance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more information on the results of a phylogenetic study. A search in Google Scholar for "Tyto alba" + "species complex" brought up nothing, but "Tyto alba" + "superspecies" brought up this. I can't access more than the abstract but it includes the sentence "Previous studies of the eastern Barn Owl's diet in Australia, and of the wider Barn Owl complex (formerly Tyto alba) internationally, have found that this superspecies ...". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Konig and Weick recognise three main species plus split off some others. Given this book is pretty definitive and quoted elsewhere this should be added I think. There is some material on page 47 and 48 worth adding (I can see it in Oz, not sure if you can in UK?). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need to add that the Iranian paper didn't test delicatula and doesn't seem to comment on placement of it - the fact that they just report its previous placement the end seems to indicate that they accept that it is more divergent (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I think that the Iranian paper accepts that the delicatula lineage is divergent, hence the line Phylogenetic evidence shows that there are two distinct groupings of barn owl, one in the Old World and one in the New, but further research needs to be done to clarify whether these should be regarded as separate species - should read "Phylogenetic evidence shows that there are at least three major lineages of barn owl, one in the Eurasia and Africa, one in Australasia and one in the New World, with possibly some highly divergent taxa on islands, but further research needs to be done to clarify whether these should be regarded as separate species" or something similar, and noting that some authorities recognise up to five species possibly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with these points as best I can. I have added to the lead and rearranged the taxonomy section a bit and am more satisfied with it. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to add rationale of those publishing the split as to why they think the split should happen.
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't see it - where? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the second half of the third paragraph in "Taxonomy and etymology". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC) (Now moved to the second paragraph) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Across its vast range, the barn owl has formed many subspecies, - "formed"....sounds weird in transitive here...another verb?
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The barn owl is considered to be the most widespread landbird species in the world, occurring in every continent except Antarctica.' - is it or isn't it? why have "considered" at all?
I prefer to use the word "considered" as you can't be sure, nobody having counted these or other birds on a world-wide basis or established their precise ranges. On further thoughts, it is stated in the source so I might as well say it too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a medium-sized owl, there is considerable size variation across the subspecies. - change of subject here. I'd split these two clauses and align elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's a hefty first clause with four double-barrelled adjectives in it! I think I'd take "pale-coloured" out of it and move down to the text on coloration. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before starting to lay eggs,.. --> "Before laying eggs,..." will suffice
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some species have Latin names listed while others don't....should make them all or none I think.
I think they all have scientific names now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on - my free time is really patchy. Will give this another read-through soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The barn owl is known by many common names which mostly refer to its pale colouring or silent flight. - I think I'd remove this from the lead. Alternate names are uncommon.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link "described" to species description
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The barn owl has been introduced into the Hawaiian island of Kauai in an attempt to control rodents - has it survived/thrived/just hung on...?
Thrived, with unintended consequences. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tarsometatarsus - if this is being used as an adjective, surely it should be " tarsometatarsal"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, prose and comprehensiveness looking good now. I haven't looked at the sourcing and will make some spot checks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still on this, Cas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok hang on....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*The behaviour and ecological preferences may differ slightly even among neighbouring subspecies, as shown in the case of the European T. a. guttata and T. a. alba that probably evolved, respectively, in allopatric glacial refugia in southeastern Europe, and in Iberia or southern France - is supported by 3 refs - fn 12 aligns with prose but I can't figure out why fn 28 is there, and it links to the author's main page not the study. If there is a South American example then worth adding, or otherwise remove fn 28...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No longer available as a pdf apparently. Reformatted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if that source is about Ecuador, is there something from Sth America worth adding? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That reference predates my involvement and is no longer available online, as far as I can see. As I don't know what it says, I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think we have any other choice here...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, in southern Europe and the tropics, the birds seem to be strictly nocturnal - and preceding sentences supported by fn 24. The source says " Iain Taylor points out that the owls in his study area were very rarely mobbed, but he states that in the tropics those Barn Owls which hunt diurnally are violently mobbed by a wide variety of birds, ranging from starlings to crows" as well as "and (Iain Taylor) further considered that those of northern Europe are the most diurnally active of all the world’s Barn Owls, with those of southern Europe and the tropics being strictly nocturnal." - so it slightly contradicts itself. Also the wording is a bit too close for comfort and should be distanced from the source. Furthermore Australia is omitted - are birds nocturnal there? I rescued one in the daytime as it was being mobbed by ravens and currawongs......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased this bit. Better? I don't know about Australia (does it qualify as a Pacific island?) and can only follow the sources I have. If you rescued one, it was presumably roosting in a too-open location rather than hunting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult - i would have said "exclusively" as more of a synonym than "largely", though it list exceptions (??). Need to see some other refs I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to "almost exclusively". It will be in the Taylor book, but I won't have access to that until Monday, when I can borrow it from the public library again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do. that wording is okay I meant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first use fn 32 should be put forward to the full stop before the comma where it is as it refers to superabundant rodents but I don't see 3/4 of diet.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I don't see where this sentence "Such animals probably make up at least three-quarters of the biomass eaten by the barn owl except in some island populations" is referenced at all as I can't see it in fn 32 or 33. It is sort of redundant given the following sentence.
Removed and rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
spotcheck - fn 24 ok.

Ok - much of what is left is sourced by book sources. A few errors above but other material was sound. I can't see any issues outstanding after my spotcheck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know when you're all done, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) [41].[reply]

Nativity (Christus)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Victoria (tk) 14:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 15th century Early Netherlandish painter Petrus Christus's painting the Nativity, which would I worked up to make Christmas scheduling easy of Bencherlite. It's had a peer review, and thanks to SlimVirgin, Johnbod and Belle for the helpful comments there. Also thanks to Ceoil and Kafka Liz for the copyedits. Victoria (tk) 14:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I read this through at peer review. It's beautifully written and a pleasure to read, it looks wonderful, and it seems comprehensive and well-sourced. It will make an excellent TFA for Christmas. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree. The usual high standards here. Support. Ceoil (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments: I am slightly confused over a couple of aspects:

  • Dates: The article begins: "The Nativity is an oil-on-wood panel painting by the Early Netherlandish painter Petrus Christus, completed sometime between the mid-1440s to mid-1450s" But the caption to the lead image reads: "Nativity, c. 1460s." Why the date discrepancy?
  • In the "Dating and condition" section there are two images. It is not clear what the one on the left is. It is captioned "Nativity, Petrus Christus, c. 1450", and the lower foreground features are similiar to those of the main image, but the upper foreground and background details are quite different. Is this an early draft, is it the underdrawing? Whatever it is, the relationship of this image to the completed panel needs to be clear in both text and caption.
  • The right-hand image caption doesn't tell us specifically what the image is. I assumed it was a detail taken from the panel before restoration and cleaning, since the colours are muted. However, if this is pre-restoration, why are the halo and the gold paten not shown? Again, I think further clarity in text and caption is needed if readers are not to become confused.
  • Hi Brian, it is slightly confusing. I've changed the date in the lead image; thanks for that catch.
  • The 1450 Nativity is a different painting. For the life of me I cannot find much more than what's there now in the sources, but will dig a bit more during the week.
  • File:Petrus Christus Nativity detail.jpg is a crop and not a very good one because it's a screenprint from here. I might try to play with it a little more to try to improve, but the many iterations on the file give a sense of how often I've switched it around. That thing the infant is lying on is the paten; the halo is very faint (the gold rays around Mary's head).
  • Hi Brian, I think you've brought up a good point about the two different versions. I've uploaded a new pic, hopefully less dull and fuzzy, and clarified somewhat in the text. There's still an article that's apparently gone missing about the various versions that I've tried to find with no success but will continue to search for. In the meantime, I'm hoping the clarification is helpful. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a different issue entirely, "Richter (1941)" does not seem to be defined in the sources list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden

[edit]

Support, but it'd be nice to get some better details. If you need help with that, poke me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a few minor prose points that don't affect my support, but I hope may be helpful:

  • "Old and New testament" in the lead but in the main text "Old and New Testament"
  • "eucharistic vestments" … "Eucharistic host" – more inconsistent capitalisation
  • "Sepulchre" – I thought this was BrEng, and the AmEng was "sepulcher", and as the rest of the text is AmEng you may like to consider.

That's all from me. A fine article, highly readable and beautifully sourced and illustrated. Clearly of FA standard in my view. – Tim riley talk 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: The one sources issue that I raised in my earlier review has been fixed. There are no further issues - all sources are of appropriate quality, and information is correctly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My earlier concerns having been adequately addressed, I am happy to support this charming article. I am sorry to have been so long returning to it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Beautiful prose. Delightful and clear! Will make a great feature in December. I love the images. I rea this for sourcing and prose, leaving images for someone with greater understanding of such things. auntieruth (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to point out, Andrew Mellon is linked twice, once in the lead, and another time in the last para. I have no problem with that, since the mentions are so far apart, but someone will quibble. auntieruth (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruth, tks for checking for duplinks. Although some editors like to only link once in the entire article, it is within guidelines (last time I looked!) to link once in the lead and once again in the main body as a matter of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, since you were away for a while you may not know there's a very useful duplink checker you can install. It highlights with red borders the second and subsequent links to the one page within the lead, and then within the main body (i.e. following the "once in lead, once in main" guideline I mentioned above). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC) [42].[reply]

Three Beauties of the Present Day

[edit]
Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A well-known colour print by ukiyo-e master Utamaro, dating to c. 1792–93 and featuring three real-life beauties who frequently appeared in his works and the works of others. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Margin1522

[edit]

This is my first post on this board, so I will limit it to comments. I think this is a really good article. I like the lead, the images, the analysis, and the conclusion. Some small things that I think might be done to improve it.

  • It seems a bit short on the background. I think a bit more material could be added on bijin-ga as a major genre in ukiyo-e.
  • There are a lot Japanese terms and names, which some readers might have trouble with. For example, we link to sharebon but perhaps we could describe in a few words what kind of books those were.
  • In the sentence "Kyōden was manacled for fifty days, and Tsutaya was penalized half his property.", maybe we could say "the artist" instead of "Kyōden", and "the publisher" instead of "Tsutaya". When I came to "Kyōden", I had to go back and see, who was he again?
  • Is "Tomohisa's" correct? Should that be "Toyohina's"?
  • *Burp* One of those things spellcheck will never catch. Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tomimoto-bushi article we link to is quite weak. I'll try to see if I can expand it. It was a genre of jōruri, which is a storytelling song. This particular genre was especially refined and popular with rich townspeople and samurai, and she played the accompaniment. If we could add some of that information, I think it might fill out our picture of her, which is shorter than the other two models. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also wondering if there isn't a better term for ōkubi-e than "big-headed pictures". I know it's often translated this way, but it's not that the subjects had big heads, but that the image was a close-up of the head, or upper body actually. Other translations I've seen are are "torso portrait" or "bust portrait", but these don't seem quite right either. Is there some term (Italian?) in art criticism for "upper body portrait"? If not maybe we could just explain again what it was. Also, there were ōkubi-e of kabuki actors before Utamaro. His innovation was to do it for bijin, so maybe that could be clarified. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm partial to "big bust portrait", but everyone keeps shouting me down. If you check out the "Background" section you'll see that ōkubi-e is attributed to Shunshō, and the association is made with yakusha-e. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that's true, the background section is fine. Also, I finished expanding the Tomimoto-bushi article. I seem to remember seeing a print of Toyohina standing on a veranda and looking like she was teaching the shamisen a child, which would have been nice to add. But I can't remember now where I saw it, or even if it was her. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more nit. At Amazon the ISBN for the Yoshida dictionary goes to the 3rd edition. And I'm wondering if 定本 actually means "Revised". It could, but publishers like to put that on dictionaries regardless, just to make it look authoritative. There is a used copy of the 1974 edition on the Amazon page and the cover has 定本 already. Is it not enough to just say 3rd edition? – Margin1522 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's weird. Worldcat lists three editions with that ISBN—one from 1974, another from 1994, and another undated. A Worldcat search for the title indicates the first edition was in 1944. The thing is, I got the ISBN information right from the book itself—I'm looking at it now, and it clearly says: "Printed in Japan © 1972 Teruji Yoshida 1571—0006—1033 ISBN 4-87364-005-9 C1571 P25000E". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is strange, but if says so in the book it must be correct. The National Book Network says "If you are revising a book and there is a substantial change of the contents, the book should be assigned a new ISBN. A rule of thumb is that 15-20% of the text or content should change to treat the book as a new edition." So perhaps all of those editions are substantially the same. Or not, I don't know. But the cite gives the year, so there's no doubt as to which edition was consulted. I guess it's OK then, we can't do anything about the ISBN. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bamse

[edit]

Very beautiful article and artwork. Unfortunately I don't have time for a full review. Just a couple of comments...

Just one more thing...

Comments from Johnbod

[edit]

Generally there, but:

  • "Her clothes and hairstyle are in the showier style of a geisha compared to the plainer, teahouse-girl garments of the other two models..." I must say they all look identical to me. If there is a difference it needs explaining.

Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a page where you can see the difference. The image is at the top (1781～1789) is a bit earlier and the hairstyle isn't quite as elaborate. The 2nd and 3rd from the top (1789～1801) are exactly this period. The 2nd is a geisha, and her kinono has more layers. The 3rd is a tea house girl, and she has a simpler kimono. The hairstyles of all 3 models are really elaborate -- it says Utamaro wasn't exaggerating, this was real. But the geisha's is a bit taller and has more ornaments. The ornaments make the difference. Perhaps we could say "ornamental hairstyle" and "elegant kimono" about Toyohina. But it's true, I can't see calling any of those hairstyles simple. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But all these 3 seem to have exactly the same styles and ornaments. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One lacks the comb, but I don't know if that's significant. The kimono are different, but you're right, the hairstyles are very similar. Instead of talking about the differences, maybe we should try to find out the name of this hairstyle and why teahouse girls were wearing it in the first place. I think that's pretty remarkable. It might be a characteristic of this period. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the top one, I thought that was just the angle of vision - there's a little bit coming out of the back at right, similar to the other two. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are other details that distinguish Toyohina's hairstyle if you're willing to cross your eyes and hold it up to the light, but anyways I may have misinterpreted the source: it compares their clothes, and along the way says "派手な芸者髷を結わせ" to describe Toyohina's hair, but doesn't explicitly compare her hair to that of the other two—just the clothes: "家つきの娘らしいやや地味な着物を着せて、それぞれの身分の違いを描くことに務めている". I've tweaked it, dropping reference to the hair. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks - the top one has a plain kimono and the other two patterns, but I won't argue the toss with sources on historical Japanese women's fashion (do we have articles on any of this stuff - I doubt it). Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the hairstyle, I have expanded the article on Shimada (hairstyle) so that now it explains the style that all 3 models are wearing and slightly reworded Toyohina's description to point to it. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "confections"? Not really an English word for food, is it? In the UK we have "confectionary" aka "sweets" = "candy" in the US. If that is the title they use, then you are stuck with it, but in the text something understandable should be used.
    • I see "confection" with the same meaning in a couple of dictionaries (and Wiktionary), but now that I see "sweet" is part of the definition, it's not really the best translation of 菓子, which includes salty snackfoods. I'm about to go to bed, so I'll sort this out tomorrow. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For now, I've substituted in "snacks", though somehow it doesn't seem right ... dictionaries seem to favour "sweets", "confectioneries", "candies", or even "cakes" (!), which I think any Japanese speakers here will agree is not right (ja:菓子 describes kashi as 甘味や塩味など "sweet, salty, etc.") Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment in Bamse's section. This print has two states & that should probably be used & linked. You might also link this there, as it mentions no Japanese prints at present. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About why the later state lacks the names, another explanation I have seen is that the bakufu cracked down on these frivolous prints and forbade printing the names of models. I wonder if any of the sources mention that. Censorship seems like a more plausible explanation than that they moved away. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible, although none of my sources suggest so—the "moved away" one is the only one I've seen, and only in the one source, and even then only put forth as a conjecture. It would be difficult to determine anyways, given that the different states are undated (even the original is only estimated at 1792–93). Of course, if a source turns up that says anything like that, it'll have to be added. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference and mentioned it on the Talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left a response there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately sourced and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the page is there now, after the discussions, which I followed, above. More please. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley Miles

[edit]
In the h/c OED the verb is first cited in this sense (#2) from 1614, and the participle from De Quincy in 1813 I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typo—it should be "individuated". Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- Hi Curly, pls seek a source review, and check your duplinks. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) [43].[reply]

Female genital mutilation

[edit]
Nominator(s): SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this slowly to bring it to FA standard, and I believe it now meets the criteria. It was promoted to GA in September 2013 by LT910001, and in the same month went through an informal peer review by Brian Boulton. There was also a formal peer review in September 2014 by Brian, Victoriaearle and Johnuniq.

There are several people I want to thank because I couldn't have managed this alone: Brian, Victoria and Johnuniq for the reviews; Johnuniq for finding and fixing my mistakes and typos, and for creating File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg and an earlier incarnation; Victoria, Johnuniq, Doc James and Zad68 for fielding questions on talk, and for their helpful advice along the way; Ekem for the complications section; Khruner for his kind help with the hieroglyphs; and Akhilleus, Davidiad, Wareh, Fornadan, Andrew Dalby and Thanatos for information about Ancient Greece.

Also many thanks to Doc James, Zero0000, Sunrise, Shrike, OhanaUnited, HHill, Khruner, CFCF and Jytdog for invaluable access to sources.

A note about the medical content. The article doesn't follow MEDMOS for structure, but does follow MEDRS for medical content. Ekem, a gynaecologist, wrote an early version of the complications section; his edits are here and here. Regarding structure, I would normally place history at the top, while medical articles often place it at the end. Neither seemed right here, so it's in the middle. The article begins by looking at the key issues: procedures, health effects, prevalence, ages and reasons. Then we go into history and the growth of the opposition, and end with objections to the opposition.

Many thanks again to everyone who has helped with this. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Support: SlimVirgin is to be congratulated on her perseverence in bringing the article to its present standards of lucidity and comprehensiveness. This is a difficult and challenging topic, but reviewers should not be put off from engaging with it. It is a matter of global concern, even in Western countries such as the United Kingdom (it was highlighted in a TV local news report only yesterday). I have, as indicated above, been involved at various review stages in helping to organise and clarify the text, although I have made no contribution to the content. My support is subject to there being no substantive issues arising from sources, images or specialist text. I see this article as potentially an important contribution to Wikipedia, and hope eventually to see it on the main page. Brianboulton (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SV, I know we disagree quite strongly about the utility of the policy in question, but, per non-free content criterion 8, File:Hulda Stumpf.jpg and File:Fran Hosken, 1950 (cropped).jpg really need to be removed from the article. We can understand the topic perfectly well without seeing pictures of the subjects; whether they/their views need to be included in the article (on which I defer to your judgement) is completely different matter to whether we need to see a picture of them. The same policy applies across all articles, no matter how emotive or controversial, and across all non-free content, no matter how old. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comment, Josh. Fair-use images are allowed in FAs (e.g. pictures of the boxes that video games come in). Almost anything can be understood without pictures, but images enhance understanding. The image of Hulda Stumpf, for example, helps me to imagine the situation of a woman like that in Kenya in the 1930s objecting to an important institution. The images are of important early women activists against FGM, both are poor quality, and the image of Stumpf is almost certainly free. I have the details of two publications it appeared in before 1923, but they're not online, so tracking them down has been a slow business. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-free images are allowed in FAs- no one will dispute that, and if the image of Stumpf is free, then I do not object to its inclusion. However, right now, by your own admission, we are not certain that it is free, and so it must be treated as non-free, which includes meeting all of the NFCC. You say that "[a]lmost anything can be understood without pictures, but images enhance understanding"- this is true, but not really the point; you could say the same about any picture, when in fact we have (deliberately) strict guidelines. We have to ask whether an image significantly enhances understanding, and whether an article would be worse off without it. Concerning the Stumpf image, for instance, you say it "helps [you] to imagine the situation of a woman like that in Kenya in the 1930s objecting to an important institution", but I'm not convinced. Literally all the image shows is what she looked like, how she did her hair and roughly the kind of clothes she wore. Could we understand this article without knowing these things? Yes. Does the seeing these things significantly enhance reader understanding? No. Would the article be significantly worse without the image? No. J Milburn (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the two images should be considered separately. Concerning Hulda Stumpf, bearing in mind the death she suffered for her beliefs, I found the image of this evidently ordinary and decent woman, while not perhaps significantly increasing my understanding of the horror of the event, brought it home more vividly, and more movingly, than the words. I see nothing wrong with an emotional response from readers, and I think the case for retaining it is at least reasonable. The case for the Hosken image is rather weaker, and if I were you, Sarah, I probably wouldn't defend the barricades for its retention. Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll remove the fair-use one of Hosken. It's very poor quality, and I have a better chance of finding a free one of her. I've been reaching out to people who knew her, so I hope that will bear fruit. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have to echo Brianboulton's comments completely. I believe this is an important contribution to Wikipedia and congratulate SlimVirgin for her fortitude in tackling such a difficult and yet important subject. Bringing such a topic to FA standard on Wikipedia is enormously challenging and I commend SlimVirgin for not giving up. I've just read through again (although I've began following edits closely since September during the PR) and don't see anything to comment about. Re the images mentioned in the comment above: in my view two non-free images (with FURs) for an article of such substance doesn't seem to be me out of proportion. Victoria (tk) 22:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge whether non-free images are appropriate by looking at article length. There will be 100k articles in which no non-free files are appropriate, and there are stubs in which several are. We have to ask whether images meet the non-free content criteria, and there is literally nothing in there about article length. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One of the first things I tried to find was a list or map of countries where FGM is illegal. That information seems to be split across the opposition section, but I think concentrating that information in a colour coded map would prove useful. - hahnchen 20:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a list of such countries in the infobox under "Legislation". A map would be easy but the situation is unclear because some countries have a law banning FGM and an enforcement mechanism, whereas others just have some kind of legal statement. The source for the list in the article describes it as "have enacted decrees or legislation related to FGM/C"—in other words, the legal situation in different countries may not be directly comparable, so a map may be an over simplification. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahnchen, as John says, it would be difficult to sum up the complexity with a map. There are countries (such as Kenya, Sweden, the UK), where FGM is banned even with consent. In others (such as Canada, Tanzania and the United States), it is banned only without consent (i.e. for those under the age of consent), which means that adult women can be reinfibulated after childbirth. There are countries with bans but little or no enforcement, or bans that are very restricted (e.g. Mauritania, where doctors may not perform it and it is banned from government health facilities). SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Brianboulton and Victoriaearle, the article's prose is excellent, and its scope of coverage is outstanding. I hope J Milburn's concern about non-free images doesn't bog down an otherwise wonderful nom, and I'm not sure why screen-shots of computer games are any more necessary than the images used here. Nice job, SlimVirgin. You should be proud of the fine work you've done with an immensely important topic. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support let me just say "wow". It took three hours to read this, a rewarding but uncomfortable experience. I would like to commend SlimVirgin on her achievement on a number of levels; the balance, level of research, quality of sources, clarity of writing, and for gathering such a skilled and often informed coalition of openion on talk and during the PR. Brian has it right when he suggests the article is "potentially an important contribution to Wikipedia". Ceoil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've followed this article for some years and have seen SlimVirgin elevate it from quagmire to its current excellent status. The article is very well written, and is as engaging as a neutral article on this topic could be. I've read a few of the references and it appears there is nothing important missing. The text is well researched and well sourced. The balance of the article (its neutrality) is very good with no preaching. There is a lot of content, but none which should be elsewhere. I just re-read the article and inevitably noticed some minor issues:

  • "Other terms often used include female genital cutting (FGC) and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), preferred by those working with practitioners." I think some words are needed after the comma, although I can see the contrary view that the current text follows a natural style. Consider simpler (artificial) text: "Other terms often used include cutting and mutilation, preferred by those working with practitioners." Perhaps insert "and are", or change to "; these are preferred..."?
  • "The circumciser is usually an older woman; in communities where the male barber has assumed the role of health worker, he will perform FGM too." Would some alternative to the text after the comma be desirable? Perhaps: "FGM will also be performed by him" or "he will also perform FGM"?
  • "The surveys ask several questions about this, including:" The text assumes the reader will insert the heading. I think spelling it out would be better: "The surveys ask several questions about the type of FGM, including:".
  • "In 2011 the DHS and MICS surveys began asking women about the FGM status of all their living daughters." Is all correct? I haven't seen the source used, but I recently looked at some of the surveys and I thought they asked about the most recently cut living daughter.
  • Referring to a trial in 2014: "a verdict was expected at the end of October". I can't find any news on this, but am noting the fact that the text will need to be updated when the outcome is known.
  • The article uses the style that a four-digit number should have a comma (as in "3,711 of the subjects", which I noticed because there are a lot of commas in the sentence). Perhaps add a comma to "3011 personnel".

I'm not looking for a response to these very minor issues—they are just for consideration. Overall, fantastic work on a very important topic. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the support, John, and for reading it again. I know how long that takes! I'll add some or all of your points when I next go through it. Re: the October verdict, I'm checking regularly. I may just remove that part of the sentence. Re: living daughters, yes, it's all. Yoder says:
"To monitor more recent changes in FGM/C prevalence, scholars and program experts have been seeking information about the prevalence among girls younger than age 15. This desire to monitor change more quickly led to modifications in the DHS and MICS module in late 2010. Surveys now ask about the FGM/C status of all living daughters. These data will allow specialists to consider the evidence for more recent changes in prevalence.

"Data reported regarding the FGM/C prevalence of girls aged 10–14 cannot be considered in the same way as that for girls/women aged 15–49 for two reasons. First, data concerning FGM/C prevalence for girls aged 10–14 is not yet available for any country except Egypt. Such data will soon become available for both the DHS and MICS surveys, because both began using an FGM/C module in 2011 that asks each respondent about the FGM/C status of all living daughters. Second, some girls will be cut at the age of 11 or 12 or even 13, so even if a figure for prevalence were available for girls aged 10–14, the figures would not convey the ultimate rates to be found among the cohort."

SlimVirgin (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Crisco, thanks for the review.
  • Re: external graphs. The article links to these two graphs [44][45] as external images. Perhaps someone would be willing to recreate them, but it would be a lot of work, would crowd the section, and readers would have to click on them anyway to see the data, so it seemed better to do it this way.
  • Fair point, but I do believe that we can link to them on Commons as well (meaning they wouldn't crowd the section) and we could have freely reusable versions for our readers (a plus). I do wish UNICEF would adapt a PD model for things like this, but ... Anyways, it's more of a "wish list" thing, so don't worry about it. The way we're doing it now is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Pls check duplicate links and see which of them you really need, if any.
  • I think Brian has signed off on sources based on his comment at the top, pls correct me if I'm wrong.
  • It looks to me that the only thing we're waiting on to be confirmed as resolved relate to the image review -- Crisco pls ping when you're happy with that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why so many citations in the lead?
  • Be consistent in when you include locations, and in whether US locations include states
  • Source for Hosken report being "influential"?
  • FN39, first source should be simply WHO 2014
  • FN40: need full publication details for the last cite
  • FN47: we don't have the full cite for Ismail until later. Same for Shell-Duncan in FN58, Okeke in FN79 - check for others
  • FN54: source gives Cooke's initials as just RJ
  • Fn64: author formatting in second cite doesn't match others. Same with FN 134 second cite, check for others
  • FN112: is this two cites or one?
  • Compare FN60 and the last cite of FN121
  • FN124: author?
  • FN138: British Museum is a proper name
  • Fn206, second cite: why include publication title here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Fixes:
  • Cites in lead: they contribute to stability.
  • Locations: states removed
  • Footnote 19: moved source higher for Hosken report being influential
  • Footnote 39: done
  • Footnote 40: done
  • Footnotes 47, 58, 79: done
  • Footnote 54: full names added
  • Footnotes 64, 134: done
  • Footnote 112: inadvertent repetition removed
  • Footnotes 60, 121: magazine in italics
  • Footnote 124: author added
  • Footnote 138: typo fixed
  • Footnote 206: Names of news organizations are in brackets after the first reference.
Thanks again for the review. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC) [46].[reply]

Murder of Leigh Leigh

[edit]
Nominator(s): Freikorp and  Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about the grisly murder of a 14-yo schoolgirl in Australia. I am the GAC reviewer of this article. Having examined all the relevant criteria and looked in detail at the background of the story, I believe it is complete for all important details, and all matters of substance and form are of or near to FA standard.  Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Nikkimaria

[edit]
Resolved issues
  • File:Leigh_Leigh_headstone.png: Australia typically doesn't have freedom of panorama for engravings and photographs. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria. I must admit I didn't even know what freedom of panorama was until I read your comment, so please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject. Section 65 of the 1968 copyright act [47] states: "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work..." I can assure you this headstone is in a place that is open to the public. Granted section 65 defines 'work' as "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship", which i'm not 100% a headstone falls into, but I don't see the problem here. I don't think anyone holds the copyright to the headstone, nor do I see how anyone could. The only reason I knew where to find the headstone to take a photo of it is because there is already a photo of it in the Australian Cemeteries Index [48]. Clearly people take photographs of Austrlaian headstones and put them on the internet, apparently without any controversy. Can you explain in a bit more detail what the issue is here? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Freikorp, that the work is in a place open to the public is not in dispute. However, unlike say a public sculpture or a building, this particular work is primarily two dimensional - its features are engravings and a photo. The Australian copyright act specifies that their freedom of panorama law does not extend to either engravings or photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, is the new FUR image i've uploaded to replace the headstone acceptable? Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So this is an image that was used in the media but is not by the media - do we know what the original source of the image was? Also, the "unique historical image" tag is very hard to justify - I would recommend instead using {{non-free biog-pic}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the tag accordingly; thanks. Leigh was a Newcastle High School student. It is the last annual school portrait photo that was taken before she died; obviously it was taken by whoever the school hired for their photos (does that mean the school holds the copyright?). As to which newspaper it appeared in first, and how the media got hold of a copy, I am not sure. I had to search through microform for The Newcastle Herald to write this article as online Australian newspaper archives don't usually go back to the 1980's. The Newcastle Herald repeatedly published a different photo of Leigh, but as it is on microform, the quality is insufficient for wikipedia. Does not knowing who published the image first or how they got a hold of it present a problem? Freikorp (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To a degree. All fair-use tags require that you include information on the copyright holder and the image's current status. Based on your description, the photo likely would have been a work for hire, meaning it may be owned by the school, the photography company, or possibly even the parents, depending on the practices of that company. However, we can't know for sure. I suggest you include an explanation on the image description page that the copyright holder is unknown and what steps you have taken to try to determine its status. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found something new. This reliable source [49] publishes the photo, and specifies the source as "Supplied". Does that mean anything to you? I was thinking that might mean it was willingly given to the newspaper by the copyright holder. Also while we're on the subject, is there any way I could justify FUR for the image of Matthew Webster (Leigh's murderer) as seen in said article? Or would that be pushing it? I've always thought the article would benefit from a photo of him. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would guess supplied by the family, who would most likely not be the copyright holder; even if it were supplied by the copyright holder, that note would not be sufficient to make it free for our purposes. As to the other image, that's less likely to be justifiable: assuming that Webster is still alive he is now out of jail and theoretically available for the creation of a free image, so the biog-pic tag would not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, just confirming that the current image is acceptable for FAC as User:Casliber's support is pending sorting out the copyright for the info box image, which I assumed was OK now. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message on User:GrahamColm's talk page, regarding the lack of reviews here. Apparently 2 votes of support isn't enough to pass FAC, and as this nomination is making its way towards the end of the list I am becoming a bit worried it won't get any further comments. Graham said the lack of reviews was a shame, and encouraged me to solicit further reviews whilst this nomination is still open, otherwise i'm just going to have to re-nominate it at a later date. As you've already reviewed the image, is there any chance I can beg you to review the whole article? Happy to do some form of QPQ; i've never reviewed at FAC but happy to review several DYKs or a couple GA nominations, which I have experience doing, in exchange. No worries if you're too busy though, i'll be happy enough with support on image or more information on what I need to do to get it. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To confirm, the lead image has an adequate FUR to justify its use here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Well-written and neutral, it appears pretty comprehensive at first read. I remember this case in the media at the time. Will jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues
I might hav missed it but adding what she got drunk on'd be good too.
Link asphyxial, postmortem, resin,
  • Done. I linked resin, but do you think I should have linked "hash" instead, which appears earlier in the sentence? Freikorp (talk)
Cannabis resin.. - why capitalised here?
  • The word appears capitalised all throughout the article Cannabis; should it not be capitalised in this instance though? I already removed it, but I can add it back just as easy of course. Freikorp (talk)
John Hatzistergos needs a descriptor as to why he is there "minister etc."
In 2009 a solicitor who acted on behalf of Leigh's family stated that given the advances in DNA testing technology, it was time to re-examine the evidence - this is important, was there any reported follow up on this?
  • This is important, but I can't find any more coverage on it. Out of desperation I sent an email to Dr Kerry Carrington, the most prominent researcher of the case; she informed me that the police 'lost' all of the evidence, and accordingly the evidence is not going to be re-examined as there is nothing to examine. Of course I can't use her email as a source, but it at least answered my question. Freikorp (talk)
Webster spoke to the media about the murder for the first time in 1997, and insisted that he acted alone in killing Leigh - when did he speak?
  • I don't know. The only evidence I have that this did in fact happen is the blurb from the article cited, which was published in 2004 and says he spoke to the media "seven years ago". Freikorp (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks pretty good - good use of source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right - cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending the sorting out of best copyright for images. A sobering and depressing story - well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

[edit]

Support from Hamiltonstone. Good article on a distressing subject of socio-cultural significance in Australia. It was hard to read, but purely because of its subject matter.

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

Oppose: I am sorry to have to oppose, but I do not think that, at present, the prose meets the relevant FA criterion. I recognise the enormous amount of developmental work that has been done on the article, particularly by Freikorp, but it is not yet, in my view, the finished product. It's a great pity that the article did not receive a peer review – not that the nominators are in any way to blame, since it sat for two weeks at WP:PR without attracting comment. Please note for the future that I will almost always respond to a polite request for a peer review, unless the subject is professional wrestling.

Resolved issues

I have only read the first half of the article. These are my main concerns:

  • There is a dearth of background information such as one would expect to see in an article like this. Rather than moving straight to the murder, the lead should be followed by a "Background" section that will provide readers with, for example, some parental background: whether Leigh's parents had been married, when they separated, if they remarried, with whom Leigh was living at the time of the murder. The section should also cover some general aspects of Leigh's life, such as her relations with her parents/step-parents, whether she had siblings, where she went to school, what sort of interests she had, etc. Some of this information becomes apparent during the reading of text, a section as indicated would be of considerable help to the reader.
  • Created a new 'Background' section. This is a work in progress - I should be finished by tomorrow. Freikorp (talk)
  • Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • Some of the narrative writing is very loose, with too many unattributed assertions. Examples:
  • "It was alleged Leigh and several other under-age girls were specifically invited to the party for the purpose of getting them intoxicated and having sex with them". By whom were these allegations made – newspapers, witnesses, prosecuting counsel? (Also – there is something slightly wrong with the wording of the sentence, which does not parse in its present form.)
  • Specified it is based on witness reports. If you'd like it to be reworded i'm afraid you'll have to make a suggestion, as i'm not sure how to address that concern. Freikorp (talk)
  • " Police were said to be going through the painstaking task..." – who said this?
  • I've attributed the comment to it's author, and changed it to a direct quote. Freikorp (talk)
  • " The community of Stockton was said to have harboured suspicions about Shearman..." – again, said by whom?
  • "Dr Kerry Carrington ... described the investigation..." When/where did the doctor give this description?
  • Specified the book the made the description in. Freikorp (talk)
  • When/where did Detective Chaffey make the statement referred to?
  • "It is believed that prosecutors did not charge NC1 with rape as a conviction on such a charge would have been unlikely due to a lack of evidence" – what is the basis for this "belief"?
  • I've attributed the belief to the journal it was published in. The basis is, in part, the rest of the sentence, that Leigh's assertion that she had been raped as reported by witnesses was legally hearsay. Freikorp (talk)
  • A few minor prose issues
  • "...mixing the bottle of Jim Beam that had been purchased for her and her friend with Coca-Cola." Very awkward phrasing, capable of several interpretations. And "Coca-Cola" should be wikilinked
  • Wikilink done. I've reworded the information, any better now? Freikorp (talk)
  • You should name the stepfather at first mention, rather than later. Also, the reference to "Leigh's parents" is confusing; I imagine you mean her mother and stepfather.
  • Some interpretation of the blood alcohol level figure is necessary; the raw data will be meaningless to most readers.
  • The only thing I can really think to say is that it is more than twice the legal blood alcohol limit to drive in NSW, but i'm not sure how relevant that information would be in this case. Do you think that information be relevant, or do you have a better suggestion? :) Freikorp (talk)
  • "stepfather" should not have a hyphen
  • "Webster admitted to killing Leigh during his third interview with police". Highly ambiguous.
  • Added some more (rather interesting) information on his confession. Freikorp (talk)

I am not sure whether it is feasible for these issues – together with anything arising in the second half – to be fixed during this FAC, although I hope the co-ordinators will give some leeway in view of your PR experiences. Should this prove impossible, I will be prepared, if you wish, to provide a full peer review before your resubmission. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting what someone unfamiliar the case sees here - both Hamiltonstone and I, being Australian, I remember the case from the media at the time and remember how much innuendo there was - still I think it points are valid and can be tweaked as advised...go for it Freikorp :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Brianboulton. It was disappointing to not get a comment at PR, and also to only get an image review at FAC in the first month since the article was nominated, so i'm very happy you've taken an interest in the article, even if it is to oppose at this time. At the end of the day I do want this article to be as good as possible. I'll start working through your concerns this weekend. Btw if you or anybody else wants to verify the newspaper clipping I have used as references in the article just let me know and I will email you the pdf copies I have. Freikorp (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brianboulton. I've either attempted to address all of the issues you brought up (in particular creating a 'Background' section) or requested clarification on how you want me to fix the issue. I'm now looking forward to your opinions on the second half of the article. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding quickly and positively. I should get the chance of looking at these responses, and the rest of the article, a little later today (UK time). If it's OK by you, when I go through the second half I will deal with any minor prose issues myself, rather than raising them here. That should speed things up. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes fixing prose issues yourself is fine with me, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interim: The first part is looking good now. I've made a few tweaks and adjustments. A couple of suggestions before I look at the second half:

  • Delete the sentence "NC1's community service was supervised by the same church minister who buried Leigh". This detail is emotive, magaziney stuff, not encyclopedic.
  • Attach the single sentence paragraph ("Guy Wilson was..." etc) to the previous paragraph.

Reading on Brianboulton (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's taking longer than I had hoped. Here are my concerns to the end of the "Forensic testing" subsection. More later.

  • "It is believed that Webster was offered a plea bargain that would drop the lesser charges in exchange for his guilty plea for murder." – the old problem: believed by whom?
  • "Wood found that Webster's motivation for killing Leigh was his fear she would report his sexual assault." Since there were no witnessed called, how did Wood "find" this? Did Webster admit this was his motive?
  • I assume the finding was based solely on Webster's confession; yes he did admit to this - i'll add a source for it to the article. Freikorp (talk)
  • ""extraordinary level of compassion": these words need inline attribution. And perhaps "some of the residents of Stockton" rather than the town as a whole?
  • "conversely known" → "also known"
  • "work release" is an American term - is this wording used in Australia? Also, check whether my spelling of "program" in the text accords with Australian usage.
  • I'm not a subject matter expert on prisons, but 'work release' was the term used in parliament (the reference cited) so I think it is appropriate. 'Program' looks good to me. Freikorp (talk)
  • "Before Webster was arrested the media was said to be obsessed with finding something to blame for Leigh's death..." Again, was said by whom?
  • "It was said that Wood's comments..." Ditto
  • "One of Riley's articles in particular was said to have suggested..." Ditto. In fact this whole sentence is overlong and too complicated to follow.
  • I've attributed the statement to Carrington and shortened it. Freikorp (talk)
  • "The media coverage of the murder has been cited..." Same issue
  • I have two sources for this, so i've reworded it to say 'according to multiple sources'. It's a lot easier than spelling out who the two sources are, and the fact that there are two sources makes the assertion more valid and less in need to be specifically attributed in my opinion at least. Freikorp (talk)
  • "This incorrect information has been credited with disassociating the murder from the assaults at the party" – basically, again, credited by whom?
  • "Criticism was also raised regarding the number of convictions". Do you mean criticism was raised in parliament? And what is meant by the "number of convictions"? Does this mean the number of persons convicted in connection with the crime? Needs clarification.
  • Clarified that the criticism was regarding the 'relatively few' convictions. I have not attributed this criticism solely to parliament, as the 3 other sources in that paragraph also critics the lack of convictions. I'm confident that if I spend the time reading through all my sources again (which I don't particularly want to do) that I will find additional sources criticising the lack of convictions. Freikorp (talk)
  • "NC1 admitted to having sex with another under-age girl at the party, though he was not charged for it." That wording sounds as though he didn't have to pay for the sex. Suggest "he was not charged with this offence".
  • "Chaffey is quoted as replying..." Quoted by whom?
  • "Speculation has been raised" – same problem
  • "Leigh's grandmother reportedly..." Same issue, i.e. who "reported" this? Same with "said to have been sent", later in the same sentence
  • "an acknowledgement of four items being sent for testing". Clarify whose acknowledgement.
  • "other items were specifically not sent for testing" – what is the purpose of "specifically" in this wording? Is the sense "deliberately"?
  • Deliberately was what I was going for, but on second look that isn't specifically in the source quoted. Removed. Freikorp (talk)
  • "apparent tests" → "supposed tests"

Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt has been made to address each issue. Thanks so much for the amount of effort you're putting in, I really appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can I ask you to go through the final sections, to pick up and deal any outstanding incidences of "it is said that", or similar wordings? I think you see the issue now. I also notice in the article a tendency to overuse the phrase "multiple sources"; one or other of these might be reworded as, say, "several sources". I am a bit time-constrained at the moment, but will finish the review as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've just attributed 4 statements in the last two sections. I've also reworded two of the four instances of 'multiple sources' to 'various sources'. 'Several' would unfortunately be inaccurate as in both cases it was only 2 sources. It looks like we've still got a couple weeks before this nomination is in serious danger of being closed, so feel free to take a breather. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst researching for the 'Background' section, I was reminded of various tidbits of information. I'm not sure if you noticed, but i added the sourced statement "She was found on her sister Jessie's birthday" towards the end of the 'Night of the murder' section. This was before you told me to delete a different sentence on the grounds it was 'emotive, magaziney stuff'. Do you consider the information about her being found on her sister's birthday to be un-encyclopeadic as well; should I delete it? Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is definitely don't include it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My final comments
  • Single-line paragraphs are a bad idea. You should absorb the opening line of the "Possibility of accomplices" section into the body of the section's text.
  • Done. I then split the paragraph elsewhere as I think it was too large. Freikorp (talk)
  • "Webster's statement that he only penetrated Leigh with his finger has been considered by various sources to be inconsistent with the autopsy findings of genital trauma, and it is also inconsistent with NC1's account that his sex with her was consensual". I don't see the logic of this. Why is Webster's statement inconsistent with NC!'s account. They are two separate events, surely?
  • Oh dear, I worded that poorly. It meant to say that the genital trauma is also inconsistent with NC1s account. I've now reworded this. Freikorp (talk)
  • I have reorganised the prose in the opening "Aftermath" section, and have altered "it was assured" to "assurances were given". You should, however, add by whom these assurances were given.
  • Clarified that the assurance was given by a representative of the commission. Freikorp (talk)
  • In the "Police Integrity Commission" section: "Police were also accused of falsifying reports and withholding evidence..." Who were the accusers?
  • Attributed the accusation to the journalist and the newspaper that reported it. Freikorp (talk)
  • Ref an earlier comment, is "internal affairs" the right expression for Australia? The link article deals exclusively with the US.
  • The term does sound american to me as well, though my source specifically reads "A CHARLESTOWN detective has had his private locker raided by police internal affairs officers who have found a store of `missing' police records relating to the Leigh Leigh murder inquiry." Freikorp (talk)
  • When you say "Enright deliberately omitted the criminal acts and the murder from the play" I think you mean that he did not depict the murder or other criminal acts within the play. In any event the word "deliberately" is unnecessary.
  • "Associate Professor Donna Lee Brien of Central Queensland University stated that without background knowledge of Leigh's murder, it "was judged as shallow and clichéd." Can you provide more of what the prof said, as the sentence does not make sense at the moment?
  • Source reads: "The response to [the film's] premiere at the Sundance Film Festival was unfavourable, reviews in Variety and Premiere were poor, and no American buyer was contracted for the film. It seems that, without the poignant and powerful narrative support of Leigh's tragedy, the film was judged as shallow and clichéd." I've reworded the article to state "Donna Lee Brien stated that without background knowledge of Leigh's murder, it appeared the film was "judged as shallow and clichéd."" Freikorp (talk)
  • I'd omit Dr Carrington's final, somewhat opaque comment that ends the article. I also have doubts as to whether the ferry image is helpful or necessary.
  • I've removed Carrington's comment. The same comment appeared in the last intro paragraph, so I removed it from there as well and added new information in its place as per lead summary guidelines. I also had to reword the article's final paragraph so it was worded in a manner that gave the article a better ending, in the way of reading flow I mean. At the risk of sounding like a child, I rather like colourful pictures, so i'd rather not remove the ferry image unless it's standing in the way or your support for the article, in which case I will of course permanently remove it. Freikorp (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent much more time than I normally would on a FAC review, partly because it wasn't your fault that the article didn't get the detailed peer review it needed and also because this is, I think, your first FA nomination. You can probably see now that the article was quite a bit short of FA standard when it was nominated; there is a world of difference between what is acceptable at GA and what is required here. Featured articles, particularly when they become WP:TFA, get scrutinised by large numbers of readers, and it is essential that they justify the claim that they are part of WP's best work. That's enough pontificating by me; I'll leave you to consider my final comments and act as necesary. I have struck the oppose, but want the opportunity to read the whole thing through when you've made your final adjustment. Ping me when you're ready. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton. I believe the article is now at a point where I cannot improve it further myself without prompting. I've made an attempt to address every concern you brought up (except the blood alcohol comment, as I requested a suggestion from you on how to do this). After proof reading the article myself I have a query regarding the following sentence which you reworded: "Blood samples were taken from two suspects, The Newcastle Herald reporting this...". You certainly know more about prose than me, so just confirming that reads ok to you? To me it seems to need either a semicolon or a joining word like 'with' in between 'suspects' and 'The'. Thanks again for your review. This is my second FAC, but my first one was archived mainly due to a lack of reviews, so this is the first one that looks like it's going somewhere now. I'm hoping to have this article at TFA if it is approved, so i'm very happy with your improvements and suggestions; FAC certainly has been a lot harder than I anticipated! :) I'm certainly looking forward to what you have to say regarding the article now. Freikorp (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I'll be along later to answer your final points. The article is certainly in better shape now, and is looking like good FA material. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right
  • You need to give an explanation of the blood alcohol level of 0.128, otherwise the point is lost. This source, provided by the University of Notre Dame, says that a level between 0.1 and 0.13 causes "significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment." I suggest you add these words, or an approximation of them, atttributing and citing to the Notre Dame source.
  • On the matter of adding "with" before "The Newcastle Herald", this is unnecessary and, in the view of some prose experts, should be entirely proscribed. It would be grammatically wrong to replace the comma with a semicolon.
  • I have reworded the "shallow and clichéd" sentence to more clearly reflect the intended meaning: "Brien stated that because the film lacked the "poignant and powerful narrative support of Leigh's tragedy", it was deemed by critics to be "shallow and clichéd".

Support: I am satisfied that the article is now worthy of promotion. Any further prose tweaks will be of a minor nature. This is an article that will tend to stay in the memory; that cheeky but enigmatic face won't easily be forgotten. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian Rose

[edit]

Note -- I know there's been some discussion of referencing above but not sure that we've had a formal source review for formatting/reliability, or a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Pls let me know if I've missed something, otherwise I'd like to see both such checks carried out before we look at promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. Some source checks were certainly done as part of the GA review, but unfortunately for me I think you're right regarding a lack of source checks at FAC (not that I hold that against anyone as there were plenty of other things that needed resolving at the time). As I am confident I have not, at least intentionally, used close paraphrasing or been misleading with my sources, I offered during both the GA review and here at FAC to email some or all of the pdf copies I have of offline newspaper and journal sources (I have a pdf copy of every offline source used except Coyle 2005 and Who Killed Leigh Leigh, but I can type out individual paragraphs or scan individual pages of the latter) to anyone who is interested in checking them. This offer still stands, though there are of course many online sources that you could do spot-checks with. I am willing to do anything that is required of me to have this article promoted, so don't hesitate to ask me for assistance. Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose from Dank and Rationalobserver

[edit]

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

  • You use "stated" a lot; I don't have any comment on that now, but I think we should test it for readability.
  • Ha! You're right. I changed 15 of the 40 uses of 'stated' to either 'said' 'saying' or 'wrote', depending on context. Freikorp (talk)
  • "whilst" takes a lot of heat at FAC
  • "offensive behaviour in relation to the 28 January assault": I'm not familiar with Australian police lingo, and maybe this is technical language that we have to preserve, but if not, then "offensive behaviour in the 28 January assault" would be better.
  • "have contributed to it being referred to as": There are more direct ways to say this.
  • Changed to "have led to it being termed a", but feel free to completely reword if you think of something better. Freikorp (talk)
  • "The "unsustainable assumption" that Leigh consented to sex was the turning point in her being blamed for her own assault and murder": I'm not sure what you're saying.
  • The quote is from the two scholars mentioned in the preceding sentences. I'm trying to say that according to the scholars, the belief that Leigh consented to sex was an "unsustainable assumption", and that it was this assumption that led to her being blamed for her own attack - as indicated by the rest of the sentence "because she was supposedly sexually promiscuous, Leigh had somehow "asked for [the attack]". Freikorp (talk)
  • "It took police over three months to press charges against Webster, even though they had established within 10 days that he had lied about his whereabouts, had publicly stated his intention to rape Leigh, and had had the opportunity to commit the crime.": That's my version; the longer version seemed unwieldy, but feel free to revert.
  • Some units (such as 100 metres) may need conversions.
  • Done for 100 metres. I didn't do it for the second use of 2.8 metres as it is converted earlier, or the use of 1.3 meters in the same sentence as since 2.8 was converted earlier, it should be obvious to the reader that 1.3 is a little less than half of 2.8 and therefore a little less than half of the earlier conversion, though if someone else feels this should be converted anyway it won't bother me. Freikorp (talk)

Source review from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "The epithet "slut" in a pretrial psychological report also became a topic of focus for the media" - source?
  • Check MOS issues related to quotes - for example, we don't typically enclose ellipses in parentheses
  • FN34: the university is a publisher not a publication, shouldn't be italicized. There are a few other instances of this type of error - please check and correct
  • Brien citation should include volume and issue number
  • Be consistent in whether you include location for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All issues addressed, though I couldn't find any other instances of a publisher being italicised besides the one you mentioned. I may have missed something that would be obvious to others, just point it out to me and i'll fix it. Freikorp (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check from Laser brain

[edit]
  • Ref 14a, close paraphrasing
  • Source: "where an uncertain number of young people - two 10-year-olds at one point"
  • Article text: "though it was reported that two 10-year-olds were present at one point."
  • Ref 16a, close paraphrasing
  • Source: "She had a written invitation and permission from her mother, who was told that responsible adults would be attending the party."
  • Article text: "Leigh's mother was told there would be responsible adults present at the party."
  • Ref 17d, close paraphrasing. Additionally, "nationally at high schools across the country" is redundant and poor writing.
  • Source: "Despite these denials, the staff at Newcastle High School (where both Leigh and Webster had been students) found the connection too close and did not book the play for their students. Property was, however, extremely successful in other schools and theatres in Newcastle (as it was on its subsequent lengthy tour of the region and around Australia) and won a number of prestigious awards."
  • Article text: "The play was shown at various high schools in the Newcastle area, and following its positive reception, was shown nationally at high schools across the country, winning several awards. However, Newcastle High School, where both Leigh and Webster had been students, declined to show it."
  • Ref 74a, OK
  • Source: "In February 2004 the Parole Board declined to parole this individual because of recommendations made by the Serious Offenders Review Council that he needed to undertake work release."
  • Article text: "Webster first applied for parole in February 2004. His application was denied on the grounds he needed to first undertake work release."
  • Ref 78
  • Source text: "the charges were dismissed in April this year because of a lack of evidence."
  • Article text: "He was released from prison in May 2005 after the charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence."

Batting 0-for-5 here—I strongly urge this be given a thorough source edit by an independent editor and copyedited for close paraphrasing as needed. I realize referring to a couple of these as close paraphrasing might be debatable, but I think we can do better in terms of distance from the source text. --Laser brain (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just returned from a wikibreak and am able to respond to concerns again, but my co-nominator has already addressed these particular phrases. Looking forward to any further reviews. Freikorp (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had the article had the thorough source edit recommended by Laser brain? Simply addressing the specific points raised is not enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose. Laser brain recommended a thorough source edit by an independent editor. Obviously I cannot do this myself, and an independent editor has not yet come forward to do it (though as I state I am looking forward to one doing so), so no, this has not been done. All I can address is what is pointed out to me; with the exception of the above points which were addressed by my co-nominator, I have addressed every issue thus far. Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose. I've noticed this nomination is now at the bottom of the older nominations list. Assuming nobody actually gives it a thorough source edit, how long would it be before the nomination is closed? And am I correct in assuming that despite the level of support it has, that without a thorough source edit it would be archived, not passed? I ask as if it is archived, I will simply be re-nominating it as soon as I am allowed to, so rather than go through this all again over another couple months perhaps I can save everyone a lot of time by attempting to soliciting someone to give it a source edit. Of course, I will not try and solicit support at the same time, rather just the review of the sources. Is this allowed and/or recommended? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it got 0/5 on the first pass, I suggest that one of the nominators goes through every cite looking for and removing close paraphrasing. There's no point in a reviewer going through and listing all 100 if it actually scores 29/129. --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think 3 of those 5 scores are very debatable, and the other 2 are hardly terrible examples of close paraphrasing, but very well, I'll go over the citations tonights - give me a few hours. Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take a look at my GA review, you will see that I paid close attention to the issue. Instances of close paraphrasing were found and were addressed. The remaining examples found above were either cases that I did not believe were problematic when I reviewed, or were unwittingly introduced subsequent to my review. I would ask Laser brain how many references were checked in their spot-check that gave rise to the five noted above? -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over every online newspaper reference. I made several small changes to things I thought could be improved slightly, but the only long complete match I found was a sentence that I had simply neglected to specify was a direct quote from the source; I added quotation marks accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Freikorp. As I mentioned in my comment, there were some edge cases and nothing I would consider egregious at all. I am encouraged to hear that multiple editors have paid attention to the sources. I ran a few more informal checks and didn't see any issues. Please consider my concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC) [50].[reply]

Ellen Wilkinson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Wilkinson was a firebrand British politician in the inter-war years – "Red Ellen", the heroine of the Jarrow March and the scourge of Neville Chamberlain. Churchill was happy to employ her in his wartime coalition, where she took charge of the nation's air raid shelters. After the war she served in Clement Attlee's Labour government as Minister of Education before her premature death in 1947. A ball of restless energy, outside politics she found time to write novels, histories, articles and pamphlets, and in a spare moment helped to found UNESCO. She may have been Herbert Morrison's mistress. Mr riley has pointed out my evident penchant for writing about strong-minded women – it probably originates from my time in the cubs. There's been lots of peer review attention, see here, but further comment, criticism and correction would be further appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Such minor quibbles as I had were thoroughly dealt with at PR. I enjoyed this article very much, and I think BB has done Miss Wilkinson proud (he makes me feel I'd have loved to meet her, and that's among the the highest praise I can give any biographer). Meets all FA criteria for prose. Nb. that "pubs" has been misspelled in the above introduction to this review page. See evidence here. Tim riley talk 22:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point, you may well be right. But thank you for your review efforts, kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – with drip fed comments I'm afraid as I currently have a poor internet connection. Looks superb though:

  • "I have pulled myself out of the gutter, why can't they"? – Question mark inside the quote or outside? If I'm reading it correctly, this states that a mark outside of a closing quote suggests that the whole sentence is a question. The question, in this case, is contained within the quote itself, so should be before the closing quote mark.
  • "Marches of the unemployed, often termed "hunger marches", had been taking place since the early 1920s, often under the auspices..." Often/often repetition; maybe "frequently?
  • "At that year's Labour Party's annual conference..." "That year" clashes with "annual" somewhat, and the two possessives clash with each other. Suggest: "At that year's Labour Party conference"?
  • Perhaps introduce Baldwin for our foreign or politically unaware readers?
  • "The marchers returned to Jarrow by train, to find that their unemployment benefit reduced" -- I'm wanting to say "The marchers returned to Jarrow by train, to find that their unemployment benefit had been reduced"? Or, we could lose "that" and keep with what we got?
  • Done.

That's my lot so desist with your phone call to the cop-shop as promised ;) Cassiantotalk 23:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed for these comments which, Baldwin apart, I have acted on. Thanks for the support also. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most grateful for your edits, and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I had intended to read this through at peer review, but I was too slow, so I read it today and left some suggestions on talk. It's an interesting article, beautifully written and a pleasure to read. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is most kind. Your talkpage suggestions were helpful, and your support is most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I was another happy visitor to the PR (relatively late, and only a couple of very minor points I could spot to comment on). Another excellent piece on an oft-overlooked figure. – SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- just a reminder about image and source reviews... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review
  • File:Ramsay MacDonald ggbain 35734.jpg -= This was not taken by the US government, but rather it is from the Bain collection. As such, the copyright tag is incorrect. I'm not sure if this is actually free.
  • You may well be right, here, given the lack of information on the source. It was not a vital image for this article, and I've replaced it with a perhaps more apposite quotation from the Zinoviev letter. Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN76: what kind of source is this?
  • It was a research paper from the Centre for the Advancement of Women in Politics which went offline when I was working on the article. I meant to find a better source, but forgot. I've replaced it now, it with a citation to the UK Parliament website ( see that in the original note I overstated the no. of Conservative women by one) Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN143 includes an accessdate, but most other newspaper cites don't - why?
Thanks for the review, all points addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) [51].[reply]

Master System

[edit]
Nominator(s): Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1980s, Nintendo was definitely the top dog in video game consoles, but they weren't the only competitor. A relative upstart in terms of home video game consoles, Sega started off by releasing the SG-1000, coincidentally on the same day Nintendo released their Famicom in Japan. Within two years, Sega had dropped the SG-1000 in favor of the Mark III, which became this console, the Master System. While Sega managed to do little with the Master System, partially due to Nintendo's monopolistic practices with video game developers, their work on the Master System would later help to set them up for success in the next generation with the Sega Genesis. The Master System was a flop in Japan and North America, but sold better than Nintendo in Europe, and still continues on today in Brazil through Sega distributor Tectoy. It's a unique device in a video game console that has lasted more than twenty years in South America and served a role in the history of video games, and it's an interesting read to boot. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tezero

[edit]

Will do. Adding this to my to-do list. Tezero (talk)

Resolved comments from Tezero (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make this complaint often, but the prose in general needs work. It's not bad enough for me to oppose on criterion 1a (it'd need to be borderline incomprehensible, definitely below GA level, for that), but expect lots of niggling comments.
  • "redesignated" - strange word choice; maybe "retitled"? And the sentence is a bit of a long breath with no comma or anything after "Japan".
  • Everything after this sentence in the first paragraph of the intro is ambiguous as to whether these things were present in the Japanese Master System.
  • "retailed" - never seen this as a verb before, especially an intransitive verb
  • "technically superior to the NES" - POV-ish wording; I'd prefer a more specific, if longer, rundown
  • The market share comparison in the intro doesn't seem contrasting enough, i.e. Nintendo having a significant foothold in the market share isn't incompatible with Sega having one. I'd recommend just leaving it that Nintendo was dominant by a long stretch in North America but Sega was dominant in Europe and Brazil (if that latter part is indeed the case - not sure the page demonstrates what you claim of the console here).
  • "Due to Nintendo's licensing practices with third-party developers the Master System's game library lacked a number of quality titles." - Quality? By what metric? I liked the original Phantasy Star when I played it.
  • "The hardware of the Master System also served as the base structure of Sega's handheld game console, the Sega Game Gear." - Might be worth mentioning just how similar the two are - I mean, the Game Gear is no Nomad, Game Boy Micro, or 2DS, but there's a huge amount of library overlap with little medium-translation necessary; it's not just similar skeletal structure of the hardware.
  • "Retrospective reception to the system gives credit to the system's role in Sega's development of the Sega Genesis, but criticizes its shallow game library." - awkward wording; it's technically understandable, but it's not standard practice to assign actions or thoughts to a product's reception in general. Would prefer rephrasing.
  • "then a subsidiary of Gulf and Western" - What's Gulf and Western? I've never heard of it.
  • "was one of the top five arcade game manufacturers active in the United States" - Top five? In what way? And was it unambiguously in fifth, or did it just place in some unranked list of five?
  • "as company revenues rose to $214 million" - From what? Surely there's a date assigned to this specific total beyond "early 1980s".
  • "seriously hurt the company" - kinda informal
  • "Gulf & Western" - ampersand or "and": pick one
  • "The company retained Sega's North American R&D operation, as well as its Japanese subsidiary, Sega of Japan." - ambiguous; did G&W retain Sega of Japan as well as Sega of North America, or were G&W and Sega of Japan joint owners of Sega of North America? Also, was Sega of Japan a subsidiary of Sega of North America or just Sega in general? "Its" is unclear.
  • "With its arcade business in decline" - "Its" is ambiguous again; is this the arcade business of Sega in general, Sega of Japan, or G&W?
  • "The SG-1000 was first released in Japan on July 15, 1983, at a price of JP¥15,000.[12] It released on the same day as Nintendo launched the Famicom in Japan." - Not... wrong, really, but it reads kind of strangely when you use both the transitive and intransitive forms of "release" in such short order.
  • "another video game console" - was it, or was it just a different model like the Game Boy Advance SP or PS3 Slim?
  • "This would result in the release of the Sega Mark III in Japan in 1985." - why jump straight to release here instead of the development of this product?

Ping me when these are done or not done with justification; alternately I'll just pop back sometime soon with more. Tezero (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) By all means, comment away, Tezero.
  • "Redesignated" doesn't seem that strange to me, but I've gone ahead and done your suggested change.
  • Added "starting with the Master System II" to clarify the model difference.
  • In regard to "retailed": It does have a verb form, which means to sell at retail, exactly how it's being used in the article.
  • Emphasized Master System's hardware superiority; "technically" was in reference to the system's technical aspects and I can see why it would be ambiguous.
  • I stripped down the market share a bit; this is supported in the "Transition to Sega Genesis and decline" section. The article mentions that in North America, Nintendo had an 83% market share, but in Europe Sega actually controlled a majority of the market by 1993, with more Master System units contributing than Mega Drives.
  • Quality is a metric of how the reviewers in reliable sources have reviewed it; refer to the Game Library and Reception sections. The lead, as is intended, serves in this case to summarize the main points of the article.
  • Refer to the Sega Game Gear subsection for detail about the Game Gear's similarities to Master System; it is made mention of there.
  • Given how small the Sega Game Gear section is and the relatively small amount there is to say about it because the product history isn't even close to being identical, isn't it undue weight to emphasize it too much? I'll add an adjective or phrase to emphasize it a little more, but I don't want to go gangbusters here because of that. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "top five" to largest. The measure here is by revenue.
  • Added "mid-1982" in reference to the revenue date.
  • Changed "seriously hurt" to "negatively impacted"
  • Selected "and"
  • Rephrased the segment about retaining divisions.
  • Rephrased whose arcade business it was
  • Reversed "launched" and "released", though honestly I think either form is acceptable.
  • Though it could be treated like the Game Boy Advance SP (and I treated it as such by writing SG-1000 II as part of the SG-1000 article), the SG-1000 II is referred to in reliable sources as another console entirely, so that's what I want to go with.
  • Reason for the jump is that there's not much information available about the Mark III's development, really in any reliable sources. This tends to be fairly common with older consoles that lacked success; the coverage is simply not that deep. That being said, I don't think that the article is missing anything on the comprehensiveness criteria because of that; there is enough background information here to do the same job as anecdotes of the system's development.

I'll stop there for now. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm okay if you want to reply in-line. I actually prefer it that way as it's easier to tell exactly what's being replied to right away. Or don't if you object for some reason. Anyway:

  • "MHz" - MoS: is it standard to use abbreviations for units less common to laymen? I couldn't remember off the top of my head that hertz is a unit of frequency; I'd thought it was resistance - I sure as heck couldn't say what kind of implications that has on hardware. Consider linking the term.
  • "under the name Master System" - italicize or quote
  • "restyle and rebrand ... rebranding and restyling" - kinda comes off as artificial syntactic variety. Could you change the second cluster to "retooling" or something of the like?
  • "and the martial arts" - probably drop the "the"
  • "Designs for the Master System were intended to be futuristic, more to the tastes of Western interests" - So did these designs end up materializing? If not, why not? It's ambiguous as is.
  • "Difficulties arose from Nintendo's licensing practices with third-party developers at the time" - might want to move "arose" to after "practices" for flow
    • I disagree with this one, and here's why: That actually changes the meaning of the sentence. Changing the sentence that way would imply that third-party developers had difficulties rise from Nintendo's licensing practices, which isn't necessarily untrue, but that's not what the sources are going for here. What's being stated here is Sega having difficulties arise from Nintendo's licensing practices with third-party developers that kept them from getting developers.
  • "reprogram" - odd word choice; consider "port" or "remake"
  • "a typical project" - why does this need to be quoted?
  • "Hang-On/Safari Hunt" - was this one cartridge?
    • Yes, see here for verification. It's commonplace with older video games to title combo cartridges with a slash dividing the two titles as it is in the article, and it's in the sources used in that form, too. The particular link I've added so you can see the game is the only place I've ever seen it without the slash. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a poor game library" - in size, in diversity, or in critical reception?
  • "commanded 83%" - I could be wrong, but I think you're supposed to write out "percent" longhand when not in a table, infobox, etc.
  • "Some of Tonka's decisions with the Master System included blocking localization of several popular video game titles." - Are examples available?
  • "Though the distributor of the console had changed, the Master System continued to perform poorly" - Why would the distributor changing normally imply substantially increased sales?
    • I don't really see this as implying "substantially increased sales", merely indicating a change in something and the same results as before. Even if it did, why would it mean more sales? Because by recruiting a distributor you're hiring someone to sell your product and help you make a higher profit. It is actually even simpler; if you're entering a business agreement with someone, why wouldn't you be doing it for more sales and profit? Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A re-release of the console, as the Master System, also occurred in Japan in October 1987 at a price of JP¥16,800,[29] but, similar to the Mark III, was not successful." - awkwardly structured; wrapped in chains of commas
  • "Neither the Mark III nor the Master System" - true technically, but in context it only matters that they didn't succeed together, since Sega makes a profit no matter which is sold. I'd change it to "The Mark III/Master System was not..."
  • "The European launch of the Master System occurred in 1987, where it was distributed by Mastertronic in the United Kingdom, Master Games in France, and Bertelsmann in Germany." - also awkward; try restructuring
  • Did Mastertronic and Master Games ever recover from these crises?
  • "Advanced orders from retailers were positive," - What do you mean? Did retailers give it good reviews? Did Sega like how many were ordered? Did the source's author like how many were ordered? Did customers who bought them early give good reviews?
  • "was Bomber Raid in 1989" - possibly within a year; is a specific date available?
  • "The final commercial release for the Mark III and Master System in Japan" - wait, both versions were released there, like how Japan got the original Pokémon Red and Green plus the restyled Blue while the U.S. only got adaptations of the latter?
    • That's absolutely correct. If you reread the previous paragraphs, Mark III was released in Japan in 1985, but Sega decided to restyle it before releasing it in North America as the Master System, and also later rereleased it as the "Master System" in Japan in 1987. I rephrased it a bit to help. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relabeled as Genesis" should be "the Genesis" and, again, use quotes or italics
  • "the marketing and distribution rights to the Master System in the United States" - I know what you mean, but this could be read as Sega acquiring the rights while in the United States. I'd recommend switching "in" for "for" or saying something like "the right to market and distribute the Master System in the United States".
  • "Sega promoted it themselves, but still sold poorly in the region" - subject shifts so it should be "it still sold", but why is this a contradiction? I'd imagine Sega was busy with plenty besides advertising.
    • Promotion is a concept beyond advertising. It's marketing; setting up a price point, making arrangements for retailing, etc. That being said, the contradiction is to how Tonka handled it; why would Sega expect to do poorer when they cancelled their arrangement with a distributor they were unpleased with and chose to do it themselves? Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where it outsold the NES by a considerable margin" - how much?
    • I'd have to have some NES figures to have that; the specific margin isn't mentioned in the sources I have. About the only way I can think to get this figure would be to get a reliable source specifically about how much the NES sold in Europe in the same timeframe and WP:CALC to get a figure. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These include the Master System Compact,[15] as well as the Master System 3." - is there a Master System 2? What are each of these listed variations like? Also, the "as well" isn't really needed; just go with "and".
    • Master System II is already mentioned in the "Transition to Sega Genesis and decline" section. I"m not sure how much more is necessary in terms of detail of the South American variations; the key points are already mentioned, and sources are scarce on the subject. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, are these re-releases official by Sega?
  • "By 2012, the Master System had sold 5 million units in Brazil" - all variations, or just the real McCoy?

I apologize if it seems like I'm being unduly nitpicky or harsh with this - it's true. I noticed some glaring prose issues early on so I'm combing a little more finely than I otherwise would. I do think I should be more stringent with prose in FACs in general, though. For what it's worth, it's coming along much better so far. Tezero (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with nitpickiness; it reflects good reviewing. All comments addressed, Tezero. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running on three hours of sleep, no caffeine, and a mild cold, so I'm not gonna be up for too much reviewing tonight, but here's some more:

Tezero (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go for more, Tezero. Red Phoenix let's talk... 22:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sales of the Master System are estimated between 10 million and 13 million units worldwide during its lifetime" - I'd move "during its lifetime" to after "the Master System" - the current, weird implication is that its lifetime is still ongoing (which could even be unclear, considering that this is the case in Brazil) and 10-13 million have been sold during this whole time.
  • "close the gap between itself and Nintendo" - ambiguous; did Sega sell as many Geneses as Nintendo did SNESes, or did Sega actually make up for lost time by the Genesis outselling the SNES by as many units as had the NES the Master System?
  • "Given Nintendo's licensing practices preventing third-party developers from creating games for the Master System" - change "given" to a different conjunction; the current implication is that the Master System's library has been criticized despite Nintendo being strict in this regard, when it's more that that was a reason for the library being small. If I'm understanding it right, that is.
  • "Reception in 1992 by Electronic Gaming Monthly indicated a souring interest in the console" - this contrasts with the previous statement, so add a "however" or sum'n
  • "According to Bill Pearse of Playthings, the Nintendo Entertainment System" - necessary to spell the name out?
  • "Titles for the Master System, however, did take advantage of the advanced hardware of the console in comparison to its competition" - Also misleading; just say "in comparison to the NES", "to Nintendo's showing", or something. Master System graphics clearly weren't superior to the TurboGrafx-16's if it's notable for the Master System version of a game to have equal graphics rather than worse ones compared to the TurboGrafx-16 version.
    • Done.

And... I think that's it for prose. Ping me when done or addressed. Tezero (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, should be good to go here. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Indrian

[edit]
  • @Tezero:As this is Red's nom, I'll let him do any actual fixing of the article, but I do want to provide a little context on a couple of these points and add a few of my own thoughts as well.
    • "Retailed" is used as a verb all the time and is used properly in this context. I agree it looks odd though, which I believe is a result of a bad prepositional phrase after the verb. At the very least, it should read "retailed at lower" rather than "retailed for cheaper" and in this context it may still be better to do as you suggest and rewrite the sentence all together.
    • On the "technically superior" to the NES claim, I do not see any POV problems there at all, as hardware can be benchmarked, making this a provable fact and not mere opinion. I believe the statement is fine for the lead. However, there is a big problem in that I do not see the SMS compared to the NES in the body of the article, which is where a more detailed rundown would be appropriate. This should either be expanded upon in the body or removed from the lead.
    • The quality title sentence is extremely problematic. The point the article is attempting to convey is that Sega was locked out of licensing games from all the big Japanese third-party publishers due to their exclusive relationships with Nintendo. The current version fails to get that point across.
    • I do not believe your Gulf and Western critique is actionable. G+W was an extremely well-known company that was one of the largest manufacturing and entertainment conglomerates in the world. In the mid-1980s it underwent a restructuring to focus strictly on entertainment and was renamed Paramount Communications. I imagine you have heard of Paramount, yes? Regardless, the company article is properly hyperlinked, so the curious reader can find out more about the company with the click of a button. As for the company name, it can be rendered as "Gulf and Western," "Gulf & Western," or "Gulf + Western," but should remain consistent throughout the article.
    • As for the sentence on being a top five arcade game manufacturer, this is by revenue generated by arcade cabinet sales in 1982. The top five were, if memory serves, Bally, Atari, Williams, Sega, and Stern Electronics. This needs to be sourced, however, for it to remain in the article.
    • I do not believe your complaint about Sega's revenue is actionable. Company revenues peaked at $214 million in 1982. Company revenues presumably started at $0 when the company was first incorporated. The sentence is merely giving the reader a sense of Sega's scale in the early 1980s to provide general background for the main subject. The article does not need a detailed accounting of Sega's finances at the time, as it is not directly relevant to the subject matter.
    • In the early 1980s, Sega Enterprises Inc. was an American company. Sega began as a Japanese company formed by the 1965 merger of two businesses founded by Americans in Japan. After being purchased by Gulf and Western in 1969, Sega moved its headquarters first to Hawaii, then Hong Kong, and finally to the Los Angeles area. Therefore, the Japanese operation was a subsidiary of Sega Enterprises, Inc., which in turn was a subsidiary of Gulf and Western. In 1984, Gulf and Western sold off the Japanese business, which became Sega Enterprises Ltd. This Japanese company is the entity we think of as Sega today, which is of course now a part of Sega Sammy. Not making any claim as to whether the article should be clearer on these points or not, but I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page in terms of the history.
    • I think it would be fair to say the differences between the SG-1000 and the SG-2000 were slight and the analogy to various Game Boy and PS models you use is accurate.
      • It likely is, and that's also why I bundled SG-1000 and SG-1000 II into one article and Mark III with this article, but because sources refer to them as different consoles except for Mark III and Master System, I would prefer to continue to refer to them as different consoles to remain consistent with the sourcing. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article jumps straight to the release of the product because there is no development information on the SG-1000, the Mark III, or the Master System in English-language sources. The article is also thin on marketing strategy, sales performance and marketshare over time, and details on the system's success in Western Europe and Brazil. As such, I would tend to think this article fails the FA criteria on comprehensiveness grounds. I was happy to promote this to GA status earlier this year, but I certainly never felt it was FA-worthy at that time, and little has been done to expand the article since. Indrian (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian: Wow, thanks for the show of support, I guess. I would encourage you to reread some sections of the article; I've done about as much as I can fleshing out the interior, but having scrounged as many reliable sources as I can find over and over, I'm not sure there's really that much to say. It would seem that Sega's marketing of the Master System was quite ineffective due to the size of their marketing department and Nintendo's established foothold, although Virgin Mastertronic had more luck marketing it in Europe where Nintendo had not been so effective. I've added bits from more sources into the article to reflect this. No, this article doesn't have a year-by-year breakdown like Sega Genesis does, but likewise I doubt the differences are quite so significant for this to be any different than what the overall says. There are a lot of figures already present to reflect the system's success in some regions and failure in others, and I've also fleshed out bits about the system's reception during its lifespan Aside from the development information which is absent from the sources, albeit with an enhanced background section, I wouldn't say it's any less comprehensive than Sega CD, which is also a featured article. In any regard, specific concerns on missing information can be brought to me and I'll do my best to flesh a particular part out; I really don't think it's missing much, if anything significant really at all, and that which is is because it doesn't exist in reliable sources and thus really isn't known for sure. If this article does fail on comprehensiveness grounds, then it's likely destined never to be a featured article unless new sources are written (which I've even found some in just the last couple of months), but I would rather try and see what the community thinks than to pass it off forever. Red Phoenix let's talk... 15:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite determine the tone of your first sentence, but I really do support your efforts to make these console articles better and believe you have done wonderful work on the SMS. I believe your recent additions have cured my concern regarding thin info on marketing by SOA and in Europe. I believe there is still a little more that can be said about the Tonka days, for which I believe reliable sources exist. There are also a couple of articles that give market share info at a couple points in the U.S. Also, the article fails to mention Atari, which is important, because there is a common misconception that Sega was second to Nintendo in the U.S. when in fact they were third. I would be happy to take a stab at some of this if you like. I do agree that the amount of detail in the Genesis article is not necessary since this system was an also ran.
The lack of development info is more troubling, though I am not sure what the answer is there. Clearly, the sources do not exist in English. I imagine there are at least some sources in Japanese, but that does not help the English-language Wikipedia. I certainly do not believe that a detailed blow-by-blow account filled with anecdotes is necessary, but right now there is absolutely nothing. Sega CD is a good example of a dev section on a less successful/less written about console that does a good job of placing the development in context while providing a couple of specific facts.
So, to summarize. Excellent job on the article, which mines most of the available sources well. There is more that can be said on U.S. market share and Tonka, which I am happy to help with. Development is at a stalemate. I am not sure I am comfortable supporting the article for FA without a little more in development, but I fully admit that this is an idiosyncratic view of the comprehensiveness requirement, which only requires the article to reflect what has appeared in reliable sources. I will certainly not oppose the article on those grounds, and would encourage anyone who thinks the article is up to snuff to add their own support. Indrian (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor note, Indrian, it's allowed to use foreign-language sources. The presumption is that you can understand them okay. Moreover, it seems that sources in foreign languages are given the benefit of the doubt more often when it comes to reliability, as an exercise in the tolerance we Anglophones are totally rightly known for. Tezero (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tone was merely disappointment, that's all, Indrian. It's not the way that I pictured this FAC starting out, but the end result is what matters. I have been considering the development issue, and I have to wonder if the reason we lack development info is because the Mark III/Master System wasn't developed outright. Bear with me on this as a theory, albeit original research at this point that may explain the problem: it's fairly common knowledge that the Master System uses an 8-bit Zilog Z80 as its processor; after all, that was also a sound chip on Sega's System 16 architecture that became the Sega Genesis. I also found in my research for SG-1000, a good article that will likely never be featured due to lack of sources, that the 1000 and 1000 II also used a Z80 running at the same speed. That may very well mean that when Retro Gamer refers to Sega continuing to work on their hardware for developing the Mark III, which became the Master System, that the same basic architecture was used. Now, to play devil's advocate here: the Mark III game library is different than the SG-1000 library and the SG-1000 can't play Mark III titles, but Mark III and Japanese Master Systems can play SG-1000 titles.
I would be more than glad to accept some help with adding more about Tonka and US market share; I've always been very thrilled to have your help with the articles I've focused on, to which I credit having several of my FAs because of your support with some of the material - namely, just about all of them have at least a paragraph or two from you. I'm sure I could use a bit of help with Atari, too - sources seem a little dodgy on it probably because Nintendo blew them so much out of the water that that's the main competitive focus in the articles.
Toward Tezero Absolutely no problem with foreign-language sources - this article uses at least one Portuguese source and several Japanese sources - but the point is that it's a lot harder to find sources in foreign languages when you don't speak it or read it. I can read English and Spanish (and somewhat navigate Portuguese based on similarities to Spanish), but that's it; I can't read Japanese. That makes it just that much harder to find. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just to back up my theory on the system's development; from Sega themselves, note the model number for the Sega Mark III is "SG-1000M3" Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fluent, but I can read a fair amount of it and have dug up Japanese-language sources before. I'll see if I can find anything, though I'm not optimistic as old development information in general isn't easy to come by. Tezero (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really finding anything reliable so far other than this thing on its sound chip, which looks redundant, and this, which looks to be about its programming (you might recognize "BASIC") but from which I can't select the words I don't know to Google-Translate. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how's this revision? I think that'll do the basic job, at least ;) Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tezero:Thanks for looking into Japanese sources. I do not know if this will help, but two names you might want to include in your searches are Masami Ishikawa and Minoru Kidooka. According to the sparse English info available, both of them were working on console hardware at Sega during this period and may have had a hand in the Mark III/Master System. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian: Sorry for the double ping, but I stumbled across more than I'd thought existed and put together some other information, and made a development section. It's not the greatest, but I think it should alleviate any concerns. Can you look it over, fact-check it, and make sure it's accurate? Thank you, Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem on the double ping. I think you have a valid point about the Master System being a continuation of the SG-1000, so I guess it is fair to say that the SG-1000 article would be the proper place for most of the development info I feel is lacking here. As such, I am more or less satisfied after the current rewrite. There is one important point, however that Edge gets wrong: Hideki Sato was not in charge of developing the system. The proof is in two parts. First, here is a Sega 16 profile on Sato that states he was not placed in charge of R&D until 1989. The article draws this information from a brief PDF biographical sketch linked at the bottom of the article. Unfortunately, the link is now dead and does not appear to be present in the Internet Archive. I have a copy of the original PDF and can confirm its contents. The PDF has no info that needs to be cited in this article, so I do not believe there is a need to actually produce it. The second proof is this article from Silinonera that is also used in the Genesis article. It states that Masami Ishikawa was Sega's lead hardware designer in this period. Sato may well have worked on the Master System, but he did not lead its design.
As for the rest, I will get a small amount of Tonka and sales info into the article, hopefully tomorrow, but Wednesday at the latest. After that, I will have to parse the rest of the article as well, but with the development matter cleared up, I believe I will be able to support eventually after all other concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Sato from the mention just to be sure; thanks for the fact check. I'll be looking at the other concerns tomorrow or Tuesday; it's late where I'm at and I do have work in the morning. Red Phoenix let's talk... 04:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tezero: I have addressed your concerns. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indrian I have also now addressed some of the issues that were brought up in your responses. I look forward to your great help in regard to the Atari 7800 and Tonka's marketing. Red Phoenix let's talk... 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits. It'll only make me cry.
  • You shouldn't set the pixel size of images without a good reason, as it overrides user settings.
    • Never been an issue brought to my attention before; may be because sometimes I still edit like it's 2008 (long story). I've removed them for the thumbnail images; I'd prefer to leave them for the inset table in the Technical specifications unless there's a way to make that work without making the images gigantic and completely screw up the whole thing. If there is, I'd be okay with making such a fix. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text would be nice for images
  • The Master System (マスターシステム Masutā Shisutemu?): I don't think it's reasonable to assume that readers will know those funny characters are Japanese—I strongly recommend adding "|lead=yes" to the {{Nihongo}} template
  • 8-bit third-generation video game console this reads as if it were one link, when it's two. Could it be reworded to break up the links?
  • redesigned and retitled the Master System for release in 1986 in North America, 1987 in Europe and Japan, and 1989 in Brazil: a few issues here:
    • "redesigned and retitled the Master System" doesn't read well—at first blush, it reads as if it were "redisgned the Master System" and "retitled the Master System"
    • Was it limited to these markets? If yes, that should be stated; otherwise it comes off as cherrypicking random markets (Brazil? Huh?)
      • I'll note my reworking of this sentence below, but the rest of the article notes a bit why Brazil is slightly more noteworthy than some other markets; Master System has enjoyed a very unique success in Brazil where it's still being supported, though through different hardware now, by Sega distributor Tectoy. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it the rebranded/redesigned versino was released in Japan in 1987; the wording makes it almost seem like it was released there in 1987 for the first time
      • I've finished reworking this sentence into a couple of different ones to rectify these issues. I'd really like to keep Brazil on the basis of its notability in the article; while Japan, North America, and Europe are the "usual three regions", Brazil is a little special in this particular instance because of its history in the region, and details about its unique history are in the body of the article and sourced. If you disagree, however, I will remove it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • also served as the base structure: what does "base structure" mean here?
  • Retrospective reception: ?? Is there such a thing?
  • A downturn in the arcade business starting in 1982: this was gaming in genereal, and not just arcades, wasn't it?
    • Just a point of history here. In that time period, the arcade and consumer businesses were very different markets with only a small amount of overlap in terms of involved companies (Atari being the most prominent one). They were also on different business cycles. Without going into too much detail, the arcade industry began to collapse in mid-1982 due to over saturation of the market (too many arcades and street locations) and bottomed out in 1984. The home market crashed in 1983 due to oversaturation (too many publishers stuffing retail channels with too much product) and bottomed out in 1985. These were two separate events that overlapped for a time. Sega was barely in the home market, only establishing a consumer division right before the market crash, so it was hurt far more seriously by the collapse of the arcade market. Therefore, the article is accurate on this point. Indrian (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Designed by Sega's "Away Team" internal division: what do the quotes signify?
  • redesigned new iteration: is there a difference between "redesigned new iteration" and "redesigned iteration"?
  • SC-3000—a computerized version of the SG-1000: meaning?
  • According to Edge, lessons from the SG-1000's lack of commercial success were used in the hardware redesign of the Mark III.: what kinds of lessons, and how were they used?
  • against a white marker board: is this supposed to be a "whiteboard"?
  • although plans to release a cheaper "Base System" also influenced the decision: what is this, and how did it influence the naming decision?
  • whereby Nintendo required that titles for the Famicom not be published on other consoles.: is there something good to link to here? I'd've thought there'd be an article on this.
  • to port games from other developers, albeit with little success.: the games, the attempts, or the ports were unsuccessful?
  • NEC later used the same strategy on some of Sega's titles when developing games for the PC Engine: why not say "TurboGrafx-16" instead of PC Engine?
  • with a typical project being allotted only three months of development time: what's a "typical project"? The SMS?
  • blocking localization of several popular video game titles: what does this mean?
  • It was distributed by Mastertronic in the United Kingdom, Master Games in France, and Bertelsmann in Germany.: was it limited to these three markets?
    • That's how it appears from the source. This would also make sense: we know from the source that Sega provided limited inventory for the launch, so if they only had a small number of consoles, it would make sense to focus on the three largest markets in Europe. Indrian (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • deliver inventory until Boxing Day,: should probably explain Boxing Day
  • Nintendo's less effective approaches in Europe: any details on Nintendo's approaches?
    • David Sheff's book Game Over would be the go to source for this. Basically, Sega ended up backing Mastertronic as a single Euope-wide distributor that enjoyed strong support from Sega and could coordinate strategies across European markets, while Nintendo relied on a patchwork of distributors of varying effectiveness and did not pay much attention to the region on a corporate level until about 1992. Indrian (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Master System held a significant part of the video game console market in Europe through the release of Sega's succeeding console, the Sega Genesis (known as Mega Drive in territories outside of North America).: since this is in a European context, shouldn't it be referred to as the Mega Drive? Also, was it called the Mega Drive in Britain?
    • This one was me being overly cautious; I worked on Sega Genesis and was in the firestorm around that naming debate that's gone on for literally over ten years. I feel a tad uncomfortable with linking it as it is only on grounds of consistency across the encyclopedia, being it's the first use in the body of either Mega Drive or Sega Genesis and I removed the explanation as being redundant and linked Mega Drive directly, but I'm good with it. Red Phoenix let's talk... 21:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna stop here. I didn't actually intend to do a full review of the article—I only stopped by to mention the bit about the Japanese text, and then just continued. I may or may not return to finish the review. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Status: Passed

  • Almost a pass- Logo1 needs to be the actual logo, not a slightly off version for no good reason; logo2 needs to get marked as ineligible for copyright and moved to commons. The only actually non-free image is the game screenshot, and it is fine. --PresN 19:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

Status: Passed

  • Just taking these in order through the refs, including both style and substance concerns.
  • Ref 1 has not publisher for the book
  • Ref 4- "1st ed. ed."
  • Ref 7 has no publisher for the magazine, which you did do in ref 3
  • Ref 8- New York Times is not linked, and it's "The" NYT- as you did correctly in ref 34
  • Ref 9- "The" Miami Herald, and link it
  • Ref 11- no publisher given, even though you did in ref 10. Also, link Wired.
  • Ref 13- "The", and link
  • Ref 15- do you have a month/year for this issue? (optional)
  • Ref 22/23- link Sega of Japan, like you did in the last 3 refs
  • Ref 24- publisher for Game Informer
  • Ref 27- it's "AllGame", not "Allgame"
  • Ref 28- uh, full name for NYT, please
  • Ref 29- link Sega
  • Ref 30/32- link Retro Gamer
  • Ref 33- link Minneapolis Star Tribune, change HITS to Hits as per WP:ALLCAPS
  • Ref 34- ALLCAPS
  • Ref 36- link Retro Gamer, add publisher
  • Ref 39- AllGame
  • Ref 40- second author's name is backwards. You can use last1, first1, last2, first2 parameters for multiple authors
  • Ref 41,42- link Sega
  • Ref 43- link Joystiq
  • Ref 46- author3 is backwards, link magazine, add publisher
  • Ref 49- link IGN
  • Ref 50- link book
  • Ref 51- link magazine, add publisher
  • Ref 53/56- add publisher for Playthings
  • Ref 57- link IGN
  • Ref 58- publisher for Screen Digest
  • Ref 59- link Nintendo
  • No concerns on sources used- all RSs/used in recent prior FAs
  • Spotchecks: checked 5 or so references, came back clean.
  • Consider archiving all your online references, so that future website changes/closures don't affect the article. Additionally, since it's been unstable, consider double-archiving that 1up.com webarchive backup at webcitation.org, so that robots.txt changes won't touch it. --PresN 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone through and given it a cleanup - If you don't mind, I do prefer the "link it only once" mindset, so not everything is to your words, but hopefully it should all be cleaned up. I'll look at archiving as soon as I can. Red Phoenix let's talk... 23:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed some minor bits, but I fixed them. Wasn't sure which way you were going on linking, but guessed (wrongly) as you had linked Sega of Japan several times. Now passed. --PresN 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made by GamerPro64

[edit]

Marking my claim to review this article. Will get started by tomorrow. GamerPro64 20:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, are you still planning to review? Tezero (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, Tezero. I have been unable to read the article due to IRL work. I'll get around to it this weekend. GamerPro64 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC) [52].[reply]

American paddlefish

[edit]
Nominator(s): Atsme☯Consult 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the planktivorous American paddlefish, a relict species of ray-finned fish native to North America. American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) are one of only two remaining taxa in the Polyodontidae family, and the only living species in the genus Polyodon. They are among the largest and longest lived freshwater fishes in North America. They have been extirpated from most of their historic range, and are currently listed as vulnerable (VU A3de ver 3.1) on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The article is comprehensive, and provides a broad scope of useful information about a species that has remained relatively unchanged for over sixty million years. The article recently received a GA rating. Atsme☯Consult 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Review by Tezero

[edit]

I haven't done a biology article in a while; this might be interesting. Some initial comments:

  • The intro's on the long side for an article of this prose size. I think it could be pared to two-thirds its current size with little negative consequence.
  • I see some misuse of commas, e.g. "Violations can result in substantial monetary fines, and imprisonment.", "in China where there", "to their decline, and will", "otherwise be exposed to air, or covered", "earliest ancestors whose fossil record".
  • "in the Great Lakes and Canada, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania" - why are the Great Lakes and Canada grouped as one unit instead of separate entries in the list?
  • "regulations were enacted" - should be "have been enacted"
  • "commonly called "paddlefish", but are also referred to as "Mississippi paddlefish", "spoon-billed cats", or "spoonbill"" - pick either italics or quotes; using both is for situations like quoting text in a foreign language
  • "It is endemic to the Yangtze River Basin in China, and unlike the planktivorous American paddlefish, they are strong swimmers" - why do you switch from "it" to "they"? Pick one pronoun and stick to it.
  • Similarly: "The critically endangered, possibly extinct Chinese paddlefish, Psephurus gladius, is the closest extant relative of American paddlefish" - That's THE American paddlefish to you! I wouldn't recommend omitting the "the", but if you're going to, do so throughout the page.
  • "They commonly inhabited large, free-flowing rivers, braided channels, backwaters, and oxbow lakes throughout the Mississippi River drainage basin, adjacent Gulf drainages, the Great Lakes and rivers in Ontario, Canada." - This is quite a run-on; please fix.

Tezero (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. In transit now, but as soon as I arrive at destination, will begin the clean-up. I tend to put a checkmark beside each suggestion when I've completed the task. If you have any objections to that process, please advise. Thank you for contributing your time. Atsme☯Consult 14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's fine; just make sure it's easy to see (bold it, maybe?). Unlike an increasing number of reviewers, I don't care about my comments being split up; actually, I prefer it that way rather than responding to everything at the end. Tezero (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections have been made in accordance with the initial review. Next? Atsme☯Consult 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, are you still reviewing this article? Just wondered because it is in currently in Prep 5 about to be moved into the que for DYK. Atsme☯Consult 16:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I completely forgot. Ping me again in a day or so if I haven't followed up; I'm on bus station Wi-Fi on my iPod and as such can't really review now. How do you DYK an FAC that's been open for this long, though - or is it that it had just passed GAN and DYK is being sluggish? Tezero (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeppers to "just" passed GAN and DYK is being slllluuugish. Aren't bus stations fun? Safe travels! Atsme☯Consult 21:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lacepéde, 1797, " - should either be parenthesis or "In 1797, ..."
  • "Polyodon which" - comma
  • "A second, extinct species, P. tuberculata, fossils of which are found in the Lower Paleoscene Tullock Formation in Montana, approximately 60 million years ago" - This sentence has no verb.
  • "When establishing the genus, Lacepéde dismissed speculation by some contemporary taxonomists who suggested paddlefish may be a unique genus of sharks because of some morphological similarities such as a heterocercal tail, and cartilaginous skeleton." - also a bit long, try introducing that this speculation existed first. Also, why did Lacepede dismiss this?
  • "However, they are critically endangered, and now believed to be extinct." - remove the second comma. Also, why are they "believed" to be extinct? When was the last one seen? Are there efforts to find more?
  • " sword-like rostrum" - link this in the first instance. I don't know what it is.
  • "Adult American paddlefish are toothless " - comma afterwards
  • "; spathula references the elongated, paddle shaped snout or rostrum" - Why is this semicoloned clause connected to this sentence? I don't see the connection.
  • " morphological characters" - shouldn't it be "characteristics"? Also, link this earlier; I was able to tell by context what it meant but some readers might not.
  • " dates from the" - nonstandard phrasing; how about "dates back to the"?
  • "are highly derived" - ???

Tezero (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero - Got 'er done. Hope the changes meet with your approval. As a sidebar note - morphological characters is correct, but I went ahead and changed it since it created a trip hazard. Atsme☯Consult 07:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero ping, ping - the article is 1st in the DYK feature today.  :-) Atsme☯Consult 14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero Hope you haven't forgotten me. Just wanted you to know we got a respectable 7,749 hits during the DYK. Also had some vandalism on the day it was featured, but the vandal police caught them in time. Atsme☯Consult 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Here's more:

  • "ranging from bluish-gray to black dorsally grading to white ventrally" - confusing; try to reword.
  • "deeply forked heterocercal caudal fin" - I... don't know what any of this means.
  • "embryo to fry" - can you link "fry" and maybe "embryo"?
  • "However, laboratory experiments in 1993 that utilized advanced technology in the field of electron microscopy have established conclusively that the rostrum of American paddlefish is covered with tens of thousands of sensory receptors, morphologically similar to the ampullae of Lorenzini of sharks and rays, and that they are indeed passive ampullary-type electroreceptors used by American paddlefish to detect plankton." - Huge, huge, run-on.
  • "a navigational aid to mediate obstacle avoidance" - First of all, what else would navigational aids do? Second, if you're going to keep the second clause, change "mediate" to something else, as it implies that too much obstacle avoidance is a bad thing.
  • "Such feeding behavior is considered ram suspension-feeding." - That doesn't say much. What's ram suspension-feeding?

Tezero (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You asked, First of all, what else would navigational aids do? - biological GPS ascertaining position and direction.
  • You asked, What's ram suspension-feeding? - You must have missed the two sentences that describe it. Starts off with "When a swarm of zooplankton is detected, the paddlefish will swim forward....". There's also a video captioned "Paddlefish ram suspension-feeding zooplankton in aquarium".
  • I know, but I find it hard to believe that "ram suspension-feeding" is a conjugatable verb phrase. Actually, by looking at the video caption I thought "ram" was the verb and "suspension-feeding" was an adjective modifying "zooplankton". Tezero (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "Ova staging" - what is this? If it is simply the activity of cutting the fish open and whatnot, rephrase the sentence to something like "A process involving making a small incision and ... is known as 'ova staging'."
  • "They are currently proposed for listing as VU 3de throughout their range as the result of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service assessment that suggests "an overall population size reduction of at least 30% may occur within the next 10 years or three generations due to actual or potential levels of exploitation and the effects of introduced taxa, pollutants, competitors or parasites."" - quite a run-on; please split somehow or paraphrase the quote.
  • "Federal and state resource agencies utilize artificial propagation techniques to mitigate areas where self-sustaining populations no longer exist" - what do you mean "mitigate"? Protect the individuals still alive? Try to get them to reproduce? Protect the areas themselves with no regards to the fish? Please explain in-text.
  • "and was oriented primarily on the maintenance of the sport fishery" - ???. Reword, please.

The prose is, I think, probably comprehensible enough aside from the complaints I've articulated so far. I can't speak to the sources - I haven't looked hard at them and I'm not well-versed in the sourcing standards for biology articles - but they look alright, too, as does the comprehensivess. Nice work, overall. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero Ok - I executed the repairs per your request. Considering the scrutiny this article has been under with both the GA and DYK reviews, not to mention drive-by collaborators, I was hoping your work would have been a little easier. You caught things none of the other editors caught, and made the article that much better. Good job. Atsme☯Consult 22:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I can support now. Regarding the combing, that's just how it goes. Featured articles have higher standards than good articles: for example, the prose has to be more fluent, the sources must all be formatted correctly and consistently, and the standards for reliable sources are noticeably higher. Tezero (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, please forgive my inexperience, but is there anything else I'm supposed to do, or is the ball in court from here? Atsme☯Consult 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FACs need at least three supports to pass, along with an image review and a source review, and they can't have any oppose votes that are deemed to be legitimate. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything you can do but wait and ask relevant WikiProjects on their talk pages to drop by the review. It's not a perfect process, admittedly... Tezero (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I usually make an appearance at FAC to nitpick prose and copywriting issues, but this article is well-written. I had a couple of issues with commas and unit conversions that I changed myself. I only have 2 comments, which don't affect my support, but I think could improve the article. First, in the Taxonomy section, the last sentence of the first paragraph is "Lacepéde established Polyodon for paddlefish because he believed Bonnaterre's account in 1788 was wrong to suggest paddlefish were a unique genus of sharks before knowing their country of origin and habits.[5]". Who is Bonnaterre, and what was his account in 1788? There is no other mention of this. The second issue is more of a curiosity about the evolutionary history of the species; if the Chinese paddlefish is the closest extant relative of the American paddlefish, and the only other fossils mentioned in the article appear to have been found in Montana, is there suspicion that different species appeared globally at different times? China is a long way from the Mississippi River watershed. Neil916 (Talk) 18:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Neil916, thank you for your support, and for the comma and conversion corrections. I've struggled somewhat with the comma issue because U.S. standards differ somewhat from accepted standards in the U.K. and Canada. Conversions are another trip hazard for me, but I have no excuse for not getting them right. Haste is the culprit. I should have been paying closer attention. With regards to your additional two comments, I was happy to make the improvements. Atsme☯Consult 12:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth

[edit]
  • The lead section is meant to be a summary of the body of the text, easy to comprehend for someone too busy or lazy to read the rest of the article. Your lead is deficient in some respects. It deals in detail with some topics while completely omitting others. There is little about the fish's description or ecology and much about its common names, distribution and Chinese counterpart.
  • The lead uses complex terms such as "basal chondrostean ray-finned fish", "rostrum" and "peripheral range" which could do with some explanation even where they are linked.
  • There is some overlinking in the body of the article with duplicate wikilinks.
  • The "Tableau_encyclopédique_et_méthodique" should not include the "_"s.
  • I am far from competent myself in formatting references but I can see there are some inconsistencies in the citations. At least one has a date in a different format. Multiple authors are treated differently in different places. #7, Encyclopedia of Life has a stray "<". Some citations have years, others months and years. The capitalisation of the title varies etc.
Thank you Cwmhiraeth. I fixed the stray "<", and wanted to let you know I use Provelt to add references. For sources that include citing instructions, I follow their suggestion as applicable to Provelt. I will go through and get the dates consistent, but some references provide only the year, not the month and day. Also, some of the sources provide first/last names, while others included last names only. In instances where there are more than one of the same last name for different authors, I tried to include first names when provided. The variety of sources from web urls to journals to books make it difficult to maintain true consistency. I will do what I can to meet your expectations. Atsme☯Consult 19:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to use just the year and omit the month and day. You can probably fill out the author names with a bit of detective work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The accessdate in Provelt is automatically added using month-day-year. I can use year for publication date, but not all provide a publication date. Also, the titles you mentioned not having a consistency to upper case or lower case are done the way the paper is titled. I used the exact format of the source. Atsme☯Consult 20:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some of the books are listed using last names only, especially when there are several authors. I would think it would be far more important to list the references according to the way they are listed by the publisher-seller-source rather than trying to name them according to achieve consistency, especially if it makes it difficult to find the book.
Example: [54] - at the bottom of the page it shows how to cite the page. I thought listing the source as suggested was similar to including a CC license which require specific accreditation. Yes, or no? Atsme☯Consult 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the citations - used year for publication date, but left access date as is.
Hang on here... Sorry to play ping pong with this article, but I think this is definitely bad advice. There is no justification for changing references to become more vague when they are already specific with regards to date. Some references may only list the year, when it is a book, but others will include month and year, and others will list month, date, and year. Edits like this are definitely a move in the wrong direction. Please refer to WP:CITEHOW for specific content guidelines relating to dates in references. I can't find anything in the manual of style that says references shouldn't be as specific as possible because it looks bad. Sorry, it looks like you've already obliterated the dates in many of those references, but that work needs to be undone. Neil916 (Talk) 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to books and journal articles when I suggested years should be used rather than having a few with months and years with the rest having just years. This advice does not apply to websites or news outlets where a full date and an access date should be used. I was also told that to be consistent, I should either have locations of publishers for all books or for none. As I mentioned above, I am far from an expert on referencing. You could ask Nikkimaria (who is) if she would check the references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I changed all the dates to maintain consistency as requested. I had completed everything requested before I read this post. What should I do now? Atsme☯Consult 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the author names so all are full names.
I originally quoted article titles in exactly the form used by the authors, but in my first foray into FAC, Bivalvia, I was told "consistently use either title case or sentence case for journal article and book titles". In fact I was given a lot of useful advice about formatting references by Sasata in that FAC if you want to look it up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... a deeply forked heterocercal caudal fin similar to that of sharks although they are not of the same taxon." - I think it would be better to say "not closely related" here.
  • Having established the scientific name for the Chinese paddlefish, I think it would be better to stick to the vernacular name thereafter.
  • "Chinese paddlefish also have fewer, thicker gill rakers unlike those of Polyodon spathula" - Similarly with Polyodon spathula, American paddlefish might be better here.
  • "Chinese paddlefish also have fewer, thicker gill rakers unlike those of Polyodon spathula which are composed of extensive comb-like filaments believed to have inspired the etymology of the genus name, Polyodon, a Greek compound word meaning "many toothed." - This sentence would be better split. In fact the derivation of the word Polydon would be better elsewhere.
  • "...numerous small teeth less than 1 mm (0.039 in)" - (0.04 in) would be better.
  • Having stated "However, for most populations the median age is five to eight years and the maximum age is fourteen to eighteen years." it seems rather contradictory to say "Females do not begin spawning until they are seven to ten years old, some as late as sixteen to eighteen years old." Later again you state "American paddlefish can live to be 60 years or older." - It might be better to have all the information on longevity in one place.
  • "The growing importance of American paddlefish for their meat and roe became the catalyst for further development of culture techniques for aquaculture in the U.S. rather than restoration." - I'm not sure "restoration" is the right word here.
  • Link or explain "Spermiating", "polyculture",
  • The last paragraph of "Overfishing and habitat destruction" repeats some information in the previous paragraph, and it seems odd to have the sentence about the history of artificial propagation at the very end.
  • Does the paddlefish feed on the larvae of zebra mussels? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. Such studies are rare and speculative. The following link [55] names a few benthic species. Paddlefish larvae may feed on them, but again it's speculation. Atsme☯Consult 20:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the zebra mussel section regarding your question about veliger predation by paddlefish. If reviewers feel what I've added is not acceptable, we can always delete it. Atsme☯Consult 23:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I am duly impressed with the thoroughness of each review, and how the suggestions have made this article that much better. Atsme☯Consult 09:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Footnotes should appear right after punctuation, no spaces in between
  • FN6: this formatting doesn't match that of similar sources
  • FN7: EOL is neither an author nor technically a publisher - it's usually treated as a publication
  • FN9: why is this bolded?
  • FN8: MDNR is the publisher, not the author, and the version in the publisher parameter has a typo
  • FNs 3 and 13 are similar sources and should be similarly formatted (hint: 13 is closer to being right, but neither has the correct author listed - the Center is a publisher, a subdivision of USGS)
  • FN14: can truncate GBooks URL after pg=PA254. Also, Part III is a section title, but not part of the page number; "page=254" is sufficient there
  • FN15: Texas A&M is the publisher for the images only; the entity given as the work is the main publisher
  • FN16: BioScience is the journal title; 57 is the volume; 5 is the issue number; all of these and the doi belong in their own individual parameters. "Life Sciences" doesn't appear to belong in the citation at all
  • FN19: again, don't double publishers in author field. If there is no author given you can leave that out
  • FN21: the thing listed as the author isn't an author; the thing listed as a work isn't a work and has a typo in it
  • FN22: the thing listed as the author could be considered the author, but doesn't match what is given by the source
  • FN23: despite what the URL indicates, this is a separate publication, not a part of the snagging season page
  • FN24: the thing listed as the publisher is the work; the publisher is MDC, but you should spell that out
  • FN25: this is actually an online copy of a journal article, not a web source
  • Lamer means "Louisiana Marine Education Resources" - it's a work, not part of the publisher, and it's actually LaMER
  • FN32: journal title is incomplete, page numbers are doubled, everything that isn't the journal title shouldn't be in that parameter, you don't need to provide section name or author affiliation information. Same with FN33.
  • FN37: academia.edu is a republisher, not the original publisher of this work.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN39: "press release" is a work type, but not a work title
  • FN40: need full date, Tulsa World is a work not a publisher
  • FN41: need full date, Outdoors is a section not a work, The Chattanoogan is a work not a publisher

Reluctant oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nikkimaria, I learned a lot about proper referencing for WP during that session. I very much appreciated your helpful notes, and thank you for the time you invested. Hopefully, all the citations you mentioned are now correct. The FN#s won't be the same because I combined FN3 & FN13, and deleted another so your FN14 is actually FN12 now. Atsme☯Consult 15:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but still work to be done here:

  • FN2: there is actually a real author for this, but you have to dig around the site to find him. Also, your link goes to a specific page of the project - do you mean to cite only that page or the project as a whole?
  • Have we lost a few DOIs? Those are actually very helpful and should be provided when known, much like ISBNs for books
  • Be consistent about whether you include publishers for periodicals (journals, newspapers, magazines)
  • FN5: the title you give matches the URL, but it's not actually what the source itself says. Also, this is republished from a print publication, so you should give the details from that publication
  • FN6: still need to italicize the Latin name
  • The IUCN refs were actually fine before
  • FN11: the thing given as the author is not an author, the thing given as a work is not a work - both could technically be considered subdivisions of the publisher, but the Survey could also be considered a work
  • FN12: you use semicolons to separate authors here, but in most other refs you use commas - be consistent
  • FN14: BioScience is the journal title, not part of the article title
  • FN20: again, that title matches what is coded in the HTML, but not what the source actually says
  • FN23: this is a republication of a print source - you should provide the full publication information from that source
  • FN25, FN26: like FN5, these are from a print source originally. FN27 is closer to being right, but includes the volume number in the work parameter instead of its own
  • FN29: again, online republication, provide original source details
  • Sometimes you include "and" in your author list, sometimes it's commas all the way through - be consistent
  • FN32, FN37: also web republications of print sources
  • FN34: don't double publisher in author parameter
  • FN40: Outdoors is the section title, not the work title; you've taken out the actual work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, yowza - now I see why it's important to get the references right when you first add the inline citation with the prose. Going back over 40 references is a booger, especially when you suck at it like I do. Is there a citation check tool somewhere I can use? I made the changes, think I got them all done. I'll get better with practice, but right now, I'm a rusty bucket.

Source spot-check by Laser brain

[edit]
  • Ref 3, verified but I found the info on p. 211 of the electronic book; please double-check this.
  • Ref 10b, verified/OK
  • Ref 22c, verified/OK
  • Ref 28, verified/OK
  • Ref 33, verified/OK

--Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laser_brain, you were absolutely correct. I have no clue why I listed p 213 instead of p 211. It's fixed now. Thank you. Question - is there a tool available on Wiki for checking citation accuracy, or does it have to be done manually? Atsme☯Consult 19:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is done manually. I usually check for verification and also look out for any potential issues with close paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria - are you through - did the citations pass? Laser_brain - I corrected the one ref - is all ok now? Atsme☯Consult 02:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Atsme, I've struck my oppose, but it's not quite passing yet - see below. Unfortunately most of this is done by hand, no tool to do it for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review v3

  • FN5: 46 appears to be a volume number, not part of the publication title
  • FN13: Texas Freshwater Fishes appears to be a work, and in the publisher name you've got your dash in the wrong place
  • Sometimes you include retrieval date for journals, other times not - be consistent
  • FN14: BioScience not Bioscience
  • FN16 is a very similar source to FN5, but the formatting is different
  • FN23: why is the month split from the year?
  • FN25: I'm not entirely sure what you're citing here. You're linking to a symposium paper, but the formatting is a cross between a book chapter and a report section. Same with FN26. FN27 is closer, but somehow there are too many titles there. I'm not even really sure how to fix this at the moment...
  • FN29, extra space after Shelton
  • FN30: here's the "and" in the author list again
  • FN32: don't need his degree in there, do need an endash in the page range
  • FN38 and 39 format the publisher differently
  • FN39: "Outdoors" isn't the article title either; it's the section title. You really don't need that in there at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - all fixed. Pilot error navigating Provelt. I kept the urls to the symposium papers so the information will be accessible to readers, but I cited the journals. Fixed the typos, and whatever else you listed. Atsme☯Consult 15:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review v4 - almost done

  • Don't need retrieval dates for books using GBooks links
  • FN13: sorry, this still isn't right. If you're going to use the publisher suggested at the bottom of that page, you'll need to remove Texas State from the work title. This is also very different from the version in FN24 - I think the latter is okay
  • FN14: see note from v3
  • FN16: where are you getting your publication information from? It doesn't match that provided in the link given
  • FN35 is missing work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria All done. Re: your question about FN 16 - the information comes from the publisher's website, (American Fisheries Society). [56]. Click on read more, and you get this: [57] Isn't it more important to link to the actual cited paper/page in the journal so readers can verify the information rather than link to the journal that is for sale?
Yes, but that link doesn't match what you're giving in that citation either - according to that link, Paddlefish Management... is the work title (and the symposium title), it should be italicized not in quote marks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, my humble apologies for the transpositional brain fart. The journal title and chapter title have been fixed. Atsme☯Consult 17:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my prior thank you above the closed|promoted template so it doesn't interfere with the close bot. "I just want to extend my sincerest THANK YOU to Tezero, Neil916, Cwmhiraeth, Nikkimaria, Laser_brain, Ian Rose, and all the other contributing editors who helped me improve and expand American paddlefish to FA status. It was a great experience and quite educational, although a little taxing at times, but only because of my own ineptitude. I truly believe in the GA and FA process, and consider it a great honor and quite an accomplishment to have been part of the process. I look forward to being able to give back in kind to such a worthy project." Atsme☯Consult 18:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) - hope the move fixes it. Atsme☯Consult 19:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC) [58].[reply]

Masked shrike

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This pretty little bird specialises in impaling its prey on thorns or barbed wire, and featured in The Great Escape. What's not to like? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, nice to see poor old Blythe getting a guernsey here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK (CC)

  • all images and soundfile have sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • Map has source information for content verification - OK.
  • tweaked a caption for clarity and changed the "Juvenile" image information following your move. GermanJoe (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Joe Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - article appears to be comprehensive, well-written and -referenced. Some minor comments:

  • I am not a topic expert (disclaimer on more complex details).
  • Publisher location can usually be omitted, when it's a part of the publisher name (f.e. "Berlin: Zoologisches Museum in Berlin." or "Oxford:Oxford University"). Or skip the publisher location altogether as optional info.
  • I don't see the usage for "Cuvier" (it's quite aged too). Move to Further reading?
  • Lichtenstein is also an old source, but only used as uncontroversial list record. Should be OK.
  • Assuming the article uses summary references for multiple sentences (?), referencing looks good.

(I like File:Maskedshrikeinhand.JPG: such a cute, adorable little thing. So innocent ...) GermanJoe (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe. I've removed Cuvier, left over from an earlier draft. I'm aware that there are options with publishers, but it's easier for me to stick with the belt and braces I always use, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

This short article is to the usual high standard. The available information is obviously limited; Harris & Franklin start one section with "not well known" two others with "Little known". GermanJoe has picked up a couple of my meagre list of nit-picks.

  • tomial teeth - needs a link - there is a wiki page for tomium. Has a bird 1 or 2 or just a tomium? Snippet view of the cited source Lefranc & Worfolk indicates p23 rather than p22.
  • "about 353,000 km2 (136,294 sq mi)" This needs to be rounded: 136,000 sq mi.
  • "and a ring of brown markings at the wide end": from the photo the ring seems to be around the centre.
  • Harris & Franklin (p180) claim the bird is monogamous - but do they really know? They also state that for the second clutch the birds demolish the first nest to build new one. Aa77zz (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monogamy is the general rule with shrikes, (Harris and Franklin p.16.), and even in 2000 it was probably well known for this species, which occurs in reasonably open habitats in Europe. It would be surprising if Nikolov had missed polygyny in his detailed study of breeding behaviour, so I don't see any reason to doubt this. Added demolition Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and suggested improvements Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article summarises all the available information and the sources are all of high quality.
Support - nicely done. But why this species? Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I saw the Fife bird, the first for Britain, and recently had a run out to Yorkshire, taking in the masked shrike at Spurn, the third for Britain, as well as some other migrants. I've got Harris & Franklin, but had never done a shrike FA, and I like Donald Pleasance. I might do another old building next for a change, perhaps the local church or ruined castle. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Must be Corvoidea month at FAC...anyway, some comments...

I reckon it'd flow better/be more engaging if Lichtenstein and Temminck had their first names and descriptors at first mention.
Are you sure "the typical shrikes" needs quotation marks? Looks a bit odd - alternately just around the "typical"?

Nothing else is jumping out at me - will take another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments so far, Cas, I've implemented all your suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for kind words and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
    • Why are you not linking countries but linking continents? One would think the reverse would be better
  • It only occupies the high exposed branches favoured by other shrikes at the start of the breeding season, - I read this at first as the other shrikes favouring the branches at the start of the mating season, rather than the masked shrikes favouring these branches at the start of their breeding season. Perhaps a way to rework?
  • a light flight - what is a light flight?

Support - Very good work. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC) [59].[reply]

Luo Yixiu

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first wife of later Chinese communist political leader Mao Zedong. Little is known of her, and thus this is a fairly short article. It was ignored during its prior FAC (summer 2013) so it would be great if people could give it a look over and a review this time. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hamiltonstone. One query. The article states "The wedding ceremony culminated with the guests entering the bridal chamber, where they would make various sexual references and innuendos, led by a figure with his face painted black.[7] The bride had to show the bloodstains on the bed sheets from her wedding night to prove that her hymen had been broken during sexual intercourse, and that she had therefore been a virgin" and cites this text to Pantsov and Levine. Are we clear whether the authors are describing a traditional ceremony of the period in general, or are they saying that these specific rituals were definitely followed in the case of this particular wedding. If the former, suggest wording be tweaked to begin "The wedding ceremony would have culminated..." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Hamiltonstone. I've consulted the Pantsov and Levine biography, and unfortunately it does not make clear whether they are referring to the specific rituals that Mao and Luo went through or whether they are instead discussing the general wedding rituals of that time and place. Given that the wedding rituals are not discussed in Red Star Over China however, I think it apparent that the latter is almost certainly the case, so I have made the minor correction that you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Madalibi

[edit]

Comment – Sounds like a fine piece of work considering how little info there is on her. I will try to read the article more closely later. For now just one question: why is her name given as Luo Yigu when the pinyin transliteration gives her name as Luo Yixiu? If this is more than a mistake, shouldn't this discrepancy be explained somewhere in the article? Madalibi (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interesting comment, Madalibi. I am far from being an expert in Chinese transliteration, although Pantsov and Levine, whose biography of Mao is the most up-to-date and thoroughly researched available in the English language, renders her name as "Luo Yigu", and thus I have followed their example. I thus presume that that is the Pinyin name, and that there is therefore a mistake in the article, which I have now corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Midnightblueowl, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The Chinese characters 一秀 are unambiguously pronounced "Yixiu", not "Yigu", so this is not a simple pinyin mistake. The French, Norwegian, and Swedish pages have "Luo Yixiu", whereas the Ripuarian page and the Bahasa Indonesian page (whose biography is copied on that of the English page) have Luo Yigu. A Google search for "Luo Yigu" leads to Wikipedia and mirror pages, whereas a search for "Luo Yixiu," leads to many pages on Mao's first wife that are not based on Wikipedia. Based on this, I'd say "Luo Yigu" is most likely a mistake. If you have access to Pantsov and Levine's book, could you check their index carefully to see what they say about Luo's name, or whether they explain why they call her Luo Yigu instead of Luo Yixiu? That way we can clarify this unusual issue! And how do the other books call her? Madalibi (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, Ross Terrill in his Mao: A Biography (1980), Clare Hollingworth in her Mao and the Men Against Him (1985), and Lee Feigon in his Mao: A Reinterpretation (2002), don't actually mention her name. Jung Chang and John Halliday in their (deeply problematic) book, Mao: The Untold Story (2005) describe her only as "Woman Luo" and do not use her personal name. However, in their book, Mao: The True Story (2012), Pantsov and Levine very explicitly refer to her as "Luo Yigu" with no mention at all made of "Luo Yixiu"; they do not clarify why they use this spelling, and their referencing on this issue links back to Edgar Snow's original Red Star Over China as well as to several Chinese-language sources. A perplexing issue, but I shall try to consult a copy of another authoritative text, Philip Short's biography of Mao, over the coming week. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've checked, and Philip Short simply refers to her as "Miss Luo". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Thank you for looking into this issue, and sorry for being out of touch for so long! What you tell us means that we have four different names on our hands: Luo Yigu, Luo Yixiu, Woman Luo, and Miss Luo. The last two are translations of Luo shi 罗氏 ("[woman] surnamed Luo"), in which shi means family name, as Chinese women did not (and still do not) adopt their husband's surname after marriage. The fact that Short and Chang & Halliday both refer to her as "Luoshi" probably means that her personal name is not well known. Note, however, that the difference between "Yixiu" and "Yigu" is not a difference in spelling. Yixiu and Yigu are Romanizations of different characters. Yixiu is 一秀, whereas Yigu would probably be 一姑, in which gu 姑 means "girl". I must admit I have no idea how to handle this kind of issue. Could we readjust the lead and the relevant sections to say that different sources refer to her by different names (ironically, we're still missing a reliable source for Luo Yixiu)? And could we, without falling into original research, state that most biographies of Mao do not even give her last name? Madalibi (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable sources for Luo Yixiu are not lacking, and it is important to get this right, especially if "Yigu" is more a generic term than a personal name, as Madalibi suggests. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested that an academic friend of mine contact Steven Levine directly (his professional email address can be found here) to see if the Sinologist (as co-author of Mao: The True Story) might be able to shed some light on this particular issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, apparently Levine has responded, asserting that he was unsure on this issue himself, because he was translating Pantsov's Russian-language work. Could it be that there has been a problem in the translation from Mandarin to Russian to English, thus rendering "Luo Yixiu" as "Luo Yigu" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated two of the sources which User:Johnbod has identified using Google Books into this article. While both should probably count as "reliable sources", neither has however been authored by a scholar who is recognised as a specialist on Mao, and neither detail where they obtained their information from; indeed, given the dates of their authorship (2009 and 2013), it might be suggested that they were actually authored using Wikipedia as a partial basis, thus meaning that their use of "Luo Yixiu" is not particularly reliable here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Madalibi here. There's no dispute about her Chinese name. Virtually all Chinese sources record her name as 罗一秀, which is unambiguously transliterated as Luo Yixiu. As Johnbod pointed out, many English sources use the Luo Yixiu spelling. In fact, Pantsov is the only book I can find that spells her name as "Luo Yigu". -Zanhe (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So do we have a consensus to rename the article "Luo Yixiu" ? Johnbod, Madalibi, Zanhe ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me too. Madalibi (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I will go ahead and make the move. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you now consider offering a support/oppose opinion, Madalibi ? No pressure to do so if you'd rather not, though! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Midnightblueowl, and thank you for reminding me of my commitment! I'm sorry for never giving the article a close reading as I said I would. Here are my detailed comments.

Writing style (mostly)

  • Like Mao, to whom she was distantly related, she was from the area around Shaoshan, Hunan, in south central China, and came from an impoverished local landowning family. It's unclear whether "like Mao" extends to the end of the sentence: did both Mao and Luo come from "an impoverished local landowning family"? If so, then this sentence contradicts the article on Mao, which states that Mao's father was an "impoverished peasant who had become one of the wealthiest farmers in Shaoshan." If not, the grammar should be clarified.
    • Mao's family certainly weren't impoverished, so we must avoid giving that impression here. But I'm nevertheless not entirely sure of the best way to change this particular sentence without it losing its readability. Anyone got any suggestions on this one ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe this? "She came from an impoverished local landowning family from the area around Shaoshan, Hunan, in south central China, the same region as Mao, to whom she was distantly related." Madalibi (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone with "Coming from the area around Shaoshan, Hunan, in south central China – the same region as Mao – her family were impoverished local landowners." I believe that this reads fairly smoothly, and removes the section on the relation between Mao and Luo, because an editor has elsewhere on this page questioned the appropriateness of referring to the couple as "distantly related" given that all human beings are distantly related to one another. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...although Mao went through with the wedding ceremony...: "went through" sounds too colloquial for an encyclopedia. I also think the semi-colon (";") just before this clause should be replaced by a period ("."), because the two halves of the sentence are neither grammatically nor logically related.
  • Socially disgraced, she moved in and lived with Mao's parents for two years...: considering Mao's age and Chinese customs, the bride would have been expected to move in with the Mao family regardless of whether Mao accepted her as his bride. In other words, she didn't move in with his parents because she was socially disgraced, but because this was the normal thing to do. Cut "moved in and"?
  • ... before her death from dysentery: "until she died of dysentery" would sound both clearer and more fluid.
  • He would remarry a further three times: just "he would remarry three times" or "he would marry three more times" would do the job.
  • ...eventually entering communist politics: I'm not sure there was a field called "communist politics" that Mao could enter at the time. Can you think of another wording?
  • Luo Yixiu's name meant "First Daughter": "Yigu", not "Yixiu", means first daughter; this statement is sourced to Pantsov and Levine, but our new consensus is that they were probably wrong about Luo's name, so this claim should either be deleted or added to the textual note that explains her name.
  • ...that the Luo family were locally important: here I would use the singular, as the Luo family was probably important as a unit rather than for the totality of its members.
  • ...to the Luo family house, with the Luo family being socially expected...: this use of "with" at the beginning of a clause is weak.
  • Luo Helou was happy to see his eldest daughter married: as an independent sentence, this should come after a period, not a semicolon.
  • Following this, gifts were exchanged, and the marriage contract signed, after which the marriage was considered inviolable. "Following this" seems unnecessary, and the sentence is too passive. Could reword as "The two families exchanged gifts and signed the marriage contract, after which..."
  • marriage to Wang had been ruled out by a local geomancer because their horoscopes were incompatible: geomancer (who divines based on signs from the ground) and horoscope are probably the wrong words. Sinologists sometimes use "geomancer" to refer to fengshui masters, so this is probably what Levine's translation of Pantsov's book was trying to convey. Fortune-teller or diviner (for geomancer) might be better in this context, though of course we have to be careful not to deviate too far from our reliable source. "Horoscope" probably refers to Mao and Wang's "eight characters" (bazi 八字), two each for their year, month, day, and hour of birth. Would you agree to replacing the link to horoscope with a piped link to either Chinese astrology or the Four Pillars of Destiny (= bazi)?
  • Mao agreed to go through with the marriage to Luo: a bit wordy, and "go through" is colloquial. "Mao agreed to marry Luo"?
  • There, her veil would be removed...: because the nearby sentences are in the past perfect, this should read "would have been removed"
  • to the ancestral altar: this ritual meant that the newlyweds were introducing themselves to the Maos' paternal ancestors: specify "to the groom's ancestral altar"? You could also add a piped link either to Ancestor veneration in China.
  • where they would make various sexual references and innuendos: "where they would have made"
  • Mao Zedong returned home: do we know when and why? And to get rid of the semicolon after "home", could you reword to "When Mao returned home [+ explanation of when or why?], his father forgave him..."
  • his son's studies at the Dongshan Higher Primary School: here could you just confirm that "primary school" is right? After all, Mao was 14 at the time!
  • Shaoshanchong: this name appears at the end of the "Married life" section and in an image caption, but it is not explained. How does it differ from Shaoshan?
  • This [Lee Feigon's] idea was also supported by journalist and sinologist Clare Hollingworth. The phrasing makes it sound as though Hollingworth supported Feigon's idea after having heard of it, but Hollingworth wrote in 1985 and Feigon in 2002.
  • Mao would proceed to marry a further three wives...: "would proceed to" sounds wordy and "a further three wives" sounds heavy. "Would marry three more times", "would take three more wives" or something of the sort would sound better.

That should be it for now. After these issues are solved, I will be glad to support the article. Madalibi (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on writing style:

  • Although Mao took part in the wedding ceremony, he was unhappy with the marriage, never consummating it and refusing to live with his wife: the section on "Married life" starts by saying that "According to what he told Snow, Mao refused to live with his wife, and claimed that they never consummated their marriage." The lede should not present Mao's account as fact. This point will become more important when we integrate the Chinese sources into the article, because they claim that despite what he told Snow, Mao did live with Luo intermittently after their marriage.
  • Born on October 20, 1889, Luo Yixiu's father...: now that the phrase about Luo Yixiu's name is gone, this no longer makes sense.
  • historian Lee Feigon asserted: here I'm really getting into minor details, but you should probably use a more neutral verb than "asserted" (see WP:SAY).
  • ... Mao Yichang, who decided to deal with his son in a manner typical of the time, through forcing him into an arranged marriage: to my admittedly non-native ears, "dealing with someone through [verb]-ing" sounds awkward: replace "through" with "by"?
  • He also desired a helper to assist his own wife: "a helper to assist" may be redundant: replace with "a helper for his own wife"?
  • the Luo family would have been socially expected to accept the marriage proposal immediately: "socially expected", "culturally expected": why not just "expected"?
    • I disagree on this point; if we simply use "expected", then some readers might assume that the Mao family simply expected an affirmitive answer from the Luo family, whereas – if I understand the source correctly – it was actually a social convention that the woman's family would accept the proposal of marriage. Thus, I think that referring to it as being "socially expected" conveys the necessary infomation in a way that simply using "expected" does not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me "the family would have been expected" was impersonal, so it naturally referred to social expectations, but some readers may disagree with my interpretation, so let's keep "socially" as you suggest! Madalibi (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • after which the marriage was considered inviolable: not sure "inviolable" is the right word. Do you mean that after these procedures, the marriage agreement was considered established?
  • According to tradition, a display of fireworks would probably have taken place: "According to tradition" is probably redundant here, as this entire account is about how a wedding would have proceeded "under rural Hunanese custom".
  • Mao would marry three more wives over the course of his life. In December 1920 he married Yang Kaihui; in May 1928 he married He Zizhen; and in November 1939 he wedded Jiang Qing: "marry a wife" is a pleonasm: "marry three more women"? And to avoid using the verb "marry" three times in the same sentence, could simplify to "Mao would marry three more women over the course of his life: Yang Kaihui in December 1920, He Zizhen in May 1928, and Jiang Qing in November 1939."
  • Alexander V. Pantsov and Stephen I. Levine asserted that her name was "Luo Yigu": here "asserted" may be right (despite WP:SAY), but at least one of the Chinese sources I found uses the name "Luo Yigu" (the same as Pantsov and Levine), so a more neutral verb may be necessary after all.
  • He would remarry three more times: he had never remarried before, so here we need either "He would marry three more times" or "He would remarry three times". Madalibi (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More substantial issues

  • The Chinese page on Luo Yixiu and a Chinese book I found in the Google search posted by Crisco 1492 claim that the wedding took place in 1907, not 1908. By East Asian age reckoning, in which you're one year old as soon as you're born, Luo Yixiu would indeed have been 18 at the time. By this account, she lived at the Maos' place for three years, not two. That book also claims that Mao did live with Luo in his parents' home for a while, and that he even wrote a poem about her after her death. In 1950, he sent his grandson Mao Anying to visit Luo Yixiu's uncle in Shaoshan. Unfortunately it doesn't cite any source.
  • Interestingly, a semi-scholarly article by Lü Chun 吕春 called "Six Women who Influenced Mao Zedong" 影响毛泽东一生的六位女性 (in Chinese), published in Dangshi wenyuan 党史文苑 (a journal on CCP history) in 2009, states that Luo Yixiu was the eldest daughter and could also therefore be called Yigu. After Pantsov and Levine, I think this is the first reliable source we find to support the name Yigu. The section on Luo (entitled "Ms. Luo: a victim of arranged marriage") is brief, but it explains the family relation between Mao and Luo and gives a few details on her behavior when she lived at the Maos' place. Here dates of birth and death appear to come from the Mao family genealogy.
  • I also found an article (in Chinese) entirely devoted to Mao's first marriage. The reference is Hu Changming 胡长明 and Liu Shengsheng 刘胜生, "A few historical facts about Mao Zedong's first marriage" 毛泽东第一次婚姻的若干史实, Research on Mao Zedong Thought 毛泽东思想研究, 1996.2: 111-114. I managed to download the pdf, but I don't have time to read it until this coming week. A quick reading indicates that Luo Yixiu was Luo Helou's eldest daughter, and that Luo Helou's wife was surnamed Mao and was the daughter of Mao Yongtang, one of Mao Zedong's great-grandfathers. This article claims the wedding took place on 1908, based on deduction from the age of the newlyweds. Luo Helou's dates are 1871-1943. As for Mao's opposition to arranged marriage, it appears that in 1919 he wrote more than 10 newspaper articles following the suicide of a girl in Changsha in protest against arranged marriage. There are more details (location of Luo's tomb, several later visits to his former father-in-law, posthumous adoption of a son [also mentioned in Lü Chun's article], etc.), but I'm out of time. I can do the detailed work this coming week when I have more time on my hands. Madalibi (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to integrate information from Hu and Liu's text into the article (here's the diff). This is taking more time than I thought because Hu and Liu mention all kinds of facts and issues that are not addressed in this article, and I'm not sure how to integrate them properly. I will continue tomorrow. In the mean time, I have thought of a new content question:
  • Mao Zedong had taken a rebellious attitude towards his disciplinarian father Mao Yichang: after reading Hu and Liu, this sentence seems a bit abrupt to begin a section. What was he rebellious about? It seems that in 1906 Mao Zedong forcefully quit the Mao lineage school because he didn't like the teaching style of the main instructor. Despite his father's protests and beatings, he stayed out of school until 1909. Hu and Liu see the arranged marriage as a way of forcing MZD to take responsibilities. Could you confirm the content of MZD's conflicts with his father and assess whether Hu and Liu's interpretation makes sense?
  • Hu and Liu also say that Mao went back to school at the Shaoshan Dongmaotang 韶山东茅塘 (very near his place) in 1909, possibly as a wa to avoid married life. Can this be confirmed?
    • According to Pantsov and Levine (pp. 25–26), Mao "ran away from home and lived for a year in the house of an unemployed student, also in Shaoshan. He continued his avid reading[...]". They then add that Mao only requested that he proceed to school (the Dongshan Higher Primary School, which was fifteen miles from Shaoshan), in the fall of 1910. There is no mention of him attending Shaoshan Dongmaotang in 1909. From Short (p. 30) we instead have "He started studying again, this time at a private school in the village run by an elderly scholar who was a clansman, and shortly after his fifteenth birthday, told his father he no longer wished to be apprenticed at Xiangtan. He wanted to enrol at junior middle school instead". These accounts to be in slight conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may have other questions as I keep working on the article. Madalibi (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

[edit]
Is this a hard and fast rule, or – as I get the impression from reading WP:LEADLENGTH – more of a guideline ? I feel that the current three paragraph system works well in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a recommendation, but one I strongly suggest following here. The article is 1068 words as of the time of writing. 250 of those words are in the lead. A full quarter of the article is in the lead... don't you think that's a bit much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it would be possible to cut material out, although I fear that this would be to the detriment of the article itself. For instance the names of Mao's later wives could be expunged and the third lede paragraph thus amalgamated into the second. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Crisco 1492, I have gone ahead and made the suggested change. I think it looks alright, but do let me know if you have any further comments. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Crisco 1492

  • "Mao Ligu" in the infobox... far as I know, Chinese women don't take on their husband's family names. Having the same family name for a husband and wife would be considered incest
  • Although displeased by the arrangement, Mao agreed to go through with it. - We're not on Wang anymore, so "it" has to be restated
  • How do we know Pantsov and Levine's claim is authoritative?
    • Hmm, problematic. I had assumed that their work was, given that it is the most recent publication, is based on (Moscow-based) sources not used in any other biographies, and is a denser, more detailed volume than many others. But this is an issue under debate, and it is one that will need greater scrutiny. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There, her veil was removed, and she was expected to express her unhappiness and dissatisfaction with Mao by publicly insulting him, calling him a "drunkard", a "hairy insect" and a "ravenous, lazy, and tobacco-addicted dog." - Did she? Was he? Per above. (Sounds like a fun way to start a marriage).
  • kowtowed - kowtowed is already part of the English language (included in both Oxford and Merriam-Webster). As such, it should not be italicised
  • The wedding ceremony would have culminated with the guests entering the bridal chamber, where they would make various sexual references and innuendos, led by a figure with his face painted black. - would have, again. So what, it didn't happen, or it was traditional, or...?
  • He would remarry a further three times throughout his life, to Yang Kaihui, He Zizhen and Jiang Qing. is unreferenced
    • I wasn't really sure that it needed referencing, however I have added the information to the "Influence on Mao" section and have ensured that it is referenced there, so as not to end up with references in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of what is known about their marriage comes from an account Mao gave to American reporter Edgar Snow in 1936, which Snow included in his book Red Star Over China. - also unreferenced
  • So... erm... have any Chinese-language sources been consulted (Google has a couple, not sure how accessible they are)? How were the dates of birth and death determined? Are there any images of her? Baidu claims to have one, and says simply "spring 1910" for her death. Did you work out whether this should be "Xiu" or "Luo"? Did Mao discuss her / mention her in his later years, or did he ignore whatever (small or large) small role she played in his life? Too many questions... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that I am unable to read Chinese characters, so those sources are of little utility to me; I know that Terrill recommends "Ssu Ma-shu in Tien-wen t'ai-pao', Hong Kong, 12/20/58" as a source, while Spence recommends "Xiao Feng in Mao Zedong zhimi (Beijing, 1992), pp. 128–29", but again I am unable to obtain or read these articles. Regarding the Baidu image, I am intrigued although far from convinced of its authenticity; certainly none of the sources in this article included any pictures of her. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support Comments. I'll add notes here as I go through the article.

  • "He would remarry a further three times throughout his life, to Yang Kaihui, He Zizhen and then Jiang Qing": why "and then"?
  • "who highlighted that she was eighteen": "highlighted" isn't the right word here. How about "emphasized", or "made clear", or "confirmed", depending on how the sources phrase it?
  • 'There, her veil was removed, and she was expected to express her unhappiness and dissatisfaction with Mao by publicly insulting him, calling him a "drunkard", a "hairy insect" and a "ravenous, lazy, and tobacco-addicted dog."' This makes it sounds as if she was expected to express these very specific insults. (I assume that we're talking here about general wedding ceremonies of the time, not about this specific ceremony.) Is that the case? Or are these simply examples of the kind of insult brides were expected to use? If so, I think the wording needs to be tweaked.
    • The book quoted doesn't make this particularly clear, unfortunately, so I'm not sure that I am able to answer your question in the affirmative or negative ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, going back to the text in question (page 26 of Pantsov and Levine, it states "Following the local custom, the wedding feast, to which numerous relatives and friends were invited, began in the groom's home[...] The girl was supposed to express her unhapiness, to cry, and to accuse her future husband of his failings, calling him a "hairy insect," "a ravenous, lazy, and tobacco-addicted dog," a "drunkard," and so forth." This being the case, I think it apparent that these were the sort of insults that would have been expected at the time, but might not have actually been commented in this particular instance; we seem to have no direct information on the wedding itself, but Pantsov and Levine are trying to reconstruct what it probably would have been like. Do you have any suggestions for how the prose in the article could be improved or clarified here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consulting both Pantsov and Levine (p. 26) and now Short (p. 649), I think it very much clear that they are reconstructing the wedding on the basis of traditional Chinese customs; as Short has it, these were "ceremonies still practised in rural China in the 1990s". Thus, I have altered the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Mao later told Snow that "I do not consider her my wife"': delete "that".
    • I disagree on this point; although both are acceptable uses of language, I prefer things as they are. However, I am more than happy to hear other views on the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I've struck this as the change is incorporated into another edit you made in response to a point below. I'm pretty sure that "that" is incorrect here; it's used for reported speech without quotes: "Mao told Snow that he did not consider her his wife". It's never used for quoting speech, though it can occur before quotes in sentences such as 'Mao said that "nobody knew her name"', where removing the quotes doesn't alter the sense. If you'd like to restore it, let's ask for opinions on the FAC talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made no mention that she was dead": this is an odd phrase. More natural would be "made no mention of the fact that she was dead", or "did not mention that she was dead" or "had died"; or "did not make it clear that".
  • A separate point from the two above: you comment on the oddness of him not mentioning she was dead before letting the reader know she was dead. I think this would be better done chronologically: perhaps "Luo Yigu died of dysentery on February 11, 1910; but when Mao later told Snow "I do not consider her my wife", he made no mention of her death".
  • "Mao Zedong returned home, where his father forgave him for his disobedience; in autumn 1910, he agreed to finance his son's studies ...": the "he" in the second half of this should refer to the subject of the first half, but it doesn't; it refers to Mao Zedong's father. I think this needs to be tweaked. Perhaps "Mao Zedong returned home; his father forgave him for his disobedience, and in the autumn of 1910 agreed to finance his son's studies ..."
  • "journalist and Sinologist Clare Hollingworth": I'm not certain about this, but based on the usage I've seen I would not expect "Sinologist" to be capitalized.

That's everything I can see. I would be hesitant about supporting without seeing a resolution to the discussion above about Luo Yigu vs. Luo Yixiu; I know nothing about Chinese but I think there needs to be a consensus we have this right before the article can be promoted. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC) -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Mike, your comments were constructive and helped improve the article. I think that you are right with regards to the Luo Yigu/Yixiu issue; it would not be correct to "pass" this article at GAC while such a serious issue remained. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is struck except the comment about her insults -- I agree with SnowFire below that perhaps a fuller quote would help resolve this. Once that's cleared up, and the spelling issue is resolved, I would be willing to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support above; both issues are now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per Mike Christie above, the '"drunkard", a "hairy insect" and a "ravenous, lazy, and tobacco-addicted dog."' quotes raise too many questions to just leave the reader hanging. Was Mao actually a drinker and/or cigarette smoker at this age? Was this specific to Mao or some kind of folk tradition or both (a folk tradition to give personal insults)? Perhaps quoting the (unclear?) source material more fully would help here, rather than just the insults. SnowFire (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I still don't like the phrasing - if the reader skims through, it still sounds like this is an actual account of the wedding, when it wasn't. I suggest tackling the historiography issue head-on: "The wedding took place in 1908, and according to authors A and B it followed traditional custom of the time. No direct records of the wedding exist, but according to author C, contemporary custom included a feast in the groom's home. The bride would have dressed in red on the next day and carried in a red palanquin to the groom's home." And so on. We don't know what Mao did or didn't do, but we can talk about generic brides & grooms.
Additionally, I think the name issue seems to be weighing against Luo Yigu above? It's really neat that you got in contact with the author who used the "Yigu" phrasing, but "it came from the Russian translation" isn't a reassuring answer for using "Mao: The True Story". I'd suggest using a straight Pinyin-based romanization if a reliable English-language source on the name can't be found (and per your current footnote, there are 2 weak sources using Yixiu currently anyway....). SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snowfire on both the above points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input guys; I too agree on both issues. The first one raised can be dealt with fairly easily (and I will do so now), but the latter issue is going to need further discussion and examination. We're going to need to get some users who can read Chinese in on this one. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) For the name, I'm not sure if Chinese-reading Wikipedians will be that much help (although they might be able to help with adding to the article otherwise). The question is "what is Luo's name in English", after all, I doubt the Chinese characters used are much in dispute.

For the feast/customs, I'm still not particularly happy. Your edits make it seem like all brides in the province went to the Mao home; the "and so on" bit I wrote above meant rewriting the whole section. I just checked Pantsov on Google Books, and in the source it only refers to brides & grooms, not to the Mao family nor the Luo family. Additionally, the oddly specific insults line is different in Pantsov: it includes "and so forth" at the end, which makes it much more clear that these insults are merely examples. Let me be more direct in my concerns here: suppose this article were to appear on the Wikipedia front page. There's a certain human desire to want to show off quirky or exotic practices, which is fine, it adds a bit of spice to reading. However, it would be really awful to have false quirky practices on the Wikipedia front page. What exactly did Ross Terril say on p. 12 of his book? It's not on Google Books, but for something this weird, I'd want bulletproof "multiple scholars agree it's true" level sourcing. SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I must have missed this comment. I will endeavour to make alterations to the text within the next 24 hours. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few changes that I hope deal with the issues raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Have you had a chance to revisit the article since you commented last? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: My complaints are largely dealt with, although I wasn't able to check the other sources listed for the wedding. Still, AGF that they're fine. Struck my oppose, call it a weak support. SnowFire (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Dudley Miles

[edit]
  • "Luo Helou and his wife had five sons and five daughters, of whom only three daughters survived infancy." This could be clearer. I took it at first to mean only that two of the five daughters died, not the sons as well.
  • "The couples' lack of adult sons diminished their societal status". I think "social" would be better here.
  • "who were expected to accept the marriage proposal immediately" - sounds a bit odd to me. I would delete.
    • I personally disagree on this point. The statement reflects a cultural custom that most people around the world would not be familiar with, and at the same time it is referenced to one of the Mao biographies; they deemed it worth highlighting, so why shouldn't we! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to what he told Snow, Mao refused to live with his wife, and claimed that they never consummated their marriage with intimate physical relations." This is excessively wordy. Why not "Mao told Snow that he refused to live with his wife". Also, "with intimate physical relations" is superfluous. (Presumably there is no explanation for the apparent contradiction between Mao's claim and the statement above that the bride had to prove that she had lost her virginity.)
    • I agree that "with intimate physical relations" is superfluous; it has been removed. As to your (well-spotted) second point, I am unfortunately unable to provide any explanation, given that the sources themselves do not offer one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a non-sequitur saying that he became a fierce advocate of women's rights and citing as evidence his advocacy of love as the determinant of marriage - they are not necessarily connected. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that you have a fair point, but we are citing a specific source (the Lee Feigon biography) which argues that the experience of this arranged marriage did result in Mao's developing feminist views. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

So we currently have "support" from Hamiltonstone, Mike Christie, and Dudley Miles, and a "weak support" from SnowFire, with the only instance of "weak oppose" – which was earlier provided by SnowFire – having been retracted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added lots of new comments to the top of this page. This does not mean a formal "oppose", but I do think that these issues (which concern writing style and relevant information that I just found in Chinese sources) should be addressed before I can add my formal support. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

Looks nice. Just a few things:

  • "a Han Chinese woman" - what's the relevance? The Han are the dominant ethnic group in China (~92%, IIRC), and I think Mao was Han as well - at the very least, I don't see why her ethnicity is of relevance, certainly not of first-sentence relevance.
    • While the Han certainly are the dominant ethnic group within the current People's Republic of China, we should not forget that it is of course a nation made up of many different ethnic groups; specifying that she was Han simply clarifies this somewhat, in a way that simply stating that she was "Chinese" does not. Still, I am open to other opinions on thi spoint. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to whom she was distantly related" - All organisms on Earth are "distantly related", assuming primordial life has not arisen in distinct populations since its initial formation. Within humans, I recall hearing that everyone is at least 52nd cousins or something. Can you expand on her relation to him a little?
  • "only two li" - Can you specify how long this is in miles or km using parentheses?
  • "Soon after the wedding, he ran away from home, to live with an unemployed student in Shaoshan, spending much of his time reading, particularly historical works like Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian and Ban Gu's History of the Former Han Dynasty, and political tracts like Feng Guifen's Personal Protests from the Study of Jiao Bin." - Comma chameleon indeed. Mind splitting this up or rewriting?
  • The lead seems a little long considering the prose's size, especially the second paragraph.

Tezero (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Hi Madalibi, is your review complete? Graham Beards (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, is this the longest-running FAC ever? I lost track of its age when it was renamed and appeared in WP:FACL as commencing on 6 October (date it was renamed no doubt). Anyway, I believe I've taken care of the housekeeping to deal with the rename, and I think Madalibi has had enough time to comment any further on what is after all a fairly short article. I'm therefore going to promote and ask that any further minor work take place (mercifully!) outside FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC) [60].[reply]

No. 1 Squadron RAAF

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed appropriate now that the centenary of World War I is upon us to nominate this article on the RAAF's premier squadron, formed under the Australian Flying Corps in 1916. It's been active almost continually since then, and operated the formidable F-111 for 37 years, but the last time it saw action was during the Malayan Emergency -- that is of course unless the Australian government acts on suggestions to deploy Super Hornets to the Middle East, in which case it'd be a foregone conclusion that personnel and aircraft from this unit would form the commitment. As deployment is still only speculation, through, I haven't mentioned it in the text as yet. Tks to everyone who's contributed to the article through their edits and/or reviews, especially its recent MilHist A-Class assessment, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (2 points Done)

  • File:1SqnRAAFCrest.png - rationale for identification is OK, but the information should include the current copyright owner (per fair-use policy). The source website is under "© Commonwealth of Australia 2012", probably with all its content? Suggest to use Template:non-free use rationale (optional, but helps to keep the information structured).
  • File:RAAF_Canberra_(AWM_128866).JPG - exact year is unknown, but could you add an estimated date of creation? We need to be sure, it is pre-1955 (or meets one of the other PD-Australia points).
    • Yes, there's practically no information from the source so I'm just offering reasonably well-informed opinion here that would support the AWM's declaration of PD: the tailfin flash suggests the aircraft belongs to No. 2 Squadron (try as I might I found no images of No. 1 Squadron Canberras); No. 2 Squadron equipped with Canberras in 1953 and deployed to Vietnam in 1967, when its colour scheme was changed from silver to camouflage, so we can estimate the photo was taken between 1953 and 1967. That being the case I think we can safely assume the PD status is due to it being taken before 1955 (PD-Australia clauses A/B), or between 1955 and 1969 under Commonwealth auspices (PD-Australia clause E). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other images are all OK. CC "own work", PD-Australia (point A) and PD-USGov. Sources and authors (where known) provided. GermanJoe (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I polished those two a bit and added your background info on the estimated date of creation. All OK now. GermanJoe (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks again, Joe -- good to see you back at FAC BTW! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Joe, I just added a new image under Role and equipment -- would you be so kind as to verify licensing so everything's above board? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr has a different license for this image, but that's not our problem. The image clearly meets "PD-USAF" requirements and is OK GermanJoe (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belated tks, Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support A few minor nitpicks:

  • a bit of overlinking: Sinai_and_Palestine_Campaign, Frank_McNamara_(VC), Victoria_Cross, RAAF_Base_Amberley, No._82_Wing_RAAF, Far_East_Air_Force_(Royal_Air_Force), Boeing_Australia, Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet, and McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet.
    • I did that deliberately as the initial links are from the Role and equipment section up the top and the History section in which the dups appear is on the longish side. OTOH if you as someone more detached than myself from the article think the dups aren't necessary then I'm happy to remove them.
  • suggest using refbegin and refend templates for the long References list
    • Heh, I'll admit I'm not a fan of miniscule references (short cites in the Notes section aren't so bad) so I'd rather leave them unless the consensus is to reduce them... :-)
  • did some spotchecks of sources, all good
    • Always good to have that every so often, tks.

Excellent article, well done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've contributed a bit to this article over the years, as well as to closely related topics, so I don't think that I'm uninvolved enough to vote. I think that the article is of a very high standard though. It's it's helpful, I'd like to offer the following comments for consideration:

  • The article doesn't currently seem to note why the F-111s were delayed (and were No. 1 Squadron personnel the unfortunate airmen sent to the US to train on the F-111s only to have to return home without them?)
    • Added a line on the delay; Lax and Stephens don't seem to spend much time on the impact it had the expectant pilot trainees.
  • The material on the introduction of the F-111 is focused mainly on the maintenance arrangements. While this is important, and part of the squadron's history, you could also weave in some material from Lax about how they were initially used (very carefully!), and how this evolved over time Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: just one little question in the World War II section ....giving it a strength of 25 aircraft; at one stage it was to be renumbered as an RAF squadron, but this never eventuated.[89] as an RAF? or as a RAF which to me reads easier Gnangarra 10:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, you've got me there... I'm used to treating it as if the initials are being pronounced but I've seen it written both ways. Do you happen to know if there's a MOS standard to follow?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont have an answer hence the question, as you correctly point out treating as initials R-A-F rather than colloquial word "raf" makes an the correct option. Though I suppose it could worded as ...was to be renamed as a squadron of the RAF, but... to bypass the question. Either way its so minor forget I asked very interesting read and its ready to be featured. Gnangarra 06:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The details on the Super Hornet in the role and equipment section strike me as a bit too much, and even a bit too "rah-rah" when talking about engaging aerial and surface targets simultaneously. I'd delete everything beginning with its 20 mm armament up to the servicing details.
    • Well I think it's worth saying something about the armaments employed and the aircraft's capabilities, because that obviously has a bearing on the squadron's capabilities. The bit about simultaneous targeting in the air and on the ground seemed to follow naturally from mentioning the role of the second crew member. I mean I could've gone into much more detail on speed, range, the types and models of bombs and missiles carried, the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, and so on, but I thought that would indeed have been too much.
      • The whole bit seemed rather reminiscent of an official press release, IMO. Consider some rephrasing, but I'll support since it's really a matter of taste.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tks Sturm. Quite understand we're you're coming from. Nothing comes to mind right now as far as rephrasing goes, but I'm sure given the squadron's continuing involvement in Iraq, the article won't be far from my thoughts for some time so you never know... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "eventuated" more common in AusEng than it is in AmEnglish? It strikes me as rather pretentious as I think of it as one of those passive verbs used to distance the action from the actor. I'd suggest a simple "happened" or "occurred".
    • No prob, will do.
  • Aside from these minor quibbles, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is brilliantly written. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/November_2014&oldid=635743182"