Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:20, 3 March 2013

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

The list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) .

British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has had a successful GA review and MilHist A-class review, and there might be a few relatively minor issues, but I'm reasonably confident that if it isn't quite at FA standard, it's very close. It's a relatively long article (c. 7,000 words), but I hope people will read it and find it interesting. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat

Comments by SchroCat
Lead

• Pipe Sierra Leone Army to Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces?
  • Specifically contra-indicated by WP:R2D, and the SLA could sustain an article of its own if somebody were to create one.
• Should that be "Sierra Leonean army"?
  • It should be, yes, just like it should be "Sierra Leonean Civil War", but both are the correct proper nouns.
    • Not a problem: that's just what we called them when I lived out there in the 70s & 80s (on the diamond fields, the cause of all this). - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

An excellent article in a topic and area of the world often overlooked. Only a couple of minor points, which struck me, but if you're happy with the way you have them I'm not going to argue. Well done on this: it may be long, but it's a very comprehensive and tightly put together article. – SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  

Support Very nice article indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review

- spotchecks not done

• Could we flip the order of general and specific refs?
  • Someone raised this at my last FAC and I don't see the problem, but if the current format really bugs people, I suppose I wouldn't fight over it.
• FN10, 14, 30: page formatting
  • All fixed.
• FN56: which Connaughton?
  • 2002.
• FN67, 99: punctuation
  • Fixed.
• Abrahamsen: check authors
  • Don't know what happened there.
• Connaughton 2002: missing location and publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And added. your attention to detail is much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dank

Comments

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• But see User_talk:Dank#However. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• I've just reviewed the nom's edits since I copyedited. I can't support, although it's not bad enough to oppose. If a copy editor wants to give it a look and ping me about anything, ping away. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Dan, you're a great copy-editor and I always appreciate your help with my articles, but not all the edits you made here were an improvement. I know you're trying to solve issues with readability and ambiguity, but some of your edits replaced one issue with another or introduced inaccuracies. Can we meet in the middle somewhere? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know, Harry, I'm sick today (which isn't helping my mood), I'll think about it tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I'll stay in the "neutral" column. When you reverted some of my changes, you reinstated a number of things that we don't usually allow at FAC, so I can't support, but you've got two supports already so you should be fine. The delegates and many reviewers will spot the problems and help out. I apologize, I've got two huge projects this month and I'm taking a break from reviewing and copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 10:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, I guess we're on our own here, Harry. I've made the following edits, let me know what doesn't work for you.
• "The SLA had been confined to barracks and had handed over most of its weapons in accordance with the Lomé Agreement, which led foreign diplomats in the country to estimate ...": "which" dangles, and the causation isn't clear. I went with: "After the SLA had been confined to barracks and had handed over most of its weapons in accordance with the Lomé Agreement, foreign diplomats in the country estimated ...". "After" conveys approximately the right sense and is more common at FAC for this usage.
  • My problem with this is that it seems to suggest that the RUF began their advance, then the SLA handed in it weapons, and that the "within a week" estimate is by the way. What I'm trying to convey is that the RUF were advancing and the SLA had already been disarmed sow ere incapable of stopping the RUF, and that is what prompted diplomats to estimate that the RUF could be in Freetown within a week. -HJM
• "The ARG en route, the paras": You haven't defined what a "para" is, and "The ARG en route" is called an "absolute construction"; like a WP:PLUSING construction, it's something that makes copyeditors stop and wonder if it might not be better to say explicitly what the connection is between that phrase and the rest of the sentence. I reverted back to my version.
  • That they were paratroopers or members of the Parachute Regiment isn't that important, so that can be changed to "soldiers" or similar; the parentheses suggest to me that they were able to deploy quickly because they were paratroopers rather than because they knew the ARG would be there shortly. -HJM
  • I really don't get the problem with "the ARG en-route". I think it's quite a common construction in British English and it makes perfect sense to me. -HJM
• "they were picked up by RAF Chinook and flown to Freetown": Constructions like "by helicopter" have more of the sense of an adverbial phrase than a noun phrase. That is, "She left by 4:15 to Paddington" is silly compared with "She left on the 4:15 to Paddington", and different people have different triggers for when it starts sounding silly; the more specific you are after "by", the sillier it gets. To be safe, let's treat it as a noun phrase, and while I'm here, let's get rid of the passive voice, too: "An RAF Chinook picked them up and flew them to Freetown".
  • I'm not wild about that but the meaning is the same so I can live with it. -HJM
• This reversion re-introduces a lot of problems, Harry:
  • "the only force" seems to be applied to a compound subject (i.e. plural in sense);
    • Precisely. The SLA joined forces with the "Unholy Alliance" and they effectively fought as a single force. -HJM
  • "however";
    • "However" isn't a dirty word; there are legitimate uses for it, and I think he wholesale removal of any individual word is something that should be discouraged. I can live with your re-write, but I preferred it the other way. -HJM
  • "in order" (twice, in close proximity);
    • You seem to have got both instances of "in order"; thanks -HJM
  • conciseness ("allowing re-arming of the SLA" already implies that it needed to be re-armed to effective, so you didn't need to say that separately ... consider using my "To restructure the SLA and allow it to re-arm"): the em-dash isn't wrong, but it adds emphasis that doesn't accomplish anything that I can see;
    • I'm happy enough with your version of this -HJM
  • and the "which" bit is tricky ... it appears to some to be nonrestrictive, but it's actually restrictive, so it needs "that" and no comma.
    • And you've got this as well.

Your best bet here might be to revert back to my version and then change only the things that you're sure need changing ... that will make it easier for me to see what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I did that, and I've tried to address the point in your edit summary with "This left the SLA and the alliance of militia groups ... the only forces ...". That gets us back to where I can support, but you had some concerns that I had introduced inaccuracies, and I'll be happy to look at those.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dan. I've left some comments inline. Please forgive me for breaking up your post a little but I needed to address some things individually and I'm already struggling to keep track of this page. I've signed my comments "-HJM" just so it's absolutely clear which comments are mine and which are yours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Fantastic, we may be done here. I see your point on "after the SLA"; I changed it to "since" and moved it. I took your suggestion and changed "paras" to "soldiers". I'm not saying that "the ARG en-route" is wrong, I'm saying that this and similar constructions (where a fact is tacked on without a conjunction or adverb that defines the relationship to the whole) make copyeditors stop and think, because these are spots where the probability goes up that something isn't clear, or could be made clearer. If my version is okay with you, then I'll leave it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with that. One last thing: I thought the "however" in front of Peter Hain, Minister of State for Africa, suggested... worked quite nicely. Could you live with it being re-added? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I can; could you live with "Nevertheless"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
          • "Nevertheless" doesn't really work for a rebuttal of criticism. We can discuss alternatives, but I can't think of one that doesn't use more words to say the same thing less tidily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
            • "However" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
              • Thanks, Dan, and thanks for all your help with the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D

Support I commented on this article's A class review, and think that the FA criteria are also met. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Image review

by FunkMonk (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a far better map for the infobox:
  • What's better about it?

The resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This image could use an info template on Commons: This is not an FA criterion, however.
• This image doesn't seem to have a clear source, though it claims to be made by the US gov:
  • It's from the CIA World Factbook; I think there's a template for that on Commons, but I'll have to search for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've fixed it on Commons now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• The rest looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ceoil

Support - Very impressive work. Read half during the week, the rest tonight. My interest was held through-out, though its a long page it does not go off topic and is consistently engaging. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

Just one sticking point for me, Harry: I've gathered that Operation Palliser was the code name for the large-scale intervention, especially since Operation Palliser redirects to this article, but the connection could be made clearer. The opening reads "The United Kingdom began a military intervention in Sierra Leone in May 2000. Although small numbers of British personnel had been previously deployed, Operation Palliser was the first large-scale intervention by British forces during the Sierra Leone Civil War." I think it'd help to alter this to "The United Kingdom began a military intervention in Sierra Leone in May 2000 under the code name Operation Palliser. Although small numbers of British personnel had been previously deployed, this was the first large-scale intervention by British forces during the Sierra Leone Civil War." or something along similar lines. Further, the first time Palliser is mentioned in the main body is in a section heading. I think we should be told before that point that the name of the operation was Palliser, with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I've got this for the most part. I've added an explicit mention of the codename in the "Operation Palliser" section, and suppose I could shoehorn a mention of the codename in earlier in the body, but I don't think it would work very well. "Palliser" was the codename for the original deployment (ostensibly for an evacuation), but not the entire intervention (which is why I redirected it to this article). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a section heading being the first mention of a codename—the same is true for the sections on Operation Khukri and Operation Barras. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's all fine now, tks Harry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) .

Kareena Kapoor

Kareena Kapoor Khan is an Indian actress who appears in Bollywood films. In July 2008, the article reached a GA status, and subsequently went on to have an unsuccessful FAC. Since then, a lot of hard work has gone into improving the article and bringing it to the place it is today. Now, I think it meets the FA criteria. Please leave your comments, and I'll be more than happy to address any of them. -- Bollywood Dreamz 02:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments

TIs is mostly mostly very good, but a few quibbles.

• Rs. 840 million—please use lakhs and crores, else Indians like me will need to do some mental math to understand. Non-Indians have the millions of dollars right next to it anyway.

Done

• since we have an abundance of free photos, why not use more? Around one for every sub-section would be nice. Try to add relevant captions, like about her "trademark" lips in Pubic image section.

To be honest, adding "around one for every sub-section" would unnecessarily increase the size of the article; I've only added images that help contribute to the article in some way. For example, the image of Kapoor with her mother and sister in the "Early life and background" section shows that the two women have played pivotal roles in her life. And this has been confirmed by Kapoor in several of her interviews. (I've added a new image in the "Public image and character" section discussing her trademark lips.)

• surprised there's no mention of her size zero and the ensuing controversy.

There wasn't really a so-called "controversy" about size zero. A lot was written about it by the media but other than that nothing much. Maybe we could say something like: "Kapoor's off-screen life has been subject to wide media coverage in India with frequent press coverage of her weight and diet."

• "would show more a more thoughtful"—huh?

I took that from the source without realizing the mistake they made. Fixed it.

• golden-hearted prostitute—I've heard of a hooker with a heart of gold, but is golden-hearted prostitute a common/acceptable phrase?

The description of her character in Chameli is taken from here; it is pretty much the same thing as "hooker with a heart of gold".

• subject of considerable critical analysis—source doesn't back this, and only talks of intense tabloid interest.

The source states: "While her choice of movies continues to range from interesting to objectionable, Kareena has mastered the art of balancing blockbusters with bloopers". In a way, it is critically analysed, but I'll try finding another source. (A new source was added as well as another one which already exists within the article.)

• total film count? Worth adding in the lead?
• over linking—villain, leading lady, Bangladeshi, Netherlands etc. please review throughout, and just these.

IMO, I really don't think we need to add her total film count; the same might apply to the over linking part. I agree that some of the terms like 'leading lady' or 'villain' do not need to be linked but others like 'Netherlands', etc do.

• Stage performances is just a smorgasbord of actors' names. I suggest removing all and replacing them with a "performing with several Bollywood contemporaries" to the first sentence.122.172.14.75 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We can't always say "performing with several Bollywood contemporaries"; it might get a bit too repetitive. As you can see that the section combines both (listing actors' names as well as several Bollywood stars).

Thank you for your comments. If possible I would recommend you to get a username—not only will this benefit me but you as well. -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Just a few initial comments now, more to come.

• In the lead, you should probably say "lesser-publicised independent films".

Done

• "Her melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.... What do you mean by "her melodrama"?

Tweaked

• In the lead, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham is mentioned as her "greatest" commercial success to date. I don't think "greatest" is the right word to use. Also, I don't see the point of mentioning that, because it was neither her first commercial success nor her biggest.

Tweaked. I agree that K3G wasn't her "first commercial success" but the reason why it is mentioned is because it was her first "worldwide" success. Also, prior to 3I, K3G was still her biggest success to date.

• The quote in the second line of the career section, "it was probably destined that I was not to be in the film. After all, it was a launch for his son. The whole focus was on the boy. Now I am glad I did not do the movie" would sound better if it were trimmed and written as part of the sentence.

Tweaked; removed the last part of the quote.

• In "...but these negative reviews motivated her to improve as an actress by accepting more demanding roles." can be changed to "...but these negative reviews motivated her to accept more demanding roles".

Done

• The sentence " The film depicts an online robbery and the Mumbai underworld in which her character, Neha Mehra, becomes involved." is confusing. What does she get involved in? The robbery or the underworld?

Tweaked

• "Omkara was embraced by critics...", not sure if "embraced" is the right word in this context for a dictionary.

Tweaked

• "Following Omkara Kapoor stopped acting for a short time.." does not sound right. How about "she took a short break" etc.

Done

• "She later described this period as a way of "finally getting to do the things I have always wanted to do"" Is this important? If yes, then it would be useful to elaborate on it. --smarojit 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed—now that I think of it, it was kind of redundant. -- Bollywood Dreamz 16:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A few quick style comments Support

• I see very many hacked up modified quotes. For example:

"were never officially divorced ... ... liv separately."

"n the best performance of her career so far, leads Mahi's character through the murky labyrinth of ambition, rivalry and self-destructive tricks of survival in the rat race. Though her character is inconsistent furnishes ... with a rare vulnerability and an exceptional inner life"

I think the second one is missing some ... before the , but why do this as opposed to either paraphrasing or quoting directly? It may look to the reader that you are trying to bend the quotes to your liking.

One of the main reasons why I "hacked up" quotes was because they were too long. I've made some adjustments (1st quote: Removing the modifications and sourcing it like a regular sentence; 2nd quote: Paraphrasing it and only quoting the last part.)

Good, but there are several others. Please scan the article for more places where the quotes can be simplified. BollyJeff | talk 16:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've simplified wherever it's needed. Let me know if you have any more concerns! -- Bollywood Dreamz 02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is one more: " the worst success ratio among her contemporaries Kapoor is effortlessly honest in her performances". The first and second parts are 6 paragraphs apart (not necessarily related), and the first two words are yours. Looks like it could be a form of cherrypicking, original research, or synthesis. BollyJeff | talk 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote and tweaked it. -- Bollywood Dreamz 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• This article seems to have a more liberal use of parenthesis in the text in places where I normally see commas. Intentional?

While copy-editing the article, User:Miniapolis felt that using parentheses would break up long sentences and hopefully make them easier to follow. I thought that made sense! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz 16:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also felt in some instances the parenthesis could be removed. Indeed I myself did so in one instance. Minniapolis is a very seasoned copy-editors, so I think we can stick to his/her suggestion unless someone objects.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Following the release of Heroine, Kapoor married Khan on 16 October 2012" There are some other Khans mentioned in this section, but not Saif Ali Khan (except in the heading). His name should definitely be spelled out fully in this spot.

Done -- Bollywood Dreamz 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• This may seem picky, but there are only 3 quotations that have the punctuation inside the quote vs around 40 that have it outside. According to the rules in MOS:LQ, it is likely that there should be more than just 3 of the former.

Done -- Bollywood Dreamz 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• All of the awards and nominations after 3 idiots are not covered by the source; I did not check the awards prior to that date. Maybe it is best not to rely on one source for all the awards. This link may help though: newer BH BollyJeff | talk 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That was the old BH link and I didn't realize that it didn't cover the newer awards/nominations. I have used the newer BH link to source all her new awards/nominations. -- Bollywood Dreamz 02:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments Support

The article is extremely interesting to read, but I am nitpicking on the prose, as it has to be of an excellent standard.

• "Kapoor was initially cast to make her debut" ... doesn't sound too encyclopedic. Also, the quote (as mentioned in the previous set of comments) still doesn't sound interesting. Maybe paraphrasing would help.

Tweaked. As for the quote, I've completely removed it and paraphrased it.

• In the description of Refugee, the part "known simply as Refugee" is redundant. Later, you can write "...girl who falls in love with Bachchan's character".

Done

• For Mujhe Kuch Kehna Hai, instead of writing " A review of her performance in The Hindu noted that " you can simply say "The Hindu noted that..."

Done

• In the first paragraph of the critical acclaim section, "However, when the director again approached her a year later she agreed to do the film; she now viewed it as an opportunity to demonstrate her acting range" can be changed to "However, when Mishra approached her for the second time, she agreed; she viewed it as an opportunity to demonstrate her acting range".

Done

• In the same paragraph there is a line that says "...study the dress and mannerisms of sex workers". What do you mean by "study the dress"?

Tweaked

• Same paragraph, "another reviewer". Who?

Tweaked

• A few paragraphs later, it should be "protagonist of the 2005 drama Bewafaa" and not "in ... Bewafaa".

Done

• The review by Nikhat Kazmi for Bewafaa has no quotation marks.

That's because we have paraphrased the quote and hence it doesn't require quotation marks.

• Last line of the same paragraph, " Kapoor's performance was generally enjoyed by critics". Replace "enjoyed" with "well received".

Done

• In the next paragraph, what do you mean by "portrayed the Desdemona character"?

Tweaked

• " It premiered at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, and was also selected for screening at the Cairo International Film Festival" ==> " It premiered at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, and was screened at the Cairo International Film Festival".

Done

• "While shooting Jab We Met, Kapoor and Shahid ended their three-year relationship". Change to "While filming for Jab We..... three-year long relationship"

Done

• "During this period, speculation began to surface that she was dating actor Saif Ali Khan" ==> "During this period, there was speculation in the media that she was dating...".

Done

• A paragraph later, "Set in Los Angeles, it was the first Indian film in history to be shot at Universal Studios and featured cameo appearances by Hollywood actors". The "in history" is redundant here.

Done

• Same paragraph, "... a woman under house arrest after discovering her husband is a terrorist". Sounds confusing. Needs to be re-worded.

Tweaked

• Next paragraph, "On acting with Khan, Kapoor revealed that it was "a dream come true" and stated that her journey as an actress was "finally complete"". This sounds like a fan gushing about a star. I don't see any point in including this.

Removed; you do make a valid point.

• "Kapoor had further success in 2011 as love interest for Salman Khan in the romantic drama Bodyguard". Missing "the" before love interest. And should be "...of Salman Khan's character"

Done

• Same paragraph. What do you mean by the "most popular film of the year"? Unclear.

It means that it was the highest-grossing film of the year in India. If you take a look at the article, it always says "highest-grossing", "one of the highest-grossing", etc. To change it up a bit, I decided to use the "most popular film of the year".

I understand that you did that to avoid being monotonous. But the term "popular" is vague. How and with whom was it popular? --smarojit 06:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked; now says India's highest-earning film of the year. -- Bollywood Dreamz 01:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The "2012-present" section begins with "she followed it". As it is the beginning of a new section, drop the "she" and change the line.

Done

• "Witty young woman" has been used to describe her character in both Yuva and Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu. Can be modified.

Done

• The revenue of Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu is unsourced.

I'm unable to find the source that I originally used from BOI for its revenue. However, I found a new source and have modified it to that.

• "Heroine, a drama revolving around the Bollywood film industry through Kapoor's viewpoint as Mahi Arora, a faded star." Not a good sentence. How about "...the Bollywood film industry; Kapoor was cast as Mahi Arora, a fading star". Or maybe something better.

Tweaked

• "Kapoor will focus on familiarizing herself with up-to-date global affair issues and watching several news documentaries" ==> "Kapoor will familiarise herself with the latest global affairs and watch several news documentaries".

Done

As of now, that's about it. --smarojit 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind works Smaro! I really appreciate you taking the time in giving me your inputs! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on footnote style There are discrepancies. I see in some newspaper sources, you have mentioned the name of the publisher, while in others you have not. The name of publisher should be present either in all newspaper footnotes, or none (obviously mentioning in none is the easier option). Rediff.com, a website, has not been italicised, but indiatimes, another website, has been italicised (I think most of the websites are not in italics, which is a god style to follow consistently). CNN-IBN, a V channel, should not be italicised. I think Mid Day name should not use the particular style (MiD DAY) of its logo, just mention as Mid Day.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did list the publishers for all newspaper sources befores but User:Legolas2186 mentioned that it wasn't important to add well-known publishers for some newspaper sources. In the case of websites, they shouldn't be italicised; Rediff.com is a website; the reason why I italicised Indiatimes was because I thought it was a newspaper. -- Bollywood Dreamz 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face, websites may or may not be italicised, and magzine websites are usually italicised. However, what I have seen so far is it is more important to maintain consistency within a given article. Regarding publishers, again, consistency within a given article is more important, since publisher parameter is optional. In the FARC of Kolkata, SandyGeorgia pointed out this. Thi apies for location as well. Also, "well-known"ness may differ among readers. So, consistency is perhaps more important.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. To maintain consistency: a) Rm the publisher parameter for all newspaper sources, b) Left all websites non-italicised, and c) All magazine websites/journals are italicised. -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Support as a contributor to the article. I've long believed it is FA standard and seems to have been improved further. I'd use File:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch2.jpg as the main image though.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Random spotchecking

• Sentence "According to Kapoor, the name "Kareena" was derived from the book Anna Karenina, which her mother read while she was pregnant with her." Source verifies this; however, source does not indicate this was said by Kareena herself. Also, the sentence seems a copy-paste from the source, it needs to be tweaked.

Replaced back to the original source where Kapoor (herself) says that her name was derived from the book Anna Karenina. -- Bollywood Dreamz 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "...on her mother's side she is Sindhi". Source verifies.

• "... inspired by the films of Bollywood actresses Nargis and Meena Kumari.". Source verifies.

• "her mother, who worked at several jobs to support her daughters until Karisma debuted..." Source says, "Mum was always doing something, she single-handedly brought us up. She has a real estate business apart from other small businesses.". I would accept that.

• "...she studied commerce for two years at Mithibai College in Vile Parle (Mumbai), but later confessed that she only studied there because it was close to her family." Source verifies. The word "home' is probably better than 'family" in this case.

Done -- Bollywood Dreamz 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "...Several days into the filming, however, she abandoned the project; Kapoor later explained that she had benefited by not doing the film since more prominence was given to the director's son". source verifies this.

Will continue later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing random spotchecks

• Taran Adarsh quote n Refugee. Source checks out.

• "...drama Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai, which became one of the highest-earning films of the year." Source lists the film at 9th position in 25 top-earners. So, although the statement in article is true, perhaps some softer statement would be more suitable, such as ,"...became a hit'.

Tweaked -- Bollywood Dreamz 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "... with some critics noting a distinct progression from her earlier roles.' (Regarding Fida). Source checks out.

• "...the BBC describing her as "a pure natural". Source checks out.

• "While shooting for Jab We Met, Kapoor and Shahid ended their three-year relationship." Source checks out.

• "...the tantalisingly seductive prostitute, Rosie...". Copied from here. However, it is just a few words, so could be acceptable. At best, this can be put within a quotation, and attributed to the source.

Sourced -- Bollywood Dreamz 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Talaash eventually emerged as an international success with revenues of 174 crore (US$31.67 million)". Source checks out.

• "...she would be launching her own line of clothing, becoming the first Indian actress to do so" Source checks out.

• "... the book was well received by critics selling 10,000 copies within its first twenty days" the numbers are verified. Well-received by the critics may be acceptable, too.

• "... Kapoor has gained a reputation for discussing her public and private life with no reservations". this source verifies.

So does the other source which is also used to support that claim. -- Bollywood Dreamz 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Her personality has been open to debate and criticism" Source verifies in detail.

• "she later explained that her honesty and openness was often perceived by the media as arrogance." In the source, she mentions her honesty and openness, but I failed to see that she mentioned her straightforwardness is perceived as arrogance by media.

She explains: "Misquotes and misunderstandings were unfortunate consequences of my attitude, especially when I first entered the film industry But it was a case of forthrightness being misunderstood for a cheeky attitude". -- Bollywood Dreamz 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Kapoor was recognized for her versatility" Sources verify.

So, overall, spotchecks seem to reveal consistent verification, with only minor problem in a very few instances. Copyvio check by this tool revealed statistically insignificant problem. So far, so good.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - A few issues with mechanics and style as pointed out above - but once these are resolved I would support it as an FA. I would take heed of Dwai's comments - as usual they are right on target. Great job all. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on lead

• "In addition to film acting, Kapoor is a stage performer and has launched her own clothing line (in association with retail chain Globus). She is known for being publicly outspoken and assertive, and is recognized for her contributions to the film industry though her fashion style and film roles (both of which have made her a trend-setter for young women).". Do we really need those parentheses?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments to the lead including the ones you pointed out Dwaipayanc. Let me know what you think! -- Bollywood Dreamz 02:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• one more comment on the lead. The lead says, " Kapoor received media attention from a young age.". But the early life section does not mention the media attention that she got from a young age. I think this needs to be changed in the lead. may be, "...exposed to films from a young age" or something like this? This fits with her being born in the filmy family. --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the early life section does not mention the media attention; it is just intended to show how she became interested in acting. However, as a child she used to attend award ceremonies with her family and would also accompany her sister on-set during filming (mentioned in the public image section) - this introduced her to the media from a young age. -- Bollywood Dreamz 04:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so according to your explanation here, Kapoor was introduced to the media (films, awards etc) world at a young age; but that does not mean media was attentive of her when she was young. So, the article still does not mention that she received media attention from a young age. Either that needs to be changed in the lead, or, info on media's attention/coverage of a young Kareena should be added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed the bit about her receiving media attention from a young age. -- Bollywood Dreamz 20:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Since I copyedited the article in September 2012 it's not my place to assess the prose, but I believe this article meets WP:FA Criteria; it's comprehensive, well-sourced, neutral, stable and properly formatted. Images have alt text and acceptable copyright status. It may be a bit too long for its subject, but that's a judgment call. Miniapolis 02:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments: This is very well written and well sourced. I'm no expert in Bollywood, but have read a few arts biographies, so here goes. I have a few thoughts about the prose, some nit-picky.

• A colon over a semicolon works better here: "During her career, Kapoor has received six Filmfare Awards and has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres; from contemporary romantic dramas, comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicised independent films."

Done

• "Born into a family where her parents, Randhir Kapoor and Babita, and elder sister Karisma were actors, Kapoor faced the media spotlight at a young age..." – (1) "where" should be "in which". Not a spatial relationship. (20 "faced the media spotlight" seems like a colloquial expression. Try something plain and formal, like "received media attention".

Done

There's a problem with the current sentence—"Born into a family in which her parents, Randhir Kapoor and Babita, and elder sister Karisma were actors, Kapoor's career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee."—it makes it seem that her career was what was born into the family, not her herself. That, and that the two ideas are very loosely relation, thus lacking strong coherence. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking into account the suggestions you made, I decided to re-write the lead. Please let me know what you think! -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• One general issue from reading the lead I've found is the odd logical flow. Connect only related ideas using conjunctions. As a result, I find these sentences awkward:

• "Her film career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee and she subsequently featured in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., which became India's highest-grossing film in the overseas market in 2001 and one of her biggest commercial successes to date." – the way of connecting the inital idea with the subsequent one with "and she" is odd sounding. I think we may need to break this up with a semicolon: "Her film career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee, after which she featured in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...; the latter was India's highest-grossing film in the overseas market in 2001 and one of Kapoor's biggest commercial successes to date." Also note that I changed that I changed "became" to "was"; otherwise, the we could interpret that the film was India's highest-grossing one from 2001 until today, but it was only that in 2001.

Done

• "Her portrayal of a sex worker in Chameli (2004) proved to be the turning point in her career, and she was later noted for her performances in the critically acclaimed films Dev (2004) and Omkara (2006)." – Likewise regarding "and she". It's poor idea integration IMO. This would seem better as one, single, flowing idea. So try something like this: "She portrayed a sex worker in Chameli (2004), which proved to be the turning point in her career, and was noted for her performances in the critically acclaimed films Dev (2004) and Omkara (2006)." And since this sentence now begins with "She", the subsequent one cannot, so "Kapoor" probably.

Done

• "Her parents reconciled in October 2007 and Kapoor explained that they were never officially divorced but lived separately." – more related ideas, but the conjunction doesn't flow well. Just break it up with a semicolon.

Done

• There's also a bit of borderline weasel wording, as we aren't told who makes assertions such as, "She is known for being publicly outspoken and assertive, and is recognized for her contributions to the film industry though her fashion style and film roles both of which have made her a trend-setter for young women." Anything simple to not make these ideas seem so vague. By whom? Critics, authors, the public, heck fans?

Reworded; it now says "She is known in the Indian media for being publicly outspoken and assertive...". I've left the rest of the sentence the way it is. Let me know what you think!

Much better. —WP:PENGUIN · 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've found the "went on to " wording a little fluffy and never understood why it couldn't simply be written as the infinitive conjugated in past tense. So instead of "went on to play", why not just "played"?

Done

• "Since 2007, Kapoor has been in a relationship with actor Saif Ali Khan whom she married in October 2012." – need a comma after "Khan", since it's a nonrestrictive clause.

Done

• As a general note, I like the lead: it's concise, solid and clear, and just what's expected from an overview.
• A few obvious ideas, such as "Born in Mumbai, India, on 21 September 1980 into the Kapoor film family, Kapoor is the younger daughter of actors Randhir Kapoor and Babita (née Shivdasani)". Of course she's born into the Kapoor family! If you want to say she was born into a film family, just say "a film family". It's less repetitious too.

Done

• I'm not sure how it is done in Indian English, so forgive my ignorance, but I thought "grand-daughter" and "film-maker" had no hyphens and were altogether single words. They might be interchangeable, so I'm not sure.

Initially, I had it spelled as "granddaughter" and "filmmaker"; however, spell check on my computer stated that it was incorrect. TBH, I don't even know what the correct spelling is.

If it's the wiki spell checker, it is bad. It seems to have rather limited vocabulary and doesn't accommodate for other dialects. I'm sure the way you had it spelled is correct. —WP:PENGUIN · 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed it back to granddaughter and filmmaker. -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• "After her parents' separation she was raised in Lokhandwala by her mother, who worked at several jobs to support her daughters until Karisma debuted as an actress in 1991." – the "After her parents' separation" is a bit repetitive following the previous sentence. Begin with a simple "She was then raised...".

Done

• "Asked about her relationship with her father, Kapoor remarked 'My father is ... an important factor in my life. though we did not see him often in our initial years, we are a family now.'" – need a comma after "remarked".

Done

• Are ellipses in brackets or no brackets when omitting material from a quotation? The latter is recommended per MOS:QUOTE, but either or is fine as long as you use it consistently.

According to MOS:QUOTE, we should use ellipses when omitting material from a quotation. I've added them to remain consistent!

These are general observations from the lead and Early life sections. Bravo on your work; it's well organized and structured, with useful images. What's needed is a fine-tooth comb with which to go over the article, some tweaks and polishing, and we've got the ideal Bollywood biography. —WP:PENGUIN · 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Wikipedian Penguin! I've addressed all your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've struck through most of my comments. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've struck through all my comments. —WP:PENGUIN · 19:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Looks good. I have few comments though.

• "She was then raised in Lokhandwala by her mother..." Is Lokhandwala so prominent that you need a mention and a wikilink? IMHO, No.

Removed

• "...during this period, she became immersed in law books and developed a long-lasting passion for reading." Is "became immersed in law books" really required?

Removed

• "Later that year Kapoor played the female lead in Santosh Sivan's period epic Asoka, a partly fictionalised account of the life of Ashoka." need a comma after 'year'. Also, prefix Ashoka with "an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty". Not everyone knows Ashoka.

Done

• "To prepare for the role, she visited several of Mumbai's red-light districts at night" You may want to link 'red-light districts' to Kamathipura, which is more specific to Mumbai.

The reason why I linked 'red-light districts' in general was because of the word "several" in the sentence. Kapoor didn't specifically visit one red-light district area; she visited "several".

• "The film (and Kapoor's performance) opened to predominantly positive reviews by critics..." Parentheses not required.

Removed

• "Kapoor is featured in the third chapter as Oberoi's love interest (Mira, a witty young woman)." 'a witty young woman' probably not required but I am not sure of that.

I see no harm in having it. 'A witty young woman' is used to describe her character, Mira, in Yuva.

• Too much of Taran Adarsh everywhere and all he says is good-good. Can we have any positive-negative reviews/comments by any other critics?

The article is completely neutral and contains a "balance" of positive/negative comments by a variety of critics from different sources. Taran Adarsh's review is only used 3 times: Refugee, K3G and Dev.

• "After graduating from Welham she studied commerce" need a comma after 'Welham'
• "Kapoor then appeared in the Abbas-Mustan thriller Ajnabee." need a comma after 'thriller'.
• "Kapoor was cast for the first time as a villain in the thriller Fida." need a comma after 'thriller'.
• "During the filming of Fida Kapoor began a romantic relationship..." need a comma after 'Fida'.
• "Although the film was unsuccessful at the box office" need a comma after 'box office'.
• "she was cast as the protagonist of the 2005 drama Bewafaa." need a comma after 'drama'.

I have checked till "2007–11: Jab We Met and commercial success". Rest will check later. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are all those commas needed between the descriptors and film names? This article was copy edited, and another article that I am working on was recently copy edited by someone from the GOCE, and no such commas were deemed necessary. BollyJeff | talk 16:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comma not only is used for separating the clauses, it also indicates where you should take a small pause when you are reading the article. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A comma may help, but I don't think it is required. My point was why are we second guessing the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? You want to tell them that they are not doing an adequate job? BollyJeff | talk 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

GoCE has always helped us in writing the articles in better way. However, there is always a chance for improvement. Also, I am not saying or dont want to say what you've said above for GoCE work. Hyderabad, India has failed four times at FAC, in spite of GoCE edits. That does not mean GoCE did blunders there. A reviewer probably still sees some improvement scope for the article. Obviously, for the betterment of the article. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that; just wondering if that's how you felt. Okay BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, it seems as though you will have to do what Vivvt suggests if you want his support here. If another reviewer comes along and says that there are too many commas, then I don't know what to tell you. BollyJeff | talk 17:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about this particular comma issue. While speaking, we give a pause on those instances; however, do we always need to use comma in writing? I am not so sure. Moreover, there may be different school of grammar following different ways. Do you have a grammar or some Manual of Style, Vivvt, that recommends such use? Its beyond my knowledge of English. Bollyjeff, you can ask Miniapolis or someone else to opine here. I am sure there will be differing recommendations! --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@BollyJeff: My alone's support or oppose would not matter anyway because article is strong enough to pass for itself. The changes should not be done to please the reviewers but strictly for the betterment of the article. The main contributor need not follow all the review comments, if he/she does not agree to it.

@Dwaipayanc: Ideally, the punctuation matters for the narrative. I believe, we need to have it in the writing as well. However, I may be wrong here and elsewhere. I do not have any guidelines or MoS with me to prove my point. Again, experts may clarify the things. - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the commas, I honestly see no harm in having them. While writing the article, I had them, but Miniapolis had decided to remove it when he copy-edited the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

During her career, Kapoor has received six Filmfare Awards and has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres: from contemporary romantic dramas, comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicised independent films.

If lets say an actor/actress retired, then sometime after their retirement, they receive a lifetime achievement award or something of similar honor. At best, that could have been clarified as "During her film career" as maybe at somepoint she decides to quit film making and move on to a career in broadway or music. --JDC808 ♫ 22:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, what do you mean by "surprised"? Everyone has the right to his/her opinion; some may "suppose", some may "oppose", whilst others may just choose to comment. Ultimately, it is your own prerogative on what you think of the article. I also believe that JDC808 made a good recommendation; will be changing it to "During her film career". -- Bollywood Dreamz 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment "n 2008 Kapoor performed in Shahrukh Khan's Temptation Reloaded 2008, a series of concerts in a number of countries. The show (which also featured Arjun Rampal, Katrina Kaif, Ganesh Hegde, Javed Ali and Anusha Dandekar) was staged at the Ahoy Rotterdam venue in Rotterdam, the Netherlands". The first sentence says it was a multi-city tour; the second sentence says it took place in Rotterdam?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed the level of details for all these stage shows seem quite trivial, and seem not to follow any specific criteria. You have mentioned some of the shows, but probably not others. So what was the selection criteria? I don't see mention of any shows that took place in India (unless the world tours included India as well). I have a feeling this section needs tremendous trimming.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your first point: I meant that "the show debuted at the Ahoy Rotterdam venue in Rotterdam, the Netherlands".

Reply to your second point: IMO, details for all these stage shows are not trivial; all of the shows specifically mention where they took place similar to that of Zinta's article. As far as mentioning the shows that took place in India, the "stage performances" section is intended just for her world tours/shows that took place abroad. If we were to list all of her shows in India, it would unnecessarily lengthen the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I did significant copyedit in several parts (including the lead) of the article, addressing content and language. IMO, the off-screen activities, particularly the stage performances, are detailed unnecessarily and without any pattern or criteria. The three subsection of that section could be merged into one unbroken section, and excessive details about the random stage shows removed. A sentence like, "she performed in many stage shows in India and some concert tours across the globe, including x (2001), y (2004)" and so on. Please opine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, thank you for taking the time in copy-editing the article. I agree with most of them, however there are a few of them which I don't really agree with. I'll be changing some of them. As for merging all her other work into one unbroken section, it wouldn't really be a good idea; it would end up looking like a bunch of random activities/thoughts put together. As I mentioned above, her stage shows are listed in chronological order and just mention where they took place. I honestly don't see the harm in having it. -- Bollywood Dreamz 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding concert/stage shows: in that case, the article should explicitly mention that only non-Indian tours are listed. Also, are all the non-Indian tours mentioned (just a query)? In any case, then the paragraph should say that she has done many stage shows in India, and the global ones are mentioned here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All her non-Indian tours are mentioned. BTW do you think it would help if we changed the section title? -- Bollywood Dreamz 06:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change the subsection name.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More on reference style in general, the titles of the references are in sentence case. There are some discrepancies though. Please read this section and follow the sentence case consistently. The first letter of a word should not be in capital after a colon, for example. Another reference title is "The Most Powerful Actresses in India". This is in title case, not in sentence can. This should be "The most powerful actresses in India". In a given article, one style should be used consistently, irrespective of the different styles used in the actual sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's featured article, Bastion (video game), uses the same case as the sources. Just saying. BollyJeff | talk 01:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I see that article has mixed sentence case and title case in its source titles. Well, perhaps we are demanding very strictly :) Actually, during a previous FARC, Sandy pointed this out. I believe this is a good thing to follow, for the sake of consistency in a given article, although views tend to differ in this regard, it seems.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the tool that helps build citations, Reflinks uses the source case too. BollyJeff | talk 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I am retracting this comment for now (sentence case versus title case issue), unless some other reviewer comments on this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments

• USD and crore overlinked in many sections.

During Kapoor's first FAC, it was recommended that we put in the Indian rupees converter to avoid confusion for non-Indian readers. By putting the currency converter, it automatically links USD and crore; e.g. ₹200 crore (US$23 million).

• PDF references needs (format=PDF) filled in.

Done

• The notes section in filmography section should be unsortable per WP:FILMOGRAPHY.

Done

• Link genre in the lead.

Done

• Link the first occurrence of The Hindu in refs; same for "Box Office India".

Done for The Hindu. I see that the Box Office India article is currently nominated for deletion; once the issue is resolved it'll be linked.

• Pipe-linking "a film family" to Kapoor family seems like WP:EASTEREGG.

Removed

• Paragraphs shouldn't start with pronouns. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed -- Bollywood Dreamz 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Support –No issues for me. The article meets the criteria. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments The article is well-written, complete and meets FA criteria. Good work Bollywood Dreamz But, still has some issues.

• "after which she acted in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., one of Kapoor's biggest commercial successes to date"

Why it is important to use a long sentence which could be replaced by a single word "Hit" or something like that. Since, it is not one of the highest frossing film right now. Then, Bodyguard and golmaal 3 should also be mentioned.

That is because K3G was her first worldwide success. I agree that there were other films of hers like Golmaal 3, Bodyguard, Ra.One that earned more than K3G, but when adjusted for inflation, it has earned more than these films. That is why it is still one of her biggest commercial successes to date.

• "Refugee was the fifth-highest-grossing film in India in 2000"

So what, the film is 5th grossing film but it is widely considered as critical and commercial failure. Don't you think you are showing it like a blockbuster.

"Widely considered" by whom? The BOI source shows that it was a moderate success and managed to recover some of its profit. No one is "showing it like a blockbuster"; you are just assuming that. All it says that it was the fifth-highest-grossing film of the year.

Change it to moderate success or something like that.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Mujhe Kuch Kehna hai, a romantic drama opposite Tusshar Kapoor, which became one of the year's most successful films"

It was just a "hit" nothing more so, why "most"?

Changed to hit.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• received her first Filmfare Best Actress nomination -> received her first nomination in Best Actress category at Filmfare or something else. No need to use just "Filmfare Best Actress"...a bit confusing, use original name.

Changed to official name.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• "She was in six films"

she was in six films? Maybe "starred" or "featured". It seems these films where unsuccessful because of other and she has no role to play.

"Starred" is reasonable. Changed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• "It was the second Bollywood film with a North American release by a Hollywood studio" why this is important?

Dwaipayanc removed it. I'm fine with that! Maybe if it was the first Bollywod film to get a North American release by a Hollywood studio, then I would have left it.

• "However, Golmaal Returns was a financial success with international revenues of 79.25 crore (US$14.42 million)"

so what was its domestic gross....you are saying that it is the international gross so where is domestic? Sounds confusing.

Dwaipayanc changed it to say "global revenues".

• Box office reports says Kambakkht Ishq was commercial failure in India, Why no use complete information.?

What box office reports? You're talking as if I didn't use any sources to support the information. BOI shows that the film was declared "above average". How is that a commercial failure?

Use moderate success or something like that.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How is that necessary? The film doesn't say anything about the film being a success. All it says that it grossed x amount. If it said that it was a commercial success, then that would be a different thing. -- Bollywood Dreamz 05:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reviews says that Kurbaan received "mixed" reviews but I see positive. WHY?

Not according to this. Plus if you take a look at the reviews listed on Kurbaan's article you'll see majority of them are positive. Just because a film receives some negative reviews, doesn't mean that it received mixed reviews. If majority of the reviews are positive, then we can say that the film received positive reviews.

7 Khoon Maaf received 80% positive and 20% negative; it is described as "mixed". Kurbaan's ratio is about 40 positive and 60 negative. I can give you the links.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've conducted an analysis of the reviews Kurbaan received by film critics over here. You can see for yourself! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "For her portrayal of the tomboy Daboo, Kapoor received Best Actress nominations at various award ceremonies"

But, I could see only three.

There are definitely more than three (Apsara, Big Star, Filmfare, Global Indian, IIFA, Screen, Stardust, Zee Cine).

• You should include Bodyguard received mixed to negative review.

Done by Dwaipayanc

• Any critical analysis for Ra.One (reviews) ...why her critical acclaims are highlighted and critical failures are covered under garland of "commercial success".

If you take a look at other FA's, you will see that it's not necessary that we have to add a critical review of an actor from every film. No one is highlighting her critical acclaim and covering her critical failures. If you look at the section, you can see that there are negative reviews mentioned as well (Tashan, GR, KI, Bodyguard). Kapoor's role in Ra.One was similar to that of Zinta and Chopra in KMG and Krissh respectively (in which the actress didn't have much to do).

• "was an economic success, earning 42.17 crore (US$7.67 million) internationally." any domestic datas? Are you saying the film generated good revenues internationally alone?

Tweaked

• Many reviews says Kapoor received "mixed to negative review" for Heroine but, I could see only praise. Again, why her acclaim is so highlighted.? and criticism has been covered?

Again, we are not hiding anything. Majority of sources (1, 2, 3) show that although the film received negative reviews, Kapoor's performance was well received. These sources are good enough; however, if needed I'm willing to put together an analysis of all the reviews she received for the film, something like what I did for her other films.

I can show you, how she has been criticized. Here's are the links showing "mixed" response from critics for her performance in Heroine , , , , .This says it all, she got some positive and some negative, which means "mixed". I think it is clear now.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just don't know what to say. Barring the one from OneIndia and to some extent NDTV, the other three are positive. As I said for the analysis of films, which pretty much can be applied to the analysis of her critical reviews, some mixed reviews doesn't mean that the overall reception was "mixed". I think I will have to list all the reviews for you to see. -- Bollywood Dreamz 05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've conducted an analysis of the reviews Kapoor received for Heroine (including the ones you mentioned) over here. You can see for yourself! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz 06:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok...it has been resolved. .Prashant  Conversation  09:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• In many places, readers are made to be confused..whether the revenues are from international markets alone or worldwide. That should be used properly. Same for Talaash.

They were changed.

• Again, you should correct "talaash received mixed reviews."

The word "predominantly" was used. As I said before, just because a film receives some negative reviews, doesn't mean that it received mixed reviews. Plus if you take a look at the reviews listed on Talaash's article you'll see majority of them are positive. Two other sources: 1 & 2. -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with talaash. You may use talaash "generally" received positive reviews.

Prashant  Conversation  14:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments

• Again, I can't help myself to point it again. This sentence is misleading the readers over the film performance of Refugee. "Refugee was the fifth-highest-grossing film in India in 2000".

Tweaked

• This is too much, last time it didn't got my eyes..."Kapoor portrayed Kaurwaki—a Kalingan princess, with whom Ashoka falls in love—and received her first nomination for Best Actress at the Filmfare Awards. While the film received generally positive reviews". Positive review for Asoka, Check the link was a commercial and critical failure.

This shows that film received a 100% rating. I know that wasn't the case completely so I changed it to generally.

• Her Performance and analysis says ...Despite the least success rate among her contemporaries...., I see a complete reversed version as all her hits here, are tagged with "one of the years biggest hits or success". Why it is important to say "one of the years biggest". Can't you use "was a box office success", "major success". Use "one of....." only in the major success's like Golmaal 3.
• Same for Jab We Met, "The film was received favourably by critics and became one of the year's most successful films, with a domestic box office of 30.25 crore (US$5.51 million)."

Tweaked

• Again, The film earned over 84 crore (US$15.29 million) worldwide, but was a critical failure. So, Don't tell what it sounds like.(like a blockbuster which was a critical letdown).

It may sound like that to you. As I said before, all it says that the film grossed x amount. Anyways, I just don't know to say anymore. Tweaked

• The film (which marked the directorial debut of Rensil D'Silva)....who?(Is the director has won 10National Award and is regarded ad India's best director). Every second Director Debuts with first film, doesn't mean...we should highlight.

What? Kurbaan was his directorial debut; your comments don't make sense at all.

• During her 2010 appearance in the NDTV Greenathon -> on the NDTV Greenathon Prashant  ✉  10:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Done -- Bollywood Dreamz 18:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Support As I said earlier, the article is well-written, complete and neutral. Hence, I support it. Congratulations to Bollywood Dreamz for his work on the article. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  03:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Random note: I am appalled by some of the comments that are being posted here. Where is this nomination going? --smarojit 18:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why makes Onindia and Boxofficeindia reliable sources? Have there been any changes since the last time the article was nominated regarding the high quality of these sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of boxofficeindia.com was established after a long discussion in reliable source noticeboard.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

After the last FAC, all of the unreliable sources were replaced with reliable ones. All of the sources used in the article are well-known and reliable; they are newspapers (The Times of India, The Telegraph), reliable websites (Bollywood Hungama, Indiatimes), magazines (Forbes, Filmfare), etc.

As far as the reliability of Oneindia.in is concerned, it is a mainstream Indian news website operated by B. G. Mahesh, one of the pioneers of the Internet and on-line news in India. TBH, if its reliability is questioned, I don't mind replacing it with a more reliable source. -- Bollywood Dreamz 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend removing it--while I'm still iffy on whether BoxOfficeIndia meets the "high quality" threshold of an RS it's evidently treated as such, but I'm not seeing anything to convince me of OneIndia's quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the OneIndia source. I had originally used another source to support the worldwide gross of EMEAT. However, unable to find it, I decided to change it and used the gross from OneIndia. -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some comments inpite of earlier support. Again, the article sounds like a too much for FA.

• After making her acting debut in the 2000 war drama Refugee, Kapoor's early years in the film industry were successful; she received a Filmfare nomination for Asoka: But the below section of initial years says her initial years were average. Lots of failures and few or 2-3 success. Do this shows her sussess?
• Getting a nomination at filmfare is what ? She only got this nomination and it doesn't make any thing a success.

If you would you have cared to read the rest of the sentence then you would know what I'm talking about. It later says that "this was followed by a series of commercial failures and repetitive roles, which garnered her negative reviews." By early years, I meant 2001; if you take a look at the sources from BOI and Rediff.com, you can see that the statement is correct. As far as the Filmfare nomination is concerned, the reason why I mentioned it was because it was her first nomination for Best Actress.

But, this is encyclopedia, leave all this but you should also mention her first supporting nomination. No? I'm just saying for the benefit of the article. Look at Balan's page. Its prose is well written.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I know that this is an encyclopedia. The lead of the article "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." We are not listing all her nominations there; she later received nominations for Omkara, Kurbaan, etc. Are those included? NO! As I said before, the reason why I mentioned it was because it was her first nomination for Best Actress. -- Bollywood Dreamz 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Again, the positive reviews for Asoka are giving me a nightmare. The Indian reviews says that the film was worst of the year. I think rotten tomatoes just shows average of foreign reviews.

Please show me the reviews that say "the film was worst of the year". We can see that all the foreign reviews were positive whereas the ones from Indian film critics were mixed. For that reason I used the word generally.

• Although a poll (conducted by Bollywood Hungama) named it the most anticipated release of the year, the film was a commercial and critical failure. Why this is important to mention. Reality is Tashan is a critical and commercial disasters. Every third film with multistar cast attracts viewers interest but most important is the results which is Disaster.

Yes, and that is mentioned!

My point is why it is necessary to mention about poll? It sounds like the film should have been Blockbuster but it bombed.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's precisely my point! -- Bollywood Dreamz 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• believed the screenplay was derivative, concluding: "There is nothing particularly new about a suspicious wife keeping tabs on her husband, and there is nothing particularly new in the way Kareena plays. Why this review is important, she received negative reviews....i can show you. Earlier, you said its not important to mention negative reviews for financially successfull films and then then you are crossing it yourself.

What are you talking about? The review provided is negative.

But, you mentioned she received mixed reviews?Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the analysis that was done back in 2008. -- Bollywood Dreamz 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Bodyguard received negative to mixed reviews, though became a financial success ....it received negative reviews. What do you mean by mixed?

If you take a look at the film's article, you will notice that the film had a mixed reception. The critics didn't praise nor did they criticize it too heavily. I know that the film did receive negative reviews too and hence I decided to say "negative to mixed". Okay! I've now changed it to say that the film was not well-received by critics. -- Bollywood Dreamz 19:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I know she is your favorite actress, its not mean that you start writing only good things about about her. Sounds like fancruft to me. Prashant  ✉  11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TBH Prashant, sometimes I don't even know what you're saying. It's funny how you contradict yourself. You mentioned before that it was "well-written", "neutral" and "meets FA criteria". And now you go on to say that it "sounds like fancruft" and there are "only good things about her". Don't think for a second that I don't know what you're up to. -- Bollywood Dreamz 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may be funny to you but I wanna tell you that I'm also a kapoor fan and Chopra fan too but from last few months i Learned that this is encyclopedia and not a blog. I didn't even touched this article because you have handled it so nicely from past few years. But, its no that we should write only garlands and flowers. Also, I supported the article because it is well written and I'm not denying that. You should appreciate other reviewers that they are helping you in FA and not criticizing them.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, I did not criticize you. I just stated how you always contradict yourself. -- Bollywood Dreamz 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please move your argument to the talk page, it has no place here. As for supporting and then making those comments, sorry Prashant but that makes your input here a lot less credible.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My comments came in only because the article's many part was changed suddenly. I guess it should have been stable. When I looked again, it was changed. So, I made my points and hence they are resolved, I'm satisfied with it. I had supported and will always support the article. Congratulations and best of luck. The article don't don't have any oppse, so I guess it would be an FA soon. My points were only for the betterment and not for anything else. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  03:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Support (for most of the criteria). I am not qualified to judge the article for criterion 1a (prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard), so not commenting on that. The article meets other criteria: 1b (comprehensive), 1c (well-researched, claims are verifiable per the random spot-checking), 1d (neutral, although some comments above questioned this, for me the article is neutral), 1e (stable); also meets criteria 2, 3, and 4. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one here who would rather dates formatted as 18 February 2013 rather than 2013-02-18 ?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are not. BollyJeff | talk 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems informal, like note form to me, not to mention backwards, I'd rather it be in writing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

But it's probably okay as is. The article should rest and not have so much change now. BollyJeff | talk 00:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cite web initially had you format the dates 2013-02-18 as opposed to 18 February 2013, but I now see that it is the other way around. I see no problem in leaving it the way it is. If it's absolutely compulsory then I will change it. -- Bollywood Dreamz 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not as such necessary. The key is consistency within a given article; in this case, that date style has been consistently used.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Bill william compton has formatted all the dates as 18 February 2013 citing WP:MOSNUM. I guess it was important then! -- Bollywood Dreamz 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - a very good article, constantly up-to-date thanks to the on-going, tireless dedication of this wonderful guy, Bollywood Dreamz, who keeps a close eye on the proceedings and insists on keeping it neutral and well-written. I congratulate all of you guys who've taken part in improving it over time, well done. Shahid • 23:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Shahid! I would also like to take the time to thank each and every individual who participated in this FAC. Thank you for taking the time and offering your inputs; the article has only improved since it was nominated! Cheers everyone! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz 01:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, surprised Shahid turned up...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Quite a few duplicate links; some are for currency, and others might be justified by the amount of prose between them in a decent-sized article, but pls review in any case. Use this script to check for them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for introducing me to that script Ian! I've removed the unnecessary duplicate links. As for the currency, it was automatically linked when I used this template; I never knew you could add the following parameter ("|nolink=yes"), which would then help unlink it. -- Bollywood Dreamz 23:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tks Bollywood. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC) .

Gravity Bone

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Gravity Bone is a freeware first-person adventure video game developed by Brendon Chung under his video game studio, Blendo Games, and released in August 2008. The game was developed using a modified version of id Software's id Tech 2 engine—originally used for Quake 2—and incorporates music by film director Wong Kar-wai. Gravity Bone received critical acclaim from video game journalists. It was called "an experience worth playing", and received comparisons to games such as Team Fortress 2 and Portal. The game was praised for its cohesive story and atmosphere and its ability to catch the player's interest over a very short time span without feeling rushed or incomplete. With permission from delegate GrahamColm, I am nominating this article for featured status. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Brief comments

• Comments - This article looks good so far. Keep up the good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (as semi-involved, while I didn't work on this article, I'm working on its sequel and so sorta helping here). Brendan Chung (the one guy behind Blendo Games) has previously put free screenshots at my request of his other games (eg Atom Zombie Smasher) for purposes of WP. I don't know how much of a line I have to him directly nowadays (now that he's all "important" and stuff :) ) but will try to see if I can get him to do so. I don't expect this to hold up any issues on this FAC, since normally game screenshots are not replaceable with free, but this will probably help if I could. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Good news! I just got in touch with him, and he's put more shots from this game and his other ones up on Flickr under a free license. . --MASEM (t) 23:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • So in terms of an image check, at this point, all images used are properly free - the game's logo is just typefaces and thus fails originality and uncopyrightable, and the two other images are appropriately free. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Yay. Thank you Masem for finding the free images :) — ΛΧΣ 17:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Good work, Masem. For the record, I would probably prefer this image because it shows a situation that can actually occur in-game. The current image seems to be from an off-balcony angle that might only be possible with dev commands. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• The gameplay section is a bit confusing to me. I don't get a clear sense of what players do beyond the fact that they're not told much. The thumbnail picture is the only place I learn that there is no HUD, certain details are repeated (At the end of the game, the player-controlled spy is killed by an unknown woman after chasing her through the last half of the second level. and Finishing the level triggers a set of final sequences of events and the game ends with the sudden death of the player's character.) and plot and gameplay are interwoven in I think a detrimental fashion; it might be better to go over the scant plot details first and then transition to a more fleshed out explanation of what players do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I will work on this tomorrow. — ΛΧΣ 01:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support : It generally looks good, were there any particularly critical reviews to give a balance or were they all generally positive in tone? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • They were all positive. I was surprised I didn't find any negative review of the game... — ΛΧΣ 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough then, changed to support. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Wong Kar Wai is a director, not a composer. The music may be lifted from one of his films, but he did not compose it. Chances are the lead is incorrect. - hahnchen 23:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. It now reads " incorporates music from films by director Wong Kar-wai." — ΛΧΣ 03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The same phrase and issue occurs in the Development section. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. — ΛΧΣ 20:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see further issues with the article. It surely does think that it meets the FA criteria. Good work ! — Tomíca 20:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! :D — ΛΧΣ 20:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

• Not bad at all. The only thing that really stuck out to me was the lead, second paragraph. "The game was praised for its cohesive story and atmosphere and its ability..." I think this should be either "cohesive story, atmosphere, and its ability" or "cohesive story and atmosphere, and its ability". --JDC808 ♫ 02:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I have fixed that now :) — ΛΧΣ 02:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Something else I just noticed. The lead, second paragraph says "A direct sequel, Thirty Flights of Loving, was released in 2012." but in the Sequel section, it says it's not a direct sequel. --JDC808 ♫ 04:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ups. Taken care of it :) — ΛΧΣ 04:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Still see an issue. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term. Does "direct sequel" not refer to story? I always thought if it was a direct sequel, it was referring to its story. In the Sequel section, it says "The game, though not a direct sequel in story to Gravity Bone..." The page for Thirty Flights just says sequel. --JDC808 ♫ 04:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
      • True. Fixed then. — ΛΧΣ 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support The only issues that I really saw have been fixed. Article looks good. :) --JDC808 ♫ 18:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Axem Titanium

• HUD should be wikilinked and not abbreviated.
  • Done this one. — ΛΧΣ 21:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• "The first level of Gravity Bone is disguised as a tutorial system" - I think this is backwards. Isn't the tutorial system disguised as the first level?
  • Hmm, both ways work. I will use yours :)
• In the lead, "an experience worth playing" is in quotation marks, implying a direct quote, but when this phrase is mentioned in the Reception section, it is not in quotes and the phrase does not appear in Onyett's article. Onyett's article is also specifically not called a review.
  • True, it is a preview or impressions. For grammatical and *makes sense* purposes, I changed it to preview. And, well, ups. I synthesized his comment there in a way I should not have. I have fixed this. Take a look :)
• What is Game Tunnel and why is it reliable?
  • Game Tunnel was a website dedicated to independent games. It had editorial control and oversight, and was founded in 2002 by Russell Carroll. Carroll is a video game developer that worked as Game Director for Reflexive Studios. Website IndieGames covered him (as well as the studio) on this interview. Carroll, as wel as the site, Game Tunnel, seemes to be very significant at the indie gaming scece. IndieGames called Game Tunnel's GoTY awards as a "brilliant compendium". He has appeared at several Indie events talkign about development of games and game Tunnel GameSetWatch. Here is more coverage for the website: PR Web, Cinema Blend, World of Goo wins Game of the Year at Game Tunnel's 7th Annual Independent Game of the Year Awards (MCV United Kingdom), Aquaria wins Game of the Year at Game Tunnel's 6th Annual Independent Games of the Year Awards (MCV United Kingdom). Also, the website became a Magazine sometime in 2006, as reported by TGI Source, Broken Pencil. Game Tunnel's history has even been covered by Joystiq and GamesIndustry, the latter which named the website "one of the first websites that focused on the indie gaming scene." It was bough by Indie Game Magazine in 2011, as reported by GamesIndustry. I think that this is enough not only to meet reliability but notability. I should write an article about Games Tunnel. — ΛΧΣ 21:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Citizen Abel" is not explained anywhere in the article, thus, it is confusing when his name is mentioned later, particularly in the Sequel section where the reader would have to know that the main char of Gravity Bone's name is Citizen Abel in order to understand the significance of the sentence.
  • The main character is not named Citizen Abel. What Citizen Abel is is explained in the Development section: "based on a series of Quake 2 maps entitled Citizen Abel".
    • If that's the case, they you have to explain that in 30 Flights, "Citizen Abel" refers to the main character's name, not a Quake 2 map. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Then yes; I'd have to fix that. The developer of the game, Brendon Chung, said that Citizen Abel is not the name of the character. He also said that the character has no name. I think this is pretty easy to understand from the development section. Also, I see that Masem mistakenly wrote that Citizen Abel was the character on the Sequel section. I have fixed that. — ΛΧΣ 19:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a great little article about a great little game and I applaud you for attempting to improve it. I would love to support when these comments are addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I will take a look at the rest tomorrow. — ΛΧΣ 05:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks good. There are some other issues by other reviewers, but I'm confident they will get addressed. Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I will diligently solve the rest of the issues :) Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh at first, it was not my intention. — ΛΧΣ 23:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Source Spot-check

I've checked the first few sources in the article, and have already found several problems. In the gameplay section, the source does not mention that the player character is a spy. This source doesn't say anything about chasing a woman, or the player character being killed by her. Also, while the reviewer of that source said he did not understand the plot, this does not support the claim that "The game was designed to keep the plot elements as scarce as possible." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I am still dealing a bit with them to make sure they are accurate. Although, some plot elements don't need to be sourced, per the common guidelines from the Wikiproject. — ΛΧΣ 03:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A primary source cannot support a statement such as "The game was designed to keep the plot elements as scarce as possible", unless it's actually mentioned in the game what the developers' intentions were.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not talking about that one. I am looking for the ref that covers that one in the list :) — ΛΧΣ 04:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. — ΛΧΣ 05:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Only as a comment to help (I don't know immediately off the top of my head), some of the sourcing for Thirty Flights may help towards clarifying these. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

For the development section, in the interview, Chung didn't exactly say he had a "passion for films" in general. He said he liked Wong's films specifically. This should be clarified. Also Wong is the guy's last name, not Kar-wai. All the "Kar-wai"s in the article should be changed to "Wong".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I will take care of this after the Grammys are over :) — Hahc21 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I have taken care of this. Thanks! — Hahc21 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The part about the sequel's non-linear storytelling being a "novel use of the video game medium" doesn't seem to be supported by the source. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that - while it doesn't say that in so few words - has the message. (See third paragraph, the one under the 2nd picture). --MASEM (t) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the reference. — ΛΧΣ 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Source spot-check complete. All the issues I've brought up have been addressed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

Support (stumbled here after checking out my FAC)

• Take care of the unsourced statement.
  • I will, sir :) Unsource statement removed. Don't know from where I took that.
• Could you explain somewhere what "Citizen Abel" is? I see "and was based on a series of Quake 2 maps entitled Citizen Abel" - but that doesn't explain why it's in the image at the top-right of the article (or does it?!)
  • I will try to better explain what does Chung said about this. I am tired of seeing sources stating that Citizen Abel is the name of the character. I believed it was the name of the character too until Chung explicitly statet that the character had no name, and that Citizen Abel was... well, read it on the article when I fix it :P
    • I think it should still be clearer. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I did my best to explain it clearer on the gameplay section. — ΛΧΣ 03:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• It was called "an experience worth playing" - by whom?
  • Hmmm *goes and looks at the sources* Fixed.
• From the description, it seems the game is very short, with two levels. Is that right?
  • Yep :) Two levels, 15-minute playthrough. Pretty short indeed.
    • I think the game's brevity should be emphasized somewhere. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I added a mention of its length on the Gameplay section. — ΛΧΣ 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• "The player controls a spy" - probably add "unnamed" here.
  • Oh gosh, Indeed. Fixed.
    • Err, given what I've read elsewhere, is that correct? Are you sure Citizen Abel isn't the character's name? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Err, Brendon Chung clearly stated on the interview: "It was based on a series of Quake 2 maps I did ten years ago called 'Citizen Abel'." He also stated, when asked if "In Gravity Bone, do you play Citizen Abel, or is that just a reference to your old maps?", that "That doesn't really play a part in the game. You never really see the character, the character never talks, it's just a label I had." With this, it is clear that the character is not named Citizen Abel. — ΛΧΣ 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• You have three consecutive sentences starting with "Cheng" in "Development" :/
  • Will take care of this :) Fixed.
• Given you had " as an experience worth playing" quoted in the lede, it should probably be quoted down in "Reception".
  • I will, thanks for noting that too. Fixed. See above.
    • I didn't say you had to get rid of that quote, though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • it was original research... not a quote >.< — ΛΧΣ 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Were there any number reviews (aside from The Refined Geek)? Like 9/10? Stars? Thumbs up?
  • Nothing :/ Just positive comments with the exception you noted below.
• And speaking of The Refined Geek - "awarding them a score of 8 out of 10 " - was that for each game, or for the series as a whole?
  • For each game :)
    • That should be emphasized then. I'd say "awarding them each a score..." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. — ΛΧΣ 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• commenting, "The cohesiveness - should "the" really be capitalized here?
  • No. Will fix that. Fixed.
• Did the game get any mention in any newspapers? Everything seems to be online. Also, was there any negative reception?
  • No, it was not mentioned in newspapers; and sadly, no, all reviews were positive.
    • Well, I did a Google news search anyway - here is a simple Google news search that shows some more hits on the game, some of which foreign language, but one English (including
      • GiantBomb is not reliable :/ — ΛΧΣ 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
        • How is that not reliable, but Refined Geek is? I didn't think video games had many reliable sources :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Weird thing and big discussion at WP:VG. Result is that, given the lack of proper editorial oversight, GiantBomb cannot be used at FA level :) — ΛΧΣ 17:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I notice, in the entire article, you don't say where the game was released, and how. You say it was released on Windows in the infobox, but there isn't a source or mention of that. Was the game really not available on a Mac? And how did people purchase it? And for what price?
  • The game is free, available on the developer's website, blendogames.com. It was not sent to Steam, not released under a price. It has no Mac version, or any other version but Windows. It's a very indie release that got the attention of the mainstream VG websites for its unique style etc :)
    • Is any of that in the article? The first sentence says it's freeware, but I don't see where in the body of the article (and with what source) it says it's free. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just some missing details that I think the article needs. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Answered some. I will fix the rest as soon as I get ready to on my PC. — ΛΧΣ 19:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks for the replies. I supported, but still had a question over GiantBomb. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • To respond to your point about GiantBomb, editorial and review content that comes from its paid editorial staff is reliable. The link you mentioned above is a user blog that is hosted on the site, which is not considered reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC) .

Marcus Ward Lyon, Jr.

Nominator(s): – Maky 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this short article for featured article because I feel that it meets all of the criteria. The article covers every source I can find on the subject. The only known exception is his burial record at Arlington National Cemetery, which would provide an interment date and grave location (section & tombstone number). I will include the information if someone can suggest a proper citation, especially since I cannot link directly to the record, only to the database. (An image of the tombstone may also be in the public domain under PD-USGov, but I'm not certain and cannot get a response from Arlington National Cemetery.) Assistance on these two issues would be most welcome. If any other sources can be located, please send them to me and I will quickly incorporate them.

Lyon was not known for a single, major contribution to the sciences, but contributed about 160 papers over the course of his career. He named two of the slow loris species that were recently elevated to species status, and is the authority on several genera and species of mammals (including a ton of synonyms). In all, this should be a complete, short article about a lesser known naturalist from the early 1900s. – Maky 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Image is PD and fine. Sources are fine except the title for Just should use an endash instead of a hyphen and there's a doubled period in Layne, so I'll have to strongly oppose because of those tremendously outrageous issues ;-) Apparently Notre Dame has his family papers, not sure if you could access those. There's also "first published plant lists of the Indiana Dunes, then notes on ground squirrels and badgers anticipating his 1936 opus on mammals of Indiana" in American Midland Naturalist (January 2009), 161 (1), pg. 13-44. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the source and image review. Fixes made as requested... Lol! Living in Atlanta, I don't have access to the Notre Dame library, and I'm not even sure how I would cite family papers if I could get them to send me digital copies. What kind of information would you like to get from them? Lastly, are you simply wanting a mention of those lists and notes (per this source)? – Maky 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, just mentioned them because you had wondered above about further sources. I don't think it's a big issue either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Added the stuff from American Midland Naturalist as requested. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Lead

• Born in 1875 to a military family, he showed an early interest in zoology by collecting local wildlife around the army posts at which his father was stationed - I think the use of by makes this sentence awkward. Show and by don't mix well. Maybe at an early age he began collecting?

I'm not sure I see how this is awkward, but I have attempted to reword it. If the modifications are insufficient, please let me know. – Maky 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• U.S. National Museum (USNM) - Is there a reason US isn't spelled out? Is this the traditional spelling or something?

Good point. Fixed in two locations. – Maky 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• In 1919, he and his wife, Martha, moved to South Bend, Indiana to join a new clinic. - Why is it a "new" clinic? It's the first mention of a clinic I've seen.

Changed to "newly opened clinic". – Maky 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Following the move, he began to write more medical publications, - he began to write publications on medicine. More medical doesn't make sense as it is.

Fixed. – Maky 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Early

• His family moved between various army posts across the United States throughout his childhood, although there are few records documenting his early life. - The use of although is improper here; the second half doesn't contradict anything in the first half.

I'm having a hard time rewording this. I will revisit it soon. – Maky 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to reword this. Please let me know if it's better. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a child, Lyon enjoyed collecting insects and other animals around the army posts, particularly Watertown Arsenal near Boston, Massachusetts. - This needs to be recast. As is, it reads as he enjoyed collecting Watertown Arsenal (collective noun for a type of insect) near Boston. I think adding an "at" would leave it too wordy. Better to reword this entirely.

I'm also having a hard time with this one, so I used your "at" idea for the time being. I'll revisit it soon. – Maky 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to reword this. Please let me know if it's better. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• By the time Lyon was in high school, his father had been restationed at Rock Island Arsenal, and the young man graduated from nearby Rock Island High School. - This sentence doesn't proceed logically; it doesn't explain that Lyon moved schools (with his father), rather that he graduated from a different school.

Fix attempted. Please let me know if it is clearer. – Maky 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• He attended Brown University and completed his Ph.B. in 1897, which included training in biology. - Unless I'm mistaken, the degree doesn't include training in biology, his studies did.

Good catch. Fixed. – Maky 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Career

• In 1898, he moved to Washington, D.C. and in conjunction with his graduate studies, he became a part-time Aid in the Division of Mammals at the U.S. National Museum (USNM), now the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution. - I can't help but feel the "now" bit would be better as a footnote.

Footnote made. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• He was sent to Venezuela in 1899 by the USNM, along with Lieutenant Wirt Robinson of the United States Army, to collect mammal specimens. - "He was sent to Venezuela with Lieutenant...Army in 1899 by...to collect mammal specimens." is better.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've used it. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• despite continuing his education and taking on teaching assignments at Howard University Medical School. He taught physiology from 1903–1904 and 1907–1909, as well as bacteriology from 1909 to 1915. - No need to separate these sentences. Can be condensed to "and teaching physiology and bacteriology at Howard University Medical School from 1903-1904 and 1907-1909, respectively. The dates can go wherever you want, but the two sentences definitely should be combined.

Done, though the example you gave incorrectly attributed the dates. Because of the complex dates, I've put them in parentheses. I hope that is acceptable. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• From his work as a mammalogist, Lyon is considered the taxonomic authority for the family - From is not the right word. Because of is better, but not perfect.

I never liked how this sentence started when I first wrote it, and I agree that "Because of..." is not perfect. But as before, I'm at a loss. If I think of something better, I will change it, but for now, I'm using "Because of..." – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• From his work as a mammalogist, Lyon is considered the taxonomic authority for the family Ptilocercidae (pen-tailed treeshrews). He also is the authority for the genus Anathana (the Madras treeshrew) and two genera of leporids (rabbits and hares), - These sentences should be combined.

Done. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Although he was never able to visit the Far East, he acquired a strong knowledge of the fauna and geography from studying the collections that were sent to the USNM. Following the end of his relationship with the USNM in 1912, he not only began publishing basic medical studies, but also continued to publish mammalogy material. - The first sentence here seems out of place, unless it is saying that his publications related to the Far East's fauna. Otherwise I think it's an unnecessary detail.

It does refer to his publications about Far East fauna. I have done my best to fix, but you may not like it. Please share you opinion. I am open to suggestions, too. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Despite his interest in and occupation with medical science, his passion was for the study of living and extinct mammals, which was reflected in how his contributions to mammalogy outnumbered his medical papers. - "which was" and after reads like original research, and the readers can gather that themselves, anyway, even if it is sourced.

Good point. Deleted. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

• Lyon criticized poorly managed conservation programs in his paper "Conservation from the Naturalist's Point of View" (1939), and in his final paper, he envisioned life around the Kankakee Outwash Plain before human activities had changed it. Lyon also gave up his cottage in the Indiana Dunes after the wildlife refuge was converted into a vacation destination. - What is his final paper? It's not clear.

Title provided. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - The prose is rather clunky and needs a copyedit. I can't help but feel that the article is at times a bit redundant to give it length, and becomes choppy. ceranthor 18:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed replies/fixes. I have done my best to attempt the examples you pointed out above. I have also re-read the article but did not notice any other "clunky" prose... but then again, I'm not as good at copyediting as you are. If there are any other problems, please list them. Thanks for the review. – Maky 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they've all been fixed pretty satisfactorily. The article still needs a copyedit of some form, though. ceranthor 21:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there are particular places that need work. Suggestions are welcome. – Maky 04:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support from Ceranthor. The prose has improved greatly, and it is far less choppy than it was. I think it is close enough that I can comfortably support. That being said, the quote "ardent conservationist" under personal life needs to be cited. Otherwise, it looks good to me. ceranthor 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Kitchen Roll.

• "Born in 1875 to a military family" --> "Born into a military family" - no need to state the year of his birth again.

Good point. Done. – Maky 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "At the same time, he taught medical classes at Howard University Medical School and later George Washington University Medical School." --> "At the same time, he taught at Howard University Medical School and later George Washington University Medical School." - no need to say medical classes, as they are both medical schools.

Another very good point. Fixed. – Maky 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "He attended Brown University and completed his Ph.B. in 1897, and his training included biology." --> "He attended Brown University and completed his Ph.B. in 1897, which included training in biology."

Done. – Maky 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Because of his work as a mammalogist, Lyon is considered the taxonomic authority for the family Ptilocercidae (pen-tailed treeshrews), as well as the authority for the genus Anathana (the Madras treeshrew)" --> "Because of his work as a mammalogist, Lyon is considered the taxonomic authority for the family Ptilocercidae (pen-tailed treeshrews), as well as the genus Anathana (the Madras treeshrew)"

Done. – Maky 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Until the move to Indiana, Lyon wrote many papers in the field of mammalogy, and particularly on the morphology, systematics, and zoogeography of mammals." - is the "and" necessary? ("mammalogy, particularly"). If it is the sentence still feels a bit clunky.

Changes made. Let me know if it's a little better. – Maky 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Following the end of his relationship with the USNM in 1912, he not only began publishing basic medical studies, but also continued to publish mammalogy material." - publish and publishing used in the same sentence feels awkward.

Changed one of them to "write". Good enough? – Maky 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "articles collected by Lyon and his wife's scrapbook of her life in college." I can't make sense of this. Can it be reworded?

Changes made. Better? – Maky 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ceranthor that the article needs a copyedit.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Within the next few days, I plan to review WP:1A (a long, but helpful page written by a user to help people learn how to copyedit). I review that page about once a year. After that, I'll re-read the article and try my best to clean it up more. However, if you can point out any other issues, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for the reviews and suggestions! – Maky 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks for the quick response. I'll give the article another read soon.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments The article reads much better after the copyedit, but there are still issues. Here are some more comments. I may add more later.

• "Born into a military family, he demonstrated an early interest in zoology when he began collecting local wildlife around the army posts at which his father was stationed." could be worded better.

I've tried tying the points together better and making parts of it more succinct. Your thoughts? – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Lyon acquired the rank of Major in the Medical Reserve Corps during World War I, and was appointed to honorary positions during his career, including the position of president of the American Society of Mammalogists from 1931 to 1932." --> "Lyon acquired the rank of Major in the Medical Reserve Corps during World War I, and was appointed to honorary positions during his career, including president of the American Society of Mammalogists from 1931 to 1932."

Done. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• The last two sentences begin with "he" in the second paragraph of the lead.

Fixed. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "His father's military career led his family to move across the United States throughout his childhood and adolescence." --> "Because of his father's military career, his family moved across the United States throughout his childhood and adolescence." Also "his" is repeated three times in this sentence.

Done and fixed. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Around each army post, and particularly at Watertown Arsenal near Boston, Massachusetts, the young Lyon enjoyed collecting insects and other animals." --> "The young Lyon enjoyed collecting insects and animals around the army posts, particularly at Watertown Arsenal near Boston, Massachusetts."

Done. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1898, he moved to Washington, D.C. and in conjunction with his graduate studies, he became a part-time Aid in the Division of Mammals at the United States National Museum (USNM)." --> "In 1898, in conjunction with his graduate studies, he moved to Washington, D.C. to become a part-time Aid in the Division of Mammals at the United States National Museum (USNM)."

I moved the year around to avoid the double "in" at the beginning of the sentence. Otherwise, this is done. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "He retained his post at USNM until 1912 and taught physiology (1903–1904 and 1907–1909) and bacteriology (1909–1915) at Howard University Medical School." This sentence combines two unrelated points, linking them with "and". I think this sentence should be split up.

Done. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "In the latter half of 1915, he began teaching at George Washington University Medical School, handling courses in bacteriology and pathology from 1915 until 1917 ... " --> "In the latter half of 1915, he began teaching at George Washington University Medical School, handling courses in bacteriology and pathology until 1917 ... " - no need to mention 1915 twice.

Good catch. Should have been obvious. Fixed. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Lyon served in the U.S. Army during World War I, joining in 1917 and serving as a pathologist at the Walter Reed Army Hospital for two years." --> "From 1917, Lyon joined the U.S. Army for two years, serving as a pathologist at the Walter Reed Army Hospital during World War I."

Done. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "His wife, Martha, was also extended the same offer, and joined the clinic as an ophthalmologist." --> "His wife, Martha, was extended the same offer, and joined as an ophthalmologist."

Done. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• The final paragraph of the "career" section uses the word "incorporated" three times.

Done. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "After moving to Indiana in 1919 ... " --> "After he moved to Indiana ... ". No need to say when he moved there again.

Done. – Maky 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Somehow I missed these comments while I was moving. I will address them tonight. – Maky 11:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing these problems. I can now support the article.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time reviewing the article and suggesting fixes. – Maky 03:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. I'm copyediting the article; please revert anything I accidentally screw up. I'll try to give detailed rationales in the edit summaries for anything non-trivial. I'll add comments below as I go through the article.

• Poking about in Google Books brought up the "Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution" for the year ending 30 June 1906, which shows Lyon as having been appointed Assistant Curator in the Division of Mammals during the prior year. This directly contradicts your source that gives the dates as 1898-1900; I would think the Annual Report is the more reliable source for this. The 1908 report shows him still with that title; I'll see if I can find more examples. Aha! Googling "marcus lyon aid division of mammals 1910" under Google Books brings up a "Guide to the Smithsonian Archives", issue 5, which has this snippet visible in the search: "Other staff members of the Division of Mammals have included Marcus Ward Lyon, Jr., Aid, 1898- 1906, and Assistant Curator, 1906- 1909". For some reason that information doesn't come up inside the book, but I think that's enough to doubt your other source.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, I am not having the same luck with your search strings on Google Books. Searching "marcus lyon aid division of mammals 1910" did not pull up "Guide to the Smithsonian Archives", but instead pulled up the Historical Catalogue of Brown University. I did find the snippet you mentioned by searching directly for the volume—here is a link. As you said, your source says "Aid, 1898- 1906, and Assistant Curator, 1906- 1909", whereas the one from Brown University says "assistant curator, U. S. National Museum 1905–12". It seems like every source says something different, and even though I'm inclined to trust a source from the Smithsonian, I'm worried we're getting into original research. Your thoughts before I proceed with any changes? – Maky 03:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Now finished with the copyedit. I'm ready to support once the issue above with the dates of his assistant curatorship has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit! I'm fine with the changes you made. I have made comments above regarding the factual error, but will need your help resolving it. – Maky 03:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How about changing the text just to indicate that he was assistant curator "for a time", or something neutral like that, and then adding a footnote that gives the multiple sources and the varying date ranges? I would include the "Annual Reports", if you can find them; if not I'd be glad to add them for you. I think those are probably the most reliable source among those we're discussing because they are direct documentation of that year, and they're not really primary -- primary would be a letter from him to the Smithsonian accepting the post, I would say. I don't think it's OR to include sources like this, but unfortunately one can't do much with them other than confirm that he had the post that year -- by their nature it's not going to be easy to identify the end of his term. Though if you can find the annual reports for the years before and after his appointment I think that could suffice -- again, with the situation explained in the note. Do you think this is an acceptable approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the footnote idea, and will implement that now. I found digital copies of the Annual Reports by year at BHL. However, I can't search the content using the web interface, and the PDFs take forever to download, otherwise I would look at every year for a more complete record. Using the OCR to search the volume ending 30 June 1906, I don't see where it says Lyon was appointed Assistant Curator in the Division of Mammals the previous year as you claimed. What page were you on? Anyway, I'll see what I can do. – Maky 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the "about this book" link; the text is on page 50. Let me know if that doesn't work for you and I can give you the exact text. I'll keep digging and see if I can find the announcement of his successor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Because the book is for the "year ending June 30, 1906", it's impossible to say if he was promoted in 1905 or 1906, I think. If you could suggest a final sentence for that second note (b), I will use the link you provided as a reference. As it stands, I think the note says what can be said. – Maky 04:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've switched to support, above, while we tweak the wording on this; this is just a detail. I think the note can go into details that would be too tedious for the main text, so how about making this the second sentence of that note: "According to the Guide to the Smithsonian Archives, he was an Aid from 1898 until 1906 and Assistant Curator from 1906 to 1909, and this is supported by the museum's annual report for the year ending June 30, 1906, which recorded his promotion to Assistant Curator during the preceding twelve months." That places the information adjacent to the other source directly related to the Smithsonian, and puts the two most likely to be accurate first in the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just made another tweak to clarify that McIntosh and the Brown source don't give dates for his post as Aid; as a result I've moved the McIntosh ref to the end to cover that clause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion and tweak. I tweaked it further by showing it start date for the Aid position, and I tried to find an end date for his Assistant Curator position, but those volumes appear to stop reporting personnel changes before 1909. Feel free to tweak the wording further to fit your taste. Also, I was wondering if you had an opinion on the photo of the tombstone at Arlington (mentioned at the top of this page)? I'm pretty sure it was taken by an employee of the US Government, but they are not responding to my emails. It would be nice to add a picture near the bottom of the article to break up the monotony of the text. Regardless, thanks again for the helpful and copyedit review. – Maky 16:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What you've done looks fine. I looked at the tombstone page but can't figure out whether it is PD, though like you I suspect it is. Sorry, not an expert on that sort of thing. Anyway, nice article; I hope it gets promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC) .

Laura Secord

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a comprehensive article on the Chocoloate Lady this War of 1812 heroine, and an important part of early Canadian mythology.

Ideally, I'd like to see it as Today's Featured Article on 22 June 2013, which is the 200th anniversary of her famous walk through enemy-controlled territory to inform the British of an impending American attack. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

This is my first full review of a non-road FAC, so I won't be supporting or opposing until others review.

• fought on the side of the American revolutionaries during the War. - phrased a bit awkwardly, someone who isn't familiar with American history might not understand
  • Rephrased, with a few more details. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• last paragraph of lead - two sentences starting with "She" right next to each other
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Section 2 is very short. Meanwhile, section 1 has a lot of subsections.
  • It is. I've found few details describing her, and couldn't think of a satisfying way to work the info into another section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• More later. --Rschen7754 09:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Holding until the lead is figured out. --Rschen7754 06:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal history

• He descended from Richard Ingersoll, - was descended?
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• where he settled on a small piece of land with a house on it on the Housatonic River. - the two "on"s so close to each other should be adjusted.
  • Done. Reworded. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thomas's contract was cancelled, either because road construction was not completed on time or because he had not brought in the requisite number of settlers. - seems uncertain.
  • Reworded. Leavy 2012 says it was because the roads weren't finished; Mackenzie 1977 (which I don't have access to) apparently claimed it was because of the number of settlers. Reworded to: "Thomas's contract was cancelled for not having fulfilled all the details of the conditions". Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "all the details of the conditions" seems a bit wordy. --Rschen7754 08:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • ->"all of its conditions" Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• 1.2 - second and third paragraphs could be merged.
  • I'm not sure. It seems like a jarring transition in mid-paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Was Secord promised the keys? It doesn't seem clear.
  • Maitland promised her the keys in 1827, but Colborne had become Lieutenant Governor by 1831 (when the monumetn opened) and didn't follow through on Maitland's promise. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Would you mind clarifying this in the article? --Rschen7754 08:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I've changed the last sentence to "Despite her pleas, Secord did not receive the keys to the monument." Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Memory and legend

• I still think it should be merged somewhere, but won't oppose over it.
  • I'll think over a way to handle this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Merged. I've merged the "Personal description" and "Legend" sections into a "Memory and legend" section". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• According to biographer Peggy Dymond Leavey, her many grandchildren enjoyed hearing their grandmother tell stories of her early life, and her Anglican, faith increased with age. - seems like a stray comma after Anglican
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• More later. --Rschen7754 08:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• "In the early 1920s, historians suggested that Native scouts" - what are Native scouts? --Rschen7754 08:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Reworded. That would be scouts sent by the Mohawks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I'm not qualified to comment on the comprehensiveness, but otherwise the article meets the standard. --Rschen7754 18:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dank

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Hi Curly, thanks for bringing this to FAC. The lead needs to be longer; about twice as long would do it, as long as it does a good job summarizing the article. I'll be back with more a little later. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, dear. Oh, deary, deary, dear. Natty10000 doesn't seem to agree, as s/he has gutted the lead not just once (18 January), but twice (19 January) since I've submitted this article for FAC. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, don't do anything with it yet, I'll go ask Natty what's up. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I think we can compromise here; I agree that it has a bit more detail than it needs, and I'll trim a bit. See what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I certainly don't have any problem with a trimming, but cutting out the info about the chocolate company is a big mistake. It can hardly be understated how strongly Canadians associated her name with chocolates, even amongst those familiar with the historical Secord. The first thing most Canadians think of when you mention her name is chocolates. In fact, I first visited the article myself to find out when she founded "her" chocolate company. I think it's important to emphasize they she is both unrelated to the chocolate company, and that her name is strongly associated with the chocolate company amongst Canadians. Otherwise, Canadians (who will almost certainly be the vast majority of readers) will be confused as to her relation with the company (as I was).
          • I didn't cut the information out of the article, I just reduced the bit in the lead to "Laura Secord Chocolates are named for her." Change it however you want ... but if it feels too much like "product placement", then I'll stop here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
            • I do undertand the "product placement" concerns, but please keep in mind that a quite significant number (quite likely a majority) of Canadian readers who come to this article will be curious about her realtion to the chocolate company. "Laura Secord Chocolates are named after her" only raises more questions than it answers. The fact that the fame of the chocolate company far overshadows Secord's own has more than one reference in the article, and I'm sure I could come up with more with little effort.
            • How about something like this? —

              Before: "On the centennial of her walk, businessman Frank Patrick O'Connor named Laura Secord Chocolates in her honour; it became the most successful candy retailer in Canada, and though the historical Secord and her family had no relation to it, amongst Canadians her name is most often associated with the candy company."

              After: "Though the historical Secord and her family had no relation to it, most Canadians associate her name with the Laura Secord Chocolates company, which was named in her honour on the centennial of her walk."

            • I'm not really sure it's a good idea to leave out the "Canada's most successful candy retailer"; while I sympathise with the "product placement" concern, it does give context for non-Canadian readers—as in: why would Canadians associate her name with a candy company, and even if they do, why does it have to be in the lead?
        • If you're going to do more more trimming to the lead, there's one more detail I think is important not to lose: that her father fought on the American side in the Revolutionary war. Before I atrarted editing it, the article claimed Thomas Ingersoll was a United Empire Loyalist (uncited, of course). It's a belief held by (or assumed) a certain number of Canadians, and I think it's important to disabuse readers of that notion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sure, I'm fine with those changes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• I would make "(where she stopped at the home of her half-brother Charles, who was ill in bed)" a note; I think it's a bit tangential and interrupts the flow of that sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. You're right. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• The two instances of " are said to " in the personal description section leave me a little skeptical ... who said? - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Attributed to Leavy. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Nikkimaria

Sources and images - spotchecks not done. Disclaimer: have previously edited the article

• FN59, 61, 73: page(s)?
  • 59: Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book, and I'm in Japan. I'll see if I can find an interested Canadian who can pop over to their local library and hunt it down. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. The helpful Moxy was very prompt in turning up a page reference for this one. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 61: I don't have access to this one, but it is available on JSTOR. I'll see if I can find some kind soul to track down the page numbers. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Removed. Rjensen has access to the article, and gave me page refs, but has convinced me the information is really not that important. I've removed the two lines. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 73: Removed. I don't have access to this book. The information was trivial, so I've deleted it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• FN87: page formatting
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Carstens: given that this is published by a print-on-demand company, what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
  • I don't know if this is enough to qualify the book, but Sanford works for Archives of Ontario, and Carstens has had a book published by University of Toronto Press. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Berry: work?
  • Done. Typo in the parameter name. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• File:Laura_Secord_warns_Fitzgibbons,_1813.jpg: is this being claimed as Crown copyright?
  • According to Library and Archives Canada: "No restrictions on use for reproductions or publication." and "Copyright: expired; Restrictions on use: nil" Nothing about the crown, or the conditions of the painting's creation. Without evidence to the contrary, I would assume that means the copyright was Lorne's. It was "cquired by Dr. Arthur Doughty, Dominion Archivist, probably through a commission, before 1931", but creation is stated to be c. 1920. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• File:Brock's_Monument.jpg: per the Canadian tag, need to mention which of its reasons applies. Also, author is listed as Durer, which is not correct
  • Done. That's embarrassing.... Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• File:Mrs_James_Secord.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Paul MacDermott

• Support I have reviewed this article using text-to-speech software, so please note there are aspects of it I haven't checked, such as images, but those seem to have been covered by other reviewers. Having listened to it several times over the last few days I find it reads well and provides a broad coverage of the topic. I like articles where I come away having learnt something interesting, and as someone from the UK I was unaware of Laura Secord and the role she played in history. One suggestion I have (though this is optional) is adding the pronunciation of her surname. My software pronounces it as "Seecord", but I've no idea if that is correct. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 12:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd actually wanted to include a pronunciation, but have been unable to find a reliable source that provides one. Growing up in Canada, everyone around me pronounced Laura Secord Chocolates as /ˈsikɔɹd/; when I took my family to the Laura Secord Homestead last summer, the staff pronounced her name that way as well. The Japanese wiki site for her (jp:ローラ・セコール) has her name pronounced in a pseudo-French style (/sekoːɽɯ/), which made me doubt which was correct (I live in Japan, and looked it up for my wife). There are Japanese sources that give a pronunciation similar to the one I grew up with, though. There's a Yahoo! Answers page, which I'm fairly certain is a prank, that pronounces it /ˈlauɹə ˈsɛkɔɹd/. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I must admit I did have a quick look myself after my earlier posting, but could find nothing definitive, though from what you say my money's on /ˈsikɔɹd/; being the right one. I've only done a few reviews at FA level, but I don't think it would be an issue. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. Alright, I've added the pronunciation, though my OCD is eating me up inside—it's the only thing on the page that's uncited. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I stress again, my suggestion is an optional one. I don't think its inclusion is essential. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Okay, I've taken it out again. Though, I don't actually have OCD (at least, not diagnosed). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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