Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
|
||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and opposing
|
Contents
- 1 Nominations
- 1.1 Hex Enduction Hour
- 1.2 Agar.io
- 1.3 Wendell Willkie
- 1.4 Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)
- 1.5 Peresvet-class battleship
- 1.6 William Etty
- 1.7 Hurricane Juan (1985)
- 1.8 Wrestle Kingdom 9
- 1.9 That We Can Play
- 1.10 Killer Instinct Gold
- 1.11 The Last of Us
- 1.12 History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–85)
- 1.13 Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)
- 1.14 Norodom Ranariddh
- 1.15 Migration of the Serbs
- 1.16 Walter Whitehead
- 1.17 Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman
- 1.18 Marilyn Monroe
- 1.19 Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca
- 1.20 Black American Sign Language
- 2 Older nominations
- 2.1 Belgium national football team
- 2.2 Todd Manning
- 2.3 Hard Justice (2008)
- 2.4 Jumping Flash!
- 2.5 House of Plantagenet
- 2.6 Telopea truncata
- 2.7 Seiken Densetsu 3
- 2.8 Triturus
- 2.9 Juan Manuel de Rosas
- 2.10 Temperatures Rising
- 2.11 Mayabazar
- 2.12 Mullum Malarum
- 2.13 Union Station (Erie, Pennsylvania)
- 2.14 Andrew Sledd
- 2.15 Yugoslav monitor Sava
- 2.16 Operation Sandwedge
- 2.17 Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)
- 2.18 Oppenheimer security hearing
- 2.19 Freida Pinto
- 2.20 Palmyra
- 2.21 William Sterling Parsons
- 2.22 Bristol
- 2.23 Murder of Dwayne Jones
- 3 Featured article reviews
- 4 Featured article removal candidates
Nominations
Hex Enduction Hour
Mark E Smith's finest moment and maybe one of the most enduring and influential early 1980s Post-Punk albums. Smith has always been instantly quotable and an engaging, acerbic subject. Note he tends to swear in that Manchester way, if I ever get hauled to arbcom for this. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Agar.io
- Nominator(s): Esquivalience t 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Agar.io (currently a GA) is currently one of the most popular browser/mobile games. Despite its simplicity, it has managed to garner over 10 million downloads on the first week of release of the mobile version, and the browser version is one of the 1,000 most visited websites (according to Alexa Internet).
This article is very short for a featured article candidacy; however there is not too much information to cover because of its developmental and gameplay simplicity. Nonetheless, I have squeezed every last piece of useful information from 21 reliable sources, and I believe it meets the featured article criteria after some small improvements. Esquivalience t 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Wendell Willkie
This article is about... a man certainly best known for having lost to FDR in 1940, but there was much more to him than that. Had be been spared and given a full measure of years, he might have done quite a bit for the world. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- having read through I found one word duplicated(fixed) what I found is the term "Assessment" for the last section feels like it should be some WP:OR by the editors, the content isnt though. I did some looking through other republican leader articles and there they tend to use legacy, historical and memorial context which do seem a lot more neutral in tone and stay away from giving the appearance of making a judgement. Legacy memorial & monument lets the article appear to be complete. Gnangarra 12:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up map size
- File:Wendell_Willkie_Plaque,_New_York_Public_Library_-_DSC06453.JPG: because this plaque has 3D elements, it also needs a tag for the photographer's copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)
This article is about the history of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe. After a thorough copyedit and two peer reviews, I hope it may be promoted. Thank you for your reviews and comments in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Solid prose. Detailed and comprehensive as far as I can tell (though I'm by no means an expert on Hungarian history). I've tweaked a few lines of prose, but otherwise I feel it meets the criteria. 23 editor (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up all maps
- File:Ladislaus_(left)_Cuman_(right).jpg: the uploader does not hold the copyright here - this is a reproduction of a 2D work, no new copyright is generated
- File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Peresvet-class battleship
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The three Russian Peresvet-class battleships were designed to support their armored cruisers in a commerce-raiding war if war broke out with the British in the late 19th century. They were optimized for high speed and endurance to this end rather than heavy armor and armament, but the situation was vastly different in the war that they actually fought against the Japanese in 1904–05. The two ships that reached the Far East before war began fought creditably in the two major fleet actions with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were ultimately sunk in harbor. The third ship was part of the Baltic Fleet that was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 and was the first ship sunk during the battle. The other two ships were salvaged and placed into service by the Japanese after the war. One was sold back to the Russians in 1916 and sank after hitting mines in the Mediterranean while the other participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in 1914. She was probably scrapped around 1923. It just passed a MilHist A-class review which included an image review. As usual, I'd like reviewers to look for examples of unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments, leaning support. Very nice effort. The usual quibbles:
- Design
- "gainfully employed" mildly dislike using "employed" in this context for non-people. Maybe "gainfully occupied" or just "busy"?
- "To reduce biofouling, the hulls of the first two ships were sheathed with wood and copper, but this was eliminated in Pobeda to reduce weight. They had a partial double bottom and the hull was divided by 10 watertight transverse bulkheads" grammatically, "they" refers to "the hulls", ditto "their" in the following sentence. Suggest changing "They" to "the vessels".
- "Their crew" maybe "Each crew".
- Protection
- 6 inches is never converted to Metric.
- History
- "Peresvet, however, was scuttled in shallow water on that same day." I'm not seeing the however. Both ships went to the bottom. There's not much contrast there, especially since per your excellent Peresvet article, there is uncertainty as to the reason for the scuttling.
- Source review All sources appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following exceptions:
Image review
- The Naval Annual should be italicized
- File:Peresvet1901.jpg: when and where was this first published? Same with File:Suou1908Yokosuka.jpg
- File:Oslybya23.jpg: when and where was this first published, and under which provision do we assert it is PD in Russia?
- File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg: when and where was this first published, and what steps have been taken to ensure that a) it is a EU work, and b) the author was never credited?
- File:Peresviet_Port_Arthur_LOC_3f06353u.jpg: why the Japan tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
William Etty
- Nominator(s): ‑ Iridescent 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
William Etty is something of a case study in changing fashions. A wildly wide-ranging and exceptionally gifted artist, he was once considered England's answer to Rubens and Titian, and the man who unified the diverging artistic traditions of English, Italian, French and Netherlandish art after generations of separate development owing to the French revolutionary wars. Unfortunately, he had the bad luck to die just before the great upheavals in European art and culture, and is nowadays remembered (somewhat unfairly) only as the man who brought pornography into the mainstream. His life is an interesting mix of contradictions—a poor northern boy who became an inveterate reactionary, a Francophile who hated France and the French, a devoutly religious man who made his living painting (in John Constable's words) "revel routs of satyrs and lady bums", a proud Yorkshireman who spent his entire adult life in London. This is a long article (although not unduly long—it wouldn't even make the top 150 in terms of size), but I don't think it's appropriate in this case to split it as the change in his style over time is an important part of the story.
Before any MOS purist complains, the placement of Andromeda looking out of the page is intentional; in art if she's not centred she's almost always depicted at the edge of the frame looking outwards. Likewise, I feel Holman Hunt's picture of Etty sketching works better with Etty looking out of the page, whatever MOS says to the contrary. ‑ Iridescent 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support with brief comments
- There are several formatting details that are not as I would wish, and occasionally text was sandwiched between images and margins (aggravated no doubt by my use of zoom to make the text larger & spare my poor eyes). However, I will let others hash out all these formatting questions. I have only one question: why was Etty voted in as an RA in Feb but was not fully a member until Dec?
[And speaking of Feb/Dec, it would make both me and MOS happy if you would put &nbps; between numerals and months such as 16 August or whatever].Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)- The RA's admissions system followed (and still does follow) the masterpiece system inherited from the mediaeval trade guilds. Election gives one the right to create a diploma work, and only once that diploma work is judged up to scratch (and gifted to the institution to which one's applying) does one actually get the title. Thus, Etty was elected in February 1828, but it's only when Sleeping Nymphs and Satyrs was completed, donated to the RA collection and deemed of decent quality that he actually got the certificate.
- Regarding formatting, pretty much anything with left-aligned images is going to get a sandwiching problem at some screen widths and resolutions as things stand; as long as formatting doesn't disrupt the flow at typical sizes (between a smartphone and about 1400px width), and doesn't actually make the text unreadable at higher widths, I don't consider it an issue, although others may want to wade in. At some point in the future, the WMF are introducing a maximum text width with further screen width whitespaced (view BBC News in a wide window for an idea of how it will look), which should make the issue moot. I'm loath to remove images if at all possible; although this looks a little cluttered with images, they're carefully chosen to illustrate his changing style and the key points of his career, and there aren't any obvious ones to remove. ‑ Iridescent 10:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Something about the masterpiece system could profitably be inserted into a well-cited footnote, it seems to me. Otherwise, my work is done here. ;-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- How's that, which expands on the existing footnote to (hopefully) make it clearer what the purpose of a diploma work is? ‑ Iridescent 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Something about the masterpiece system could profitably be inserted into a well-cited footnote, it seems to me. Otherwise, my work is done here. ;-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are several formatting details that are not as I would wish, and occasionally text was sandwiched between images and margins (aggravated no doubt by my use of zoom to make the text larger & spare my poor eyes). However, I will let others hash out all these formatting questions. I have only one question: why was Etty voted in as an RA in Feb but was not fully a member until Dec?
- A huge undertaking taken on with skill and taste; have now read most of it, with little inclination or need to ce. My impression is: Wow. Support. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hurricane Juan (1985)
- Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a very unusual hurricane just over 30 years ago. It twisted and swirled around the Louisiana coast, causing widespread flooding at the end of a very bad hurricane year. To top it all off, the areas got affected only a month later by another hurricane. This is part of the ongoing focus to get 1985 Atlantic hurricane season to a featured topic. Hope you enjoy reading this article. I'll be happy to address any and all concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- “Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "nyt1028" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).”?--Jarodalien (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Fixed, it was a minor typo. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Wrestle Kingdom 9
This article is about a 2015 Japanese professional wrestling show, the premier annual event of NJPW, and was praised by critics. Jointly worked on by Ribbon Salminen and myself, we've started, DYK-ed, GA-ed and peer reviewed this article. This is the second attempt at FAC - the previous one had relatively few comments.
To encourage activity, I'm willing to exchange reviews for anyone I haven't already given help to! starship.paint ~ KO 07:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments from Wrestlinglover
- Production
- Background
- Storylines
- Event
- Undercard
- Main event matches
- Reception
- Aftermath
- Results
- New Japan Rumble
- See also
- References
- External links
- I said I'd review this last time and never got to it. I plan to review it this time around. I'll complete this sometime during this next week. I'm in the middle of finals right now so time is constrained.--WillC 01:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
That We Can Play
This article is about electropop duo Ford & Lopatin's (at the time known as Games) critically-acclaimed extended play That We Can Play. I've been into Daniel Lopatin's synth music for a while now, and I've enjoy working on this article and trying to get it to FA status. For the limited amount of reliable sources that I could find about this album, every necessary bit of information important to the EP is present, and the writing also meets FA standards. I want to strongly thank Miniapolis and SojoQ for their copyedits of the article. Any suggestions for improvement are welcomed! 和DITOREtails 02:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Outback the koala (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Killer Instinct Gold
- Nominator(s): czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Writing 90s video game history comes with a special set of source issues: a world of consumer magazines too young and insufficiently nostalgic to warrant systematic online archiving, and too old to be around in any form on the Internet or in public libraries. This is my second 90s game article (first FA being Mischief Makers though Deathrow was not too far behind in years), and I can say that it's really rewarding to track down every extant, major source on such a topic. I think this article makes an easy FAC because of this element of completeness alongside easygoing and engaging prose, and I hope you'll think the same.
This is a fighting game from a prominent video game series. It is enough of a one-off to not have a WP article until we started the recent 31-article Rare Replay project, but conspicuous enough to let us make some instrumental statements about its era. The article went through peer review mid-year. I'll note one technical point: that the Reception section publications are sometimes referenced as metonyms (that the publication said something rather than an author at the publication), and I kept this because those publications did not list authors in those works and thus the reviews were speaking as the publication's voice. I don't think it should be an issue. Thanks for your time (but don't be a c-c-combo breaker), czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Techtri
Extended content |
---|
Under Lead:
Under Gameplay:
Under Development:
Under reception:
Under References: |
-
- Nice! Thanks, @Techtri! I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take a look. My understanding is that the Internet Archive has unique permission to make specific, otherwise out-of-print, archival works available to the public, and I don't think it has been an issue before. czar 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment on sources: The sources which you cite are all wholly appropriate for an article of this sort, but I would like to make a quick comment about formatting. It seems that in many cases what you're citing first and foremost is the physical magazine, with the online source being a mere courtesy link (this is especially true, for example, in the case of the Archive.org links). As such, you should really be citing them as magazine articles with URLS, rather than as web sources. So, as a "for instance", your Scary Larry source could specify that this was volume 9 and issue 2 of GamePro, and then there would be no need for an accessdate (as the source would clearly be the magazine, and not the webpage). Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- @J Milburn, nice catch—fixed! Any more comments on the source review? czar 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The Last of Us
- Nominator(s): – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Participation Guide | |
---|---|
Support | |
Rhain1999 (nominator), Jaguar | |
Comments/No vote yet | |
Famous Hobo | |
Oppose | |
None |
The Last of Us is a 2013 video game, developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. The game's four-year development was significantly documented, which led to a wide anticipation for its release. It became one of the most acclaimed video games, earning over 240 Game of the Year awards. It is highly regarded as one of the greatest video games of all time. I've been working on this article a lot over the past year or so, and I now feel satisfied that it is well-written, and sufficiently meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Famous Hobo
Here's what I see
Lead
- The box art needs an alt text.
- Players control Joel, a man tasked with escorting the young Ellie... by saying "the young Ellie", your assuming readers already know who Ellie is. Introduce her as "a young girl named Ellie", the same way you introduced Joel.
- players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth to defend against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures... Really nitpicking at this one, but when stealth is mentioned, its almost as if your saying stealth can be used as a physical weapon like guns. Maybe reword that? If you don't agree, that's fine, like I said, really nitpicky.
- Players can also upgrade weapons and items using items scavenged from the environment. items is used twice and almost back-to-back in the same sentence. Reword the sentence or replace one of the items with another word.
Gameplay
- Players traverse post-apocalyptic environments, moving through locations to advance through the game's story. I feel locations is a bit too general, since they go through buildings, houses, sewers, etc.
- Players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth, defending against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures... If you changed it in the lead, change it here. If not, ignore this and move on.
- Players also control Ellie and Sarah throughout the game's winter segment and prologue, respectively. I know this having played the game, but from a casual reader's viewpoint, who's Sarah?
- In combat, players can use long-ranged weapons such as rifles, shotguns and bows, and short-barreled guns such as pistols and revolvers Link long-ranged weapons, and short barreled guns, though I couldn't find an article for short barreled guns, so link what you please there. I wouldn't recommend linking the actual guns though, as it could get pretty crowded with links.
- Physical abilities, such as the health bar and crafting speed Link health bar, since that's pretty much a gamer only term.
- Equipment such as health kits and Molotov cocktails can be found or crafted using collected items. Wouldn't this part go better with the crafting sentence? Besides, the previous sentence mentions how you can use health kits to heal, and then its explained how to make health kits, which seems weird.
- Players solve simple puzzles, by using floating pallets to move Ellie, who is unable to swim, across bodies of water, and using ladders or dumpsters to reach higher areas. This is a hard cut from periods with combat, and kind of caught me off guard. Try opening the sentence with "During these periods, players may have to solve simple puzzles..."
- Players' companions, such as Ellie or Tess... Once again, who's Tess?
- In every mode, players select a Faction—Hunters or Fireflies While I guess this is fine, since you introduce them as factions, you may want explain a bit more about each group, since they're both important to the singleplayer. Also, why are faction and hunters capitalized? Fireflies is fine since that's there name.
There's just some initial comments for now. Will take a full look later, but so far, very good job. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, Famous Hobo! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns. However, I was confused as to what you mean by "Link long-ranged weapons", since I could find no article on the subject. In addition, the capitalisation of Hunters and Fireflies is also present in the source, which I followed. Let me know if I missed anything from above, and I look forward to seeing more comments. Thanks again! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright, let's continue. Just as a side note, I'm doing this during classes, so my editing schedule is rather all over the place. My apologies for such disjointed comments.
Plot
- In 2013, an outbreak of a mutant Cordyceps fungus ravages the United States, transforming its human hosts into cannibalistic monsters. Cordyceps is already linked in the lead and gameplay, so unlink it here. Also, in the lead and gameplay, you call the enemies zombie-like, but in this section you call them cannibalistic monsters. Pick one and stick with it.
- Link Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City the first time each are mentioned, since you linked Austin and Wyoming. Also, any particular reason you mention the state Austin is located in, and not Pittsburgh or Salt Lake?
- Ellie expresses her survivor guilt and asks Joel to swear that his story is true; he does. I'm a little uneasy about saying Ellie has survivor guilt. It's implied at the end by her facial expression, but it's never explicitly stated, which might border on original research. If Ellie does state this, that's fine, but if not, you may want to reword this sentence.
Development
- This is presented in a scene in which Joel and Ellie discover a herd of giraffes, which concept artist John Sweeney explained was designed to "reignite [Ellie's] lust for life", having suffered following her encounter with David. This may just be me, but what suffered? Ellie or her lust for life, or both. You may want to rephrase that to better explain the significance of the scene.
- This minimalist approach was also taken with the game's sound design and art design. Remove the design after sound.
- The sound department began working early on the sound of the Infected, in order to achieve the best work possible. This is a really awkward sentence, thanks in part to the double use of sound and work.
- Unlink Pittsburgh, as it should be linked in the Plot section.
- The art department were forced to fight for things that they wished to include, due to the high demand during development. Replace fight with negotiate, sounds more encyclopedic. Also, could you go into just a little more detail about the high demand? What was demanded of them?
- The team created new engines to satisfy their needs for the game. Link to game engines, as most casual readers will not know what a game engine is.
- Downloadable content (DLC) for the game was released for the game following its launch. Repetition of for the game. Simple mistake.
- The Sights and Sounds Pack included the soundtrack, a dynamic theme and two avatars. Was the dynamic theme for the home screen on the PS3? And where would the player be able to use the avatars (I'm an Xbox gamer, so I don't know a whole lot about the PlayStation, but on Xbox, players can customize their home screen with different themes, and players are given a virtual avatar they can customize. Does the PS3 have something like this?)
- Sony announced The Last of Us Remastered, an improved version of the game for the PlayStation 4. It was released on July 29, 2014 in North America.[54][a] Remastered features improved enhanced graphics... In the first sentence, changed improved to enhanced, and in third sentence, remove the enhanced.
Reception
- The word found is used 12 times, felt is used 14 times, in the Critical reception section alone, so you should try to limit the excessive use of that word.
- In the second to last paragraph of Critical reception, Oli Welsh, Andy Kelly, Matt Helgeson, and Richard Mitchell all have their full name, but it should be kept to simply their last names, to keep in line with the rest of the section.
- Sam Einhorn of GayGamer.net felt that the revelation of Bill's sexuality "added to his character ... without really tokenizing him". Why does Bill need to be linked here? Since he was already mentioned in the plot, he should be linked their, if you want to link his character. If you do this, then you need to link Tess, Henry and Sam, Marlene, etc.
- A kiss between two female characters in Left Behind was met with positive reactions. You should go into more detail about this, such as who was it (it feels a little random saying two female characters) and why was it positively received, in the same fashion Bill's sexuality was described.
- Prior to its release, it received numerous awards for its previews at E3 I feel this should go before everything in this section, since it's sandwiched in between the highest rated games of the year by MC and GR, and all the year-end lists.
- Baker won an award from Hardcore Gamer,[143] while Johnson won awards at the British Academy Video Games Awards,[114] and DICE Awards,[120] and from The Daily Telegraph. Did Baker seriously just win an award with no description? Like, Best voice actor? Same goes for Johnson.
- Naughty Dog won Studio of the Year and Best Developer from Cheat Code Central,[139] The Daily Telegraph,[118] Edge,[155] the Golden Joystick Awards[140] and Hardcore Gamer. This is almost word for word of what is in the first paragraph of the Awards section.
- At IGN's Best of 2013 Awards... What makes the IGN awards more special that it deserves its own line?
Adaptations and possible sequel
- The comics serve as a prequel to the game, chronicling the journey of a younger Ellie and another young survivor Riley. As Riley was already mentioned in the Left Behind section as being Ellie's friend, you can just simply call her Riley instead of another young survivor.
- On March 6, 2014, Sony announced that Screen Gems will distribute a film adaptation of The Last of Us, written by Neil Druckmann and produced by Sam Raimi. Remove Druckmann's first name.
Alright, that's it. All that's left is the refs section, which I'll take a look at soon, but I can tell you that ref 115 needs to be fixed, and ref 103 needs the publisher part fixed.
- Thanks, Famous Hobo. I fixed your remaining issues. In regards to the reception of the kiss in Left Behind: this is explored in more detail in the article about the DLC, which is why it was only touched on briefly in here; if you think it should be removed, let me know. As for the references: I'm not sure why the URL for reference 115 isn't being accepted, but there's nothing wrong it as far as I can see (I don't think Wikipedia likes the "http://o.canada..." part). – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar
- I noticed that the images in the gameplay section and the development section are missing alt texts
- ""Listen mode" lets players locate enemies through a heightened sense" - minor, but I would personally change this to allows, as it may sound more encyclopaedic for the lead
"In Austin, Joel" - minor, but I would recommend Austin, TexasDisregard this as mentioned above- "The addition of Ellie as AI was a major contributor to the engine" - I think this should be fully written out as artificial intelligent, as it's prominent in the article
- "The game missed its original projected release date of May 7, 2013, pushed back to June 14, 2013 to allow for further polishing" - this sentence could to with a conjunction. How about The game missed its original projected release date of May 7, 2013, as it was pushed back to June 14, 2013 to allow for further polishing
- "Nightmare Bundle, released on November 5, 2013, added a collection of ten head items, nine of which are available to purchase individually" - so after purchasing the Nightmare Bundle, the player still has to buy the nine head items?
- "early access to customizable items and brawler skill for the game's multiplayer" - what is the brawler skill?
- "Mc Shea of GameSpot" - is this meant to be "McShea" or is this a pseudonym?
- "It is one of the best-selling PlayStation 3 games" - this should start with As of 2014 or 2015? Feel free to ignore
- "and the Spike VGX 2013" - why isn't this written out fully?
- "but were interrupted when the whole team shifted development to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End (2016)" - might sound better as but were interrupted when the whole team shifted development to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, which is scheduled for release in 2016
I'm sorry for coming late to this FAC, but as FamousHobo made a comprehensive review above, my review was slightly shortened due to various improvements already made. All in all, this is a great article! The work put into this has been impressive and admirable. No doubt I'll be support once all of the minor issues are out of the way. JAGUAR 17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, Jaguar! I've tried to address them all. Regarding Tom Mc Shea: that's how he spells his name, so that's how I wrote it in the article. Also, "Spike VGX" is the full name for the awards show. I should also let you know that the images aren't missing alt texts. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them! With all of my concerns addressed I'll be happy to support this now. I must have got confused with another website that uses pseudonyms. JAGUAR 16:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: Many thanks. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them! With all of my concerns addressed I'll be happy to support this now. I must have got confused with another website that uses pseudonyms. JAGUAR 16:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–85)
This article is about the most successful period in the history of Liverpool Football Club. From 1959 to 1985, Liverpool were the most successful football club in England, as they won numerous competitions domestically and internationally. The article is in good shape and I feel it is not far off the standard required to be featured. As always, all comments and feedback are welcomed. Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise I don't see any prose-clangers remaining though I do feel the prose could do with a little tweaking somehow. I will re-read and see if I can find something specific that is actionable.
I have some concerns about WP:PEACOCK wording throughout, borderline POV comments that come across as editorialising. I'm loathe to go through and list them all at FAC. I'd rather the nominator took on board this comment, did a scan themselves and then come back to me. This is a serious enough issue for me to go strong oppose, but it's definitely fixable. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment @Dweller:, I have taken this onboard and gone through the article and tried to remove the instances that I have found. I'd appreciate if you could have another look over, I may have left one or two in their still. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)
This article is about... a 2007 song by Barbadian singer Rihanna. It is one of her most successful and signature singles of her career. I believe the article should be featured because it's pretty well written, well illustrated and sourced, the sources are well formatted and it's also quite cohesive (maybe the Music video section is kind of not-that-rich, however that's the only reliable source I could find). Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 17:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - 3 dead links, 1 link is issue you should fix [2]. TheFame08 (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- TheFame08, Fixed them. The 110 reference from Promusicae works perfectly, despite the webcheck application showing it is dead. Thanks for the comment. — Tom(T2ME) 11:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Delegates please take into consideration that the above Support is not even remotely credible checking the user's contribution and the fact that it passed an article as GA without even reviewing it. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Passing comment only
-
- The line "It was written by Tawanna Dabney and Michael Jackson with its producers StarGate." is rather odd, considering the situation of Jackson at that time. It reads like he was there, writing the song with the team. This should be treated clearly. Same with the line in the first section. --Efe (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- During the writing of the article I haven't find a reliable source, he was absent from the writing sessions of the song, so putting just that he got his credit because of the line would be WP:OR. At the end of the day, he might be included there somehow, (the song was written circa late 2006-early 2007)
-
- This has to be clarified, I'm afraid. From the section critical reception: "He felt that "Don't Stop the Music" is the best single that has a Jackson writing credit since his 1997 single "Blood on the Dance Floor".[19]" --Efe (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please exert effort to make this balanced, should we fail to uncover sources that says his is just a songwriting credit, not that he was there writing the song with them. I found this: Jackson is listed as a co-songwriter, but not Dibango. --Efe (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- It would be interesting if an information about how they came to sampling that line could be extracted from somewhere. The first paragraph in the first section is just a prose version of the album liner notes. --Efe (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I haven't find info about that. However, the lawsuit takes the spotlight in the section, so IMO it looks pretty good.
-
MOS requires uniformity, therefore I suggest that all references in release history be put on the first column, just like all other tables (certifications, weekly charts, etc). --Efe (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
"Rihanna's vocal range spans from the low note of F♯3 to the high note of A4." This is subjective and should be generally avoided. An A4 might just be normal (or a bit low) for Mariah. --Efe (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
I am not comparing vocal notes of particular singers, I am just saying which is the highest and which is the lowest song that Rihanna sings in the song. All my other featured articles have it and no-other reviewer seem to have problem with it. — Tom(T2ME) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- "His lawyers brought the case in front of a Parisian court, demanding €500,000 in damages that Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music should have paid until the issue was resolved." Per source, it says that the lawyers of Dibango demanded such amount AND barred the labels from profiting off the song until all issues are resolved. --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- "he had approved the demand without contacting Dibango beforehand". Demand? probably a request from Rihanna's team? Also, the source says "allegedly" as in "allegedly without contacting the Cameroonian". --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Norodom Ranariddh
This article is about a Cambodian prince, politician and law academic. Ranariddh is the second son of Norodom Sihanouk, the late King of Cambodia. He served as the First Prime Minister of Cambodia between 1993 to 1997, under a two Prime Minister arrangement, together with Hun Sen as the Second Prime Minister. He was also the 3rd President of the National Assembly of Cambodia, serving between 1998 till 2006. The article has been promoted to GA sometime back, done many rounds of copyediting, checking, as well as a good round of Peer Review. I do not see why there is any reason that I should hold back this article any longer, and all are welcome to appraise and critique. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments This is a very good article, on an area of learning where we have very few FAs. Nevertheless, it may need more work, and while I will do my best to help during the FAC, it remains to be seen if that can be fully done. I think the two main difficulties are lack of context and various infelicities of prose.
-
- Lede
- Since you are allowed a fourth paragraph, consider splitting the first paragraph after the first two sentences.
-
-
- Hmm....When I was drafting the lead, my thought was to try to give each of the paragraphs an approximately equal size, partly for aesthetics and partly for Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Paragraphs, whereby concerns were mentioned on very short paragraphs. Anyway, I wrote the lead using Barack Obama as the reference point... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped? I agree that First Prime Minister and Second same, should be.
-
-
- I've reduced the "Prime Ministers" to small caps, throughout the text where I thought they were applicable, using Elizabeth II (the Queen vs queen) and Obama's (President vs president) as examples. However, the "First Prime Minister" is an official title, and I feel that they should be retained in big caps. Please feel free to reduce them to small caps if you feel that there are other parts that are also supposed to be reduced. Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- It may not be obvious to Americans what a "law researcher" or "law lecturer" is.
-
- " with the Cambodian People's Party (CPP)." I can guess what this refers to but this phrase hangs off the back of the sentence without playing a proper part in its structure.
-
- "publicly disputed" I'd be blunt and say "publicly argued"
-
- "over issues that ranged from the implementation of construction projects, signing of property development contracts to their rival alliances with the Khmer Rouge." there's an issue surrounding the comma, which may need to be replaced by an "and".
-
- " Ranariddh briefly challenged" maybe "initially" for "briefly"
-
- "Ranariddh was seen as a potential successor to Sihanouk as the next King of Cambodia," delete "the next" as surplusage.
-
- "forcing" Ranariddh/him. Unless there's a gun to his head, I think "causing" better. YMMV, but "forcing" in my view is overused in the media.
-
- "which selected Sihamoni to succeed Sihanouk in 2004." possibly which in 2004 selected Sihamoni as Sihanouk's successor"
-
- " In March 2007, Ranariddh was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to imprisonment, which were commuted after he received a pardon in September 2008." what does "were" refer to?
-
- Early life
- " primary school at Norodom School " can the duplication be avoided?
-
- "Ranariddh enrolled in the undergraduate programme of law at the University of Paris. In Paris," Was it the Sorbonne? Also note 2x Paris
- The Sorbonne was not mentioned in anyway within Mehta's source, and I hence I can't say for sure. To do so, it may lead to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. Maybe I cite one of the phrases from the source, "...I went to the University of Paris for only one year because I was not very successful in studying in Paris, you see." Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- " differing lifestyle norms " I'd make it clearer what you are talking about here.
-
- The source states...."...He acquired the image of a playboy in the year he spent in Paris where, he admitted, he neglected his studies because of the social distractions. "It was not a question of girlfriends, it was a question of a change of lifestyle," he said. "It was very difficult to move from a boarding school where you had to be very disciplined, to the university where you were very, very free. There was a lot of freedom, you know. There was no system of control. In high school the teachers spelt out all the lessons, but in university it was a different style. Life in Paris, if you are not conscious enough, is not at all suitable for serious study." I've changed the phrase to "which he attributed to the social distractions that he encountered in Paris" - would that be better?.... Mr Tan (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Entry
- "After being persuaded by his father, Ranariddh eventually joined FUNCINPEC in June 1983" not sure you need both "after" and "eventually"
-
- Make clearer whether the "personal representative" was a government or party office.
-
- Well for example, Mehta (2001) - p. 67 states that "His first appointment was that of the personal representative of Sihanouk in Asia."
- One US congress paper, also sees Ranariddh signing off as "Norodom Ranariddh, Personal Representative of Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia and Asia." You may wish to refer to [3], which has a snippet preview. In my opinion, it would be unnecessarily long to append "Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia and Asia" part to the prose, which may make it more confusing. This was Ranariddh's official position between 1983 till 1985, based on available sources. From the context, FUNCINPEC was still a resistance party at the time, and was not a government party as yet. Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- "on an interim basis at the United Nations" this also hangs off the sentence disconcertingly. / It's a bit vague what the function of the SNC was.
-
-
- I thought that was the best way to define the role of the SNC. I agree that it appears a bit vague, but I suppose the vagueness is inherent in its nature.
- I would recommend you to read Widyono's source at pp. 34-35 [4], and also [5] - p. 65. Basically, the SNC was an organisation which represented sovereign interests at the United Nations between 1990 till 1993, but it "delegated" day to day administration of Cambodia to UNTAC. If you have any proposals to make it better, I would be very keen to jointly consider with you.... Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- The "Initial Years" section needs more context. I doubt many people who will read this article from outside Cambodia are familiar with the system of government. I can't personally tell if Ranariddh is getting these office because of competence, parentage, or a combination.
-
-
- If I interpret your issue of context correctly, I suppose one area of your concern might be the text be "In March 1985, Ranariddh was appointed the inspector-general of the Armee Nationale Sihanoukiste (ANS), the armed forces of FUNCINPEC. In January 1986, Ranariddh was promoted to commander-in-chief and chief-of-staff for ANS." From the two sentences, you may be thinking who had actually appointed Ranariddh to the posts. From my contact time with the resources available, we can assume that it was probably his father, Sihanouk. The closest source that came to imply that Sihanouk elevated his son to the positions maybe found at Mehta (2001), p. 184 - [After he was removed in a coup in 1970, he persuaded Ranariddh to join him in his campaign to topple the Lon Nol regime. Sihanouk saw in Ranariddh a potential leader a quality he realised was missing in his other children. Ranariddh was elevated to the rank of Inspector General of the armee nationale sihanoukienne (ANS) in March 1985. He was appointed Commander-in-Chief, and Chief of Staff of the ANS in January 1986. Sihanouk's reliance on Ranariddh only grew after the signing of the Paris peace accord in 1991 that ended the civil war. The crowning glory was when Ranariddh became the head of his father's party, Funcinpec.] However, the source did not explicitly state that Sihanouk was personally involved in the promotion, and other sources that I have so far came across such as Narong, Ranariddh's autobiography only stated his appointments without really attributing to who did the promotions. If I were to slip in "Sihanouk promoted his son to the position of inspector general" and so on, and there is some other editors with the same sources do a spotcheck, I might be faulted for Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text.E2.80.93source_integrity. Mr Tan (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- "attacks and killings of low-level party officials from government troops, who were wary of FUNCINPEC's influence in the country" Why? And there's being wary and then there's killing people.
-
- "chief-de-mission" is this anything like a chef-de-mission?
-
- "not to use Sihanouk's name for the election" maybe "for the election" should be "during the campaign".
-
- "threatened to secede eight eastern provinces from Cambodia" Can secede be used to refer to something else besides the subject?
-
- "Head of State" lower case (2x)
-
- "and completed in early September 1993." needs "was" before completed.
-
-
- Thanks! OK - I have addressed some of the issues which you have raised, and will look through the points by-and-by. Personally, I am amendable to revisiting a point more than once if need be. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to bring up additional points which you feel needs ratification or clarification. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Update: I have looked into all issues pointed out above, and am welcome to all fellow editors in suggesting, or pointing out more areas that can be improved further. I also welcome everybody to express their thoughts on this article's FA-worthiness. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
Migration of the Serbs
NOTE: previous FAC before name change Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Migration of Serbs/archive1 Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's been two weeks since the article was failed due to lack of reviews and I figured I'd give it a second shot. It is about a 19th-century Serbian oil painting by Paja Jovanović. I've addressed all the concerns that were raised at the previous FAC and hope a sufficient number of reviewers will come round to taking a look at it this time round. 23 editor (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Support – There's a touch of WP:OVERLINK (Budapest, Belgrade, The Bible, United States, New York) and although false titles are generally, and most commendably, avoided, there's one for "Author Tim Judah" and another for "Historian Katarina Todić" (who, by the way, must surely opine that "there are" rather than "their are"). Nothing of any great moment there, and though I am anything but expert on the visual arts I am happy to support the FA candidacy; as far as I can judge the criteria are met. – Tim riley talk 22:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Support – Most of what I might have commented on (as in a recent GA on another painting) has been improved in the last few days, making this a worthy nomination. I think "naturalistic" is meant rather than "naturalist", and one or two wikilinks on such styles of painting and a few terms like ethnography might be in order, but in truth this is a highly-polished article that would already look fine on the front page. I've added the category History paintings: perhaps this term might be linked in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time, Chap. I have addressed your comments as well. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Support – definitely worthy of FA status. Nice work!--Zoupan 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support One might hope for a more sophisticated analysis of the style than Filipovitch-Robinson seems to offer, but there may well not be one. Otherwise my points last time have been dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments: an interesting and well written article about a beautiful paiting. I think, the following modifications are necessary before its promotion:
-
First sentence under the subtitle "Commissioning": "In the early 1890s, Hungarian officials announced plans for a Budapest Millennium Exhibition to be held in 1896; it was to mark the 1,000th anniversary ofthe establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary,the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, reaffirm Hungary's "national and territorial legitimacy" and the Hungarian people's "natural and historical right in the areas they inhabited."" (The Kingdom of Hungary was established in 1000, and Hungary celebrated the 1,000 anniversary of the Hungarian Conquest in 1896).Fourth sentence in the lead: "Measuring 580 by 380 centimetres (230 by 150 in), the first painting was completed in 1896, and presented to Patriarch Georgije later that year."Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
All done, Borsoka! Here are the changes . Thanks for taking interest in the article. If there's anything else to improve, feel free to bring it up. 23 editor (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Support, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Walter Whitehead
This article is about a surgeon and President of the British Medical Association who invented a new surgical procedure when he turned up for work with a hangover. I've done extensive research of both secondary and primary sources and feel confident that there isn't anything of significance omitted that would be acceptable under our various policies and guidelines. The prose might need some tightening up but my regular GA/FA copyeditor is no longer with us, sorry. I've not bothered with the GA stepping-stone: excuse my arrogance but I feel this article is at worst very close to FA standard. I'm hoping that others feel the same. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Walter_Whitehead.png needs a US PD tag
Also, a general comment on references: rather than repeating the publication title in place of the author for unattributed news articles, I suggest omitting it and sorting by article title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I will sort out the US PD tag. While I think aesthetics are inherently subjective, I'm not actually aware of how to usefully implement {{sfnp}} using article titles, especially given the length of some of those titles. I think somewhere - William Beach Thomas, perhaps - I used "Anon" for the author name but when there are so many newspaper articles listed that is just going to make things even more difficult for the reader. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Here's a sample of how this can be done without changing the inline citations at all - just add the harvid you're already using to the references. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Ah, thank you. I've often wondered about the harvid thing. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not at all well and have not got round to this yet. I will do. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I have just converted the "B"s per your suggestion. I'm going to think about this: while the things would appear to work ok in a linked environment, it seems very clumsy should someone print the thing - they would be struggling to find the correct citation, especially if the list is re-jigged to restore the alphabetised order. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- You could also use a shortened form of the title for the inline citation - that would just take a bit more immediate work in coding and organizing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Yes, with a fair amount of fudging, but it still seems somehow "unnatural" to me. I expect citations to begin with the name of the author and, yes, it is probably pretty rare to have so many anonymous citations in a WP article. Is it a situation that is more common than I realise? Is there anything inherently wrong with repeating the publication title, rather than merely some aesthetic issue? Does anyone else have thoughts regarding this? - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Commenting per request on my talk page. In my FAs on films, I have often had to cite anonymous works. The Harv set-up works best if you use it from the beginning. Personally, I agree that repeating the publication title is not particularly attractive, but it has been done. Usually, however, I see it as "X staff writer" or the like. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- It was me who asked, and I did ping Nikkimaria at the time because I'm wary of canvassing but aware that Crisco, like NM, has considerable experience of FAC. Thanks for the response, Crisco 1492. Could you perhaps link me to a couple of examples of relevant film FAs? I'm not averse to changing the cites, just cautious that this is primarily an aesthetic issue and that it might impact in non-hypertext situations. Maybe I need to get with the modern world, where everything is hypertext! - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- FAs not using writer fields where no writer is indicated include Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI and Sorga Ka Toedjoe. I can't think of any FAs using X staff writer off the top of my head. I think I usually saw that in User:Tim riley or User:SchroCat's FACs, but I may be mistaken. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- (To be clear, I have no objection to you seeking a second opinion). There's also Oliver Bosbyshell using the publication-title method, and Lawrence Wetherby using (unlinked) article-title. I don't immediately have a linked article-title example to hand, though I can keep looking. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hitler Diaries, Great Stink etc are mine with no writer—they start with the article title; I don't see it as a problem, and the aesthetic isn't one that's struck me before. I know Tim Riley adds the words "staff writer", but that's in hidden text inside the article (certainly on the articles we've worked together on). Hope this helps! – SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- My thanks to all of you. I'm going to take a look at those examples now and then I'm going to change the format here per your suggestions. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done Citations are now in the style used at, for example, Hitler Diaries. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- My thanks to all of you. I'm going to take a look at those examples now and then I'm going to change the format here per your suggestions. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman
This article is about a Hawaiian-American Union Army soldier who is considered one of the "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War"; he was among a group of more than one hundred documented Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants who fought in the American Civil War while the Kingdom of Hawaii was still an independent nation. In recent years, he has become one of the many central figures of interest in a revival of interest of this period of Hawaiian history. This article was nominated as a good article and has been peer reviewed. Basically, everything known in the sources directly about this individual is already in the article itself, so there are some questions that I won't be able to answer because no known knowledge exist about it. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- Since the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, you'll need to explicitly account for the licensing status of the works pictured in File:Pitman_family_marker,_Mount_Auburn_Cemetery_(4402353191).jpg, File:Henry_Pitman_Grave_1.jpg, and File:Honolulu-memorial-Hawaiisonsofthecivilwar.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- What exactly do you mean "explicitly account for the licensing status of the works"? I have no knowledge of anything related to the monument beyond what it says and that it is in Mount Auburn Cemetery. It might be easier to remove it because there no further knowledge I can provide about its licensing status.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Essentially, we want to know the copyright status of these monuments. Are the creators and dates of creation known? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- The creators and dates of creation are not known. I don't think information such as creators/dates of creation are known for most personal markers like these. In light of this, should they all be removed from the article? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Not necessarily. For most gravestones we actually do know the date of creation - in most cases they were created around the time of the subject's death. Is that true here, as far as we know? If so, the gravestone would be PD due to age (pre-1923 display in the US). The Civil War memorial may be more of an issue, depending on what we know about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- My guess is the family marker dates to 1951 or after (after Christiana S. Pitman's death). I have no knowledge of the gravestone with the shield, although I am guessing that it may be a later addition, a posthumously petitioned gravestone in the 20th century since it has the shield emblem on it. The plaque was created around 2010 but the creator is not known to me.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Okay...is there any possibility of finding out more information? Something 20th-century could still be PD, and the plaque could also be PD if it were a federal government work, but without details it's hard to know. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- No, I don't think there is anyway to find any more information besides the stuff I already presented, so I was thinking of just removing the problematic images to save all the trouble. The plaque to my knowledge was sponsored by Oahu Cemetery Association and Hawaii Civil War Round Table, a Civil War interest group in Hawaii, and they paid someone or a company to make the plaque for around $3500. The copyright would probably be in the hand of the unnamed/unknown maker or unnamed/unknown plaque company, so it isn't a federal government work. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I've changed it to an image of the mausoleum instead which is as a building is exempt under 17 USC 120(a).
- Okay, looks good on images now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Question on the main image. Why is the link to the source...not actually showing the full image that is being used on Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The source link supports that the portrait is held by the museum. It would be nice to link to the full portrait on the museum website, if it includes a digital gallery, but not all museums provide that - haven't checked if this one does. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- It seems odd to have a link in this manner, simply demonstrating the museum when the other works from the museum do not have such a link and there is actually a proper template for that. Links in the summary for "source" should be the actual source the digital image was taken. If the author of the image itself was the uploader it should indicate that. If it came from a digital repository, it should indicate that. Source is not the museum, it is where the digital version comes from unless they are the same (such as the Museum's digital library). This makes verification very difficult if not impossible. All of the images appear to be in the public domain, but the images themselves do not appear to have any explanation to the actual source of the image itself. I have many images of works from Crocker Art Museum here in Sacramento, that makes the source for the image the uploader or "own work" not the museum. But if the digital image is taken from, let us say Flickr" then the source will show the link to the page on Flickr the image was uploaded from. This is a part of the FA criteria for image use policy. I believe this needs to be cleared on all the images so we know the actual source.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I agree that using the "proper template" would be nice, though it's not a requirement. But I can't agree that "own work" would be an appropriate notation. Wikipedia policy is that faithful reproductions of 2D works do not warrant their own copyright. The original source of this image is a portrait held by the Peabody Museum - whether the uploader went there to snap a picture or just downloaded an image from Flickr. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The "proper template' is just the institution template. It isn't required in anyway, but will likely be added by another editor or myself at Commons for convenience. The requirement here is the source of the digital image which is "essential information". It is required for uploading to know the original publication date of the image...not the painting. The source is required as to where the image came from, whether that is "own work" (as is indicated by guidelines) or from an online source. The source is the person, group or entity that scanned, digitized or photographed the image.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Own Work" is indeed the source if...and only if the uploader actually took the photo. We already know that an image that is under the license of "public domain" can be used in the US without a "sweat of the brow" law, however, attribution must never be substituted. The source is proper attribution to the person, group or entity that created the digital work. "Own work" is used if the image was photographed or scanned by an user. It does not indicate authorship. That remains with the original author, but Wikipedia insists that image files have proper ways to verify date of publication and source...as to how we (Wikipedia) have acquired the digital image.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree, though perhaps it's a matter of terminology. If I take a photo of a photo, that doesn't make the resulting photo my own work, under either US law (which for a US photo of a US painting for a US website is all that matters) or Wikipedia policy - I just reproduced it. By the same token, if I directly upload a photo taken by someone else, I've still reproduced it, and it's still not my work. And no, we don't need to know the publication date of the image, since the creation of the image doesn't generate a new copyright. It's the date of the original painting that matters. If you want to add a template or more details that's great, but it seems very silly to nominate for deletion a painting that you agree is in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I do believe part of this is terminology. "Own Work" is only the source and is mentioned in the guidelines as to who the originating image comes from. Yes...I took this image:
and am the "Source/photographer". I must attribute myself for the digital image. But this is NOT the case here. The image was provided in a manner that, for some reason, seems to be outside the norm and is not being attributed to a proper source yet. Hopefully it will. It isn't that hard and I don't see there being any reason for the information to be held back.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree, though perhaps it's a matter of terminology. If I take a photo of a photo, that doesn't make the resulting photo my own work, under either US law (which for a US photo of a US painting for a US website is all that matters) or Wikipedia policy - I just reproduced it. By the same token, if I directly upload a photo taken by someone else, I've still reproduced it, and it's still not my work. And no, we don't need to know the publication date of the image, since the creation of the image doesn't generate a new copyright. It's the date of the original painting that matters. If you want to add a template or more details that's great, but it seems very silly to nominate for deletion a painting that you agree is in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that using the "proper template" would be nice, though it's not a requirement. But I can't agree that "own work" would be an appropriate notation. Wikipedia policy is that faithful reproductions of 2D works do not warrant their own copyright. The original source of this image is a portrait held by the Peabody Museum - whether the uploader went there to snap a picture or just downloaded an image from Flickr. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- It seems odd to have a link in this manner, simply demonstrating the museum when the other works from the museum do not have such a link and there is actually a proper template for that. Links in the summary for "source" should be the actual source the digital image was taken. If the author of the image itself was the uploader it should indicate that. If it came from a digital repository, it should indicate that. Source is not the museum, it is where the digital version comes from unless they are the same (such as the Museum's digital library). This makes verification very difficult if not impossible. All of the images appear to be in the public domain, but the images themselves do not appear to have any explanation to the actual source of the image itself. I have many images of works from Crocker Art Museum here in Sacramento, that makes the source for the image the uploader or "own work" not the museum. But if the digital image is taken from, let us say Flickr" then the source will show the link to the page on Flickr the image was uploaded from. This is a part of the FA criteria for image use policy. I believe this needs to be cleared on all the images so we know the actual source.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The source link supports that the portrait is held by the museum. It would be nice to link to the full portrait on the museum website, if it includes a digital gallery, but not all museums provide that - haven't checked if this one does. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Question on the main image. Why is the link to the source...not actually showing the full image that is being used on Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, looks good on images now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. That was easy, and an enjoyable read. - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by Mark Miller - On my initial review of the article the first note concerns me. All notes must be referenced and supported by an inline citation however, the note starts off with a comment that cannot be supported by any reference and is only the editor's original research and comment on the sources itself. I will read further but that gives me pause off the bat.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Further review of the first claim appears to also be original research and based off the editor's own analysis [edit for clarification] of the
image of the marker[primary sources] and does not come from any source itself. When I went to the single secondary source used for the claim, it is merely a listing of the name rank etc. and makes none of the claims being made. Primary sources should only be used for the content that can be specifically seen to be in the source and nothing else, such as the following line: In the 1860 United States Census, his name is recorded as "Henry Pitman".[7]. Straightforward and only contains the attribution and the exact content with no additional comment or analysis.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)- The sentence before does the same. There is no additional comment or synthesis of the primary source. The inscription on gravestone itself is a primary source not my observations, and as I discussed with other user is a reliable alternative to using Find a Grave. The two sources to the enlistment records are the same and contains the the exact spelling in the records with no additional comment or analysis.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
-
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
- I am aware of the guideline. Thank you. But again, the opening sentence is not supported by the primary source references and has no secondary source. It is your analysis of the primary sources and is a misuse of primary sources to pile them on without a secondary source for the claim. And we have been through this as well as the above issue of "Freedom of panorama" using graves stones that cannot be dated. Only the specific descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. I do not find directional description an issue. My bad. I corrected that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Specifically, you need to lose the "His name is given in various ways in the sources" portion of the note.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wording is an issue. The way you have "In Hawaii..." is analysis. But just saying "Hawaiian publications.." is not, just specific to the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- In Hawaii is citing the publication place of the primary source, which can be found in the publication information at the front of these books or in the front pages of newspapers. I disagree that saying sources disagree is synthesis or original research, a point which I like to hear other users' opinion on. But anyway, the disagreement of spelling and age can be sourced to Vance's and Manning's biography of Pitman in the NPS book. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- "In Hawaii" is analysis of the primary source and constitutes original research by telling the reader that only a specific location regards the subject in this manner. The primary sources do not state that. But if you feel an argument is required as a comeback to all who disagree (as does seem to be the indication so far) I will stop further discussion and review the article as a whole and leave a single post with all of the concerns that I feel hold this article back from Feature status. If you truly want this article to make FA status, try to heed some of the reviews as right now I am strictly for ...
- In Hawaii is citing the publication place of the primary source, which can be found in the publication information at the front of these books or in the front pages of newspapers. I disagree that saying sources disagree is synthesis or original research, a point which I like to hear other users' opinion on. But anyway, the disagreement of spelling and age can be sourced to Vance's and Manning's biography of Pitman in the NPS book. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Decline for FA status - Initial review finds too much original research and abuse of primary sources. I will review the entire article for specific issues but for now, I feel the article is lacking in enough ways to not support.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for you assessment. I don't agree but that isn't odd.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- What is odd is your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policy (especially in regards to images, primary sources and use of secondary sourcing....and that is vital), which is why I was surprised to see you nominate an article. Hold your thanks until I actually give a full review. Since you seem firm on not making any changes suggested and seem to argue and question all posts, I am not sure you are even ready to nominate an article to FA yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think your suggestions are in anyway legitimate which is why I won't make the changes I see as unnecessary. I am not sure you are event qualified to make legitimate reviews based on the qualities of articles you have written or heavily edited, although if the points are legitimate I will make the change. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then you fail the most important part of FAC. Respect the opinion of the reviewing editors. All you want to do is argue your opinion or your OR. Fine, then write a blog or create your own Wiki. I at least have one FA article. Whether or not you see that as qualifications for review only goes to demonstrate the manner in which you try to discredit both sources and editors outside policy and guidelines. Frankly, your scores of articles based on your original research disturbs me greatly, as it should all editors that review your articles for fact based content but you continue to improve and, as I have stated before, you are still a net plus for Wikipedia in general....but maybe not for FA at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think your suggestions are in anyway legitimate which is why I won't make the changes I see as unnecessary. I am not sure you are event qualified to make legitimate reviews based on the qualities of articles you have written or heavily edited, although if the points are legitimate I will make the change. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- What is odd is your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policy (especially in regards to images, primary sources and use of secondary sourcing....and that is vital), which is why I was surprised to see you nominate an article. Hold your thanks until I actually give a full review. Since you seem firm on not making any changes suggested and seem to argue and question all posts, I am not sure you are even ready to nominate an article to FA yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for you assessment. I don't agree but that isn't odd.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The article has a few issues that do not appear to have been addressed during the October GA review. This might have something to do with the lack of discussion with the original FA nomination. Before the article can listed as FA, it first must meet all the standards and criteria that were not address in the last review and the criteria for Featured Article status.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Instead editing the article, please suggested the changes below like all the reviewers have done. I saw problems with your changes.
- 1. The Pitman house image has potential copyright issues as addressed before by Nikkimaria. It was printed in a 1931 book by Almira Pitman but is undated so can potentially still have copyright problems if made after 1923. The Pitman had their third son in Hilo; his brother's gravestone at Mount Auburn, and Pitman's stepmother died in Hilo as well, and primary sources discussed in Merry's book state Pitman didn't sell his Hilo house to Spencer until he left for Boston.
- 2. There is no rationale for using Hawaiian language term titles with Ke Aliʻi (The Noble). This is clearly your mode of translating the title across Wikipedia in articles you've edit which no historians or other wiki editors even have adopted at all; the sources I used for this article that speaks about Pitman's life use the term high chiefess or high chief to refer to his Hawaiian ancestors so it should reflect what the sources say. Included among these is "After fifty years: an appreciation, and a record of a unique incident" written by Henry's sister-in-law and the recent publications by Manning and Vance, Hawaiian historians in this period of history. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please be accurate with accusations, especially when discussing what other reviewers have done. I have reverted some of your edits as the talk page makes it clear you are not supported by the deprecated use of "chief" and "High Chief", which is not the proper titles of Hawaiian nobility. Translations by missionaries almost two hundred years ago have since been updated. Basically you are calling the subject an Indian. That is not appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Translations by missionaries almost two hundred years ago" & "Basically you are calling the subject an Indian" - by whom? You are establishing a link between the word chief and Indian which is racist and sourceless to say the least. You are claiming the missionary translation has been updated, yet you do not demonstrate the sources to back thisot up. The scholarship in the Hawaiian community still commonly uses the English translation "chief" or "chiefess" to translate the term Ali'i; show me one person/scholar/source who translates it as "the noble" word for word. The talk page discussion was regarding the English spelling "chiefess" which is not found in certain dictionaries not the Hawaiian translation. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- "You are establishing a link between the word chief and Indian which is racist and sourceless to say the least." Excuse me...but did you accuse me of racism through my text because you don't understand the Hawaiian term "ali'i" translates as "Noble". I don't need a source to use the term that has been established as accurate for nearly as long as the mistranslation to "chief" because of the misunderstanding of what an "Indian" is to missionaries of two hundred years ago. And yes...it is a term that can be referenced. Ke Ali'i is a formal term of position or title. The word "Ke" is used instead of "Ka" in formal titles. Hawaii didn't have a "king" until David Kalakaua because he was the first to use the only Hawaiian (Mauai) term for King...Moi. So, if you are trying to create an FA article, yes, I actually object to the term "Chief" and 'Chiefess" as inaccurate and one other editor on the talk page agrees. You should probably strike that out. it certainly "irritates" me and seems to be a personel attack.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your making a controversial claim of mistranslation and connotations which have no sources. Your claiming chief and chiefess are mistranslations and confused/link Hawaiians to American Indians without any sources. Please, provide sources that this (mistranslation and connotation) is the majority scholarly consensus in Hawaiian historiography and that there is any rationale (in the majority scholarship and historiography) to reject chief/chiefess and use Ke Alii (The Noble) instead because of your expressed reasons. Also find me a list of scholarly sources that translates Ke Ali'i as "The Noble" (word for word) and also simultaneously rejects the translation chief/chiefess as well because of connotation with American Indians. You are making claims and interpretations ("Hawaii didn't have a "king" until David Kalakaua because he was the first to use the only Hawaiian (Mauai) term for King...Moi") without sources; this last point about Kalakaua is also irrelevant here so I won't discuss it. Wikipedia should reflect what the academic sources state and has no room for opinions or interpretations.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. I don't have to do any of that. If you feel there has been racism than you need to contact an administrator or file a complaint at ANI. I am not making a controversial claim. This is a talk page. I made no such claim in the article and if I should ever need to do such...yeah, it can be sourced but this is a very simple matter. You used the term chief and high chiefess and someone else reverted you and I said that the best route was to use the proper term: Ali'i wahine, that the other editor already mentioned. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. You simply have two editors that disagreed with you some time ago but never made any attempt to change the content. I did based on that discussion and the public thank you I received when I weighed in on the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. I just thought it was a bigoted comment to make. And I don't believe it can be sourced properly in the majority scholarship (although I am sure you would manage to find one or two fringe sources to use to support that). Then your only rationale for reverting me is just the concerns raised by User:Corinne. Yes, if that was the editor's viewpoint which I still am not sure of. The editor's concern high chief or chief but chiefess as an English word in the English dictionary and to explain it (which can be accomplished by a footnote). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh...so that's supposed to be better?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your making a controversial claim of mistranslation and connotations which have no sources. Your claiming chief and chiefess are mistranslations and confused/link Hawaiians to American Indians without any sources. Please, provide sources that this (mistranslation and connotation) is the majority scholarly consensus in Hawaiian historiography and that there is any rationale (in the majority scholarship and historiography) to reject chief/chiefess and use Ke Alii (The Noble) instead because of your expressed reasons. Also find me a list of scholarly sources that translates Ke Ali'i as "The Noble" (word for word) and also simultaneously rejects the translation chief/chiefess as well because of connotation with American Indians. You are making claims and interpretations ("Hawaii didn't have a "king" until David Kalakaua because he was the first to use the only Hawaiian (Mauai) term for King...Moi") without sources; this last point about Kalakaua is also irrelevant here so I won't discuss it. Wikipedia should reflect what the academic sources state and has no room for opinions or interpretations.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- "You are establishing a link between the word chief and Indian which is racist and sourceless to say the least." Excuse me...but did you accuse me of racism through my text because you don't understand the Hawaiian term "ali'i" translates as "Noble". I don't need a source to use the term that has been established as accurate for nearly as long as the mistranslation to "chief" because of the misunderstanding of what an "Indian" is to missionaries of two hundred years ago. And yes...it is a term that can be referenced. Ke Ali'i is a formal term of position or title. The word "Ke" is used instead of "Ka" in formal titles. Hawaii didn't have a "king" until David Kalakaua because he was the first to use the only Hawaiian (Mauai) term for King...Moi. So, if you are trying to create an FA article, yes, I actually object to the term "Chief" and 'Chiefess" as inaccurate and one other editor on the talk page agrees. You should probably strike that out. it certainly "irritates" me and seems to be a personel attack.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Translations by missionaries almost two hundred years ago" & "Basically you are calling the subject an Indian" - by whom? You are establishing a link between the word chief and Indian which is racist and sourceless to say the least. You are claiming the missionary translation has been updated, yet you do not demonstrate the sources to back thisot up. The scholarship in the Hawaiian community still commonly uses the English translation "chief" or "chiefess" to translate the term Ali'i; show me one person/scholar/source who translates it as "the noble" word for word. The talk page discussion was regarding the English spelling "chiefess" which is not found in certain dictionaries not the Hawaiian translation. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- If the Pitman House image is a copyright issue and you have hidden it instead of requesting deletion, that is an MOS issue because hidden messages are to be used sparingly and hiding a copyright issue is not that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please be accurate with accusations, especially when discussing what other reviewers have done. I have reverted some of your edits as the talk page makes it clear you are not supported by the deprecated use of "chief" and "High Chief", which is not the proper titles of Hawaiian nobility. Translations by missionaries almost two hundred years ago have since been updated. Basically you are calling the subject an Indian. That is not appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a note, I am in the middle of exams, currently right now, and will be out of the country doing a field course later, so I may be slow to respond unless the edits/comments irritate me enough to respond at the detriment of my semester's grade (which for the past few days has).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see. You'll only respond if irritated enough. That's very collaborative of you in an FA nomination that was archived due to lack of interest.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, to my knowledge, this is an active nomination not an archive. All FA nominations are titled "Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TITLE/archive#"--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- That was my lack of knowledge. Not yours. Seriously. I saw that and since I have the FA nom page watchlisted and didn't see this come up I just assumed (incorrectly) that the Nov 26 nom date made it an older nom. Nope. Still in the main nom section.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have to clarify. "Sorry" wasn't an apology it was an expression of surprise (Sorry, what?). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- You actually didn't need to clarify that... but it does say more than you might have been attempting to say.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have to clarify. "Sorry" wasn't an apology it was an expression of surprise (Sorry, what?). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- That was my lack of knowledge. Not yours. Seriously. I saw that and since I have the FA nom page watchlisted and didn't see this come up I just assumed (incorrectly) that the Nov 26 nom date made it an older nom. Nope. Still in the main nom section.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, to my knowledge, this is an active nomination not an archive. All FA nominations are titled "Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TITLE/archive#"--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please, please do what the other reviewers have been doing and suggest edits instead of unilaterally changing the article. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand the very question since Dank edited the article and reviewed the article for prose. At any rate, editors are welcome to edit the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Accusations against reviewing editor - Because the nominating editor has made accusations of racism and bigotry as well as being "distressingly threatened and harassed" by me, while attempting to address concerns on this page and the talk page of the article, I have been bullied off the review. I cannot do a full review of this article as it will only encourage further disruptive, uncivil behavior. I mean really...if you have to ask the FA coordinator "can I disrespect the opinion of a reviewing editor", it should probably have been a redflag that something was seriously wrong. Because that is exactly what I have endured for a couple of years now from this editor instead of collaboration. --Mark Miller (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Marilyn Monroe
- Nominator(s): TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is about... Marilyn Monroe, a key figure in twentieth-century popular culture. I noticed that the article wasn't in very good shape and started working on it in July. It's currently a GA and has been peer reviewed recently. It would be wonderful to see it become a FA! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Support all my concerns were addressed during the peer review. Well done, Susie! For the FAC coordinators, I did an image review there and found no copyright issues. I also did a spotcheck there of the references (after initial comments from other users) where I only detected a few verification issues. They have also been resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I gave the article a detailed review before the PR opened, and then read through it again a few days ago. It's very comprehensive, informative, well-written, neutral, nicely illustrated...yep, definitely worthy of being an FA. I commend TrueHeartSusie for taking on one of WP's most visited articles and bringing it to this standard. --Loeba (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support, provided no problems are identified (I'm watching this page). I had a good look through this article at PR, and it strikes me as excellent; a highly valuable addition to Wikipedia for which Susie should be commended. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support Indeed meets the criteria and an excellent effort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support This article on this well-known figure is, in view, definitely comprehensive, neatly written and covers the major areas of their life sufficiently. Great work! Z105space (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support great article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Another peer reviewer checking in. The article was impressive then and is impressive now. Fully meets FA criteria in my judgement. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support Also peer reviewed. My concerns about tone have been for the most part addressed, and I can let the rest slide as author's discretion. But enough about that. Masterful and thorough.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Coord notes -- I note that an image review was carried out at PR but given the prominence of this article I'd like to see a double-check here pls, also looks like we need a source review; these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea, will request it tomorrow! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Ok, I've placed a request now! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca
Right, now orange is the new black and Sasata and I have been buffing the false chanterelle. I feel it's come together well and within striking distance of FA status if not over the FA line. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- ... just adding that this article is nearly a decade old, haven grown from this stub started on 10 November 2006! Sasata (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Coloured_Figures_of_English_Fungi_or_Mushrooms_-_t._413.jpg needs a US PD tag, and should include original rather than upload date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Support: the writing seems excellent, and the article appears to be in good form. I gave it a read through but could find no issues. The images are sufficient and well suited to the task. The references look to be properly formatted. From my perspective, the article satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Source review. All sources seem to be of proper quality and properly formatted, with the following exceptions:
Ref 9 (Holden): why is "Names" capped? Ref 35 and 36 do not have a "UK" after London, all other instances in footnotes do. Ref 36 (Desjardin): which Portland?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Support. This article is great, I can't see any problems with the content, just a few very minor copy editing thoughts:
- to my American ears not particularly worthwhile eating would sound better as not particularly worthwhile to eat
- The little para beginning The specific epithet is the Latin word aurantiacus seems kind of weird stuck in the middle of the taxonomy section since it is introductory, might it work at the beginning? Maybe you could rearrange the current first two sentences a bit so it goes, ...commonly known as the false chanterelle. Austrian naturalist Franz Xaver von Wulfen described it as Agaricus aurantiacus in 1781, noting that it could be confused with the chanterelle by the inexperienced, but ... He reported that it appeared in the fir tree forests around... Just a thought, dunno if it works.
- What distinguishes var. nana and var. robusta?
- In the sentence Cystidia are absent, should there be a parenthetical explanation of the word cystidia as there is for basidia?
- I think there should not be hyphens here: forked gills that are saffron- to orange-coloured. (I googled this! [7])
- this is a confusing 'its': The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its more orange colour. How do you feel about "the former's"?
- The edibility section has a little bit of trouble with flow I think. If I were to rearrange it, I'd put the Extracts made from Nigerian collections sentence after the David Arora speculates (with a 'however'). Then I'd put Some people experience gastrointestinal symptoms after eating it, possibly due to its high levels of the sugar alcohol arabitol. Then finish up with where and how it's eaten.
Anyway, excellent work. No serious shortcomings; I have no problem supporting now regardless of how these ideas are handled. delldot ∇. 07:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Black American Sign Language
This article is about a dialect of American Sign Language (ASL) spoken by the Black Deaf in the American South that arose out of the segregation of schools for the deaf prior to Brown v. Board. It covers the sociocultural history that led to the language split as well as the features that distinguish it from other dialects of ASL. Research into the dialect has only been going on intensively for the last two decades and the article incorporates the most comprehensive studies of the dialect as well as a number of small scale studies. Wugapodes (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- Hi Wug. (I'm proud to say, I got the joke in the name, right down to "octopodes".) Reading through now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- "the first school exclusively for the Black deaf—The School for the Colored Deaf, Dumb, and Blind": It doesn't sound like the school was exclusively for the Black deaf; was it?
- I'm occasionally removing repetition of words when there's a way around repeating them. My crude understanding is that psycholinguists approve of this kind of copyediting; see for instance The Sense of Style (and I'll be happy to hunt up a page number). You can always revert, and then it's up to the FAC coords to decide if it makes a difference to them. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- "The use of repetition by BASL signers is considered to be pragmatic rather than clarifying as most instances were of declarative statements and, cross-linguistically, pragmatic repetition in statements is common.": I'm sorry, I didn't follow that.
- "A study in 2004 by Melanie Metzger and Susan Mather found that Black male signers used constructed action, with or without constructed dialogue, more often than White signers, but never used constructed dialogue by itself.": At a minimum, those links will need to turn blue for readers to know what you mean.
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Glad you brought this to FAC. It's a fascinating subject, and I'd like to see it on the Main Page one day. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the feedback and especially the copyedit. The article's better for it. I rechecked the source about the Skinner school and revised the sentence accordingly, I tried to clarify the sentence on pragmatic repetition as best I could, and I plan to create an article (or two) on constructed action and dialogue, I just need to find more sources. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your changes look good. Welcome aboard. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback and especially the copyedit. The article's better for it. I rechecked the source about the Skinner school and revised the sentence accordingly, I tried to clarify the sentence on pragmatic repetition as best I could, and I plan to create an article (or two) on constructed action and dialogue, I just need to find more sources. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment That it is a dialect (rather than, say, a style) should be referenced (and the word linked), and perhaps discussed further. Not all the sources seem to describe it so. There are no specific examples of differences mentioned, which one would certainly expect in an FA on a dialect. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment! I do agree that specific examples of signs that vary should be included and will add them in this weekend. I sourced the sentence in the History section that claims it is a dialect to Ethnologue. I did not include a discussion on the terminology as it has very little to do with the language variety itself, and there is no controversy regarding the terminology to discuss rather just an evolution in the terminology and scholarship. To give a brief overview, early work referred to it as a language variety (which encompasses styles, accents, and dialects) because there was very little data on it. Then McCaskill, et al. put forth a lot of data in the first comprehensive study of the variety in 2011. In 2012 Clint Brockway, adjunct faculty at UA Little Rock, put forth an argument in favor of calling it a dialect based upon the available data, particularly in McCaskill, et all. 2011 (this isn't to say Brockway's essay was very influential in the field--it wasn't--rather, it shows what those paying attention to the data were thinking and the arguments in support of it). And in the most recent version of Ethnologue (2015), BASL is refered to as a dialect showing there is at least some agreement in the field that it can be considered a dialect. This is how language typology typically works and isn't worth discussing as the discussion would simply be "We didn't have data, then we had data, then we called it that because we now have data" which has almost nothing to do with the dialect itself, but rather the academics surrounding it. Wugapodes (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Can't agree with that. You should cover this in the article. At the moment, that it is a dialect at all is unreferenced, though you keep saying it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you saying that it's unreferenced? This edit added a citation to Ethnologue. Ethnologue has a section entitled "dialects" the first dialect listed is "Black American Sign Language". Even the Dictionary of American Sign Language in 1965 put the variety spoken by African Americans under the heading "Dialects". If you would like a particular line referenced, you need to be more clear than just stating it's unreferenced.
- I cannot include a discussion of whether to call it a variety or dialect because there are no sources about it. There's no conflict between the two terms, and no conflict within the field as to which term to use. "Variety" seems to be used in primary sources (McCaskill 2011, Lucas 2015, etc) while "dialect" in secondary (Stokoe 1965, Ethnologue 2015, Brockway 2012, etc). Brockway seems to be the only person to do a literature review and argue for "dialect", but while no one has rebutted him, his essay isn't the same quality of source as the others in the article possibly being self-published.
- The choice between the two terms seems largely dependent on the author. I chose "dialect" because it is used more frequently in secondary sources like The Dictionary of American Sign Language, Ethnologue, Brockway, All Things Linguistic, etc which are independent of the subject. It's the term people not working on the language call it upon looking at the primary literature. McCaskill, Lucas, and others researching the dialect are not as independent of the subject matter. So I chose the term used in the most recent secondary sources rather than primary sources.
- If you would like to discuss whether that decision is justified or not, I would be glad to do so, but there is no discussion in the literature to put in this article, and I can't create it from my own analysis of sources. Having laid out my reasoning twice, if you would like me to take a particular course of action, I need something more substantial than "can't agree". Wugapodes (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- If "The choice between the two terms seems largely dependent on the author", maybe you should say something along these lines, rather than silently selecting a single term. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- There's no source that says that. We don't need a footnote every time an editor uses editorial discretion. If we did most of our articles would be footnotes or discussions on why certain words were chosen over others. Because "language variety" and "dialect" are not contradictory but synonymous, because the claim that BASL is a dialect is reliably sourced to multiple independent sources, and because there is not consensus for the change (considering none of your arguments have convinced me the change is good or necessary), I will not be making the edit you suggest. If any of those things change (particularly consensus), I will reconsider. Wugapodes (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- If "The choice between the two terms seems largely dependent on the author", maybe you should say something along these lines, rather than silently selecting a single term. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Can't agree with that. You should cover this in the article. At the moment, that it is a dialect at all is unreferenced, though you keep saying it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Older nominations
Belgium national football team
- Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the national association football (or soccer) team of Belgium, more specifically the senior men's team. I believe it should be featured because of the broad scope and the high care given to sourcing, prose and illustrations. Comments of independent editors were "[g]ood work", "quite a lot of research and effort has gone into this" and "excellent, thorough and widely comprehensive". After it obtained GA status, a double peer review and copy editing by members of the GOCE (among others) lead to further prose improvement. Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Already of high quality during PR, it only got better since. Congratulations, Kareldorado. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support (note personal involvement: I nominated the article for DYK after it became GA, I am not involved with the content) - Good overview of the topic, supported by sufficient decent references. Reads well, neutral wording, no recent changes. It has been checked by enough editors, and has sufficient maintenance by the author, that I feel comfortable to support this article for featured article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comments taking a look now. Queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Need to link to Brazil and West Germany national teams at first mention in body of text.- Good point, I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Through the History section, a sprinkling of notes on key players at various periods would be good. I'd incorporate the notable players section into the chronology.- That was also what I had done before. However, this greatly expands the History section and I think it gives the reader less appetite to keep reading through it. On the reverse, it is a lot easier to find things about the team as a whole, and about notable players if you have these sections apart. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Is there a traditional predominance of either french or flemish speaking players?- Irrelevant IMO, but probably a Flemish speaking majority most often since most (roughly 60%) Belgians live in Flanders. In the 1980s and 1990s most well-known players were Flemish speaking, except for Michel Preud'homme, Philippe Albert and Enzo Scifo. Note that some notable players have been from Brussels and accordingly are pretty much bilangual (Van Himst, Kompany, Lukaku). Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any prose issues outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I have significant issues over WP:RECENTISM in the History section, a common issue in such articles. To illustrate my point: you've squeezed 60 years of history into one paragraph, followed by 35 years over 3 paragraphs, which is a sixfold increase in space allocated per year. I do understand that those were underachieving years, but nonetheless... --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Very good remark in order to shift the article towards more balance, Dweller. I want to stress that originally the 1920-1979 period took three paragraphs and it was stuffed with multiple sentences on notable players. However, the situation is what it is, and to compensate for it I think it would be good that I would (among others) add another sentence illustrating the "world champion of the friendlies" nickname in the 1970s, and further squeeze the 2002-2012 underachievement years. Do you have suggestions for other interesting things to mention for the 1920-1979 period? Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I already made it more equilibrated now, but feel free to give additional comments or to carry on materials that you might find relevant for the 1920-1979 era. Kareldorado (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
CommentSupport: The article is excellent, but, to further improve it for FA quality, I encourage Karel to turn the tables and look at the article from the perspective of the reader. And not just any reader, but one that is not necessarily a football fan. This is a strategy that I follow in the articles that I write because, at the end of the day, I am more interested in knowing people were not bogged down by excessive information and stats.
-
- I couldn't agree more, and therefore I hope this review also attracts 'less interested' people, in the sense that they are not specifically interested in football or sports. Other people can provide fresh views, however, I feel lucky that editors like you can also still provide new insights. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- History
- The nickname "Red Devils" is presented here and in the kit section. I would recommend for the information in the history to be integrated with the one in the kit section (as it would be easier to find this in that section than in the history).
-
-
-
-
- I opted for moving over this part into the "Mascot and logo"-sect as the nickname served 3 of 4 times as inspiration for the logo; since every mascot was also a logo I made it "Nickname and logo". Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- History
- Is it really necessary to mention the low-countries derby in the history? I don't think there's a need to repeat information.
-
-
-
-
- True, it is already clearly mentioned in the lead and the rivalries section (where it is stated that these were cup matches) - dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- History
- Why is it important for the reader to know that three Belgian players died in the First World War?
-
-
-
-
- This is not necessarily a rhetorical question; note that there have been other events in which multiple sportsmen died that were considered noteworthy (see Munich air disaster and Munich massacre). If many more - say, 10 - national team members had died, it probably would have been more notable. Since it seems very likely that similar numbers of casualties due to wars happened to other sports teams as well, I must agree that this sentence was probably not that important, so I dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- History
- Ideally, match scores should be placed only if truly necessary (and, I would argue that there is no real necessity for it in the history section; notable results should be present in the records sections). I think removing them and smoothing out the narrative would improve the prose (and flow of the reading).
-
-
-
-
- Ok, I dropped them... what's your opinion on the "Competitive record" sections - would you leave out most scores there as well? Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- History
- Why is it important to highlight that Brazil's Pele confirmed something about Belgium? I think the source is good enough.
-
-
-
-
- Not that important, I simply wanted to show that this mock title was not just an inside joke of Belgians, but that it was also used elsewhere. I dropped the sentence part now and kept the source. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- History
- Overall, the section's best paragraphs are those where you narrate the story. The not-as-good are those where you rely more on the results. This is nothing to specifically address, but wanted to point it out just as a general thought.
-
-
-
-
- True, but the painful thing is that sometimes there is simply not an exciting story to be told instead... so then I am stuck with mentioning results. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Structure
- Team image should not be the last section. Think of it like a sports book or magazine. It is usually at the end where the stats and records are located (and these should, therefore, be the last sections). Where to place it? Probably somewhere before the players section. I'd recommend before or after rivalries.
-
-
-
-
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Team image
- The actions section would be better if it was not listed with bullet points. Can you craft a narrative version of it with the available information?
-
-
-
-
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Players
- Why not make the "Previous squads" subsection into a table and place it at the end of the article (similar to Peru national football team)? I think it would help remove the excessive weight in the section.
- Players
- along the same lines, I would highly recommend for the "Player records" section to be mixed with the "Records and fixtures" section (which I would rename "Team records and fixtures"—I plan to do the same for the Peru article). Why? Because these are not just player records, but they are records for the team itself (i.e., specific to Belgium).
-
-
-
-
- Partially done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Records and Fixtures
- I would place this section at the end.
-
-
-
-
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- These are the thoughts I have in mind at the moment. I hope they are not too much! Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 08:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, they are not few but I welcome every constructive remark! I am not sure I can make every adaptation this weekend, but we will see. Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Great! Good job Karel. Remember that you can always continue to improve the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Although there are a few bits of text which could be made more concise without losing meaning (I've fixed one), I think the article as a whole is admirably comprehensive. Well done! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks and good job. If you can indicate some of the sentences that still appear to be rather long, I'll give it a try to further cut them down. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Coord notes -- Hi Kareldorado, am I right in gathering that this is your first FAC? A belated welcome in that case! It looks to me that we still need:
- Image licensing review
- Source review for formatting and reliability
- Source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, an extra hoop we ask newbies to jump through
These checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, or one or two of the reviewers above might be able to oblige... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Todd Manning
- Nominator(s): User:Flyer22 Reborn, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the groundbreaking character from One Life to Live and General Hospital, played by the incomparable Roger Howarth and Trevor St. John. Flyer22 Reborn and I have worked on this article, on and off, for about two years, as you can see by our long and often contentious (but collaborative and always positive) discussions on the talk page. Todd's article, like the character himself, is controversial and causes lots of arguments, but Flyer22 Reborn and I feel like it's finally ready to go a round or two here at FAC. We welcome your feedback and anticipate much discussion here. We're proud of what we've been able to accomplish, despite the article's complexity and history and look forward to this process. Its first FAC unfortunately failed due to lack of response, so we hope that it's able to go through this time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Support: From a first look, article looks great! Let's go through a prose review then source. Images look good, but I'm a bit inexperienced in that area so if another editor could look through those images, that would be great! I will keep going through when I have more time. Just read through and there are no other prose issues with me. Besides the dead sources and dmy/mdy issues, I believe this article should be an FA. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Is Reference 1 really needed in the lead? Per WP:WHENNOTCITE, references don't really need to be in the lead unless the info isn't in the article body.
-
- We chose to include ref 1 because it supports Todd's full name, Thomas Todd Manning, and because the character goes by his middle name. So yes, we feel that it's necessary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Support After reading through this article, I'm happy to conclude that this meets the FA criteria. I found no major prose issues or inconsistencies with the images. However, I did spot a few minor issues with some of the references:
- Refs 55 and 56 are dead. No doubt these could be easily archived
- Ref 25 has an inline tag error
- Does this article use dmy or mdy date formats? So far I see dmy dates used in the references and mdy dates used in throughout the prose and the infobox.
Other than that, the article looks great. I was expecting to leave a longer review but I couldn't find anything worth mentioning! JAGUAR 14:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Fixed dates in infobox and in article. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding this and this, why use British style? I understand that we currently use British style for the dates in the references, though I'd rather that we not since I'm American and prefer American style (I don't like having to remember to use British style), but why use that style in the regular text as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Jaguar, mind offering your opinion since you brought up the date style? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Here's my opinion, even though I'm not Jag: It doesn't matter to me. WP, as a matter of course, uses the British style (ddmmyyyy). I suspect Jag was just asking for everything to be consistent throughout the article, which is fine with me. I tend to follow the suggestions of my FAC reviewers, unless it's crucially important to me (which this isn't), so I went ahead and made the changes. This article discusses a character on an American show, so using the American style of dates makes sense in the body of the article. I'm fine with the consensus. I must admit that this kind of nitpicky-ness used to bug the heck out of me, but now I see it more positively--that Jag was reaching for feedback, which bodes well for this FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per WP:ENGVAR it's preferred (especially in GAs and FAs) that an article stays consistent with one date format. I thought that since this article is focused on an American show, I would have thought that American dates would be used throughout (per MOS:TIES). I personally think it's super minor, but I know for a fact that a lot of FA reviewers will always point out a mix up of dmy, mdy and ymd style dates being used throughout the article. JAGUAR 00:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Two things about this. (1) VisualEditor uses the British format, so for me, I think WP convention should be followed. (2) I agree about consistency, so I'm for using WP convention/British format in the article's body. If you or any other FA reviewer disagrees, though, I'm happy to make the changes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Here's my opinion, even though I'm not Jag: It doesn't matter to me. WP, as a matter of course, uses the British style (ddmmyyyy). I suspect Jag was just asking for everything to be consistent throughout the article, which is fine with me. I tend to follow the suggestions of my FAC reviewers, unless it's crucially important to me (which this isn't), so I went ahead and made the changes. This article discusses a character on an American show, so using the American style of dates makes sense in the body of the article. I'm fine with the consensus. I must admit that this kind of nitpicky-ness used to bug the heck out of me, but now I see it more positively--that Jag was reaching for feedback, which bodes well for this FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Jaguar, I've been aware of WP:ENGVAR, but I don't see where it states that we have to use the same date style for the article as a whole that we use for the references. Figureskatingfan and I discussed the date style on the talk page, and I was clear then that I prefer American style. Figureskatingfan didn't seem hard-pressed on either version. All in all, this is a minor issue, as stated. I simply wanted to know where you are coming from on the matter.
-
-
-
-
-
- Figureskatingfan, American style for American topics is also conventional, which I assume is why Jaguar was surprised that the article uses British style for the references. I would prefer that we at some point change the date style of this article back to American style. But, again, this is a minor issue and does not significantly affect the quality of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Then again, Jaguar, I do see where the WP:ARTCON subsection of WP:ENGVAR can be taken to mean that everything except the noted exceptions should be consistent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there's "set in stone" policy regarding the consistency of one date format, but it's always been from my experience that one date format is recommended in GAs and FAs. It's super minor though, and I was a little surprised to see this use British dates as it's an article focused on a US topic. There is a script you can install that changes all the dates (prose and references alike) into any format with one click. I use it a lot, but honestly I'm neutral on this matter and I think I'll leave it up to you two to decide which date format you prefer! JAGUAR 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Then again, Jaguar, I do see where the WP:ARTCON subsection of WP:ENGVAR can be taken to mean that everything except the noted exceptions should be consistent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ran the script for date consistency (ddmmyyyy, as per consensus). It should go through the next time it runs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Given what Jaguar and I stated above, I don't understand why you view ddmmyyyy as consensus. You prefer British style, and I don't. But I suppose I will worry about that at a later date (no pun intended). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Support Comments
- I'm kinda croggled at the size of the article, so I'll probably have to take it in sections.
- Are these sorts of articles like movie synopses which aren't cited?
- Should Carol Swift be linked on first use? Otherwise lacking context for her.
- Link tabloid paper, Mafia.
- After many difficulties in their marriage, Starr is diagnosed with aplastic anemia Not sure I see a connection between Starr's disease and marital problems between her father and Blair.
- When Blair falls into a coma, Todd pays lawyer Téa Delgado (Florencia Lozano) five million dollars to marry him so he can keep custody of Starr. When she awakens, he allows her visitation. It's unclear who "she" refers to in the second sentence.
- As they are about to remarry, Sam reveals Todd staged the hit on their nanny to win Blair's affections. Did I miss something about a hit on the nanny?
- Move the link for archetype to first use.
- Done through archetypes and rape. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- With this edit, I made changes per your comments. With regard to the plot summary, the show itself is the source; it is a primary source matter. For what I mean, see what MOS:PLOT states about inline citations. I can assure you that what is in that plot section is factual. Carol Swift is not a WP:Notable character, and does not have her own Wikipedia article; I added "a woman named" in front of "Carol Swift" to make it seem more understandable that her name is not wikilinked. I'm not sure what you mean by "Link tabloid paper, Mafia."; I maybe overlooked something there? I tweaked the wording for the aplastic anemia's connection to the marital problems. I thought that the "she awakens" part was clear, since it's Blair who was in a coma, but I tweaked the wording. I added more context for the fake hit on the nanny. I would have moved the "archetypes" link, but the first appearance is in a quote, and, per the Linking aspect of MOS:QUOTE, we should generally avoid wikilinking within quotes; in my opinion, though, wikilinking in this case is an exception to that rule. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- More tweaks here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your changes are fine thus far; I meant that tabloid newspaper and Mafia (capitalized, please) need to be linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- More tweaks here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Done. I guess the word mafia is supposed to be capitalized in this case? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- The rest of it looks good; almost tempted to cruise Youtube for some of these scenes. Supporting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done. I guess the word mafia is supposed to be capitalized in this case? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you, Sturmvogel 66; I'm glad that the article has made you interested in watching some Todd Manning scenes on YouTube. When I read the article or come across some Todd Manning material in the media, I sometimes find myself watching some of the scenes on YouTube. I wish that a lot of the older scenes were in better condition at that site, though; for example, this scene where Todd gets the scar (no one knows how he got the scar on his face by seemingly getting hit in the back of the head, LOL...unless the bar had something on it to scrape the side of his face) or this scene where he terrorizes Marty are not in good shape. This scene, where Todd has his shorter hair style and goes to get the scar removed (but changes his mind) is in somewhat better condition. Some older scenes are in better condition than others, and the newer scenes are usually in good condition. A place people can watch much of Todd's history is The Real Todd Manning channel.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On a side note: What do you think of the dates matter noted above? And do you think I should add a little material to the article from this The Huffington Post source? For the "Rape and redemption" section, I thought about adding the following to the "Hayward categorized" paragraph since it doesn't seem like it would flow well elsewhere in that section: "Tanya D. Marsh of The Huffington Post, when comparing Todd to other evil or troubled male characters that have been redeemed, stated, 'It is a fairly universal theme that tortured bad boys are sexy.'" Or do you think the article is better off without that text? What she states about Todd is already in the article, so I see no need to include her direct commentary on him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- LOL, yes doing research for this article was such a burden! Re: The Huffington Post; it's my understanding that we're to avoid using it because it's self-published and unreliable. I agree, though, that it's not needed, anyway, since the article already states the information about Todd's sexiness coming from his bad-boy-ness (yes, I know, not-a-word). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Figureskatingfan, The Huffington Post can count as a WP:Reliable source; otherwise I wouldn't have considered it. Of course, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it's not a reliable source for everything (or for most things). It's been debated enough as a reliable source at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard, as seen in this and this archive search. As for "What she states about Todd is already in the article", I mean what she indicated about him being redeemed, and what she stated about him being a male lead and so on. But I'm not hard-pressed on adding the "bad boys are sexy" piece. I thought about adding it to the aforementioned paragraph, or somewhere else in the section, because the section addresses speculation on why Todd is popular. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Jester66, regarding this edit you made, we are currently going by British date style; see what is stated above. So it would be best if you self-revert your edit on the date style. That stated, per above, feel free to weigh in here on what date style you prefer for the article. As noted above, I prefer American style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Strictly speaking I'd think that the date format should be American style, but I honestly don't care one way or another as I'm used to the US military format which is also the European one. I will say that it should use one format consistently, even in the access dates in the cites. I really don't see that the HuffPo bit had anything to offer that was new so I see no reason to add it to what's already a long article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, Sturmvogel 66. I went ahead and reverted Jester66 for consistency, but I'm sure that this article will eventually use American date style. I also added a little more to the article (followup edits here and here). That section used to mention Starr's cartoon daydreams, but it was a note back then (tied to Howarth's eyes being hazel rather than blue), and not directly backed up by any sources in the article. Now it's different. I thank you, MrWooHoo and Jaguar for weighing in and helping improve this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hard Justice (2008)
Nominating this article since I'm working on an FA topic. Other PPVs from this year that are FA are Lockdown and Turning Point. This article passed GA in December 2008. I redid the entire article in recent weeks. Added more material and better sources. Reads better in my opinion and has a better format. All comments welcome. I'll review a nomination of your's in return for a review here. To address some concerns now, I'll list the reason some of the sources are reliable.
- TNA - Company hosting event, primary reference.
- Pro Wrestling history.com - covers little information such as contest duration and attendance. Used for those non-controversial aspects. Reliable enough since it gathers information from interviews and event broadcasts, etc.
- WrestleView - Primarily ran by Andrew Martin who has special connections in the industry and regularly interviews large names in the industry. Basically has ties to special information. Reliable in the sense that they have enough credibility to get interviews about the behind the scenes discussions.
- PWTorch - Ran by Wade Keller who published the Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter since the 80s and 90s. Also has ties to the industry.
- Slam Sports - Canadian Online Explorer, should be obvious why it is reliable.
- The Wrestling Observer Newsletter/Figure Four - Dave Meltzer, mainstream journalist for MMA, Wrestling, and other sports. Should be obvious to his credibility.
- Discovery communications and About.com - Both funded and operated by Discovery channel to my understanding.
This should help clear up any possibly sourcing issues.--WillC 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Review by starship.paint
- In the lede, I don't think remembered for the start of a storyline between veteran wrestlers and younger wrestlers in TNA is worth a mention. Do you have a source explicitly saying that? The MEM formed in October and this PPV was in August.
- Torch reviews should cover the info. All the impact reviews discussed the storyline. The storyline started way before the Main Event Mafia formed. It was in full force heading into BFG. This event was basically the start of the feud but I could removed it. Just a way to show the significance of the event. Alot of stuff happened that led to be important in the storyline.
- The problem is that it seems like it is you, and not the reviewers, who is claiming the significance of the event. That seems to be OR. I hope that you can point to which references can support the info.
- I'm explaining why the event is notable outside of being just a PPV, which goes by the MoS. I am not saying it is entirely significant or saying this is a fact. I'm saying the storyline did have a starting point at the event. Which it did because Hard Justice and Victory Road directly led to Styles vs Sting, Joe vs. Sting, and the creation of the Main Event Mafia. It set up for Jarrett's return. You've taken the statement too literal to say I am making a claim of significance when all I'm doing is summarizing the storyline at the time and afterwards. To source this statement, all I have to do is cite the Impact episodes. Reviewer's opinions nor my opinion play a role. What was occurring around the event is what matters.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that it seems like it is you, and not the reviewers, who is claiming the significance of the event. That seems to be OR. I hope that you can point to which references can support the info.
- Torch reviews should cover the info. All the impact reviews discussed the storyline. The storyline started way before the Main Event Mafia formed. It was in full force heading into BFG. This event was basically the start of the feud but I could removed it. Just a way to show the significance of the event. Alot of stuff happened that led to be important in the storyline.
- The title and the quote in reference [1] seems to be wrong.
- Old reference, they must have changed the title.
- It seems like AyAyAya was also sung by Ice-T in the music video.
- It featured Ice-T. Information on this is covered in the event. Written sources don't discuss the theme much.
- I don't see Melle Mel appearing in the source provided.
- See above.
- Each match has a match timing written but not all references have match timings.
- Covered in the results table. Sourcing it every time to me is oversourcing.
- I know it is in the results table ... but new readers might not know.
- I reject that logic because new readers don't even look at the sourcing let alone will research to make sure every little detail is correct. The information is sourced in the article.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I meant readers new to wrestling, not necessarily readers new to Wikipedia. starship.paint ~ KO 12:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was referring to both. I doubt even wrestling fans will look. They'll just go by whatever the page says. Most have tried to remove the times in the past. Wrestling fans don't see to like the match times in the article. They are primarily there to seem professional.--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I meant readers new to wrestling, not necessarily readers new to Wikipedia. starship.paint ~ KO 12:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I reject that logic because new readers don't even look at the sourcing let alone will research to make sure every little detail is correct. The information is sourced in the article.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I know it is in the results table ... but new readers might not know.
- Covered in the results table. Sourcing it every time to me is oversourcing.
- For the 1st match, can you explain Sheik Abdul Bashir's sudden interference? Like saying he walked out...?
- Done.
- For the 2nd match, why is Six Woman Tag Team match capitalized?
- Cause it is a proper match type. Just used so often that people don't capitalize it. At one point it was just like Hell in a Cell.
- Also for the 2nd match, SLAM, Torch (Keller) and Wrestleview say it was a roll up, not a straddle pin?
- Case where the sources aren't detailed enough. They call every pin a roll up pin. It was actually a straddle pin. Borderline OR, but accuracy is better than no accuracy.
- It's totally OR, IMO. Caldwell says it's a "roll-through pin" though. You can follow that "Wilde rolled through into a pin". It can't be a regular straddle anyway, she's facing the wrong way. Need a source saying "straddle".
- Case where the sources aren't detailed enough. They call every pin a roll up pin. It was actually a straddle pin. Borderline OR, but accuracy is better than no accuracy.
- For the 3rd match, Torch doesn't say exactly who raps, only "the rappers"
- Referring to the ones at the beginning of the show, somewhat obvious.
- Is there any point in writing that turnbuckles are padded?
- Old habits die hard, removed.
- How was it determined that the 5th and 6th matches were also main event matches?
- Heavily promoted matches. Covered in background section.
- Just because a match is heavily promoted doesn't make them main event matches. There should be some announcement of co-main event or dual or triple main events.
- TNA doesn't announce what are the main event or dual or anything. The last three matches were all connected. The Main event matches section was never just for main event matches, it was for heavily promoted matches always. It was called main event just cause it sounded better than other choices. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D match was connected to the Angle/Styles match. The Angle/Styles match connected to Booker T/Joe. The last two are main event, defacto the first would be main event as well. Each headlined the show. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D feud actually started in May so it led up to this event. Heavily promoted.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then the naming of 'main event matches' is a misnomer, honestly. It's quite WP:OR IMO to judge 'heavily promoted matches' unless you have a source explicitly saying that these matches are heavily promoted. It's all rather subjective, left to the interpretation of editors. starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd challenge that it is OR. OR is research that can't be verified. These can be verified. Being a heavily promoted match would be verified by material that verifies its notability. Having a large amount of information that focuses on that one subject matches it as a heavily promoted match. The Impact episodes, the content on Hard Justice, and the follow up by TNA can verify that they are heavily promoted matches. The matches I cover in the background section tend to be the heavily promoted matches. The only issue with the section header is when a match is at the end that does not fit the case that gets placed in between ones that do. Take Owens vs. Cesaro at SummerSlam. Not even announced and just popped up. We can't really change the match order then when another main event was Cena vs. Rollins. I could retitle the section header but to what is the issue? Heavily Promoted? Uppercard? What?--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer the section header be 'Heavily promoted matches' then - because 'heavily promoted' is simply not equal to 'main event'. Reading a section header called 'Main event matches' leads me to believe that every main in there is a co-main event. If you do this, Owens v Cesaro can't become a 'main event' match. starship.paint ~ KO 07:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd challenge that it is OR. OR is research that can't be verified. These can be verified. Being a heavily promoted match would be verified by material that verifies its notability. Having a large amount of information that focuses on that one subject matches it as a heavily promoted match. The Impact episodes, the content on Hard Justice, and the follow up by TNA can verify that they are heavily promoted matches. The matches I cover in the background section tend to be the heavily promoted matches. The only issue with the section header is when a match is at the end that does not fit the case that gets placed in between ones that do. Take Owens vs. Cesaro at SummerSlam. Not even announced and just popped up. We can't really change the match order then when another main event was Cena vs. Rollins. I could retitle the section header but to what is the issue? Heavily Promoted? Uppercard? What?--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then the naming of 'main event matches' is a misnomer, honestly. It's quite WP:OR IMO to judge 'heavily promoted matches' unless you have a source explicitly saying that these matches are heavily promoted. It's all rather subjective, left to the interpretation of editors. starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- TNA doesn't announce what are the main event or dual or anything. The last three matches were all connected. The Main event matches section was never just for main event matches, it was for heavily promoted matches always. It was called main event just cause it sounded better than other choices. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D match was connected to the Angle/Styles match. The Angle/Styles match connected to Booker T/Joe. The last two are main event, defacto the first would be main event as well. Each headlined the show. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D feud actually started in May so it led up to this event. Heavily promoted.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just because a match is heavily promoted doesn't make them main event matches. There should be some announcement of co-main event or dual or triple main events.
- Heavily promoted matches. Covered in background section.
- For the 5th match, Brother Ray couldn't have gone through a table if the table didn't break, as the per source.
- Technically the table broke, just not in the middle. Bottom part broke and it fell over. Changed to against.
- For the 5th match, SLAM alone does not support all the information written.
- Slam is only meant to cover the finish. All info is from PWTorch removes. Aggregate sourcing verifies everything.
- I get that the info is from Torch. Then the Torch should appear as a reference at the end of the source. Readers shouldn't have to search other places for verifiability. This goes for the match timings as well.
- Again, I use the logic from above. What reader takes the time to not just read an article they have limited knowledge of but also check every single source to make sure the information is completely verifiable. The other sources cover the information as well. I can move another source to the section but really Slam is covering the finish which is the main issue at hand.
- I get that the info is from Torch. Then the Torch should appear as a reference at the end of the source. Readers shouldn't have to search other places for verifiability. This goes for the match timings as well.
- Slam is only meant to cover the finish. All info is from PWTorch removes. Aggregate sourcing verifies everything.
- For the 6th match, how about mentioning that the first fall came at around 18:00 as per the source?
- Rounding error, wasn't sure if it was accurate. Chose to not put timing of falls down.
- Also the 6th match, it's worth mentioning the last move of the match was a DDT, and the post-match attack on Angle was a brainbuster. The source provided said so.
- It wasn't really a brainbuster, just looked like a brainbuster. Styles literally just lifted him up and dropped him on his head like a brainbuster. Seemed reaching to me to claim it was a brainbuster when that is more the opinion of the reviewer.
- The reference you cited, Torch's Keller, said "DDT off the top rope" and "brainbuster suplex".
- Meanwhile the other sources conflict with saying just suplex or he landed on his head from the top rope. Citing the event, which cites the match, shows that it was a botched attempt at some sort of move. Can't be verified that it is either one.
- The reference you cited, Torch's Keller, said "DDT off the top rope" and "brainbuster suplex".
- It wasn't really a brainbuster, just looked like a brainbuster. Styles literally just lifted him up and dropped him on his head like a brainbuster. Seemed reaching to me to claim it was a brainbuster when that is more the opinion of the reviewer.
- In the Reception section, are the "Boring", "Fire Russo" and "You screwed Bret" crowd chants worth a mention?
- What chants are you discussing? Don't see either of those mentioned.
- SLAM source mentioned all these chants.
- "Canadian Online Explorer writer John Pollock reviewed the show and felt it featured the "usual assortment of wacky finishes and outside interference" but that "all in all it was a solid show." Pollock commented on the musical performance shown at the beginning of the telecast, stating the "crowd is silent in appreciation." "Crowd is very hot for this opener and the atmosphere should hopefully add to this show," stated Pollock when covering the TNA X Division Championship match. Pollock discussed the Street Fight in his review, commenting that the "crowd was really hot for this match." As for the Last Man Standing match, Pollock said it "was an outstanding match." Pollock also felt that the main event got "zero time." - Still don't see the chants in the body of the article. If you are asking if they are notable. Not really, they occurred at every TNA PPV in 2008. The fans just chant random stuff constantly.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oops. There was a misunderstanding. I was arguing for the inclusion of such chants for Wikipedia's write-up of Pollock's review. As a wrestling fan reading about this article in 2015, I would still find chants like "Fire Russo" to be extremely interesting. It doesn't matter if they occurred in every other TNA PPV in 2008, that is just reflecting the state of the product. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Canadian Online Explorer writer John Pollock reviewed the show and felt it featured the "usual assortment of wacky finishes and outside interference" but that "all in all it was a solid show." Pollock commented on the musical performance shown at the beginning of the telecast, stating the "crowd is silent in appreciation." "Crowd is very hot for this opener and the atmosphere should hopefully add to this show," stated Pollock when covering the TNA X Division Championship match. Pollock discussed the Street Fight in his review, commenting that the "crowd was really hot for this match." As for the Last Man Standing match, Pollock said it "was an outstanding match." Pollock also felt that the main event got "zero time." - Still don't see the chants in the body of the article. If you are asking if they are notable. Not really, they occurred at every TNA PPV in 2008. The fans just chant random stuff constantly.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- SLAM source mentioned all these chants.
- What chants are you discussing? Don't see either of those mentioned.
- Replied to all @Starship.paint:--WillC 17:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Wrestlinglover: replied starship.paint ~ KO 05:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Starship.paint: See comments--WillC 12:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: See comments--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Jumping Flash!
Jumping Flash! is a 1995 platform video game that has the distinction of being one of the most overlooked games of all time as well as the first platform game in "true 3D". It was originally hoped by Sony that this game would give them the opportunity to create themselves a "platform star" like Sonic and Mario, but that never materialised. This game was nothing more than a technology demonstration for the then-new PlayStation console and was very quickly overshadowed by games like Super Mario 64. Despite all that, many critics recognise this game's legacy and importance associated with early 3D gaming.
I've been re-working this article for a while now and I believe this meets the FA criteria. I know that after I've exhausted every possible source, and with the help of some others, I've gained some more that I didn't think were possible, so a big thanks goes out to everyone who has helped over the months. FYI, the reason why it failed last time was due to some misinterpretations with some sources, but after an extensive peer review and a copyedit, I believe they have all been addressed. JAGUAR 16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll give this a read and let you know what I think! I haven't reviewed an article for some time, but this just happened to catch my eye.--SexyKick 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi SexyKick, just wondering if you would still like to leave some input? No rush of course, but I'd hate to see this get closed due to inactivity. JAGUAR 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- The last time I was reading through, I remarked to myself that sentences / paragraphs in the Plot section didn't seem to end with citations. I checked two references in the Reception and Legacy and both held up. But I don't know when I'm going to have time between real life rock, and real life hard place.--SexyKick 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi SexyKick, just wondering if you would still like to leave some input? No rush of course, but I'd hate to see this get closed due to inactivity. JAGUAR 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Participation Guide | |
---|---|
Support | |
Rhain1999 | |
Comments/No vote yet | |
Techtri, SexyKick | |
Oppose | |
None |
Comments from Techtri
It's certainly in better shape than last time it came up for FAC, but I've still got some concerns. On a quick read through I noticed the following.
Lead:
- "Jumping Flash! has been described as synonymous with Sony's debut gaming hardware" - By who? There's no reference here, and this doesn't get mentioned again later in the article as far as I can tell.
-
- Rephrased to "Jumping Flash! has been described as an ancestor as well as an early showcase for 3D graphics in console gaming", as it's mentioned in the article as well as in numerous sources.[8][9] JAGUAR 14:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Under Development and release:
- I think I'm right in saying "PreScreen - Jumping Flash! (April 1995)". Edge (Future plc) (19): 41. April 1995.", "Edge - Pre Screen". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." and ""Staff. PreScreen - Jumping Flash!". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." reference different pages of the same article, so why do they use different titles? Also the date appears twice in the first one for some reason.
- "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology, vastly differing from other contemporaneous platform games such as Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island." - Sourced to Edge's July 1995 review, but I can't see any comparison in the source between JF! and either of the games mentioned?
- I don't understand what is meant by 3D technology in the sentence "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology.".
- The Geograph Seal image caption states that JF! "features identical gameplay from Geograph Seal". The IGN source states they shared "virtually identical gameplay", which I'd say was a important distinction.
Under Reception and Legacy:
- "...in 2000 they ranked Jumping Flash! among the magazine's top 120 PlayStation games of all time." - two references here, both with concerns. "Famitsu Top 120 PlayStation games". Culdcept Central. OmiyaSoft. 27 July 2009. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - is this a reliable source? and "Famitsu Weekly PlayStation Top 100". IGN. 21 November 2000. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - I can't see any mention of Jumping Flash in this source?
-
- This always bothered me. I asked somebody if Culdcept Central was a reliable source, and he wasn't too keen on it. I was going to bring this up at WP:VG/RS but unfortunately I didn't have time to do it prior to this FAC. Even though it's the only source I can find that mentions a legitimate Famitsu Top 120 list, I myself don't think it's reliable and I can't find any such list anywhere else, so I've had no choice but to remove the entire sentence. Unless somebody has the original Famitsu issue and could translate into English, I'm left with no other choice than to leave as "Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review". If you want, I could remove that sentence entirely and leave it as a score in the infobox? JAGUAR 14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- You just have to know which issue of Famitsu those excerpts are from. Reference the magazine itself. ... cite news |title= |journal= |publisher= |date= |language= |author=Famitsu staff}}</ref>--SexyKick 17:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I couldn't find the definite issue or when it was published. Culdcept Central mentions that the list was published "recently" as of 2009, whereas I've searched for "120 PlayStation games of all time" and sometimes it comes back as being a November 2000 issue. I don't think is worth it, so I'm open to removing it entirely or should I leave this be? JAGUAR 19:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Andrew Yoon's Engadget review is a contemporary one right? If so, personally I would move it to after the 2007 IGN review along with the rest of the retrospective reviews, or at the very least mention it was a 2007 review so it doesn't appear to be a review from the time calling it antiquated.
- "1UP cited its first-person platforming as a precursor to Mirror's Edge, despite suggesting that the jumping has remained "woefully out of place"." - Is the source referring to jumping being "woefully out of place" in JF! or in the genre as a whole?
-
- In the genre as a whole, as the article is focused on the history of the jump. Reworded to reflect this JAGUAR 12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- In which case, it it relevant to include it in this article? Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I feel that it's relevant because it's a retrospective on Jumping Flash's legacy participation on the evolution of the jump. It also criticises the game's jumps, which in part is both relevant with reception and legacy. I wouldn't mind removing it from the section but I'd hate to lose out on a good source. JAGUAR 16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Speaking in 2007, Fahey asserted that Jumping Flash! would always have a "slice" in videogaming history" - This is a very clunky sentence and needs rewriting.
I'll try and find time to give it a more thorough look over later. Techtri (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Rhain1999
I apologise if any of my concerns have been discussed in a previous discussion, but I noticed a few things:
- Lead
- In the lead, shouldn't 'Robbit' be in double quotation marks ("), rather than single (')? I'm not entirely sure.
- In my experience, I've regularly seen references placed after direct quotes (see the second paragraph of Fez), so it should be considered for the third paragraph of the lead here, with the term "ancestor".
-
- Agreed, I've added a citation after "ancestor"
- Jumping Flash! spawned two sequels; Jumping Flash! 2.... I'd replace the semicolon with a colon.
- Link IGN.
- Body
- Link Egypt in "Gameplay".
- There are a lot of quotes in "Reception and legacy". I don't quite think it's pushing the limit, so it should be okay, but that second paragraph stands out a bit.
- I don't know if it's necessary to have two paragraphs in "Sequels".
- I found a number of issues with the references, but it was difficult for me to explain them all, so I went through and made some changes myself. Please feel free to adjust my changes where you feel necessary.
There might be more, but I'll let other editors point those out; I couldn't find anything else. This is a really well-written article, and I'll be happy to support the FAC when these issues are addressed. Good luck! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Rhain! I've addressed all of your concerns. I hope I didn't miss anything. JAGUAR 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything so quickly! The only thing that really bothers me now is the length of the third "Gameplay" paragraph and second "Plot" paragraph, but these are minor personal nitpicks, and should only be changed if you see an appropriate way to do so. Since that's minor, I'm very happy to Support this FAC. Well done on all your hard work; good luck with the rest of the candidacy! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
House of Plantagenet
- Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the family of French descent who were pivotal in later medieval English history and the contemporary view of it. Recently received a warm welcome at FAC before becoming embroiled in questions of sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- I'm looking at this diff of the changes since the last time I did a prose review, in September. It's kind of slow going, because the intervening edits have a lot of typos. I've fixed a few; I'm down to "In the early 12th century, the marriage of Geoffrey V of Anjou to Empress Matilda, King Henry I's only surviving legitimate child and heir to the English throne.", which isn't a sentence. Please check the diff (from that point) for more typos before I do another prose review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I have run through the diff and done a quick copy edit on a few things. Will review again when all the responses to comments are edited in. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- "Magna Carta": Sometimes with "the", sometimes not. I'm not taking a position either way ... in fact, I don't personally think perfect consistency is required, but generally FAC standards require consistency.
- "agreed a treaty", etc.: I'm completely in favor (favour!) of exposing everyone, even Americans, to Briticisms in British English articles ... but I'm not convinced that all or even most Americans will work out what this means. In AmEng, this can only mean "agreed that a treaty (something)".
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer.
It was fine when I commented earlier (after my changes) down to where I said I stopped, and I've just copyedited from there to the end based on a diff from September through today.These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Richard_II_King_of_England.jpg
-
- Links fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- File:Agincour.JPG: what is the basis for the "PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR NON EDITORIAL USAGE" notation?
-
- To tell you the truth I don't know and have been unable to find out. To resolve I have changed this to a simpler image.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- File:MS_Ghent_-_Battle_of_Tewkesbury.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Tag added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support: All my points below have been addressed and I can't find any new ones. I have made one comment immediately below but it has no bearing on my support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Comments:
- Forgive my confusion here, but I am left wondering one major thing: was the House, in the large, based in England or France? I realize this is a matter of some subtly, but it doesn't really seem to be addressed directly. The lede says "The family held the English throne from 1154" and goes on to describe their history almost solely in terms of English events. However, the maps in the body show that in terms of land, and I assume income, the majority of the family was in (today's) France. A little color here would be appreciated.
-
- Hi @Maury Markowitz:— could you please look at this one again because I thought this was clear. The Angevin kings were both Francophonic and largely preoccupied with French affairs. The loss of Anjou, Normandy and Maine reduced this although Henry III retained both his nominal claims until the 1250s and the Duchy of Aquitaine as a peer of France which passed in turn to the Edwards. Edward III claimed the English throne and through this the basis of the Hundred Years War. The War ebbed and flowed, during which Henry VI was crowned king of France and the family began to speak English. I think all this is in there and clear. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I guess my only concern here is in the lede. Britannica and most other similar sources define the Plantagenets as English. I know this isn't strictly accurate, as this article notes, but I think we still need something to indicate/sooth this confusion. Perhaps something like "Although originally from the continent, and retaining large holdings in France, they are considered to be an English dynasty." Does that make sense? I'm not sure how to word it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Also, the lede mentions "after the Plantagenets were defeated in the Hundred Years' War". For most of those 100 years, English troops were rampaging though France, and I'm not sure they could be said to have "lost". Is it not the case they ended up with more territory at the end? A second map, like the first one in the body, might be useful - the mapping crew is a good source for this.
-
- No, it is not the case they ended with more territory at the end, after 1453 the only remaining holdings were Calais and the Channel Islands. I don't think a map of this would be too instructive? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- "was scourged by monks" - what does this mean?
-
-
- It means severely whipped, I have ammended to this effect.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- "The rivalry between " - should this not be the start of a new paragraph?
-
- Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Conflict with the House of Valois" - the first para seems to be damaged. Actually this whole section reads oddly and could use some copyediting.
-
- Done—is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- "The younger Henry rebelled" - this is a different rebellion mentioned in the earlier para? If so, was Henry the Young not involved in those events?
-
- Added "again" to indicate he was a repeat offender Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- "accept humiliating peace terms, " - to which conflict? Is this the one Younger's wife started?
-
- Rephrased to be clearer Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Richard was captured by Leopold" - why? it seems odd one would simply place another in captivity without a cases belli. is this over the spoils?
-
- In part yes, I've added some detail to help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- "was injured by an arrow during the siege" - what siege?
-
- Amended to a more general "a siege"—I don't think which one is of great interest.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- "when Arthur's forces threatened his mother" - how, exactly? A verbal threat or military action?
-
- amended for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- "As a result of John's behaviour" - uh, what behaviour? Winning a battle over rebels? Or did he do something to them?
-
- He did, more detail added to help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- "It was rumoured in the" is this part of the earlier narrative, or did this occur later? Is this the "behaviour" part?
-
- The revolt happened before the rumour, I have tried to make this clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- "explaining John's sudden capitulation" - what sudden capitulation? Was there a treaty signed in here somewhere?
-
- I've rephrased this, no treaty at this point, just a collapse.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Support – I have read the comments at the earlier FAC and of course I defer to those more expert than I in English history, but as an averagely well-read layman I found the article fascinating, and it seems to me balanced and well sourced. I feel I must support its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 15:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Actually before I do, I recommend @Hchc2009: having a look to see if they are satisfied with improvements since the last FAC as I am not knowledgeable with the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Telopea truncata
I have been buffing this article over some years and was pleased to take some more photos that could be useful when I was in Tasmania recently. I've scraped just about everywhere for sources and am satisfied it's comprehensive and engaging....and has some pretty flowers. Let me know what you think and if there is anything I can do to make it more betterer. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Some quick comments: Josh Milburn (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- You're inconsistent on whether your provide publisher locations: they're lacking in Crisp and Weston 1995, Crisp and Weston 1987 and Mackenzie 1987, but present in other book sources. You also provide publisher/location for one "journal" (Willis 1959) but no others.
- Do you need both Category:Flora of Tasmania and Category:Endemic flora of Tasmania? Is Category:Flowers really needed?
- Are those really the only two cultivars out there?
-
- this species is much harder to grow than the others, so little has been done with it WRT horticulture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I assume yes, but is this describing one of the cultivars talked about in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- this species is much harder to grow than the others, so little has been done with it WRT horticulture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. I had my say at GAC. If I was going to quibble, I'd probably find some nitpicks in reference formatting (perhaps there are some unwarranted italics, but maybe we simply have different tastes) and ask for a bit more ecology information. I'd be interested, for example, in a little more about any animal species (and maybe plant and fungi species) which have some kind of ecological relationship with this species, but I appreciate that there simply may not much of a mention in the literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Preliminary comments:
- "grows as a multistemmed shrub to 3 metres (10 ft)" in the lead: I would explicitly insert the phrase "a height of" before the measurement to make it unambiguous for non-botanical readers.
- In the lead, you use the figure "10 metres (33 ft)", while in the Description section, you use "10 m (35 ft)". This should be consistent.
- "metres" is spelled out throughout the article; all other units (cm, ft) appear as abbreviations only. Per WP:MOSUNITS, the first instance of each should be spelled out and the other occurrences abbreviated. (Solely as a matter of personal taste, I think all of these are sufficiently common as to require no spelling out, but YMMV.)
- "No subspecies are recognised...", in the lead, feels a bit awkward to me; it implies (IMO) that subspecies are the only valid taxonomic classification below species. I might say something like "Yellow-flowered forms are occasionally seen, but do not form a population distinct from the rest of the species."
- "In the garden", in the lead, is superfluous.
- In the lead, the way "hybrid form" was used initially made me think that these forms were considered T. truncata. I might say "cultivars that are hybrids of T. truncata with..." to make it clear that the cultivars are distinct from all of the parents.
- The common names of T. speciosissima and T. oreades should be used in the lead, allowing the removal of the common name of T. oreades from "Taxonomy and Evolution". I hit "New South Wales waratah" in "Description" and had to click around to figure out what that was. I'm not sure how frequently you want the scientific names of those two species linked in the article, but it might be best to make that consistent.
- In "Taxonomy and Evolution", "for it in 1809" should be changed to make it clear that "it" refers to the species, not the genus Embothrium.
- This section needs a bit of revision in general, as it's hard to understand what exactly was conserved, illegitimate, and so forth. The situation seems to be this: the species was originally named Embothrium truncatum. Salisbury scooped Brown and published Hylogyne australis, based on the type material for E. truncatum, in 1809. Since he failed to make use of the original species epithet, this name is illegitimate. Brown published the new, valid, combination Telopea truncata in 1810. Because Salisbury published the genus Hylogyne based on material of Embothrium speciosissimum, it represents the oldest name available for the genus Telopea, but everyone ignored it because he acted like a jerk, and long after (1988, ICBN No. 2062) the name Telopea was conserved and Hylogyne formally rejected. The article makes it seem like T. truncata was conserved, and it took me some back-and-forth to figure out why Salisbury's name was illegitimate and what, if anything had to be nomenclaturally conserved.
- In working this out, I think this section should cite and link to the relevant protologs, etc.: Embothrium truncatum, Hylogyne australis, Telopea truncata, and a record (p. 264) of the decision to conserve Telopea.
- Although it's listed in the synonyms, there's no mention of Kuntze's combination of 1891, Hylogyne truncata, which was a valid name and technically the senior one until the rejection of Hylogyne in 1988.
- I'd move the sentence about the meaning of "truncatus" right after the sentence about Labillardière's description; it's sort of floating partway through the synonymy here. I'd also use specific epithet instead of "species name". Use a semicolon rather than a comma after "seed wing".
- Consider linking New Caledonia and Victoria.
- In the "Description" section, I would consider using a colon instead of an em-dash after "altitude".
- In the "Ecology" section, "several metres" is ambiguous; they travel not more than several metres from the parent plant?
-
- this is difficult - the source uses "several" which I know vernacularly what is meant. However it is extremely hard to put in a number without falling into OR. The seeds are heavy so I can understand how they don't go far..not sure what to do else. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks good in general. Let me know and I'd be happy to work over the taxonomy section to incorporate the nomenclatural information I've brought up. Choess (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Choess: done everything but the ref for the conserved name...help appreciated... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- thanks for tweaking the taxonomy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm, @Choess:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Cwmhiraeth
-
- A nice-looking article, but as always, a few niggles.
- "specific epithet" needs disambiguating.
-
- That target page needs cleanup...anyway now linked to Botanical_name#Components_of_plant_names Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- "predating Brown's formal 1810 description and claiming precedence" - surely this didn't matter because the species had been formally described in 1805?
- "must predate the splitting of Gondwana" - Did the source really say this? I usually prefer "is likely to have" or "probably".
- "it is from here that the seed pods then develop." - Is there more than one seed pod per individual flower, then?
- "It is occasionally found in Leptospermum scoparium-Acacia mucronata forest community of western Tasmania." - Singular or plural, perhaps add one or two "the"s?
- "Waratah seeds are often eaten—and destroyed—by animals" - is the seed not distributed at all by animals then?
- Wikilink "Mount Wellington".
- Reference 12 (Rossetto) needs attention.
- The article has a large section on Taxonomy and evolution, but the lead does not mention these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I am happy with the improvements made to the article and am now supporting its candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Seiken Densetsu 3
In 1995, American/European role-playing video game fans were eagerly awaiting the release of what they called Secret of Mana 2—the sequel to 1993's Secret of Mana, widely considered then and now as one of the best 16-bit RPGs ever made. Their wait was in vain, though, as 20 years later, Seiken Densetsu 3 remains the only non-mobile game in the Mana series to never be released outside of Japan. Over the years, the vanished game took on a mythical quality, spurred on by a 2000 fan translation patch that allowed gamers to play it in English on emulators. Was it cancelled in favor of the ill-fated Secret of Evermore? Due to a rivalry between the Japanese and American branches of Square? Or, as it turns out, was it much more prosaic—the era of the Super Nintendo was drawing to a close, and sales projections weren't high enough to invest in an expensive translation/programming bug fix just to release the game into the then-niche Western JRPG field. Regardless, it became a right of passage- even xkcd has noted that if you haven't tracked it down, you can't call yourself a real JRPG fan. If only those poor gamers in 1995 could have had this article, now polished up for the 20th anniversary, to know what they were missing. The whole Mana series is a Good Topic, and this article, promoted to GA in Spring 2014, will be the 4th FA in the series, assuming it's as good as the other FAs in the series. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar
- No caption for the infobox image?
- The lead states that it was released for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System whilst the infobox states Super Famicom. Is this a VG preference I'm not aware of?
- "Although the game was only published in Japan, Western players have been able to play Seiken Densetsu 3 thanks to an unofficial English fan translation" - the body mentions nothing about western players, only that it was published on the internet? This could be reworded, but feel free to ignore this
- "whichever character is currently selected, the other two companions are controlled by the computer" - how about by artificial intelligence?
- "The remaining three characters act as non-playable characters (NPCs) when encountered" - Non-player character could be linked
- "One type of weapon is available for each character" - are these weapons unique for each character?
- "According to Fehdrau, the game did not tie up any people who would have been involved in a translation of Seiken Densetsu 3;" - I'm not quite sure what this means
- "A second preview in Next Generation in February 1996, now calling the game Secret of Mana 2 as well" - sounds a bit too present tense if it's referring to a 1996 review. Alternately, I would personally remove "as well" because I think it sounds a tad informal
- "Overall, the game is regarded by many as a SNES classic" - 'by many' is a bit vague. I know a lot of FAC reviewers don't like this language (I've had similar experiences in previous FACs), so I feel this could be rephrased to by many critics or something similar?
- "The 1UP.com review agreed" - would 1UP.com reviewer sound more appropriate?
Those were all of the minor prose issues I found during my read-through. I also checked the references and found no paraphrasing issues, otherwise anything I would have spotted would be listed here. All in all this is a great article that displays all traits of the FA criteria. JAGUAR 17:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: replied below
- I typically don't put captions for infobox cover art
- No, the preference is according to WPVG guidelines to always use SNES unless there's a good reason because it gets confusing (like when I then talk about it being one of the best SNES RPGs). Changed to Super Nintendo everywhere.
- Reworded to "English-speaking"
- Done
- Done
- Yes, reworded to make more obvious
- Reworded to clarify
- removed both
- Changed to semicolon to link the sentence more with the cited statements; I don't want to change it to "critics" since the sentence after that is about the GameFAQs reader polls ranking it highly for years.
- Changed there and in a couple other spots where I quote a "review" instead of a reviewer. --PresN 03:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for addressing them. I've had another look through the article and everything seems good to me. As before, I couldn't find any issues with the references so I'm willing to support this article. Just one thing, the infobox is appearing much wider (I think due to the inclusion of 'Super Nintendo Entertainment System'), not sure if this is only happening to me because of my wide monitor resolution but I wouldn't worry about it anyway. Nice work with this one! JAGUAR 15:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from ProtoDrake
I will be coming back for more comments, but some things must be said at once.
The Wayback Machine archiving of 1UP links no longer work due to robots.txt. You must use WebCite for these pages. I would also recommend looking through for any other links like that.GameFAQs, being primarily a user-based website, is classified as an unreliable website. Also, Seiken Densetsu 3 being one of the most searched-for terms on the site seems small recognition compared to other things mentioned there."...such as "Debussian impressionist styles, his own heavy electronic and synth ideas, and even ideas of popular musicians"." - This quote refers to one reviewer, but the sentence infers that it is the opinion of multiple critics. You should either specify that it is one reviewer's description, or remove the quote and put an additional reference at the end of the sentence.The image for Hiromichi Tanaka should have a full stop at the end of the sentence. It might also be prudent to add a minor not as to when the picture was taken. The second part is not that important.The image for Hiroki Kikuta: not only should you add a full stop within its box, but the image itself has a glaring "Low quality picture" warning message in it, which may impact its usability. Can this be addressed?This is purely option, I think, but despite it being stated that the game was not released overseas, I think it would be good to specify that the game's quotes are from a fan translation. As I said, purely optional.The "Seiken Densetsu 3 Original Sound Version" has two release dates attached. While this is explained in the text, I think some note of the second date being for a re-release should be present.
What is there is all I could see that stood out. Aside from that, it looks good. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Done
- Removed
- Noted the specific critic; looks like the line was originally just "described as", then JimmyBlackwing added "by critics" in the Secret of Mana FAC, and no one else commented on it.
- It is not a full sentence, so it does not get a full stop; added "in 2007"
- Modified to not be a full sentence, and have the year taken. I higher-res version does not exist; it's a tight crop of [11], and the original was only 640x427. I found a copyrighted one from 2011 on flickr that might be better; I'll ask for a re-license but I usually get a ~30% success rate with that.
- I can't see anything else outstanding preventing this from moving ahead. I Support its promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from SnowFire
Mostly looks good, but a few nitpicks.
- Where exactly are these character name translations coming from? Not the Corlett translation, which IIRC used Hawk, Lise, Carlie, Navarre, Rolante, Beast Kingdom, etc. Are these systematic Romanizations of the Japanese names, or are you using a different source? Either way it should probably be referenced somehow.
- Related, but the article uses both "God Beasts" and "Mana Beasts". Might be best to standardize on one ("God Beasts" I assume?) unless there is actually a distinction.
- "Unlike the previous game, where each spell was improved through use, the effectiveness of spells depends on the magical ability of the character and the element of the spell in relation to the enemy." --> This seems to imply that Secret of Mana didn't have enemy elemental resistances & strengths, which isn't the case. Additionally, while stats ("magical ability of the character") didn't have *much* impact on SoM spell power, they did have some, and anyway this kind of magic-damage-algorithm-comparison is probably too technical for the article even if it was true. I'd just delete the sentence.
- "When in battle mode, the character adds one point to his or her "power gauge" by making an attack which hits a monster. When the gauge is full, special moves can be unleashed, which vary according to the character." --> Seems like excessive detail, too. "Attacking monsters fills a gauge that allows the player to use character-specific special attacks" or the like?
- "A week cycles much more quickly than an actual one—a day passes in a number of minutes—but it still affects gameplay in certain ways." --> Is there reason to think that a quickly cycling day cycle wouldn't affect gameplay? These are two separate thoughts. "A week cycles much more quickly than an actual one, with a day passing in a number of minutes. The day affects gameplay blah blah blah..."
- "Kevin (ケヴィン Kevin?) is the inarticulate prince of Ferolia" -> "Inarticulate" isn't the right word, and I'm not sure the current link to speech impediment is right either? Kevin speaks *broken* English in the Corlett translation (although none of the other Beast Kingdom members do). It's much more "English/Japanese as a 2nd language" / "Caveman talk". I have no idea what the original Japanese script did with him, of course, but "inarticulate" would just mean he's not very convincing or charismatic in his speech, not "he uses a very basic and grammatically incorrect style of speech."
- " or the Deathjester and Heath, who has joined forces with him," -> "or Deathjester and a mind-controlled Heath" perhaps?
- "the connections between each title are more abstract than story-based, linked only on the karmic level" --> This is a nonsensical use of "karma", and checking the source, seems a pretty strange summary. Just leave it as "connections between each title are more abstract than them being direct sequels" or the like.
- "so as to gain ultimate power, politically and magically" -> Cut the last three words? And it's mostly magical ultimate power.
- There's an awful lot of detail on Secret of Mana+, which IIRC is mostly SoM remixes and less SD3 tunes (I reserve the right to be totally wrong here). Even if it was a 50/50 split... seems like it'd be worthwhile to trade a sentence on SoM+ for more sentences on the SD3 OST itself, at least if there are any other sources covering the OST to be had. SnowFire (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: Responded below:
- They're romanizations of the Japanese names; changed everywhere to use the Corlett version, since that's the most common English one.
- God Beasts
- Removed the comparison; while the issue would be fixed by saying "only" by the character's magic stat and the element used, the comparison to SoM is too detailed. I do want to keep the idea that the element of the magic matters; the 8 elements (with their stones, elementals, beasts, etc.) are a big part of the background of the game and they don't get a lot of detail here.
- Agreed, done.
- Ended up just cutting the second half of that- no need to state that the day of the week affects gameplay, if the very next sentence discusses exactly how it affects gameplay anyway.
- Can't think of a good replacement word, and as the concept doesn't deserve a big explanation since it doesn't affect gameplay or the plot at all, dropped it
- Hmm, it's a little spoilery- you don't know he's being mind controlled the first time you run into them, right?- and I left out the other twists, like the Darkshine Knight being Duran's father, but changed anyway
- Done.
- Cut.
- Dropped a sentence, but there's not much else to be had for the regular OST.
- They're romanizations of the Japanese names; changed everywhere to use the Corlett version, since that's the most common English one.
- Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Triturus
- Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I resubmit this article on the crested and marbled newts after having been unable to respond in time during the first FAC review. I've responded to comments from that archive on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance for reconsidering this one and looking forward to your comments! Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent article. The problems identified in the previous review seem to have been addressed. I am just a tad concerned about the utter lack of references in the lead. People sometimes say the MoS discourages references in the lead, but I've yet to see the specific policy that says so. It's important to remember that some users may only have enough time to read the introduction, but they may still want to know where a specific claim comes from.--Leptictidium (mt) 07:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- There seem to be two schools on that. I stick with this essay and think that if references can be left out in the lead, they should be, as they only clutter a section which is supposed to be easily readable, and because "the use of references in the lead is a duplication of effort". Every fact in the lead is supported through references later on. Abstracts of scientific papers also usually don't contain references. Tylototriton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I kinda agree, it's just that I wondered whether there was some specific WP guideline involved. So, with that out of the way, I see no reason for this great article not to get FA status.--Leptictidium (mt) 17:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- There seem to be two schools on that. I stick with this essay and think that if references can be left out in the lead, they should be, as they only clutter a section which is supposed to be easily readable, and because "the use of references in the lead is a duplication of effort". Every fact in the lead is supported through references later on. Abstracts of scientific papers also usually don't contain references. Tylototriton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments- I'll copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for your comments and copyediting! Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
Two species of marbled newts and six species of crested newts, formerly considered subspecies, are accepted today - "today" redundant.- Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
-
when did Triton become Triturus? Straightaway or recently?- It became Triturus when Rafinesque described that genus in 1815. It is possible that the name Triton was still used by others, as it was often the case with scientific names in those days when there were no databases on the internet... I don't think I can make this any clearer? Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
-
most ponds inhabited by the northern crested newt in the UK today are human-made- "today" redundant- Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
-
In the common characteristics section, I changed one template so that it gives 20cm=8in rather than 20cm=7.9in. There are two other units there that need imperial units, and you might want to think about the other - do you want it to be in fractions of an inch or decimals? because adding "|frac=4" as a parameter to the convert template will do that.- I added the missing imperial units (except in the morphology table), hope I spotted them all (do millimetres need conversion?). Decided to stick with inch decimals rather than fractions, but as I am not used to imperial units, I don't know which is more common/recommended. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
-
The northern crested newt and the marbled newt are the only species in the genus with a larger range overlap- "large" not "larger" as there is no comparator...?- Replaced "larger" with "considerable" – I meant larger than the very narrow overlaps between other species. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Tentative supportOtherwise I can see little to complain about. I am not seeing any other clangers prose-wise but will read through again. The external video is sensible...but not sure how it goes with out image/EL policies so will defer to @Nikkimaria: on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- It appears to have been uploaded by the copyright holder, so there's no WP:LINKVIO concerns, and using external media is appropriate where they are not compatibly licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. The comments I made when this article was previously at FAC have been dealt with satisfactorily. I am now supporting it on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from FunkMonk
-
- Thanks for your comments. I've integrated some of your suggestions; will think about the others over the next days when I have some more time... Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- "but Linnaeus had already used the name Triton for a genus of sea snails." You could mention when.
-
- Done and original Linnaeus ref added. Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- "differences between subspecies were however noted and eventually led to their recognition as true species." Does the source really say "true"? "Full" might be more conventional.
-
- Agree. Replaced with "full" Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- "In the southern marbled newt, adults mainly breed" In? Sounds a bit odd.
-
- Reworded to "Southern marbled newts mainly breed..." Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Paedomophic adults, retaining their gills and staying aquatic" Are these able to reproduce or breath air?
-
- They are not able to breathe air but they should be able to reproduce, such as axolotls do, but the source has no info on whether they have actually been observed to do so. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the structure of the lifecycle sections. What is meant by "phases"? To me, it would mean that there are distinct phases in its life where it is solely aquatic or solely terrestrial as an adult, but that does not seem to be the case? To sum up, it is aquatic as larva, but terrestrial as adult, apart from when it breeds, or how? If so, it is unclear, and I think it might need some restructuring to make more chronological sense.
-
- Well, what characterises these animals is that they are aquatic as well as terrestrial as adults. They have recurrent phases, if you like. What might have caused confusion was the "Lifecycle" title of the section. I've renamed it "Behaviour and Ecology" and made the Reproduction part a separate section. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- "They secrete the poison tetrodotoxin from their skin," Doesn't seem to be very effective, with so many predators. What animals are deterred by it?
-
- The study cited only showed that the newts secrete the poison, it didn't test its effectiveness. But even if it's very toxic this doesn't mean it gives 100% protection – even the highly toxic Taricha newts have natural enemies! Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- It might make sense to have the evolution section closer to the Taxonomy and systematics section (or the other way around), as in virtually all other animal articles. I can see why you have placed it near distribution, but it seems rather disjointed now, as if the information stops arbitrarily and starts again by the end of the article.
-
- I moved the phylogeny part to "Evolution". Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Now I'm here, I have a confession to make: as a kid, I caught some crested newts and brought them home, where they soon died. I now realise it was a criminal act... When did it become prohibited in the EU?
-
- The Berne Convention, where the crested and marbled newts are listed, is quite old but was ratified at different dates by its member countries. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Size and colouration (only mentioned for marbled) could be mentioned in the intro.
-
- I only wanted to mention the distinguishing and namesake features – the crest for crested newts and the colour pattern for marbled newts. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- But isn't the colour of the crested newts distinguishing as well, as you say "Crested newts are dark brown, with black spots on the sides"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's certainly less conspicuous than that of the marbled newts. I've added their colour though in the same phrase. Tylototriton (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- But isn't the colour of the crested newts distinguishing as well, as you say "Crested newts are dark brown, with black spots on the sides"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I only wanted to mention the distinguishing and namesake features – the crest for crested newts and the colour pattern for marbled newts. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I'd move the entire Taxonomy and systematics next to the rest of the evolution stuff, but my comments have been addressed, looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Juan Manuel de Rosas
Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance with his enemies to crush Rosas. This article uses dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one available in any language. Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for its previous FAC; I wasn't catching everything then, but I see that a lot of helpful copyediting has been done, and I'm happier with this version. I can't really comment on questions of tone and NPOV, which I'm not in a position to judge. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- ready to Support pending comments from those who know something about the subject. A good read. Are there no depictions in film etc? A character in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories is very clearly based on him in exile - the "Tiger of ..." somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- John, it's good to see you here. I'm afraid we have no Wikipedians with true knowledge of Platine history, except for me and Astynax. About your other comments, Rosas showed up in movies indeed. We left out pop culture facts on purpose, since there are already two articles focused on Rosas' legacy. We kept what was most important, as to maintain the article simple and straight forward. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I don't see anything on films (which generally should not be referred to as "pop culture") in other articles - where? Even if there is, it should be summarized briefly here. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, but I couldn't find an equivalent section in other FA biographies, which seems that any mention in movies is optional. Since Rosas's appearances in other media is not vital to his character, I can't see the reason to add something here, especially because it would be pointless to add a line saying "Rosas appeared in X movie". What would that add to the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- There have been several depictions in literature, films and television but almost entirely in Argentine media and much of it unabashedly partisan exploitation feeding on the ongoing historicity problem mentioned in the Legacy section. Although depictions of Rosas in literature and media might be appropriate for some sort of separate list linked to within the article's Legacy section, there is also the problem of finding coverage in reliable historical sources that establish the notability of these and their relevance to political and popular culture. If a RS comes to light that explores how Rosas has been depicted in media then I see no problem of including a mention, but I cannot recall coming across such material. • Astynax talk 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Johnbod: The Sherlock Holmes story is Wisteria Lodge (1927), the second part of which is The Tiger of San Pedro, here for easy reference [12]. Rosas is disguised as "Don Murillo". Conan Doyle would have got the reference from W.H. Hudson. Far Away and Long Ago (Dent:London and Toronto:1918), pages 107-8, here: https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_EF0_AAAAIAAJ#page/n121/mode/2up . Might it worth doing two lines as per "In fiction"? Ttocserp 09:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll support. I think it's pretty good. And I believe you can add my name to Lecen and Astynax to those who have some "knowledge of Platine history" (sorry, had to get that off my chest!). Ttocserp 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support: Well written article on an important figure in South American history. It covers Rosas extensively and does so in an objective light, on par with the quality of other featured articles, such as Pedro I of Brazil, another of the great articles worked on by Lecen. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Not yet supporting Always good to see another piece of work by Lecen. I'm not sure the prose is quite there yet; I've gone through as far as "Apogee and downfall" and picked up some points below:
- It isn't clear who some of the quotes are from; e.g. 'Clemente López de Osornio, "a tough warrior of the Indian frontier who had died weapons in hand defending his southern estate in 1783."' If this is Lynch himself saying it, I'd expect it to be attributed in-line, e.g. "according to the historian John Lynch, "a tough warrior..."". If it is a contemporary quote, from Lynch, then it should be similarly attributed, e.g. "according to XXXX, "a tough warrior...". Ditto "in other words, "unbridled dictatorial powers"" etc.
- "although it is thought that he was barred" - I'd prefer it to say who thinks he was barred, or just say "although he was probably barred" if that doesn't matter.
- "owners of large landholdings (including the Rosas family) provided food, equipment and protection both for themselves and for families living in areas under their control. " - I didn't think the food and equipment made sense in relation to "themselves" - i.e. leave the other families out of it and you'd have "owners of large landholdings provided food, equipment and protection for themselves". It wouldn't make very such sense; who else would provide them with food and equipment?
- "Shaped by the colonial society in which he lived, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority.[11] He was in this way merely a product of his time and not at all unlike the other great landowners in the Río de la Plata region." - this felt overly complex, and the "merely" felt a little condescending. Could it just read : "Like the other great landowners in the region, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority."?
- " and acquired real property in the process. " - "real property" isn't a common phrase for most English readers. Would "real estate", "landholdings" or "lands" be more natural?
- " Rosas, like many landowners... Like many landowners..." - repetitious, and I think the reader has probably got the idea by now!
- "Colorados del Monte" ("Reds of the Mount") - just to check, is "reds of the mount" the standard translation? It read a bit oddly to me.
- "At the end of the conflict, Rosas returned to his estancias with acquired prestige for his military service." - "with acquired prestige" read oddly to me. "having acquired prestige"? "respected for his military service"?
- "He was granted the rank of cavalry colonel " - would "He was promoted to cavalry colonel" be simpler?
- "By 1830, he was the 10th largest landowner in the province of Buenos Aires (in which the city of the same name was located)," - I thought the bits in brackets were superfluous; it would be my initial assumption as to where the province would be!
- "300,000 head of cattle" - would "300,000 cattle" be simpler?
- "with the severe deficits, large public debts and currency devaluation which his government inherited" - can you inherit a devaluation? It's an event, not an object. You could inherit the "impact of a devaluation" though.
- " he improved revenue collection (while not raising taxes)" - the brackets here felt clumsy to me.
- "the government's financial issues" - I think issue is wrong here; for alleviate, I'd recommend "problems"
- "curtailed expenditures." - I'd have gone for "expenditure." in the singular
- "called for the adoption of a Constitution" - why the capitalisation on constitution?
- ""The fine territories, which extend from the Andes to the coast and down to the Magellan Straits are now wide open for our children." - I don't think the linking within the quote complies with the MOS guidance on this.
- "reelection and assumption of dictatorial powers. " - "reassumption", as he'd had them before?
- "The result of the 1833 election was a predictable 99.9% "yes" vote" - would the MOS prefer "percent" rather than "%" in this sort of article?
- "Rosas believed that rigged elections were necessary for political stability" - would "Rosas believed that the manipulation of elections..." be somewhat closer to his actual beliefs?
- "Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." - given that the Jesuits don't in the next sentence, would "Most Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." be more accurate?
- "None of the lands confiscated from Indians and Unitarians were turned over to rural workers (including gauchos)" - the bracketed bit felt clumsy.
- "Rosas was not racially prejudiced. " - this seems a remarkable and quite exceptional statement for the time. Do we really mean he wasn't racially biased at all...?
- "a threat that historians have considered state terrorism." - just to check... do all the cited sources in the reference use the term?
- "His targets were denounced as having ties (real or invented) to Unitarians. " I'd have gone for "His targets were denounced as having ties, sometimes inaccurately to Unitarians."
- "Although a judicial branch still existed in Buenos Aires, " -"a judicial branch" seemed oddly worded to me. "Although courts still existed..."?
- " Terrorism was orchestrated rather than a product of popular zeal, was targeted for effect rather than indiscriminate." - felt repetitious; you've already said this in preceding sentences.
- "the port of the city of Buenos Aires, " - would "the port of Buenos Aires" (the title of the wiki article linked here) be simpler?
- "Rosas either imprisoned or executed the plotters." - unclear if this means we are uncertain what he did, or that he imprisoned some and executed others.
- "In the countryside, estancieros (including a younger brother of Rosas) revolted" - I'd have gone for commas rather than brackets here.
- "Men who tried to escape had their throats cut and their heads put on display." - I'm not sure this makes sense. Why only men who tried to escape?
- "Around 1845, Rosas managed to establish absolute dominance over the region, with no challenges to his authority remaining" - second half of the sentence felt redundant, given the first half.
- "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) since 18 December 1829." > "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) in 18 December 1829." "or "Rosas had been promoted to brigadier general, then the highest rank in the army, in 18 December 1829." (which might flow more easily)
- "which by 1831, following the Federal Pact (and officially from 22 May 1835), " - the brackets felt awkard here
- "claiming that " - "stating that" would be more neutral in tone
- "Rosas was a closeted monarchist, " - "closet monarchist" would be the normal rendering
- " as had been many of his fellow countrymen. " - "had been" or "were"? If the former, the statement seems a bit irrelevant.
- "Nonetheless, in public he claimed that his regime was republican in nature." - "claimed" > "stated", especially since we've just said that we don't know what his actual beliefs were. Hchc2009 (talk)
-
- It's really good to see you here, Hchc2009. Your suggestions are great and I implemented them all. Just a few notes: 1) I've seen one historian call the "Colorados del Monte" "Red Rangers" and another "Red Soldiers of the Wild Country". There is no standard translation, thus I opted for a literal translation. Anything else would be Original Research, I think. 2) Every single source presented call Rosas' regime an sponsor of "state terrorism". That's why I added so many sources (as I did when I mentioned that he headed a dictatorship): to show that it is the prevalent opinion within historiography. As far as I know, there is no one that says that he was not a dictator nor that his regime did not sponsor state terrorism. 3) John Lynch is the one who says that Rosas was not racist, but later on the book he shows a quote from Rosas himself calling Brazilians blacks "monkeys". I chose to remove the mention of non-racist. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Temperatures Rising
Temperatures Rising is a sitcom that I enjoyed immensely when it originally aired in the United States on the ABC network back in the early 1970s. Although it has yet to be made available commercially on DVD I have been able to obtain some episodes via a private source. I still think it is a very funny show and would like to see it brought back into circulation. My interest in the series inspired me to learn as much as I can about its history. Thus I have spent the last few years accumulating a large amount of information about the series (mainly vintage newspaper articles). Using this information I re-wrote and greatly expanded this article last year and attempted to elevate it to FA status in January of this year. The article was not promoted despite the support of four people. Since then the article has achieved GA status. I have had several friends (many of whom are published authors) look it over and offer comments to improve it and, just last week, it received a "makeover" by the Guild of Copy Editors.
I am now making another attempt at FA status. If anyone can make suggestions on how to improve this article please feel free to over up any that you have. Also note that some of episodes of Temperatures Rising are available for viewing on YouTube. Take a look and have a few laughs. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC) |
---|
;Comment by Birdienest81
|
- I'll take a more detailed run down tomorrow, but it looks good.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from SchroCat
- Four dead links need looking into
- Three fixed and one deleted.
- Pilato in the bibliography isn't used in the article and should be removed
- Removed.
- SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (October 16, 2007): I think we can cut the date back to 2007, rather than the full date.
Sorry it's a bit bitty, but I've got a full work schedule at the moment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support – I supported last time. Looking at the later comments on that review I think I understand why that candidacy didn't go through, but this one looks pretty solid to me. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Mayabazar
- Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC), Ssven2, Kailash29792
This article is about Mayabazar, a 1957 Indian bilingual film known for its performances, music and especially its cinematography by Marcus Bartley. At this juncture, i want to thank my co-nominators Ssven2 and Kailash29792. A special note of thanks to Dr. Blofeld and my copy-editors Miniapolis and Corinne. This is my first FAC attempt and also the first Telugu film related article to be nominated for a FA. Looking forward for constructive comments. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
- Can you add two-three names from the principal cast in the infobox?
- Done
- Mayabazar is a 1957 Indian biligual....would be more specific.
- Done
- Remove either "few" or "small" from the third sentence in the lead. Since both words nearly mean the same.
- Done
- You can add "epic" before Mahabharata in the fourth sentence.
- Done
- Budget and BO info should be also in the infobox. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done Added the budget, but we could not find any reliable information about the box office information.
- "..participated in the development of Mayabazar." It should be participated in the development of the film.
- Done
- "In February 2010 acting coach and director..". Needs a comma after 2010.
- Done
- "...the reason for which is not known." Replace "not known" with "unknown".
- Done
I'll post more comments once i'm finished reading it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Author-link Subhash K. Jha at ref 63.
- Done
- Akkineni Nagarjuna's comment about remaking the film should be under inverted comma's.
- It is a translation from the original quote written in Telugu. So, i can't do this.
- Wikilink The Hindu at ref 5, and delink it at ref 7 and elsewhere.
- Done
- Wikilink The Times of India at ref 28 and delink it elsewhere. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done
Support. I don't have any issues with the article now. All the best :) Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Yash! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar
- "Rama Rao was initially reluctant to play the lead role, but his portrayal of Krishna received acclaim and turned out to be the first of many such performances" - might sound better as Rama Rao was initially reluctant to play the lead role, however his portrayal of Krishna received acclaim and resulted to be the first of many such performances
- Done
- "The soundtrack features 12 songs" - twelve (I know smaller numbers are usually written out in prose, but for me 'twelve' seems the limit)
- Done
- "Telugu lyrics were written by Pingali Nagendrarao (Telugu)" - why is Telugu in brackets?
- Done Removed.
- "The film is considered a landmark in Telugu and Tamil cinema" - The film is considered a landmark in both Telugu and Tamil cinema
- Done
- "with praise for its lead cast, and for its technical aspects" - I would cut "for" here
- Done Removed.
- "The updated version was released on 30 January 2010 in 45 theatres in Andhra Pradesh" - link Andhra Pradesh for accessibility
- Done Linked.
- "It was a commercial success with mostly positive reviews, one only expressing a preference for the original" - need a conjunction; It was a commercial success with mostly positive reviews, with one only expressing a preference for the original
- Done Added.
-
- I respectfully disagree with User:Jaguar on this. (a) It's not good writing style to have two "with" prepositional phrases one right after the other, and (b) the phrase following "reviews" is an appositive noun phrase followed by a participial phrase. "One only" could be changed to "only one" or "only one of them". Corinne (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Gummadi Venkateswara Rao and Mikkilineni Radhakrishna Murthy were cast as Balarama and Karna, respectively, in the Telugu version and Sita had a supporting role as Sasirekha's maid" - this may read smoother as In the Tegulu version, Gummadi Venkateswara Rao and Mikkilineni Radhakrishna Murthy were cast as Balarama and Karna, respectively, whilst Sita had a supporting role as Sasirekha's maid
- Done
- "Bartley then created an illusion of moonlight, which according to Ambu Rao was a first for an Indian film" - needs a comma between "Rao" and "was"
- Done Added.
-
- I respectfully disagree with User:Jaguar that a comma is needed after "Rao". "According to" is a two-word preposition. It either requires two commas or no commas: "which, according to Ambu Rao, was..." or "which according to Ambu Rao was...". Prepositions do not always require commas. Commas represent where a native speaker would pause. Here, a native speaker is unlikely to pause. Corinne (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "A commercial success, Mayabazar had a theatrical run of 100 days in 24 theatres and went on to become a silver-jubilee film" - silver jubilee should be linked here
- Done Linked.
- "According to a 29 January 2010 government order, the remastered version was exempt from entertainment tax, but theatre owners charged full price" - however
- Done
- "However, the foundation opposed digital colourisation, saying that they "believe in the original repair as the way the master or the creator had seen it" - stating
- Done
- "Words and phrases, such as "antha alamalame kada"..." - I think this might sound slightly better as Various words and phrases
- Done Added.
I remember copyediting this article and watching the film shortly after, in which I loved. The article is solid throughout and I could only find a handful of minor prose issues. Good work with this so far! JAGUAR 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Jaguar! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Upon reading through this again, I'm satisfied that it meets the FA criteria and I'll now give my support to this article. Good work on this! I think I'll watch Mayabazar again soon. JAGUAR 13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks again, Jaguar! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Upon reading through this again, I'm satisfied that it meets the FA criteria and I'll now give my support to this article. Good work on this! I think I'll watch Mayabazar again soon. JAGUAR 13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Dr. Blofeld
"laddoo gobbling"? Why is the article spelt "Laddu" then? I think it would be best to paraphrase and something in brackets for non Indian readers on what Laddoo actually is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because The Hindu 's "Blast from the past" article mentions it in the same way. We linked it to "Laddu" back then. Now, i have added a note for the same. Would that suffice?
The music section seems undercooked, usually the opposite is the case! I'd expect to see the track listing and a bit more even in the main article I think.However in seeing the length of the track list it would bloat it to agree best not to list. I think you need to mention more songs and some form of reception on the most popular ones though.
- I've added critical reception from "Blast from the past" and Dhananjayan's book. I've also added a few facts regarding the soundtrack's development from the main article. Would these suffice?
Critical reception is also undercooked, also usually the opposite! I think it could use some stronger reviews and a more solid structure.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Currently, we have very limited reliable sources in the case of Mayabazar. I could find three reviews, one from CNN-IBN's 100 great films list, two from books published in 2013 and 2015. And now i hope that the section meets your expectations.
"colored" -I thought we used Indian/British English for Indian films?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done Rephrased. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Leaning towards support on comprehension, but I'm not fully convinced that the prose is quite FA quality in places. I'll await to see what others say about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Dr. Blofeld. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try to give it another read this weekend (tomorrow) and help if I can. I think we can get it there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Sorry for the delay, I'll try to give it another read/copyedit tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I'll try to give it another read this weekend (tomorrow) and help if I can. I think we can get it there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
"While the trio manage to trick Sarma and Sastry, Shakuni's lackeys, Ghatotkacha (in Sasirekha's form) makes Duryodhana's wife rethink the marriage arrangement and teases Lakshmana Kumara. Ghatotkacha plans the wedding in his hermitage in such a way that Krishna, using his divine powers, is present as a guest for the real marriage ceremony of Sasirekha and at the same time present at the marriage taking place in the Mayabazar." -a very long sentence!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Made it into four, in this way : "They manage to trick Sarma and Sastry, Shakuni's lackeys. Ghatotkacha (in Sasirekha's form) makes Duryodhana's wife rethink the marriage arrangement and teases Lakshmana Kumara. He also plans the wedding of the real Sasirekha and Abhimanyu in his hermitage which is attended by Krishna. Using his divine powers, Krishna also attends as a guest for the marriage taking place in the Mayabazar". Would it suffice? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- yes but you could lose one "also".
- Done Removed in the sentence "He also plans the wedding of the real Sasirekha and Abhimanyu..." Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- yes but you could lose one "also".
- "versions, with a slightly different cast for each. In place of Akkineni Nageswara Rao as Abhimanyu in the Telugu version, Gemini Ganesan appeared in the Tamil version. Savitri was the female lead in both versions; her character was named Sasirekha in the Telugu version and Vatsala in the Tamil version.[" -can you find a way to reword "version" here, it repeats a lot.
- How about this Doctor : "versions, with a slightly different cast for each. Gemini Ganesan appeared as Abhimanyu in the Tamil version, which was portrayed by Akkineni Nageswara Rao in Telugu. Savitri was retained as the female lead in Tamil also; where her character was named Vatsala instead of Sasirekha". I've rephrased it in the article also, feel free to make changes if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
" Its outdoor filming lasted for 10 to 15 seconds." -that all? Where was the rest shot then?
-
- The source says "The evergreen song "Lahiri, lahiri lo" was shot at Ennore near Madras (now Chennai) at noon. The outdoor shooting lasted only for 10 to 15 seconds", and we wrote "The song "Lahiri Lahiri" was shot in Ennore, a suburb of Chennai. Its outdoor filming lasted for 10 to 15 seconds". Now, what else can i do? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Was the rest shot in the studio then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- May be. Sadly, i don't have the liberty to go ahead like that though. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Was the rest shot in the studio then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- The source says "The evergreen song "Lahiri, lahiri lo" was shot at Ennore near Madras (now Chennai) at noon. The outdoor shooting lasted only for 10 to 15 seconds", and we wrote "The song "Lahiri Lahiri" was shot in Ennore, a suburb of Chennai. Its outdoor filming lasted for 10 to 15 seconds". Now, what else can i do? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Nageswara Rao was injured on the film's set, and action sequences featuring himself and Ranga Rao were shot only after his recovery, causing a three-month delay in the release of the film." -do we know what injury it actually was?
- Nageswara Rao said, "Actually, the movie release was postponed by over three months. On the sets of the film , I met with an accident and was hospitalised. Action scenes between me and S.V. Ranga Rao in Maya Bazar were yet to be filmed and were shot only after I was discharged". More than that, nothing was available. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Weak support I think it's close now, but I really think this FAC would benefit from a lot of people looking at it to really make sure it's clear cut, but unfortunately the turn out is poor as usual with Indian films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Dr. Blofeld. I'm optimistic that surely someone will post their views very soon. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Vivvt
- Missing Oxford commas at some places: "Ramana Reddy, and Relangi Venkata Ramaiah in supporting roles", "V. M. Ezhumalai, and K. A. Thangavelu playing those", "Pingali Nagendrarao assisted with the story, script, and lyrics.", "a crew of 400, including light men, carpenters, and painters,", ""Choopulu Kalisina Shubhavela", and "Neekosame""
- Done Added. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Four of the songs were composed by S. Rajeswara Rao prior to his departure from the project, the reason for which is unknown." Undue in the lead. You may want to club it with the earlier sentence mentioning Ghantasala.
- Clubbing these two statements may make the prose a bit vague and unclear there, i believe. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- "It was a commercial success with mostly positive reviews, with one critic only expressing a preference for the original." Who is this one critic? I think its undue in the lead.
- I respectfully disagree with this. IMHO, We should summarise the section appropriately, and also mentioning that critic's name in the lead will be more undue. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mention editors in the infobox.
- Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Mayabazar was edited by C. P. Jambulingam and G. Kalyanasundaram, and Madhavapeddi Gokhale and Kaladhar were the film's art directors." Replace comma after Kalyanasundaram with semi-colon.
- Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I must say the original structure was correct. If you add a semi-colon, 'and' should be removed. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done Removed. Thanks Vensatry! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I must say the original structure was correct. If you add a semi-colon, 'and' should be removed. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- "and her fifth song was finished by Ghantasala." What does that mean? Did he finish by singing the end or anything else. Just curious.
- Ghantasala finalised her fifth out of 26 takes (or renditions). Both the copy-editors found "and her fifth song was finished by Ghantasala" more appropriate for this situation. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- "It was dubbed into Kannada, and was featured at the 1957 International Film Festival of India". Reads like Kannada version feature into festivals. You may want to rephrase.
- Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim
A great article. Just a few suggestions/comments Jimfbleak - talk to me?
- marked a milestone… Reddy was meticulous— essentially opinions, even if supported by the sources, looks a bit weaselly
- May be. But can you please suggest a better way of mentioning the same? Because, i want the contents of the sections to be effectively summarised. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ghatotkacha hermitage—where does the hermitage come from? It's not mentioned in his own article.
- Ghatotkacha lives in a hermitage in the film. That's why i have mentioned the same there. The story itself is a fictional take, and IMHO the writers took liberty in this aspect. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Folktale—two words normally.
- Done Rephrased. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- 300 unique miniature houses—perhaps 300 miniature houses, each unique.
- I want my copy-editor's opinion on it. What say Corinne? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's all right as it is. I think re-phrasing it with "each unique" following a comma puts unnecessary emphasis on the word "unique". Actually, I'm not sure the word "unique" is even necessary. "300 miniature houses" would probably be sufficient.
- Ref no. 23 (now used) says "Some 300 miniature houses, no two alike, were created in about 50 x 60 ft space and electrified". So using unique is important. But as Corinne said, an additional comma would put unnecessary emphasis. Thus, i wish to leave it as it is. Is it okay, Jim? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's all right as it is. I think re-phrasing it with "each unique" following a comma puts unnecessary emphasis on the word "unique". Actually, I'm not sure the word "unique" is even necessary. "300 miniature houses" would probably be sufficient.
- (Black & White) —is that capitalisation correct?
- Which is the right one : Black & white or black & white? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, ordinarily it would be lower-case. However, this is in a quote, so if the original source had it capitalized, I guess it should stay that way. Corinne (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- The original source capitalises it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, ordinarily it would be lower-case. However, this is in a quote, so if the original source had it capitalized, I guess it should stay that way. Corinne (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Films and Theaters",—the linked source is in Telugu, so I'm unclear where the American spelling of "theatre" comes from, especially as India normally uses BE.
- Done Rephrased. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, they were just suggestions, and I'm happy with the responses, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- Two fair use images with appropriate rationale and relevance (poster and still). CC licensed photo of a sculpture is also ok, as there is freedom of panorama for 3D art in India.[13] FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the image review, FunkMonk! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- What makes Invisible India a high-quality reliable source?
- I used it because it is basically a PDF of the official songs book published by Vijaya Vauhini Studios. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- FN59: why cite YouTube here rather than the actual motion picture?
- I found the full video on YouTube. So, i thought it would be the right thing to cite it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- For both this and the one above, this is a WP:LINKVIO issue. We should cite the original sources rather than illegitimate copies. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay then. The content covered by Invisible India can be covered by the film's opening credits. Since you want me to cite the original motion picture, please let me know if this is the right way : Mayabazar (Telugu). (Motion picture) (India: Shalimar Telugu & Hindi Movies). I could find a DVD cover of the black and white version through which i came to know that Shalimar Telugu & Hindi Movies has marketed it. Let me know whether it is the right way to do so. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done Formatted ref no. 1 and 58 in the prescribed way. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay then. The content covered by Invisible India can be covered by the film's opening credits. Since you want me to cite the original motion picture, please let me know if this is the right way : Mayabazar (Telugu). (Motion picture) (India: Shalimar Telugu & Hindi Movies). I could find a DVD cover of the black and white version through which i came to know that Shalimar Telugu & Hindi Movies has marketed it. Let me know whether it is the right way to do so. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- For both this and the one above, this is a WP:LINKVIO issue. We should cite the original sources rather than illegitimate copies. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Bibliography should be in alphabetical order
- Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Formatting for books should be the same between References and Bibliography - if you're going to include locations for books in the latter, you should in the former as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done Included the location in ref. no. 6. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Quick comment
* G. Dhananjayan's book The Best of Tamil Cinema, 1931 to 2010 is a WP:MIRROR publication. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case, then also let me know what i am supposed to do. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Try finding alternate sources. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)As i said before, i cannot remove that source unless its non reliability is proved correctly. However, i've managed to reduce its usage to four instances, by finding support from The Times of India, The Hindu and YouTube. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)I'm sorry, but that's not a sufficient response. The article shouldn't be promoted at this state (some portions are cited using this source). —Vensatry (Talk) 12:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Can you please let me know which portions they are? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Given that you're the nominator, can't you find out those? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Vensatry, i've removed those four also. Can you revisit the article once? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
- The article has many Indian origin words and then why is "Dvārakā" alone using IAST?
- Done Rephrased.
- Who is "Sangeetha Devi Dundoo"? Is she someone notable who might have her article sometime on WP? If not, remove her name, we don't need to promote her here.
- Done
- "In March 2012, film historian Mohan V. Raman told The Times of India"... so Raman was talking with a newspaper or TOI's office or what? Am not very much familiar with such usage. Maybe native speakers can guide over here.
- Raman was talking with a newspaper obviously.
- "A Tamil song written by Thamarai and Harris Jayaraj for the film Yennai Arindhaal (2015) was named after Mayabazar" Is this WP:OR as the reference used doesn't say anything such but only says that a song "Mayabazar" is present in the film.
- The song was named "Mayabazar". Perhaps the GOCE copy-editors assumed it that way.
- "The scene in which Krishna reveals his identity to Ghatotkacha at Dwaraka was used in Gopala Gopala (2015), with Pawan Kalyan as Krishna." I can't read the Telugu source, so just out of curiosity; the scene was used as in the whole shot was ditto used with maybe just morphing NTR's face and adding Kalyan's face there? Or was it "recreated" to look like the original one?
- Not exactly. Gopala Gopala is the remake of OMG—Oh My God! and i assume you've watched the original. Before the shopkeeper attends the interview, a scene happens between the shopkeeper and Krishna (in human form) in the Telugu version. In the TV, Mayabazar will be screened and Krishna gives this scene as an example of how wise communication is a better choice compared to leading a recluse life.
- Please use consistent spellings through out the article. I changed for Shakuni and Dushasana. Check others.
- I thank you for fixing them. I shall do it soon, if any.
- "Nageswara Rao's son, actor Akkineni Nagarjuna, said in August 2013 that he hoped the film would be remade for a modern audience" How is this important enough to mention? Are they really remaking it?
- Not being remade. I shall remove it.
- "mentions Mayabazar and its actors and has two pictures from the film". Are they "stills from the film" and not picture?
- Done Rephrased.
- "Mayabazar is the name of a supplement of the Tamil edition of The Hindu." Is this inspired from the film? Nothing present in the reference as such.
- I too don't know. My co-nominators have added that information. I can't read Tamil. So i couldn't confirm any.
- I too am unsure if the paper was named after the film (after all, there are many other films named Mayabazar, so it could not have been named after the 1957 film). It may be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- If that is the case, i've removed it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I too am unsure if the paper was named after the film (after all, there are many other films named Mayabazar, so it could not have been named after the 1957 film). It may be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- "..acquired world negative rights to 14 Telugu films produced by Vijaya Vauhini Studios (including Mayabazar) to digitally remaster them in colour." Rephrase it to "...Vijaya Vauhini Studios, including that of Mayabazar, to...." as brackets are unnecessary.
- Done Rephrased.
- "A team of 165 people worked for eight months; Mohan used 180,000 shades of colour to create a tone similar to human skin, and employed 16.7-million-shade colour technology." This line is sandwitched between sound-related sentences. Relocate it.
- Done Moved it to the next paragraph where work on visuals was described.
- All the critical reception is of current times. Nothing to write about what it was when the film was released?
- I feel sad to say this, but absolutely no.
- Why are the books Bollywood Nation and Transcultural Negotiations of Gender mentioned? Are they notable or are their authors notable or what?
- Dr. Blofeld (one of the FAC reviewers) asked me to expand the critical reception section. After removing a sourced alleged to be a case of WP:MIRROR and failing to find eligible content from English, Telugu and Tamil, i found these books. I added the information from them. You can refer to his review above. Having said that, the publishers of these books—Penguin Books India and Springer India are notable enough.
- Per WP:FILMRATING, rating should be avoided.
- Alright, but can i retain the film reel length?
- "The film was featured at the 1957 International Film Festival of India and the Indonesian Film Festival." Which; Kannada, Tamil, Telugu? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Mayabazar is the spelling, and mostly the Telugu version is referred to using it. I'm not sure that a dubbed version would be screened there. So i want to go with Telugu. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
Although I am this article's co-nominator, I cannot let it pass FAC until these comments are resolved:
- The Best of Tamil Cinema by G. Dhananjayan was removed from this article due to alleged plagiarism by the author from us. However, the Mayabazar chapter is not, and less than 50% of the book is plagiarised. Does that still mean the book can be re-added?
- I don't know. Nether WP:TEAHOUSE nor WP:RSN gave a clear picture regarding this.
*Mayabazar: Music from the Motion Picture can be merged with the main article for two reasons: One, to avoid WP:CONTENTFORK, and two, it isn't really that well-developed enough to warrant a separate article. I know someone may object to the soundtrack image being used in the film article, but you can describe the image and its connection to the plot, as Bollyjeff did in Sholay and Mughal-e-Azam. If you don't wish to merge the articles, at least add the fact that "Vivaha Bhojanambu" is based on "The Laughing Policeman", using this source.
Okay, i will merge the articles. But, how can i describe the image and its connection to the plot? It was just a still of Ranga Rao and nothing else, isn't it?I cant merge the articles at this stage. Instead, i have expanded the section, particularly using the source you gave.
* Only the Telugu version's runtime has been mentioned in the article. Please add that for the Tamil version as well, but with a new source.
- Done
* In some of the quotes, the actors are referred to by nicknames. I suggest you add their real names in square brackets, next to their quoted names.
- Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Once they are resolved, this FAC has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support on references – I am not very good at FACs but I find this article quite satisfying. Mayabazar is very well-sourced and good job with archiving the references. I am not very good with prose, so my support is based on references. -- Frankie talk 19:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Just read the article and found nothing wrong with it. Infact, it meets all the criteria. Congratualtions @Pavanjandhyala:.Krish | Talk 17:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – I have, at last been able to give this my attention—sorry, Pavanjandhyala, for my delay—and I find it a delightful, accurate film article. Well done, I have no hesitation in recommending it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Mullum Malarum
- Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a film showcasing the superstar Rajinikanth as a character actor, widely considered his best performance. I have worked on this article for over two years and I feel it is very FAC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar
- "is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name" - what year did the novel come out, and does it have an article?
- "Although Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali, his affection for his sister and the tragic loss of his arm" - could read as Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the tragic loss of his arm
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "In 2009 Balu Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", which was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions"" - I don't understand how a statement made in 2009 affected his decisions in the film?
-
- I've now written, "In 2009 Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", stating that this was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Because Mahendran had no previous directing experience, Balu Mahendra" - no need to repeat his first name here
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Mahendran agreed on a montage after Babu sang a line or two (much to the actor's disappointment)" - this could work fine without the brackets
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Chettiar was perplexed by the finished film's lack of dialogue (since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer), and did not expect such a visually-rich film" - again, I think this sentence would read smoothly without the brackets. I'm not sure what to recommend, but I feel that this sentence could be rephrased slightly
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Rare for Tamil cinema, Mullum Malarum has no duets" - could read as Mullum Malarum features no duets, which is considered rare in Tamil cinema
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- " Chettiar apologised to Mahendran, offering him a (politely refused) blank cheque, and the director thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"" - a bit choppy. Could read as Upon the film's release, Chettiar apologised to Mahendran and offered him a blank cheque, to which he politely refused. The director also thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "After he saw the film Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander" - missing comma; After he saw the film, Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "A 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu said that the film" - stated
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil and two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film" - syntax error, should read as Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil, two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film awards
Those were the minor prose issues I came across during my initial read-through of the article. All in all, I think the article is solid and very comprehensive - good factors for a FA. JAGUAR 10:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them Kailash! With all of that out of the way, I'll support this transition from GA to FA. The article is broad, comprehensive and well written. JAGUAR 13:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Ssven2
- Wikilink "winch" for those who might not be familiar with the term.
-
- I have linked it in the lead and plot sections. Anywhere else I should link it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a simpler word for "Itinerant"?
-
- I found no synonyms on Wiktionary. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- "won first prize" — "won the first prize".
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan intervened and Balu Mahendra made his debut in Tamil cinema." — Sounds vague. Why did Haasan intervene and what for? For requesting Mahendra to be the cinematographer? If so, then did he make the request to Chettiar or Mahendran?
-
- The source reads, "Ashok Kumar came recommended to me from Ramachandrababu, an established cinematographer, who I wanted to work with for Mullum Malarum. Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan introduced me to Balu Mahendra, and we ended up working on that film together." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: I've rephrased it myself for you. Do resolve the other comments and let me know by pinging me.
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I like it this way. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- "since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film" — "as he hired Mahendran as director due to successful stint as a screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film."
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
That's about it from me. The article looks good. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: Thanks for resolving my comments. This article has my support for its transition from GA to FA. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Dr. Blofeld
Will look at it tomorrow if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were the initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan recommended Balu Mahendra for the job, which Mahendran accepted, leading to Mahendra making his debut in Tamil cinema.[8][9][10]
Although "
-rep of "although"
-
- Reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Mahendran refused to direct the film if Rajinikanth was not cast,[11] and Chettiar capitulated;[6][5] however, he was still unhappy with the director's decision and called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" every time he visited the set.[15] Ra" -As my good friend Tim riley always says, "however" is rarely needed. The sentence is too long and could be reworded to avoid it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- " Latha said that she was compelled to refuse a part in the film due to scheduling conflicts" -compelled isn't the right word here, what you mean is that "Latha was offered a role in the film but had to it turn down due to other filming commitments".
-
- Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. But I prefer your wording. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. But I prefer your wording. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- "According to Naman Ramachandran's Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography, Umachandran's novel and Mahendran's film metaphorically liken the sibling relationship to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them.[26] According" -rep of according
-
- It appears to be reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- "He also noted that films like Mullum Malarum stereotype the poor as representing all that is pristine and traditional; although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -doesn't quite read well in one sentence. I don't follow what you mean by "although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -Can you reword?
-
- I have merged the sentences. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- "with strands of sweetness." -it this a quote, I think it would be best quoted what is said there.
-
- It is a translation. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Quote it in English and put the original language in a footnote?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is a translation. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- ""A good product needs no publicity, whereas a bad product cannot be pushed in the market however much you publicise it"." -is this supported by ref 50 further down?
- Perhaps you could lose a couple of quotes in the retro views of reception to improve readability and flow
- "The winch in Mullum Malarum prompted director P. V. Prasad to use a winch fo" -no need to repeat, replace winch in second instance with "one"
- "Mullum Malarum appears on several lists of great films. In December 2012, Aishwarya Bhattacharya of Koimoi included the film on her list of "Top 10 Rajinikanth Movies".[73] Daliya Ghose of Bollywood Mantra ranked the film fourth on her list of "Top 10 movies of Rajinikanth"" -mmm it's a bit of an exaggeration in appearing on several lists of great films though as you mostly cite the best films of the actor. It's not as if it is cited among the greatest Tamil or Indian films top 100 or anything. Perhaps reword to something like "The films consistently ranks as one of Rajinikanth's best films in polls."
-
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Overall a very good article, I'll be willing to support once the above are addressed. It could still use a little tightening up in the reception section though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Don't know if you've addressed all points but I think it's nearing the line for FA considering the film industry and time period. It would still benefit from a few more people giving it a read and edit in places perhaps but good enough in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS |
---|
Thanks Snuggums. This was the reason my activity here reduced in the past several days. BTW, how do I fix the "help" tags that appear on the URLs? I don't know what is wrong with them. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
Comments from Krish
- Support : Just read the article, and found nothing questionable. The article is well-written, and definitely meets the FA criteria. Plus this was very informative for me, someone who barely watch old films.Krish | Talk 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from TrueHeartSusie3
Sorry for taking so long to do this! When reading my comments, please bear in mind that I have very limited knowledge of Tamil cinema.
Production
Since Umachandran does not have an article of their own, I think it would be helpful to give some information about them. Did they specialize in a specific genre of literature, were they well-known... ?
-
I wish someone would develop an article on him. But I know not much. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Same with Venu Chettiar; was he a well-known producer, what types of films did he produce, was this his first production...?
-
Repeat above. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I think "Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the loss of his arm." should be moved to the beginning of the previous para. E.g. "won the first prize in Kalki 's Novel Short Story Competition celebrating the magazine's 1966 silver jubilee. Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the loss of his arm, and decided to adapt it into a film. He outlined..."
-
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Why was Mahendran so insistent that Rajinikanth be cast in the lead role?
-
I don't know. This may have some info though. Vensatry, it's hard for me to read Tamil (I can read, but, its hard). Can you read and tell me if it has the info you recall? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)I remember reading somewhere that they both became friends during the making of Aadu Puli Attam, where Mahendran worked as a dialogue writer. Can't recall the source though. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Done: I have written the reason. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Mahendran decided to characterise Manga as a "foodie who loves fish" when he saw the location's marine environment." — I think this is the first time in the article that it's mentioned that the film takes place in a location close to the sea, so this sentence is a bit confusing.
-
- The source reads, "For the Rajnikanth starrer Mullum Malarum, which we shot at Sringeri in Karnataka, I decided on the characterisation of Fatapat Jayalakshmi( she plays Manga, Rajnikanth’s wife in the film). She is a foodie who loves fish. This came to me after I observed how there were water bodies and fish everywhere on the location! The song ‘Nitham Nitham Nellu Choru’ enhanced her character." Can it be reworded in a better manner? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe mention in the beginning of the sentence that they had chosen to Sringeri, a town with a river running through and a lively fishing industry, as a filming location and got the idea that this character would be a foodie from that? -THS
- The source reads, "For the Rajnikanth starrer Mullum Malarum, which we shot at Sringeri in Karnataka, I decided on the characterisation of Fatapat Jayalakshmi( she plays Manga, Rajnikanth’s wife in the film). She is a foodie who loves fish. This came to me after I observed how there were water bodies and fish everywhere on the location! The song ‘Nitham Nitham Nellu Choru’ enhanced her character." Can it be reworded in a better manner? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
*Why were all these different actors cast? Even if you can't find information on the specific reasons for their casting in this project, it might be worth mentioning if they were already big stars or had only just begun their careers; if they were usually cast in roles like the ones they had in this film, etc.
-
I don't know.
- "The film intentionally defied traditional Tamil cinema conventions..." I would mention some of these conventions, as the reader of the article might not be familiar with Tamil cinema.
*"thought it was like "watching two drunken monkeys dancing"." Needs citation.
-
This is already used. Guess I'll reuse it, though it may become WP:CITEKILL. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)It's a straight quote though, so it needs to be cited. -THS
- "Although Chettiar held up production by not financing a crucial lead scene before the song "Senthazham Poovil" with Sarath Babu and Shoba, Haasan funded the scene." — Why did he hold up the production?
-
- I guess he did not want the film to go beyond budget. Or it must have been due to differences between him and Mahendran. Or both. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- If that's what the sources say, then you should include it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I guess he did not want the film to go beyond budget. Or it must have been due to differences between him and Mahendran. Or both. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- You mention that the film was unusually "visually rich" given that Mahendran was a dialogue writer — I'd like to hear more about the specific cinematographic motifs, styles, etc. that were used instead of dialogue. Did the filmmakers refer to any films as inspiration for this film?
Themes
I don't understand what you mean by this: "that although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness". Do you mean that the filmmakers omit any criticism of 'real' poverty and the system which has produced it, instead making a statement that the poor can be "rich in moral uprightness" though not in a material way? I would rephrase this so that it's clearer.
-
The author S. Rajanayagam states, "In such films, the poor are glamourised, and stereotyped as representing all that is pristine and traditional. The overall socio-economic system, which has made them poor, is unchallenged. Within the system, however, the hero will be 'richer' in terms of his moral uprightness." Does it solve anything? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Yes, I think it would be better to include that quote. EDIT: even if you don't add the quote, you will need to paraphrase it. At the moment, you've included significant sections of his statements word for word, but without quote marks. –THSI have included the quote as it is and put it within quotation marks. Anyone may paraphrase it to the best. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"In one scene, after he violently berates her during the day, he puts henna on her feet at night while she is asleep." What's the significance of putting henna on her feet? This is not clear for someone ignorant about Tamil culture.
-
I guess he was trying to be kind to her. In fact, women here (in India) love applying henna on their hands and feet. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Maybe add something like "he tries to show his affection for her by putting henna..." But since it doesn't seem that henna is in any way symbolic, but simply a beauty practice that he wants to do to show his affection, I don't think it is actually that important to clarify it; I initially thought it might have some kind of more important meaning at first! -THS
"Mullum Malarum explores the theme of egotism, with Kali, the community's alpha male, surrounded by sycophants who massage his ego." According to whom?
-
Naman Ramachandran. I don't wish to overuse the line "according to", so please suggest something else. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Unless its a general fact that MM is about egotism, you need to attribute it. However, you don't have to go with 'according to' every time; how about "NR states that..." or "NR regards egotism as one of the central themes in MM." ? -THSDone: I have mentioned Ramachandran at the beginning of the sentence. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Release and reception
"there were problems with its release. After Haasan's intervention..." What were the problems? Also, I think you could give Haasan's full name and profession here again, I had completely forgotten who he is. Also, how did he intervene?
-
This source reads, "When Rajnikanth’s yesteryear classic ‘Mullum Malarum’ had some problem in getting released. Kamal Haasan sorted out the issues and got the film released". Should that solve anything? BTW, Kamal Haasan has already been introduced in "Production". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)If we don't know what the problems were, then it's fine not to alter that bit. I know Haasan was mentioned before, but it's worth mentioning his name and profession again, because it's confusing if the reader has to go back and forth. Remember that the reader of this article may not have heard of any of these people before, therefore we shouldn't assume that they'll be able to remember every name, especially if they've only been mentioned once before. -THS
- "The film's commercial performance during its first few weeks was poor." Why?
In the sections on reviews and legacy, you sometimes write simply "X stated..."; given how few of the critics have Wikipedia articles, I think it would be helpful to mention whether they are film critics, film scholars, filmmakers, etc. For example, I have no idea who Baradwaj Rangan is and why I should think his/her opinion is notable enough to be included.
-
Did you read the section "Music"? Baradwaj Rangan has been introduced and wikilinked there. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)I did, but again, you cannot expect your readers to be able to remember every name. You can expect them to remember all the main people involved in this film (e.g. lead actors, screenwriter, director, producer), but if someone has been mentioned only once, chances are the reader doesn't remember them and will be confused. -THS
Legacy
- "There might be very few or even no movie that revolves mainly the brother-sister relationship." Is there a word missing here?
-
- I don't know. Should I add sic? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not a native speaker though, so you might want to check with someone else before adding sic. -THS
- I don't know. Should I add sic? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think this section would be easier to take in if you began each paragraph with a description of what the para is about. E.g. if you are going to discuss the ways in which specific filmmakers have been influenced by the film, begin the paragraph with "Several filmmakers have credited Mullum Malarum as inspiration for their works.".
- In general I think this section might need to be restructured. For example, in para #3, you begin by listing praise from others, and then in the middle of the para mention that the film was the basis for a tv show. I don't understand the connection between the praise and the tv show.
- Agree with THS. The TV show is totally unrelated (except for the name) to the film and is trivial. Ditto with Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed info about the TV show. But the line Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi is a pun on one of MM's dialogues. So I thought it could stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- If it's a pun, it would be helpful to have a footnote with English translations of the titles and an explanation of the pun, if appropriate. -Susie
- I've removed info about the TV show. But the line Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi is a pun on one of MM's dialogues. So I thought it could stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- If several filmmakers have simply said that MM inspired them to become filmmakers, I think you could synthesize by saying "XYZ have stated that Mullum Malarum inspired them to become filmmakers" instead of including very similar quotes from all of them.
- "G. Dhananjayan wrote that it is one of five films the actor considers "close to his heart"; the other four are Bhuvana Oru Kelvi Kuri (1977), Aarilirunthu Arubathu Varai (1979), Enkeyo Ketta Kural (1982) and Sri Raghavendrar (1985)" I don't think you need to mention the other films.
-
- Not mentioning the other four would create vagueness, so I mentioned them. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe move them to a footnote? -THS
- Yes, a FN would do. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done: Added footnote. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, a FN would do. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe move them to a footnote? -THS
- Not mentioning the other four would create vagueness, so I mentioned them. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- "However, when his script for Azhagiya Kuyilae had no takers he directed the big-budget Gentleman (1993) and never got to make the small-budget film." What's the relevance of this fact to this article? I also don't think this should be included: "In January 2011 Rajinikanth saw Aadukalam, starring his son-in-law Dhanush. Impressed with his performance, he said: "This film will take Dhanush to the next level just like what Mullum Malarum did to me";[95] Dhanush's performance earned him the National Film Award for Best Actor." Same for the playback singer's opinion.
- Yes, the bit about Aadukalam is WP:UNDUE. Also, Suchitra's quote contains this factually incorrect claim (I understand that's her opinion though): 'though it was only his third film'. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- How much of info from the Shankar interview do I keep? BTW, I've removed the information on Suchitra and Dhanush. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any need to include anything beyond a mention that MM inspired him to become a filmmaker. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Shankar has stated, "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects. Now it's become almost impossible. Even as producer I could make only a mega `Mudhalvan.' I'm caught in the grip of the image my ventures have created for me". How do I paraphrase this? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's still ok to just state that MM was one of the films which inspired Shankar to become a filmmaker. He has his own article, the rest should be discussed there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Shankar has stated, "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects. Now it's become almost impossible. Even as producer I could make only a mega `Mudhalvan.' I'm caught in the grip of the image my ventures have created for me". How do I paraphrase this? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any need to include anything beyond a mention that MM inspired him to become a filmmaker. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- How much of info from the Shankar interview do I keep? BTW, I've removed the information on Suchitra and Dhanush. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- In general, this section has too little information on MM's place in film history, and too much praise that is not very informative on why it deserves this praise. After reading it, I know that this film is considered a classic, but I am not sure why, beyond the fact that it was more visual than previous Tamil films and portrayed sibling relationships in a realistic way.
Overall, I think this is an interesting article close to becoming a FA. I understand that some of my points might be impossible to address due to lack of available information. When polishing the article, remember that its readers might have very little previous information of Tamil film history. Hope this is helpful! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I'm liking the improvements so far! I don't know if you'll find this helpful, but whenever I'm writing a "Legacy" section, I'll try to keep in mind the question "How would film history be different if this film had not been made?" This helps in focusing on the reasons why a film is notable, without giving undue weight to people simply saying that it's notable.
Unfortunately, I've spotted several issues in "Themes"; you need to add quotation marks to direct quotes, or (preferable in most cases) paraphrase them. For example, the following seem to be direct quotes but have not been attributed as such:
- " to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them"
- "an angry young man with a kind heart"
- "the Oedipal possessiveness by a married brother of his younger sister"
- "massage his ego"
- "presentable and educated"
- "authoritarian yoke"
In general, I think you might want to reword most of the material relating to Ramachandran's statements – just replacing couple of words but keeping the overall structure of a sentence is not a good way to paraphrase. E.g. you write "As a subordinate, Kali cannot oppose Kumaran; his frustration threatens to erupt several times", and Ramachandran writes in his book "Being a subordinate, Kaali cannot really oppose him in any way and his frustration threatens to bubble over several times..." TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Comments from Vensatry
Oppose on sourcing
- The article extensively makes use of two books written by G. Dhananjayan—The Best of Tamil Cinema, 1931 to 2010: 1977–2010 and Pride of Tamil Cinema: 1931 to 2013. Although the latter had won a special mention at the 62nd National Film Awards, it looks like a WP:MIRROR, as the book paraphrases stuff from Wikipedia articles and the NFA archives of Directorate of Film Festivals. Since the article relies heavily on these two books, I'm opposing it momentarily. That said, I'm also concerned about the reliability of the following sources: Oneindia, Behindwoods, Raaga.com, VUIN.com, APTalkies.com, india-seminar.com (I know this is from BR), Bollywood Mantra, and Sify (I'm not sure if it's acceptable in FAs). —Vensatry (Talk) 08:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I've removed Oneindia, Raaga, APTalkies, Bollywood Mantra and VUIN, even though the VUIN article's title reads, "A VUIN Exclusive". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Vensatry, are you opposing the usage of Sify in articles like this because it is an online source with no print edition? Because you see other web-only sources like Behindwoods, Koimoi, IndiaGlitz, etc. in the same perspective. In fact, Behindwoods have gained remarkable media coverage through their "Gold Medal" ceremonies, and have no reputation for giving false info. And while both Danny's books do contain considerable plagiarism from us (I feel his National Award should be revoked for this), the Mullum Malarum chapters in both of them contain none. I'll even send you the pages for proof. Should that mean that the books can still be used here as sources? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed Oneindia, Raaga, APTalkies, Bollywood Mantra and VUIN, even though the VUIN article's title reads, "A VUIN Exclusive". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment – For those references with Tamil title, please include the English title in the trans_title parameter so that its possible for English readers to know what the reference subject is about. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Union Station (Erie, Pennsylvania)
- Nominator(s): Niagara Don't give up the ship 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
While there are several railway station FA's (mostly British), there isn't one from the US, only a handful of GA's. Wasn't sure there would've been enough for an FA when I started, but was surprised by Union Station's unique, and often overlooked, history as well as how it went from neglected and abandoned to being revitalized and a hub of activity. This article has previously been reviewed by Finetooth and West Virginian who were instrumental in helping to get the article ready for FAC. Niagara Don't give up the ship 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Erie_PA_Panorama_c1912_LOC_6a14402u.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Sourced from the Library of Congress who indicate that it's original copyright was to Haines Photo Co. in 1912. Niagara Don't give up the ship 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the tag you're currently using is intended for images published, not just taken, before 1923 - do we know whether the company published the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Must have been...it is listed in the 1912 Catalog of Copyright Entries as "Erie, Pa. two panoramic views. © Sept. 18, 1912." [14] (page 20049, if you're interested). Niagara Don't give up the ship 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Great, then just add that detail to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Added, thanks for doing the image review. Niagara Don't give up the ship 20:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Great, then just add that detail to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Must have been...it is listed in the 1912 Catalog of Copyright Entries as "Erie, Pa. two panoramic views. © Sept. 18, 1912." [14] (page 20049, if you're interested). Niagara Don't give up the ship 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the tag you're currently using is intended for images published, not just taken, before 1923 - do we know whether the company published the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sourced from the Library of Congress who indicate that it's original copyright was to Haines Photo Co. in 1912. Niagara Don't give up the ship 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from West Virginia
Support As Niagara has stated above in his nomination of the article, I've already engaged in a thorough and comprehensive review at this article's peer review. All my comments and suggestions were addressed there. I still assess that this article easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria because it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, and has a lede that adheres to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Once again Niagara, you've done a splendid job illustrating the storied past and revival of this historic building. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Finetooth
I peer-reviewed this article in August 2015 and did some minor copy editing, and all of my original concerns have been addressed. I'm leaning toward support, but after re-reading the revised article again today, I have two (or several, depending how you count) additional suggestions:
I see four sentences in the article that appear as unsourced last-sentence additions to paragraphs. The first of these (Fellheimer) is at the end of the first paragraph of the "Design" section, and the second (railroad offices) ends the third paragraph of the "Design" section. The other two are in the "Operations" section, at the ends of paragraphs 2 and 3 (express trains and Bliley). Can you add reliable sources for these claims?
For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in the Harriet Tubman bibliography. You can generally find these via WorldCat. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of History of Erie County, Pennsylvania as 8622308 here. Readers who use your bibliography will then be able to click on an OCLC link to see the WorldCat listings, which include information about other editions and formats and where to find them. For example, the History of Erie County, Pennsylvania, has appeared in nine different forms, including a 2006 reprint.Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Added the appropriate sources and OCLC numbers. Thanks for catching those! Niagara Don't give up the ship 02:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. A very well-done and interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Sledd
- Nominator(s): Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Andrew Sledd, an American Methodist minister, theologian, Latin and Greek scholar, and academic administrator who was the founding president of the modern University of Florida. Sledd achieved a large measure of notoriety when, as a young Latin professor at Emory College in 1902, he wrote an article for The Atlantic in which he condemned the all-too-common practice of lynching African-Americans who were accused of crimes or other acts that transgressed the strictly enforced racial segregation of the era. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
I reviewed this at GAN, several years ago, and am delighted that Dirtlawyer1 has decided to nominate this here. I think it's a fine article and I expect to support. A couple of minor quibbles first:
"declined all such offers": I think "such" is not quite right, since as far as we know there were no others. How about just "declined these offers"?There are more links in the "See also" section than I think are necessary. This is a matter of editorial judgement, so I wouldn't oppose over this, but couldn't some of these be replaced by categories?In the GA review you mentioned a fist-fight Sledd had with another professor, and after some discussion I think you were planning to mention it in a footnote. As far as I can see you haven't done this; any particular reason? I think it's your call, as you're the one looking at the sources, but it's a nice tidbit to add if you can source it properly.
-- That's all I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: In regard to the three issues you raised above --
- I made the change you suggested, removing "such";
- I pared the tangential "see also" articles for which there are corresponding categories; and
- At the time we discussed it, I thought about the inclusion of the purported "fist-fight," but it was based on a second-hand account in an unpublished manuscript by James M. Farr. In my editorial judgment, that was a little too shaky to include.
Please let me know if you have any other comments, suggestions, or questions. Thank you, once again, for your past reviews of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Support. The minor issues I raised have been settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Finetooth
I peer-reviewed this article in 2009, and it has improved steadily since then. The prose is of professional quality, and the article seems comprehensive. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a short list of suggestions:
The bolding of the quotation and Sledd's name in the pull quote is overkill. I'd delete the bolding.The Buckman Hall image is displacing the University of the State of Florida head. The image would look fine if moved down one paragraph and inserted between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of that section, after the sentence ending with "as the location for the new men's state university."Five portal links in the "See also" section are too many. I would delete the geographic ones, Florida and Georgia, at least, on grounds that they are too general to be useful to the reader in the context of this article. I have doubts about the Christianity and Education portal links as well. Wouldn't readers find related materials easily without these links?For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in Harriet Tubman. You can generally find these via WorldCat, taking care to choose the edition you are citing. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of Andrew Sledd: His Life and Work as 1127786 here.The lead image is good but has a few visible imperfections (dust motes, perhaps) that should be relatively easy to touch up. If you can do that, great; if not, I'd be willing to try, if you like.
@Finetooth: In regard to your five suggestions above --
- I am strongly in favor of the pull quote -- how would you suggest that I present it? Given the quote's relative brevity, I am afraid it will be lost in the surrounding text. There is an even stronger quote buried in the text, in which Sledd describes lynching as a "diabolical carnival of blood," if we need something longer. The mild-mannered minister did have a gift for words when his anger and indignation were aroused.
-
-
- My suggestion would be to keep the quote and template as they are but remove the bolding. The fancy quotation marks already draw special attention to the quote. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Finetooth: Per your suggestion, I have removed the bolding from the pull quote text. What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be to keep the quote and template as they are but remove the bolding. The fancy quotation marks already draw special attention to the quote. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I have moved the Buckman Hall photo to avoid the subheader displacement per your suggestion.
- I have removed the Christianity, Education, Florida and Georgia portal links.
- I have added the OCLCs for all of the bibliography publications for which an OCLC entry exists.
- The infobox head-and-shoulders shot of Sledd is one of my favorites, and was made from a large-format glass negative, with all of the fine resolution and other imperfections of the medium. I do not possess the Photoshop skills to touch up the photo as you suggest, but I certainly would not object if you want to take a crack at it. My only caveat is that I would not want to see any loss of the fine, granular resolution of the original. It's a beautifully representative photo from that era.
-
-
- I agree. I will tinker with as few pixels as possible, and you'll be free to choose between the two options. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I uploaded the retouched version moments ago. I changed one pixel at a time using the eyedrop tool and pencil tool in Paint.net; the largest changes involved a total of about a dozen pixels. You can easily revert to the original if you prefer. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your retouched version appears to minimize the scratches and dust specks, and looks to be an improvement. If MrToes, the original uploader and a University of Florida library employee, turns up in the near future, I will request that the university archive folks re-perform the digitalization of the photo in the hopes of improving the resolution in some of its marginal areas. That's on the wish list, but I have no control over that. Perhaps if this article is promoted we can get the university's attention. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I uploaded the retouched version moments ago. I changed one pixel at a time using the eyedrop tool and pencil tool in Paint.net; the largest changes involved a total of about a dozen pixels. You can easily revert to the original if you prefer. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I will tinker with as few pixels as possible, and you'll be free to choose between the two options. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
Please let me know if you have any other comments, suggestions, or questions. Thank you, once again, for your past reviews of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support on prose, coverage, Manual of Style issues. I defer to User:Nikkimaria on the license questions. All of my other concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- Why italicize the lead caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Simply to visually distinguish the photo caption from the surrounding infobox text. IMO, it has always been a defect of our present Infobox person design that it does not already do so in a visually recognizable manner. That said, if it is a condition of FAC approval (or your support), I will certainly remove the italics from the caption. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- It's not a problem, just something we don't see very often so I thought I would ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- File:UF00031408.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- The truth is I don't know with anything like 100% certainty, but I can make a reasonably educated guess based on my knowledge of Sledd and the University of Florida. Please keep in mind that I am not the uploader of the photo, and I simply accepted a photo from Wikimedia Commons with a valid rationale, which I uncritically accepted at the time because it was on Commons. That said, I am pretty sure the c. 1910 date on the photo is incorrect. Here's the source for the original upload, the University of Florida Digital Collection from the university's Smathers Library: [15]. Please see photo No. 5, which is our subject photo, which the university archivist ambiguously dates to the "1910s". Please note that subject photo No. 5 appears to have been taken at the same time as photos Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (same necktie, same suit, same eyeglasses, same hair color). Now, compare Sledd's appearance in photo No. 2, which includes his wife and young children, and we can date with some accuracy to c. 1906 because it only includes three of his eventual seven children. Compare Sledd's physical appearance in No. 2 (dark hair, appears to be about 35 years old) with his appearance that in Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 (silver hair, and appears to be 50 to 60 years old). Sledd was effectively fired by the state Board of Education in 1909 (see article for details), and to the best of my knowledge only attended one function at the university thereafter, in 1933, when then-president John J. Tigert invited Sledd to give the commencement address. One of the apparently contemporaneous photos, No. 1, shows Sledd in his Ph.D. regalia, apparently dressed for graduation. Given his self-evident age in photo No. 1, it was clearly not taken during his 1905–09 tenure as president, when he was 35 to 39 years old. Assuming the validity of this bit of amateur detective work and photo analysis, it is extremely likely that the four contemporary photos, including No. 5, were taken during graduation weekend 1933. This conclusion is, of course, based on a series of educated guesses by me. That said, the 1933 date should not be a problem for the subject photo being in the public domain because the University of Florida owns the prints and negative, it's a state institution, and there is a specific public domain rationale for the documents and images of Florida state institutions under Florida law. The Commons PD rationale should probably be changed to reflect that, thus making the date of publication moot for PD purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Okay, if you would update the image description page to reflect your explanation I'll re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Nikkimaria: Which description page -- the Wikimedia Commons description and PD rationale? If so, I am happy to accommodate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, that's the one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- NM, I have changed the PD rationale for Wikimedia Commons as discussed above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, now good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Brianboulton
Leaning to support. An interesting article about a man who deserves to be remembered. I have a number of relatively straightforward prose issues:
- Early life section: "He received his early education..." – as the last person mentioned is Sledd senior, "he" had better be specified as Andrew.
- Same section: "Sledd also completed his doctorate" – the word "also" is redundant.
- Emory College section: I am sure that the lynching was indeed horrifying, but you refer specifically to the "horrifying aftermath". Was there some additional horror? Also, however justified the term "horrifying", I believe that encyclopedic neutrality means that emotive descriptions should be avoided.
- The highlighted quotation is the same wording as provided in the text. Perhaps the quote box could give us a bit of context, otherwise we are merely reading the same thing twice.
- University of Florida at Lake City section: I assume that the "previous president" is the unpopular one referred to in the previous line, though the wording is slightly ambiguous. If that's the case, you could clarify by saying "ineffectual" rather than "previous".
- University of the State of Florida section: The following sentence reads rather clumsily: "After a spirited debate, the Board of Control, the new state board charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville, by a vote of six to four, as the location for the new men's state university." I suggest losing the unnecessary intro comment and rephrasing: "By a vote of six to four, the new Board of Control charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville as the location for the new men's state university."
- Same section: "Sledd did not anticipate that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and he naturally assumed that Lake City would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." I suggest: "Sledd had not anticipated that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and had assumed that it would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." etc
- "Sledd's future as its likely first president" – delete "likely"; his anticipated future was as first president, not "likely first president".
- "there were other possible candidates to become its first president" → "there were other possible candidates for the presidency" (to avoid close repetition of phrase)
- I would delete the words "to become the president of the new men's university in Gainesville"; they are clearly implied.
- Albert Murphree could be just "Murphree" after first mention.
- Methodist ministry and Southern University section: the final sentence in this section is unnecessary, since the move to Atlanta is fully covered by the first sentence of the next section.
- Candler section: "volunteered for the additional duty of serving as the board's treasurer" – a trifle verbose. "volunteered to serve as the board's treasurer" would suffice.
- In the final paragraph of this section I would delete the word "also", the word "bitter" (too subjective) and the first "only" in the last line.
- Death and legacy section: Do you need to spell out the full Candler name in the first paragraph? Previously it's just been "Candler".
- Suggest delete the terminal "however" (Third para, first sentence)
I see few problems in dealing with these, and look forward to moving to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: In reply to your comments above --
- BB suggestion: "he" had better be specified as Andrew.
- Agreed. Done.
- BB suggestion: "Sledd also completed his doctorate" – the word "also" is redundant.
- Agreed. Done.
- BB suggestion: Also, however justified the term "horrifying", I believe that encyclopedic neutrality means that emotive descriptions should be avoided.
- Hmm. I think this deserves a moment of discussion. I understand the need to avoid emotive terms per NPOV, however, in this case the scene was truly that and goes a long way to explaining the rage this young Methodist minister felt. They emasculated the victim and burnt him alive. Sledd witnessed the aftermath when men and boys were collecting carbonized digits and kneecaps as souvenirs. The use of the word in this case is neither metaphoric nor exaggerated. Perhaps in lieu of the emotive word, a sentence of factual description would be better?
- FYI, I live in metro Atlanta, about 20 miles from where this horror story unfolded, and it's a dark part of local history.
- That might be better, but I'll go along with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Having re-read the entire section, and the footnote with the extended quoted passage describing the scene of the lynching witnessed by Sledd, I have decided to let the man's words speak for themselves. I have deleted the word "horrifying".
- That might be better, but I'll go along with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- BB suggestion: Perhaps the quote box could give us a bit of context, otherwise we are merely reading the same thing twice.
- I'm still contemplating what to do with the quote box in light of your suggestion. Are you suggesting that I add additional quoted text for context? Can you elaborate a bit?
- A quote box should enhance and supplement the text, not simply repeat what's in it. A slightly longer quotation, incorporating the "There is nothing in a white skin" comment, would be appropriate. If you think that nothing useful can be added to the brief quote, then it would perhaps be better to scrap the box. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have expanded the quote and added some additional context material in the quote box attribution.
- A quote box should enhance and supplement the text, not simply repeat what's in it. A slightly longer quotation, incorporating the "There is nothing in a white skin" comment, would be appropriate. If you think that nothing useful can be added to the brief quote, then it would perhaps be better to scrap the box. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still contemplating what to do with the quote box in light of your suggestion. Are you suggesting that I add additional quoted text for context? Can you elaborate a bit?
- BB comment: I assume that the "previous president" is the unpopular one referred to in the previous line, though the wording is slightly ambiguous. If that's the case, you could clarify by saying "ineffectual" rather than "previous".
- Good suggestion. Done.
- BB comment: Sentence reads rather clumsily: "After a spirited debate, the Board of Control, the new state board charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville, by a vote of six to four, as the location for the new men's state university." I suggest losing the unnecessary intro comment and rephrasing: "By a vote of six to four, the new Board of Control charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville as the location for the new men's state university."
- Your rewrite flows better. Done.
- BB comment: "Sledd did not anticipate that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and he naturally assumed that Lake City would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." I suggest: "Sledd had not anticipated that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and had assumed that it would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." etc
- Past perfect tense sounds marginally better. Done.
- BB suggestion: "Sledd's future as its likely first president" – delete "likely"; his anticipated future was as first president, not "likely first president".
- Agreed: "likely" is redundant. Done.
- BB suggestion: "there were other possible candidates to become its first president" → "there were other possible candidates for the presidency" (to avoid close repetition of phrase)
- Agreed. Done.
- BB suggestion: I would delete the words "to become the president of the new men's university in Gainesville"; they are clearly implied.
- Tighter, better. Done.
- BB suggestion: Albert Murphree could be just "Murphree" after first mention.
- Agreed. Done.
- BB comment: Methodist ministry and Southern University section: the final sentence in this section is unnecessary, since the move to Atlanta is fully covered by the first sentence of the next section.
- Brian, how strongly do you feel about this? I think it provides a needed segue; Sledd resigned from the Southern presidency, and was not effectively fired as he had been from his previous Emory and Florida positions.
- What I would recommend is: scrap the final sentence in the "Methodist ministry" section and recast the beginning of the next section as follows: "In the fall of 1914, Sledd resigned the presidency of Southern University and returned to Emory College, by then renamed Emory University and relocated to its new main campus in northeast Atlanta. He became the first Professor of Greek and New Testament Literature at the Candler School of Theology, the newly established seminary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." That would maintain continuity and avoid the present repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Done.
- What I would recommend is: scrap the final sentence in the "Methodist ministry" section and recast the beginning of the next section as follows: "In the fall of 1914, Sledd resigned the presidency of Southern University and returned to Emory College, by then renamed Emory University and relocated to its new main campus in northeast Atlanta. He became the first Professor of Greek and New Testament Literature at the Candler School of Theology, the newly established seminary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." That would maintain continuity and avoid the present repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Brian, how strongly do you feel about this? I think it provides a needed segue; Sledd resigned from the Southern presidency, and was not effectively fired as he had been from his previous Emory and Florida positions.
- BB suggestion: "volunteered to serve as the board's treasurer" would suffice.
- Agreed. Done.
- BB suggestions: In the final paragraph of this section I would delete the word "also", the word "bitter" (too subjective) and the first "only" in the last line.
- Agreed: neither is necessary. Done.
- BB comment: Death and legacy section -- Do you need to spell out the full Candler name in the first paragraph? Previously it's just been "Candler".
- Brian, I think we may have the problem of confusing "Candler" antecedents here . . . Bishop Warren Candler, wife Florence Candler, Coca-Cola founder Asa Candler, Candler School of Theology. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think a little repetition may be helpful to the reader in this case.
- I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- With your acquiescence, I'm going to leave this minor point as is.
- I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Brian, I think we may have the problem of confusing "Candler" antecedents here . . . Bishop Warren Candler, wife Florence Candler, Coca-Cola founder Asa Candler, Candler School of Theology. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think a little repetition may be helpful to the reader in this case.
- BB suggestion: delete the terminal "however" (last section, third para, first sentence)
- Agreed. Done.
@Brianboulton: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. The text is tighter and cleaner as a result. Please see my comments and questions under items 3, 4, 12 and 15 above, which require your responses. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Subject to my outstanding notes I'm happy with your responses. Please re-ping when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: I have addressed each of the outstanding four points above, making the suggested changes in the first three instances, and leaving the minor repetition in the case of the fourth. Please let me know if you have any further comments, suggestions or questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Support: All my queries/suggestions have been dealt with adequately, and I'm happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
FAC process, general comments, etc.
@Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain: Gentlemen, I'm new to the FAC process. Is there anything else for me to do here as the FAC nominator? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi there! Just at a quick glance it looks like we may still need a source review for reliability and formatting, and, assuming this is your first nomination, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. We can request those at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above can undertake. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: Please do whatever is required to advance the ball, sir. All online footnote sources were checked and all links were found to be in working condition during the first week of November 2015. Several of the academic publications are offline, but available through JSTOR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Happy to pop round to the British Library to do a spot check if wanted. Tim riley talk 19:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: I would be grateful for your help. As noted above, most of the academic references are available through JSTOR if they are not linked in the footnotes. Some non-controversial "early life and education" details are provided by three unpublished manuscripts, which were graciously lent to me by the University of Florida and Emory University libraries. The footnote style for newspapers and journals is old-fashioned, straightforward and simple -- and I hope very consistent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Happy to pop round to the British Library to do a spot check if wanted. Tim riley talk 19:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: Please do whatever is required to advance the ball, sir. All online footnote sources were checked and all links were found to be in working condition during the first week of November 2015. Several of the academic publications are offline, but available through JSTOR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Spot-checks
Some preliminary carping before setting out the results of the spot-checks. I'm afraid I found the referencing quite confusing:
- I can't work out the logic for having the bibliographic information for some books (e.g. Bauman and Lazenby) in the References section rather than in the bibliography. (Bauman lacks its ISBN, too, which is 978-0-8108-1368-7; Lazenby lacks its OCLC, which is 1632564.)
-
- Unfortunately, there was no "logic": the omission of Bauman and Lazenby from the Bibliography section was accidental. I have now added both to the Bibliography, and I have added the Bauman ISBN and Lazenby OCLC, respectively. It's been four or five years since I wrote it, but I may also have omitted Bauman from the bibliography because it was relied upon for only one infobox fact: the correct full name of Sledd's wife, who is invariably referred to by one of two nicknames (Annie or Foncie) in other references. The subject of Lazenby's book is Sledd's father-in-law, and if memory serves only mentions Sledd incidentally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is mildly disconcerting to have authors listed by First Name Last Name in the References and by Last Name First Name in the Bibliography.
-
- That's not an accident: the Bibliography is alphabetized by author, as is typical for all bibliographical lists. There is no reason to present the reference authors' last names first in the reference section. The references are presented in the form of "spot references," including the pages where the cited facts may be found in the text of the particular reference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- There are publications listed in the Bibliography that haven't, as far as I can see, been referred to in the text. If I am right about this (apologies if I'm not) I think publications cited in the article should be listed as "Sources", and the rest hived off to a "Further Reading" list below it.
-
- I assume you are referring to the three works by Andrew Sledd which are not cited as references in the article text . . . None of these are relied upon for sourcing facts in the Wikipedia article, and I have moved them to a separate "further reading" section per your suggestion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think that sources available online such as Lazenby's book and the Warnock article deserve to have url links (with the {{subscription}} tag where appropriate).
-
- Tim, I was unaware that Lazenby's book and Warnock's article in The Journal of Southern History were available online. Can you provide links, or provide the names of the services where they can be found? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- There are url links to paywalled sites (e.g. ref 15) that lack a "subscription needed" tag.
-
- I have added the "subscription required" tag to The Atlanta Constitution newspaper articles which are linked to paywalled newspaper websites. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- There can, I admit, be two opinions about squashing explanatory notes such as refs 17 and 45 in with the citations, and I don't press this point.
-
- I would prefer to keep the two explanatory footnotes as part of the inline References. There are only four or five of them, and breaking them out for so small a number strikes me as unnecessary. Several of them also rely on the same source cited for the preceding main body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Spot checks of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing:
- Drafting is all fine: no hint of close paraphrasing. (On at least two occasions I noticed a much more elegant phrasing in this article than in the original source.)
- Ref 1 – fine
- Ref 9 – fine
- Ref 12a – this source doesn't say what the text says, but as ref 9 covers the information satisfactorily, 12a can safely be ditched.
-
- I deleted 12a (ref name=hwarnock251) per your suggestion; please note that footnotes have subsequently renumbered, and footnote no. 12 is now Ralph Reed, and the Henry Warnock article is footnote no. 14. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ref 14 – fine
- Ref 18a – fine
- Ref 18b – fine
- Ref 35a – fine
- Ref 35b – fine
- Ref 35c – fine
- Ref 35d – fine
- Ref 35e – fine
- Ref 35f – fine
- Ref 36a – fine
- Ref 36b – the source doesn't mention most of the information in the 82-word sentence ascribed to it.
-
- Well, f---, that's embarrassing. I know the information regarding historically black Florida A&M University and the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind to be historically/factually correct, but I have clearly omitted the reference for about half of the facts mentioned in that sentence. I have removed the FAMU and FSDB information from the problematic sentence for now, and will re-add it when I can locate the appropriate reference in my 5-year-old notes. This may have originally linked to an earlier 2010 version of the cited University of Florida webpage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ref 36c – fine
- Ref 36d – fine
- Ref 36e – fine
- Ref 36f – fine
- Ref 36g – the source says that most of the new faculty members were from Lake City but doesn't say (as the article ascribes to it) that Sledd "had previously selected [them] to be professors" at Lake City. But this information is given in Pleasants, p. 9, which should, I think, be added to the citation here.
-
- To the best of my recollection, there are multiple sources for Sledd's selection of the new faculty, but the Pleasants citation will correct the problem now. Per your suggestion, I have added the Pleasants p. 9 citation, and I have also partially rewritten the text. Please note the UF Past Presidents bio does support this in part, however, saying in pertinent part: "Sledd oversaw the transfer to Gainesville in 1906 and selected the initial faculty, most of whom were instructors at the Lake City campus." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ref 39a – fine
- Ref 39b – fine
- Ref 40 – I couldn't find any reference to annual appointments on the page cited, though I think I remember seeing it in other sources in passing.
-
- Tim, there were multiple sources for this, and I will hunt it [them] down. I may have to pull some of my old reference materials out of storage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ref 41 – fine
- Ref 42 is an explanatory footnote which has no citation for the information contained in it.
-
- Ditto. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ref 43a – fine
- Ref 43b – fine
- Ref 43c – I couldn't find any mention of the salary on the page cited.
-
- The UF Past Presidents bio states a $2500 annual salary. To the best of my recollection, I found one or more reliable sources that stated the lower salary of $2250. I will track the $2250 amount down or change it to $2500; I suspect that my source was the unpublished Sledd autobiography, which, given the author, I would treated as more reliable than the UF online website bio. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
That's it from me. I enjoyed the article, and I have no doubt whatever that every statement in it can be justified from a reliable source, but at present there are rather more failures to name the right source than I feel comfortable with for a featured article. – Tim riley talk 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: I have addressed the first nine points you raised above, with the last three issues remaining to be resolved. I could rewrite and/or delete text in order to eliminate these three problems, but I would prefer to resolve the sourcing and preserve the text in these instances. I will ping you back in a day or so, after I've done the required homework. In the mean time, I would be grateful if you respond to my request for the online links to the Lazenby book and Warnock article mentioned above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- My pleasure. Urls h/w:
- Ref 9: https://archive.org/details/historyofmethodi01laze -- (Lazenby)
- Ref 12: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40581859 -- (Reed Jr)
- Ref 14: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2204439 -- (Warnock)
- Ref 45: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20700231 -- (Van Ness)
- The last three need the {{subscription}} template, being JSTOR articles.– Tim riley talk 17:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Thanks for the assist, Tim. I have added those four article links provided above and the subscription templates. Now I need to go chase the last three missing/incomplete references, but given Thanksgiving holiday time constraints here, it may be two or three days before I can resolve all three of them. In the mean time, can you review and sign off on the other comments? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Urls h/w:
Been a while since Tim completed his spotcheck -- are those oustanding points mentioned taken care of? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: Still hunting down the last of three references that Tim wanted to see. If I can't find the missing ref in the next 24 to 48 hours, I will re-write the text to avoid the necessity of the last reference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Yugoslav monitor Sava
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Another in my series of Austro-Hungarian/Yugoslav river monitors. As the Austro-Hungarian Temes-class monitor Bodrog, she fired the first shots of World War I. She then went on to serve in three more navies under the name Sava, being scuttled and raised twice. She still exists, although she has been reduced from her former glory and is now an ammunition barge! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- Map labels aren't very legible - suggest scaling up
- File:Dunarea_romaneasca.png: what is the source of the data presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikki, I'll make inquiries. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- It appears the creating editor (on Ro WP) hasn't edited since 2013. Does that mean I should ditch it, Nikki? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you can find sourcing that supports the data presented, that would also work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- It appears the creating editor (on Ro WP) hasn't edited since 2013. Does that mean I should ditch it, Nikki? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikki, I'll make inquiries. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments
- Lede is rather a bit too detailed, IMO and could stand to be more of a summary.
- Add a link to the knots conversion template by adding "|lk=in" both in the infobox and the main body.
- Her armour consisted of belt, bulkheads and gun turrets 40 mm (1.6 in) thick and deck armour 25 mm (0.98 in) thick, and her conning tower was 75 mm (3.0 in) thick. A few too many "and"s here.
- Link mine, launched, lighter, tug, patrol boat, minelayer, division (naval).
- Any information on her pre-WWI activities?
- How's your German? Die österreichisch-ungarische Donauflotille im weltkriege, 1914-18; dem werke "Österreich-Ungarns seekrieg, 1914-18" by Olaf Richard Wulff; Hans Hugo Sokol; Gábor von Döbrentei ought to be useful.
- Commencing on 30 October 1915, they escorted a series of munitions convoys down the Danube to Lom where they were transferred to the Bulgarian railway system for shipment to the Ottoman Empire. The antecedent for the second "they" is unclear as the monitors certainly weren't transferred to the RR system.
- Under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Bodrog was transferred to the KSCS along with a range of other vessels, including three other river monitors,[18] but was officially handed over to the KSCS Navy and renamed Sava in 1920. Why a "but" here?
- Armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels, started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups. Who started?
- Sava was raised and repaired by the navy of the Axis puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, and served under that name alongside her fellow monitor Morava, which was raised, repaired and renamed Bosna. Missing a comma.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Sturm. I have addressed all your comments (these are my edits), and trimmed the lead a bit. My German is basic (I lived there for two years twenty years ago...), and I have checked uni and other accessible libraries and none have a copy of Wulff et al, so I'm stuck with what I have in that respect. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Support I've been copy editing this article on and off for the last two years and feel that it meets the criteria by all means. These are my edits. 23 editor (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Operation Sandwedge
This article is less about a minor cog in the Watergate machine than about one which was never even set in motion—Operation Sandwedge was the proposed covert strategy eschewed by Nixon in favour of what ended up happening. This article is part of a continued fascination of mine with things that didn't happen (cf. Ronnie Rocket, Project A119) and I hope you find it as intriguing as I did. It received a GA review from Sp33dyphil in 2012, and a recent peer review from Nikkimaria which identified a potentially troublesome source which has since been removed. The text also benefitted greatly from a copy-edit by Relentlessly. Of note to anyone taking the time review this, I've also been wondering about possibly replacing the image used with File:Jack Caulfield, photo portrait, Nixon Administration, black and white.jpg instead, I'm not sure which one would work better, although personally I lean towards the hint of conspiracy given by the covered speech in the current one; an idea which, granted, may be a little more yellow-journalistic than it should be. Thanks in advance to anyone who has a look at this one. GRAPPLE X 09:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed (including the proposed replacement). Personally I like the current image though. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comments by Wehwalt
Good, and interesting. I have a few comments.
-
- Lede
- "statuses" I think "status" would do.
- "proposals for the proposed" can this be boiled down into one proposition?
- "Nixon and Haldeman had first worked together in 1956, during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidential nomination under Dwight D. Eisenhower." I don't think you are reading the source right. He first worked for Nixon in 1956, but it mentions the re-election of Nixon as vice president and does not mention the nomination. Saying "worked together" implies colleagues, whereas Haldeman was in 1956 relatively junior. In any event, I don't think it's fully supported by the source.
-
- I had intended "worked together" to simply mean "working for the same purpose", but I've reworded it to directly relate that Haldeman worked for, not at the same level as, Nixon. And you're right about the goal, I had misread the source to refer to his bid for the vice-presidential ticket rather than his bid for the vice-presidency itself, that's also been reworded now. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Nixon's re-election campaign for the 1972 presidential election" I would make this a bit less clunky "Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign" should be sufficient.
- "Nixon's Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs." Nixon's domestic affairs assistant carries the same information at less cost.
- assistant director of criminal enforcement" On the White House staff, or is this Justice Dept?
- General comments: The prose is a little clunky and could benefit from slimming down phrases like the ones I've flagged above. I'd like to ask the nominator, have you checked other bios of Nixon and other books in the long shelf of books that keep getting written on Nixon and his administration for content? Because I'm a little uncomfortable about using Black's bio as the backbone. It's fine to use (I've used it myself) but it's a bit controversial, as is Black himself. I'd welcome your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take a comb over the prose again myself, but I'll admit that I'm not the best at it. As for the use of Black as a book source, I could try to find something else if preferable, but the book is only used for the numerical facts of his 1968 election victory; the 0.7% popular vote margin in particular (I cribbed the source itself directly from the Richard Nixon article so didn't realise it may have been a biased one). A quick search on Google Books turns up this as a possible alternative, if you would prefer? It doesn't explicitly state what the margin of difference was but it should be safe to produce it from the two results being given. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, that's fine. As you pointed out, we used him ourselves, and also for similar things. Sounds good to me. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)
This article is about the Hogwarts Express attraction at the Universal Orlando Resort. Dom497 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Driveby comment from Iridescent
Is there a better source for "The entrance to the station, which is a quarter-scale replica of the real London King's Cross railway station" than the current 'source', which is clearly just a reprinted press-release (even if it weren't obvious from the "sponsored content from discoveramerica.com" disclaimer) right down to the use of the Am-Eng "one-fourth scale" in a British newspaper? The actual King's Cross Station is a melange of Victorian plate-glass and post-modern spun-steel which looks like the Starship Enterprise has crashed into a Victorian crematorium, and assuming this photo is representative has no particular resemblance other than the colour of the bricks and the arched roof. (The "King's Cross" used in the films was actually the more photogenic St Pancras railway station, so there's no particular reason a ride based on the films would choose to replicate the actual King's Cross.) ‑ iridescent 11:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Hi Iridescent! The entrance to the station is a quarter-scale replica; not the interior.--Dom497 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question;
is it, as stated in the article, an actual representation of Kings Cross Station (which in reality looks an upturned soapdish), or the unrelated building which represented "King's Cross Station" in the films?‑ Iridescent 00:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)- Answered my own question—looking at this photo, it's a very loose representation of a small section of the Euston Road side of the real King's Cross, rather than of the actual entrance. If you're going to claim it as "a quarter-scale replica of the real London King's Cross railway station"—which is pushing it quite a bit, as it only reproduces a tiny part of the real station and has significant differences—you need a source more reliable than a press release from VisitUSA. ‑ Iridescent 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question;
Quick Comment
I don't quite understand the difference between the grading of featured vs. good articles, but I would be more behind getting this article featured if it correctly used the infobox. Currently, it is using multi-park version vs. the single park version, even though it's only in one park. Elisfkc (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Elisfkc (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Elisfkc: Hi Elisfkc, where is the infobox using the multi-park version. It appears to be using the single park parameters.--Dom497 (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Drive by: Why does this article use day month year for an attraction in the United States, which does not use that style of dating?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: Very good question tbh. I don't even know. I've tried to understand why we user dd/mm/yy in many american articles but people never give me a proper explanation so I just gave up trying and just do it now. I'm all for using mm/dd/yy.--Dom497 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Lede
- Diagon Alley and Hogsmere probably need links, as you do below.
- History
- "visible between one another." visible from each other.
- "rumours began" should be rumors (change throughout as is American style), sounds vague, as does "speculation arose". Such things do not arise of their own accord, can anything more definite be stated?
- "Almost a year later" given that eleven months pass between June 2013 and the announcement in May 2014, can something more definite be stated?
- "suggesting the rumours were true." I would cut this as it really adds nothing but if you leave it, a semicolon is not appropriate as this phrase could not stand as a sentence on its own.
- The events of the final paragraph are not in chronological order.
- "spotted" may be overused. I take it to mean seen by chance from a public area, but that does not seem to be the case with the magazine.
- Ride experience
- The final sentence of the lead-in suggests that both destinations are four minutes long, rather than the ride.
- "a shop selling food" real or mockup shop? Store might be better in AmEng than shop.
- you state twice in relatively short proximity that there are twenty-one (which I would make 21) compartments. I would leave the three carriages, which is a useful reminder.
- "motorbike" is this the word used for the conveyance in American editions of Harry Potter books? Because otherwise it sounds British.
- Characteristics
- English measurements, not metric, I would think should come first unless there is a consensus in attraction ride circles otherwise. Also, the word "tonne" is less frequently used in AmEng than "ton". Ditto "millimeters" for millimetres
- Trains image caption: Possibly "pass each other" might be better than "transit".
- "a replica of steam-locomotive" some issue here, also in AmEng we probably would not include the hyphen.
- "instead of only as a" maybe ", not just as a"
- "setup" set up?
- "forwards" not a word in this context in AmEng.
- "look as faithful as possible" I would suggest deleting "look"
- "Frey AG was responsible for wiring the trains; specifically for the video and sounds components. The company also installed other technical equipment that allow the trains to be controlled by a computer system" This could probably be shortened and included in the previous paragraph.(unsigned: Wehwalt)
-
-
- @Wehwalt, in this particular case I can see that there might be legitimate reasons to standardize it on BrEng rather than AmEng (although I agree it should be standardized to one or the other). I suspect the core readership for this particular page is people looking for information on Harry Potter related material, rather than people researching visitor attractions in Florida, and a valid case could be made to have it in en-gb for consistency with the articles on the books and films. ‑ Iridescent 00:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do other Disney/Universal rides based on British literature follow the same practice?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Looking over List of Magic Kingdom attractions and List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions, the only non-Harry Potter ones based on British literature are Peter Pan's Flight and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, so the issue has probably never come up as those are tangentially British at best whereas HP is explicitly set in London. I'm not saying it would be right to standardize on en-gb for something in Florida, just that in the case of Harry Potter I can see a valid case for doing so to the extent that I wouldn't use it as grounds for opposition. ‑ Iridescent 13:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do other Disney/Universal rides based on British literature follow the same practice?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt, in this particular case I can see that there might be legitimate reasons to standardize it on BrEng rather than AmEng (although I agree it should be standardized to one or the other). I suspect the core readership for this particular page is people looking for information on Harry Potter related material, rather than people researching visitor attractions in Florida, and a valid case could be made to have it in en-gb for consistency with the articles on the books and films. ‑ Iridescent 00:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Oppenheimer security hearing
- Nominator(s): Figureofnine (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Robert Oppenheimer's 1954 security hearing, which resulted in his Q clearance being revoked. This marked the end of his formal relationship with the government of the United States, and generated controversy as to whether his treatment was fair, or an expression of McCarthyist anti-Communist hysteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited again later
- References need to be alphabetized
- Notes and References should use the same date format
- Be consistent in whether you use "DC" or "D.C."
- Be consistent in whether References entries include locations, and if so when state is included (eg. for University Park) and whether locations are linked (eg. New York). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments: - Dank (push to talk)
- "was sufficiently hardened Communist": was a sufficiently hardened Communist?
- "blank pad rule": A gsearch and a WP search don't produce anything; what's a blank pad rule?
- The blank pad rule is a legal concept that the court and jury in a criminal case know nothing about the dispute between the two parties involved, and the only way they come to know about it is through evidence that is properly introduced. @Newyorkbrad: Do we have an article on this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not a criminal practitioner, but that's not a phrase I'm familiar with, and although a search confirms that it exists, I don't think it's that commonly used, at least in the US. To answer your specific question, a search indicates that the only place the phrase currently appears on Wikipedia is this article. So I think explaining or rephrasing makes sense. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've provided an explanation, also correcting along the way my own earlier misconception that it applies only to criminal matters. (How do I know all this stuff?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Rejoice! Notecardforfree has created an article on the blank pad rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've provided an explanation, also correcting along the way my own earlier misconception that it applies only to criminal matters. (How do I know all this stuff?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not a criminal practitioner, but that's not a phrase I'm familiar with, and although a search confirms that it exists, I don't think it's that commonly used, at least in the US. To answer your specific question, a search indicates that the only place the phrase currently appears on Wikipedia is this article. So I think explaining or rephrasing makes sense. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- The blank pad rule is a legal concept that the court and jury in a criminal case know nothing about the dispute between the two parties involved, and the only way they come to know about it is through evidence that is properly introduced. @Newyorkbrad: Do we have an article on this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks, Hawkeye7. I hope the article is helpful! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- " In five "security findings", Nichols said that Oppenheimer was "a Communist in every sense except that he did not carry a party card," and that the Chevalier incident indicated that Oppenheimer "is not reliable or trustworthy, and that his misstatements might have represented criminal conduct. He said that Oppenheimer's "obstruction and disregard for security" showed "a consistent disregard of a reasonable security system."": There are missing quote marks somewhere.
- " A 2002 book by Gregg Herken, a senior historian at the Smithsonian Institution, based on newly discovered documentation, contended that Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist Party.": I need to think about this one. Back later. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is awkward, and my adding the name of the book probaly doesn't help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say awkward, more like a hard call ... that stuff probably all belongs in one paragraph, but it's hard to fit it in. I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is awkward, and my adding the name of the book probaly doesn't help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Great writing. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
CommentsI have only passing knowledge of the topic at hand but will read it and copyedit as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning). Queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
-
can we find a link for anti-Communist hysteria - there must be something relevant somewhere....
-
The hearing was a product of longstanding doubts about Oppenheimer's loyalty, and suspicions that he was a member of the Communist Party and might even have spied for the Soviet Union.- this sentence flows funnily as we have "noun", "noun" "verb" as relating to "doubts". In fact I do wonder whether the sentence is necessary at all - it could be removed and the next sentence be "Doubts about Oppenheimer's loyalty dated back to the 1930s,..."
-
These included Lewis Strauss, an AEC commissioner who resented Oppenheimer for his humiliation of Strauss before Congress regarding Strauss's opposition to the export of radioactive isotopes to other nations, which he believed had military applications.- tricky sentence with three "Strauss"s in it. I think we can reword as "These included Lewis Strauss, an AEC commissioner who had been humiliated by Oppenheimer before Congress for opposing the export of radioactive isotopes to other nations, which he believed had military applications." (we already know he's an opponent of Oppenheimer from the previous sentence...
- Tentative support (as am not familiar enough to know the content well enough to conclude everything is there)
Otherwisean engaging read, which I can't see any glaring omissions or other prose issue outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support for a fascinating, well written account. There are a couple of prose choices I would have avoided (such as "found himself" and "in the middle of" - embroiled?). I am not expecting any serious issues with the images, but I will recuse on this. I can't understand why this excellent article is not receiving more attention. Graham Beards (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Note -- Somewhat unusually for a Hawkeye nom/co-nom, this didn't go through MilHist A-Class Review, so I think I'd like someone from there to have a look over this primarily from a content perspective before we consider for promotion, perhaps Nick-D? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments This article is in very good shape, but I think that it currently leaves a few questions unanswered:
- The material in the final section isn't noted in the lead
- How unusual was it for an academic scientist with an interest in politics working in the US prior to the war to have Communist friends? This would have been unremarkable in the UK and Europe.
- "Oppenheimer chose not to resign, and requested a hearing instead" - why did he do this? (I imagine it was to preserve his reputation and professional career, but in the hysterical environment at the time it would have involved making an at least somewhat difficult decision)
- What did Oppenheimer do after loosing his security clearance, and what effect did it have on his life and career?
- Was this an isolated case, or were other nuclear scientists put through the ringer over long-past relationships? (also, regarding the von Braun quote, the British government did something broadly comparable to its leading scientist-hero, Alan Turing, at this time) Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Freida Pinto
This article is about an Indian actress who shot to fame with Slumdog Millionaire. I had to withdraw the candidate last time as there were reservations about prose. I went for another peer review and the article has really benefited from it. Thanks to Jaguar for copy-editing the article and the ones who took part in the PR. I believe the article now meets the FA crtieria. Look forward to constructive criticism and feedback. —Vensatry (ping) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Looks like a great article on a topic (Indian cinema/stars) that has huge popular appeal both in India and around the world. I would love to see it as a featured article. I'm also voting for it because having it on the main page would bring some much needed diversity to the page (which appears to be dominated by articles about white men and their sport and history!). Great work. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary
- And there is nothing wrong with many FA articles about white men getting featured on the main page. It isn't "domination" when it isn't exclusive to biographies, everything has its fair share. What matters more is the quality of the article, not race and gender. You will need a better reason. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like a great article on a topic (Indian cinema/stars) that has huge popular appeal both in India and around the world. I would love to see it as a featured article. I'm also voting for it because having it on the main page would bring some much needed diversity to the page (which appears to be dominated by articles about white men and their sport and history!). Great work. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary
Comments by an IP
The DOB inline citation should be provided on the first section. Ideally, the lead should be devoid of any citation as it merely summarizes the whole article.Moved the ref. to infobox. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Moved to the main prose; citation in the infobox is discouraged per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#References_in_infoboxes. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The article states that Pinto "works predominantly in American cinema". What is meant by work? Is this more on the number of American films she participated in? Her filmography doesn't support this claim.
- Most of her films are American/British co-productions, with a few of them being independent ones. Got a suggestion? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest incorporating that information--the mix of US/UK films--instead of saying predominantly, which needs to be backed by a reliable source. Also, a reader might be curious how come this lady of Indian origin mainly doing films produced abroad? I mean its normal nowadays, but such a claim for a relatively new artist should be properly attributed. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done. I think the word "predominant" is essential because the majority of her films are American/British co-productions. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- That must be supported by a reliable source, I'm afraid. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not really, it's more like a case of WP:OBVIOUS. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The examples given in the link do not support the case for Pinto. It's not a general fact, either, and not obvious, per se, for non Pinto afficionado. Aside from this, she's an actress hailed from India. To state that she "predominantly" do American films must be an established fact, and must be supported by a source compliant with WP:RS. To state that she acted in various American and British films is rather neutral. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- What examples? Except for Miral and Day of the Falcon, rest are either British or American co-productions. So it's pretty straight-forward. —Vensatry (Talk) 19:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Started a thread on the artist's talk page. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- What examples? Except for Miral and Day of the Falcon, rest are either British or American co-productions. So it's pretty straight-forward. —Vensatry (Talk) 19:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- The examples given in the link do not support the case for Pinto. It's not a general fact, either, and not obvious, per se, for non Pinto afficionado. Aside from this, she's an actress hailed from India. To state that she "predominantly" do American films must be an established fact, and must be supported by a source compliant with WP:RS. To state that she acted in various American and British films is rather neutral. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not really, it's more like a case of WP:OBVIOUS. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- That must be supported by a reliable source, I'm afraid. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done. I think the word "predominant" is essential because the majority of her films are American/British co-productions. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest incorporating that information--the mix of US/UK films--instead of saying predominantly, which needs to be backed by a reliable source. Also, a reader might be curious how come this lady of Indian origin mainly doing films produced abroad? I mean its normal nowadays, but such a claim for a relatively new artist should be properly attributed. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Most of her films are American/British co-productions, with a few of them being independent ones. Got a suggestion? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
*The filmography is barely supported with citations.
That year, The Daily Telegraph reported Pinto as the highest-paid Indian actress, although she had not appeared in a Bollywood film. This isn't supported by Telegraph source. And the connection might be misconstrued (or unnecessary).Good catch. Added a source from San Francisco Chronicle which covers both parts. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pinto is credited with breaking the stereotypical image... By whom? Stereotype should be linked, too.
Suggestion. The two images under the section "acting career" should be switched. In basic layout, the direction of the face/gaze (for lack of better term) should tell which side the picture should be placed (i.e. if facing to the left, should be placed on the right side of the article).Is it not a convention to place images (at the beginning of a section) at the right side? I don't think swapping works because the images would look out of place as they become irrelevant to the paras. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)I meant getting the picture on the right to left, and vice versa. Done it myself. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)I understood that very well. You got my question? —Vensatry (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Apologies. Did you mean the convention? I have looked up the relevant guideline, which states: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, it is not necessary to reverse an image simply to have the subject facing the text." (emphasis mine) --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)The infobox image is rather odd, also, being that the face looks outside the monitor. Though the guideline states its not necessary to reverse. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)The problem is most of the images (of hers in Commons) are that way. We normally use high-quality images in FA/FLs; the current one is a Valued image. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Not pushing this idea, either. Are you OK now with my changes on the two images (the switching)? So I could strike this out. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Fine. Right justification certainly looks like having an exception. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Slumdog Millionaire emerged as a sleeper hit, receiving acclaim particularly for its plot and soundtrack. Might imply that because it was a sleeper hit, it received acclaim such and such, or it received the latter because it became a sleeper hit.
- The Telegraph states that Pinto was unknown even in her native country until her starring role in Slumdog Millionaire, and that its success paved the way for her future projects. Is this included in the article?
- Why is premiere in the French form première?
- she spoke out against the Indian government's ban on India's Daughter... the phrasal verb means "To talk freely and fearlessly, as about a public issue." Is this the intended meaning? Also, is there any additional content / information? What did she say about it?
- Added a bit. Voicing opinions against a thing which has been banned in your motherland is certainly a bold act.
- Added a bit. Voicing opinions against a thing which has been banned in your motherland is certainly a bold act.
Thanks for your comments. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
"To prepare for her role, she watched the videos of the English anthropologist Jane Goodall." Why that of her? Any linking information would help. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Primatology and Anthropology are inter-related. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support from Jim My concerns were addressed at PR, and I have no new issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support I think I've come late to the party but after a read-through of the article (and comments made in this FAC) I'm happy to conclude that this meets the FA criteria. Nice work here! JAGUAR 17:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments from TrueHeartSusie3
Lead:
- I would restructure it a bit. I'd keep the first para quite short, and wouldn't go into her biographical details until in the second para, see for example Julianne Moore.
- I think 'leading lady' is too informal, at least in the lead, and I think it's important to stress that this was also her first film role. I'd rewrite it, for example, "Pinto's first film role was in the British drama film Slumdog Millionaire, in which she starred opposite Dev Patel. The film was a critical and commercial success."
- I think you should also mention the success or failure of her films post-Slumdog; has she continued to receive good reviews? Of course you shouldn't mention every film she's done, but any notable box office/critical successes or failures.
- I think the bit about Indian criticism belongs in the previous paragraph.
Early life: *"Pinto studied at the Carmel of St. Joseph School in the neighborhood, where she played sports and performed in the school choir." Source?
Is AskMen a reliable source?How did Pinto end up as a model?You say she worked for Elite for two and a half years, and then that she continued modelling for 4 years? What was her agency after Elite? Do you mean she modeled for a total of 6,5 years, or for 4 years? This needs rewording. Why did she end her modeling career?"In a 2015 interview with the Daily Mirror" It doesn't seem like DM interviewed her, they just wrote about an interview she gave in The Late, Late Show. Tabloids are also generally not considered reliable sources, so I think it would be preferable to find another source for this, or use that episode of The LLS as source.I tried before, but couldn't find any newspaper sources. The episode is available on Youtube. You want me to include that? —Vensatry (Talk) 18:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Does it even need to be included though? A lot of people take random jobs as teens or uni students. You can cite audiovisual material (the template for that should come up with a search); you wouldn't cite YouTube though — YT is just a hosting site, and I doubt the LLS episodes are there legally. But I really don't think this factoid needs to be included; if she hasn't spoken about it elsewhere, it's probably not notable enough to be included. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Even if you decide to keep the factoid, you need to correct that she gave the interview to the LLS.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Also, I think it would be worth mentioning that how long she worked as an entertainer at children's parties, given that the previous sentences demonstrate that she was a pretty successful model, and the next one that she worked in television. Did she work as an entertainer between these jobs, (and why, if she was already a successful model)?Did she continue living in Mumbai during this time?The para about her unsuccessful film auditions is otherwise good, but I'd begin it with "While working as [model, tv presenter, party entertainer, or whatever she was doing at the time], Pinto auditioned..."
Acting career:
2008-10: * I wasn't aware that Elite sends their models to film castings (also, this is confusing since you state in the previous section that she was an Elite model for only two and a half years?) — is this normal practice or did the director specifically want a model for the role?
Daily Express is a tabloid and as such, an unreliable source; I don't know enough about rediff, but it does not seem very reliable either. I'd try to find another source to replace these two.NY Daily News is another tabloid; Fodor's writes travel guides, I wouldn't use it for film-related info.- If possible, I'd like to see something on Pinto's experiences on making the film.
* "emerged as a sleeper hit" – I'd add how much the film made in the box office, perhaps contrasted against its budget.
- I'd also like to hear what the critics said about Pinto, i.e. I'd add a couple of quotes from notable film critics.
* I'd move this: "The film helped launch Pinto's career in Hollywood" to the beginning of the next section (you need to restate its title if you do so though)
"received negative reviews upon release." Did the reviews comment on her performance?"played the central character" – 'starred' is simpler, especially since you use "she played" in the next sentence.You need to cite more reliable sources for this statement: "The film received negative reviews, but critics praised Pinto's performance"
2011:
* I'd replace 'part' with something like 'film role'; also, since she appeared in several films released in 2011, you might consider mentioning this at the beginning of this section, so the readers know what to expect.
'However' is generally frowned upon in FA-level articles.It's not enough to cite just one review for the statement that the actors in Planet of the Apes were criticized; the source only demonstrates that this specific reviewer criticized them. I'm also not sure if IBtimes is considered reliable.Why did you choose to mention the Slate and Metro reviews instead of ones from NYTimes, LATimes, The Guardian, Variety, etc.?"unlike some of Pinto's previous films" – I'd say 'many' would be better; in fact, since this seems to have been her first film to receive good reviews since SM, you could just write it like that."Trishna gained a positive response from critics." – While the source does indeed call the film 'critically acclaimed', I'd also add Metacritic and Rotten tomatoes as sources.Also, what did the reviewers say about Pinto's performance?I'd give Antonio Banderas' full name again; what was the reception of this film like?"She said that the film's extensive usage of CGI enabled her to prepare for her role in Rise of the Planet of the Apes." Very confusing, since this section begins with Planet of the Apes. I don't think it's necessary to mention this at all.Agree, but a FN is there for clarification. It covers one of her "experiences" to prepare for her role. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)The experience is literally that she was familiar with the CGI technique before making Planet of the Apes. It's clearly not very important, and can easily be cut if it confuses readers. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
How was The Immortals received?"She was criticised by the Indian media for a sequence that involved her shedding her clothes and becoming physically intimate with Mars" – Why did they criticize it?I think documentaries are generally referred as being narrated by someone; voice-over refers specifically to combining moving image + spoken words without the speaker being shown, and can be used in different ways.Not always. See Unity (film), there were a 100 narrators. You want me to change 'voice-overs' to 'narrators'? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)?? I don't understand what you mean. A voice-over, as its linked article tells us, is "a production technique where a voice—that is not part of the narrative (non-diegetic)—is used in a radio, television production, filmmaking, theatre, or other presentations". Documentaries use this technique a lot (combining narration + visuals without showing the narrator), but it can be used in any type of film. The person who narrates a documentary is called a narrator; it does not matter how many narrators there are. If you don't believe me, the documentary's article also refers to Pinto as a narrator. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
"The film depicted the power of education in transforming girls' lives around the world" – I'd word this a bit differently, given that it's not a fictional film." praised Pinto's "wattage"" ?How was Desert Dancer received?"Pinto's first film of 2015 Knight of Cups, in which " I think this needs rewording; also, it seems she has a supporting rather than starring role. At the moment the text implies she stars opposite Christian Bale.What were its reviews like? I'm aware that it's not been widely released yet, but I'm sure all the important critics wrote about it after Berlin?- How did Blunt Force Trauma fare in the box office, what were the reviews like?
Personal life
*"Before her appearance in Slumdog Millionaire" – I'd reword this. Perhaps "Before beginning her film career, Pinto was in a relationship with... She ended the relationship in January 2009, and began dating her SM co-star Dev Patel."
"After being in a relationship for almost six years" – "After a six-year relationship""Following that, Pinto relocated to Los Angeles from London." Confusing, since this is the first time it's mentioned that she'd been living in London.US Weekly is a gossip rag, and hence does not qualify as a reliable source. Furthermore, the article in question discusses only rumours about their break-up; you'll need a source that quotes a statement from their publicists, or a direct quote from either of them stating that they are no longer a couple.- "She was the only Indian actress to participate in their annual fund raiser, "The 15th Grand Slam for Children", aimed at providing education for underprivileged children" – Is this important enough to warrant a mention, especially since The Agassi Foundation, according to its website, works only in the US? Did she actually join the foundation i.e. is an ambassador, or did she simply attend one of its fundraisers? If it's the latter, it does not need to be mentioned.
- "Two years later, she was appointed as the global ambassador of Plan International's Because I am a Girl, a campaign that promotes gender equality with the aim of lifting millions of girls out of poverty. " – Needs a source.
- Done —Vensatry (Talk) 15:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Huff Post is not considered a RS :( TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Done —Vensatry (Talk) 15:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- "she said the film needs to reach the public as it is not a "shame-India documentary"" – I'd also state why she thinks it's important for Indians to see this doc, if she has commented on it.
- There's no mention of her contract with L'Oreal – why not?
Media image * I'd reword the first sentence to say something like " After her breakthrough role in Slumdog Millionaire (2008), Pinto has been frequently included in magazine polls." There's no need to state that she was an unknown model before that.
-
I think that's an important bit. She was indeed an "unknown" model before SM. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)The 'breakthrough role' expresses the same meaning. You don't need to state that before she got famous, she wasn't famous... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Not really, when it says 'breakthrough role'. Take the case of Bipasha Basu, a super model, who was very popular before she entered films. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
But you don't need to state that even if there are famous models who've branched out to acting... All you need to state is that after SM, she was named in all of these polls, you don't need to state she wasn't popular in polls before, it's implied in that sentence. Just like you don't need to say "She's Indian, therefore she is not Canadian, or American, or British..." It's already been established in this article that she wasn't well known in any field before SM. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
-
-
I'd also specify the types of polls she's included; all of them appear related to beauty and fashion. Her being the highest-paid Indian actress doesn't belong in the same group with the beauty polls, I'd move it to the next para.Isn't that self-explanatory from the names of the polls? As for the highest-paid thing, it was reported in 2009, shorty after SM. So moving it to the next para would make it seem out-of-place. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Because all of the polls are similar; in a well-written text, readers will already know what to expect when beginning to read a paragraph. When I started reading that para for the first time "included in magazine polls" made me think she has been included also in polls for her acting etc.; but it turns out she's only been included in beauty and fashion polls. You don't need to include these polls chronologically; what you need to prioritize is how the text 'flows' and whether the meaning you want to convey is as clear and easy to access as possible. The L'Oreal contract is not a poll, hence it should be discussed either before them or after. Being the highest-paid Indian actress in 2009 is not a poll; it's based on what she earns, not on opinions of journalists or audiences. Therefore it should not be included as a poll. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
"she said she was consciously avoiding roles" – Has she stopped avoiding roles like that? If not, I think the present tense is more suitable.Changed —Vensatry (Talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)I tweaked it a bit more; I'd maybe change 'depict stereotypes' as well. Also, it might be worth explaining what the stereotypes are when you first mention them.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Remove 'however'"As an Indian woman, Pinto is credited by the media with breaking stereotypes of a leading lady in Hollywood" – Do you mean she breaks stereotypes about leading ladies in general, or stereotypes about Indian actresses? Who are 'the media' (give at least notable examples, if it's a general fact)? Also, I think 'leading lady' is pretty informal, I'd use 'female actor' or something like that.Okay now? —Vensatry (Talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)No, I'm still confused. Do you mean that before Pinto, Indian women have only been given stereotypical roles in Hollywood films? What do you mean by stereotype? And you've still not given any examples of 'the media'.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3-
What do you mean by examples here? —Vensatry (Talk) 18:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)At the moment it reads: "Pinto is credited by the Indian media with breaking the stereotypical image of Indian women playing leading roles in Hollywood." I have no idea of what the stereotype is, and hence no idea of how Freida Pinto is breaking the stereotype. It's not clear whether you mean that there is a stereotype of Indian women in Hollywood films (e.g. in the same way in which African-American women tend to be portrayed as maids, criminals or drug addicted prostitutes, and rarely as successful lawyers, doctors and journalists), or whether you mean that Pinto has been cast in starring roles, which are usually reserved for American actresses? Is it that she is portrayed in these films as a non-stereotypical Indian woman (in which case I'd like to see examples of what the stereotypical Indian woman is like), or that she's gotten leading roles in which her nationality/ethnicity is not brought up at all, which is rare for 'non-white' actors? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
-
Unfortunately I'm unable to support the FA nomination at the moment (therefore, oppose). The main reasons for this:
- There's very little on Pinto's thoughts about her work
- There's not enough information about the reception (commercial and critical) of many of her performances and films
- The article needs to cite more reliable sources
- It needs some rewording & restructuring, and is confusing in some places.
I definitely think this article has potential, and agree with the above user that Wikipedia sorely needs more diversity. I hope you are not discouraged by my review — all the article needs is just some more work. I'd use FA-level articles of actors like Angelina Jolie, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, etc. as examples. Also, please don't hesitate to ask if you'd like me to further clarify any of the points I've made. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
EDIT: I checked the previous FA review as well as the peer review; I think you should follow Cirt's advice in the peer review, if you haven't already. Instead of immediately trying to fix the problems with this article, I would advise you to take a break to compare it to FA-level actor articles. Note the language they employ, how much weight they give to different aspects, how they group information, and the types of sources they use. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I'm afraid, the article has had two PRs, and copy-edits by a number of native users including the ones at the guild. As for 'Pinto's thoughts about her work', she is too young to have a say about it. Until now, she's played minor supporting roles in most of her films. Comparing her (article) with that of a highly accomplished actress like Moore is not the right way to deal with; Emma Watson (I know this was promoted long ago) and Josh Hutcherson would be the right ones. Give me sometime, I'll try to polish the article. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm aware it's already been through several reviews, but that does not change my view that this article is not ready for FA status. I understand that it can be frustrating to hear someone say these things when you've worked for a long time on an article, so don't be discouraged. I just really feel you need to spend some time reading through recent actor FAs and comparing them to this article, as the article has problems and quite frankly, I don't think many of the changes you've made following my review are improvements, or rather, they've introduced new issues, or it appears that you didn't understand the problem to begin with even when the problem should be quite obvious (e.g. you've replaced the Us Weekly article about the Pinto–Patel split with a Daily Telegraph article. That's a step to the right direction, but you have overlooked the fact that the DT article quotes the Us Weekly article, which doesn't give any source but uses tabloid terms like "sources close to Pinto claim...". Gossip mags and tabloids often use terminology like that to mask the fact that they don't necessarily even have any sources, but just needed to come up with something to sell that week's magazine. To establish that this couple have split, you need a RS article with a statement from them; this is basic source criticism, and anyone taking an article to FAC should be aware of it already.)
-
- I am fully aware that Pinto has been an active actor for only seven years, and hence her career cannot be compared to someone as established as Julianne Moore. But that wasn't even my point; my point was that all FAs need to adhere to certain common standards, as you know — they need to use only reliable sources, be broad in scope but not give undue weight to things that don't matter, and be written in professional-level prose. Therefore, when aiming to edit an article to FA standard, you can and should use current FAs as models. Naturally, Moore's article will be longer and more comprehensive than Pinto's as she's older and has had a longer career; however, the FA standards are the same for both articles. I offered those three as examples off the top of my head — you're of course free to use any FAs as examples. As for what I meant with Pinto's own thoughts about her work — actors usually get asked questions like "what made you choose this role/film?"; "what was it like working with [famous co-star, director]?"; "how did you prepare to play this character?" when promoting their films, I'm sure Pinto is no exception. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
-
-
-
- I absolutely don't understand why you're in a hurry. May be you want to see the nomination archived soon? And, please properly sign-in your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. For now, it looks like you're affixing your username. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- And I haven't implied that, I know you aren't done yet, I'm just replying to your comments? I'm getting really confused...? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I'm not meaning you opposed in a bad faith. But yes, your last reply implies so. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? What do you mean? I've spotted problems with the article, which are not just cosmetic ones; hence I don't think it's FA standard yet. The changes you've made and your comments to my review imply that you're not seeing these problems, even when some of them seem quite obvious, which makes me think that you would benefit from comparing the article to existing FAs. And what's this supposed to mean: "And, please properly sign-in your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. For now, it looks like you're affixing your username." I've added four tildes every time before adding my username? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Well, at least could you strike out the concerns which you think are properly addressed? I'm finding it difficult to follow. As for the signature, yes, it does look like you're inserting your username after typing the four tildes. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)r
- The list is not comprehensive, as new issues have appeared with your edits and I've also spotted things that I missed the first time. As I said already when I first reviewed this article, I'm sorry but you need to do more work on this article for me to support its FA nomination, as its issues are not just cosmetic — it's simply not ready to be nominated, it does not meet Featured article criteria. If I were you, I'd withdraw and submit for peer review, or to the guild of copyeditors. Your directing the discussion to my use of tildes (which is sufficient according to WP guidelines and has not been brought up by anyone else during my three years here), combined with the comments you've made in the previous FA review, make me think that you're taking this far too personally. That doesn't make me motivated to continue this discussion, on which I have already spent several hours. I've already given you a lot of tips on how to improve the article, including that your first step should be to compare the article to other actor FAs. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
-
- I'm sure you're aware this isn't an FLC. The article was agreed upon as being fairly comprehensive (by many users who had commented on the PR and this FAC) as there is hardly anything more to be said for the actress who has had a relatively-short career. It was copy-edited by a number of users who are highly experienced and professional level copy-editors. Agree, some issues with prose have come up. But that's mainly because of the changes which were suggested by you. Nevertheless, those are minor ones and I'm sure the article be polished in quick time. I'm not taking things personally, it's rather a few bad-faith editors like you who come up with trivial issues at the last minute and oppose for no reason. —Vensatry (Talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- The list is not comprehensive, as new issues have appeared with your edits and I've also spotted things that I missed the first time. As I said already when I first reviewed this article, I'm sorry but you need to do more work on this article for me to support its FA nomination, as its issues are not just cosmetic — it's simply not ready to be nominated, it does not meet Featured article criteria. If I were you, I'd withdraw and submit for peer review, or to the guild of copyeditors. Your directing the discussion to my use of tildes (which is sufficient according to WP guidelines and has not been brought up by anyone else during my three years here), combined with the comments you've made in the previous FA review, make me think that you're taking this far too personally. That doesn't make me motivated to continue this discussion, on which I have already spent several hours. I've already given you a lot of tips on how to improve the article, including that your first step should be to compare the article to other actor FAs. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- Well, at least could you strike out the concerns which you think are properly addressed? I'm finding it difficult to follow. As for the signature, yes, it does look like you're inserting your username after typing the four tildes. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)r
-
-
Also, why are you so adamant in striking out the concerns which have been addressed? Because, I disagreed with you on a couple of instances? —Vensatry (Talk) 05:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- You asked me to review this article, and I don't think it meets FA criteria; this doesn't mean it's a lousy article, merely that it's not one of the best yet. Yes, I'm really puzzled by some of your actions. I started by assuming good faith, that you genuinely just need to compare this article to other actors FAs, and maybe give FA criteria and MoS another read. Depending on how much time you have, I think the changes that this article needs to reach FA level could've been done in a week or so. But the more I interact with you, the more negative my opinion is becoming, unfortunately. I've spent several hours on this review and trying to think of ways to help you, but you don't seem to appreciate that. Instead of actually thinking why I've said the things I did and taking my advice, you resort to off-topic discussion and claiming that the review was done entirely in bad faith. If we start conferring FA status without making sure that the article meets FA criteria, then there's no point in even having these classifications. Reaching FA level takes hard work, and you should expect your reviewers to be thorough. If this was just a question of changing a couple of words, I would've said so. Furthermore, if you think the article cannot be majorly improved due to Pinto's short career, then why are you so determined on getting it named one of the best articles on Wikipedia? Why not concentrate on other Indian actors with more substantial careers, as I believe Dr. Blofeld suggested in one of the earlier reviews? Anyway, I'm sorry, but I think I'm done here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- I'm seriously puzzled at your behaviour. You said the article is not yet FA ready, asked me to take a break, go for another PR, and comeback. And, now you say "Depending on how much time you have, I think the changes that this article needs to reach FA level could've been done in a week or so." If you look at my responses (to individual concerns that has been pointed out by you), none of them were negative. On every instance, I either "agreed" or was seeking for your clarification. It's you who is responding in bad faith. That said, I'm very well aware of the FA criteria and MOS guidelines. Regarding your last point, I totally disagree with you. As I said earlier, we have Emma Watson and Josh Hutcherson. It's okay if you don't wish to review further, but at least strike/collapse the concerns which you think are addressed. Thanks, —Vensatry (Talk) 12:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Final comments from TrueHeartSusie3
(I'm beginning a new section for the sake of clarity) Vensatry and I had a discussion about the article on my talk page after the comments left on 30 Nov, and I have since spent several hours editing the article to demonstrate the types of changes I would like to see, as per our discussion. I also wanted to do this to demonstrate that my not supporting the FA nom is not due to some malicious intent, but because I genuinely feel it's simply not there yet. While Vensatry has made real progress with the article, my core concern remains the same and hence I still oppose it being named a FA. In the following paras, I'll try to explain the best I can why I don't think it meets FA criteria. I want to clarify that at this stage, I consider this article to be a good GA-level article; however, for FA, it needs to be close to perfection.
The foundation of a FA is extensive research, and its main contributor(s) have to be able to demonstrate that they are experts on the subject. Pinto's career has lasted for less than ten years, and hence I would expect the main contributors to have read the majority of her interviews and profiles published in reliable sources. In other words, while I believe that Vensatry has done a lot of research, for FA level he needs to do even more research. By the time that an article is nominated for a FA, there should not be any major issues with sources or the scope of the article; the changes made in FA review should be merely 'cosmetic', e.g. correcting typos, polishing the prose, further clarifying a fact or two. However, I've noticed the following issues:
- Before, the section about Pinto's career mostly just listed her films. In a FA-level article, the section should not simply provide her filmography, but also analysis of her career, e.g. her own opinions and thoughts on her roles, information about the films' reception. A huge step to the right direction has been made during this review, but it's still not where it needs to be in terms of comprehensiveness.
- I'm concerned by the fact that some of the basic facts about her life seem to have changed during this review (e.g. how her films were received) or have only been added during it. This implies that the article is not ready for FA, and the overall impression I get from the article is that the main contributor may not be aware of many of the interviews Pinto has given. I did some research while editing, and was able to find plenty of articles from reputable publications where Pinto discusses her life and work. The source material certainly exists, but it will take extensive research to collect and go through it.
- When I first began reviewing, the article cited some unreliable sources; given that new unreliable sources (e.g. HuffPost twice, DT citing Us Weekly) were added as corrections makes me think that more work needs to be done identifying reliable sources.
- Very general statements were made with very little backing from appropriate sources (e.g. one review does not imply what the reviews were like in general, Rottentomatoes or Metacritic are for that) — this has mostly been corrected now, but should've happened before FAC.
- Occasionally, material has been misattributed (e.g. Tzanelli doesn't say anything about her performing at uni, just that she did amateur theater; she didn't live in London, but split her time between London and Mumbai...) or misunderstood (e.g. LATimes interview categorized and used as an example of a review)
- The article was often very confusing (e.g. the length of Pinto's modeling career), and there are still issues, specifically in the 'charity' section, which does not make it clear what charities she supports as an ambassador, board member etc., and what her opinions are about the political issues she campaigns for. Again, more research needs to be done.
In short, the article demonstrates GA-level knowledge of the subject, but not FA-level. Again, a FA review is not just a peer review that may result in the article being graded a FA; the article has to already be in excellent shape with no major issues when it is nominated. This article had major issues to begin with (with research, scope, prose, clarity), and even though progress has definitely been made, more work needs to be done. I hope my criticism and editing aids the main contributor with developing the article, and I'm sorry that I cannot support the FA nomination at this stage. Vensatry, you do not need to reply to this unless you really want to, as this is my final decision and I'm unlikely to change it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
- While I certainly value TrueHeartSusie3's inputs, I don't think most of her claims, particularly about the usage of reliable sources in the article, are serious issues. To be very honest, I was not aware of non-reliability of the tabloid sources until the peer review; I missed out a few. In most cases, sources were apparently easy to find and replaceable. Agree with the lack of reviews (of her performances) though. But now that seems to be taken care of. As for the prose, the article was copy-edited by a number of native speakers, including the ones at GOCE. I must say it was after TrueHeartSusie3's recent copy-edits, some minor errors were introduced in the article, which I had to fix. Thanks to TrueHeartSusie3 for her time. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Palmyra
- Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. This is the second nomination following a previous one that spent a month without any input by other users save for the Image review. The article is a GA, recieved a Peer review and a copy-edit. Plus, it was translated to Portuguese and Afrikaans and it is now a featured article in Portoguese, Afrikaans and Azerbijani Wikipedia pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira.
Palmyra was a unique city and a melting pot between the East and the West. Its warrior queen Zenobia left a lasting romantic impression in the minds of classical writers and its ruins are (were) one of the best preserved from the Roman era. Sadly, a monstrous militia (ISIS) is destroying it piece by piece.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Johnbod
- Now Support, as points fixed - Fine Work! Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's a pity such a fine, and (sadly) topical, article received no comments last time! By the way, this got 256K desktop views in the last 90 days. I have I think edited it a few times. On a first look:
- Lead: I might shorten para 3, but include a link to the short-lived Palmyrene Empire. No need to drop the next one.
- Sections: My main comment is that the sequence of the sections, though in the conventional WP order, does not serve this subject, treated at this length, at all well for most readers. They mainly want information on the ruins, their recent destruction, and the culture that produced them. At the moment the main "Notable structures" section begins on the 16th screen down on my computer, which is just far too low.
- Taking them in turn:
-
-
- Location and etymology - I'd split this, & put etymology at the end of the article. I'd add the "City layout", now many screens lower, to the current 1st para on "Location".
- History - very long, and not the priority for most readers. Move lower. You might even split the section, keeping the pre-Muslim history higher, but the commendably full subsequent history much lower, as until ISIS this contributes very little to the fame of the city.
- "People, language and society" then "Culture" - ok to follow location and layout. I'd then have "8.2 Cemeteries and 8.3 Notable structures " next, with the ISIS destruction just after. Excavations might go into the history section.
- Government, Religion and Economy next, but the rulers table right at the bottom of the article. I even wonder if all the redlinked Al-Fadl dynasty should not be moved out to a dedicated list page. If that is done the House of Odaenathus might go below the relevant section in the history.
-
- If not this, then something else needs to be done.
Thanks for taking the effort. I dont mind the rearranging of the sections but would like propose a similar arrangement. The etymology section (as I've seen in most articles) is always at the beginning. It is just too out of place to have it at the very end.
Para 3 of the lead is the shortest and probably summaries the reason why Palmyra is famous : Odaenathus wars and the rebellion of Zenobia. I feel strongly that it should remain.
I made the changes you asked but kept the etymology up. Im thinking about creating an article for the list of rulers. Hope this is adequate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've done some small copyedits for language. In the notes, I can't be bothered to hunt these down:
- Palmyra as a polis is not extensive, and the earliest known reference is an inscription dated to 51 AD, written in Palmyrene and Greek, mentioning the "City of the Palmyrenes" in its Greeks section.
- No evidence for Germanicus visiting Palmyra exist.
- Although a mainstream view is that Palmyra benefited from Petra annexation,
- The Mesopotamian Jewish population was deemed by the Palmyrenes as loyal to the Persians. - "regarded" better than deemed.
- Richard Stoneman propose that the law regulated taxes imposed on goods destined
- Let me know if the problems with these aren't obvious. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Will support when remaining points sorted. Excellent article! Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
Beginning, as is my custom here, by examining references and reference formatting:
- Right off the bat, I have to note that you're doing some very nonstandard things with your reference formatting. In particular, I'm not certain what criteria you're using to include books in the bibliography; there are a considerable number of book-format works referenced but not included therein. Also, while things like sfn aren't required, there's no connect between the citations and bibliography entries. The net result makes it rather difficult to evaluate the referencing properly. Considerable editorial discretion is given to reference format choices, but this may actually rise to the level of MOS-noncompliance.
- You format author names first last in citations but last, first in the bibliography. Regardless of choices within editorial discretion, you need to be consistent about the standards you enact.
- As an apparent consequence of the referencing formatting choices, print sources that appear in the citations but not in the bibliography do not have a full bibliographic entry anywhere in the article. Murtonen 1989, for example, lacks a publisher or ISBN. Charnock 1859 lacks a publisher (and, ideally, an OCLC). And so on.
- In what is currently citation 1, you italicize and wikilink CBS News. In citation 11, you do neither for BBC News. Italicization of web sources is a contentious topic in the MOS at this time, but here, especially, consistency needs to be applied.
- You've fallen prey to what I'm increasingly deeming the "Google Books trap". Google Books does a terrible job at extracting bibliographic information from scholarly journals that it has indexed as if they were books. The material you have cited as "Space archaeology" by Shiruku Rōdo-gaku Kenkyū Sentā isn't a book at all, but a journal: Silk Roadology, the published proceedings of the Research Center for Silk Roadology. I don't have access to this material, so I can't even try to construct a proper citation, which would need the article title, author, and pagination, in addition to the volume (and issue, if assigned) of the journal. None of which can Google Books be trusted to accurately provide. I offer no opinion as to the reliability or academic rigor of this source at this time.
-
- The same is true of Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. This is actually material from Les Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes, a journal published by the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums. I'm not convinced this was an Arabic-language publication, either (or, alternatively, that the cited volume is incorrect). I know that AAAS changed publication language several times, and relatively recent volumes exist in both Arabic and English, but as of volume 42, may have still been in French. Regardless, whatever is being cited here needs confirmation from a more accurate source.
- Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is a scholarly article republished in a book-form journal proceeding. This one does appear in the bibliography, but isn't formatted appropriately in either location. Among other issues, it needs to include the editors of the bound work.
At this point, I'm done attempting a thorough survey of the sources. Many, perhaps most of the sources used here lack a complete citation. At least two, and likely more, are cited in a factually incorrect manner because of mangling by Google Books. That is especially problematic for obscure and foreign-language sources as used here. Accordingly, I have no choice but to strongly oppose promotion on 2c and probably 1c grounds. No opinion on prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
OH WOW , strong oppose because of this!!!!!!!!!!!! imagine if the article lacked some sources, whats then ? delete the article ?!!!. I didnt expect that FA was a process to see if the sources are neat, tidy and packed in a pretty way. I thought this was about articles being informative and cited. This is a very shallow criteria to oppose !!! its not because the article isnt sourced but because the sources change the style of naming the authors !!!! Does it really matter to the reader !!!! He can click on the link and the book and page will appear in front of him, is he really going to care that the name order is changed between the cite and the biblio !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont think that the reader immediately jump in excitement to the bibliography section once they have clicked on the article. So it doesnt matter using the most reliable academic sources or comprehensiveness but the way the name of the author is given in the citation and the bibliography or the italicization of BBC and CNN!
Now, to tackle your issues :
-
- I know for sure that I have the privilege of choosing my style of citation and since I've chosen a way that doesn't require a bibliography (templates) then I've decided to delete the bibliography all together
- I provided every citation with full information to compensate the deletion of the bibliography so now every source have a complete citation.
- As for the journals, they are now in an adequate format : (cite journal). So Space Archaeology is properly cited now
- As for the Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes : you said a more accurate source. AAAS is one of the most reliable sources about Palmyra, you cant get more accurate than that. The issue cited is in Arabic and you dont need to doubt it. If you dont know for sure then you really shouldn't doubt that it is written in Arabic or not. I wrote the key word Qatna in Arabic so you can see that it is written in Arabic.قطنا but anyways, it is not needed as the next source also cover the subject so I deleted the AAAS.
- This journal "The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Difussion of Useful Knowledge" from 1840 didnt normally mention the names of its authors so I cant have them.
- This book for example : Local Etymology: A Derivative Dictionary of Geographical Names by Richard Stephen Charnock is from 1859 and have no ISBN. Many old books and journals have no ISBN or ISSN, how can I get you ones ?!!!!
- Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is now properly cited.
- BBC and stuff are consistence now in regard to italicization. By the way, it wasnt me who italicized CBS. I didnt add that reference and the difference isnt because of intended italicization but because of the templates. the "cite news" template will give you an italicized publisher while the "cite web" template will give you a non italicized publisher. I cant even believe that this is a serious problem !!!!!
- You cant oppose this on bases of 1C. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable
- I just spent 7 continuous hours to make every citation full, hope this is appreciated and will make your strong opposition a normal one. If this way <re f>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ ref> or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) is the only accepted way of citations and the citation templates are refused then Im gonna think about withdrawing the nomination because this is just a complete child play. Spending months writing and reading hundreds of books then getting the article refused because "the style of the citations isnt pretty to my eyes".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- The Featured Article process is very demanding. It makes expectations not only of the quality of the prose and references, but that references are fully cited and presented in an internally-consistent manner (which, no, does not mandate short-form references). I realize that this isn't the "fun" part of article writing, but it is a well-established aspect of the Feature Article candidacy process. Please don't take it personally; my interest is in ensuring that the articles we highlight as our best work meet all of our criteria for that standard, even the ones that aren't exciting. Taking a moment to opine, I often wish that the GA criteria were more stringent, so that the leap in expectations between GA-quality work and FA-quality work were not so large as it is. But we work with the criteria we have.
- Following up on your comments about AAAS: AAAS is, without question, a high-quality source. My suggestion that you might need to consult another source was not meant to imply that it was unacceptable, but that Google Books was giving you insufficient and possibly incorrect material. Specifically, as with several other references, this is a scholarly journal; citations to it need to be to the individual articles, not the journal as a whole.
- The Featured Article process is very demanding. It makes expectations not only of the quality of the prose and references, but that references are fully cited and presented in an internally-consistent manner (which, no, does not mandate short-form references). I realize that this isn't the "fun" part of article writing, but it is a well-established aspect of the Feature Article candidacy process. Please don't take it personally; my interest is in ensuring that the articles we highlight as our best work meet all of our criteria for that standard, even the ones that aren't exciting. Taking a moment to opine, I often wish that the GA criteria were more stringent, so that the leap in expectations between GA-quality work and FA-quality work were not so large as it is. But we work with the criteria we have.
-
-
-
-
- Publishers should generally not be abbreviated. For the Bryce source, Oxford University Press, not OUP. And definitely not "OUP Oxford", even if that's what Google Books claims in its sidebar.
- The Arbeitman source is not correctly cited. Yoël L. Arbeitman is the editor of the book, not its author. Each section is an independent article with its own title and author. Arbeitman needs to be moved to
|editor
and the article title and author indicated with|chapter
and|author
. In this case, "The etymologies of Tadmor and Palmyra" by M. O'Connor (at least for anything citing pages between 235 and 254, inclusive). Ideally, the citation would provide the full pagination of the cited article within the larger source, but citing exclusively to the referenced page is probably acceptable under the MOS, and I won't quibble. Pedantically, the publisher is styled as Peeters, not Peeters Publishers. - Brill, not BRILL, in the Murtonen source. This is one part of a very large multivolume work. The full set of sub-subtitles here is unwieldy, and can probably be safely omitted, but adding
|volume=13
is probably warranted. Murtonen is correctly identified as the author here; whether you also indicate J.H. Hospers as editor is probably discretionary. Use this tool to convert the ISBN to a properly formatted ISBN-13. - For works like Charnock, that predate the establishment of the ISBN system, it is possible to provide an OCLC number, which can be found via WorldCat search. There is some art to using WorldCat, as individual printings often receive different OCLC numbers (and sometimes, due to errors, the same printing may have more than one OCLC number assigned). When you can unambiguously identify an OCLC number, and no ISBN exists, it's helpful to include it, because it makes it easier for readers to access the work. I will note that OCLC numbers are sometimes assigned to e-copies of books. Established precedent indicates that when you are working from a faithful reproduction of the print source (as full Google Books scans [usually] are), you can cite the original format of the work; that you are working from an archive doesn't change what you're actually referencing. In any case, always use OCLC numbers, not OCoLC numbers. Accordingly, to get things started, Charnock is OCLC 4696115.
- In the Le Strange source, "A.D.", not "A. D.", and "to", not "To". Cosimo is a print-on-demand publisher and so its works would often not be deemed reliable sources; in this case, however, this is a reprint of a work now in the public domain, so you're fine in that sense. The publisher needs to show the actual imprint it was published under, Cosimo Classics, and not the parent company. Finally, you should add the original date of publication, 1890, using
|origyear
. - The BBC article, "Syria uncovers 'largest church'" has an explicit date: 14 November 2008. Because you provide these dates (when available) for other web sources, you need to be consistent.
- Convert the ISBN for Stoneman.
- There are still problems with the Izumi source that you have styled as Space Archaeology. Because you split the author name into the
|last
and|first
fields, it displays in last, first order. Personally, I prefer that. But elsewhere you've used|author
and forced names to appear in first last order. You need to be consistent, whichever you choose. More importantly, this journal is not called Space Archaeology, despite what Google Books is telling you (that's basically the cover story of this issue). I don't really blame you for getting tripped up by this. Situations like this got me in the past, too. Google Books is very, very bad at dealing with digitized journals. Very bad. The journal is actually styled as Silk Roadology. Scholarly journals do not need their publisher specified. - Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is still not okay. You need to indicate that those three individuals are the editors of the work (use the editor fields). The title of the work should be the title of the book: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität, Berlin. Use author and chapter fields to specify the individual article and its author. Finally, this is a multi-volume work, so you should indicate that you are referencing
|volume=1
- For Dirven: again, Brill, and ISBN conversion.
- For Young, Google Books malformed the date range in the title by converting an unspaced endash to a spaced hyphen, because Google hates typography, or something. That part of the title should read 31 BC–AD 305.
- For Smith II, Oxford University Press, not OUP USA.
- The "'Imitation Greeks'" source is problematic. This isn't actually a book published by ProQuest (they aren't really a publisher; they are a microform reproduction distributor). What this actually is is a doctoral dissertation by Nathanael John Andrade. Material such as this is sort of in a gray area regarding WP:RS, as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you can replace this with a higher-quality source, that might be ideal. If consensus here is that it is acceptable to retain, you'll need to reformat it with {{cite thesis}} and include the relevant bibliographic information.
- Some days I hate Google Books. I don't know what they did with the source you cite as Hillers and Cussini, but the cover and copyright page make clear that Eleonora Cussini is the sole editor of the work. As in several other cases, restyle the publisher and convert the ISBN. Also, this is another case where the chapters are individual articles with their own authorship. Page 55 is part of "The City of the Dead" by Michal Gawlikowski.
- And here I'm stopping again. I've gone through the first 25 of 389 references. Some of these are problems are nitpicking concerns over styling. But several are significant problems with the accuracy and completeness of citations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I didnt take it personally but a strong oppose without giving me directions on how to fix the problems (since Im a noob here, I didnt even know that there are editor and original year parameters) made me upset (and my insomnia didnt help me to stay calm). Now when I read back, i can see that I was rude and overreacted. apologies.
- Yoël and Charnock fixed
- OUP and BRILL fixed
- I replaces the cosimo la-Strange with the original one
- BBC date for the church fixed
- last name/first name problem fixed
- Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner fixed
- Young and ISBN's fixed
- Andrade took his PHD thanks to this thesis and got it printed as a legitimate book by Cambridge university press Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. But anyway, I replaced the thesis with other sources.
- Hillers fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Ah, well. A belated welcome to FAC, then! My apologies for not recognizing that you were new to this process, which can sometimes very much be a trial-by-fire. I'll certainly have more material to address when I get a few minutes to review further. The goal, as always, is better articles. As a drive-by comment, there's absolutely no problem with citing Andrade from the Cambridge University Press book, just a problem with citing the Andrade thesis directly. But if other sources serve just as well, that works too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I didnt take it personally but a strong oppose without giving me directions on how to fix the problems (since Im a noob here, I didnt even know that there are editor and original year parameters) made me upset (and my insomnia didnt help me to stay calm). Now when I read back, i can see that I was rude and overreacted. apologies.
-
-
Comments by an IP
- "The Palmyrenes were primarily a mix of Amorites, Arameans and Arabs,[2]" The lead should ideally be devoid of any inline citation. The information cited is something that should be discussed in the main prose, where the inline citation should go.
- "In 1929, the French began moving villagers into the new village of Tadmur." Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
- "its incorporation into the Roman Empire in the first century." AD? Such as this, "By the third century AD"
- "Palmyra was a prosperous metropolis and regional center" is there something missing? center for?
- "Before 273 it enjoyed autonomy for much of its existence." Is this a date? Sorry, not an aficionado.
- "In 260 the Palmyrene king Odaenathus defeated the Persian emperor Shapur I. He fought" I suppose "he" refers to the king Odaenathus?
- Fixed. As for the citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them. It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.
- For the regional center: nothing is missing, it was a center of its own region.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Al Ameer son
I contributed to this article not too long ago (added a bit of content to the "Arab caliphate" section and otherwise made some copyedits here and there). I've already commended the nominator for his efforts and I do so again. With what has been happening to Palmyra lately, many people who don't know much about the city but hear about its ongoing destruction on the news will come here to learn about the site. I'm glad someone has devoted their efforts at improving their learning experience.
- That being said, having read the entire article, it clearly meets criterion 1a, 1b and 1d. There has not been any real edit warring, but whenever Palmyra is in the news cycle, the article attracts some unnecessary additions made in good faith, but overall it meets 1e. From the outset, the article appears to meet 1c, but I cannot say for sure yet because I haven't gone through all the sources. I will verify a sample of citations throughout the article and anything that seems extraordinary, and from that I can confidently make a conclusion regarding 1c soon.
- The lead is a bit too long, but not totally overwhelming. I think it could be shortened and maybe even restructured a bit to be less a summary of the entire history from the Neolithic period until the present day and more a summary of the article, i.e. the site and its major ruins, the parts of its history most relevant to the ruins and its role as an ancient power (including the city's distinct ancient culture and civilization). Currently, the lead focuses too much on history. The current structure of the article, after Johnbod's suggestion, is fine. The citations format is consistent.
- There is excellent usage of pictures in the article and it appears any issues with the images were addressed in Nikkimaria's image review in the first FAC.
- The article is lengthier than the average FA, but deservedly so due to the sheer amount of information on Palmyra's ruins, history and culture. The article does not go into unnecessary detail, although the lead might. Then again, this is just my opinion.
As of right now, I can say with confidence that the article meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2b, 2c, 3 and 4. I await the nominator's response to my suggestion on shortening and possibly restructuring the lead. I will give my take on 1c soon, although I'm pretty confident that the nominator, who has been researching the subject and has been working on the article for so long, has been diligent in adding material that correctly reflects the many and diverse sources he has used. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I made some changes, now, the political history isnt the focus of the lead. I will be thankful if you have any specific suggestion (i.e specific sentence to be deleted and another to be written).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- The lead is much better now, in my opinion. I just made a few copyedits to it as well. After the changes you've made, I think the following fragment could be removed: "The city was governed by a senate", unless you think this line is critical to the lead. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the first line is grammatically correct: "is an ancient Semitic city in present Homs Governorate, Syria". Shouldn't it be "in present-day Homs Governorate"? If a copyeditor or reviewer previously copyedited the article, it wouldn't hurt to ping him or her and ask if they could take a look at the revised lead and see if they could make further improvements. You could also ask someone who has never read or edited the article before to do the same thing, but that would likely be a longer process since they might not make any comments about the lead without reading through the article first. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Senate part deleted. It was the copy editor who wrote (present). I added (day). No new sentences were added, I just deleted some, so the lead didnt change grammatically and pinging the copy editor wont be necessary.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support After a few days of looking through various citations to see if the sources matched up with the text (for verification's sake), I am confident that this article meets criteria 1c. As I noted above, I also believe it meets all the other FA criteria as well. This is a highly informative, beautifully written, and well-sourced article that should grace Wikipedia's home page in the very near future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks Al-Ameer.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support After a few days of looking through various citations to see if the sources matched up with the text (for verification's sake), I am confident that this article meets criteria 1c. As I noted above, I also believe it meets all the other FA criteria as well. This is a highly informative, beautifully written, and well-sourced article that should grace Wikipedia's home page in the very near future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Senate part deleted. It was the copy editor who wrote (present). I added (day). No new sentences were added, I just deleted some, so the lead didnt change grammatically and pinging the copy editor wont be necessary.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Support by FunkMonk
- Support - I GA reviewed this article, and I can see it has been significantly improved since then, and now lives up to the FA criteria. Would be interesting to see if Squeamish Ossifrage is satisfied with the changes done since his review, though. I think every effort should be made to help the nominator get this article promoted instead of archived, as it is his first nomination (and English is not his first language), but also due to the high importance of the subject, and its current, dire situation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Midnightblueowl
- Comments: I have quite a bit of experience with writing about archaeological subjects here at Wikipedia and thus I am gratified to see that such a lot of admirable work has been paid to this article. However, I have some concerns about the Etymology section. For instance, why is there no link to Pliny the Elder when he is mentioned? Why are citations 3 and 7 placed next to each other when both are citing the same article; surely they should be merged? Why is there a single, solitary citation appearing in the lede; is this really necessary? Generally speaking, I think that this article could probably do with a good prose review before being taken to FAC, and for that reason am Opposed at present. I also wonder if a different citation system would benefit this article, given that a number of key sources are used repeatedly as references (see for instance the citation system used in the recent archaeology-themed FA, Mortimer Wheeler, and my GA at Coldrum Long Barrow, which is much cleaner and more user friendly). Moreover, I am very worried at what seems to be an over-reliance on Google Books as a way of finding references in this article. I do certainly appreciate that not everyone has access to university resources and all of the books and articles that they can provide, but really Google Books is too selective in what it offers to be truly reliable for something like this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- 1- the article was already copy edited by the copy-edit guild. It was also read thoroughly (specially the prose which was edited multiple times) by Jonbod, Al-Ameer son and Dudley Miles (in his peer review). How many prose read should this article get before it is just too much?. Another prose read will mean that this is the fourth time. This could go on forever and a line must be drawn at some point
- 2- Pliny was linked, I cant remember how the link was removed. Its easy to link it again and the source 3 was removed
- 3- The citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them (look at the article history before I rewrote it). It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.
- 4- I prefer this citation style in my articles as it can get you to the page in the source. It is not a criteria to follow a certain style
- 5- There is really no need to worry about google books. They are added for the sole reason of giving you a chance to read the source. I already have a large collection in my university library and I could have not provided any links to google books but I thought (and still convinced) that those links are helpful for users who want to inspect the source. All the recent academic books written on Palmyra were used. So no selectivity and Palmyra isnt a controversial subject to be afraid that the whole truth isnt present. Do you like me to delete the links to google books ?? this way only the name of the source will remain and it wont look like there is a reliance on a library called google books.
- I dont think that you noticed that I used many old middle eastern sources that has no preview on google books. Yet, I added a link to google so that the reader can see that this book exist. Obviously, I didnt read those sources on google.
- I have edited the article to address the real problems you mentioned.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- With respect, I still don't think that the prose is up to full FA quality just yet. There are many, many sentences that I feel could be improved. For instance, the article refers to "by the end of the millennium Arameans were mentioned as inhabiting the area" but no statement is given as to where this was "mentioned". Names like Albert Schultens and Hadrian are dropped without explaining who they were. Wording such as "as an alteration (supported by Schultens)," could be improved considerably. I'm still opposed at this juncture, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this, and I would be willing to change my opposition to a support if I see these prose problems cleaned up. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- With respect, you need to point the prose problem considering that 5 other experienced editors read the article and didnt see those problems. Throwing a random note doesnt help as those problems that you found werent considered problems for others. You need to be specific about what you think is wrong so you need to do a pros check yourself since a "problem" to you isnt a problem to another. There is no set of rules to count on, when trying to discover what you consider a problem, so you need to be more clear as other editors cant figure out what you would consider a problem.
- Schultens and Hadrian need explanations ? this would most definitely be a distraction. The article is about Palmyra not about Schultens. The names are linked for people who dont know them. We cant explain about Hirohito (for example) in an article about a different subject.
- The Arameans were mentioned by the Assyrians which is an information clearly written in the section Palmyra#Early_period. This section came in before the population section but I had to change its place due to Jonbod earlier review.
- "as an alteration (supported by Schultens)". How can it get any more clearer ? I even wrote a note (note 3) which explain the alternation and it read like this : According to Schultens, the Romans altered the name from "Tadmor" to "Talmura", and afterward to "Palmura" (from the Latin word "palma", meaning palm),[2] in reference to the palm trees. Then the name reached its final form "Palmyra".[7].
- I ask you to do a prose check and point the problems you see since other editors didnt find them and I cant be in your mind to see what you see as a problem cause I find everything clear for now, and so did the people in pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira who promoted the article to FA. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- With respect, I still don't think that the prose is up to full FA quality just yet. There are many, many sentences that I feel could be improved. For instance, the article refers to "by the end of the millennium Arameans were mentioned as inhabiting the area" but no statement is given as to where this was "mentioned". Names like Albert Schultens and Hadrian are dropped without explaining who they were. Wording such as "as an alteration (supported by Schultens)," could be improved considerably. I'm still opposed at this juncture, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this, and I would be willing to change my opposition to a support if I see these prose problems cleaned up. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- "Palmyra changed hands between the different empires that ruled the area, becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD." For clarity I suggest something like "Palmyra changed hands on a number of occasions between different empires, before becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD."
- "Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[19] However, excavation supports the theory that the temple was originally located on the southern bank;" This is confusing. First you say that there was an earlier temple on the site, then that it was elsewhere.
-
- Now you are saying " Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[18] However, excavation supports the theory that the tell was originally located on the southern bank" This is even more confusing. A tell is a hill built up by successive occupation layers - it cannot move from the south to the north bank. I am still not clear what you mean. Is it that the Hellenistic temple on the north bank did not really exist, or that there was another even earlier temple on a tell on the south bank? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have rearranged some of the People, language and society section. Change anything you are not happy with. I have bundled refs at the end of the section and they need sorting out. In the version before my revision there were three refs for "but after the invasion by Timur it was a small village until the relocation in 1932" - far too many for a simple statement and they are not obviously relevant.
- Temples section. There are links to further information on the temples of Bel and Baalhamon, but Bel is not mentioned below and Baalhamon is spelled differently.
I fixed and did what you noted. I meant that the tell and the temple above it were south of the wadi; for clarity I changed the sentence to give this meaning. As for the temples section, Baal-Hamon is a different deity from Baal-Shamin. Since the temple of Bel and the temple of Baalshamin have their own articles I felt that its enough to give links to those articles, to avoid inflating the article of Palmyra with unecessary explanations.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- "The newcomers were assimilated by the earlier inhabitants, spoke their language" This is unclear. Were the newcomers the Arabs? Were they assimilated by the Arameans and did they speak Aramaic? If they learnt the language you should say "learned" rather than "spoke".
- "Before 274 AD, Palmyrenes spoke a dialect of Aramaic and used the Palmyrene alphabet." You mention in a note that Aramaic is last used in an inscription of 274, but nevertheless languages spoken do not change suddenly in one year. I think it would be better to say "Until the late third century".
- In the next paragraph you state that Palmyrenes were a mixture of different peoples until 273 - cities are almost always a mixture of different peoples and they do not suddenly stop being so unless there is mass ethnic cleansing. You say below that tribal identity lost its meaning in the third century, which suggests a gradual process.
- Note 11 "E.g. by the second century, Palmyrene goddess Al-lāt was portrayed in the style of the Greek goddess Athena" I assume BC, but you should make this clear.
- "Palmyrene bust reliefs, unlike Roman sculptures, are rudimentary portraits; although many reflect high quality individuality, their details vary little across figures of similar age and gender" I am not clear what you are saying here. if they are rudimentary portraits which vary little, how can they reflect individuality?
- "Towers were replaced by funerary temples as above ground tombs after 128, which is the date of the most recent tower" This is puzzling and again you are using over-exact dates. 128 BC or AD, and the fact that that is the most recent known date does not mean there was a sudden change then. "as above ground tombs" is clumsy and superfluous.
- Public buildings section. You only give a date for the agora and the Temple of Baal-hamon. An approximate date for the other buildings would be helpful.
- In the temples section, I do not think your practice is correct. You should cover the most important temples for readers who do not want to follow links, not leave them out because they are covered in other articles. This applies particularly to the Temple of Bel, which is mentioned several times elsewhere 'Further information' is for more information about topics covered briefly, not to refer readers to topics omitted. If you are concerned about excessive length, you could create an article on Palmyra temples and refer readers to it for further information.
- "a tessera depicting the sanctuary was excavated" This can't be right. A tessera is an individual cube in a mosaic.
- "Further information: Great Colonnade at Palmyra" You do not give details about this. If it is not important enough to be in the article, it should not be in 'Further information'. (It could be in 'See also').
- "The shrine might have been connected to the royal family as it is the only tomb inside the city's walls" You say this was built in the third century - BC or AD? Did not the Roman prohibition on tombs inside towns apply?
- "to provide a costume barrier" What is a costume barrier?
Fixed. The Arabs are the newcomers. I clarified everything you pointed. I added small paragraphs for the temples and colonnade. Athena-Allat is AD actually. For the reliefs; I didnt write this paragraph as it was added by Jonbod. Some Palmyrene reliefs reveal individuality but the majority do not and I clarified this. The senate of Palmyra wasnt excavated extensively and no date exist. The Tarif court and Triclinium were part of the Agor complex and built at the same time and I clarified this.
For the tessera: the sources about Palmyra use this word and some of them were written by the excavators :
- Nathanael J. Andrade : Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World, Cambridge University Press
- Javier Teixidor : The Pantheon of Palmyra, Brill
- Andrew M. Smith II : Roman Palmyra: Identity, Community, and State Formation, Oxford University Press
- Clifford Ando,Jörg Rüpke : Public and Private in Ancient Mediterranean Law and Religion, Walter de Gruyter.
What is your suggestion on the tessera subject ?
- I would say a mosaic but you could say tesserae (plural of tessera).
costume barrier as in a border to watch the merchandise entering the city or leaving it. As for the tomb : Palmyra always had more independence than normal Roman cities. The building no.86 is a tomb so obviously the city had the ability to break Roman law.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- "when Puzur-Ishtar the Tadmorean agreed to a contract at an Assyrian trading colony in Kultepe" I would add in brackets after Tadmorean (Palmyrene). It is easy to forget that you said Tadmor is an alternative name in the etymology section.
- "In 217 BC, a Palmyrene force led by Zabdibel joined the army of King Antiochus III in the Battle of Raphia which ended in a Seleucid defeat.[" I would say by Ptolemaic Egypt. Did Palmyra stay Seleucid or the Ptolemaics gain temporary control?
Changed tessera to "mosaic piece". Done for Tadmoraen, and as for Raphia : Palmyra wasnt mentioned in the records of the battle. Only Zabdibel was mentioned and scholars concluded that he was a Palmyrene because that name was only found in Palmyra. We really dont know the situation of Palmyra back then and no source discuss it (I tried to look in my university's library as you asked this question in your last peer review but got nothing). Normally, Palmyra is part of Coele-Syria which would mean that it belonged to Egypt during the Syrian Wars but no scholar ever noted or discussed that. They do, however, consider Palmyra with the Seleucids from the beginning and since Palmyrene auxiliary served with the Seleucids and No Egyptian record exist about Palmyra during that era and the concept of Coele-Syria is very fluid in its geographic definition then probably Palmyra was not occupied by Egypt as those wars aimed at Coele-Syria which is an area that has different indications and a term that wasnt used by the Ptolemaic kingdom (hence, maybe they didnt consider Palmyra part of the region). We will never know as no source discuss it.
- "Toward the end of the second century, Palmyra began a steady transition from a traditional Greek city-state to a monarchy;[178] urban development diminished after the city's building projects peaked.[179] The Severan ascension to the imperial throne in Rome played a major role in Palmyra's transition:" I find this and the following comments confusing. You say a transition to a monarchy, but the earliest recorded lord of the city is apparently 60 years later. Then you insert the apparently irrelevant truism that a decline in building projects leads to a decline in urban development. Then you say that the rise of the Severan dynasty assisted Palmyra's transition to a monarchy, and emperors stationed troops there and encouraged a transition to Roman institutions. None of this sounds like encouraging an independent Palmyrene monarchy. Later it appears that the election of a lord was a reaction to Roman weakness in the face of the Persian threat in the middle of the third century rather than the culmination of a long term trend.
The militarization of the city is what led to the monarchy. It was the steady centralization of power that led to monarchy. This centralization and militarization began with the Severans and their policy. The emperors obviously didnt have in mind to turn Palmyra into a rival but stationing the troops in Palmyra and the wars they engaged with the Parthians leading to damage for the Palmyrene trade led Palmyra to strengthen itself and its military. The Palmyrene troops began to protect the Empire instead of trade and it was inevitable that a strong general will someday turn those troops into a power base and end the semi-democracy of Palmyra (Odaenathus was this guy). I moved the sentence about urban development to the preceding paragraph. Now the transition paragraph discuss those changes without distractions. The election of Odaenathus was a direct reaction but the circumstances allowing this election and allowing an strong army to exist started with the Severans and their wars
The Camridge History is directly attributing the rise of the monarchy to those factors. In page 512, the section is titled : From city to principality and it talks about Palmyra's transition into a monarchy. In the preceding pages, it speak about the Severan wars and the Sassanid's caused instabilities, and then open in page 512 with a direct connection between those wars and Palmyra's transition when it say : In this less favorable economic climate, the political situation at Palmyra changed and then continues to describe the Palmyrene transition to a monarchy
- "The nature of those deities is left to theory as only names are known," "left to theory" sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps "is uncertain".
- Done
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Taxation was an important source of revenue for Palmyra." I would say to the Palmyran government - you say above that the caravan trade was most important to the economny as a whole.
- " where a tax law dating to 137 was discovered" BC or AD?
- "Antiquities scholar Andrew M. Smith II" "Antiquities scholar" sounds old fashioned. Maybe "Classlcist" for an assistant professor of classics.
- "The oasis had about 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) of irrigable land,[376] surrounded by the countryside.[377]" This is not quite right. The citation for the second half of the sentence just says that agricultural land was insufficient to support the city. Presumably it was surrounded by desert rather than countryside.
- "Palmyra was a minor trading center until the Timurid destruction" I would repeat the date here to remind readers.
- "Palmyra's main trade route ran east to the Euphrates, where it connected to the Silk Road.[381] The route then ran south along the river toward the port of Charax Spasinu on the Persian Gulf, where Palmyrene ships traveled back and forth to India." I think you need to state when this applies. The article on Charax Spasinu states that it was a major port in late antiquity. You say below during the Roman Empire - so the first 4 centuries AD?
- "For its domestic market Palmyra imported slaves, prostitutes, olive oil, dyed goods, myrrh and perfume" But above you say agricultural products as well.
- I wonder whether the section on destruction by ISIL would go better at the end after 'Excavation'. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
William Sterling Parsons
This article is about Deak Parsons, the Naval officer who was the deputy head of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory, and the commander of the mission that bombed Hiroshima. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Image review
- File:MK53_fuze.jpg: source link is dead and image is tagged as lacking author. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Question from John Why the hard-coded image sizes? Per WP:IMGSIZE we would generally allow readers to set their own display sizes and use the "upright" parameter to enlarge particularly important ones. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- At the time it was written, WMF was demanding fixed widths to make the Visual Editor's life easier. They later relented, but the article was not changed. I have removed the hard-coded sizes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Comments
- an American Naval officer Why is naval capitalized?
- Link weaponeer, flagship
- The bit about being the weaponeer on the Enola Gay is repeated twice in the lede.
- Convert each measurement on first use.
- Should be. Did I miss anything? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to watchlist this. 5"/38, 3-inch AA gun, 1,500 tons. Switching to support in anticipation of this being done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Should be. Did I miss anything? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Tell the reader what type of ship each ship is on first mention.
- Why should the reader care who his secretary was? Or that bit about Newkirk. Just because information is available, doesn't mean that it should be used.
- Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Are these points resolved to your satisfaction? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Sources review
- In the References, locations should be formatted consistently (compare "New York, New York" and "New York")
- I suggest you pipelink University Park, as otherwise the location mayn not be clear
- If you're adding the state to New York, you should add one for Boston
Otherwise, references look of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently and correctly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. I've added states to all the locations in the references for consistency. I haven't piped any. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Bristol
Bristol is the largest city in south west England. It has over 1,000 years of history and has become a major centre for trade, business and culture - all of which are reflected in the article. Since its creation in 2002 the article has received over 4,000 edits, four peer reviews and a recent copy edit. The previous nomination (in August 2015) which was archived a few weeks ago, included a lot of discussion about whether a specific image could be included. The issue was resolved however there were few other comments on whether the article meets the criteria.— Rod talk 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Images are now appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reassessing after changes...
- When expanded the railway map causes significant formatting problems - could we use {{clear}} or something to fix it?
- File:Uplands_StandBRFC.JPG is tagged as lacking description. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Quick comments:
- What happened to the 19th century in the history headings? A couple of mentions in "17th and 18th centuries", but really not much.
- "Competition from Liverpool (beginning around 1760)..." - wasn't it that by then Bristol Docks simply couldn't handle the larger ships being built? Worth saying. Avonmouth eventually had the same problem, but was able to solve it - unlike Liverpool.
- The sport section seems pretty long, and the architecture one rather short, and not very informative; eg the cautious assertion that: "Buildings from most architectural periods of the United Kingdom can be seen in the city", which is just about true, but not very helpful. It's more true if you mean post-1707 architectural periods, but I suspect you don't - use English. Fully 1/3 of the Grade I listed buildings are in Portland Square, Bristol and Blaise Hamlet, so why not mention them? Bristol's surviving significant architecture pretty much all comes from after 1700, except for the Cathedral, and St Mary Redcliffe, which is outstanding and well-known, & worth mentioning. What about Clifton?
- "Outside the city centre are several Tudor and later mansions built for wealthy merchants".[1] is not covered by the reference, which just talks about one, though certainly true. In fact Bristol has I think no reasonably intact Tudor houses, so it may not be good to raise expectations.
- ^ Historic England. "Red Lodge (380113)". Images of England. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
- Should probably expand a bit on Bristol as a centre for baccy, & rescue W.D. & H.O. Wills from "see also".
- Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to address these by adding a 19th century section to the history and expanding the architecture section - incporating the other issues identified along the way. Could you take another loom and see whether you think these are appropriate?— Rod talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
-
NearSupport(just waiting to see if there are other comments as much of it is out of my range)Ok, All the above dealt with, though the long lists of unique new references (mostly Historic England) should be rolled up into combined ones to avoid unsightly taxi ranks of citation numbers. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Strong support - Well-written article. Iggy488 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose- I may not have time to fully appraise the article, but am opposing based on the Arts subsection which I did review. The subsection is a collection of unconnected facts with no logic governing its flow. The lead sentence is "Bristol was a finalist for the 2008 European Capital of Culture, with the title awarded to Liverpool." How is that the most important take-away from Bristolian culture? Why is See No Evil then mentioned next? Is a street art festival that began in 2011 and seemingly ended by 2013 even notable enough for this article? If it is, why not place it with the bit on Banksy and other artists? Why are the capacities for different theatres listed in brackets, yet capacities for concert halls not? I did not expect such a disconnected passage to make it to FAC. - hahnchen 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Apart from what Hahnchen said, there's also the problem that Arts is overloaded with names. The point of the section is to give a sense of the city's arts scene, not to list every last actor, comedian, band, museum etc. The worst offender is the last para, which is almost entirely a sea of blue:
Comedians from the city include Justin Lee Collins,[1] Lee Evans[2] Russell Howard[3] and writer-comedian Stephen Merchant.[4] University of Bristol graduates include illusionist Derren Brown,[5] satirist Chris Morris,[6] Simon Pegg,[7] Nick Frost of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz,[8] Matt Lucas[9] and David Walliams[9] from Little Britain.[9] Cary Grant,[10] Dolly Read, Ralph Bates and Norman Eshley were born in Bristol, and Peter O'Toole, Kenneth Cope, Patrick Stewart, Jane Lapotaire, Pete Postlethwaite, Jeremy Irons, Greta Scacchi, Miranda Richardson, Helen Baxendale, Daniel Day-Lewis and Gene Wilder attended the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School[11] (founded by Laurence Olivier). John Cleese attended Clifton College,[12] Hugo Weaving studied at Queen Elizabeth's Hospital School[13] and David Prowse (Darth Vader in Star Wars) attended Bristol Grammar School.[14]
Other Culture sub-sections are guilty of this too, with long lists of names of newspapers and radio stations. The citing is lop-sided; on the one hand over-referenced ("[234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242]", which also severely hampers readability), while at the other end, the entire second half of Sports is uncited. A quick glance through the References suggests that using scholarly-books sources (instead of exclusively web-based ones) might make for a more balanced section.—indopug (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Morris, Sophie (11 December 2006). "Justin Lee Collins: My Life in Media". The Independent (London). Archived from the original on 1 July 2015. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
- ^ "Lee Evans Biography (1964–)". Film Reference. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
- ^ Cavendish, Dominic (1 March 2008). "Russell Howard: Russell who is not a brand". The Daily Telegraph (London: TMG). ISSN 0307-1235. OCLC 49632006. Retrieved 21 July 2011.
- ^ Ellen, Barbara (5 November 2006). "Barbara Ellen meets the 6 ft 7in comedy giant Stephen Merchant". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 7 March 2009.
- ^ "Derren Brown Info". Derren Brown. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
- ^ "Chris Morris Profile". BBC News. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
- ^ "Simon Pegg Profile". BBC News. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
- ^ Hattenstone, Simon (5 February 2011). "Simon Pegg and Nick Frost: Losers in love". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
- ^ a b c Viner, Brian (16 December 2006). "Matt Lucas: Pride and prejudice". London: The Independent. Archived from the original on 1 July 2015. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
- ^ Biography for Cary Grant at the Internet Movie Database
- ^ "Past Graduates". Bristol Old Vic Theatre School. Archived from the original on 17 June 2008. Retrieved 20 December 2008.
- ^ abcd
- ^ Biography for Hugo Weaving at the Internet Movie Database
- ^ Biography for David Prowse at the Internet Movie Database
- Thanks for your comments. I have removed some of the "sea of blue" lists of names from the culture section, however I feel that leaving some of the key individuals and venues allows the reader to follow those up in more detail. I have rearranged (and added references) to the sport section. I have made the long number lists of references into one reference for each site, however this is a function of the ways in which Historic England details each site. If there are specific references you feel are not RS (or any other outstanding issues) I will attempt to address them.— Rod talk 13:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "was named the best city to live in Britain in 2014 by The Sunday Times": Missing an "in", but that would give it 3 of them in close succession, not good. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- "The most recent city council election was in May 2014.": See WP:DATED.
- "the fifth highest of any city in the United Kingdom (behind London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Nottingham)": sixth highest?
- "The 18th- and 19th-century portrait painter Thomas Lawrence, 19th-century architect Francis Greenway (designer of many of Sydney's first buildings). ": ?
- "Stop motion animation films and commercials (produced by Aardman Animations).": ?
- " Residential buildings in the Georgian Portland Square[1] and the complex of small cottages around a green at Blaise Hamlet, which was built around 1811 for retired employees of Quaker banker and philanthropist John Scandrett Harford, who owned Blaise Castle House.": ?
- "Bristol has teams representing all the major national sports. Bristol City and Bristol Rovers are the city's main football clubs. Bristol Rugby (Rugby Union) and Gloucestershire County Cricket Club are also based in the city. Bristol has two Football League clubs Bristol City and Bristol Rovers": ?
- "south west": Check for consistency on hyphenation.
- " The unique feature of this accent is the "Bristol (or terminal) l", in which l is appended to words ending in a or o. Whether this is a broad l or a w is a subject of debate,[1] with "area" pronounced "areal" or "areaw". The ending of "Bristol" is another example of the Bristol l. Bristolians pronounce -a and -o at the end of a word as -aw (cinemaw).: Seems to contradict itself, two or three times.
-
- Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by this.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're saying. How common is the "Bristol l"? Is it stigmatised? Do some pronounce l and others pronounce w, or is it a consonant that's hard for non-Bristolians to make out, so that people hear it as different consonants? I haven't yet found a source that calls a final w a "Bristol l". - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I am not an accent expert (or native Bristolian) but can confirm the "Bristol l" is in quite common usage among natives. Probably the one I hear most often is the supermarket Asda being pronounced Asdawl. I'm not sure about "stigmatised" but it is sometimes referred to humorously. The Trudgill paper (page 7) and Gick paper are quite good on the Bristol l. There is some information at Culture of Bristol#Dialect and West Country English but I'm not sure where to look or ask for help with this one.— Rod talk 09:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by this.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- "service – including": if I'm remembering right, you also use em-dashes. FAC generally requires consistency on this.
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. The items above need attention, but overall, this is a fine article on an important city, and it would be really nice to see this at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your comments (and copy edits) I hope I have addressed them apart from the query re punctuation - which I don't quite understand.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which punctuation? - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments (and copy edits) I hope I have addressed them apart from the query re punctuation - which I don't quite understand.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments ...Arrrr's a big 'un....I'll give Brizzle a read, have a pint of scrumpy and jot some notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for volunteering to take a look but can I just check was that a comment on the West Country English/Culture of Bristol#Dialect and stigmatisation comment above?— Rod talk 13:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I combined these sections as the next two centuries were and it makes for less choppy small sections.
-
- '
'In 1739 John Wesley founded the first Methodist chapel, the New Room, in Bristol - this sentence just sorta sits there...can we incorporate it somehow? Competition from Liverpool (beginning around 1760) and disruptions of maritime commerce due to war with France (1793) and the abolition of the slave trade (1807) contributed to Bristol's failure...- Any reason why we have "X and X and X" as the three subjects rather than "X, X and X"?the first protested against the renewal of tolls on Bristol Bridge,- reads weirdly - why not just, " the first over the renewal of tolls on Bristol Bridge,"In 1901 Bristol's population was about 330,000, and the city grew steadily during the 20th century.- wanna align the subjects...how about, "From a population of about 330,000 in 1901, Bristol grew steadily during the 20th century."Its docklands were enhanced..."enhanced??" - you mean "renovated" or "rebuilt/enlarged" or something...- I'd put it to you that the "Physical" in Physical geography is redundant and can be removed without compromising meaning.
- '
-
By 1867, ships were getting larger and the meanders in the river Avon prevented boats over 300 feet (91 m) from reaching the harbour resulting in the loss of trade.- "the loss of trade"?? "a loss of trade sounds natural to mine own ears..the other...not so much...also it should be rounded to 90 m not 91 I suspect...
-
From a population of about 330,000 in 1901, Bristol grew steadily during the 20th century.- yeah so did most cities I suspect - some later numbers would be good to give a clearer picture.- I've added the peak population (in 1971) further detail from each census is available in the demographics section
Comments
- The arrangement of the second and third paragraph of the lead is unsatisfactory, starting with history, then geography and going back to history.
- I would specify in the lead that Cabot was Venetian, as otherwise the description of Weston as the first Englishman looks odd.
- "Archaeological finds, including flint tools believed to be 60,000 years old made with the Levallois technique, indicate the presence of Neanderthals in the Shirehampton and St Annes areas of Bristol during the Middle Palaeolithic" I am doubtful about this. According to Pettit & White's history of the British Palaeolithic, the Levallois technique is almost never found is 60,000 year old deposits. There is a similar comment in the report by Bates and Wentian-Smith you cite (unpaginated) "Levalloisian technology first appears in England early in the Middle Palaeolithic, probably late in MIS 8 circa 250,000 BP although there may be some earlier manifestations, and does not appear to have been used at the few boutcoupé sites that are dated to after the peak last interglacial (MIS 5e,circa 125,000 BP). Therefore the Levalloisian evidence in the Bristol region probably reflects early Neanderthal occupation in the period MIS 8 to MIS 6. No bout coupéhandaxe finds are known from the region, but the finds from Wales (Coygan Cave), Wiltshire (Fisherton), Somerset (Cheddon Fitzpaine, Pitminster and West Quantoxhead) and Dorset (Bournemouth and Sherbourne) suggest that there was a late Neanderthal population in southwestern England in the later Devensian." The list of late Neanderthal sites does not include the Bristol ones, which may date to the earlier Neanderthal occupation c.180,000 years ago, contrary to the Bristol Council page. If you are going to cover the Palaeolithic, I think you need to delete the council page as not an RS and check the Bates et al paper in detail.
-
- I need to go back to the sources for this, so will do it later.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I would appreciate further guidance/expertise here. The city council page, which you suggest removing as non-RS is based on the Bates et al paper which they commissioned and does say "There is a predominance of handaxes in the collections, but flake-tool and Levallois technology are present where more extensive collections exist from certain locations, particularly Shirehampton." which I think supports the claim in the article.— Rod talk 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- This quote does not give a date. The paper also says "Palaeolithic remains are present in Terrace 2 in the Shirehampton stretch, and in Terrace 1 in the Upper Avon, Shirehampton and Severn stretches. Due to the abovementioned problems, we presently have little clear idea of how old these terrace deposits are however, it is likely that they date to the later parts of the Middle Pleistocene". The Middle Pleistocene is 781-126,000 year ago. Similarly the passage I quoted above dates the Bristol occupation as MIS 8 to 6, which is around 300-125,000 years ago. The 60,000 years ago on the Bristol Council page is an error. I suggest changing 60,000 to 300-126,000 and deleting the Bristol Council ref. (It should really be 300-180,000 as there were no Neanderthals in Britain between 180,000 and 60,000 years ago.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- "capable of resisting an invasion sent from Ireland by Harold Godwinson's sons". According to Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, it was a raiding party led by three illegitimate sons of Harold.
-
- I need to go back to the sources for this, so will do it later.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- It seems there is agreement on three sons of Harold, are you suggesting the inclusion of the word "illegitimate"?— Rod talk 20:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I do not (on checking sources) suggest the word illegitimate - there seems to be some dispute about this. However "capable of resisting an invasion" is different from fighting off a raiding party, which did not necessarily depend on the town's defensive capacity. I would suggest "and in 1067 the townsmen beat off a raiding party from Ireland led by three sons of Harold Godwinson". This is based on Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed 1971, p. 600. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- "By the 14th century Bristol, York and Norwich were England's three largest medieval towns after London, but one-third to one-half the population died in the Black Death of 1348–49.[30] This checked population growth, and Bristol's population remained between 10,000 and 12,000 for most of the 15th and 16th centuries" I do not see why there is a "but" here. Presumably all three towns suffered similarly. Also it would be helpful to give a population estimate before the Black Death.
-
- "But" removed. I will look for pre & post population figures.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Difficult to get specific numbers for this but A New Historical Geography of England Before 1600 by Darby (p 188) says "At Bristol, between 35% and 40% of the population were victims". This is cited to This paper (Boucher) which explains how the estimates were arrived at.— Rod talk 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- "including Robert Sturmy's (1457–58) unsuccessful attempt to break up the Italian monopoly of Eastern Mediterranean trade.[" I would leave out the word "up".
- "A 1499 voyage, led by merchant William Weston of Bristol, was the first English-led expedition to North America.[" Perhaps "the first expedition commanded by an Englishman".
- "During the 16th century, Bristol merchants concentrated on developing trade with Spain and its American colonies" Did not Spain forbid direct trade between England and the Spanish colonies? If so, I think you need to say so.
-
-
- The next sentence says "This included the smuggling of prohibited goods..." so isn't this covered?— Rod talk 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- This refers to the smuggling of goods to Iberia, not Spain's colonies. I know next to nothing about this subject - I am just a bit confused. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- "the town incorporated neighbouring suburbs, becoming a county in 1373.[" Is anything more known about this? So far as I know it is the only town outside London to become a county.
-
-
- Myers agrees with you that "Bristol was the first provincial town to be given this status" with a charter saying:
-
We have conceded to our beloved burgesses of our town of Bristol and to their heirs and successors in perpetuity that the town of Bristol with its suburbs and precincts shall henceforth be separate from the counties of Gloucester and Somerset and be in all things exempt both by land and by sea, and that it should be a county by itself, to be called the county of Bristol in perpetuity, and that the burgesses and their heirs and successors should have in perpetuity within the town of Bristol and its suburbs and precincts certain liberties and exemptions and enjoy them fully and use them as is more fully contained in the said charter.Myers, A. R. (1996). Douglas, David C., ed. English Historical Documents 1327–1485 IV (2 ed.). London and New York: Routledge. p. 560. ISBN 978-0-415-14369-1. Retrieved 6 December 2009.
-
-
- What do you think should be added from this (which is covered on History of local government in Bristol & full text here)?— Rod talk 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do not disagree with your wording. I just find it fascinating that Bristol was (so far as I know) the only town to become a county before London in 1889, and I would be interested to know why it received that distinction if information is available. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think should be added from this (which is covered on History of local government in Bristol & full text here)?— Rod talk 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- "Renewed growth came with the rise of England's American colonies in the 17th century" This implies a previous slowdown, which you have not covered.
- "Some household slaves eventually purchased their freedom in England." However, the Somersett Case of 1772 outlawed slavery in England.
-
- Clarified & Somersett Case added.— Rod talk 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- "partially as a backlash to the symmetry of Palladianism" "against the symmetry"?
- "As air travel grew in the first half of the century, aircraft manufacturers built new factories" Why "new"? Are you saying that manufacture migrated to Bristol from elsewhere. If so, I would clarify.
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Finishing comments
- "At 4 June 2009 council elections the Liberal Democrats gained four seats and, for the first time, overall control of the city council." This is dated. According to Politics of Bristol the Lib Dems are now down to the fourth largest party.
- The details about Concorde seem excessive.
- "The round piers predate the hospital, and may come from an aisled hall, the earliest remains of domestic architecture in the city, which was then adapted to form the hospital chapel." What round piers and which hospital? This needs clarification.
-
- This relates to St Bartholomew's Hospital, Bristol which the preceding two sentences discuss, but I'm unsure how to clarify that.— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Commercial buildings such as the paired Exchange" What does paired mean here?
-
- This relates to The Exchange, Bristol relating to the different spaces (and uses) within the building, but I agree it was unclear and I have removed the word.— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Bristol has teams representing all the major national sports." This paragraph is unreferenced.
- "The two Football League clubs are Bristol City and Bristol Rovers" This repeats the previous paragraph.
- Probably no change needed, but it is remarkable that no Bristol team has ever won the highest prize in any sport. Worth mentioning W. G. Grace? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- W. G. Grace added.— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. A first rate article. However, you might look again at Queen Elizabeth's Hospital. You appear to discuss the hospital, move on to town houses and then go back to the hospital, which is confusing. I would move the piers sentence to before the town houses sentence. You say above that the town houses sentence is about the hospital but it is not clear how. Were they converted to workers' flats for hospital staff and what does the word "then" refer to? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Support- Its a enjoyable article to read, typical amount of decentness and the Somersett Case of 1772 outlawed slavery in England. I suggest that is going to be a perfect featured article on Wikipedia and it will clarify well enough. Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 10:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)- @Angry Bald English Villian Man: Hi, I was about to ask you if you meant a bold support rather than a struck support when an IP changed it just now -- was that you, not logged in? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Coord note' -- I saw a discussion of referencing above (resolved I believe) but have we in fact had the usual source review for formatting and reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Although various sources have been discussed. I don't think a specific source review has been undertaken.— Rod talk 13:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Murder of Dwayne Jones
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a Jamaican teenager who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013. The event attracted press attention both domestically and in a number of foreign countries, bringing about international scrutiny and condemnation of the state of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Having achieved GA status in December 2013, further improvements have been made to this article, and it now meets the FA criteria. It has previously undergone FAC twice; on the first occassion, in December 2014, it was barely looked at, while on the second in July 2015 it received one statement of support (from User:Johanna) and no oppositions, but unfortunately that wasn't enough for it to pass. Third time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Support as nominator (if that may be permitted? If not, feel free to strike this out.)Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. As mentioned by User:Midnightblueowl, I supported on the second FAC, and all my comments (mostly prose) were dealt with, so I will support again. To other reviewers—don't be fooled by its short length--it's a very nicely done article. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
Outside my usual editing categories by a longshot, but no one should see a nomination die repeatedly for lack of attention:
Referencing
- There's really no need for things like "J-FLAG editor" as an author. Some sources, especially some web sources, simply do not have an author byline. There's no need to disguise that.
- A good point. I have made the change accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that Web Pro News is a reliable source. I believe it's an advertising-driven news aggregator with no listed editorial policy. On the other hand, I think this article may have been published elsewhere for the same reason; a version from a reliable source may be available.
- I've had a look through Google and cannot find any other instance of this particular text. Thus, I do believe that it was originally written for Web Pro News and that that is the only site where this particular article may be found. This being the case, I would suggest that this website does provide original content and thus does constitute an RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- The source of the Dan Littauer article appears to be styled as "LGBTQ Nation", rather than just "LGBT Nation" as currently referenced.
- Well spotted! I have made the change accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have some misgivings about the Quality of Citizenship Jamaica press release. First, if it is retained, it does have an authorship byline. But second, I'm not sure that this is a statement whose inclusion respects WP:UNDUE; according to the organization's website, it's almost entirely operated by two individuals. Its website is a (heavily skinned) Wordpress blog. I don't want to belittle their efforts, but I'm not convinced that QCJ represents a significant viewpoint. On the other hand, the Lonely Planet guidebook to Jamaica lists both J-FLAG and QCP as relevant organizations, so perhaps this isn't problematic after all...?
- As you say, QCJ have been mentioned in the Lonely Planet guidebook, but they have also been mentioned in press sources, including international press, as with this example or this one. Furthermore, while they do use a Wordpress blog they do also have an independent website that (as far as I can tell) has nothing to do with Wordpress here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced this is a comprehensive review of the literature:
-
- I don't have access to this article from my current location, but there's a scholarly paper in Bookbird: A Journal of International Children's Literature here that seems to draw analogies between Jones's death and other LGBT youth topics.
-
- I've taken a look at the article and incorporated it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Is it worth including the passing mention given to Jones in a briefing by US Department of State Acting Assistant Secretary Uzra Zeya here, in the context of "International reaction", a topic otherwise addressed in the article only by LGBT rights groups?
-
- That's a good reference, I have incorporated the information within it into the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- This German-language book appears to place the murder of Jones into a wider context of events. Perhaps there's some background here worth mining?
- There's nothing here post-May 2014:
-
- Although some mention of Human Rights Watch's reaction is included, its October 21, 2014 report on LGBT violence in Jamaica is not cited, and probably should be.
-
- I've added a quotebox to the article which contains a quote taken from this particular source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reporting on the August 2015 gay pride celebration in Jamaica indicates some of the legacy of this murder, and provides a more recent "as of" date.
-
- I've incorporated this source into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Other
- I think the "Early life" section is inappropriately titled; not everything in this section applies to Jones's "early" life.
- I've gone with "Jones' biography" but am of course open to any other suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Following up on that, the information buried in the footnote about terminology and choice of gender pronouns is not something that should be buried in a footnote.
- I felt that the note was the best place for this particular information, given that it reflects a division in the way that Jones' gender identity has been perceived, and thus I didn't want to bring too much confusion into the lede itself. However, I am happy to discuss this issue further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- You call J-FLAG "the country's only LGBT rights organization", but I don't think that's true. Despite my misgivings about the weight offered to Quality of Citizenship Jamaica, it also offers itself forward as a LGBT rights organization.
- True; I have altered the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
In general, I'm neutral regarding promotion here. This article's really light on background, for one thing. Sure, the context behind the "batty boy" insult is there for readers who follow the link, but there's no context given here. No indication that this event was one that actually got media attention, amidst an environment that Time in 2006 considered potentially "the most homophobic place on Earth" (and then the 2015 [follow-up article] that mentions Jones in passing via link). There are other media sources that place the event in a wider context of violence, too (I'm not 100% sold on the RS-status of that link, but, then again, Time linked to it, so...). And it's not original research to provide a contextual background; even sources you're already citing, like Palesh Ghosh, explicitly draw links between the murder and cultural elements like Buju Banton's "Boom Bye Bye". But all of that is at least a link away from the reader. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments Squeamish Ossifrage; thus far, I have acted upon a number of them and believe that the article is definitely better as a result. A lot of your comments focus on the idea of expanding this article to offer a broader coverage of the problems faced by LGBT people in Jamaica. This was something that I was cautious about doing. On the one hand I tried to set the killing within its wider societal context, while at the other I didn't want to be accused of engaging in Original Research and Synthesis. I'm happy to add in a few further mentions of things like Buju Banton's song, but at the same time I am wary about overloading this article with too much background context. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Squeamish Ossifrage: I have added a new sub-section on "Anti-LGBT sentiment in Jamaica" in which I have covered much of the background information that you believed to be deserving of inclusion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- Check for BrEng vs. AmEng spelling; for instance, search for ise/ize and or/our.
- I'm standardised the spelling in Jamaican English (which is closer to BrEng spelling). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Support on proseper standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)- In the last section, Reactions, there are too many quotations, and a potential issue of tone. I wouldn't go so far as to say there's an NPOV issue ... it's not like there are pro-murder and anti-murder RSs. FAC loves sedate history articles. You can't write an article about a recent murder of a teen and expect that the tone is going to be sedate ... but something could probably be done to take it down a couple of notches. I'm not going to make the call on this though, I don't see that as my job here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Added: in the last section only. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Switching to Oppose, for now. Sorry to do this to you MBO ... because I love the article ... and I'm even more sorry because we're always looking for new and interesting articles at TFA, and this one qualifies. After reading Wug's comments, your reactions, and the article again, I think my initial assessment was wrong. I think the only reasonable interpretation of the writer's intent in the long Reaction section is to editorialize, not to inform the reader about the aftermath of the murder. It's too long and too loud, and talks about too many things unrelated to the murder, to support any other interpretation. (Knowing that Jamaicans are "typically guilty of many other Biblical sins" doesn't inform us, it merely insults Jamaicans.) As an editorial, it's great, and I applaud your work. But currently, the tone is wrong for a Feature Article. I'll defer to other reviewers on the question of what needs cutting, the only thing I feel sure of is that it's too much. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Dank What do you think some good steps to remedy it would be? After reading through your comment and giving a closer read to the section, I'm inclined to agree with you about the neutrality. I do agree that it would be an interesting FA, so how do you think the neutrality should be addressed so MBO can get the article up to quality soon? I'm personally inclined to reducing the length of the section and more paraphrasing; I don't think every organization that spoke out needs their statement quoted. I'm not a fan of the pull quote but I address that further down. Other ideas? Wugapodes (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer a light touch at FAC since I wear a hat at TFA ... that is, I don't want people to think they have to please me at FAC to earn a fair hearing at TFA. I agree with everything you just said, and I don't like "typically guilty of many other Biblical sins". I'd talk less about how unsympathetic and wrong-headed Jamaicans are, do more paraphrasing, take the tone down a couple of notches, and aim for a summary of the reactions to the murder. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dank What do you think some good steps to remedy it would be? After reading through your comment and giving a closer read to the section, I'm inclined to agree with you about the neutrality. I do agree that it would be an interesting FA, so how do you think the neutrality should be addressed so MBO can get the article up to quality soon? I'm personally inclined to reducing the length of the section and more paraphrasing; I don't think every organization that spoke out needs their statement quoted. I'm not a fan of the pull quote but I address that further down. Other ideas? Wugapodes (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
So that's two votes for support and one of neutrality; can we get any other opinions or will this article have to go in for a fourth round of FAC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've added it to the FAC Urgents list. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Earwig's showing up some false positives due to (correctly attributed) quotes.
Overall, I feel mixed. I think the prose is fine in that there are no deal-breakers or clangers left and it is an engaging read. I too worry about the lack of personal life, however I note that some discussion (and I presume search) has taken place with no success, and that I have seen other homicide cases recently in popular press where the personal/family details are lacking. Hence, do I think there are any specific improvements to be made? Probably not, so its a tentative support from me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Coord note -- this has been open a while but given one "tentative" support and one on prose only, I think this needs more eyes before we can consider promotion, so I've re-added to the FAC Urgents list; also you might want to request image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose:; thanks Ian - is there a place where I can post a request for the image and source reviews or should I approach specific editors in particular? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Midnightblueowl: There's a spot at the top of WT:FAC for such requests. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Wugapodes
Support In general a very well done article. There are two problems that I think should be fixed but they're minor and honestly I would probably still support if not changed. I'm very glad to see our coverage of LGBTQ+ topics improving and hope this does better than the last two times around. Anyway, my main issues are the subsection headings under the "Background" section and the pull-quote towards the end.
- Each paragraph gets its own subsection heading which isn't really considered good practice per MOS:Paragraphs.
-
- A fair point, but the two paragraphs in question are devoted to quite different subjects. In my opinion, merging them into a single section would present a new problem potentially more serious than that which currently faces us. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The second one is I tend to find pull-quotes rather non-neutral. They give a place of prominence to a particular view and since this quote isn't particularly material to the murder itself (it's not something the victim said, it's not something a party to the crime said, not something the police said) I feel like it maybe shouldn't be included. The metric I guess would be why would you choose a pro-LGBTQ+ organization's quote over an anti-LGBTQ+ organization's quote? Not to say you should include the latter, but both sides have particular biases and this pull quote gives one particular view a prominent place in the them in this article.
-
- The pull quote used features a statement provided by Human Rights Watch, who are a fairly prominent international organisation and whose analysis of the situation carries some weight and importance. For that reason I do support the quote box's continued inclusion in the article. Were we to have comparable quotes from anti-LGBT voices included in the reliable sources then I would definitely have included them within the article, to ensure a balanced and fair representation of those sources. As it is, however, I was unable to find any such quotes within the reliable sources themselves. In those instances where reliable sources did make reference to anti-LGBT commentary on the murder – for instance through social media – then I did make mention of them in the article body, but these were not quoted sufficiently to warrant their placement in a special quotebox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Best of luck, and if you want to discuss either point, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments and your support, Wugapodes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm changing to neutral. Sorry that this seems like a pile-on, but I do think Dan is right to say the response section is too editorialized for FA. It's compelling prose which is great, but it feels WP:UNDUE perhaps. There's just a lot of quotes from one side of the spectrum that take up half the article length. I suggested above that perhaps if the length of the response section were cut down it would help. And paraphrase the quotes rather than outright quoting them. I also still think the pull-quote should be removed or changed. If you want to talk about how the murder fits into the broader history of LGBTQ+ persons inJamaica, I think that should be done in the prose not in a pull quote. I don't oppose promotion as I don't think these problems are that large, but I don't think I fully took into account the neutrality of the section before supporting (I'm also willing to say personal bias probably caused me to not notice some issues the first time around). I look forward to these issues being addressed and me being able to support again. Wugapodes (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Featured article reviews
This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. |
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
- Notified: WikiProject Women writers
- WP:URFA nom
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's listed at WP:URFA. It's taken me a while, mostly due to RL commitments, to check it for sources and to improve its prose, but I feel it's ready for an FAR. I haven't notified any other users, since I'm the main editor of this article, although I did notify the appropriate wikiproject. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Psittacosaurus
- Notified: FunkMonk, WikiProject Extinction, WikiProject Palaeontology, WikiProject Dinosaurs, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- WP:URFA nom
I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted on the talk page the article requires update and clarification of content that appears to contradict recent sources, as well as copyediting and clarification of at least one incidence of weasel words. DrKay (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think the entire List of Psittacosaurus species could be converted into prose, subsections removed, and merged here. Size-wise, there's not much reason for it to be separate. Could bulk up the discovery and classification sections. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, that species list should probably be merged. We don't have lists for other genera that have multiple species, so Psittacosaurus shouldn't be the exception. The reconstruction of P.mongoliensis seems kind of bad compared to the P.sibericus reconstruction, so maybe we should swap it out for something a bit better-looking? Raptormimus456 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- DrKay, the issues you mentioned on the talk page are "There is one part that says "it has been suggested" but doesn't say who suggested it. There is also a mixture of American and British spelling." I have fixed the first issue. What other issues are still not fixed that you can think of? Any thought on whether the list should be merged? FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- There is no opposition to a merge. How can the discrepancy between "400 individuals" in the article and "1000 specimens" in Sandy's source be addressed? Do "specimens" and "individuals" mean different things, i.e. can you have more than one specimen from an individual? DrKay (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that most of these specimens are not scientifically described/documented, and are stored in various obscure Chinese museums, so an exact number would be impossible to determine (and is not really crucial to have here anyway). Many specimens are also privately owned, and outside the reach of scientists. The case is similar with many other Chinese dinosaur species. I think the best solution would just be to write "hundreds". In theory, you can have several specimens from a single individual (different parts of the skeleton can have different museum specimen numbers, for example), but that is unlikely to be the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no opposition to a merge. How can the discrepancy between "400 individuals" in the article and "1000 specimens" in Sandy's source be addressed? Do "specimens" and "individuals" mean different things, i.e. can you have more than one specimen from an individual? DrKay (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Enceladus
- Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy
- WP:URFA nom
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
comments from Graeme Bartlett
- I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
- One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
- Another is related, the auroral hiss[16].
- referencing improvements required:
The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN."Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit."Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source."Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release"'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015 publisher=Space.com"A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007"Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date."Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update, done with a few notes:
- 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
- The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.
- I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have struck the confirmed fixed refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update, done with a few notes:
- Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17- There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×)
Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)Cassini 's has a non printing character before apostrophe(due to use of {{'s}})Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon'sE-ring should be E-RingWe have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm3 (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres(It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=usUsing m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully."Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe" —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)- I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)
- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.
- Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Banff National Park
- Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Geology
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Weak close.I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems.Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial.Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that too. I've asked for help at WikiProject Geology for the geology section. Pinging User:MONGO and User:Aude. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Featured article removal candidates
The Illuminatus! Trilogy
Criteria of concern are prose and reliability. On prose, there are many single-sentence paragraphs. On reliability, there are dead links, fansites, and unsourced sentences, including "joke typical of the trilogy", "new lease of life to flagging sales", "they suggest closely resembles the face of Weishaupt", "authors are well aware that it also provides an excuse for mere titillation", "books espouse the use of mind-altering substances to achieve higher states of consciousness", "trademark of Wilson's writing", and "Interest in Lovecraft reached new heights in 1975". It is not clear whether the quote from Leary (sourced to the trilogy's blurb) is a real quote or one made up by the trilogy's authors. DrKay (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Review section
FARC section
Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Walter Model
- Notified: Hongooi, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history
I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted on the talk page last year it is tagged for citation in many places, some of which contain peacock and weasel words such as "his audacity and improvisational skills (and the tactical ineptness of the Russians) had brought him rich rewards", "he felt great displeasure towards officers bearing the red trouser-stripe", "meteoric rise" and "His stubbornness, energy and ruthlessness were more qualities that Hitler found admirable, and Model's blunt and direct manner of speaking also made an impression". These examples are also typical of some of the prose employed in the article, which is not dispassionate or idiomatic, such as "he gave the U.S. 12th Army Group a bloodied nose". In places, the prose is also overcomplicated, such as "The statement that he was no strategist can be agreed to because the conditions for that existed for no general in the Third Reich". DrKay (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment As a quick comment, the article notes that Model expected to be prosecuted for very large scale war crimes following the war, but his involvement in these is never discussed. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Review section
FARC section
Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Second Malaysia Plan
- Notified: Johnleemk, Nakon, Borisblue, WikiProject Malaysia
- WP:URFA nom
There are some unsourced statements such as "Due to this wide disparity ... improving the economic status of the Malays" and "new conundrum was therefore considered". The article is heavily reliant on a single source that was written in 1977, calling into question whether the criterion 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") is met. The phrase "It was also alleged by some" should attribute the allegations to specific persons or organizations. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Review section
- Move to FARC. One source added, but problems above largely unaddressed. DrKay (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Belarusian Republican Youth Union
- Notified: Zscout370, WikiProject Belarus, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Socialism
- WP:URFA nom
There is an update tag on one section, and when I tried to address it I couldn't verify the article content. The dead links and age of the material also indicate that the article needs updating on a broader scale. The latest information in the article is from 2006, which is almost ten years ago. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Review section
FARC section
Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Arthur Percival
- Notified: Singaporean wikipedians' noticeboard, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Military history. Main author and nominator inactive since 2013
- WP:URFA nom
Several paragraphs and sentences are unattributed [I've marked two but there are others], some of which contain potentially controversial statements, including "difficulties with his subordinates", "Bennett was full of confidence, but faced a mixed reaction", "Percival threw away potential advantages", "restrained rather than self-serving", and "Unusual for a British lieutenant-general". DrKay (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Review section
FARC section
Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to today's FA standards. Meant to put it up for review earlier after leaving commentary on the talk page, but somehow forgot until now. Anyway, this is how it currently compares against the FA criteria:
- 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
-
- No major problems, but could be better. For example, I feel that "Lisa Haines of BBC Music referred to the song as" could be something like "Lisa Haines of BBC Music called the song" or "Lisa Haines of BBC Music described to the song as", and "Ben Wener told Stefani that the song was disingenuous and 'absurd'" would probably be better as "Ben Wener criticized the song as disingenuous and 'absurd'".
- 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
-
- Almost. The music video section doesn't contain any reviews, and it feels incomplete to just list live performances without any commentary or detail other than the names of events.
- 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
-
- Absolutely not. The "live performances", "use in visual media", and "track listings" sections are completely uncited. That alone would automatically fail the GA criteria if nominated today. There are also some dead links, and I'm not sure if "Rebel Waltz" (one of the dead links) or "Neumu" are reliable. ATRL is a forum and definitely not reliable, and neither is Jason Shawhan's About.com review per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table. Video director and theme also need references. Not sure why "Above deck Stefani, the Harajuku Girls, Eve, and more pirates dance on the deck and rigging. Stefani is also seen dancing with the Harajuku Girls in a treasure trove, often carrying a sword, and swinging from an anchor. When the girls dunk the toy ship in a fish tank, the galleon engages in cannon fire, causing Stefani and the pirates to fall all over the ship, and Stefani and the Harajuku Girls are soon shipwrecked." is unreferenced when other music video bits are cited. Since its reception and composition seem to rely heavily on album reviews, more reviews dedicated specifically to the song would be helpful.
- 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
-
- Looks good.
- 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
-
- Seems OK.
- 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
-
- No. It fails to take into account the music video, genres, and what critics said about the song. It also doesn't name any of the nations where it charted in the top ten.
- 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
-
- As far as I can tell, there are no problems here.
- 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
-
- Not exactly. There are a few bare URL's, and some references contain the publishing companies for works (a practice that became largely deprecated this past January) while others don't. "The" is not part of the title for Orange County Register, "Top40-Charts.com" should read simply Top40-Charts, and "top40web.nl" should just be "Top 40 Web".
- 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
-
- Almost. File:RichGirl1.jpg is rather blurry, and I'm on the fence as to whether File:RichGirlSheetMusic.png or File:Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song - sample).ogg are particularly beneficial. The audio sample is currently 24 seconds long when it should not exceed 23.6 seconds (10% of the song's length) per WP:SAMPLE. All images have appropriate licensing.
- 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
-
- No excess detail detected.
The edition that passed for FA in June 2007 wasn't exactly ideal and is not something I would've supported if reviewing at the time, but to be fair, the criteria was less demanding back then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
- Criteria of concern are 1b and 1c: comprehensiveness and verifiability, and 2a and 2c: lead and consistent citations. Note that two of the unsourced sections have been removed. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delist while no longer an automatic fail since there's only one unsourced section, there overall hasn't really been any effort to bring this up to FA standards based on my concerns listed above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Pulaski Skyway
- Notified: WikiProject Bridges, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, the following issues were left unresolved with a project-level consensus that this article should be reviewed here.
- There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
- There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
- The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
- There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.
I left a notice on the article talk page on September 27, and nothing changed with respect to the article, so it's time to move things here. The account for the original FA nominator (SPUI) has been inactive for years, so notifying that editor is a futile endeavor. I am placing the customary notifications on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages. Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I will rehash the points I brought up at the ACR that touch upon the issues with the article, which include many minor and some major issues:
- "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
- "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.
- The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
- "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
- Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
- Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
- Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
- I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
- "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
- The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
- Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
- The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
- "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
- The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
- "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
- "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
- References 3 and 103 are dead links.
- The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
- Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
- Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
- Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
With regard to suggestions above:
- "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
Not doneCategory:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type
- "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.
Not doneLandmark aptly describes the structure, designated by NRHP, and referred to as such:http://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-old-pulaski-rollercoaster-will-continue-to-ride-1.415651?page=all
- The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining
- "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ
- Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
Done link to Route 1 Extension covers topic in appropriate article
- Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
Done countless road articles, including most in Category:FA-Class U.S. Highway system articles route description mention places w/o references; why here? Many appear to be from observations taken from maps and satellite imagery; info is pertinent, while pertinent, is non-esstenial, thus parenthetical. Nonetheless refs added.
- Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
Not doneWould seem to add unessential information into an already long article. An exit list has been previously deleted by consensus:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulaski_Skyway&diff=389106688&oldid=389090659
- I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
Not done please do so, though
- "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"
- The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written
- Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
Done removed
- The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
Done fixed
- "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence
Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with Wikipedia:DATED
- The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
Done split
- "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
Done fixed
- "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
Done fixed Per source: "Construction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet." at end of the same added
- References 3 and 103 are dead links.
Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link
- The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
DoneMap focus supports statement: Google Maps includes the Route 139 eastern approach.Google (October 16, 2010). "Jersey City, NJ" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 16, 2010.
- Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
Done location= Hoboken, NJ added
- Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
Done removed
- Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source.
Done removed Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll reiterate that everything above is ignoring some fundamental issues with the article, and unless those issues are discussed, we're just doing work to text that will end up trimmed, summarized or even outright deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 09:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- With regard to above:
- There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
but bit of a non-issue since many FA articles are continually be edited such, as Statue of Liberty, a FA with lt more hits than Pulaski Skyway, has had 120 revisions since October 2014; this article has had 56; but the point is, especially since you mention:
- There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
which would make sense since that time, the specifics of it the reconstruction have come to light as has the political backlash for it's funding
- The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
which which is long and would make sense since, as mentioned above, Pulaski Skyway#Rehabilitation covers a $billion reconstruction of the which is no small undertaking; it covers the reasons why it's being rebuilt, how it's being re-built, the alternatives to traffic while it's being re-built, and the political scandal that springs from the funding. While there is no WP:UNDUE issues (do you contend that there are differing points of view about the facts being presented/), can you be specific as to why it is too long and what should be removed?
- There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues,
but the last edit made by that person was in April 2014: 140 revisions ago & the work has greatly changed since then.
Your statements, while clear, do not address improvements to the article with regard to content, style, and structure. Without specific concerns as to what appears Wikipedia:Published in the Wikipedia:Namespace, there seems little to be done with your concerns. Can you please state exactly what is wrong with the with the article in regard to Wikipedia:Content policies Djflem (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. The paragraph on tolls looks incomplete: the last sentence should have a source or explain why tolls were not implemented. I'm not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue, given that not much appears to have happened in the history of the skyway: it was built, it stood, cars drove over it, it was shut for repairs, etc. Once the design and construction is covered, there's only a limited amount one can write about what happened during its years of use. As work on the article seems to have stalled, without obvious consensus on the article's status, I think we have to move to declarations. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is unclear why you have moved this to FARC. The article is not stalled. You will note that where specific issues have been brought up, they have been addressed. Other commentary has been about "concerns" which have not been articulated in a way that express any reasoning for what the specific problem/solution is or have been thoughts or opinions based on personal taste. Other observation and broad generalisations have not been constructive or instructive about making improvements to the article. As seen above, the editor who suggested other changes has been asked to clarify on this page what their wishes are and to react to responses given to those wishes. (By the way, those concerns were never brought to the article talk page, where they should been hashed-out. They were presented as an afterthought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, a closed discussion was posted there). The editor has time to do so, so the lack of response IS consensus. I have waited for answers to questions as to how to handle statements for which are no sources to verify, but none have been forthcoming, and therefore, they have been removed. Any discussion about the claims about UNDUE cannot be talked about without there being an rationale as why they are being made, which has not been offered, thus not fulfilling the criteria for a to proceed from FAR to FARC.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - While many of the minor concerns I brought up were addressed, there are still major concerns with the article that need to be touched upon for this to remain a FA, including the undue weight given to the rehabilitation, unsourced information, and poor structure. Since it seems no one wants to address the major issues, we need to move this article to FARC. Dough4872 15:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- You will have to be more specific than the vague statement you have made above as you are stating opinion, but not backing it up with anything substantive. It appears most the items you brought up have been dealt with. Others are just a matter of preference for a writing style, which is a perogative. Please explain which issues are not addressed and why they should be, particularly in regard to the following. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section. Please explain why it would be better to present the material as you propose; otherwise your claims of improvement cannot be considered constructive. Also, please explain what and why you find the rehabilitation section has undue weight, citing exactly what you are talking about, as is stated above you have not "not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue".Djflem (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Move to FARC—the only progress here so far is some minor polishing and window dressing, yet substantive issues related to weight of coverage remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any interest in tackling those substantive issues, so I don't foresee this remaining as a FA at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 19:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Don't move to FARC Inappropriate at this time since no explanation, justification, or rationale has been given to any of the claims made re:substantive issues on this or Talk:Pulaski Skyway. As stated per Wikipedia:Featured article review
The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
- This has not happened. Firstly, there is conflict with regards to [[Wikipedia:UNDUE as there are no opposing point of view about the simple facts presented. Further, the comments made do not provide for changes that are actionable, as explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions. Djflem (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
@Djflem: we generally only conclude Review sections as Keep if it is striaghtforward. Moving it here doesn't mean it is demoted, but it can undergo a more protracted editing period to ensure it gets sufficient time to be worked on (sometimes months...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's clear. So why move an article it to FARC if the review is not complete? If there are concerns they should be expressed by those who have them in such a way that other editors can address them, no? Djflem (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The main substantive criticism was the weight of the more recent section, but as I said above, I'm not convinced that the section is undue, given that the skyway has little history to describe other than its construction and repair. The other points raised are essentially arguable either way. I do think that the article is weak because it introduces material, such as the bill to raise tolls, but then doesn't build on or explain that. I suspect that the bill failed and so that's why tolls were never introduced but this is left hanging in the article because there are no sources (that I can find) that actually tell us what happened next. Similarly, we are told that in 1952 some trucks drove onto the skyway, but the paragraph covering that basically sits by itself and doesn't fit easily into the narrative flow, in my opinion. This style of writing can be typical of more esoteric topics, because there is so little material to gather, the article ends up being a hash of individual snippets rather than a flowing story. I am not saying that this material should be cut, only that the subject matter does not lend itself easily to good prose. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Peru
- Notified: Victor12, Materialscientist, Peru Wikiproject
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article no longer meets the standards.
- The history has become too long and with focus on random areas (such as Inca worship and Fujimori inflation statistics).
- Citations are missing from several parts of the article. For example, foreign relations and military sections.
- Too much focus is placed on unimportant topics, such as water supply and sanitation, making for a terrible structure.
- The reference formats are too inconsistent.
- Demographic statistics are of dubious neutrality, especially when considering the complex racial structure of the country.
- Too many images, causing excessive text sandwiching.
- The article is wordy as a whole and does not follow WP:Summary guidelines.
These are just a few of the many problems in the article. Unfortunately, it no longer meets the criteria for FA status.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see where you have followed step 1 of the FAR process (raising issues directly on the talk page and giving editors a chance to respond). --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hi Laser! Good to see you again. I made a comment on several of these same issues back in July 2014 ([17]), these include: the references, the use of images, the increasing use of text contrary to summary guidelines. None of these points were addressed at the time, despite promises by an editor working in the article to do so, and the article has fallen under further disarray. Victor12, the editor who had the most extensive knowledge of the topic, as well as being the article's original FA nominator, seems to have stopped editing Wikipedia (except for a few, minor and sporadic edits)—at this time, nobody is addressing other important points raised in the talk page ([18] and [19]).
- I'd volunteer to work on the article and fix it, but have no time at present (in addition to being tied to an AN/I issue that is taking away what is left of my free time in WP). The article's FA status may be giving the wrong impression to potential editors who can help it. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
Moved here as no action for one week since DrKay's comment above. Article's length as such is 36 kb readable prose, which is within generally accepted article size limits. Outstanding concerns are five dead links, and unreferenced segments. Image rationalisation may be needed as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delist. Unsourced statements include, but are no means limited to, "resistance was suppressed when the Spaniards annihilated [the Incas]", "the church came to play an important role in the acculturation of the natives", "massive native depopulation", and "reduced the power, prominence and importance of Lima". Entire paragraphs have no sources, or are sourced to "discover-peru.org" and "allempires.com", which do not appear to meet the criterion for high-quality reliable sources. Potentially non-neutral statements without counter-balancing comments include "people were forcefully converted", "the church employed the Inquisition, making use of torture", "marred by atrocities", "symbols of the human rights violations", and comparing "free and fair" elections with "tainted" ones without providing a source. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I hadn't noticed it, but the Black Legend is heavy in the article.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delist many unsourced statements and even completely uncited paragraphs throughout the article. Simply not up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Tamils
Also note: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil people
- Notified: Vadakkan, Sundar, Subramanian, Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Dravidian civilizations, Wikiproject Tamil civilization
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review. The article has been a prime candidate for FAR since 2010 and at that time Dana boomer and I had some discussion on getting this here. However, I didn't follow through on time. We've had posts about some of the problems on the talk page: Nov 2010, Oct 2013, Talk:Tamils#Featured Article Review. The major issues include (a)quality of sources used within the article, (b)image use -- while copyright vios are a regular concern, the random use of images without context is also a problem (c)Undue weight to certain aspects, including synthesis of information from external sources, (d) some copyvios have been inserted into the article and have stayed in for a while (a deeper check is still needed). I have also started a deeper source evaluation here; hoping it would be ready by the time we go to FARC. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was hoping this would get some comments. Personally I don't think this is an easy fix, the history is complex and over the years a lot of unsourced content has been dropped in front of references. There's a lot of OR and POV stuff that's being edit warred over even during this review.—SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. Sourcing, stability and copyright problems. A couple of years ago, I tried to fix up Azerbaijanis and eventually gave up after a large amount of work because it proved to be a wasteful time sink. This article appears to be suffering in a similar way, and I doubt it will be possible to fix it through this process. DrKay (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment Got to know about the FAR just today. Agree, the quality of the article has come down in the recent years. May I ask to kindly allow a reasonable period of time? —Vensatry (ping) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
I note recent editing by blocked users. The articles's size and broadness/complexity means it needs a detailed FARC to come though with its star intact. Concerns are fidelity to sourcing, stability and risk/presence of copyvios. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's only one part of the whole mess. If you see this revert of mine (since reinserted) you'll notice how some of the POV nonsense is taking over the article:
- "The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka reflected some elements of Tamil martial traditions which included worship of fallen heroes (Maaveerar Naal) and practice of martial suicide. They carried a Suicide pill around their neck to escape the captivity and torture."
- "A remarkable feature besides to their willingness to sacrifice is, that they were well organized and disciplined. It was forbidden for the rebels to consume tobaccos, alcohols, drugs and to have sexual relationship."
- It is really unfortunate as this is a subject that has significant scholarly study, but over the past three to four years the article has become a place to promote fringe perspectives and most editors who've been interested in maintaining this article have simply given up. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delist. Unsourced statements from February 2011; dead external links from August 2015; apparently unsourced weasel words, such as "what is considered to be folk Hinduism"; mixture of American and British spelling; inclusion of material in the lead that is not found in the article body. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Vensatry: Any update here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Sorry for the delay in getting back. I don't think I'll be able to repair this article in the given time frame. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Georg Forster
- Notified: Kusma, WP Libraries, WP Germany, WP Plants, WP Journalism, WP Birds
- URFA nom.
Review section
This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has uncited text and some MOS issues, as mentioned on talk in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe in the future you could ping the appropriate projects, rather than just putting a comment on the talk page and hoping someone might notice? We didn't know there was a problem until you pinged us today with news of the review. :P Will see what I can do. MeegsC (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm thrilled to see people descending on the article for improvements, even though the talk page notice was ignored for more than two weeks, indicating that we had another older unwatched FA. Meegs, your suggestion is impractical for many reasons, which we could take up at WT:FAR (so as not to muck up this page) if you are interested. Please keep in mind that one of the main objectives of FAR is to improve articles, and being here is not a "punishment". Also, I hope you've noted from the FAR instructions that we can KEEP without FARC, which is an outcome that delights most of us here ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am a bit busy IRL these days, and do not have much wikitime to dedicate to this right now, especially not without a bit more detail on what is wrong. As I haven't kept track of everything that happened at MOS: could you point me to the major issues that you see? Also, not every sentence is followed by an inline citation, but if you could tell me where you would expect additional citations I am happy to go hunting through my Forster biographies. Sadly, my current university library doesn't seem to have a copy of Saine's biography, but I'll see what I can do. —Kusma (t·c) 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes-- happy to see people willing to work here! I will start a list, not yet comprehensive, and add to it as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your list. I'll try to improve the messiness. Fortunately, there actually are page numbers in most citations to Saine's biography, but they are visible only in the wikitext, not in the displayed result. I do not recall why this is the case and whether they used to be displayed when the article passed FA. On the whole, the article has been quite stable since it became a FA, but I certainly agree it no longer looks like the best we can do. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes-- happy to see people willing to work here! I will start a list, not yet comprehensive, and add to it as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- spaced WP:EMDASHes ... the article should use either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes.
- What is the order of the Works section? Alpha, chrono?
- Book sources need page nos.
- Citations do not have a consistent style (as but one example, look at the many different ways author names are rendered)
- Citations are incomplete or incorrently written. All sources need a publisher, all websources need an accessdate, and author and date should be supplied whenever available, also ...
- [2], English translation at australiaonthemap.org.au (archived link, 19 July 2008) needs to be cleaned up to a correct citation.
- Check image captions (for example, The Pinnacle of liberty, A satire by James Gillray)
- Italics should not be used here, and I'm wondering if this can be reversed (that is, put the English version, with a footnote to the original ???) ("The freedom of the press finally reigns within these walls where the printing press was invented.) See WP:NONENG. That is one sentence: I don't think it needs a pull quote, but Maralia may know better.
- There's sort of a mess everywhere in terms of WP:ITALICS in relation to words as words, translations, quotes, etc:
- called "Freunde der Freiheit und Gleichheit" ("Friends of Freedom and Equality")
- Avoid WP:OVERLINK on common terms known to most English speakers and not needed for understanding of this article (samples, Latin, England, philosophy, there is more) and link on first occurrence.
This is not a complete list, but is enough to get started. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment
- Fixed all dead links, captions and a few overlinks.
- Improved dash-usage (opted for spaced en-dash), but this will need another look (especially in refs).
- WP:ITALICS, "page numbers and other ref details", and "sorting of works" in a meaningful way is above my paygrade.
- I could try to transform references into cite-templates - if nobody is objecting against that citation style. Only a minority of references use cite-templates currently. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Move to FARC to keep on progress. Is anyone willing/able to finish this up? There are still inconsistent citations, minor amounts of united text, italics issues (e.g. quotes), and Overlinking, at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am still giving this 100% of my wikitime, but that hasn't been much at all (travelling, work, sick kids). I hope I'll get through the citations next week. —Kusma (t·c) 06:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kusma; I will be traveling for a few weeks if you don't hear back from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am still giving this 100% of my wikitime, but that hasn't been much at all (travelling, work, sick kids). I hope I'll get through the citations next week. —Kusma (t·c) 06:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Kusma: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Back from the dead (marking exams and other business meaning no wikitime at all), back to normal not-enough wikitime. Will report on progress as it happens, hopefully during July. —Kusma (t·c) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am having difficulties with the "Works" section, it is a completely random mess in my opinion. I am uncertain how to best approach it between OR and copyvio concerns. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why not just remove the works section then? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would anybody object if it is gone? —Kusma (t·c) 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I can't believe I am saying that, but the list should stay imo. Granted, it is a bit messy and borderline-useless for most average readers, but someone interested in in-depth research about Forster may find the information useful. I trimmed a few entries with no conceivable immediate usage and sorted the list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- It does look a lot better (thank you!) and does not compare too poorly to some other Works section in FA-class biographies. Something like Charles Darwin bibliography, while desirable, should not be necessary here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I can't believe I am saying that, but the list should stay imo. Granted, it is a bit messy and borderline-useless for most average readers, but someone interested in in-depth research about Forster may find the information useful. I trimmed a few entries with no conceivable immediate usage and sorted the list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would anybody object if it is gone? —Kusma (t·c) 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Why not just remove the works section then? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am having difficulties with the "Works" section, it is a completely random mess in my opinion. I am uncertain how to best approach it between OR and copyvio concerns. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Back from the dead (marking exams and other business meaning no wikitime at all), back to normal not-enough wikitime. Will report on progress as it happens, hopefully during July. —Kusma (t·c) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up some of the more obvious problems with citations, switched to "surname, given name" format, and removed the optional publisher locations. Unfortunately several of the references include non-standard information and additional remarks, where I have no real clue how to improve them - or if it's even necessary. And I lack all of the older sources to add eventually missing details. Another look on the reference progress and additional advice would be great. I hope, we can give old articles a bit of leeway :), but can clean up some more if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
I have moved this here to clarify who thinks what about whether this article is kept or removed. So please comment here if you think it now meets FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - The notes are still a bit of a mess, with lots of problems in formatting and consistency. I'll start going through them as I have time, and then I'll do a read-through of the prose for any other problems. I'm hoping we don't have problems with missing page numbers from inaccessible sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be within criteria now. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Laser brain: can you let me know your feelings on the article now? I am keeping a coordinator hat on so I can close this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
O-Bahn Busway
- Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard
- URFA nom
- Talk page notice Jan 2015
Review section
This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
- The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Delist- This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)- Hold, improving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am going to be traveling and may not have internet access (don't know yet); once Maralia is satisfied, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hold, improving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Review
- Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
- Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
- Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
- Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
- Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
- Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
- Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
- The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
- Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
- The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
- instead of:
- Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
- In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
- More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
- There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
- is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
- On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
- Sentences should not start with numbers.
- Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
- Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
- These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
- No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
- Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
- And ???
In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Review response
Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.
- I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
- Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
- I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
- I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
- Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
- No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.
Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
-
- Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Update
- The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
- In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
- Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
- (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
- First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
- Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
- tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
- More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,
- Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007
- has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)
- Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007
- Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
- It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...
- Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)
- "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
- The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
- A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
- A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
- Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
- alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
- comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.
This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Maralia:, @DrKay:, fresh eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, getting better. I removed three external links (one was about transport in Adelaide generally; another was a personal website that had only 3 images; and the last literally did not mention the O-Bahn). I also took care of the rest of the citation formatting. Agree that some prose work is still needed, but this is getting close. I've struck my delist comment above. Thanks for your work, ScottDavis; just a little more tightening for clarity, along the lines of SG's "Prose" list immediately above. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: Thanks for taking care of the specific issues mentioned above. This is getting close to ready, but the prose isn't quite there yet. I undertook a major rewrite of the Planning section in an attempt to demonstrate a more logical flow. I still think this article would benefit from a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you @Maralia: I have read through and tweaked a few phrases, but I suspect I've reached the limit of my ability. The "Expansion proposals" section feels very long and somewhat incidental. It also seems to assume a fair bit of knowledge of Adelaide landmarks and geography. To someone reading from further away, does the article lose anything significant by deleting the heading and first three paragraphs of that section? --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems to have stalled, but while the issues with the original article at the time of its writing seem to generally have been fixed, I think it's out of date. There is no mention of the extension in the lede, and gets all of two sentences in the article, which seems drastically short since it's both politically controversial and probably the signature public transport policy of this term of the Weatherill government. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- My reason for not putting any more about the current proposal to extend is that it is currently still only a proposal. I agree there could be an update that there are now four versions of the proposal in 2015, but it doesn't belong in the lead until it is actually happening; there have been many other proposals that have not eventuated. The political controversy probably belongs just as much in Rymill Park or Weatherill government. I need help from someone else to polish the text further, as FA-standard text is not what I usually practice. --Scott Davis Talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can understand it not going in the lede on that basis, but there still needs to be more details in the relevant section of the article since it is a significant political issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no substantive delist votes remaining. DrKay (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments
- ozroads.com.au is a self-published source.
- Last two sentences of the second paragraph of Development not sourced
- First paragraph of Buses is not sourced
- The article would really benefit from a map of the route
- I would expect a more detailed route desription for the busway – from one end of it to the other, describe the direction it travels in, features it passes, type of development around it, suburbs it goes through, etc. See the route descriptions of Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway, Forrest Highway for some examples of how a route from point A to point B can be described – readers should be able have a basic idea of what a journey on the route is like.
- The Route table, which uses {{AUSinttop}}, can have an interchange column turned on. This will allow the location column to be used for the actual suburbs, which is its purpose.
- Does any reference show the distances ad being exactly 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 km? If not, don't use a false precision.
- Converted speed limits should be rounded to the nearest 5 – the extra precision doesn't serve any purpose for readers
- In terms of structure/organisation, I would usually put a description-type section first, before a history-type section. This allows readers, especially those not familiar with the subject or area, to understand more of and have some context of what is discussed in the history section.
- The lead is meant to summarise the article, and so there shouldn't be information in there that isn't in the rest of the article – I don't see O-Bahn etymology, passenger capacity, operated by Light-City Buses, and current passenger numbers elsewhere in the article.
- The lead seems quite short and an inadequate summary of the article – whole sections aren't mentioned at all (Effects on local development, Environment).
- Has an infobox been considered? {{Infobox rail line}} has some appropriate fields, and allows ones that aren't applicable to be skipped. The route diagram could also go in the infobox.
Those are the more major issues issues I can see – I haven't done a full check for MOS or other minor/copyediting issues. - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to attempt to address all of those at once tonight, but am making a start...
- OzRoads is a secondary reference for two points about the MATS plan, the text probably is suitable by just removing it, but they are offline sources difficult to access.
- It appears the unreferenced sentences were referenced until a significant copyedit in April seems to have just dropped the reference, so I have put it back.
- I've cited the first sentence of that paragraph, haven't found a WP:RS for the rest yet.
- I've tried making a few maps for Wikipedia, but my computer system is not really up to the job yet. I think the SA roads datasets has the relevant data with a suitable licence. I hope to get a suitable computer within 12 months.
- I've learned a new parameter for {{convert}} - thanks :-)
- Route table, lead and infobox can wait for another session.
- --Scott Davis Talk 14:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- @ScottDavis: and @Jj98:, do you feel you've covered all of @Evad37:'s issues raised above. I don't think leaving this open a few more weeks is a problem if we are in striking distance of keep territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nudge @Casliber:. I had thought I had addressed @Evad37:'s issues, but have made a couple of new edits to the lead section after looking with fresh eyes today. The "O-Bahn City Access Project" also now addresses comments from @SandyGeorgia: months ago, and @The Drover's Wife: before any certainty that the extension would go ahead this time. --Scott Davis Talk 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @ScottDavis: and @Jj98:, do you feel you've covered all of @Evad37:'s issues raised above. I don't think leaving this open a few more weeks is a problem if we are in striking distance of keep territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)