Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2016

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) 22:26, 30 November 2016 [1].

After the Deluge (painting)

[edit]
Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bright rising sun illuminating the clouds over a featureless horizon" has become such a staple image since the advent of modern photography, it's easy to forget that it had to begin somewhere. Likewise, if George Frederic Watts is remembered at all nowadays it's as the painter of formal portraits of dignitaries and of earnestly portentious paintings with titles like Love and Death and The Slumber of the Ages, not as the painter of dramatic landscapes. After the Deluge is an explicitly religious painting, yet contains no religious imagery of any kind, and is an interesting snapshot of the transition between 19th-century symbolism and 20th-century abstraction. Because this has spent the last century in the backwater of Compton rather than in a high-profile institution like the Tate Gallery or the Yale Center for British Art, there hasn't been all that much written about this particular piece so the article is shorter than usual, but I believe this collates together everything significant that there is to say about it. And yes, I know it looks like I've accidentally cut-and-pasted a chunk of body text into the wikilink but Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory)—The Morning after the Deluge—Moses Writing the Book of Genesis genuinely is the name of Turner's painting of the same subject. ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
  • I put it in its current location (about its 1891 exhibition) because Watts didn't include it with either the 1886 exhibition or with its later permanent exhibition in Compton; plus, the "Subject" and "Composition" sections each already include a quotation and I was trying to avoid the appearance of a quotefarm as much as possible. I've no particular attachment to keeping it in any given place, although I feel it makes more sense in the section on exhibition, as it illustrates that Watts was anticipating that his audience wouldn't necessarily get the point if he didn't explain it. ‑ Iridescent 11:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

I've got a flight in the morning so forgive me if this is a bit piecemeal:

  • Why is "flood" lower case when appended to "Noah's" but capped otherwise?
  • "he explicitly aimed at evoking" this seems too wordy. What's wrong with "he intended to evoke"
  • I've amended it in the lead, but I think the "explicitly" ought to remain in the body. Basically, Watts (along with virtually everyone else at this time) was part of the fad for painting classical subjects and often dabbled with Greek and Roman gods (and with more abstract Christian concepts like the personifications of Faith, Hope and Charity), but with this particular painting he wanted viewers to get the impression of a single all-powerful God showing off what he could do, even though a viewer could equally reasonably interpret it as a trial of strength between a sun-god and a water-god. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Watts worked on the painting for a further five years, and the completed version was eventually exhibited at the New Gallery in 1891." "eventually" seems surplasage.
  • I've reworded it to "the completed version was exhibited for the first time [in 1891]"; I agree that "eventually" isn't appropriate, but I want to communicate that after its first exhibition he withdrew it and didn't show it again until it had reached its final state. (I'm assuming a lot of the traffic to this will be coming from the much better known Hope, where Watts painted multiple versions and sold off or gave away the preliminary versions, so some readers will reasonably assume that was his usual way of working.) ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "around the country" I'd let this pass if there had been any geographical hint in text beyond that of Whitechapel, so I'd be more specific.
  • Amended to "around the United Kingdom" in the lead—in the body text "Cork, Edinburgh, Manchester, Dublin and London" is spelled out so I think the "around the country" can stay. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fellow artists, and has been cited as an influence on numerous other artists" artists/artists
  • "His portraits were extremely highly regarded,[8] and in 1867 he was elected a Royal Academician, at the time the highest honour available to an artist,[6][A] although he rapidly became disillusioned with the culture of the Royal Academy." This seems needlessly complex. Why not say he was elected to the Royal Academy? Then you can say he became disillusioned with "its culture"?
  • "Although his father's strict evangelical Christianity had instilled in Watts a strong dislike of organised religion since his childhood," I would strike the last three words If it comes from the father, it's most likely a childhood influence.
  • "showed Noah sacrificing to the sun in thanks for his family's salvation from the floodwaters" I would strike the last three words. Even if perchance someone is unfamiliar with the story of Noah coming in, by this time they have the general idea.
  • I was thinking that there was potential for readers misunderstanding "salvation" as being the point at which Noah decided he was going to follow God's will, rather than the moment at which God physically rescued him, given the common use of the term in both Judaism and Christianity as a synonym for "redemption". I agree that it's not really necessary, since anyone reading this is presumably going to know that the Sacrifice of Noah refers to the specific event after the flood was over. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "Mr. Watts" and "St. Jude", are the periods as intended? I understand the British practice is often to omit them. Regarding Mr. Watts, I note that the first usage of this in the article is rendered without the dot on the Tate website, here.
  • The MOS says to always use the period in US and Canadian English, and that either form is acceptable in British English. Since this is unquestionably a BrEng topic, I've removed the periods, which shaves off a few extra characters. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for his exhibitions.[23][E] Following this exhibition" I would be less of an exhibitionist.
  • "in the two decades following its exhibition" that is, following 1886 or 1891?
  • The 1891 exhibition—prior to that, nobody really knew it existed. I've changed "exhibition" to "completion". (It will technically be the 23 years following its completion—the outbreak of WW1 functioned as a huge reset button for Western art and culture—but this article's so short that I don't want to get into a long aside about the emergence of surrealism.) ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I expect to support once these are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Not my area of expertise, but all the more reason for me to appreciate such a clear piece of writing. A couple of comments that you may want to consider

  • …at the age of 10, and at the age of 16… At the age of 18…— perhaps something like …at the age of 10, and at 16… Aged 18… to break the repetition.
  • Yeah, that's my trying to make the text slightly different to the biography on Hope (which was painted a couple of years earlier so by definition is almost identical). I've amended "at 16" to "by his mid-teens", which is accurate enough and breaks the repetition—presumably anyone who really cares about the exact timings is going to be reading his own article. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • depression probably needs a link
  • I'm a little reluctant, as that's to the modern concept of depression which didn't exist at this time. The wording of the source is actually "moodiness and melancholia", which was the language of the day. I've amended it to "melancholia" (and linked it), even though I'm a little reluctant to say in Wikipedia's voice that he suffered an illness which is no longer generally recognised. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal Academician, at the time the highest honour available to an artist,[6][A] although he rapidly became disillusioned with the culture of the Royal Academy— perhaps make the second occurrence just "the Academy" to reduce repetition?
  • I can't, really; there were lots of Academies at this time, but only one Royal Academy. (Usually the way we avoid repetition is to use "RA" in subsequent appearances, but this is the first appearance of both "Royal Academician" and "Royal Academy".) ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1902 and 1906 it was— we are some lines away from the subject of this sentence, replace the pronoun with "the painting" or similar
  • I'm deeply shocked that you've missed the opportunity to use the word "antediluvian" (:
  • It would be a bit hypocritical of me, given that only a few days ago I was chiding the horsey folks for using "covered" rather than "mated" and expecting readers to understand it. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—think I've fixed all of them ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I must admit the point about depression hadn't occurred to me, thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sagaciousphil

[edit]
  • Note [B] - probably showing my ignorance here but ... what is the "190" at the end?
  • After completion, 2nd paragraph: " ... shortly before Watts's death later that year. Shortly before his death ..." Could this be re-worded slightly to remove repetition in such close proximity?

Very, very minor so I'm happy to support. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Damn, forgot to comment - read this the other day on my phone (where it is hard to comment). support as I can't find any prose glitches or omissions to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ‑ Iridescent 14:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

image and source review

[edit]

Unsurprisingly, all images are in public domain due to age. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One ref online and checks out. snippets of other material seen check out. Good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2016 (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) 22:35, 30 November 2016 [2].

Bradley Cooper

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have decided not to create content on here anymore, this is an article I worked on in August. The article is about Mr Cooper, who is the recipient of People's "Sexiest Man Alive" in 2011, though it's more of "Sexiest White Man Alive". Aside from the so-called accolade, he is a talented actor, having found his breakthrough in his mid 30s in late 2000s. The article was promoted on 1st of September by Jaguar who passed it straight away and found it to be FAC material. I currently have another open nomination as a co-nominator. I hope that it does not turn out that I end up seeing both of them archived (haha) so have at it. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I brought his awards page to FL status, I should help here. I'm a bit busy today, but one thing that I noticed while reading through is that a lot of his lesser known roles are not included in the article. For example, My Little Eye, Bending All the Rules, The Comebacks, Older than America, etc. The latter most was a film that Cooper had a major role in. Check Bradley Cooper on screen and stage for information about some of the lesser known rules. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo:, I have included those films you have mentioned and look forward to any comments you have to make in the near future. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Somewhat sick at the moment, which may limit my speed to post and respond to your comments. Also, please not that i am not completely aware of the subject.

I myself have a terrible cold right now.
Lead
  • "He aspired to an acting career from a young age, and moved to New York City to enroll in the MFA program at the Actors Studio in 2000." — A rather fine sentence, but it would be better to rewrite it as "..., and enrolled in the MFA program at the Actors Studio, New York City in 2000."
  • film debut came? happened is a better word i guess.
  • The Academy awards nominations were said to be four. But, the best actor mentioned are two and supporting actor is one. What has gone wrong?
  • It is better to mention Oscar as Academy only.
  • Hey, if the Tony award he was nominated for is only for that play, i suggest you remove its mention in the third paragraph.
  • In the last line, are both the honours related to 2011?
Early life
  • We have introduced him in the beginning itself as Bradley Charles Cooper: once in the lead and once in the infobox. Is it really necessary to start the first paragraph with full name?
  • He was raised Roman Catholic. I believe that "as a" is missing here.
  • "His parents were initially unsure about his career choice. "[They] ideally, would have wanted me to do something in finance", he says. They eventually changed their perceptions when they saw Cooper play the part of John Merrick in an excerpt from the play The Elephant Man (1977)." — This whole line can be rephrased to "Initially apprehensive, Cooper's parents changed their perceptions after watching him play the part of John Merrick in an excerpt from the play The Elephant Man (1977)." I am not against using quotes, but i felt that keeping it simple here would be a better option.
  • Just say the academy in the second line of the next paragraph. We have already mentioned its name earlier.
Career
  • In the first sub section, there are some long sentences which can be split into two at least for better reading. For example, "Cooper's cinematic debut came in the ensemble comedy Wet Hot American Summer (2001), a film that takes place at a fictional summer camp in 1981, and features him as Ben, the love interest of Michael Ian Black's character." Surely can be split into two.
  • Is My Little Eye so important, considering that he played only a minor role in it?
  • The Hangover part is well written. :)
  • In Limitless portions, what was the critic talking about? the actor's performance or the film's success? Please mention it.
  • "in a remake of A Star is Born." Please mention the original clearly.

I found the remaining sections well written, to the behest of my knowledge. I have nothing to say about the sources, citing, images etc. as they shall be handled properly by source and image reviewers. I find this article worthy enough. Please let me know once you are done working on them. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pavan! I have acted upon your suggestions. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He aspired to an acting career from a young age, and enrolled in the MFA program at the Actors Studio, New York City in 2000. - comes across as puffy. Also doesn't make sense as he enrolled in the course when he was 25...which isn't young. I'd just remove the sentence
There are too many bits of quoted material in para 2 of the Early life section. I'd try and rewrite at least some segments in the following... which "floored" him and he "became obsessed with it".....Cooper believes that the "acting gene" might have come from his father, whom he thinks was "such a goofball".
Instead of paraphrasing the sentences, I simply removed them as they don't convey much meaning. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cooper shares a close relationship with his family. - shares it with who? Not sure the sentence actually adds anything...
I don't understand why there is a Works and awards section. This should be combined with career
It is just a brief summary of awards he has received and the most notable films he has appeared in because some users often find it difficult to find the filmography link, thus a separate section.
The lead is the summary. Another section with a summary that repeats part of the article again is unneeded. Just put pertinent material in the lead.
Done. - FrB.TG (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the comments - much appreciated. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • It appears that GD is a self-publisher; what makes FN30 a high-quality reliable source?
  • Generally we wouldn't use Rotten Tomatoes in cases other than those outlined at WP:ROTTEN
  • FNs 53 and 54 should be supplemented with another source for development details
  • Hellomagazine.com should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All done - thanks for the source review. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments sorry for the delay in getting to this. A quick glance at the lede. While everyone has their own style, I often find it advantageous to spell out the importance of the subject of the article in the first paragraph, your best chance to get the attention of the uncommitted reader. As it is, if you have not heard of Mr. Cooper, the lede paragraph does nothing to draw you in as after telling us he's an actor, you just plunge into his early career. Just my opinion. More comments to follow. I'd ask that coordinators not hold up promotion if I'm delayed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know that reads interesting, but for Cooper, I don't seem to come up with something of that sort. He does not have a particular acting style that I could incorporate in the lead and he is not known for something particular either. Thanks for stopping by - I would be happy to address any other concerns you might have. If you are not able to find time to comment further, that is fine - no obligation. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - shifted some parts of the third para to the opening para which discusses his success in the film industry. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some editing, feel free to revert what you don't like.
  • I think the dates for the various versions of The Elephant Man might confuse the reader. He was not acting at age 2. I would omit the years. After all, if it was Hamlet that inspired him, you likely would not put (c. 1602).
  • Georgetown should be given the fuller name and linked on the first mention, not the second. You use the name four times in consecutive sentences, which seems unnecessary
  • I read the article to say that he pursued actor's training in order to become a diplomat. Is this what you meant?
  • "He filmed all of his scenes on the last day of the series' production in February 2015" this seems trivial and a distraction from the chronological account of Bradley's career.
  • "However, Cooper stated in a 2011 interview with Shave" consider "Nevertheless"
  • "and played the part of the fictional character" why is not cutting these words and inserting "as" not sufficient?
Will finish soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward. :) FrB.TG (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greater commercial success followed with the comedy sequel to The Hangover, The Hangover Part II (2011), which earned over $580 million worldwide." I would rearrange the sentence to avoid having the two titles together.
  • "a role Cianfrance specifically wrote for him. He drove five hours to Montreal, Canada to meet with Cooper" Two things. I would strike "Canada" as unneeded, and the word "him" referring to Bradley is succeeded by "he" referring to Cianfrance. I would rearrange.
  • "To create Kyle's large physique," it would be re-create, wouldn't it? And I am not sure I like "physique". Maybe "To appear to be as large as Kyle, ..."
  • You are not consistent with US vs. U.S.
  • The ages of Bradley and Esposito seem unremarkable. Why is that included?
  • "Stand Up to Cancer's 'Fifth Biennial Telecast" there seems to be a stray mark before "Fifth". There's a clash of future vs. past tenses in that sentence as well.
  • "but he later became one of Hollywood's most accomplished actors after the success of The Hangover (2009), Limitless (2011), Silver Linings Playbook (2012), The Place Beyond The Pines (2012), American Hustle (2013), and Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)." Why do we need his resume here? We've just gone through it in detail.
That's it. I'll take a glance through when you ping me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt. I think I have dealt with your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! So you probably don't want to see more comments, but there are some things that I'd still like to see ironed out before I can accept.

  • I see some unsourced statements. For example, the first sentence in Breakthrough and success (2009–2012) is unsourced. However, this can be easily sourced with this. Also, "He guest-starred in the short-lived TV series Miss Match and played the part of cowboy and race horse trainer Morgan Murphy in the television film The Last Cowboy, which aired on the Hallmark Channel in January 2003." is uncensored. I recommend going through the article again and finding any sentences that don't end with a citation, and make sure that they are sourced in the next citation.
  • There is no mention of Cooper and Todd Phillip's production company. See this and this for some examples. I consider that to be very important to mention. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo: I believe I have sourced the unsourced sentences and mentioned the production company but not the show they are developing. - FrB.TG (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, both comments have been taken care of. I would support this article, but since I've been editing both his appearances and awards pages, I might be a bit biased toward this promotion. Regardless of my vote, there are enough supports to warrant a promotion. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: can we please close this? It's been open for almost two months now.

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 26 November 2016 (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) 23:11, 30 November 2016 [4].

Seri Rambai

[edit]
Nominator(s): Singora (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Seri Rambai, a historic cannon displayed at Fort Cornwallis, George Town, Penang. In 2013 the Sunday Times began a feature about Penang with the comment "Cannons don’t often have names, but the Seri Rambai, on the walls of Fort Cornwallis, is something rather special". Singora (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was confused by the suggestion that the gun was made of brass. A little digging suggests that "brass" is a naval term for bronze, a different alloy. (Brass is copper and zinc, bronze is copper and tin. Neither has a fixed recipe.). Could this be clarified one way or the other for us simple folk unfamiliar with seventeenth century ordnance? Mr Stephen (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Ha! I understand your confusion.The deal here is that bronze cannon (and I believe bronze ordnance in general) were always referred to as brass cannon or brass guns. A couple of years back I wrote a Featured Article about an obscure sultanate in the deep south of Thailand. The sultan's cannon made a long journey from Singora to Ayuthaya to Mandalay, and is now displayed next to the flagpole in the grounds of London's Royal Chelsea Hospital. In an article published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the cannon is described as "brass". In an another article published in the same journal the author somewhat pedantically points out that the gun is in fact made of bronze.
No particular preference on my part, just a clarifying footnote saying pretty much what you have written above. Thanks for the info & pic. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted added: The seri Rambai is actually made of bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, but like most bronze artillery pieces is commonly referred to as a brass cannon or brass gun. A cannon displayed next to the flagpole at the Royal Hospital Chelsea shows how this differing terminology can lead to confusion: while the gun is labelled "Brass Cannon (Siamese)", an article published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society points out that it is in fact made of bronze. Singora (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The last sentence of para 1 in lead could be classed as a tad informal, but I do think it livens up the text and makes it more engaging (and made me chuckle) so I think it is a significant net positive.
....and left for several years before being coaxed ashore by a Selangor nobleman. - what they had to ask the cannon nicely to come in from the sea...?
I'll go over what the sources say.
1. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), 1948: "Here we must follow the Selangor tale. The gun was thrown overboard opposite the esplanade, and lay in the water until about 1880, when it was hauled up and mounted on a carriage. The account is embroidered by a report that it refused to come out of the water until Tunku Kudin, who had retired from his appointment as Viceroy of Selangor, came to their assistance. He tied a piece of thread to the cannon, which at once floated in obedience to the orders of the Selangor chief."
2. JMBRAS, 1952: "According to a Selangor legend recounted by Douglas, the gun was thrown overboard on the Pluto's arrival in Penang, and left in the water for about ten years. Then it was hauled up and mounted on a carriage, as it stands to this day. The first attempts to raise it from the water are said to have been unsuccessful, and help was sought from Tengku Kudin, who had by then retired from Selangor and taken up residence in Penang. He tied a length of cotton thread to the gun, which thereupon floated in obedience to the orders of the Selangor chief." Singora (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok I'll pay that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Until the 1950s the cannon was exhibited on Penang's Esplanade - wondering why Esplanade is italicised here.
I think this might be a mistake. I'll change it. Singora (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reads well overall and strikes me as having the right amount of background for context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]
  • @Dank. Do you know the term for this point of grammar:
    • "his contributions to British archaeology have been widely acclaimed, with some referring to him as ....."
    • "His arrival at the OS generated some resentment, with co-workers often seeing his post as superfluous"
    • "Previously Crawford had assisted Keiller in campaigning to prevent a radio mast being erected on Windmill Hill, with Keiller later purchasing the hill"
    • "Although designed to have an international scope, Antiquity exhibited a clear bias towards the archaeology of Britain, with its release coinciding with the blossoming of British archaeology"
    • "He refused to publish an advert for Watkins, with Watkins becoming very bitter towards him"
  • These and more examples are taken from the FAC nomination: O.G.S. Crawford. I'm sure the grammar here is wrong. Is it? Singora (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Brianboulton)

[edit]

There are several issues:

  • Links: MoS guidelines disapprove linking major geographical entities such as countries, e.g. Malaysia. Also some of the links here may confuse general readers. For example, the link on "Siamese capital" takes us to "Ayutthaya Kingdom", apparently a quite different entity.
    • *@Brianboulton. Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you; I've just finished reviewing CasLIber's article and that piece about the Northampton war memorial. Yes, "Siamese capital" links to Ayutthaya Kingdom rather than Ayuthaya since the latter contains little historical perspective and describes the city simply as the former capital of Ayuthaya province. The situation here is far from ideal as neither article is especially good, but the Ayuthaya Kingdom article does include this (accurate) sentence in its lead "in the sixteenth century, it was described by foreign traders as one of the biggest and wealthiest cities in the East". Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunday Times comment: Rather trivial and hardly leadworthy. If you do keep it in the lead, the direct quotation needs a citation.
  • "Dr Gibson-Hill": Use his full name, not the academic title, per MOS:CREDENTIAL
  • For clarity I'd use "inches" or "in.", rather than ""
  • "28-pounder": A pipelink thus, 28-pounder might be informative
  • What entity is being described as "Holland"? As far as I know the polity at the start of the 17thC was the Dutch Republic, and "Holland" has never been the country's name (other than during Napoleon's short-lived puppet kingdom).
  • principle" → "principal" I imagine.
  • There's a rather large gap in the narrative, between 1613 and 1795. Maybe nothing noteworthy happened in this time, but a linking sentence of some sort, covering the hiatus, should connect the eras.
  • "Almost thirty years later [i.e. about 1825] a British East India Company official visited Selangor and recounted a bizarre tale about a white snake said to be living inside the gun's barrel". This information seems devoid of context and I'm not sure what to make of it.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a concern that I missed several of these things. I'll go back through the other articles I copyedited on the same day to see if I was having a bad day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but these are mainly not copyediting issues. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton. Hey Brian -- thanks for the feedback / suggestions. I'll reply in full later this week. Singora (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to sources review. Handle my few outstanding points as you see fit. The article is very nicely presented and illustrated. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton

Thanks for helping out. I've deleted the Sunday Times quote from the lead and added a linking sentence as per your suggestion. I've asked user WEHWALT to do a source review. I did one for him a while back and will happily do another for his current FAC nomination if/when required. Singora (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I still need to finish my review for the Northampton War Memorial article. I'll try to do that tomorrow. Singora (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. Actually I probably won't finish the review tomorrow as I'll be watching Trump thrash Clinton. Singora (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited. I make the following comments:

@Wehwalt

Thanks. I've edited that Isranews source and added OCLC refs to the three books without ISBNs. Singora (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

[edit]
  • Under the "Citations" section, the ref for "Replica Cannon Bombed Nine Days after its Installation" is throwing up a cite ref error; it also shows an error beside the listing under "Newspapers / News Agencies". SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:43, 15 November 2016 (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) 22:47, 30 November 2016 [6].

The Pale Emperor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Pale Emperor, the ninth studio album from rock band Marilyn Manson. It's currently a Good article, and has gone through the Peer review process. I believe it meets all the criteria for FA status. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment I reviewed this at PR, and I think the article is in good shape; once these minor points are fixed I expect to support.

  • One question left over from the PR: why do we care that Jimmy Chamberlin returned to the Smashing Pumpkins in an article about a Marilyn Manson album?
  • If you're going to quote "pure", I'd quote it first time and then not quote it afterwards, rather than the reverse.
  • I'd change "opined" to something like "said"; I know "opined" gets used a lot in this sort of section but I think it almost always sounds like the writer is straining for a verb other than "said". "Said" is almost invisible and very hard to overuse.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Mike. I've taken care of all your points. Sorry about the Jimmy Chamberlin one. It must have slipped through the net somehow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Looks good now; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, here we go:
  • I see on Marilyn Manson/Brian Warner's Wikipedia page that he's said that "Marilyn Manson" is "not a stage name. It's not my legal name ... Marilyn Manson is owned by Brian Warner, my real name." This seems to be a preference for being called Warner, not "Manson". I happened to think of this because it seems somewhat odd to call him "Manson," the last name, alone, since this really is just part of a sort-of-stage name and not really a "last name" — sort of like calling David Bowie "Stardust" on second reference, only stickier since Warner is more closely identified by that name. I also know that there is a classic confusion/distinction between Marilyn Manson, the person, and Marilyn Manson, the band. This is a complicated issue that probably requires consensus across multiple pages related to him. It seems like it would be appropriate to refer to him as "Manson" if he's referred to on a page about, say, Industrial rock, or really anything outside of pages about him, since it would be potentially confusing. Maybe those issues also apply in pages about him. I'm not really sure, but I think it's worth pondering whether "Warner" is better, perhaps with some notice early on the page: more accurate, seems to be preferred by the man himself, possibly clearer writing.
This is a tricky issue. If you take everything that Manson has ever said, a case could be made for Brian Warner. However, he is known as Marilyn Manson professionally. The only time you ever see his given name being used is during album reviews written by someone who doesn't like him - this one, for example. Band members refer to him as Manson: www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Interview:2000_Kerrang! Even his dad calls him "Manson". Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you saw that I removed some of the Twiggy info from the lead. However, some of those facts would be interesting and better-suited for inclusion in the body, particularly the fact that this was his first time sitting out since his return to the band.
  • "On June 25, bassist Fred Sablan..." The tethering of a specific date here, but not other places, is a little odd, especially because I don't have a clear sense of what year it is by the time this is mentioned. I'd recommend either including more dates, or at least years or month/year (for example, when is "three days before he was due to begin a tour"?)
  • Template:Pull quote is supposed to be for pull quotes, aka magazine-like visual repetitions of quotes already in the text, not block quotes. I don't really think this is the best policy because people love to use that template for block quotes but people seem to adhere to it.
  • The sample of "The Mephistopheles of Los Angeles" requires a caption with a description of the sample and an explanation of what musical elements are commented on, to justify its fair use. As a model you can refer to the sample boxes on OK Computer#Composition.
  • This is neither here nor there, but I'm not totally convinced of the notability or need for a MarilynManson.com article.
Shall I remove the link to MarilynManson.com in the Release and artwork section, or—? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Editions of the album sold at Walmart stores..." This sentence screams out for a quote from Manson from the source, since Walmart-bashing sass is his bread and butter.
  • Since you discuss Bates' departure from the touring band, it would be a good idea to include an earlier sentence listing the original touring line-up, since the complicated lineup changes and inclusion of new members would make it difficult for even a long-time fan to keep track, let alone a reader with no knowledge of the band.
  • This is very recent but isn't Manson's tour with Slipknot getting bad press for his intoxicated appearance and sloppy performing? Worth mentioning here, or in that tour's article?
I've been procrastinating about making an article for the tour, because I think it can be adequately summarized in The Hell Not Hallelujah Tour. A lot of the stuff online is just tabloid fodder, and grossly exaggerated: Rock N Roll Experience Magazine created this video disproving a lot of the nonsense. I think it'd be sort of pointless to point out that a bunch of sources claimed that X and Y happened, but then be able to clarify in the next sentence that neither actually occurred. What do you think? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article relies a lot on a narrative that The Pale Emperor is Manson's best work in some time. I think this narrative is well-grounded in the sources. However, there is an issue that a reader with no knowledge of Manson's previous works has no footing in what this means. I think a brief introductory paragraph in the background would serve the article well, just to generally acquaint the reader with the idea that Manson has a generally agreed upon golden era of his late-90s/early 00s work, that he's had various hiatuses or troubles, and that at a certain point critical response to his new albums had chilled. This will prepare the reader to understand the arc of his career and how The Pale Emperor fits in.
  • "with a Kerrang! review echoing a similar sentiment." I'd like to know a bit more here — Kerrang! is a big deal among hard rock publications, and especially consider the review is not linked, meaning the reader has to rely on whatever representation you offer.
  • You should include an archive link for every single source. Most can be found at archive.org or are easy to back up there. Trust me, this will save more articles at FAR in the future than any single improvement. Links die all the time and archived urls on deck, just in case, should be mandatory for featuring imho. Just add archiveurl, archivedate, and deadurl=no.
I've taken care of every point you've raised above, except for the 3 that I commented on. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks for taking care of all of those points. I think considering that this album was released not so long ago, you've done an amazing job aggregating all the sources into an FA-quality article, without the recentness resulting in any serious gaps in the story. The points you addressed above are fine as is — I think the convention of calling him Manson rather than Warner makes sense, but just wanted to double-check; as long as that article exists the links are fine; and whether accounts of Manson's behavior on tour are sensationalized or not (and as you pointed out it seems that they are), they're certainly not required for this article. Well done. —BLZ · talk 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've got a few problems with the sourcing of this one. The lead is OK, but a little confusing in places. However, in the first paragraph of "Background", I have found several problems with sourcing. I'm quite sure that what the article says is true, and that there are sources that back up the statements. Indeed, I found such evidence myself. But the sources cited for several statements do not do what is claimed of them. Mainly we seem to be stretching what they say and drawing our own conclusions, which is basically WP:SYNTHESIS. I think this is fixable, but I'm a little worried that there were so many issues in one paragraph. For that reason, I have to oppose, and I would recommend looking carefully at each statement and making sure that the information is in the source that has been cited for that statement. It may just be a case of moving things around a little, but it needs doing. Feel free to argue or discuss, but I'll take some convincing on this one at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article, @Sarastro1:. That entire first paragraph was a fairly recent addition, and was based the suggestions above. Although I think it's a good idea to have such information as background to the album, I'm not 100% convinced that such a paragraph is totally necessary here. I remember reading some decent articles at The Guardian and Los Angeles Times on the band recently, so I'll have a look and see what I can do. But I would be more than willing to remove that entire paragraph, if it would mean we could proceed with the nomination. I'll work on this and your comments below over the next couple of hours. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think the paragraph is a good idea, it's just the sourcing that needs to be sorted. There are a few ways to do it and it might be easier to cut the number of sources and just cite less often; a few of the sources would support a lot of the paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was released in standard and deluxe editions on CD and 2×LP vinyl, as well as a box set": Not a huge fan of "as well as" here. Why not just "The album was released in standard and deluxe editions on CD and 2×LP vinyl, and as a box set"? And why not expand on what the box set was? Just a word or two.
Fixed, I think. There are details about the collectors box in the last paragraph of Release and artwork. Which point do you think would be best to include? Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The standard version of the album contains ten tracks, while the deluxe edition includes three acoustic versions as bonus tracks.": "While" seems an odd choice of word here. Again, why not just "and", or a semi-colon if we want some variety?
Fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album features drummer Gil Sharone, formerly of The Dillinger Escape Plan, but does not include songwriting or performance contributions from bassist Twiggy, who was busy with his own projects.": It's not clear to me why this sentence is here. The first part of the sentence talks about who the drummer is, then we talk about how the bassist did not write for the album. Are we discussing personnel or writing? I think it's worth having separate sentence if that is the case. Similarly, this is written as if it is unusual that Twiggy did not write; this suggests to me that either all the band members wrote for the album (in which case we should say so) or that Twiggy normally wrote (in which case we should say so). I think we need to help the reader here.
I've separated the sentences about Gil and Twiggy. I've reworded Twiggy's sentence to: "It was the first album since his return to the band in 2008 to not include songwriting or performance contributions from bassist Twiggy, who was busy with his own projects." which is sourced in the Background section. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It spawned three official singles...": Spawned? Why not "Three official singles were released..."?
Changed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also a little confusing in the Background section that Marilyn Manson refers to both the individual and the band without distinguishing them.
Both the band and its frontman go by the same name, so yeah, this can get confusing. I've used "Marilyn Manson" as sparingly as I could here, preferring instead to use "the band", "the group", etc. Maybe it might help for me to link the first instance of Marilyn Manson in the prose to Marilyn Manson (band), and the first case of "Manson" to Marilyn Manson. The man himself goes by Manson. You'd never come across a source referring to the band in the singular. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marilyn Manson was one of the most controversial and commercially successful hard rock bands of the late 90s.": Whenever I see a list of 4 references after a statement like this, I worry a lot. Either the sourcing is weak, or there is synthesis, or we are hedging our bets. I think this is the latter; the current ref 2 does not really support the sentence, nor does ref 4 support it strongly, and the website does not seem the most reliable. I think the other two refs would suffice if something stronger, such as from a biography or profile can be used (such as the Rolling Stone profile used later).
I've removed those two problematic sources. The ones left - Metal Hammer and The Huffington Post - do refer to them as "one of the most iconic and controversial" acts of "the last 20 years". Maybe late 90s isn't correct. Will I change that to "of the last two decades"? Also, removed the stuff about commercially successful. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This controversy peaked in 1999, when news media falsely scapegoated the band for influencing the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, which Manson has said "totally shoved [my career] in the dirt".[5] Subsequent albums were released to mixed reviews from both critics and fans alike, and waning commercial success resulted in the band being dropped by its long-time record label Interscope in 2009": A bit of a problem here. The source used does not support everything in these sentences; for example, it does not say that the "media" blamed him, but it says the "Christian right" did and it says that he was "scapegoated". While it may be true that he was "falsely" scapegoated, this source does not verify that, so we would need a source that explicitly said so. To be pedantic,it does not say that the perpetrators were influenced, just that the event was, but I think that would be OK from this source. Nor does the source say that the controversy peaked in 1999. And the source does not say that reviews were mixed, but that the albums "were mostly panned by both critics and fans". And it does not say that he was dropped by Interscope for falling sales, just that he was dropped.
I've re-worded a lot of this. I've added The Guardian as a reference for the first sentence, which does say "After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, fingers pointed at Manson. It was falsely reported that the killers had been fans and were influenced by his music, making Manson a scapegoat and a bastion of toxic values." I've also changed the latter part to "Subsequent albums were criticized by both critics and fans alike, and the band was dropped by its long-time record label Interscope in 2009." The source says "panned", but that doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. I've opted for "criticized" instead. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first album released under this new deal was 2012's Born Villain, which was heralded as a return to form": The source only gives CNN's view that is was a return to form, and it does not support that it was the first album for his new label.
Gave a better source. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manson suffered from chronic depression during this period": The source does not support "chronic depression" ("In subsequent interviews, Von Teese pointed to Manson's alleged infidelities, substance abuse and demons (inner, not pets). He blamed depression and a basic reluctance to change his ways."). Additionally, as written it looks as if his depression was linked to his career; it does not say so outright, but there is a subtle suggestion The source does not make any such links.
  • "which was exacerbated by heavy drug use": This is not in the source. The source has "For nearly two hours, Manson touched on nearly every aspect of his life, from his $200,000 on-tour drug habit to being blamed for school shootings to the depression he suffered after splitting from his girlfriend" which does not link depression and drugs. The only other relevant mention of drugs is "Do drugs and drink when you’re happy, not when you’re sad. It has a great effect. But I can’t say that I did that the whole time." but that does not support the statement either.
  • "the breakdown of numerous personal relationships": The link with depression is not supported. The source has "And though he doesn't address it outright, that dark period coincides with Manson's protracted breakup with ex-fiancée Evan Rachel Wood." but that is not discussing depression being exacerbated.
  • "as well as his mother's advanced-stage Alzheimer's disease and dementia": And again, I can find no link to depression, which is what we are making here. Although it does link his relationship problems with his depression.
I've taken the liberty of re-arranging some of your comments here, for readability. Everything between this comment and my previous one has been wiped clean from the article, so should no longer be an issue. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with everything you've commented on so far. Let me know what you think. Sorry your experience reviewing this article started out so atrociously. As I said before, that first paragraph was a recent addition - I should've taken better care of it beforehand. A lot more work went in to the rest of the article, and is sourced much better, I promise. ;) Thanks again for all your time. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, the sourcing issues above seem to be sorted and I've checked one or two other sources which seem fine. . I've struck the oppose and will have a look at the rest of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: A few more spot checks of the sourcing showed no problems. Generally looks good. I did a few minor copy-edits, but the prose is fine. I've a few little issues with WP:PROSELINE and over-using quotes, but if we can sort these out I'll be happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still finding it confusing in the switch from band to person in background. As mentioned above, linking the band on first mention might be a way forward.
  • I'm not a fan of "On 23 November, Sarastro wrote a review" formatting. This makes it slightly WP:PROSELINE-y and I think the dates could be taken out of statements like "On September 3, Manson announced that the band's new album was "prepared for landing"" and "On June 25, bassist Fred Sablan announced that he had left the band on good terms" without any great loss.
  • Are we overdoing the quotes slightly? Especially in the composition and style section, I'd prefer a little more paraphrasing and less quotation. But that may be a preference thing.
  • The promotion and singles section falls into PROSELINE as well I think, and could stand a little bit of re-writing to make it less like a list of dates.
  • And again, I think the review section uses too many quotes. Do we really need a quotation from every review that we mention? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, Sarastro1. I think I've dealt with all of your comments above. I've removed a lot of the dates from the prose; completely reworked the Composition and style section to eliminate all but the most necessary quotes; ditto for Critical reception (well, except some of the completely un-paraphrase-able quotes: Kerrang!, for instance). One thing I'm a bit unsure of in the latter section: the italicizing of publication names. I've been operating under the assumption that the names of physical print media (Rolling Stone, NME, Kerrang!, etc.) should be italicized in the prose, while online sources shouldn't. But I see a bunch of online sources (The AV Club, Consequence of Sound, Drowned in Sound, The Quietus, PopMatters, Loudwire) have been italicized. Should I leave those alone or change them? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another stab at the Critical reception section. What do you think of it, Sarastro1? 8 of the 22 reviews in the prose have quotes on them. Is that sufficient, or should I remove a couple more? (I'm having a hard time paraphrasing the ones left). Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support (including spot checks of sources): I'm happy to support now, with just one little point below. The changes look good, and I think the level of quotes is OK now. Nice work, and thank you for your patience. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Fred Sablan departed the band on good terms": Taking the date out was my idea, but the only problem here now is that this sentence just sits there with little context. Could it be cut entirely? If not, we need to make it seem a little more necessary. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the sentence on Fred Sablan (to include info about him being closely linked to Twiggy's Goon Moon project); and also removed one more quote from the Critical reception section. Thanks for your support. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Did I miss an image licensing review? If not pls request one at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Marilyn Manson - The Pale Emperor.jpeg: Non-free image that is being used to illustrate the album cover. There is a fair use rationale but no explanation as to why WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 are met. And the explanation for WP:NFCC#3 looks fairly vague to me.
  • File:Jim Morrison 1969.JPG: Free image on Commons, free license seems legit to me. Being used to illustrate what influenced the album creation, a topic discussed in the adjacent section.
  • File:Muddy Waters.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. No EXIF, I can't help but notice that the Flickr user's other uploads appear to have mixed themes and EXIFs, but it passed a license review on Commons. Being used to illustrate what influenced the album creation, a topic discussed in the adjacent section.
  • File:Marilyn Manson - Rock am Ring 2015-8693.jpg: Free image on Commons, about a performance discussed in passing in the adjacent section but not necessarily pertinent to the article topic. OTRS license.

Images may benefit from ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I've amended the fair use rationale for the album cover, and every image on the article now has alt. text (the Muddy Waters and Jim Morrison images already had them). Is there anything I could do about the Exif/Metadata for the Muddy Waters image? Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a fairly minor point so I'll not hold up promotion over it -- Jo-Jo, if you do want to respond, perhaps do so on the article talk page? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2016 [7].

Ike Altgens

[edit]
Nominator(s): —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know ... I said I would never put myself through this again—but this article deserves its place in the sun.

Promoted to FA status in 2006, it fell into disrepair and was demoted in 2010. After a good deal of work and a peer review that went nowhere, I brought it to FAC in 2014 only to watch it die on the vine. Instead, I went to GAN, where Location quite properly put it through the ringer, and MrBill3 lent a vital hand in bringing the article to GA status. It has been virtually untouched since—stable, thorough, correct, and ready. I am bound to see this one through. —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewers please note: this article contains numerous invisible comments, some of which provide citations to otherwise non-controversial details that may not appear on their face to be cited.

Comments from Redtigerxyz

[edit]
  • Lead sentence: I googled Ike. He seems to be best known for his photographs with the JFK assassination. IMO, this should be noted in the lead sentence or at least the 1st para. Compare Richard Drew (photographer).
Done.
  • WP:OVERLINK: film, actor, model, television, dialogue etc. need not be linked.
Disagree with "model"—too many meanings. Otherwise done.
  • JFK needs to be linked. The article seems to assume an American reader; how Jackie is related to JFK is not told.
Done.
  • Jumping to Assassination of President Kennedy section: "This meant that what I took, ... " quote is sudden without context; When did Ike say this? Immediate reaction, in an interview decades after? Similarly for "To have a President shot ... "
First: done; second: all part of "Altgens would later write".
  • A non-American may not understand the JFK, John F. Kennedy is the same person; similarly Jacqueline Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy
Done.
  • I can't locate the details of "Hill & McCubbin 2013"
Got lost in an old edit. Restored.
  • Was there any concrete findings about Ike's death?
Not that I ever found.
  • "elsewhere to question whether accused assassinLee Harvey Oswald was visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository" again misses context. The lead needs to clarify that this was used to "prove" Oswald's innocence.
Added as a note; unnecessary in main text, IMO. My thanks for your comments, Redtigerxyz.

Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had never heard about Ike before this article, so I am a little unsure about comprehensiveness. I have a few queries purely based on Googling (forgive my ignorance if some of these queries are foolish):
    • [8] (not sure if this is a RS) talks about supposedly 7-8 photographs Ike clicked; the article suggests that he clicked only two. I find the term "Altgens6" missing from the article. [9]
    • [10] covers importance of Ike's photo as evidence in Warren Commission.

Apart from these quibbles, my Googling suggests this article is near comprehensiveness.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Redtigerxyz, and thanks again.
First, the phrasing of the number of photos is quite intentional; while Ike made seven total in Dealey Plaza (see note a.), there were two of the assassination—one during the shooting, one seconds later. "Altgens6" was in the article, but was removed after a search found no use of the term by anyone in an official capacity. (The term is specific to researchers.)
Second, I don't see anything in your book reference that should be in the article and isn't there already. Can you be more specific?
—ATS 🖖 Talk 19:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Redtigerxyz. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As near as I've ever been able to tell, your presumption is correct. Since you bring it up, though, I'll look around again. My thanks. (Edit: source [Trask 1994, p. 307] cites four sources for all data in the instant graf. I cannot find "Lone 'Pro' On Scene Where JFK Was Shot" for reference; it's not in WCH v.7, p. 516; and the other sources are two interviews of Altgens by Trask. Further detail may never be forthcoming, I'm afraid.) (Edit 2: I was able to get additional information, now in the article. There's actually quite a bit of stuff I didn't see two years ago.) —ATS 🖖 Talk 01:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2

[edit]
The article looks pretty good but I found some issues while checking it:
  • The lead uses some references. If the information is too doubtful, keep the refs. If it's minor then delete them.
Hi, Tintor2, and thanks. Refs are here per the GAN, since the lede includes statements (the controversy, in particular) that need immediate back-up. That said, I'll take another look.
  • The body also uses to many quotes. I have often been criticized for this in the past so I would recommend you to paraphrase some or simply make some quotes boxes.
The quotes also were reduced during the GAN, but I'll take another look. Certain statements really cannot go without direct quotation.

Other than that, I see no issues. Just solve them or explain me the issues and I'll support the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop back in after I'm done. Thanks again. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: that should do it, Tintor2; the remaining quotes should all be vital to the narrative per the GAN. Please let me know if you have additional concerns. My thanks for your input. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I'll support it. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from John

[edit]

Formatting

Nice article. We are breaking MOS:ALLCAPS with the news bulletin, I think? --John (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go with that, John, and thank you. Fixed. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like the fancy font. What does it add to the reader's understanding? Why are the images displayed at non-standard size? --John (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John. The idea is to highlight that this is a news bulletin, as opposed to "just" a quote. This always struck me as a necessity. As for the images, I'll look into that, thanks. I've kicked them down a notch. The idea is that each includes quite a bit of text, so some balance was desired.
The material does not even need to be in bold. Putting it in a quotation template is emphasis enough. --John (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this appears to be your make-or-break, done. Under protest. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

  • "In addition"?
Gone. In fact, rewritten to rm unneeded quote, too.
Professionals make photographs. This was discussed in GAN and comments were added. Dunno when they disappeared, but they're back now.
—ATS 🖖 talk 20:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Altgens began his career at age 19 " - what is the "age" adding? Just "at 19" or "aged 19" is better.
Gone altogether; the years are enough.
  • There are three "though"s in the first two paragraphs. None of them are needed.
None of them remains.
  • "He asked instead to go to the railroad overcrossing where Elm, Main and Commerce Streets converge to photograph the motorcade that would take President Kennedy from Love Field to the Dallas Trade Mart, where Kennedy was to deliver an address" is a tortured sentence. At least give it another comma after "converge".
Fixed.
  • Fifteen instances of "would" are far too many in a short article. It looks clumsy. American English is more in love with this construction than British English but even in a US context this is too many, and we write for an international audience.
Seven removed; the remainder are direct quotes or necessary.
  • We have 22 quotes, including one which is emphasised twice by having it in a quote box and in bold type. This is way too many; see WP:OVERQUOTE. Most of these can be summarised and, as mentioned, the formatting needs to be fixed. --John (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through it again, but many of these quotes were required to pass GAN, specifically to avoid potential OR/SYNTH or UNDUE issues. (Edit: That should do it, John. ) —ATS 🖖 talk 22:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking

Hey, John? I don't remember where I read it, but it was my understanding that every instance of a WLed page within the sources was supposed to be linked. Did I get that wrong? —ATS 🖖 talk 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's at MOS:DUPLINK. --John (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Are your concerns addressed? —ATS 🖖 talk 00:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without yet having done my detailed reading, I am still somewhat unhappy with image formatting WP:IMGSIZE, the fancy font, and make versus take, in spite of your reasons given for all three. I also note the wise words of Tony below. I am certainly not ready to support yet. --John (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John.
I've re-read IMGSIZE about five times now, and I feel like a complete idiot. I cannot imagine why this would be a sticking point. Nevertheless, the IB image is the default and the rest are upright=1.
The "fancy font" is gone.
"Make" was Ike's preference on top of its correct use. If it's your support-killer, I'll change it, but under severe protest . —ATS 🖖 talk 20:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps we could compromise on the verb choice. I see eight "made"s and two "make"s (one of which is in a quote). I think using this word at all is contentious, though I follow your reasoning for why you have done it. I think ten instances is too many. Perhaps there is a middle path possible here? --John (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I'll take a look. Done. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're down to 16 quotations now which is better but it is still too many for such a short article. Which are the most important ones, do you think? Are things like "they had put him through the interrogation wringer" really essential to the article? (Oh, and we can't put wikilinks into quotes I don't think). --John (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, John. I agree with the interrogation quote; it's now rephrased. I've rephrased a second quote and moved it into the accompanying note. Location hasn't edited in four months but, were he here, I believe he would argue strongly for the remainder, specific to the UNDUE and/or OR issues raised in GAN. (In some cases, the quotes are mandatory in that unsupported inferences could be made from any paraphrasing thereof.) —ATS 🖖 talk 23:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you said. What does "In some cases, the quotes are mandatory in that unsupported inferences could be made from any paraphrasing thereof" mean? --John (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John. I meant were mandatory in respect to passing GAN, and should be here. Some of the quotes—from Ike, from news agencies, from witnesses, etc.—would be open to interpretation were they paraphrased. The assassination remains a highly contested subject among many people all these years later; anything that could lead to SYNTH issues cannot, by policy, not be quoted. Anything specific? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Down to 14 now. All but the most important one or two should be summarised. The full quote can be moved to the references if it is essential to keep them in the article. Incidentally, I feel like querying "anything that could lead to SYNTH issues cannot, by policy, not be quoted": what policy would that be? On my side of the argument we have the fact that our project is to build a free encyclopedia, and having about 10% of the article made up of other people's words will work against that. --John (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is OR. Meantime, I'll see what I can do. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, John, we're down to the seven quotes I believe cannot go. (This number does not include the news bulletin or Jackie Kennedy's quote therein.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely getting there. --John (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<impassioned plea>John, your help is invaluable. I want this article to be the best it can be. Antiseptic and dehumanized is not the best it can be. We have here a man who, by all accounts, was thrust into a role in history unlike anyone else's. We cannot bleach the human from his own article any more than we can leave details open to interpretation. If we do, we've lost what Wikipedia is supposed to be. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)</impassioned plea>[reply]
One by one:
  • "but when JFK's head exploded ..." – Ike was the only man on the planet who could describe what he saw, what he did, and what he didn't do, during one of the most pivotal moments in world history.
  • "Secret Service men, ..." – this one could go and is now in the note.
  • "probably the most controversial photograph ..." — serves two purposes: it gives the reader the proper historical perspective that would otherwise be missing, and it shows that the controversy was not limited to "the fringe".
  • "because it caused him to bolt ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.
  • "became very controversial" – this one could go and is now in the note.
  • "no blood on the right-hand side ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.
  • "By being up there ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.

So, we're down to five. I will argue with all possible strength that they remain. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:ATS, I appreciate your passion and energy. I intend to support but I want to take one more pass at the article before I do so. I'm a notoriously picky FA reviewer but I hope you will agree a thorough one. Thank you for indulging my suggestions as well as you have and engaging so intelligently in this review. I predict my part in this will be resolved in the next 48 hours or less. I hope that is ok with your timescales. --John (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks and appreciation, John—this article would not be the best it can be without your help and that of other reviewers. I would only reiterate that to bleach the man from his own article steps away from that goal, both for this article and the encyclopedia as a whole. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was such a long 48 hours, ATS. I had real life things to do. Here are my copyedits, and I hope you don't think I've altered the meaning of your article. I can now support. Thanks for all the hard work. --John (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, John! There are some minor things that I will fix presently. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but I am disappointed you undid most of my copyedits. What does "atop" mean that "on" does not? What is an "overcrossing" other than a bridge? --John (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John, and apologies for any disappointment.
  • "Atop" is for clarity specific to Mrs. Kennedy's appearance in Altgens' photo; in the corresponding Zapruder and Nix film frames it is clear that she is partially on and partially in.
  • I kept "overcrossing" since we've painted a somewhat limited picture of Dealey Plaza for the reader and "Bridge? What bridge?" occurred to me as a potential reaction. "Railroad bridge" would work, but seemed unnecessary.
  • "Event" seemed to me to underplay the assassination.
  • Without "thoroughly", simply being interrogated doesn't adequately express what Altgens saw ("put through the interrogation wringer".)
  • "Discussed" minimizes the debate, so "debated" now supplants "argued".
  • "from his position ..." adds clarity. Yours used fewer words, but something got lost. I'll see if I can do better. Fixed.
  • "newsmen and women ..." I'd intentionally used "members of the press" because there were editors and photographers in addition to journalists. Sort-of self-reverted [changed "featuring" to the more accurate "including"].
If you have other preferences, please, go right ahead. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Atop" is the wrong word. It means "on top of". She isn't on top of the car, she is half-in, half scrambling onto the trunk. "Atop" isn't right. --John (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll come up with something. (Edit: this was always one of my biggest headaches—a frozen moment of time in a whirlwind of activity, and we can describe only what's in the photo. We know only by the films that her lower legs are holding her in place. We know only by the films that she was reaching for something and at this point is using her hand as an anchor. We know only by the films that she was facing rearward, but her head has turned forward. Not in, not out, not on, not "facing". Where's my bloody Advil?! ) Are my other changes agreeable? —ATS 🖖 talk 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Altgens1970s.jpg: Image of the subject is good for top infobox, license in OTRS which I don't have access to.
  • File:Altgens1.jpg: Non-free file in a pertinent section, it needs more explanation on how the article would be harmed by its absence, and most of the explanation of how WP:NFCC#3 is met seems irrelevant to #3 and more pertinent to #8. Everything else seems OK.
  • File:Altgens2.jpg: Same as above.
  • File:Altgens blowup.jpg: Same as above, if that is the image that was used to identify Lee Harvey Oswald then the NFCC#8 claim would have sound merit.

Images ought to have ALT text per WP:ALTTEXT to satisfy WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be addressed, Jo-Jo Eumerus. My thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, actually, the file pages need to better address why these images are needed in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Can you be more specific? (Edit: I've made additional changes.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem not with the article but with the images. Each image has a filepage and when the image is non-free the file page needs to contain text that explains "how does this image significantly improve the understanding of the article topic and why would it be a loss to readers if it wasn't there?" Illustrative of Ike Altgens fulfilling his duties as photojournalist assigned to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963 is very basic and probably not enough. As for File:Altgens blowup.jpg, the explanation should probably be under the NFCC#8 header rather than the NFCC#3 one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed the blowup. As for the rest, it's 04:17 hours here and I'm going to bed. Back sometime later. —ATS 🖖 talk 11:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus: all fixed. I hope. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All seems fine, but File:Altgens1.jpg seems to be unsupported by the rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Again, my thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again with not being clear. Why can we not discuss "the man thought to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald" without [[:]]? I don't see it. If there is an explanation, it needs to be stated on the file page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, Jo-Jo Eumerus, you have me completely flummoxed. The file page now reads, "(purpose of use:) Illustration of the controversy surrounding this image and discussed within the article. Specifically, proper discussion of "the man thought to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald" would be difficult if not impossible without visual depiction of the location of the subject relative to the motorcade." Please alleviate my headache and actually tell me what's missing. Please? —ATS 🖖 talk 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with that image is that it seems very generic. The other two images are pertinent to his role in the event; this one seems just like a generic image of the motorcad. I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 and its omission would be detrimental to that [the article topic's] understanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image, and only this image, was scrutinized for the visage and position of "the man in the doorway" respective to the motorcade as the first gunshot (per Altgens) is fired. (Edit: I've tried to word it better, based on my explanation here.) —ATS 🖖 talk 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it clearer. Only thing that might be worth doing would be to add the explanation to the fair use rationale on the file page, in the section on NFCC#8 so as to ward off pedants - the non-free use policy is not known for being softhanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't I know it! (I took part—a little—when it started.) Once again, my thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

Comments from Sarastro: This looks good, and I've just a few little nitpicks and queries here. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "then did advertising work until he retired altogether": "Did" seems a little weak here; would "worked in advertising" be better?
Hi, Sarastro1, and thank you! I'll take a look. Done.
  • "when they died in 1995, at about the same time": I can see why this has been written, based on what is in the main body, but it is a little confusing when read in the lead in isolation. Maybe reword it as "when they were found dead in their Dallas home on 12 December 1995". Although that makes it sound more mysterious than it was.
I'll see if I can improve it. Done.
  • "Altgens began his career at age 19 by doing odd jobs": This may be an ENGVAR thing, but "at age 19" sounds odd to me, and I'd prefer "aged 19" but it's not a big deal if it is engvar. I think the sentence would be better with "by" removed.
Honestly, "began his career aged 19" sounds like he worked with cheese or wine. Flows better as is, IMO.
  • The section on his appearance in "Beyond the Time Barrier" seems to be cited simply to the film itself. This strikes me as possibly OR; how do we know that this is really him? (I don't doubt for a minute that it is, but there is a principle!) We really need to cite a source that lists his film work. It is possible this is done in Trask, in which case I think the references need re-ordering a little.
It is in Trask; that said, I'll have a look. Done.
  • "Since that was not originally his assignment, Altgens took his personal camera, a 35mm Nikkorex-F single lens reflex camera with a 105mm telephoto lens, rather than the motor-driven camera usually used for news events": I don't quite see how these events connect. If this wasn't his original assignment, what was? And if it wasn't his original assignment, why did that affect his choice of camera? Maybe I'm missing something. It has been known!
It's all there; I'll check the phrasing. Done.
  • I'm not quite sure about the use of bold type for the news bulletin. It probably breaks MoS somewhere, but I can't place it right now.
Please let me know if you find anything. (Edit: all I've found is that italics rather than boldface are recommended for emphasis of words within quotes. Since this is specifically a news bulletin and not a quote, MHO is the boldface is appropriate.)
What things? Can you specify? Done. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sarastro. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy to support now, especially as there have been a few more eyes on it. There are four further points below which do not affect my support in any way. A curious little story, and nicely told. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a little disconcerting in the "Pictures of the Pain" section to have events of 1984 followed by events of 1979.
  • The Later Life section seems slightly pointless, to be brutal. Do we need three sections, one for each of the books/events he played a minor part in? It feels like padding, but it is probably a matter of taste so feel free to ignore this one.
  • Given that he died in 1995, have the police reached any conclusions about the carbon monoxide yet? If, as I suspect, there is nothing that tells us an official cause of death, maybe re-write this so it feels less like we are waiting for a police verdict. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One such theorist, Texas author Jim Marrs,[52] wrote that most researchers were ready to accept Lovelady as the man pictured; he added in 2013 that others were resisting any such concession": The part of the sentence after the semi-colon does not seem quite right. Do we need the date? Is it important? As written, it implies that he changed his mind. And "concession" is an odd word to use here; what are they conceding? I'm sure there is a good reason for the sentence being written this way, but as it is, I can't quite see it. Possibly the other readers also might not. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks and appreciation, Sarastro1! I'll take a look at your additional points and make any improvements. (Edit: done.) —ATS 🖖 talk 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other point: I notice in the last few edits, we have changed the heading style and use ; to bold. I'm pretty sure this breaks some sort of accessibility guidelines and if I remember rightly, makes a horrible mess of the article for screen-readers. (I'm fuzzy on the details but remember it is a big no-no!) I would recommend returning these to ordinary headings. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I went with standard bold type. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tony1

[edit]

Hi, you asked me to come review.

  • Why the massive overlinking? I've run Ohconfucius's scripts over it, but it may still need checking for common-term overlinking.
Hi, Tony1, and thank you! Actually, a large portion of your edit confuses me: why would we remove the direct link to the pages in the footnotes (maryfarrell.org)? This assists the reader in doing his/own checking of the facts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the links still lead down to the correct reference below, don't they? Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The links I restored were all external, to the individual pages as archived at MaryFerrell.org. —ATS 🖖 talk
  • "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager and, following a stint with the United States Coast Guard, worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau." Commas can be a matter of taste, but don't you think this would be easier to read? "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager, and following a stint with the United States Coast Guard worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau." Or even: "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager, and worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau after a stint [an intervening stint?] with the United States Coast Guard.". Not sure, but over to you.
I'll take a look.
  • Is it commonly the Associated Press, and the AP? I'm used to no the.
It is, and officially.
  • Does one "make" photographs? Perhaps "take" or "produce" might be more usual.
See my comment to John above and the comment following its use in the article. (TL;DR: pros make photographs. )
I still think it's weird. Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the only one, it seems ... (Edit: that said, I've reworded the passage in the lead, simultaneously stressing active voice.) —ATS 🖖 talk
  • "While on assignment for the AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including the image of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and Secret Service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine that would be reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." Problem is with the postqualifier: "the presidential limousine that would be reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world". Perhaps: "While on assignment for AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including an image of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy and secret service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine, which was reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." Or if this emphasis takes your fancy: "While on assignment for AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including an image of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy and secret service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine—an image that was reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." I've downcased the vanity caps, added comma+which to create a bigger boundary, and changed the "would be" slightly journalistic future-in-past tense into simple past, since the sequence is clear in this context.
  • I found the next sentence hard to understand—specifically the "doorway" bit, which hits readers without context: "Seconds earlier, Altgens made a photograph that became controversial, leading people in the United States and elsewhere to question whether accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository as the gunshots were fired at JFK.[b]". Here, the tense is wrong, and why not mark it with a thematic equative? "However, it was the image he had captured just a few seconds earlier that ...". And I'm guessing you wanted to contrast its greater significance (of a different type) compared with the world-distributed one taken a few seconds later. Needs deft wording.
This was one passage in particular that led to great consternation during the GAN; it was Location's assertion that the photo that came to be known as Altgens 7 had to be first in the lead due to its world renown, and because the controversy around Altgens 6 was contained mostly to researchers arguing whether there was a conspiracy. I did not fully agree with the fringe argument, given the massive market for publications on the subject, but the assertion of undue weight nevertheless struck me as valid. That said, I've made some changes that I hope will help the reader while maintaining due weight. (added at 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC))
I suppose it's a little better than it was. Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Altgens and his wife were in their seventies when they were found dead in their Dallas home in 1995." We finish with a shock. First, why is the fact they were in their 70s (numerals preferred) the grammatical "news" here? The year is enough, isn't it? Second, such a shock statement in the summary lead isn't good unless there's a little more explanation. Leads of WP articles shouldn't be teasers like that.
I'll have a look at all the above. Back when finished. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked further, but the lead isn't promising for the prospects of FA promotion. Tony (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the moment. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you've finished addressing (or refuting) all points? Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tony. I hoped I had addressed what needed to be, to that point, absent anything that leaves you believing otherwise. You also noted that you hadn't gone past the lead yet, so it also served as an I look forward to addressing any other concerns. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tony. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, your fix at the end of the lead: "Both had suffered from long illnesses; police said a bad furnace also may have contributed." Contributed to their long illnesses? Or their deaths? Through fire, or gas leakage over time?

I've flicked through the rest, which doesn't look as though it needs the major surgery that was necessary on the lead. This nomination may well succeed, but it was premature in terms of the quality of writing. Tony (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tony; I've just completed a prose pass. Apparently, after all these years, I still write like a journalist ... —ATS 🖖 talk 06:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support on prose—I've only flicked through the main text (having gone through the most difficult part, the lead, thoroughly). Tony (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

[edit]

Just a placeholder at present as I am having Internet issues. I do however object to the use of any quote from Jim Marrs especially with something presented as a fact like it is in this article. I disagree with his opinions both on the assassination and on aliens and more to the point most scholars seem to as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: any direct quote, or to his presence at all? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I object to is his being given the editorial voice and if he is to be quoted at all there should be in line attribution of who he is. his opinion regarding the photograph is presented basically as the truth. However he is a partisan on the issue and his opinion must be taken with a rather large quantity of salt which the reader is not given. I would delete the quotation. If you want to quote him elsewhere in the article in proper context I have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt! I have already paraphrased; please let me know if what remains is agreeable. I have also added an identifying news source. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will look it over. Here are my other comments, as my laptop is suddenly able to connect to my hotel's wifi:
  • “on the presidential limousine” I might say “atop” rather than “on”, for clarity. I might add “moments after President Kennedy was shot”
Done.
  • “(b. 1921)” this suggests that she still lives, which may not be so (and if so may not be changed when she dies, as she is not notable and editors may miss the death). Better to put in text.
Fixed.
  • Is the Coast Guard technically a military organization?
The USCG is, yes. Still, I've rewritten to a more active voice.
  • Can anything be said about Altgen’s life in 1947-1957?
I've done new searches within the past few days; nothing yet, if ever.
  • Was his appearance as a witness really part of his acting career or was it a cameo playing off the public attention?
We can't say either way (SYNTH).
  • You might mention that the Merc is in Dallas as you have taken a trip to Bonham.
Done.
  • You mention twice in the first paragraph of “Assassination”that Altgens was scheduled to work at the office. You might start the sentence with “As”.
Fixed.
  • ”His photographs of the motorcade began” I’m not sure the passive voice works well here. Consider “Altgens began to photograph the motorcade”. Obviously not “shoot”!
Fixed.
  • I might put the clause in which you mention the Zapruder film in parens.
Meh. Okay.
  • You haven’t actually said in the body who this “Oswald” is, and you appear to be linking both in lede and body so you should do that too.
Done.
  • I might merge the first two subsections of the Assassination section. It strikes me that is a very inopportune time to break as the second section picks up without a pause in the middle of a very dramatic event. And I’m not sure “Witness to history” is the best title. After all, the point was he was not simply a witness, he captured it for the rest of us.
Done.
  • ”his testimony before the Warren Commission was taken” the passive voice again seems to fuzz a bit here. Did he appear before the commissioners? Or was it taken by some other means?
Done.
  • The testimony of the depository employees doesn’t really involve Altgen himself, and the reader knows the Warren Commission concluded Oswald did it. I think this could be condensed and maybe appended to the previous paragraph. The blow-by-blow could be put in a footnote, if you like.
Rewritten.
  • I might add to the end of the Recollections section “”as they had not been served with the subpoenas in Louisiana”.
That's completely peripheral, IMO.
In general it looks solid.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt! Please let me know if I need to address anything to earn this article your support. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK, but I want to go through the article again.--10:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. A well written account of someone perhaps unfairly only known for one thing. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sagaciousphil

[edit]

This is an interesting article about someone I'd never heard of previously. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I feel overall this could stand a little expansion, especially the final sentence: "Altgens and his wife died in their Dallas home in 1995 after long illnesses." That sentence had me immediately looking around the article to find further details to try and clarify what happened.
Hi, SagaciousPhil, and thanks! I've expanded the graf.

Early life and career

  • 3rd paragraph: the word portrayed is used twice in pretty close proximity; can at least one be changed?
Done.
  • 4th paragraph: This just seems to cover one day? Were there no other significant highlights in his early photographic career?
That's pretty much it.

Photojournalist

  • I'm sorry but I'm also going to join the other reviewers and question the use of "making" versus "taking" photographs. I have read the explanations given here and in the GAN etc but still find it very jarring although I do appreciate Altgens used it himself in the quote. Could the last sentence of the first paragraph be amended to something like: " ... using a manual, reflex camera required particular care to produce good images."? Likewise would it be possible for an alternative word to be used in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph?
Done.
  • 2nd paragraph: the word across is repeated a couple of times in quick succession?
Fixed.

Pictures of the Pain

  • At the end of the paragraph is there a reason that note [o] is in front of the ref while all others are after the ref?
Fixed.

Death

  • Are there any further details about the deaths? The three refs used are reports in the days immediately after their deaths; are there any follow ups after inquests, for instance, that clarify the cause of death, perhaps in local newspapers?
I looked recently for additional details; nothing. Meantime, the county issues copies of certificates only to next of kin.

References

  • I haven't looked at the reference section in detail as everyone has different ways of referencing articles but I'm confused by what seems to me over linking, especially for MaryFerrell.org, which I see has been mentioned already. I would have expected this to be treated in the same way as the Trask books. It seems to be included under Further reading as well?
Each links directly to a separate page and/or document. Were it the same link, I'd agree with you. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SagaciousPhil. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a cite ref error showing for the first entry under "Multimedia"
  • As far as I'm aware semi-colons should not be used to create bold subheadings as it causes accessibility problems so please correct these. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. Thank you, SagaciousPhil. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant MOS § is PSEUDOHEAD, by the way. Meantime, it's funny how GOODHEAD and BADHEAD lead to the same place. Having once been married, I can relate ... —ATS 🖖 talk 03:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

ATS, I think this would be your first FA if promoted? If so I'd like to see a reviewer undertake a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed, Ian, and thank you. Should I go ahead and make the request or wait for someone already here to offer? I've been doing double-checks myself as I get to them, but additional eyes are always good. Meantime, anyone checking for source separation should be aware that numerous quotes have been paraphrased, and their meaning—particularly specific to occurrences and observances—cannot be changed or muddied. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe wait a day or so to see if anyone above would like to to do it, then if not you list the request. Cheers, 22:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I have checked all text referenced to Sneed, No More Silence from Google Books. No close paraphrasing and accurate paraphrasing. The quotes with page numbers were verified. ATS, is Trask available online? Or else need to check WCH.Redtigerxyz Talk 07:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Redtigerxyz. The majority of Trask, either 1994 or 1998, is not freely available (I checked over the weekend). I can scan pages for review but, to be mindful of copyright issues, I'm guessing I should make them available privately? Let me know, and thanks again! —ATS 🖖 talk 07:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checked WCH: ref 15, 16 and Death section: "his aunt Clara had been very ill with heart trouble and other health problems" is close to "My aunt had been very ill for some time with heart trouble and many other problems,"; "Altgens was survived by three nephews; his wife by two sisters" is close to "He is survived by three nephews. His wife also is survived by two sisters." However OK under WP:LIMITED IMO. Support Redtigerxyz Talk 09:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, since by all immediate appearances I'm the only one with a ready copy of Trask's books and anyone else would be required to purchase them, I've completed a pass myself and found a few things to correct. With any luck, you'll find this sufficient. Please let me know. Meantime, my thanks once again to everyone who helped make this article even better. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:19, 22 November 2016 (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) 13:36, 26 November 2016 [11].

California State Route 76

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 76 is another highway in San Diego County. It has existed in some form since the 1930s and is still used widely today. Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Small Content Comment - In the "Major Intersections" subsection, it says
 R reflects a realignment in the route since then, M indicates a second realignment, L refers an overlap due to a correction or change, and T indicates postmiles classified as temporary
And then in the following table that this is supposedly a key for, there are only R's and no-letters. I question why this is necessary at all? Is information about realigned milemarkers not available for all the intersections? Why include M, L, and Ts in the key when you don't use them? Fieari (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a template that is used across many California state highway articles. Only routes with those particular realignments will have postmiles with those particular letters. --Rschen7754 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's troublesome. The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template. That means I'm looking for "Brilliant prose", and... well, this isn't. I'd also want to know why some of the mile listings are 1964 based, and some are more accurate. This sort of information should be in a FA. Fieari (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template." -> it is part of a template, see Template:CAinttop. Also, all postmiles were measured in 1964, across the state. It is when a route was realigned after that a letter is added. --Rschen7754 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: In this case, after the FAC was submitted I discovered another source for the mileages, and have replaced all of them on this article. This should resolve your objections. With that being said, I am strongly concerned with the reviewing methodology of focusing on the legend for a table, rather than reviewing the other 98% of the article, the latter of which I would encourage you to focus on in future reviews. --Rschen7754 06:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rschen, that does look better. I know I only focused on this one place, but that's only because it stood out to me like a glaring thumb after only a cursory glance over the article-- that is, it didn't make any sense to me, and context did not seem apparent. Please consider this a compliment... the rest of the article did not have anything jump out at me.
Allow me to be more formal about it:
Prose Check, Pass - The article is comprehensible, with no outstanding sections that are difficult to read or confusing. The prose is flowing, and free of grammatical errors (that I could find). The article is informative, and covers the points I would expect to find in an excellent article of this sort.
I have not conducted a sourcing check. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks for taking a look! --Rschen7754 07:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on just the lead

  • "State Route 76 (SR 76) is a 52.63-mile-long (84.70 km) state highway in the U.S. state of California." The value–unit wording is very awkward—illogical, actually. -> "State Route 76 (SR 76) is a state highway 52.63 miles (84.70 km) long in the U.S. state of California."
  • Why is "U.S. state" linked (bunched with "California")—the state name barely needs linking, let alone a ... list of all US states???
    • I've been told that this is to provide the proper context for the reader - I think this was requested at FAC a while back for some U.S. roads article, and it is on many of those FAs. If the general practice at FAC has changed, I would be willing to adjust it. --Rschen7754 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a frequently used east–west route"—ambiguous: could refer to repeated use by the same people. "much used".
  • "The highway serves as a major route through the region"—"is".
  • "continuing east into the community of Bonsall while providing access to Fallbrook"—while? Simpler just to write "to provide" (if that is most or all of the purpose of the continuation); or ", providing".
  • "and was officially designated as SR 76 in the 1964 state highway renumbering, though the route was known as SR 76 before then"—why "though"? Are you contraverting from the previous proposition? "was previously known" would be plainer.
  • "Caltrans"—what is it? Better to spell out on first appearance rather than requiring me to visit the link target to see whether it's a company.

At least as far as the lead goes, the writing is not yet up to FA standard. Tony (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First section: Route description" This is the first time I've taken a good look at the text of one of these elaborate US road articles. It's challenging to write this section in particular, because of repetition temptations, a certain sameness in the sequencing, and a risk that it's at times hard-going and much less useful to follow in text than to see it on a map (or using Google Earth). I think some tips about the grammar and lexicon of these sections would be useful as a resource at the Wikiproject.

  • "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation begins at County Route S21 (CR S21) in Oceanside, although Caltrans does not consider the road west of I-5 as part of the route,[3] and that part of the road is not in the legal definition." Would it be possible to avoid the repetition thus? "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation begins at County Route S21 (CR S21) in Oceanside, although Caltrans does not consider the road west of I-5 to be part of the route,[3] and it is not within the legal definition."
  • Road articles are tricky in that they involve extended accounts of the route; it's hard to avoid repetitive wording. Here, in what must be a sustained attempt at variety, you use a metaphor actually travelling along the route (which could be temporal or spatial—you've chose temporal here, but "quickly" isn't ideal); and "and" is probably necessary after the comma (or as a replacement for "then"): "It quickly has an interchange with I-5, then becomes a four-lane expressway known as the San Luis Rey Mission Expressway." There's more repetitive wording, too. What about: "There is soon an interchange with I-5, after which SR 76 becomes the four-lane San Luis Rey Mission Expressway." You could then use "this" instead of SR 76 again, given that SR 76 comes again soon after.
  • "It then has two overpasses"—I'd minimise this metaphorical "ownership" grammar (also in "It quickly has an interchange"). Try to avoid sequence tags like "then" wherever it works without: "There are two overpasses: one ...". The readers are by now primed for a sequence in your description, so they'll expect that the sequence in which you describe the parts of the route is the sequence of the route, and usually won't need to pass roadsigns reminding them of this. "The highway then goes through Bonsall, ..." -> "The highway passes through Bonsall, ...". Maybe preserve one of these ubiquitious thens for "then meets the northern ...".
  • "As it begins to enter rural Oceanside,"—laboured. Why not just "As it enters rural Oceanside,". I see quite a few "begins"; "starts" is also available where appropriate, for rotation.
  • "It is at this point when SR 76 becomes known as Pala Road, which narrows to two lanes ..."—"that", not "when", and "becomes known"? Perhaps simply: "At this point SR 76 becomes Pala Road, narrowing to two lanes" (but if Pala Road narrows after it starts, better ", which narrows to two lanes", making Pala Road the actor and losing the simultaneity in your meaning).
    • Made the first and last change. I'm reluctant to remove "known as" as "becomes" might make the reader think that it is no longer SR 76. I'm open to considering other possibilities. --Rschen7754 01:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It intersects Via Monserate and Gird Road south of Fallbrook before encountering the former routing of"—nice metaphorical grammar: the road is personified as the experiencer. But you wouldn't want "encountering" twice in one article.
  • "SR 76 then goes through Pala and the Pala Indian Reservation, passing by Pala Casino and intersecting CR S16, the turnoff to the Pala Mission and Temecula. Continuing to parallel the San Luis Rey River, SR 76 passes by ...". Not in love with "goes", but I suppose you've used "passes" enough (in fact, twice in the space of a few seconds—is there a list at the Wikiproject of verbs that can be rotated for this purpose?).
  • "the National Highway System,[7] a network of highways that are essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility"—I hated this. It comes from a publisher that is almost certainly engaging in political spin—the Federal Highways Administration. So they're pushing for more resources generally by playing the defense card, naturally. I believe it does not belong in this article (so ... army trucks use the highways? Got it). That highways should be good for the economy and mobility is not worth including—or is this a stock proposition and reference for all articles in the class? You might just as well write that such highways are the sites of thousands of deaths and horrific injuries each year; and that they're part of a system that keeps the US enslaved to Saudi Arabia, through the part-funding of that state's support of terrorism.
    • Not all state highways are part of the National Highway System. In my opinion, it provides a bit of an outside perspective as to which highways are considered more important than others. Outside, because the federal government and the state government (that is actually responsible for the state highways) are two different entities. If you are concerned about NPOV, I can add "considered" or similar language. --Rschen7754 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing wrong with mentioning the NHS, but the descriptor used by politicians and bureacrats brings unwanted angles. Tony (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Later: Why not just link the item: any reader older than 7 will know what a national highway system is; many countries have similar designations, by name and in funding protocols. A link alone would avoid undue detail of questionable relevance to this article, and out of context a set of misleading or unexplained epithets. Tony (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will puzzle anyone not familiar with the topic: "SR 76 is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System,[9] but it is not officially designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation.[10]" We shouldn't have to look up the references to understand it, particularly the first clause. Tony (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "Flooding in January 1916 resulted in the closing of the road that existed between Bonsall and Pala"—"of the pre-existing road between"?
  • "did not reopen until two years later" --> "did not reopen for two years"?
  • ", and" × 2 ... could one of these joiners be different to break the cascade? "The Bonsall Bridge over the San Luis Rey River was completed in 1925,[23] and opened in 1926 as the county's largest bridge at the time, and served as part of the road from San Diego to Elsinore."
  • "was originally added to the state highway system in 1933.[27] However, it was not designated as legislative Route 195 until 1935." ... Could conflate these two sentences to simplify the join?: "was originally added to the state highway system in 1933,[27] but was not designated as legislative Route 195 until 1935."
  • Like most of these points, I'm relying on your contextual knowledge to judge whether to implement or not, or to use a different solution than my suggestion: "Plans for constructing a replacement for Mission Avenue date from 1950.[35] By 1961, there were plans to ..."—avoid plans twice with "By 1961, there was a proposal to ..."? Again, sets of synonyms—a field-related mini-thesaurus—would be a great service to editors by the wikiproject.
  • Tip to everyone: use the search function to identify repetitions, at a mature stage in preparation. You'll be shocked—I am, at my own repetiions when I write. "The next year," ... "next" appears later in the same para. Make the first one "following"?
  • "the construction on"—consider losing the "the". And it's repeated two seconds later, so perhaps then "until work was underway on"?
  • plans, plans.
  • thereafter ... just "after" in the 21st century. Same for "afterward".
  • "Over the period from 1974 to 1977, Oceanside police kept track of over 1,000 accidents that occurred along SR 76 from that time period." Your repetition audit with the search function would have picked that up. Finish on "76". And your radar beam for shorter-and-straighter might have picked up the opening gobbledy: "From 1974 to 1977, Oceanside police kept track of more than 1,000 accidents on SR 76".
  • "In the meantime, the Oceanside Development Agency recommended extending the new highway west to Pacific Street". Bonus points for identifying "jingles" ... end/end. So ... "In the meantime, the Oceanside Development Agency recommended that the new highway be extended west to Pacific Street", maybe?
  • "In 1983, a federal gasoline tax of five-cents-per-gallon (one-cent-per-liter) was approved, which added more funding to". Why the hyphens? A five-cents-per-gallon tax, yes, because it's a compound adjective. But it's not here. And maybe: "In 1983, the introduction of a federal gasoline tax of five-cents-per-gallon (one-cent-per-liter) added more funding to". Simpler grammar, shorter and nicer for readers.

Still only 2/3 of the way through. This is hard labour, but I've put in the effort in the hope that you might use the experience to lead others to systemically improve this class of articles. Tony (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Just a few minor points.

  • "begins in Oceanside near Interstate 5 (I-5) and continues east. The highway is a major route through the region, continuing east into the community of Bonsall": repetition of "continues east"/"continuing east". How about "through the region, passing through the community of Bonsall", since the first "continues east" gives us the direction?
  • Suggest giving the year when Tony Zeppetella was killed; it's 2003, from a quick Google search, and should be easy to cite.
  • "there were concerns that construction would be delayed due to the state financial crisis": I'd suggest a link for "state financial crisis" but I can't find anything suitable -- California state finances ought to be the right article, but it doesn't mention anything prior to 2004, so ignore this if you can't find a better target.
  • "After a few decades of litigation": the first mention of a lawsuit I see is February 1990, so I think "a few decades" is an overstatement unless I missed an earlier mention.
  • "in the event that the expressway through Oceanside would have had to be converted to a freeway": not sure what this is telling me.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Was there an image-licensing review I missed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image review from the A-Class review is out of date and should probably be redone. --Rschen7754 00:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make an image review this afternoon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:California 76.svg: Free file on Commons with a valid license, using it in the infobox as the identifier is good. Source link broken, though. Same considerations apply for the other two highway icons at the bottom of the infobox,
  • File:California State Route 76.svg: Free file on Commons, a map of the route in question is definitively pertinent. Are there licenses for the underlying map?
  • File:Californiahighway76a.jpg: Free image on Commons, no evidence of copying from non-free source, EXIF missing. Putting it next to the paragraph on where the highway passes through Oceanside seems pertinent to me.
  • File:CA SR 76 at SR 79.jpg: Free file on Commons, valid EXIF and no concerns that I can see. SR 79 is mentioned in the adjacent paragraph.
  • File:CA 76 Mission Avenue.JPG: Same as above. The photo is of an old routing and in the pertinent section, so no relevance concerns.
  • File:Least Bell's Vireo USGS WERC.jpg: Free image on Commons, from a public domain source. The image is of a bird which is discussed in the adjacent section, so pertinence seems to exist.
  • File:CA 76 Bonsall.jpg: Same as the other two files with "CA 76" in the name. The road passes through Bonsall, not sure if that is the ideal section.
  • Other files in the box: Same considerations as "California 76.svg" - a bunch of broken links merit remedy.

ALT text for accessibility reasons is desirable, but I don't see any reason to fail this on file issues other than the licenses for the map in "California State Route 76.svg". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The GIS data is PD, as it comes from the US or California state government. I'm not sure how to note this on Commons. --Rschen7754 02:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could use commons:Template:Licensed-PD, I believe, filling in the license for the drawing itself and for the source map, which if it was created by the California state government would be commons:Template:PD-CAGov. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Adjusted. --Rschen7754 07:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems like that issue is handled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2016 [12].

Super Mario Galaxy

[edit]
Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this was unexpected. I first started work on this article in May when I went through my loft and found my old collection of ONM issues which spanned from 2006 to 2011. I remember my ten year old self reading through one of those issues and looking forward to this game. I've used a couple of those issues for this article, and my subsequent expansion and redevelopment of it carried on for a while. It has just gained GA status, and to be frank I think that this is ready for FAC. For a game considered "one of greatest" I tried making a comprehensive reception section, and even went overboard on development I think. JAGUAR  21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo

[edit]

Well that was certainly fast. Personally, I would have combed through the article a few more times before nominating it for FAC, but if you believe it's ready, then let's put it to the test.

I think the most important thing was to make sure that all of the sources verified the content in the article (something I used to struggle with), but I took extra liberties to make sure that I got it right while developing this for GA. In particular, I basically wrote the development and reception sections from scratch, so I found sourcing it quite easy as I had everything there (including the physical magazines). I know that comprehensiveness is more of an issue for the FA criteria, and minor issues on prose would definitely be tackled in the review. Anyway, I'll be happy to address these issues! JAGUAR  20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • It was first released on 1 November 2007 in Japan, 12 November 2007 in North America, 16 November 2007 in Europe and on 29 November 2007 in Australia. This is just a long list of release dates that most people don't care about. According to WP:VG/DATE, the release dates should be generalized, so maybe just say it was released in November 2007, it covers every release date.
  • It is the third 3D original game in the Super Mario series and the eighth main instalment overall. Link 3D. Also, what is original supposed to mean? Why not just say third 3D game, since I'm assuming your referring to SM64, Sunshine, and Galaxy.
  • The game was re-released as a Nintendo Selects title in 2011, and as a download via the Wii U's eShop on 31 May 2015 in Japan, 24 December 2015 in North America, and on 4 February 2016 in Europe. Once again, just a list of release dates that no one cares about. Why not just simplify the sentence to say something along the lines "The game has was re-released as a Nintendo Selects title in 2011 and on the Wii U's eShop in 2015"
  • It has since won several awards from gaming publications, including multiple "Game of the Year" awards and a BAFTA. What you linked was the BAFTA award show, so a game can't win an award show. Since it won the BAFTA award for Game of the Year, why not just remove that bit and keep it as "including multiple "Game of the Year" awards"?
  • I think a game winning a BAFTA is very significant, and the article links to the charity itself. I've rephrased this slightly so hopefully it's clearer. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is listed among the top-rated games on various aggregate sites, and is the highest-ranked title on review aggregator GameRankings. This line is redundant. You already mentioned this game's critical acclaim, and how it's regarded as one of the best games ever. This line show be removed

Gameplay

  • Super Mario Galaxy is set in outer space,[1][2] where Mario travels from galaxy to galaxy to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies.[3][1] The last two refs are out of order, always keep the refs in numerical order if they are next to each other
  • The game uses a new physics engine that allows for a unique feature; each astronomical object has its own gravitational force, allowing the player to completely circumnavigate rounded or irregular planetoids, walking sideways or upside down. Is it important to mention the new physics engine here? This section is about the gameplay, anything game engine related stuff should be kept in the development section.
  • The game's main hub is the Comet Observatory, a spaceship which contains six themed domes that provide access to the 42 galaxies available in the game.[3] Five of the domes end with a boss level in which the object is to defeat Bowser or Bowser Jr., which then allows the player collect a Grand Star in order to access the next dome. Why do only five of the six domes have a boss? What's unique about the sixth dome?
  • When the player first begins the game, access is available to only a few galaxies. This reads a bit awkwardly, try "The player only has access to a few galaxies when they begin the game".
  • Once 120 Power Stars are collected with both characters, the player is rewarded one additional challenge for Mario and Luigi to complete, as well as two commemorative pictures that can be sent to the Wii Message Board upon each brother completing the challenge. I vaguely remember what the message board was, but for someone who doesn't have a Wii, they won't know what it is. This should either be linked, or explained in more detail.
  • The most basic feature is the Star Pointer, which appears on-screen (as long as the remote is pointed at the screen) for the entire game. I don't get this line. Is the Star Pointer a cursor? If so, then the line should read "The most basic feature is the Star Pointer, which is a cursor that appears on-screen..."
  • Firstly, the Star Pointer is used to pick up special konpeito-shaped objects called "Star Bits", which are then shot to stun enemies, manipulate obstacles, or feed Hungry Lumas. What's a Luma?
  • Nine power-ups supply Mario with a special costume that grants him new abilities. For example, special mushrooms bestow the player with a Bee, Boo, or Spring Suit. First, link power-up. Secondly, I actually don't like how certain words are linked. For example, I think we all know what a bee is, so that doesn't need to be linked, and neither does spring. As for Boo, it should be linked to Boo (character).
  • The Super Star grants Mario invincibility, allowing him to destroy any enemies that he touches, as well as jumping higher and running faster. The Super Star link just leads to the Super Mario page with no context.
  • When the power meter becomes empty, the player loses a life and must go back to a predetermined checkpoint.[16] The power meter can be temporarily expanded to six units... This threw me for a loop. Why not just say health meter instead of power meter, as I thought power meter was a new gameplay aspect.

Plot

  • Not much to say, as it's well written

Development

  • My biggest problem with the development section is how all of the sources are from Nintendo. Obviously, if that's all you could find on the game's development, that's fine, but there are several interviews about the game, such as IGN, Wired, and Music4Games. I'm not sure how much info you'll be able to get out of those interviews, but if there is some additional information, it needs to be included in the article.
  • Mario creator Shigeru Miyamoto suggested to work on the next large-scale Mario game after Nintendo EAD Tokyo finished development on Donkey Kong Jungle Beat in late 2004,[26][27] pushing for the spherical platform concept to be realised. Are you referring to the character Mario, or the series? If it's the series, then it should be italicized
  • The game's script was written by Takayuki Ikkaku. This seems rather thrown in, as Ikkaku is not mentioned at all in the rest of the article. I noticed that the source you used was the game credits, which is fine, but are there any other sources mentioning Ikkaku's role in the game? If not, I'd just remove that line.
  • The composition was approved by Yoshiaki Koizumi, the game's director and designer, but when Yokota presented it to Koji Kondo, he stated that it was "no good". You already linked and explained who Koizumi was earlier, while on the other hand, there is no explanation as to who Kondo is. Also, what was Kondo's role in the development? If Yokota was in charge of the musical direction, was Kondo just there for moral support?
  • Yotaka revealed that he initially struggled to create music that sounded like Mario, but as time progressed he declared that the songs he made for the game had "become natural". A song can't sound like a character.

Reception

  • It is the second best ranking game with at least ten reviews on the review aggregator website GameRankings,[58] and the best ranking game of all time with at least 20 reviews,[59] having a score of 97% based on 78 reviews.[37] As discussed a while ago, GameRankings should only be used if Metacritic is not available, which it is. With that said, every Gamerankings sentence should be removed, including from the review score box.
  • The game is also the sixth highest rated game of all-time on Metacritic,[60] with a score of 97/100 based on 73 reviews. A 97/100 means nothing, as it is just a number. I'd recommend looking at how Pokémon Black and White does its Metacritic section, by saying what the score equates to.
  • Rephrased. Yup I sent Black and White to GA ;-D Would I need to say what 97% equates to? The introduction states that the game received critical acclaim and I think that a reader could gather that 97% based on 74 reviews means that it was well received. I'm not too sure on this, so let me know if you want it rephrased further. JAGUAR  15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was something that was pointed out in the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. PresN said "Try mixing up the "Bob of Website" formula- "Website's Bob", "Writing for Website, Bob"
  • Jeremy Parish of 1UP noted that despite the Wii's limitations, the visuals were "absolutely impressive", especially when modified at a higher resolution. It's 1UP.com, not just 1UP.
  • However, Hudak criticised the "traditional Mario-esque" lack of voice acting, despite admitting that if the game did feature voice acting it would "probably seem lame and wrong". This sentence seems completely out of place in the music paragraph, as every other sentence discusses the music
  • I think it still belongs in that paragraph as it covers all things audio-related, whereas putting it in another paragraph would seem even more out of place. To help matters, I rephrased the introduction to "The soundtrack and audio were well received by critics" and moved the lack of voice acting criticism to the end. Hope that helps. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Mario Galaxy received Game of the Year 2007 awards from IGN,[52] GameSpot,[53] Nintendo Power,[54] GameRankings,[55] Kotaku,[56] and Yahoo! Games.[57] Why seperate this line from the rest of the section? Also, don't use GameRankings.
  • Organisational purposes; I thought it looked weird having a 'listy' sentence in the same paragraph as one filled with prose. I can merge it if you think it's best. Is it really necessary to remove GameRankings here even if it's being used for awards and not an aggregate score? I'm not sure myself. JAGUAR  23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar: I know that czar knows a lot more than me on when GameRankings should be used! Sorry to ping you, do you think it's OK if GameRankings should be used for citing awards and not aggregate scores I think that being the highest ranking game of the site should also be a significant mention. JAGUAR  15:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Ping me anytime) I'd distinguish between when editors bestow an award and when an item tops a list, but that's editorial discretion. In this case, GameRankings didn't give a GOTY award, so I'd recast the sentence as journalists who named the game the best of the year and then treat the aggregators and any other list-making groups separately. Definitely worth including, but in a separate sentence and not as a GOTY "award". czar 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm okay with what Czar suggested. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, I've moved the GameRankings mention to the end and separated it from the other GOTY awards. JAGUAR  16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 7 February 2008, the game received the "Adventure Game of the Year" award from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences at the Interactive Achievement Awards. Why is it necessary to mention the exact day it won the award, while all of the other awards were simplified to the year they were given.
  • Mainly because it was the only source which mentioned a date, I think.
  • One thing that bothers me about the Awards section is that it just seems like a long list, and I really don't like how most of the sentences begin with "In 20XX". Try mixing up the wording so that it doesn't get so monotonous to read

Overall, a very solid article, but it does have a number of issues that must be addressed before I can support it. Also, do you think you could return the favor by reviewing the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. It just needs one more support, and while it looks like David Fuchs will be doing a review, any additional comments always help. Alternatively, there's that No Russian Peer Review I've got up. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial"? It was huge at the time. Here are more reliable sources. I am asking for one sentence in the article about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was used on sites like Kotaku doesn't mean it isn't trivial. What does it add to the article? What does it do that will help improve the article? GamerPro64 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I thought you were joking." That doesn't explain why you called me a "fucking moron". Several reliable third-party sources have described it. That makes it non-trivial. Also, I expected to see it mentioned in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you want this in the article, then? In the development section? Reception? And what is it going to look like? Upon release, some fans reported that the stars aligned on the game's cover art read out "U R MR GAY". I'm not putting a derogatory and infelicitous statement anywhere in this article, it doesn't belong here. It doesn't add any value. It's not worth it. It's trivial. It's almost like a joke. And another thing that's a joke is the fact that you had the nerve to oppose this FAC because I refused to put "U R MR GAY" in this article. Nevermind the fact that I've spent over a dozen hours of my time writing, researching and putting the effort into building this article up to an FA standard only to get derailed by somebody like you. I honestly thought you were trolling. Just because reliable sources cover it doesn't make it non trivial. Many reliable sources at WP:VG/S like IGN, Polygon and Kotaku also cover many trivial things like what the colour of a new Pokemon is going to be or a journalist's thoughts of a game's lore. It doesn't make it a pre-requisite reason to add something in an article. I thought that you were an intelligent person but the fact that your oppose read "It makes me sad that this glaring omission has spoilt an otherwise excellent article. I was expecting to read about this phenomenon in Wikipedia's article" made it look like you were tormenting. "U R MR GAY" is a glaring omission and a phenomenon, is it? JAGUAR  12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't condone Jaguar's personal attack-- Axl, your request for "U R MR GAY" was challenged with "why is it notable?" and "what does it add?" and you immediately jumped to opposing the FA nomination. This was an extremely petulant move. "U R MR GAY" was already determined to be coincidental and non-notable through previous consensus. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When multiple independent reliable sources describe a phenomenon, that makes it notable. Asking "what makes it notable?" after these references have been clearly linked is... not sensible.
I still believe that a sentence about this should be in the article, and I stand by my opposition. If the community consensus is against me, I shall of course submit to the consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: thank you for your comments! I should have hopefully addressed everything above. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Although I've never played this game, I've been known to take on a Mario platformer from time to time. I haven't read through much of the article yet, but here are a few initial thoughts:

  • This might be a British English thing, but is "instalment" meant to have only one l?
  • "with different variations of gravity being the central element of gameplay." Since this is one of those "noun-plus -ing" connectors that us prose people don't really like, how would you feel about dropping "being" altogether?
  • "The concept for the game's use of spherical platforms were first conceptualized...". "were" → "was", since this refers to the concept (singular), not the platforms themselves (plural).
  • The U R MR GAY stuff seems like indiscriminate information for this article, at least in my view. Not everything published in reliable sources should be included in articles, and I wouldn't expect to see cover art issues be prominently mentioned, unless there's some new video game style standard I'm unaware of. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development: "desired that one its distinguishing features" needs "of" after "one", I reckon.
  • I doubt that gravity needs a link, since that is such a basic concept.
  • The grammar in "Iwata noted an increasing number of consumers to give up during a video game" doesn't seem to be that great. Maybe try "giving up" in the middle?
  • Shouldn't a 1-Up link be somewhere in the gameplay section instead, where its first mention is?
  • "and devised ways on how they should incorporate an idea into the game and make it the most entertaining." The beginning of this bit is a little wordy, and the "most entertaining" part doesn't make sense (most entertaining what). How about "and devised ways to incorporate an idea into the game and make it entertaining (as entertaining as possible?)" instead, or some variant of that?
  • Remove "the" from "that the Super Mario Galaxy's co-operative mode".
  • Music: Minor, but refs 28 and 35 could be reversed to numerical order.
  • Super Mario Bros. has a double period at the end. You just need the one from the game's title.
  • If we don't have a Donkey Kong Jungle Beat link earlier, please consider adding one here.
  • Reception: Super Mario Sunshine probably doesn't need the link, since there was one earlier.
  • Same for Super Mario 64.
  • "The gameplay ... were also praised." "were" → "was". That word is referring to the gameplay itself, not the specific elements I skipped over; therefore it should be in singular tense. If it was "gameplay element" or similar, then you could get away with a plural.
  • Sequel: Remove "the" before Famitsu.

Comments from ThomasO1989

[edit]

I've got more comments on the way, but I can finish those up later tonight or this weekend.

Gameplay

  • Super Mario Galaxy is set in outer space, where Mario travels from galaxy to galaxy to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies. This sentence reads a little funny. Maybe change "from galaxy to galaxy" to "to different galaxies"? The "completing levels in galaxies" is a bit redundant, how about "earned by completing missions". You could then quickly cover one or two types of missions ("defeating a boss" or "reaching a particular area").
  • Mario is given new moves that take advantage of the Wii Remote's pointer and motion sensing. I think it might make sense to cut out this part of the sentence altogether and mention where the Wii Remote's functions are used only when it's the main point. So in this paragraph, you may have like "The player controls the Star Pointer, a cursor that appears on-screen, with the Wii Remote pointer". Since the use of motion controls used to do a spin is explicitly brought up in Development, mention them in the second paragraph when talking about the spin.
  • the Star Pointer is used to blow air at it to influence the direction and speed it moves. This sentence seems a bit wordy, though I believe it's been there for years. Maybe use something simple, like the Star Pointer is used to push the bubble around.
  • Someone else could chime in, but should adverbs like "firstly", "secondly", and "thirdly" be used in formal writing?
  • Nine power-ups supply Mario with a special costume that grants him new abilities. Add the word "each" to imply that the power-ups are different and the word "temporary" (or a variation thereof) to imply they're not permanent.
  • Instant death can occur by being swallowed by quicksand or dark matter; falling into bottomless pits, which either consist of black holes or leaving a planet's gravitational pull and falling into space; getting crushed between objects; losing a race against a non-player character; or other special challenges. Is it truly necessary to list all potential ways Mario could die?

Plot

This section could use some trimming. Not that it's overly long, it just seems a bit wordy, like it's describing certain cutscenes in more detail than what is necessary. I can help out with this one if you'd like.

That would be appreciated! I don't think it's too long, in fact I think it's just about right for a game like this since it's not plot-heavy. Anyway, I'll try and cut it down slightly. JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development

My issues with this section stem from certain points being presented a bit haphazardly... it could use some re-arranging. There is also many passive sentences.

  • Takeo Shimizu, the game's producer and programmer, noted that the most basic action in a 3D action game was to simply run, and concluded that the easiest way to attack was to "spin", not jump. Move this sentence before the immediately preceding one, since it is directly related to why spin was done in the first place.
  • the "spin" was changed to be activated through shaking the latter. Technically both controllers' sensing activate the spin, so this should be changed.
  • Regarding this decision, Koizumi said that he wanted... You could do away with "Regarding this decision" since the topic is still on Koizumi.
  • Furthermore, Iwata added that decreasing... Add "retrospectively" and remove "furthermore".
  • The images are pretty, but what do they add to the article? They just seem decorative.
  • I think that they're important as they display key factors of the gameplay/development and show the reader what the developer's focus was. The top image shows a galaxy and the bottom image shows a spherical planetoid, with both featuring prominently throughout the article. I'd prefer to keep them, but it would be a shame to lose them. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with this. I don't think a picture of outer space is necessary to show that the developer's focus was on space anymore than Super Mario Sunshine needs a picture of water, or Pikmin a picture of a garden. The "spherical planetoid" is just a panoramic image, not an actual planetoid. It would make more sense to include them if these exact pictures inspired the gameplay, art, or story. A good example is the picture of "The Swing" used in the article Tangled, since the artist's work was actually used as a direct reference. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the paragraph on the level design should be combined with the initial idea to use spherical platforms in the first place (first paragraph) since they are directly related.
  • I do think they can be merged into a subsection, "Design", like what is done with Music. Some information could also be cut or condensed. I can write up a draft in my sandbox and present it for comments. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music

  • The task of creating the game's sound effects [...] like they were having that experience. This reads a little too long and doesn't paraphrase the source well. Here is a suggested condensed version: The game originally heavily utilized the Wii Remote speaker for "all sorts of sound [effects]", but Masafumi Kawamura, the game's sound director, decided they were redundant when played in tangent with those from the television. Kawamura decided to restrict Wii Remote sound effects to those triggered by Mario's actions, such as hitting an enemy, feeling that it better immersed the player.

@ThomasO1989: thank you for your review! I've tried to address everything but I didn't understand a couple of your points, such as merging the level design paragraph into the first and the "spin" attack sentence, as the attack itself is accomplished by shaking only one of the controllers, not both. I prefer to keep the images as they show significant symbolism, but I'll remove them if I must. Sorry for coming to this review late, as I've been very busy with RL as well as sorting out a grant I applied on Wikimedia. If you have more comments, I'll be happy to address them. Thanks again! JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already an article deserving to be an FA but there are somethings I would like to point out:
    • There are some references that are used about four times. I would suggest archiving them but that's not an issue (I'm looking at you 1UP)
    • The plot section is unreferenced. I know that's not relevant, but could the "Super Mario Galaxy instruction manual" be used to reference some parts?
      • The manual only mentions the prologue, so I sourced whatever I could from it. I know that sourcing the plot isn't usually required (thank god), but it wouldn't hurt to have a citation or two in there. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lastly references 79 and 80 look a bit redundant since Metacritic already has all the review.

Anyway good with the article, I really hope it becomes a FA. Also, if you have free time could you provide feedback to my own FAN? It's a bit inactive. Cheers.

@Tintor2: thank you for the comments! I promise to take a look at your FAC soon, I've been held up with other matters lately. I have addressed everything you mentioned above. I've archived the more important references, and sourced some parts of the plot via the manual. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, now you have my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'll be doing the source review @Jaguar:. It'll take a bit of time but everything seems well. I would appreciate it if you do the source review for Allen Walker.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll start the source review tomorrow. Making sure that the sources confirm the article's prose is easy but takes a while. JAGUAR  20:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let it support or pass (it's my first time dealing with FA...) this review since all sources are reliable and are used well such as when quotes are used. However, I would recommend removing the GameRankings' cheats since that while is reliable, the cheats are provided by random users.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review, Tintor! I'm so relieved that I wrote the majority of this from scratch, as that way I can be sure everything is sourced properly and not have it struggle like my earlier FACs. Anyway, I've removed the GameRanking cheats. 13:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: just checking if there's anything else needed for this nom? Source check is done, and the prose comments above have all been addressed. It's just that I hope to get this one done a bit quicker in stark contrast to last time! JAGUAR  11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you pinged them both last month but I'd like to see again if we can't confirm from Famous Hobo and ThomasO1989 that they're satisfied with responses/actions re. their comments. Failing that we may need another pair of eyes, but let's see how we go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ThomasO1989 and Famous Hobo: do you have anything more to add? It's just that I'm really anxious to see this out of the way! If not, don't worry. JAGUAR  16:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just left messages for both of the above for confirmation if they're happy with their points being addressed, although I can't think of anything else. JAGUAR  14:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte

[edit]

I hope this is the correct spot to put my section, if not, feel free to move it. . I haven't read any of the other comments by other users, so if I repeat something, my apologies.

Gameplay
  • where Mario travels through different galaxies to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing missions, defeating a boss, or reaching a particular area. Are those two words necessary? IMO it flows better without it.
  • other space matter for the player to explore "Space matter"... Hm. Any other terms you could use to describe this?
  • I'm sure it means matter, but you're right. I've changed this to "orbiting structures", as I think that's the best way to describe it as in-game they appear as nonsensical platforms. JAGUAR  11:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • allowing the player to completely circumnavigate rounded or irregular planetoids, walking sideways or upside down. Would it be easier to simply remove those three words and write it as "completely circumnavigate the planetoids"?
  • in which the object is to defeat. Objective.
  • which then allows the player collect a Grand Star in order to access the next dome. Rearrange this to which then give the player access the next dome by collecting a Grand Star.
  • Grand Star. What's a Grand Star?
  • I guess that's fine, but if you wanted to elaborate, I guess you could write something like: "which then gives the player access to the next dome via acquiring a collectable called a Grand Star". Not the most perfect sentence, but it's a start (if you wanted to elaborate). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When 120 Power Stars are collected, the player gains the ability to play through the game again as Mario's brother Luigi. Once 120 Power Stars are collected with both characters, the player is rewarded one additional challenge for Mario and Luigi to complete, as well as two commemorative pictures that can be sent to the Wii Message Board upon each brother completing the challenge. Reword and rearrange so that it's something like The player is awarded the ability to play as Luigi after collecting 120 Power Stars as Mario. Once 120 Power Stars are collected with both characters, the player is rewarded one additional challenge for Mario and Luigi to complete, which upon completion, awards the player with two commemorative pictures that can be sent to the Wii Message Board. (I'm assuming you need to play as Mario to get this, I haven't played it myself, )

I'll be able to take another look tomorrow. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Anarchyte! So far all done. JAGUAR  11:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: I've responded to one comment above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Here are some more comments regarding the gameplay section and its subsections:

  • which then give the player access the next dome by collecting a Grand Star. Do you mean gives?
  • a new feature includes the Star Pointer Change to a new feature called the Star Pointer
  • which is a cursor that appears on-screen via Wii Remote pointer (as long as the remote is pointed at the screen). Hm... Cut it down to be which is a cursor that appears when the Wii Remote pointer is pointed at the screen.
  • used to manoeuvre the bubble around. Remove "around".

Hope these additional comments help! I'll be back in an hour or so. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm pretty sure that was one of the worst games of CS that I've ever played, but I'm back. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The player gains a new ability early in the game, known as the "Spin" technique, which has previously appeared in varying forms. Try rewording to Early into the game, the player learns a new ability known as the "Spin" technique, which has had appearances in varying forms
  • that would otherwise be inaccessible. Fairly sure this is my personal preference, but I'd write "be" before "otherwise".
  • which is depleted by contact with enemies and hazards. Change to through.
  • Mario's health can be restored by collecting coins and his air supply by touching bubbles or coins. Not sure what you're getting at here.
  • That does sound a bit confusing to be honest. I've rephrased this to "Mario's health and air supply can be restored by collecting coins, or through touching bubbles if underwater". JAGUAR  14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • enemy or hazard contact or if Mario suffers instant death. Add a comma between these two words.

And that's the end of my review of the gameplay section. If you'd like me to take a look at the reception, ping me . Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: thanks for the comments so far! I've addressed everything. Sorry to hear about the CSGO experience. If you're willing to go through the reception section (which I think would be the last as the development section has been covered already), then I'll be more than happy to get back to this as I think that's all that is left to be done here. JAGUAR  14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did a full review of my article, so I'll take a look at the reception. Anarchyte (work | talk) 3 November 2016, 05:35 (UTC)
Reception
  • The game received critical acclaim and was a commercial success upon release. It is the sixth highest rated game. Connect these two short sentences. upon release, becoming the sixth.
  • and large playing areas would constantly amaze the player. Not sure about this at all.
  • Changed to "astound", though I understand that the reviewer is trying to say that the game's large scale levels and good graphics would awestruck the player. JAGUAR  12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • however he thought that Super Mario Galaxy "got both perfect". Remove "that".
  • stating that the game's detail is only matched by its mission design ingenuity. Remove "that".
  • however he noted that the visuals were in similar detail to Super Mario Sunshine. Remove "that".
  • stating that the game was polished, engaging and evocative. Repetition of "that" in that sentence. heh get it
  • Louis Bedigan from GameZone thought that the visualisations. Remove "that".
  • Matt Casamassina of IGN thought that Super Mario Galaxy was the only game that pushed the. Remove the red "that".
  • stating that "great art combines with great tech for stunning results". Paraphrase. stating it combines "great art" with "great tech", resulting in what he described to be "stunning results".
  • commented that the game's tempo was "abnormally good". Change to commented on the game's tempo, believing it was "abnormally good"
  • stating that the control schemes were more subtle Remove "that".
  • breaking the laws of physics. Link laws of physics, if it hasn't been already.
  • and summarised that the game was the best title since. Change to and summarised by saying it was the best title since.
  • Similarly, Hudak thought that the game was a "next-gen reincarnation" of Super Mario 64. Repetition of what's said in the third paragraph.
  • Ref 49 isn't dead; add |deadurl=no to the template.
  • Additionally, Casamassina regarded the motion control well implemented. Change to regarded the motion control as being well implemented.
  • Super Mario game, opining that each track. Fairly sure the reader would be sick of the word "opining" by this point. I know I am.
  • Williams opined that the game featured the best sound on the Wii. Change "opined" and if it makes sense to do so afterwards, removed "that".

Hope this helps. I'm off to go lose another game of Hearthstone. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: thank you so much for the helpful review! I've definitely addressed everything now. Sorry about the "that" repetition in the reception, I'll be careful to avoid repeating it in the future. JAGUAR  12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: it only took me an hour but I finally managed to archive all of the links, with the sole exception of one GameSpot link as there weren't any archived versions available, but that should be OK. JAGUAR  22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: With all this done, I'll throw in my support. I have no other requests except for a |deadurl=no to be added to every live reference. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I've just added the "|deadurl=no" to all of the non-dead links. JAGUAR  12:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: just successfully addressed a new set of comments. Would there be anything else needed for this nom before it's ready? JAGUAR  12:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: , ping JAGUAR  23:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't responded before now, Jaguar... Although there's some discussion of the images above, I didn't notice a review re. the licensing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that all the images are non-free screenshots? Ah, just realised that the picture of Yoshiaki Koizumi is actually a real life photograph so I'll check it out... JAGUAR  17:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we'll still need someone other than yourself as nominator to verify licensing -- the usual thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: I'm so sorry to bother you again. Would you mind quickly looking over the licensing of the images? Or if it doesn't seem right to ask someone to do two reviews in a FAC, I'll ask someone else. This article has three images so I'm sure it won't take long! JAGUAR  12:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I think you need to provide WP:ALT text for the images. - FrB.TG (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: added! JAGUAR  14:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! @Ian Rose: I have reviewed the images - if a prose review is needed please ping me, although this seems to have had a lot of commentaries on that one. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've scanned the prose myself for some 'expressions to watch' and tweaked accordingly, so with the other reviews I think that about does it, tks FrB. Jaguar, I'm going to promote but there are several duplinks that you can probably do without, pls review/action (if you need a link to the dupcheck script, let me know). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! I've just removed all of the duplinks. JAGUAR  19:01, 26 November 2016 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2016 [13].

SMS Mecklenburg

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another of my articles on German battleships, this one had a fairly uneventful career, including during the first year and a half of the First World War. The article was substantially re-written after it passed a GA review all the way back in 2010, passed a Milhist A-class review in 2014 (and I don't think any dust has gathered in the mean time), and has been waiting around for me to have the time for FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. The name Mecklenburg is probably repeated too often for FAC standards, but I wasn't sure where to trim it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- recusing from coord duties...

  • Copyedited, so let me know any concerns there, but happy with prose as it stands.
  • Structure and coverage seem reasonable.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Not an expert on the references but none look suspect, and couldn't spot any formatting errors, except perhaps...
  • I don't think you need OCLCs when you have ISBNs, but not a huge deal.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioning

  • The date of commissioning (25 May 1903) is definitely wrong. It is my understanding from Gardiner, p.248 that Mecklenburg was completed on 25 June 1903 and handed over to the navy that day, The date given in my copies of both Hildebrand et. al. and Gröner is also 25 June. While Hildebrand mentions sea trials, Gröner points out that ships built by a private yard, were only commissioned after sea trials. Maybe there is another source for the date of commissioning. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, looks pretty good to me. The only suggestion I have is that potentially the titles of the German language sources could be translated using the "trans_title=" parameter of the cite template. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is in fine shape, I just have a few quibbles:
    • There is mention of the belt being 100 mm at its narrowest in the infobox, but no mention of that detail in the body
      • Added a bit on that
    • I'm not sure about the initial caps used for Squadron when used alone? In the WWI section.
      • Good catch, I think you're right.
    • suggest re-wording Furthermore, the loss of the armored cruiser Friedrich Carl to Russian mines[10] and the increasing threat from British submarines and Russian mines by 1916 in the Baltic convinced the German navy to withdraw the elderly Wittelsbach-class ships from active service., "by 1916" seems out of place. Perhaps break up the sentence?
  • Comments
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) 05:05, 20 November 2016 [14].

Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce)

[edit]
Ceoil, Kafka Liz

A complex, physical and lifelike thirteenth century crucifixion scene by Cimabue. It is badly damaged now, after flooding in 1966. But its raw impact remains, and it marks an important break from the Byzantine style. Francis Bacon, who didn't give praise lightly, held this as one of his favourite old master works. Ceoil (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
  • Nice to see a really early, foundational painting at FAC!
  • Note it is Harold Osborne, not the usual Osbourne - I get caught by that too.
No, you haven't! Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit worried by "His body slumps in rigor mortis, contorted by prolonged agony and pain." both in medical and art historical terms. As yr Wikipedian chum could not doubt tell you, rigor mortis only sets in from 4 hours or more after death. Before that the body would relax, losing any "contortions", I would think. In the Gospel accounts Christ seems to have been taken down long before that, the sort of point the Middle Ages took note of. Also you say later this is an early example of the suffering Christ. Some Christs were shown as dead on the cross, but I think only later. This was touchy theological ground, where painters had to take care they were in tune with current Church thinking. I'll look around.
I think what should have been said was close to rigor mortis, but have removed this. I think the point about the suffering Christ should stand, if only for the leap forward in realism this painting represents. I would be most interested if you find more on this. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seems he is shown dead. See below. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has hung in the Basilica di Santa Croce, Florence since the late thirteenth century." Apparently not - it was in the Uffizi Gallery since I don't know when, until 1959. Pity it it didn't stay there. See here. My copy of White, John. Art and Architecture in Italy, 1250 to 1400, London, Penguin Books, 1966, 2nd edn 1987 (now Yale History of Art series). ISBN 0140561285 still calls it the "Uffizi Crucifix". Ok - in Uffizi 1948-59.
  • Also, a travel site says it is currently in the Museo dell'Opera Santa Croce, not the church itself.
Have mentioned the stay in the Uffizi in a note. Clarified that it moved to the Museo dell'Opera post flood damage restoration, but dont yet have the year. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the attribution section is a bit too confident. White, who has 24 pages on Cimabue, and only 3 column inches on this, thinks there are "reasonable grounds for placing [it] in Cimabue's workshop", which is less than a ringing endorsement. Crowe & Cavalcaselle, back in the day, reject the attribution.
I'm working on a redraft of this. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) "Each of Cimabue's three surviving crucifixes were commissioned by the Franciscan order." and b) Arezzo cross caption: "The earliest of the two surviving crucifixes attributed to Cimabue ..."
    Now "Both of Cimabue's surviving..." Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found some good stuff in Gertrud Schiller's 75 pages on the Crucifixion image, some specific to this painting. Is it ok if I add? He is dead, though nothing about riggr mortis, which I think is best dropped.
I got rid of the stuff about riggr mortis, and would be delighted if you added. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note we have Joseph Archer Crowe and Giovanni Battista Cavalcaselle
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently the article says, in the same para: "Christ is presented as a limp, defeated corpse nailed to a cross" and "his head falls to the side from fatigue and the physical reality of approaching death.". Then in the next: "His eyes are open and his skin is unblemished" The first doesn't seem the case, and the second is questionable - there are the usual wounds for one thing.
  • "Osbourne" still not corrected (my first point).
Cough. Done. Ceoil (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporaries such as Dante believed that Giotto, Cimabue's pupil, developed and perfected the innovations of his master." Neither Dante nor Osborne actually say this. What Osborne says is pretty much as here, and all Dante says is "Cimabue thought to hold the field of painting; and now Giotto’s name is on everyone’s lips, to the point of obscuring Cimabue’s reputation’ (Purgatorio xi, 94–7)" - Grove translation.
    Removed all this. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the attribution section still needs work. You could use the White quote above. At the moment you say " It is relatively primitive compared his 1290s works, and is thus believed to date from his early period. It is considered an important transitional piece, however "antiquated"." ref to Crowe and & Cavalcaselle, back in the day, but to repeat myself, they rejected the attribution.
"antiquated" actually came from Henry Fuseli, much further back in the day, but got mangled in reorgs. Now removed, with earlier career cited to Grove. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Grove bio has useful stuff, which I've sent you. Did you see Osborne on "Crucifixion" also?

Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Johnbod and coordinators - the feedback and sources provided here will take another weekend to properly incorporate. Its all very nuanced and frankly exciting, but I need time to digest. Ceoil (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All now incorporated. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for an article about a piece of art that impressed me. Minor concerns:

  • "Crucifixion": I am a bit confused by the image of the flood-damaged face that early, and without explanation. I would expect it later, where the flooding is handled.
  • "His eyes are wide open and his skin unblemished, but his body full of power". How "but"? I miss details about the Isaac source. Interesting ideas there!
  • Link for Giotto?
  • "less dependent on specific physical and facial types" - not sure what that means
  • "Saints" - old-fashioned me would prefer the images on the right
  • "Carpentry", image: I don't know if our average readers know "in situ", also it's not in the Basilica itself, but in a chapel in the museum.
  • "Commission": I wonder if that paragraph - of background - should come sooner.

Excellent final statement, about the hybrid piece of art! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you for your improvements. I'd prefer to read about present location of the Crucifix in the image caption (in "Carpentry"), but that's a minor concern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have taken into account all of these points. Ceoil (talk)

Comments from the Bounder

[edit]

Lead

  • "It is one of two large crucifixes thought to be by his hand,[1] and hung in the Basilica di Santa Croce, Florence since the late thirteenth century, but has been at the Museo dell'Opera Santa Croce since the 1960s" This one sentence is quite long and carries a lot of information: would splitting it aid the flow of the words?
Yes, chopped now. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • The second sentence ("Cimabue achieves a masterful handling of colour.") doesn't seem to follow from its predecessor, ("Medieval churches tended to be extremely colourful ...") and the effect is slightly jarring. I think I know what you're trying to convey, but I'm not sure it works as it stands. (Partly because the section title suggests a description of the crucifix, and you start off with the interior decoration of medieval churches). Maybe switch the church information to the end and then tie it to the crucifix?
agree and have chopped up and reorganised. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion

  • "His undress highlights his vulnerability, reinforces his humanity and humility. It seems influenced by a thirteenth-century Franciscan Meditation on Christ..." These two are written in Wikipedia's voice, and I think they (or at least the first sentence) should probably be attributed to someone.
I toned down the wording, which to memory was perhaps more my voice than should have been. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His eyes are wide open and his skin unblemished, but his body full of power; symbolic of everlasting life." I think this should probably be attributed too.
This sentence is confused and misses the point, will clarify,although note except for the everlasting bit, its descriptive. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commission

  • Should mid twenties be hyphenated?
It should Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting article; I hope you find these comments helpful. – The Bounder (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. Working through and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were well made. Thank you for helping and supporting the article. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

A nice read - queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of isolated sentences - I'd take that last sentence in the lead and tack it onto the first para. that'll do...

else looking good....support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Moved the sentence, but happy to edit further if it still seems awkward. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Liz beat me to it! Still, thanks Cas. Ceoil (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sagaciousphil

[edit]

I've watched this article being developed for a while now. Just a couple of very minor nitpicks:

  • Description/Crucifixion, 2nd paragraph: "His nakedness highlight his vulnerability and suffering." Shouldn't it be highlights?
  • 1966 damage and restoration, final paragraph: "The restoration was covered by international press" Could just be me but I'd say the international press?

These niggly little quibbles do not detract from my Support of promotion. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Phil, and for your eye and edits along the way. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of reference formatting by Cas Liber

[edit]

All looking ok with reference formatting - as an option, you could separate out explanatory notes like I have at Corona Borealis. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look reliable. Are offline so can't check but I can't see any extraordinary claims the article is making to make me concerned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

will take a look tomorrow Cas, on holiday and a tablet atm. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely leave any formatting changes to post-FAC so I'll be promoting this now, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2016 (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) 05:17, 20 November 2016 [15].

Night of January 16th

[edit]
Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut play of author Ayn Rand. It was her first big professional success, and the only one of her plays to be a hit. It was also the last hit for Al Woods, one the most successful Broadway producers of the early 20th century.

Since the previous nomination there is some additional material and sources, as well as a couple of additional images. The article also went to the Guild of Copy Editors for a thorough copy edit. Finally, I approached User:Curly Turkey about mentoring under the new FAC mentoring scheme. He provided additional copy editing and some feedback. So now it's here for round three. RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Not sure different premiere-dates and theatres for each title in the infobox is necessary. It seems just the title changed; it wasn't substantially a different play. Otoh I think Woman on Trial and Penthouse Legend need to be in the infobox.
  • Jury element: the long list of celebrity of juror names is unnecessary and tedious to read. All you need is a couple of the most prominent names. If you don't want to lose the info, you can relegate it to a footnote.
  • Themes: surprised to see no mention of Objectivism. What place does the philosophy of Night have in her overall thought?—indopug (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  • I reduced the info to just the first premier, as Woman on Trial, so you can see what that might look like. {{Infobox play}} does not have a parameter for alternative titles, and the 'name' parameter creates the infobox header, so I don't know of any other way the other titles would be mentioned there.
  • I get your point on the juror list; will look at different ways of doing it and probably update tomorrow. See update below.
  • The play is from early in Rand's career and is by her own description not philosophical. Basically it pre-dates Objectivism or any systematic philosophizing by her. To the extent that it was influenced by philosophy, the common view in sources is that it was the philosophy of Nietzsche, which Rand was interested in at the time but which she later rejected. --RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find a source that says that, it would be good to say so for those who may be wondering. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved most of the juror details to a note. I did a draft of leaving it in the body with fewer names, but it seemed somewhat arbitrary as to who I might include. Regarding philosophy, most of what I said above is in the article, except the chronological point that this was written before she formulated Objectivism. I'll see if there is a source that says that or some equivalent. I did remove the addition of "philosopher" as a description for her, because that is anachronistic. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Turned out to be easier to source than I expected, thanks to a book published earlier this year. --RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug:, it's been a while since your last comment, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I had responded to all of your previous input. Thanks for helping, and let me know if you have any other suggestions for the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the changes so far. My major remaining concern is with the structure of the article. History seems far too broad and unwieldy (stretching from 1933 to 1973 with many sudden narrative leaps in between), and Productions too dry (as a list of theatres, dates and actors) and somewhat repetitive of History (don't see why the month-long EE Clive production needs to be in two sections; ditto for the Ambassador run). I think having the entire History+Productions info recast completely chronologically and then split into new sections (Background, Writing, Creative conflicts, Productions, Aftermath maybe?) would solve these problems, but I'm not sure.—indopug (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little skeptical, but actually that turned out to be a relatively easy change, and generally an improvement. Give it a look and see what you think. Section titles and image placement may need some tweaking, as might wording of specific sentences that are in new places within the narrative. --RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: Just making sure you saw the changes made following your last suggestion. I did do some further tweaking after my previous comment. Not sure if you are following this FAC page and/or the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a day or two.—indopug (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919:

First time reviewing a play but I'll try to address some issues I find:
  • Avoid short paragraphs like "Despite the disputes between Rand and Woods, the play opened at Shubert's Ambassador Theatre on September 16, 1935, where it ran successfully for seven months. It closed on April 4, 1936, after 283 performances.[23]" If you can't expand them, merge it other paragraphs with others. Same is with "In 1989, Bollywood director Anant Balani's debut film Gawaahi, a Hindi-language adaptation of Night of January 16th starring Indian actress Zeenat Aman, was released.[99][100]"
  • In the "Cast of the Broadway production of Night of January 16th (in speaking order)" there are some blank parts in Other notable performers. However, are they necessary for this article?
Other than that I don't find other noticeable issues with this article (probably because I'm not new to them). However, I would recommend archiving some really old references in case they become deadlinks. Also, if you have time could you check my FAN, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1? Also, I would suggest you to review more FAN in order to get more feedback to this nomination. Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2:, thanks for the feedback. Added archive links for online-only sources per your suggestion. There are only a few of those. Many of the links are online archives of print sources, and as such are verifiable even if the linked sites cease to exist. I also merged one paragraph and expanded another. The paragraph about Gawaahi is still somewhat short, but the content doesn't really belong as part of another paragraph. Regarding the cast lists, the intention is that non-Broadway cast are listed only if the actor is notable, so there will typically be some unfilled slots. Hope that addresses all your concerns about the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: Good work. I'll give you my support. I also suggest calling the GA reviewer through the ping's work to get to more feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have a couple of minor comments which don't affect my support.

  • "Rand wanted her play to have no fixed ending, which would depend on the result of the trial": perhaps "Rand wanted her play's ending to depend on the result of the trial, rather than having a fixed final scene".
  • Why does the comment on the table say only to include blue-linked actors? Shouldn't it include any actor notable enough for an article, even if there's no article yet?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! Specific replies:
  • I'm fine with that wording; updated accordingly.
  • I'm pretty sure I mimicked the note about the table from another article. For this article at least, I think the most important part is not blue-linked vs. notable, it's only listing performers from the productions discussed in the article. Otherwise it can attract cruft about Famous Person who appeared in some high school production. So I tweaked the wording of the note. --RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Looks like we need the usual image licensing check, and source review for formatting/reliability.
  • Also as this is your first FAC, RL0919, I'd also like a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through.

All these checks can be conducted by people who've commented above or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested, thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Other side of the flyer is one of images below, so confirmed that there is no notice on either side. I added a mention of this to the Commons description pages for both sides.
  • File:Ayn Rand.jpg: Photo of author in the section on background and production seems relevant. License tag seems legit. Caption supported by article.
  • File:E.E. Clive in The Little Princess.jpg: Photo of the stage-r in the section on that seems pertinent. Caption supported by article text. PD claim credible, dunno how to check.
  • The public domain status of the movie is cited to a reliable source at The Little Princess (1939 film). To confirm that the image is from that movie, I suppose you would have to watch it. Clive appears around 38 minutes in; I added that detail to the description on Commons.
  • File:Albert H. Woods 001.jpg: Photo of the producer in the section on the subsequent productions seems OK. Caption supported by article text. A link for verification would be nice, but the info provided is a legit claim of PD-US-1923.
  • Added more source detail on Commons, including a Google Books link.
  • File:Doris Nolan in Top of the Town still.JPG: Photo of an actor in the section of the synopsis seems germane, but is better supported in the subsequent section where the caption is supported. I cannot find the image at the source.
  • There is usually this problem when uploaders get images from eBay and link a search page as the source, because the search results change. There are alternative links provided on the Commons description page that show the front and back of an uncropped print.
  • File:AvalonTheater.JPG: Image is vaguely germane to the section, but the caption is not supported in that section at least. Image is freely licensed, EXIF matches that of other uploads and the file does not seem to come from elsewhere.
  • The text in the section does say it opened at the Hollywood Playhouse as Woman on Trial, although the year is not mentioned in that section. The year is supported in the History section above (and could be omitted from the caption if that seems too remote). Update: On reflection, the year is irrelevant detail for that caption, so I went ahead and removed it.
  • File:Edmund Breese.jpeg: Photo of castmember in the section on that seems relevant, caption is supported there. Source link is vague.
  • Added specific link on Commons.
  • Added link on Commons.
  • File:Night of January 16th jury flyer back.jpg: Photo of an advertisement of the jury system in the section on that system is pertinent, is the caption supported somewhere? Assuming that the back of the advert doesn't have a copyright notice, the copyright tag is legit.
  • Other side of the flyer is the image in the infobox, as discussed for the first bullet above. The image shown demonstrates what the caption says; caption could be altered if that isn't sufficient.
  • File:Walter Pidgeon-publicity.JPG: Photo of a cast member in the reception section seems vaguely relevant. Caption supported in different parts of the text. Source link is vague.
  • He was called out for praise by reviewers, so he seemed more relevant in that section than any other image. Unfortunately I can't do much about the link the original uploader provided, but a distributed print of the same photo can be seen here, with front and back shown to demonstrate absence of copyright notice. I've added that link to the description page on Commons.
  • My take is that fair use to illustrate matters that are covered in a particular section of an article is not uncommon. (And, for what it's worth, there was no objection in two previous FAC image reviews.) But one image out of 11 isn't make or break, so I'm open to removing if it is perceived as a problem.

No comments on the ALT text, the infobox may benefit from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Replies about specific items provided above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to let other people comment on the NFCC#8 issue. As for File:Edmund Breese.jpeg I presume it doesn't have a copyright notice? The source indicates the file might have been published after 1923 - creation date and publication date are frequently not the same thing much to my annoyance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Edmund Breese photo: The source print does not have a copyright notice -- both sides can be seen at the NYPL website. The back is stamped with the date 1938 (probably when it was taken into an archive), so the print at least existed then. But it is probably much older, because it is the product of Elmer Chickering, who died in 1915. As to the movie poster, others please weigh in. --RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one else has provided input, I've gone the "better safe than sorry" route and removed the movie poster image. @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me know if you have any other image concerns or if we can consider the review passed. --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

[edit]

My ability to do spot checks was rather limited as many of the sources such as Branden aren't accessible to me. However, I checked one or two of the reviews, and I found an online copy of Burns, and a couple of the available newspaper pieces. I only found one issue: some of the material cited to Ruth Gordon's 1969 article doesn't appear to be in that article. I may have missed it, but it looks like Gordon doesn't mention the bankruptcy, and the money he lost in 1929 was apparently not lost in the crash, but seems to have been taken by his wife. The article doesn't say he lost his fortune because of the crash, but that's such an obvious implication I think the reader needs to be warned it's not the case. Of course Gordon is telling a nostalgic story forty years later, so it might be better to elide it all into "his fortunes fell in the 1930s" or something similar. Finally, I don't see the "six more plays" in the Gordon piece; is that in Kaufman, which is also cited for that sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffman covers his final bankruptcy: "Woods died bankrupt." Doesn't get more direct than that. But the specific number of plays after Night isn't mentioned there. I'll see if I can trace the source for that detail. I take your point about his earlier financial decline. Gordon is oblique about exactly what happened; Kauffman doesn't describe those details either. This makes it hard to be both specific and brief, so your suggestion of keeping it vague is probably the best.
FWIW, I have most (not quite all) of the sources in my possession, so if there is something you would like to check, I can provide quotes. Or even scans of print pages, where that's the format. --RL0919 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no need to send scans -- the checks I did make me confident enough. If you can just adjust the points discussed above I think that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording on both points. Thanks for taking up the task, and let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2016 (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) 15:20, 19 November 2016 [16].

Turbinellus floccosus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another day another mushroom - this is another work for which I've gone through just about every available source so I suspect it's comprehensive, and I feel it's on par with other fungus FAs. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Driveby comment: I'm very happy to see this here and I hope to offer a fuller review later, but: Gomphus bonarii currently redirects to this article, despite the fact it's described in the article as a separate species. Something needs to be done about that, I think. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to remove that from the description section. That source mentioning it as a separate species is from 1987. With the overhaul and reexamination of Gomphus/Turbinellus the consensus is it is just part of this species. See here as index fungorum has updated but mycobank hasn't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Redtigerxyz

[edit]
  • Ref 11: Lexicon: page no is missing
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7: Earle - 373–451 [407]. Is 407 the only page cited?
yep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25: Petersen: 118 pages are cited. Can we narrow down the page range to relevant pages?
having some trouble tracking down digital versions...gotta get back to the library... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I combined them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora Let me leave one of your "virtual placeholders". I'll go over this in detail throughout the coming week. Singora (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "Franklin Sumner Earle made C. floccosus the type species of the new genus Turbinellus in 1909, remarking that "They constitute a striking and well-marked genus which seems to have more in common with the club-shaped species of Craterellus than with the following genus where they have always been placed."" The They is ambiguous, here.
I added more detail to clarify that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some inconsistency on the capitalisation of article names in the references, unless you are following some norm that has eluded me.
yep, all title-cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that leapt out at me, but I had my say at GAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support; should have added this earlier. Sorry! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Hi Cas, just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • shaggy-, scaly-, or woolly—I'm not convinced by the hyphens, since none of the names are actually hyphenated
let me get some advice on that - I always used the dash/hyphen when a name chopped off, i.e. kelp- or southern black-backed gull... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • floccus, meaning "flock of wool"—I think that meaning of flock is close to obsolete now, perhaps "tuft" would be better for the youngsters?
added...I feel so old... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • However—please check that each use is actually necessary
trimmed one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the indigenous words Tlapitzal, tlapitzananácatl or oyamelnanácatl in Tlaxcala.—this is only appropriate if you explain the relevance of these names to the mushroom, as you have done with the Nepalese and as is self-evident in the Spanish.
found meanings and added to two, third is obvious then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • their growth slower in the cold climate. This form is slower growing,—repetitive
removed one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • who eat it, but has been eaten—as above
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • it increased tone of guinea pig smooth muscle of the small bowel—I've no idea if that is good or bad, what are the consequences for the (unlinked) guinea pig?
the smooth muscle ain't in the guinea pig at this point. The source does not elaborate, but as a doctor I know this would cause increased peristalsis (cramps/abdo symptoms etc....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • over double—more than double seems more natural
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is not known is whether the populations of T. floccosus —probably needs something like "local" or "indigenous" to qualify your populations
added "there" as local would have been repetitive.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to leave the first point with you, since I might be wrong anyway, changed too support above Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

[edit]
  • "described a specimen from Canada as Cantharellus canadensis from a manuscript by Johann Friedrich Klotzsch" What is meant by this? He named it from an earlier description? If so, the first "described" could maybe be changed to "named"... And then "based on a manuscript."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These ridges are up to 4 mm high." No conversion?
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ectomycorrhizal relationships" Explain?
word added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "showed it increased tone" What is meant by tone?
It means Muscle tone - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro seems a bit short.
I added a snentence - anything else you think should go in from body of text?

From Singora

[edit]

Note to CasLiber and Coordinators. The King of Thailand has died. Things have changed a lot here over the last 24 hours. I'll do my review next week. Singora (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok no probs, RL stuff should always take precedence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just tweaked one thing as "decurrent" is meaningful. else good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Singora

[edit]

Singora (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

erks! missed this! on to it now... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
  • RE: "and may be found in coniferous woodlands". Could you not just say "grows" or "occurs"?
done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "Though mild-tasting, they generally cause gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea when consumed". This seems to assume a correlation between taste and toxicity. Does such a relationship exist?
not as such - I guess to me it was a natural contrastive that it tastes ok yet makes people feel sick (rather than tasting foul..as many inedible mushrooms do) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Your sentence looks normal and natural; I was just wondering if it's correct.Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • Would para 2 work better as a footnote? Kuntze's "revisionary program" wasn't accepted and his contributions seem irrelevant. Note: I thought para 3 was also unnecessary until I noticed the Turbinellus genus was recently resurrected.
I can see your point as it is somewhat circumstantial, yet I am not sure what I would make it a footnote of (i.e. after which sentence I'd put the link..) . nevermind, figured it out, how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you've appended the note to the first sentence in the paragraph. Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • RE: "The stipe itself can be up to 15 cm". Is "itself" redundant?
yeah. removed.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "The white flesh is fibrous and thick, though thins out in old specimens" -> "the white flesh is fibrous and thick in young specimens, but thins with age"
done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • R. H. Petersen isn't linked
done. dunno how I missed that... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
  • Here you adopt a Euro-centric view: distribution in Asia starts in India and progresses east to Japan. In the summary you start with North Korea and head west to Pakistan.
switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toxicity
  • This is an interesting section. I read and confirmed ref #20, ETHNOMYCOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND NUTRITIONAL ANALYSIS OF SOME WILD EDIBLE MUSHROOMS OF SAGARMATHA NATIONAL PARK (SNP), NEPAL, a PDF file.

Support Everything is good and all points I raised have been answered / addressed. Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon

[edit]

With the caveat that I virtually know nothing of biology, I found this article clear and meeting all criteria. My only few niggles are with the references:

  • Berkeley MJ, Curtis MA. needs a year
  • Montoya, A. seems the only one with period after initial
  • Khaund P, Joshi SR needs a location?
all tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a reference spot check: Giachini AJ, Castellano MA: ok. Khaund P, Joshi SR (2014): ok. Berkeley MJ (1839): ok. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks for the source review/spot check Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2016 [17].

Northampton War Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a war memorial. And surprisingly enough it's in Northampton. I've been working my way through Lutyens' war memorials for the best part of the last year and this is one of the articles I'm most proud of, and hopefully the first of several I'll be bringing here. It's just had a very helpful GA review and I think it well covers its subject. I of course hope you agree but I'm grateful for all constructive feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora I've just skimmed this article and like it a lot. Let me leave one of Mr CasLiber's "virtual placeholders". I'll go over things in detail throughout the coming week. Singora (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Bounder

[edit]
  • I'll be back soon with more comments, but the line "Today it is a Grade I listed building" jumped out at me. Would "As of 2016..." or similar be better than "Today", which has a rather transient feel to it. – The Bounder (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always thought "as of" was a rather ugly, unproseworthy construction. I can change it if you really want but I think the sentence is much better the way it is.
      • Try: "In 2015 it was declared ...." and perhaps add a footnote stating that all Lutyen's war memorials were accorded similar status (or had their listing renewed) at the same time. The word "now" is definitely wrong. Singora (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • Is it worth adding the year when it received its grade I listing?
    • Done.
  • The caption for the main image says "For servicemen from Northamptonshire killed in the First World War", but the body says it also covers the Second World War (albeit added at a later date – as most British memorials were). It seems awkward to have such a contradiction in such a prominent position.
    • I'm not sure it's a contradiction, but I've added it nonetheless; it doesn't do any harm.

Commissioning

  • "Lutyens' memorial". The previous section deals with several of Lutyens' memorials. Would "The Northampton Memorial" serve as a better indicator that we have moved on to focus on this particular memorial?
    • Fair point; I've tweaked it.
  • Abingdton Street: A spelling mistake? (not sure whether this is as it should be, or Abingdon, or Abington)
    • A typo; should be Abington; fixed
  • Shouldn't the two references that follow "including Rochdale Cenotaph" be after the bracket and semi colon?
    • I put them before because they're there to verify the text inside inside the brackets rather than the whole sentence or the whole paragraph.
  • The final paragraph looks (to my untutored eye, at least) as if it should be in the following section. This is reinforced by the repetition of some of the information in the first line of the Design section. (If you choose not to move the whole paragraph to the Design section, you should make sure there isn't such repetition)
    • I've followed your suggestion and moved the paragraph into the design section and reworked it to fit better.

Design

  • As you link First World War in an earlier section, it may be worth linking the Second World War in this section (or having them both unlinked)
    • Done.
  • Do we have a date for the upgrading from Grade II to Grade I listing (cf. my earlier comment on this for the lead too)
    • Not an exact date; the date on Historic England's press release is 7 November 2015, but the NHLE only gives the date of the most recent amendment (which could be anything from a change in grade to fixing a typo).

I hope you don't mind, but I made a couple of very small edits – spelling, largely – I hope these are OK, and that you find the comments useful. – The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never mind having my typos fixed, and it's always nice when someone takes the time to read something you've written and offer feedback. Do see what you think of the improvements, @The Bounder:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Singora

[edit]

Note to Mr Mitchell and Coordinators. The King of Thailand has died. Things have changed a lot here over the last 24 hours. I'll do my review next week. Singora (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall, very good!
  • See my comment above re: the year of lisitng
    • I've dropped the today; I still think it read nicer the other way though
      • Here's what you've got "It is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed"
      • 1. The word upgrade is a bit "iffy".
      • 2. How about "It is a Grade I listed building, having been accorded the status in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and either ....." Hmmm. That's not gonna work.
      • 3. How about "In 2015 the memorial was designated a Grade I listed building; in the same year Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and accorded either a similar status or had their listing renewed" This isn't too bad! What do you think? Singora (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The trouble is that's not quite accurate; it was designated in the 70s, and upgraded (increased in grade from Grade I to Grade I) last year. I'm biased because I wrote it, of course, but I still think the original was the most prosaic way of phrasing it. --HJM
  • Try dropping one of the instances of "by" -- "The monument's design was completed and approved by 1920, but its installation was delayed by six years".
Background
[edit]
  • Isn't among better than amongst (similar to while vs. whilst)? "Amongst the most prominent designers of war memorials". I also think Lutyens should be the subject of this sentence.
  • RE: "Prior to the First World War, Lutyens established his reputation designing country houses for wealthy patrons; following it, he devoted much of his time to ...". Following what? Try something like "he later devoted ..."
Commissioning
[edit]
  • RE: "Northampton's first war memorial was a temporary cenotaph in wood and plaster". Shouldn't this be "made of" or "made from"?
  • RE: "the temporary cenotaph was the focal point for remembrance services until the unveiling of the permanent memorial". Isn't this self-evident? If you disagree, at least change "unveiling" to "construction".
  • RE: "Suggestions included renovation of civic building". Plural?
  • This sentence is way too long: "The application was submitted in 1922 by the vicar of All Saints' Church, the Reverend Geoffrey Warden, and sponsored by two church wardens and two parishioners,[9] but construction work did not commence until 1926, six years after the completion of the designs".
  • RE: "the obelisks had been carved and were awaiting the colouring of the flags". Why not say painting?
Design
[edit]
  • The first paragraph doesn't read well. You introduce the three design elements and say they're characteristic of Lutyens' work; you state that the Northamptom memorial is one of Lutyen's more elaborate designs because it uses these three elements. That makes no sense. Re-write the paragraph and strip out the repetition. As things stand you also have a stray semi-colon after the word obelisk.
  • RE: "The obelisks are ornately decorated; a narrow cross is set into the obelisks themselves while the town's coat of arms is moulded onto the columns supporting the obelisks". Use a colon rather a semi-colon. How many times does this sentence use the word "obelisk"?
  • The overall structure of this section is confusing: you introduce the obelisks and describe the columns supporting them; you then flip back to the obelisks to talk about their flags; the first sentence of paragraph four brings us back to the obelisks to offer details about their inscriptions. Why not just describe each design element step by step:
    • 1. Obelisks + flags + inscriptions
    • 2. The columns supporting the obelisks (including their "deep decorative niches that form an arch shape beneath the obelisks").
    • 3. The plinths supporting the columns
    • 4. The Stone of Remembrance
      • Leave this with me for a few days if you could, and I'll look when I've had more sleep. --HJM
        • 1. RE: "A narrow cross is set into the obelisks themselves". The word themselves isn't needed.Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. --HJM
        • 2. RE: "Northampton's is one of". You've just used this possessive in the previous paragraph. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've reworded this. --HJM
        • 3. RE: "several". This is one of those words that have very little meaning. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've only used it here where there isn't a precise figure to hand. For example, I believe seven of Lutyens' memorials feature an obelisk, but I don't have a source for that other than my own original research. --HJM
        • 4. RE: "Lutyens first proposed stone flags for use on the Cenotaph on Whitehall, but the proposal was rejected in favour of fabric flags (though they were used on several other memorials, including Rochdale Cenotaph and the Arch of Remembrance in Leicester)". This is off-topic and should be a footnote. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The origin of the flags is on-topic; its use on other memorials is straying a little, but I'm loathe to create a whole new section for half a sentence. --HJM
        • 5. RE: "deliberately devoid of any elaborate decoration". The opposite, accidentally devoid, would make no sense. The word "deliberately" isn't needed. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose we can get rid of this. --HJM
        • 6. Typo (two, if fact!): "The whole memorial raised on stone platform which forms a narrow path between the stone and the obelisks" Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History
[edit]
  • RE: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd processed to the new memorial with the parade led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and including nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders". Try: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial: the parade was led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and included nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders"
  • RE: "he observed that communities across Northamptonshire would be erecting their own memorials, but he felt that .." The second "he" is redundant.
  • RE: "the names of the fallen inscribed on the garden walls". You need a "were".
  • I don't see that the last sentence of the last paragraph is needed.
    • It's needed because it explains how it got the status it holds now. The paragraph starts with its original listing, then discusses Historic England's project, and then comes to its current status.

Thanks very much for the detailed review. I'll get back to you on the structure of the design section, probably at weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Singora: I've re-written the design section, largely following your suggestion. Could you have another look when you have a minute? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's comprehensive given the subject and seems to meet FA criteria!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora / More comments

  • 1. You have "Each obelisk sits on a tall, four-tiered rectangular column which itself stands on a wider, undercut square plinth". I'm sure this should be "Each obelisk sits on a tall, four-tiered rectangular column that stands stands on a wider, undercut square plinth". Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. --HJM
  • 2. RE: "both are particularly fine designs in which Lutyens uses the obelisks with "dignity and simple dramatic effect", according to historian Richard Barnes". Not convinced the historian's name is needed. He's not linked, and so is presumably not noteworthy. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. RE: "Unusually, the Stone of Remembrance is inscribed on both faces". Why is this unusual? Would a footnote clarify things? Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's inscribed on both faces; there are several hundred of them and I'm not aware of another with two inscriptions (Skelton makes a point of noting this). --HJM
  • 4. RE: "The whole memorial is raised on a stone platform which forms a narrow path between the stone and the obelisks". The word "that" is better that "which". This is pedantic, but nonetheless correct. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --HJM
  • 5. RE: "The crowd was large enough that the service could not be accommodated in the church itself". The word "itself" is redundant.Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --HJM
  • 6. RE: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial with the parade led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and including nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders" -> "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial: the parade was led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and included nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders"
    • Done (but with a semi-colon; I'm loathe to use a colon in prose). --HJM
  • 7. RE: "In November 2015, as part of commemorations for the centenary of the First World War, Lutyens' war memorials were recognised as a national collection and all of his free-standing memorials in England were listed or had their listing status reviewed and their National Heritage List for England list entries were updated and expanded". This just seems a bit wrong or a bit awkward or a bit hard to follow. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Final comments / Singora

For those last two sentences I've referred to above, could you not try "All of his free-standing memorials in England were listed or had their listing status reviewed and their National Heritage List for England list entries updated and expanded. As part of this process, Northampton War Memorial was upgraded to a Grade I listed building"? In other words, they "had" their listing status reviewed and "had" their entries updated and expanded. I don't see why you need the "were". My re-wording of the second sentence obviates the need to repeat "status". Singora (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. :) Is everything resolved to your satisfaction, @Singora:? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Singora (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I wasn't sure that we'd had a full-on source review for formatting/reliability so gave the reference section a scan. No issues re. reliability and not too much re. formatting although:

  • While we often tend to link publishers, I don't know that we need link locations.
  • I think we may have had this discussion before but we generally seem to place citations/footnotes before sources/bibliography...

These are not enough for me to hold up promotion though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2016 [18].

Giganotosaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the largest known meat-eating dinosaurs, and therefore one of the largest terrestrial carnivores to have ever existed. The dinosaur is thought to have equalled or even surpassed Tyrannosaurus in length, and the article is one of the most viewed dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. The article contains practically everything ever published about this animal, and covers the scientific debate/competition about the maximum size of theropod dinosaurs. The article is a GA and has been copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

Very comprehensive and well written, but, of course, some quibbles

  • I appreciate that there need to be some technical terms, but in places they appear unnecessary. How is "caudal (tail) vertebrae" better than "tail vertebrae" either in style or information content? Please check to see where the text can be made reader-friendlier
I swapped the words so the scientific terms for vertebrae are in parenthesis. But for most of the other anatomical terms, the scientific terms are the most used, and using something like "groove" instead of sulcus would be too generic (and make the meaning less clear), I think. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, if you are going to use technical or mainly US terms, make sure they are linked. I noticed Vertebra, dune buggy and badlands, but there may be others
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • genus of theropod dinosaur — is this a typo or a hunters' plural as in "I killed three lion, six tiger and two gigantosaur?
It is supposed to be singular. Like "is a genus of psittacine parrot", or some such... FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • honours the discoverer why do we have to read most of the article to find who he is?.
Now added to intro, is that what you meant? History is the only place in the article body where that info makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fully devoted— how does this differ from "devoted"?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WW2 expand and link
Hehe, the link was removed by a copy editor... Added again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might have another read through in due course. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Great to see this one here - more soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though incompletely known, the skull of Giganotosaurus appears to have been proportionally low. - what does "proportionally low" mean?
I guess it means in proportion to its length, but the source doesn't specify. I've removed "proportionally", better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read though, nothing else is jumping out at me...so looking okay really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC) i.e. support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

please note that I am not spot-checking refs and shall not be returning to strike out my queries

  • ref 1 - since it is an encyclopedia, it needs to be in italics.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know the publisher for ref 6?
It's just the author's university website[19], should I use the name of the university or something? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Skeletal Drawing a credible source?
Scott Hartman is a published palaeontologist[20], Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to wiki-link NPR and it's not need italics.
Linked, but the italics are added by the template, can't remove them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 19 - ditto (McFarland & Co.)
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for writing the full date only in ref 27? Also, if I am not mistaken the date is 26 Sep not 11 Sep.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-links needed for the following: PLoS ONE (31), Acta Palaeontologica Polonica (34), news.nationalgeographic.com (36; you can simply write it as National Geographic) and Cretaceous Research (37). – Liebe99 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though I'm pretty sure this is not a requirement. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will look at these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[edit]

I'll spot check some refs presently. using this version in case refs are movedCas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 5 - used twice - material faithful to source
  • FN 33 - used once - material faithful to source
  • FN 37 - used twice - material faithful to source

ok I'm happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Generally looks in good shape. A few comments:

  • "during the early Cenomanian age, of the Late Cretaceous period": I don't think you need that comma.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the image showing comparisons of size sourced? I don't see anything indicating the sources when I click through to the file; the details in the history persuade that it is very likely based on sourced data, but I think it should either be sourced here in the article or else in the file.
"Rescued" this data from another version of the image.[21] FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the four links given are to Wikipedia users, and one is a broken link. The other is to a blog, which looks like it might pass RS, but I don't see the specific pages or data given that support the image used here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sizes shown are within the range of what's stated in the cited article text, so I could perhaps add those sources? As noted in the discussion linked below, WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE should secure the use of user-made images. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some writers have considered such sizes exaggerated": this is positioned to make it seem that the scepticism only applies to the second specimen, but since the estimated sizes are barely largely than those estimated for the holotype I'm curious to know if the scepticism applies to both sets of sizes? If so I'd make that clearer in the text.
There has been scepticism about about the largest estimates for both specimens, so I tweaked the text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The maxilla of the upper jaw": aren't these the same? I'd think this should be "The maxilla (upper jaw)".
There is also the premaxilla (which is very small in humans), in front of the maxilla. It makes up a considerable part of the upper jaws in long-snouted animals. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the restoration sourced? E.g. is this just a Wikipedian's imagination or can it be shown to represent a reliable source's description? And the same question for the other two restoration images later in the article.
Such restorations are normally drawn after skeletal reconstructions of some kind, but the artists don't always state which exact skeletal image they have based their drawings on. There was some discussion about whether user-made illustrations of dinosaurs were appropriate for Wikipedia[22], but the conclusion was that these are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions. In any case, the images have been under review at the Dinosaur Wiki Project's image review:[23] or on the talk page, and other users, including myself, have made some anatomical tweaks on them. Two of the artists (Dmitry Bogdanov and Nobu Tamura) have illustrated published dinosaur books as well. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't run into this before; I'll post on WT:FAC and try to get more opinions. My feeling is that it's fine for a Wikipedian to make a picture, and it doesn't have to be considered original research, but it should be possible for a reader to understand where the picture came from and why it's reliable. I don't think that's the case here. Let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed at length at the "no original research" talk page[24], with the consensus mentioned above. So feel free to start a new discussion, but please make clear that it has already been discussed with a favourable outcome, with emphasis on WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE. There was also this lead-up discussion:[25] FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though not completely known, it is possible that each dentary had twelve alveoli": suggest cutting the first four words; I don't think they say anything that "It is possible" doesn't say.
Snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with elements used by palaeontologists during the excavation": what does "elements" mean here?
It most likely means equipment, but the source simpy says "The elements used by paleontologists during the searches are also on display." So not sure how much room there is for interpretation here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't know exactly what it means, I think it should just be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know from for example this[26] blog post that these "elements" are a dune buggy and field tools, but not sure how reliable it is to use as source, though it is rather uncontroversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use the pictures here to support the description? The dune buggy shows up there a couple of times, and in at least one shot I can see tools. I know these are user-contributed pictures, but tripadvisor exercises editorial control over what gets displayed, so I think this would count as a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this[27] Tripadvisor review specifically states "El Buggy que utilizaba Ruben Carolini cuando encontró al Dinosaurio mas grande del mundo". So perhaps better than citing an image? FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better; I think I'd cite the image too, just to make sure nobody complains about the user-generated nature of the quote. Can't use that for the tools, though, but the buggy is the main point, since it was clearly set up to look like the discovery scene. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The discussion of what was the largest theropod": suggest "The discussion of which theropod was the largest".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would help in understanding of the Late Cretaceous dinosaur faunas": suggest "would help in the understanding of Late Cretaceous dinosaur faunas".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lake Ezquiel Ramos Mexia": a Google search suggests this might be a typo for "Ezequiel".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "estimates in absolute values like newtons was impossible": either "estimating ... was impossible", or "estimates ... were impossible".
Took the last option. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I'll respond later today. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most of the points except the ones about the images; I'll ask at WT:FAC and see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the conversation at WT:FAC, if you can add sources to the other images as well I think that addresses the image issue. That just leaves the "elements" point, which I think we're agreed on but the change is not yet in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'll take care of all this later today. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced some more of the images, but will finish the rest early next week. Had less time than I expected... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Tripadvisor links are maybe a bit iffy, how about using this more official-looking site[28] about that exhibition which says "it houses bone replicas, lifestyles and tools used by paleontologists", and replacing the word "elements" with "tools" in this article?
    Yes, that would definitely be an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added that source, added references to restorations, and removed one image that showed grass, as I cannot find any references that state such was found at the time and place this dinosaur lived. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just had a look, and all four of the restoration pictures now have sources; that was my only remaining objection. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to now have a standard for how to do this in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2016 [29].

Aries (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aries is the ninth studio album by Mexican singer Luis Miguel. While there were some reserves about the album by critics, I am particularly fond of the early-90's dance-pop music even if they are cheesy. This is my first article about an album by Luis Miguel that is not a Romance-themed album. Previously, I have contributed to make Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album) FAs and now I am nominating this article to FA after getting a peer review done by Carbrera. I look forward to your feedback! Erick (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC) The article is in quite good but there are somethings that bothered me:[reply]

Background and recording
"The album, which was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti,[1] was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide.[2][3]" The sentence seems quite long. I would recommend splitting it like "The album, which was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti.[1] It was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide.[2][3]"
"Recording began on 4 July 1992.[8]" Now this sentence feels a bit small. Maybe I am nitpicking it so don't feel like an issue.
Singles and promotion
"The album's third single, "Suave", was released in September 1993 and peaked at number nine on the Hot Latin Songs chart;[22][23] its music video was directed by Kiko Guerrero and features Miguel dancing with several women on a beach.[24][25]" Also feels like a long sentence.
Critical reception
The first paragraph looks like it lacks some wikilink like Billboard
References
Reference 4 "Burr, Ramiro (11 July 1993). "Luis Miguel meets his challenges". San Antonio Express-News. Hearst Corporation. (subscription required (help))." seems like it lacking something.
Also, I would recommend archiving some citations in case they become dead links.

Other than that, I feel the article is well written and sourced. If the issues are solved, I'll give it my support. Additionally, I would appreciate if you could provide feedback to my own FAN (which is my first one), Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1, which has been quite inactive.

@Tintor2:, I believed I have addressed everything you brought up. As the last point about the reference, it's a paywall source, so it's acceptable the way it is. I don't have the album, otherwise I would've added where it was recorded on the sentence you mentioned felt too short. I'll see if I can find it online. Erick (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: Good work. I'll give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Richard3120:

[edit]

Good work Erick, just a few things (mostly grammar) that I think need to be looked at:

  • Second line – "Miguel decided to record an album of original recordings rather than a follow-up to Romance". Firstly, putting "record" and "recordings" almost next to each other sounds like repetition: perhaps it could be changed to "make an album of original recordings"? Secondly, surely the album WAS a follow-up to Romance, since it was his next record... I think what you mean is that he didn't want his next record to be in the same style as an album of cover versions of boleros. So this needs to be clarified.
  • Second paragraph – you say "Ayer", "Hasta Que Me Olvides" and "Suave" were the three singles released from the album. So we need clarification on what "Hasta el Fin" and "Tu y Yo" were if they were not official singles, but they still managed to chart on the Hot Latin Songs chart.
  • Background and recording, first line – sorry, and with apologies to Tintor2 above, splitting that into two sentences now is not grammatically correct... either it should go back to the way it was, or the first sentence should just be "The album was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti", because otherwise you have a hanging clause.
  • Again, in the first paragraph of this section, I think you have to clarify "In spite of Romance's success, Miguel did not want to release an immediate follow-up to the album IN THE SAME STYLE", or something like that.
  • Background and recording, last line of the first paragraph – you might have to check the original quote, because it looks like it is missing the word "be" in two places... should it be "The creation of an album has to BE part of me or else I would not be able to interpret it, or BE in it"?
  • Composition, first paragraph – should be "a saxophone solo BY American musician Kirk Whalum".
  • Composition, second paragraph – you have to say "referred TO "Me Niego Estar Solo" and "Hasta El Fin"...".
  • Singles and promotion – again, not clear what the release status of "Hasta el Fin" and "Tu y Yo" were if they were not official singles.
  • Critical reception – we would call the writers "critics", not "editors", which usually signifies the person in charge of producing the magazine/website.
  • Commercial reception – just a couple of minor grammatical changes... "it debuted and peaked at the number two on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart... "Aries remained IN this position until it was replaced by the Gipsy Kings's album..." "Aries HAD sold over two million copies worldwide as of 2000". Richard3120 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Hey Richard! I believed I've addressed everything in regards to grammar (especially the quote error that I overlooked). Now as for "Ayer" and "Tu y Yo", I will need your input on this on. When I started working on this article, I searched online to ensure that all the songs that charted were indeed singles. I find the first three through MercadoLibre, Todocoleccion, Eil, and eBay. I just found out through Discogs that "Tu y Yo" was released as a promo single for the US (source). I can just source the CD ID given Discogs is not accepted due to it being a user-submitted website. That only leaves "Hasta el Fin" which I still can't find an online to show it was released as a single. Erick (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Magiciandude, I'll have a look, but it may well be that it was not released as a single. I am wondering, seeing as the Billboard charts include an airplay component as well as sales, whether either "Tu y Yo" or "Hasta el Fin" were ever properly released as singles, and maybe they just charted on airplay alone? I think a US editor might be of more help here: I'm British and the UK charts have always been based on sales (and more recently, sales + streaming) only, so US chart positions have always been a bit of a mystery to me. Richard3120 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: As far as the Hot Latin Songs chart goes, it was solely based on airplay at the time the album came out. It wasn't until late 2012 when they started factoring sales and streaming as well. Would it be alright with you if I just mention "Tu y Yo" being a promo single being released in the US for now? Erick (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that probably answers the question then – if it was just an airplay-based chart then it's very likley those two songs were released to radio stations as promotional singles only, and they gained their chart positions on airplay on those stations. I guess all you can do is say they were promo singles for the time being. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Alright, I went ahead and amended the sentence per your suggestion. I have one more question. In the same interview on why he wasn't making another Romance, he said would do it after making Aries. Should I mention that in this article or should it just remain in the article for Segundo Romance? Erick (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Hey Richard, it's been five days since my last comment. I need to know if everything has been resolved. Thanks, Erick (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erick, my apologies, I've had a busy week and haven't logged on to Wikipedia at all. I think the only thing is in the second paragraph of the lead, where you might need to state, "Two further songs were released as promotional singles, "Hasta el Fin" and "Tú y Yo", and both peaked at number four on the Hot Latin Songs chart"... Otherwise, all good. Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120:, That's fine. As long as I can get this FAC going, I'm good. Anyways, I've addressed your remaining issue. Thanks! Erick (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • What type of success did his 1991 album Romance attained? Commercial, critical, or a combination of both?
  • Why say US Billboard Top Latin Albums but earlier only say Billboard Top Latin Songs?
  • Too many instances with chart in the second paragraph
  • So only "Pensar en Ti" received airplay in Mexico? I don't believe it is critical information needed in the lead if the track only received airplay in Mexico, what's the point of telling readers that a song was played on the radio?
  • Why not link List of diamond-certified albums in Argentina in the lead; though this is just a suggestion.
  • I feel that the sales/certifications could all be compressed into one sentence.
Background and recording
  • I believe saying that Romance was a commercial success rather than a success by itself way reads better.
Singles and promotion
  • I thought that after its second mention, the United States would be abbreviated? Or is that a stylistic choice?
Critical reception
@AJona1992:, thanks for the review. I will address these tomorrow. Erick (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992:, I believe I addressed everything you brought up except for the many instances of chart, because that's what they are and there aren't any similar words to it. Erick (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992:, it's been four days since my last comment. Please get to me as soon as you can. Erick (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Just did another read and I now support the article's promotion to FA status. The lead did not have that repetition feel as much as before when I did my first read. Best – jona ✉ 13:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I didn't notice an image-licensing review; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC]. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2016 [30].

First Tennessee Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a minor league baseball stadium in Nashville, Tennessee. I believe it meets the criteria to become a featured article. The article's previous nomination did not receive enough feedback for consensus. I will be reaching out to WikiProjects Tennessee & Baseball this time. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919

Looks pretty good from what I've read so far. Not entirely finished yet, but it's getting late so I'll leave some notes/questions and circle back tomorrow:

  • According to WP:CHECKLINKS (report here) there are five external links with significant problems.
  • "The Nashville Sounds had originally planned to leave Herschel Greer Stadium for a new ballpark called First Tennessee Field in the early 2000s, but the project was abandoned, partly because of the initial effects of the Great Recession." I find this wording confusing. I think you may mean they started working on a plan in the early 2000s (with the move date to be sometime later), rather than planning to leave their old stadium in the early 2000s. Otherwise there must be some explanation about what delayed the project to the point that it could be cancelled during the late-2000s Great Recession.
  • Just to clarify: "paid for by five city revenue streams". The property taxes from private developments are two of the five, yes? Otherwise I only count four listed.
  • The subsection called "Opening" seems to cover a number of things beyond the opening. Perhaps a slightly different header, or should some items be moved to the "Other events" subsection?
  • "The site on which First Tennessee Park was built was formerly a run-down area of old warehouses and parking lots." It is mentioned multiple times above that it was built on the site of a previous ballpark. Suddenly it is warehouses and parking lots. I gather from checking the Sulphur Dell article that this is what happened after the old park closed, but this article doesn't explain. An extra sentence or two about the history would help connect it for the reader.
  • "The ballpark's design is inspired by Nashville's heritage." This is immediately followed by discussion of concrete and metal rather than anything about the "heritage" design. I think this sentence would be better served if it was consolidated into the final paragraph of the Design subjection, which does discuss the heritage elements.

More to come. --RL0919 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes so far; I believe all the issues above are addressed. A few others and hopefully we will be looking good.
  • "One of Greer Stadium's most distinctive features was its guitar-shaped scoreboard. Having received overwhelming support from the community, a larger, more modern guitar-shaped scoreboard was designed ..." The placement on the "overwhelming support" clause in the second sentence makes it sound like the new scoreboard got the overwhelming support, but wasn't it support for the the old scoreboard that inspired the new one?
  • "Seats on both levels are traditional, plastic stadium-style chairs, and all lower-level seats behind and between the dugouts, and all second-level seats have padded seat cushions." Seems like an excess of ands, but I didn't want to accidentally change the meaning by copy editing.
  • "A section of 4-top tables—semi-circular tables surrounded by four chairs—that can accommodate 108 people at 27 tables is located at the end of the lower seating bowl in right field near The Band Box." Since The Band Box isn't discussed until later in the article, it left me wondering about it here. Perhaps some description should be added? "... near a specialty concession area called The Band Box" or something along those lines.
That's all my comments on prose. Will spot check some sources before finalizing on support or not. --RL0919 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your changes and comments so far. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the long delay since my last comments. I checked several of the sources and didn't find any issues, so happy to support. --RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All the flickr images check out, as do the own work ones. Logo's fine as well. The only tentative issue is with this one, since it has the fair use logos quite prominently on the image. It is a nice picture, but if someone could provide a second opinion on the logo issue that would be helpful. (I'll try to provide a source review as well). Wizardman 00:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: Due to the lack of any second opinions, there are a few possible alternative images of the scoreboard at Wikimedia Commons that may be able to take its place if the logos are an issue. (Such as: File:First Tennessee Park right field entrance 2.JPG, File:First Tennessee Park, May 5, 2015 - 2.JPG, or File:First Tennessee Park, April 17, 2015 - 13.jpg.)NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, thought I responded to this; to be on the safe side the second or third images might be a better bet, though I wouldn't keep it from a promotion just from the logo question. Wizardman 14:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • What does "360-degree views of the field" mean? A 360-degree view is a view in all directions, but surely there's no such view of the field from anywhere not on the field?
    • It means that the field can be seen from every spot on the concourse, as opposed to stadiums where part of the concourse is located under or behind seating. I have changed it to read: "The ballpark's wide concourse wraps entirely around the stadium and provides views of the field from every location." NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are plans": suggest "As of 2016, there are plans".
  • "The deal involved Metro receiving": who is Metro?
  • "a new greenway beyond the outfield wall will connect the Cumberland River Greenway to the Bicentennial Mall Greenway": can we get a date for this; either "As of 2016, a new greenway ... is planned to connect" or, if we know it, the planned date of the connection?
  • The paragraph about the average attendance per game is a bit clunky and repetitive in structure. How about: "By the all-star break in mid-July, the attendance had reached 332,604, a higher attendance than in the entire 2014 season at Greer Stadium, which had totalled 323,961 people over 66 games. The 2015 season attendance finished at 565,548, for an average attendance of 7,965 per game, compared to 4,909 per game for the last season at Greer."
  • "The Sounds hope to host": suggest giving some date context: "As of 2016 would do" (or 2015, if that's correct) but depending on the source you might phrase it a bit more flexibly. You have a couple more sentences that could do with date context, to avoid them aging over the next few years: "will eventually be surrounded by new apartments...", for example, and the following notes about the greenway.
  • "The grandstand has clean lines": what does this mean? If it just means it looks nice, I'd cut it unless you feel the source is worth using for this.
  • "Walking vendors traverse the stadium selling canned soft drinks, beer, water, peanuts, Cracker Jack, and other easily toted items": I think you could cut this -- it seems a fairly trivial thing to say about a ballpark.

-- That's everything I see on a first pass. I'm a bit concerned that there's some trivial detail, but after you respond to these points I'll go back through and see if there's anything that looks worth cutting. Other than that this seems in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial comments. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my comments above have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

There was talk of a source review above but not sure if it got actioned; you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: No deadlinks on a check, and all references appear reliable. My only irk is that the two brew fest refs (#42 and #43) don't have publishers, and for that matter I'd just cut the former ref as it's a primary archived source; the latter ref covers everything for both in any event. Wizardman 03:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed the first reference and added the publisher for the second. NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources suffice for me now (if one more prose review is needed let me know, but hopefully there's enough comments here for a final decision). Wizardman 03:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2016 [31].

2015 Formula One season

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a comprehensive report of the 2015 season of the Formula One World Championship. I've helped this article being to GA status recently and through the rather high bar which was set for that promotion, I actually feel this is ready to be a Featured Article. Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MWright96

[edit]
Images
  • All images would be better off with alt text for accessibilty per WP:ALT
General
  • I note that you use a mixture of number and written format when you use numbers. You want to use a consistent from especially with numbers ten or over.
  • Three examples where its problematic:
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after a 7-year absence:"
  • "Lewis Hamilton had scored ninety-three points out of a possible one hundred, giving him a twenty-seven point lead"
  • " reducing the gap to Hamilton to forty-two points in the process, but fell out of a point-scoring position in Belgium after a tyre failure on the penultimate lap, dropping him to sixty-seven points behind the leader." MWright96 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the first one, but I really can't see what's problematic about the latter two. They satisfy multiple parts of MOS:NUMERAL
  • Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words.checkY
  • In spelling out numbers, components from 21 to 99 are hyphenated.checkY
  • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures.checkY
  • Additionally the majority of the prose has numbers written out, except those that have to be spelt with numerals according to the MOS. Therefore, spelling those two cases with numerals would make them out of step with the rest of the article. I really can't see your problem here. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Driver changes
  • "They hired the former Caterham driver Will Stevens" - employed
  • "and the 2014 European Formula Three third-place finisher Max Verstappen. Verstappen became" - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
  • "while Bianchi was in a coma at the start of the season and ultimately died from injuries sustained at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix." - Bianchi should have his full name and wikilink it
Safety innovations
  • Pits should be changed to pit lane for non-Formula One readers
Penalties
  • "and if such a grid place penalty was imposed and the driver's grid position was such that it could not be applied in full," - change grid to start to avoid reptition
  • Wikilink formation lap
Pre-season
  • "Manor Marussia elected to abandon those plans in favor of developing the car for the following season" - favour
Opening rounds
  • "both cars qualified ahead of only the Manor Marussias and eventually retired." - Manor Marussia cars
European and Canadian rounds
  • "Rosberg and Sebastian Vettel did not pit" - make pit stops
  • "with 3 successive 1–2 finishes," I think this is better with three successive first and second finishes
Asian, Russian and American rounds
  • "Vettel capitalised on the results with a third-place and second-place finish, respectively," - This sounds better Vettel captalised on the results with third and second-place finishes respectively
Awards
  • Fix the link for Blanchimont corner to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#Blanchimont
References
  • I was told at my 2007 Coca-Cola 600 FA nomination that the publisher or works where the publisher name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example fn 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) should be omitted
  • I can see that only some of this have been done. e.g. This specially applies to all references by BBC Sport, Formula1.com, The Guardian, Sky Sports. See how I referenced sources in 2014 Japanese Grand Prix
  • It would be easier if you just list the numbers of the refs which need to be fixed. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth forever. I also don't understand your issue with the Sky Sports ones. The work and publisher have clearly different content. Sky Sports is just a part of British Sky Broadcasting which is active in other area's to. Also I don't see what's wrong with the one Guardian ref. It doesn't use both a work and publisher parameter. Anyway, I'll do the BBC and Formula1 refs. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done the BBC and Formula1 refs and some others. I think I also identified and the fixed the Guardian ref you mentioned.Tvx1 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 28 and 34 should have the work as Sky Sports
  • The publication date for Reference 75 should be spelt as 25 November 2014 for consistency.
  • Also is PlanetF1.com a reliable source?

That's my lot. I may be have a second look if I got the time. MWright96 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96, can you make a status report? Tvx1 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: Overall it looks a little better. My second lot of comments will be up later. Also since it's your first FAC nomination, it would be a good idea to have a look at this mentoring scheme to help you better the chances of this article passing without being failed due to a lack of response. MWright96 (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MWright96 I have fixed some and left some replies. Can you have another look? Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1 I have no more issues I can point out. I would like to hear from other reviewers before I make a vote. MWright96 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support After further review from two other editors I feel confident that this meets the FA criteria. MWright96 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – It's been a while since I last did a review for a Formula One-related article here, so this is good to see. I'll jot down a few thoughts from a reading of the article:

  • First, what is meant to be citing the results and standings tables at the bottom of the article? Tables should be verifiable as well as prose. I'd suggest adding references at the bottom, like the drivers list has.
  • Team changes: "in favour of return to Honda" needs "a" before "return", I'd imagine.
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after a being absent for seven years." On the other hand, this "a" should clearly go.
  • Driver changes: "replacing Merhi. Merhi...". Try not to have the name repeat from the ending of one sentence to the start of another, like here.
  • The Brazilian track's diagram caption has "and the redeveloped used from 2015." There should probably be a word before "used".
  • Weight and bodywork: "was increased to 702 kilograms, an increase of...". To reduce prose redundancy, you should probably use another word for "increased", such as "raised". That's really repetitive.
  • Opening round: "Kevin Magnussen failed to reach the grid after suffering an abrupt engine failure during while on his way from the pit lane to the grid." Remove "during" as an unneeded duplication of "while".
  • I have trouble with jargon in sports articles since I'm a sports fan, but even I was confused by "flyover rounds". I can't imagine a non-Formula One fan understanding what that means. In fairness, I'm able to understand much of the rest of the article.
  • European and Canadian rounds: I assume the FIA Pole Trophy goes to the driver with the most pole positions in a season? That could be made clearer here, instead of in the awards section.
  • Awards: If the source allows, we could say what the fastest lap was that got Hamilton that DHL award.
  • The fastest lap is not awarded for a particular fastest lap. It's awarded to the driver who achieved the most fastest laps during a season. In this case, Hamilton secured it at the Singapore Grand Prix through Vettel (and thus Rosberg failing to) posting the fastest lap of the race. Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. regardless I have added a sourced bit on when Hamilton secured the award.Tvx1 13:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Any particular reason for the citations in the lead? None appear necessary, though you don't have to remove them if you don't want to.
  • Yeah, I was actually surprised that information wasn't in the body. I'll add it to the race report as it's worth mentioning who set out as defending champions.Tvx1 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "secured" or "securing" as a verb five times in the lead alone; twice would be OK but I think you should replace at least three of them.
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after being absent for seven years": might be simpler as "Honda had been absent from the sport for seven years"; and I'd cut "previously" from the following clause.
  • "Lotus ended their association with Renault in favour of a deal with Mercedes. This ended a 20-year involvement of Renault with the Enstone-based team, after being an engine supplier to Benetton since 1995, and being the owner of the team from 2002 to 2010." I don't follow the second sentence -- I assume Lotus is "the Enstone-based team", but why is Benetton mentioned?
No. the Enstone-based team operated as Benetton during the nineties and early 2000's, as Renault from 2002 up to 2011, as Lotus from then until 2015 and since this season once again as Renault. That's why Benetton is mentioned. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it's still confusing to someone who, like me, knows none of the background. I can see it would take quite a bit of inline explanation, but I think it needs to be either cut or explained. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniil Kvyat was promoted to Red Bull from Toro Rosso to fill the vacated seat": why is this described as a promotion rather than a move -- aren't these independent teams?
  • While they do operate as separate constructors, they are both owned by Red Bull (Toro Rosso being the literal translation into Italian of that name). Drivers sign their contracts with the Red Bull company. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; I'll strike, but it wouldn't hurt if you explained that at that point in the article, or made Toro Rosso's ownership clear earlier.
  • I don't know what a power unit is; is there a link? Does it just mean "engine"?
  • Yes, I was surprised not to see the term in that article either, especially given the fact that the sport has used it for nearly three years now. I have raised the issue with the F1 Wikiproject.Tvx1 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The change was retroactively applied to Honda": I don't follow this.
  • Honda were allowed en extra power unit without penalty, since they were a new power unit supplier in 2015, even though the rule had only been introduced roughly halfway through the season. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Were Honda the only new supplier that season? How about "This was tweaked after the 2015 British Grand Prix, with new power unit manufacturers being allowed one additional power unit in their first season of competition; this allowance applied only to Honda"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed there was. And there was a part missing. Tvx1 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see your point. How about: "This was tweaked after the 2015 British Grand Prix, with new power unit manufacturers being allowed one additional power unit in their first season of competition; the only manufacturer affected in the 2015 season was Honda, who were allowed to take advantage of the rule even though it had been introduced after the season had begun"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the team's efforts, they were unable to solve the oversight and could not compete in the Grand Prix": I don't think one solves an oversight. I think this could be shortened and joined to the previous sentence with a comma: "in preparation for auction, and the team was unable to compete in the Grand Prix".

Tvx1: Overall this is in good shape, and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ping didn't work. You have to add the ping and sign your post at the same time for it to work. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I knew that; forgot. Thanks for the reminder. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1: just a ping to say that there are a couple of minor points still unaddressed above -- the comment about the "Enstone-based" team, and the comment about the power unit rule retroactively applying to Honda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It had slipped from my mind. Tvx1 15:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I didn't see an image-licensing review; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (1 request done)

Comment - please do not use graphical "done" and "not done" templates. These templates may cause problems with FA-processing and -archiving (see FAC instructions). You could use bolded Done text as manual checkmarks though. GermanJoe (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2016 [32].

Ghost Stories (magazine)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early fantasy pulp magazine. It was probably doomed from the start by its narrow focus on ghost stories, but it puttered along for several years in the 1920s and 1930s, and occasionally published material by well-known authors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
Good! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the magazine publish the 64 issues? In the next paragraph you write "The publisher, Bernarr Macfadden, also published ..."; later you say "Ghost Stories was published by Bernarr Macfadden".
    I take your point, but this is a common idiom in writing about magazines; one also sees phrases like "the magazine published stories about". I think this is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "It was a companion magazine to True Story and True Detective Stories, and focused almost entirely on stories about ghosts, with many of the stories written by staff writers but presented under pseudonyms in a true confession. You can avoid repeating the word "stories" with something like -> "It was a companion magazine to True Story and True Detective Stories, focusing almost entirely on stories about ghosts, many of which were written by staff writers but presented under pseudonyms as true confessions".
    Yes, that's an improvement. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing history and contents

[edit]
  • RE: "Ghost Stories followed this format, with the contents mostly written by the publisher's staff writers, and attributed in print to a first-person narrator". How else could the stories have been attributed?
    I think it's more common to see "attribute" used when talking about an attribution made after the publication and not evident on original publication -- e.g. "The story 'Imprisoned with the Pharaohs' appeared in 1924 as by Harry Houdini, but has since been attributed to H.P. Lovecraft". I was trying to make it clear here that the attribution appeared in the magazine itself; the intention was to persuade the reader that these were true stories, not fiction. Is there a better way to make that clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep -- I picked this mistake up last night. I see you've now linked "slick". Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "Carl Jacobi's first published story, "The Haunted Ring", appeared in the final issue, though this was not his first sale—"Mive", which he had sold to Weird Tales, did not appear in print until the following month". The part about "Mive" is the kind of off-topic detail that belongs in a footnote.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All good! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "An arrangement was set up by Macfadden with Walter Hutchinson ..". Surely this a separate paragraph.
    I try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs, and in this case I was hoping that there would be some apparent continuity since like the preceding sentences this discusses the contents, but I take your point. Split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about single-sentence paragraphs, but this section definitely belongs on its own. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic detail

[edit]
All good. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably join this sentence to the previous one with a colon. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "The editorial director of Constructive Publishing during MacFadden's ownership was Fulton Oursler; his assistants, who worked on the magazine, were Harry A. Keller, W. Adolphe Roberts, George Bond, Daniel Wheeler, and Arthur B. Howland, who (in that order) each spent close to a year editing, though the dates of transition for each are not known". You repeat "who" and "each". There are several ways to re-write this sentence.
    I had a go at this; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; you've a good eye for weak prose. Replies are inline above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Singora

[edit]

I like articles like this: interesting; short and sharp; no waffle or bloat! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
There seem to be quite a few hi res scans of other covers though (Google search for Ghost Stories magazine), or are the ones shown here of particular significance? FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really; I picked them as images that would look good at a small thumbnail; not all pictures look OK at small sizes. I'll have a look through Google images and see if I can spot other candidates; let me know if you see ones you think would work well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Will continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like an oversight that it isn't mentioned anywhere where this magazine was published? I'd expect this to be mentioned both in the intro and under publishing history... As far as I can see, you can only deduct the country of origin down by "Bibliographic details", because New Jersey is mentioned... FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point; I added "U.S." in the lead. I think the mention of New Jersey and New York in the bibliographic details section makes it unnecessary to be more specific in the body; I'd mention it in the publishing history but the sources don't focus on it; they just give the location of the two publishers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "often accompanied by faked photographs to make the stories appear more believable." Only the intro states these were fakes.
    In the body I have "photographs purporting to be of their protagonists"; is that good enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "published 64 issues" This number is only stated in the intro.
    Added to the bibliographic details section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info on the artists behind the covers? In any case, it seems like an omission that not a single word is devoted to the cover art?
    There's nothing in the Ashley 1985 article, which is the main discussion. The ISFDB has some of the covers credited -- e.g. see here -- but I don't like to use the ISFDB as a standalone source when nothing else mentions something, since the data is crowd-sourced (though it does go through an editing process, so it's sometimes an acceptable source). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something could be found through Google? Or in the magazines themselves? Could be nice to at least mention a couple of the artists. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own the magazines, unfortunately. I can't swear there are no sources out there that discuss the artists, but I haven't been able to find any. It's actually pretty difficult to search for this magazine because the title is such a common term, but I've tried a few things and had no luck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've had a look at this and can't really find much to say about it! I have some minor points, but they are largely a question of taste and do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Frank Belknap Long, Hugh B. Cave, Victor Rousseau, Stuart Palmer, and Robert W. Sneddon all sold stories to Ghost Stories, and Carl Jacobi's first published story, "The Haunted Ring", appeared in the final issue": It would be nice to have a word or two to say who these people were; presumably significant ghost/horror writers? Otherwise it is not clear why they are mentioned.
    Ashley lists the last three as "all well known in the fantasy field"; the other two are described as "other pulp writers", meaning that they were already established elsewhere, and published here as recognized names. The list now starts with "Popular writers such as", which I think does it -- Ashley's point is that the writers were sometimes well known but the stories were not necessarily good as a result, and reading the source again I see I omitted that point, so I've added a few words to make that clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The publisher, Bernarr Macfadden, also published": Is there an easy way to avoid "publisher...published"?
    Tweaked to mention Macfadden earlier -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the contents mostly written by the publisher's staff writers": Similarly, "written...writers"?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An arrangement was set up by Macfadden with Walter Hutchinson": My preference would be "Macfadden set up an arrangement with..." but not a big deal.
    Done; you're right -- there's no need for passive there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ghost Stories did occasionally print contributions from outside writers": Similarly, not sure we need "did" here; I think "Ghost stories occasionally printed..." has the same effect, but again not a big deal and I can see why "did" might be wanted. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, I think. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2016 [33].

Hands Across Hawthorne

[edit]
Nominator(s): --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a protest in Portland, Oregon, in reaction to an assault against a gay couple. Shortly after its June 2011 creation, the article was reviewed by User:Finetooth (see this talk page discussion) and User:Wasted Time R (see the good article review). In addition, it received two reviews by members of the Guild of Copy Editors (User:GeneralizationsAreBad and User:Twofingered Typist) in June 2016 and a peer review from User:Pax85 earlier this month. This article is shorter than most FAs, but I've seen others that are even shorter. I figured I would be bold and see if this article can be promoted to FA status. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I hope this passes FAC; I'd like to see it on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am fine with your edits. Much appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a pity that this article hasn't attracted a bit more reviewer atttention, but perhaps I can get some discussion going:

An unusual article, thanks for working on it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to review this article. I am happy to continue responding to your comments and concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I can't promise to revisit, but I'll keep watching it and chip in further if/when I can. Hopefully. others will, tooBrianboulton (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Thanks for replying. I believe I've addressed your concerns. If that earns your support, I'd appreciate a follow-up. If you prefer not to support, thanks for offering feedback and helping to improve this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking another look today. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my additional comments. I've also done some minor ce:

Hate crimes in Portland
  • Are the 50 hate crimes reported in 2010 comparable to the 15 bias crime assaults reporyed for 2009? If so, that's a more than three-fold increase, and readers should be alerted.
    • Again, we should decide if "bias crime" and "hate crime" are synonymous, and whether we want to go with the specific wording used in sources, or generalize. I lend towards the former, but I am open to the latter if you prefer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May of that year..." → "In May 2010..."
  • "Not all hate crimes were prevented for the remainder of the year, however;" This has not been suggested or implied in the preceding text. I suggest you amend to: "Hate crimes continued in the city; in November 2010..." etc, and begin the following sentence "However, according to..."
Assault
Rally
  • In the first line you refer to "the rally", without defining what this was. I think you need to say at this point who decided to hold a rally, and roughly what form it was intended to take. Later you call it an "event" and mention the hand-holding part, but you need to bring some of this information forward.
  • "This campaign..." what "campaign" are you referring to here?
  • I am not very happy with a 180-word verbatim extract from Forkner's speech. Since the wording is taken from a recent newspaper article there is a possible copyright issue; this may be considered too long to be a brief extract for which fair use would be applicable. It would be better to paraphrase the main elements of Forkner's speech in your own words and augment this with a one or two of the more striking quotes from the speech

Looking promising now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns have been addressed, and subject to a sources review I will be happy to see this promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thank you so, so much for your time and assistance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

@Another Believer: Great work with the article. It was a very informative read, and it makes me want to read more about different rallies. I am still pretty new to Wikipedia so take my comments with a grain of salt, but I just wanted to point out some things I noticed during my initial read-through. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]
  • I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability.
  • Also, since it's seems to have been a few years since Another Believer's last successful FAC, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

You can request these at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: OK, thanks for the suggestion. I added a request here (I hope this is what you meant). ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check

[edit]

a-coming up..using this revision in case ref numbers change.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can use internet archive now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I archived the links you mentioned. Please let me know if you have any other concerns, comments, or questions. Thank you for taking time to review this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Laser brain

[edit]

Everything looks good here. It is a well-written account of the event, and it maintains a properly encyclopedic tone. My only complaint is that I'm not sure I see the value in File:Hands Across Hawthorne 2.jpg. You already have a shot of the bridge, another of the crowd, and one of a speaker. This one doesn't seem to add much to reader comprehension. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. In my opinion, this image best illustrates the crowd when actually spanning the bridge. The lead image is from a far distance, and the latter crowd image shows the rally in an adjacent field following the bridge protest. I'll remove the image if required to pass FAC, but otherwise I'd prefer to leave. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just my opinion and I'm definitely not holding back my support. Thanks for your explanation! --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2016 (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_2016&oldid=752655229"