Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 26 February 2015

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Misplaced Pages:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive2

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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC) .

Hermeneutic style

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the elaborate style of Latin in Anglo-Saxon England. It has received a peer review and passed GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, with a couple of suggestions.

• I don't really like the end of the first section (the bit about the different meaning of the phrase). Besides being self-referential, it seems somewhat out of place at the end of a section, after hermeneutic style has already been established by the preceding text to have a certain meaning. Do you think it could be added as a footnote in the lede? If not, maybe you could put it at the beginning of that section instead of at the end.

• I have put it as a note to the end of the definition section. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• It looks just right this way, I think.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• As a minor point, could you please change one or two uses of "the Continent" to "continental Europe" to help readers who might not be familiar with the other usage (just in case)?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• In England: "According to Scott Thompson Smith, "Æthelstan A"s charters..." The way the quotes are used here makes it a bit confusing and unclear whether or not it's meant to be possessive. I suggest "According to Scott Thompson Smith, the charters of "Æthelstan A" are..." to avoid confusion and quotation mark strangeness.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Other than those minor points, I can't find anything to criticize. You've done a great job on this topic, which I confess to having never heard of until reading your article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, everything looks good now. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• All images are PD-old or PD-art/PD-old and have sufficient source information - OK.
• File:Apuleuis.jpg - added some background information to image summary. - OK as illustration. His depiction differs vastly within Commons:Category:Apuleius, but this depiction has some source information to clarify the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks very much.

Comment

• fixed some MOS:ENDASH issues in references, I have not checked in-text dashes and hyphens though.
• "Lapidge 1993" - I'd put the reprint information within the full citation, it's a bit distracting in the reflist. Template:cite book has |orig-year= for such details (see template documentation for usage info). GermanJoe (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am not sure how to deal with this. The book is a reprint of essays, and where I cite his view in the article as held in 1975 it is relevant that the essay was originally published then, but I also cite other essays not from 1975. I cannot see a field in the cite book template for a note saying that one chapter was originally published earlier. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's just a suggestion, but I would personally just use the 1993 citation, since you mention explicitly both times it's cited that the opinions are from Lapidge's 1975 essay. Alternatively, if you have the 1975 work, add it separately to the bibliography. GermanJoe may have a better suggestion; I'm not known as an expert formatter by any means.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe @Nikkimaria: has a good idea. I can't remember a case in the past, where "old" reprints and new research were cited from the same book. Noting the original article title (somewhere in the citation) might help to reduce this confusion, not sure. GermanJoe (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• So each essay in the book is from a different time? If so, I see your options as follows: you cite the essay directly as originally published, or you include full bibliographic details for each essay - using either orig-year as GermanJoe suggests, or this method - or you combine the two and go with something of the form (original details. Reprinted in current details). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• To be clear, is this an entire essay being reprinted or just someone quoting from an older essay?-RHM22 (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Never mind; I found it on Google Books. See here. Everything is reprinted from other sources. Nikkimaria, can Dudley Miles use the same citations that are used in the acknowledgements section, to make it a bit simpler?-RHM22 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for everyone's helpful comments. I have been looking at whether I have access to the original 1975 article in the journal Anglo-Saxon England, and so far as I can tell I do not, although I have only just got access to JSTOR and I am not yet familiar with it. I cite extensively from the paper, but I only mention the 1975 date twice where it is relevant. I have thought of putting an efn note with name= against each mention of the 1975 date with an explanation of the date discrepancy. Another alternative is to go to a library which has the original paper and photocopy it. Further comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like this specific article is not in JSTOR (but feel free to double-check) :/. The only journal entry for him in 1975 is "Some Remnants of Bede's Lost Liber Epigrammatum". GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• After some testing this ref works for the situation: "<ref>{{harvnb|Lapidge|1993|p=105}} reprinted from {{harvnb|Lapidge|1975|p=orig. page number}}</ref>". Having this short ref, you can define a separate citation for the Lapidge 1975 article with all "old" biblio info (note: "sfnm" would work too, but doesn't allow flexible additional text between the 2 templates). GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Joe. Sorry about putting you to trouble but I think I have found a better solution. I have arranged for the original article to be emailed to me so that I can cite that directly. I can add a note to the 1975 source that it is reprinted in the 1993 book. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• If you can cite the 1975 source directly, you don't need to mention the reprint (the original source is actually the "better", more authentic source for referencing). And no worries, I actually enjoy such technical challenges :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Joe. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Refs now changed to 1975 source. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and commented at the time that it seemed to me of FA standard. I still think so, and the additional images are an excellent bonus. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I read this through a couple of times when it was first nominated, and couldn't find anything to comment on then. I've now read it through again and came up empty-handed again. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Note -- correct me if I missed it but I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review - all OK

• Consistent citations (fixed a few more MOS:ENDASH issues), full bibliographic details provided - OK.

• Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can't comment about content reliability in details, but the used sources are all recent academic books and journals from historians and other topic experts - OK.
• Approx. half the sources are based on Lapidge, but considering the article's scope and his apparent influence on this specific area of research this is to be expected - OK.

Some minor cleanup points:

• Adams - publisher location is discouraged (somewhere deep in the MOS), when the city is part of the publisher's name (check throughout)

• I cannot see anything about this in WP:CITE and I think it is better to be consistent on what details are shown. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• It looks a bit odd (Cambridge, Cambridge) close together, but if nobody has strong feelings about it, it should be OK as is. But I had to mention it in the review :). GJ

• Anglo-Saxon England - is used several times, but with 3 different formats for publisher info.

• GermanJoe I do not understand what you mean. The formats all look the same to me. Can you clarify? Note: Anglo-Saxon England is a journal, the title of Stenton's book and part of the title of the Wiley encyclopedia. They are all shown the same as far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• I meant the journal with ISSN 0263-6751 (assuming it is the same). It is used 5 times with different issues: twice without any publisher info and once without publisher location. You should use the same format for all 5 instances. GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Joe. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopaedia - lists all main editors (4) on the cover. "et al." is probably not wrong, but I wonder if listing all 4 wouldn't be more appropriate? (optional)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks Joe. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• All OK now (status updated), thanks for the quick fixes. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose thanks for your edit. On changing "a considerable number of foreigners" to "many foreigners" at Æthelstan's court, I think this may exaggerate the number. As it is not known how many there were I have deleted the considerable number and changed it to "foreign scholars". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2015 (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 article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC) .

Giant mouse lemur

Nominator(s): – Maky 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a lesser known group of nocturnal lemurs, closely related to the fork-marked lemurs that recently passed FAC. Everything should be in order, and I plan to do additional proofreads over the coming days. I am also trying to acquire more photos from experts in the field, but I may not be able to acquire anything new until March. – Maky 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk

Seems like you're still doing some tweaks, so I'll come back in a few days for a full review. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Tweaks are now done. I just had to do a second proofread and copy edit (to the best of my abilities). I also added new material from an older source that initially I thought had been sufficiently summarized by other (newer) sources. Thanks for your patience and sorry for the delay. – Maky 08:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review - All images are user created and CC-licensed, apart form one, whose author died in 1905. No problems, but potential additional images will have to be checked later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Further comments: (Of these seven specimens, the lectotype was selected in 1939 as MNHN 1867–603, an adult skull and skin.)" Why does this have to be in parenthesis? It is not within another sentence.

I think when I started writing it, it started inside a sentence. Since, it's had the feel of a footnote, and I've wavered on how to handle it. Parentheses have been removed. If you feel it belongs in a footnote, just let me know. – Maky 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not too fond of footnotes, so keeping it in the article is ok for me. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "similarities with fork-marked lemurs (Phaner), which he considered to also be a member of Cheirogaleus." Fork-marked lemurs is plural, so shouldn't be "also be members of"?

Good catch. Fixed. – Maky 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "nd coincidentally gave it the same specific name, coquereli" Why was this name so popular? Who is Coquerel? Would normally be relegated to the species page, but since you mention this fact here, the reader would be curious to know.

It refers to Charles Coquerel. As you said, I was going to go into it more on the species page, but that gets tricky when discussing a genus that until very recently included only one species. I'll attempt to clarify briefly. – Maky 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Giant mouse lemurs were first described by" Could you make it clearer early on that only one species was known? I thought both species were known early on until I reached the fourth paragraph of taxonomy.

Good point. I've tweaked the opening sentence to clarify. – Maky 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "They noted a significant difference in coloration between Coquerel's giant mouse lemur" What about comparison with the other new species?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I was just saying that this possible new species has different coloration patterns from the other two species. I saved discussing the details for the "Description" section (3rd paragraph), where it was most appropriate to go into details. – Maky 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You only mention its difference with Coquerel's, not zaza, in the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. The sentence in "Taxonomy" says the coloration of the undescribed population differs from neighboring M. coquereli, and under "Description" it tells how this undescribed population differs in appearance from what the other two species look like (in general). I have some details on the coloration for the two known species, but they are only slightly different. For that reason, I only included a general description of their coloration, and was saving the extra detail for the species articles. – Maky 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I was just expecting something like "They noted a significant difference in coloration between the two known species and the new specimen they observed" or something like that, but not if the source doesn't say to, and only mentions coquereli. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The source says: "according to the researcher Charlie Gardner exhibits 'significant differences in the coloration of its coat from the other two species. The specimen that we observed appears to have a lighter dorsal coloration than is noted for M. coquereli, and has conspicuous reddish or rusty patches on the dorsal surface of the distal ends of both fore- and hind-limbs. The ventral pelage is also conspicuously light in color, and the animal possesses a strikingly red tail, also becoming darker at the end.'" So, yes, it says that it differs in appearance from both known species, but only gives direct comparison to M. coquereli. Basically it differs by having a lighter belly, reddish patches on its back, and a red tail. Sorry—I had forgotten that they mentioned both species and only remembered that they directly compared it to its closest neighbor. I've made the change you suggested. – Maky 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• The caption of the illustration does not mention what species is shown. Would of course be obvious from reading the article thoroughly, but not at a glance.

Actually, that's kind of deliberate. The illustration comes from Schlegel and Pollen, who described their M. coquereli based on the northern species. Therefore the illustration is supposed to be M. coquereli, but is actually M. zaza if they drew it based on their specimens. That's a little complicated to explain in a caption, so I was just making a general statement about giant mouse lemurs and their original description using art from around that time to illustrate. Your thoughts? – Maky 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd explain that fact in the caption (rather than repeating what's already in the article), as it has historical significance in itself... FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem there is that it would be original research. I may have sources noting that Schlegel & Pollen described specimens from the north, but I have nothing saying what the lithograph was drawn from. Most likely it's a drawing of M. zaza, but I don't have a source. Thoughts? – Maky 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps note that it was not noted which locality the illustrated specimen was from? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've written a new caption, but it was difficult to explain so succinctly. I didn't really have room to discuss the ambiguity over the specimen's identity, but I feel the statement is ambiguous (though supported) enough to get the same idea across. Agree? – Maky 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Had it been suspected prior to 2005 that there were multiple species?

No, the genera was poorly studied. Even Tattersall and Groves didn't speculate at other species. For a long time, it was just considered to be another type of mouse lemur... though considerably larger. – Maky 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anything on when the two species diverged?

Thanks for asking! I went back and looked, only to realize that I had overlooked some divergence dates. Added! – Maky 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "young males begin to exhibit early sexual behaviors." What is implied by this?

Done. – Maky 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• "a mating system best described as scramble competition polygyny" Perhaps briefly explain?

Done. – Maky 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do the original descriptions under external links have additional images or info that could be added to the article?

No addition images, and the details were covered elsewhere. If anything, extra details belong in the species article. I provided the links in the "External links" section in case people wanted to see/read the original descriptions for themselves. These original descriptions used to be inaccessible to the general public, and I feel the digital libraries offer a wonderful service to the public. – Maky 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - alrighty, all comments addressed, looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry but with no commentary for three weeks this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (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 article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC) .

Graduados

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead

• If Graduados is in Spanish, that means The Graduates is the English term, and the language in brackets from the opening sentence needs to be corrected.
• The introduction seems concise, reads understandable and contains information from all sections.
• I understood the plot from first reading. I know we can not expect references for the plot of the entire series, but I wonder does the FA tolerate sections with no refs. I've seen book-related articles being nominated at FARC because their plot is not sourced.
• Can you describe Showmatch more precisely? "Blockbuster series" instead of "blockbuster program" could be a better fit. And it was moved an hour earlier to compete with Graduados, right?
• I guess you're referring to "ballads" as "soft songs" in the 'Other media'?

Done. Yes, ballads are soft songs. As far as I know, references are not required on the plot section, because the reference is the plot of the work itself; references may be required if the section goes beyond a mere plot summary. Cambalachero (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think "working title" would be more suitable instead of the original title of El paseaperros. The term original means that the series was released under the first title, while "working" means that the title was during the development of the storyline.
• Done reading the prose, you've got my support on this criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Erick

Very interesting article, I'm taking a look right now.

• The checklinks tool spotted one non-functioning url.
• The disambiguation tool picked one internal link that needs to be disambiguated
• You're missing an alt for the infobox image (the parameter is image_alt).
• " The plot concerns a group of 1989 high-school graduates who reunite twenty years later." 2012 is more than twenty years later from 1989. I'd suggest either "more than twenty years later" or "twenty-three years later"
• "An episode included a flashback to San Carlos de Bariloche" I think "One episode included a flashback to San Carlos de Bariloche" sounds more appropriate.
• Is the Gran Rex Theater referring to the Teatro Gran Rex? If so, you should wikilink it.
• Is there a reason why you mention the telenovela wining Program of the Year twice? How about "Graduados received 12 Tato Awards (including Television Program of the Year) from 20 nominations on November 17, 2012." or something similar?
• "The producers of Graduados released an album of music used in the series." Should specify whether it's a compilation album or soundtrack even you already linked to compilation album.
• "The first CD went gold" Please mention which country the album was certified gold at. I presume it's in Argentina, but it should be mentioned nonetheless.
• "As the series wound down Telefe considered a theatrical version for the 2013 summer season, similar to a 2010 version by the producers of Valientes, but the cast had other commitments." There should be a comma after "down". You can put a parenthesis between "similar" and "Valientes" if there are too many commas in the sentence.
• Some of the news sources in the references section should be linked such as La Nacion (only link the first instance).
• -More coming. Erick (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. The disambiguation link, however, is correct as it is: it is the Graduados (disambiguation) hatnote at the top of the article. --Cambalachero (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay, that makes sense. Well just address of the issues and I'll be glad to give my support. Erick (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, except for the link in the references. I was told in a previous FAC of another article that references should have a similar style, which means that I should link all the names of sources, or none. Not all sources have specific articles, so this may generate a lot of red links. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Anyways, you've addressed everything else which is enough for me to support this article. Good job! Erick (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry but it's been six weeks and there still appears to be a long way to go to get sufficient commentary and support for promotion, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 02:12, 7 April 2015 (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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC) .

Hurricane Marie (2014)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marie in 2014 was the among the strongest Eastern Pacific hurricanes on record, attaining Category 5 status on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. A large system, it had substantial effects along the coastlines of Mexico and California despite its center remaining hundreds of miles away. Six people lost their lives due to the storm and damage in California was especially severe. A breakwater off the coast of Long Beach suffered extensive damage amounting to roughly $10 million. Hopefully you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support, with the disclaimer that I did a pre-FAC review before CB nominated it to help clean up prose and such. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Marie_Aug_24_2014_1830Z.png: do you have a link to confirm author? Not seeing it in given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The satellite image in question is a modified version, by @Supportstorm:, of one of the Geostationary satellite images (labeled as GEO on the source) for Marie. The particular satellite used in that image is GOES-15 which is operated by NOAA. Original image can be seen here. Hopefully that clears it up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Quick Comment: I only feel Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale doesn't need to wikilink so many times, 3 times at lead section, 2 more times at Meteorological history.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed one blatant double link, but I feel the piped links for the "Category # hurricane" are useful. I don't feel that strongly either way, though, so if they're an issue I'll remove the other extra links. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Surely the Category 5 one could go to List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Support:Good enough for me.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As the reviewer for this article's GA nomination, I support--12george1 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comments:

In "Meteorological History":

• "...ranking as the six-strongest in the Pacific east of the..." — I believe it should be "sixth" strongest.
• Regarding the Most intense Pacific hurricanes table, can there be a note to clarify the difference to a layman between Pacific typhoons and hurricanes? When I see the article for Typhoon Tip, there's a "Most intense Pacific typhoons" table there. Confusing for me.

• Added a note at the bottom of the template (Template:Most intense Pacific hurricanes) specifying the location of Pacific hurricanes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In "Preparations and impact":

• "...office warned residents in Los Angeles and Ventura counties could 'potentially see the largest surf in recent years generated by a hurricane.'" — Aren't citations supposed to come right after a direct quotation?

• There should be one :P Added it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

*"North of Malibu, one home fell into the ocean." — The source just says it was a "structure". Any later sources that say it was a "home"?

• Corrected it to "structure". I probably misread it and interpreted it to mean house. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

*"The Los Angeles County Fire Department assisted with 115 ocean rescues on August 26." — Source says over 115 were conducted.

• "Along the breakwater, three areas were completely gouged out by the surf while five other areas were significantly damaged." — The source for this () lists different major and significant damage numbers.
• "...850 ft (260 m) saw significant damage, and a further 1,725 ft (526 m) experienced moderate damage." — I don't see that breakdown in the LA Times source. All I see is the total length of significant and moderate damage.

• The LA Times source (ref #56) is used just for the total length of the breakwater. The breakdown of damage is sourced via the Long Beach Press Telegram (ref #57). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• "...damaged a roadway at Sea Launch, within Long Beach." — I don't understand what "Sea Launch" is from the cited source. Is it the Sea Launch Commander? Is it a neighborhood in Long Beach? Is it a corporate center?

• I believe it's the ship, since the source was giving a general location of where the damage took place. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• "The Army Corps estimated that it could take more than $10 million to repair and replace the damaged breakwaters in Long Beach." — The cited source says $20M for the middle breakwater alone.

• Corrected to $20 million and changed the wording to reflect that it's only for the major damage to the Middle Breakwater. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Damage at the beach was deemed the worst since September 1997 when Hurricane Linda brought large swells to the region." — I'm unclear about two things with this sentence. First, the source given for Linda only notes five men swept out to sea and rescued. It doesn't list any damage. Marie indirectly resulted in heavy damage and one California fatality. I think this storm ranks farther up in impact than Linda. Second, "damage at the beach" seems to refer to the previous sentence about Pebbly Beach and not the impact on other beaches or along a broader stretch of coastline. The NOAA source doesn't mention Pebbly Beach at all, however. Please clarify for me.

• I'm just going by what the sources say in regards to the severity of damage. As for the second part, it is indeed for Pebbly Beach specifically. The NOAA source is just to verify that the "September 1997" storm is Linda, nothing more really. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• The Catalina Express has its own wiki article (although it's a bit slack in citations). -- Veggies (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I believe I've either addressed or replied to all of your comments. Many thanks for the review, Veggies! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Seeing as all my points have been addressed, I support the promotion of this article. -- Veggies (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've spot-checked some of the sources and everything looks to be in order in terms of verification and paraphrasing. All sources look reliable enough to support the uncontroversial and chiefly descriptive content, and citation formatting is consistent from what I can tell. I can't read much Spanish, but I don't see anything to suggest translation errors. – Juliancolton |  03:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It would probably be a good idea to talk less about development and initial movement of the cyclone in the lead, since that information is immediately repeated below the lead, and since most readers will be more interested in the impacts of the hurricane. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 28 April 2015 (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) 14:26, 30 April 2015 (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 article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC) .

Hatoful Boyfriend

Nominator(s): Silverseren 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a quirky dating sim visual novel involving pigeons as the objects of your infatuation. Originally produced as an indie title in Japan with a hastily made English patch slapped on top of it, the game obtained an online cult following rapidly, which eventually led to it being officially published by a major games publishing company. A real rags to riches story. Involving pigeon love interests. Silverseren 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose At a first glance, it looks like the vast majority of references are either from the game itself, its creator Moa Hato's blogs or the websites of its developers PigeoNation, Devolver Digital and Frontier Works. Indeed I count only around 30 of the 140 references to be from sources that aren't self-published or primary. Even among those I'm not sure of the reliability of clickbait like "The 6 Most Insane Video Games About Dating", or unvetted, user-contributed content like this or Game Skinny.

Further, the prose is often difficult to read. It is at times overlinked ("severed", "pandemic", "Japan") and interrupted by Japanese-language text. There's also no need of a table for just one item. I'm puzzled why the story for the Bad Boys Love alternative game is ten times as long as that for the main game itself.—indopug (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realised that most of the self-published references is for content that is excruciatingly detailed and uninteresting to read. So you could kill two birds in one stone by severely trimming the Bad Boys Love story, Release history, English localization and Adaptations.—indopug (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Indopug: I have removed the Cracked reference and the Game Skinny reference. Daniel Nye Griffiths is a games writer for Wired UK, he is a reliable source on games regardless of if he's publishing in Forbes. I have removed a number of wikilinks, including duplicated links, though i've kept pandemic, since I don't think that would automatically be a known term for readers. Removed the graphic novel table as well. The Bad Boys Love section is the canon plotline that only gets unlocked after doing each route. It tie together all the character's, explaining their true backstory, including the backstory of the game's universe as well. It is basically the main plot. Silverseren 04:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently waiting for a response in this RSN section in order to determine if Technology Tell is a reliable source. If confirmed, I can use it to fill in a lot of the article since they've written a lot about the game. Silverseren 04:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that reference #62 points to Tumblr. Is that really a credible source? Singora (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Singora: The Tumblr sources are from the author's own Tumblr (so a self-published source about themselves). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I only got about halfway through, but I'm concerned with what I've read so far.

• There is information in the lead (attributed to the creator, current ref 5) that is not in the body of the article. I recommend you pull the info out of the lead.
• The prose in the gameplay section is a little verbose. A lot of this can be simplified (for example: "As the game follows a branching plot line with multiple endings, at various points during gameplay the player is allowed to make choices that determine which character's romance route the player will encounter. " could lose the first clause and just be "The player makes various choices that determine which plot line the game will follow.")
  • I have no idea what "on in-game elective days" means
  • What exactly is "Bad Boys Love"? Is that the name for the scenario with the best friend?
  • I don't like that interpretation "in a departure from the generally lighthearted romantic routes" is sourced to the creator.
• The plot section is much too long - that should be cut down by at least half.
• As noted above, a great deal of the text seems to be cited to non-third-party sources or blogs (which will need to be demonstrated to be reliable sources). I can't evaluate whether the Japanese-language sources are third-party reliable source or not.
• I don't understand why there is a table in the webcomic section when there is only one row.
• There is no need for subsections in the Adaptations section. Each of those is just one small paragraph - these could be combined easily into a single section.

Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Looks like there are substantive issues here that will be best addressed outside FAC. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (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 article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC) .

Benjamin Tillman

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a racist, bigot and killer, who was also a senator and governor of his state, and a non-trivial figure in American history. It's necessary that this article be done, it is a story that deserved to be told better, even if not a story we care much for. Normally I say "enjoy" but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – As one of the peer reviewers. My few quibbles were dealt with there. This subject is odious, but it is Misplaced Pages's job to cover vile human beings as scrupulously as we do the good guys. I congratulate Wehwalt on this article: it can't have been fun to write, and it is neutral, well-balanced, and as excellently readable as we have come to expect from this source. Full marks, but can we have a fully-paid-up member of the human race next time, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 February 2015‎

I'll see what I can do in that department. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources review: The sources are all of the appropriate standard of reliability. The one format issue I can find is in ref. 133, which requires a pp. not a p. Otherwise, all in order. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: I tend to share Tim's sentiments, both about the repellent character of the subject and the quality of the article that presents him to us. My detailed comments are in the peer review, and I have nothing particular to add now. There were probably more Tillmans than Greeleys around in America, in the second half of the 19th century, more's the pity. I'm glad to see that Horace has his star now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for the kind words. I've fixed the source issue, and will undertake to do someone less offensive than Tillman next time. Easy standard to meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Great article, I enjoyed reading it. I made a few minor copyedits, but nothing else stood out as needing correcting. One thing that might help: where you discuss the Farmers Alliance and the sub-treasury, it might be useful to link to the system in widespread use that the farmers were reacting against: the crop-lien system. Lawrence Goodwyn's The Populist Moment is a good source on that, if you need one. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add that in. As it is discussed, no additional source should be necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Doubts of Eddie Hugh

I have some doubts about the neutrality and balance of parts of this article. There is a lot of negative content (understandably), much of which comes from one source (Kantrowitz's book), and some of which contains assumptions and/or insinuations. Examples include:

• "Tillman and his men arrived too late to participate in those killings" (assumption/insinuation that they would have participated).

Yes, they would have. See Tillman 1909 if you want the gory details, but the source here is a fair summation. I'm reasonably certain that the Tillman 1909 reference is where his later biographers get info on his role in Hamburg and Ellenton.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that it's preferable to state that they would have / intended to join in, but arrived too late, rather than hint at it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Democrats were able to suppress the Republican/African-American vote, reporting a win for Hampton in Edgefield County with over 60 percent of the vote. Bolstered by this result, Hampton gained a narrow victory statewide, at least according to the official returns" (insinuation).

Tillman admitted that he and others stuffed ballot boxes. This is not a matter of historical dispute. He went into considerable detail as to how he and others did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, just state that; "reporting a win" and "at least according to" could be expressed plainly (and be more accurate by doing so; and create a more detailed impression of Tillman for most readers). EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Tillman and others had a celebratory meal at the home of the man who had pointed out which African Americans should be shot" (what was being celebrated? The insinuation/assumption is the killings.).

Yes. That is what they were celebrating. Have you examined Tillman 1909? This is again not a matter of doubt as Tillman often spoke of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, stating that in the article would clarify the point for the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Tillman's death generated a large number of tributes to him in the Senate, Blease, who was angry that Tillman was being lauded, and stated that the late senator was not what he had seemed. He wrote in front of the volume, "Don't believe me, but look up his life & see."" (why not mention some of the tributes, instead of implying that they were false? Putting this in the following section might help to reduce the bias of having it at the end of a section and link it with some more positive things that are there.).

The source does not quote from the lauds. I do not think it is necessary for us to go beyond the sources in such a manner. If a reputable biographer does not feel it necessary, how do we second guess? As for Blease, given that he was a white supremacist himself, I am hesitant to put it in the legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If they were stated in the Senate, I imagine that they're available somewhere, but it can be left. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The late senator's supporters and protégés lingered long in South Carolina, Others who knew and at one time admired Tillman who persisted long on the South Carolina scene" ("lingered" and "persisted" have negative connotations).

I don't agree with you on this, but will modify the verbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Despite being a white supremacist, Tillman as governor initially took a strong stand against lynching" (the "despite" looks like editorializing).

Fair enough. Introductory phrase struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "taken action to prevent such murders, they still occurred, with no one being prosecuted for them" (more editorializing: if no-one was prosecuted, they weren't murders).

I disagree, but will change to "killings".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "With Tillman as governor, "the former Red-shirt faced the mob as head of state."" (another bit of Kantrowitz that is more snide than informative).

As is developed throughout the section, Tillman had a conflict because of his former role as Red Shirt. This is developed throughout the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But why end the para with it? The fact (former Red Shirt, governor of state) is self-evident from what's been stated earlier; all that's added by including the quotation here is an editorial comment to counter the possibility of a positive tinge emerging from the description of BT's lynching stance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest: a greater variety of sources; some hedging in places by stating whose interpretation is being presented; and giving information plainly to allow the reader to reach a conclusion, rather than leading the reader to a particular conclusion/impression through insinuations.

Unless there are comprehensive sources on Tillman that are being overlooked, I don't see what I am supposed to do about the matter. Tillman has only the biographers set forth. Everything is footnoted. Over two dozen sources are used, including many recent and scholarly articles. I am afraid that to a certain extent, we must take Tillman as we find him. If you note, the first two reviewers seem to be holding their mouths and running in the direction of the toilet because of how fair I am being to Tillman. I will ask them if they wish to comment further in light of your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Some other things encountered:

• Source 2 takes me to a login screen.

Subscription tag added.

• There's "African American", "African-American", "the African American" and "black" used; avoiding the second one is the current preference, I believe.

That is when used as an adjective, and the article is consistent in that regard. Note the article title, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd spotted a non-adjectival use, but all fine. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Red Shirts and Reconstruction" is a heading, but there's no description of what/who red shirts were.

Fixed.

• "Tillman proved an adept farmer" is contradicted by "after two marginal years, the 1868 crop was destroyed by caterpillars" and "Tillman's losses in the agricultural depression of 1883–1898".

Even an adept farmer may suffer problems like that, Remember, the Florida problem occurred when Tillman was 18-20, and the language you quote is later. As for his losses, well, given the nationwide economic problems, losses are not entirely surprising. In spite of the losses, Tillman made himself a wealthy man through farming.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "today Clemson University". Better to avoid "today", as it may change.

I've changed it to "later", though I think it unnecessary. If Clemson University's name changed, I suspect our good editors would go through and change every reference to Clemson.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Charleston News and Courier". Should all of that be in italics?

That is the source.

• "Even most Conservatives would not support a bolt from the party". "Bolt" has several, diverse meanings. Using a different word would help.

That is a proper political term, which I've used in FA's before, see William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896. I do not feel the article goes out of its way to use jargon, nor is there ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I had to look it up. "The act of suddenly breaking away; breaking away from a political party (U.S. colloq.)" says the OED. Fine if the US colloq bit is not regarded as a barrier in this instance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "With the race given control of one of South Carolina's seven congressional districts". I don't understand this; is "race" the correct word?

The legislature gerrymandered as many black voters as it could into a single district. This is made clear in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit slow. "the race" = "the African American". Going from the definite article form (rather than the plural form) to "the race" threw me. Fine if no-one else hesitated over it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought this awkward, as well, perhaps born of a desire not to repeat the same words too often? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "blacks".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Inauguration and legislative control" section. The indented quote is shorter than the preceding one that is not indented.

That is true, but the second quote is where he gets down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll go beyond that, but it's what I offer for now. EddieHugh (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. The bottom line is, you think I'm being unfair to Tillman by such words as "murders". I disagree. No modern source on Tillman is as dispassionate as you would have. Lynching was wrong, and all sources make this clear. Failure to do so in this article would leave me open to charges of being a racist. This is the balance, and I think it fairly respects the sources, of which there are nearly thirty. I assure you, some of the sources are far from dispassionate about Tillman. What more can I do?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm using NPOV, impartial tone: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized" and, from the same page, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Of course lynching was wrong, but how that and other things are presented also must be considered. Reminders to the reader that BT was bad, words that hint at negativity, insinuations rather than plain statements... these actually weaken the strength of the presented evidence 'against' BT: just present what there is and BT's actions will speak for themselves, without leading or commenting being required! EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a PhD thesis, "Benjamin Ryan Tillman: the South Carolina Years, 1847-1894"; and a book by Eubanks, "Ben Tillman's Baby: The Dispensary System of South Carolina, 1892-1915": any use? EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dispensary system probably not. I am searching for online access to the thesis, it is not at a library within 280 miles of me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not seem to be available online. Given that it is cited by other sources such as Kantrowitz and the ANB, it is something that would be nice to have but I don't consider it necessary. And I checked academic sources through my George Mason University access.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read this article carefully twice – at peer review and then for the present FAC. It seems to me that Wehwalt has been scrupulously neutral throughout. The suggestion that we mustn't say "murder" if nobody has been convicted cannot be entertained even fleetingly. Misplaced Pages has an entire article on "unsolved murders", which would be a contradiction in terms if we accepted the novel premise that without a conviction a killing is not a murder. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the noun as "The deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being", and that is manifestly what we are considering here. As to the other points, I am not altogether in agreement with some of the concessions Wehwalt has made in response, but they have not materially damaged the neutrality of the article, which remains impeccable, in my view, and I do not press the point. – Tim riley talk 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting – I used the same definition as my starting point! It's a legal reality that, if there's no conviction for murder, then there's been no murder. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In English law (on which I believe American law is based) the exact opposite is the truth. Nobody can be tried for a crime until it has first been demonstrated that the crime has been committed. See Corpus delicti. But perhaps Tillman or his compatriots changed all that in the United States. – Tim riley talk 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Even following that line, it would be necessary to discover if murder was established at the time, to look at the definition of murder at the time, etc., etc. Much simpler to use the accurate "killings" rather than the assumption-based "murders". My key point remains the leading in how the information is presented, rather than what is presented. On the "murders" part again, "there were claims that the black victim had raped" is in the next sentence. "murders" leads the reader in one direction, which is reinforced by "claims", which is reinforced by the subsequent and (presumably) non-specific "though studies have shown that". All of this content (the what) could be presented (the how) plainly, without leading. I'd hope that part of the collective goal here is to present the life of a saintly pacifist in the same way as the life of a Tillman – that is, leaving the reader to interpret the content to the maximum extent possible, instead of having to interpret the presentation. The changes made so far help towards that end. EddieHugh (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're being too picky on the murder matter, but if you're generally content, let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I add:

• A bit more on his family would be appropriate for a biography (apologies if it's already there). For instance, he had a son who died in 1950.
  • I'd be interested in this, too, if sources exist. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• The intro (p. xxvi) to the 2002 edition of Simkins' books states that BT's powers were much reduced by strokes in 1908 and 1910. I don't think this is included at the moment.

I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "but a greater price was paid, electorally and in lives, by the African American". The same author's words were "a most costly price" in the intro mentioned in my point immediately above; does source 2 justify "a greater price"?

Yes, "While he energized the mass of rural white voters to challenge the aristocratic rule of the state by the Bourbon Democrats, he did so at the expense of the state's African Americans." combined with the discussion further above in the article about 1876. I've added the cite from Simkins to more fully justify it.

• There's a proposal to rename Tillman Hall at Clemson University. I'm not sure of the most recent status of this, but it might be a good idea to monitor it and update the article if/when it does change. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Turned down by the trustees a couple of weeks ago after an endorsement by the faculty senate. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• • EddieHugh, this is a useful critique, but I think Wehwalt has gone far enough in making the article neutral. It's always difficult with an odious subject, but I think what's presented in the article mirrors the modern scholarly consensus. You'd be hard-pressed to find any historian alive today who disagrees that Tillman participated in violence and electoral fraud against his black neighbors. I agreed with a couple of your points, as I noted above, but I think to do much more would tip from neutrality into false equivalency. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a tendency today on Misplaced Pages to call any adjective, any descriptive statement, to be POV. I do not agree with that. We have to take people as they are, warts and all. I think I've gone quite a long way in answering EddieHugh's concerns, with some of which I agreed, some of which I did not and I may reconsider one or two (killings for murder). I think that in substance, I've addressed the concerns. I would ask EddieHugh to acknowledge that in general, the matters that he has brought up have been addressed, or if not, at least seriously considered and reasons given.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have struck out my initial comment on balance, which has been satisfactorily dealt with. To me, the neutrality problem remains, in part. Please see my what versus how comment, above. To stress again, it's not the content that lacks neutrality, but the words that are used to present that content. "claims" and "though", for instance, have been used here to imply, rather than state. Compare something such as 'black people claimed in the first half of the 20th century that they were not mentally inferior to white people, though studies had shown that they scored lower in tests of intelligence'. The content is accurate, but how it is presented (the italicized parts) leads the reader in a particular direction (in this instance, pointing towards what I assume we would find objectionable). My argument is that how we feel about the content/topic/person is irrelevant and that the words we choose should not lead, either to what we find objectionable or to what we find acceptable. EddieHugh (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. While I am happy to work with you on individual instances, I think your intervention has already cleared up any questionable matters. I believe that this article is fair to Tillman. It is factual, and I took pains to avoid casting judgment on Tillman outside the legacy section. I present the 1890 race no differently than I presented, say, Joseph B. Foraker's gubernatorial runs (to use a colleague of Tillman in the Senate). If there are individual instances, I will be happy to work with you on that. But I do believe in the fairness of this article. I do thank you for your review and for feeling strongly about your position. I do believe the best results come from challenges to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. A well-balanced article, and neutral to the point of being painful in places (possibly too much, but don't chnage it on the basis of me!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. This sort of article does tend to get one into a reviewer fork.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say in you preamble to this review, Tillman was a racist, bigot and killer – and he gloried in these "achievements". To quibble over whether he was a murderer or merely a killer is pedantry. The article seems to me to be admirably restrained in its portrait of this dreadful man; it presents him as the sources do, and there is no need for you to go any further, in the interests of supposed neutrality, in looking for any balancing gloss. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use the "upright" parameter for images that are wider than they are tall
• File:1890SCGovResults.png: is this based on a pre-existing map? What is the source for this data?
• File:Von_engelken.png: confused by date given - this is dated to 1916 but struck 1898? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Fixed 2) Removed, as Gamecock's election maps seem to be slowly getting deleted and he's not around to defend them, and 3) Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• "... was an American politician of the Democratic Party who was Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...": What do you think of this? "... was a Democratic Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...". That tells us he's American.

Thanks, but I think it would be best to just drop the "American".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Back in a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'll stop there for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing what you could do.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Continuing.
• Gary asked, "what white man wants his wife or sister sandwiched between a big bully buck and a saucy wench"?: If the ? doesn't come right after "wench" in the quote, then saucy wench ...?" is arguably better.

Well ... it's an odd passage. "Eugene Gary, Tillman's running mate in the 1890 campaign, spoke frequently about the need to protect white women from the sexual threat allegedly posed by black men. Gary advocated the segregation of railroad cars, demanding to know "hat white man wants his wife or sister sandwiched between a big bully buck and a saucy wench." Tillman's white opponents even worried about being outflanked as proponents of this protective, manly white supremacy: a white anti-Tillman audience in Columbia responded to Gary's speech by shouting, "Come off that Tillman ticket.... You ought to be with us."" So almost certainly it is a complete sentence but the question mark is not given in the quote, which is why I put it outside. I suppose I could have put it in brackets.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, my solution won't work. - Dank (push to talk)

• Okay, fine edits Wehwalt, we're almost done. The only one that's a problem for me is restoring "Charleston's cherished The Citadel" ... South Carolinians drop the "The" there, and that would work for me, or the workaround I used, or just dropping "Charleston's cherished" would work too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just drop the "cherished"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "arranged for McLaurin ... to not be re-elected": I'm not sure what that means.

It is complicated, but what it amounts to is that Tillman put in the party rules that candidates had to support the entire Democratic platform (most of which Tillman had written). McLaurin bucked the party line on the question of American territorial expansion, so he could not in good faith sign that he supported the national platform, and so could not run in the primary.

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Excellent writing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The only comment I would make to the coordinators is that reasonable minds can differ as to how to approach a person like Tillman, and I think there's consensus that my approach is a valid one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (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 article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) .

Turkey

Nominator(s): kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the country named Turkey. This article was a FA, now a GA, and i have completed all the things that has been stated in peer review. kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Only examining references and reference formatting so far:

• There is a consistent problem where websites are cited by their URL and not their name (or the name of the publishing entity). This is true of nearly all cited websites and needs to be corrected across the board (for a counterexample, the IMF source correctly identifies it as the International Monetary Fund rather than merely www.imf.org).
• Sources that are not in English need to have their language (generally Turkish, I assume) indicated.
• Author formatting is not consistent. In the first dozen sources, I see both Last, First and First Last presentations.
• At least five separate references are to various elements of The World Factbook (reference #2, 5, 193, 201, 250 at this time); all FIVE are formatted differently.
• Reference 6 (2014 Human Development Report) has insufficient bibliographic information.
• All ISBN numbers should ideally be correctly-hyphenated ISBN-13 (reference 7 has an ISBN-10). Happily, this is easy to fix. No Misplaced Pages editor should leave home without the official ISBN converter! At least one book (Steadman and McMahon) is missing an ISBN entirely.
• Reference 8 ("Turkey in the Balkans") is incorrectly formatted, needs the website indicated properly, and is missing the available publication date.
• Book sources are not consistent about whether they provide publication year (as with National Geographic Atlas of the World) or precise publication date (Steadman and McMahon). Howard's The History of Turkey has no publication date given whatsoever.
• Why is this a reliable source?
• Reference 15 (Köprülü and Leiser) is incorrectly formatted and missing a host of essential bibliographic information.
• Reference 16 (and others like it) are functionally bare URLs. In this case, that's doubly inappropriate, as it is a Google Books presentation of a print source, and should be correctly cited as such.
• Reference 17 (Journal of Genocide Research) is not formatted in the same manner as other journal references.
• Same goes for 18 (Slavic Review).
• Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source and generally not preferred as a reference at the FA level; if retained, reference 19 is incomplete and improperly formatted.

...and I'm stopping here. There are 317 references. I'm not even 10% of the way in, and I'm struggling to find any that are bibliographically complete and properly formatted. Additionally, browsing over the cited material in general, I feel this article is built primarily upon relative weak sourcing: tertiary sources, government publications, news reports. There are mountains of literature on nearly every aspect of Turkey: scholarly articles and books published by major, respected publishing houses. The FA criteria require that articles represent a comprehensive survey of the literature, and even overlooking the state of the reference formatting, I simply do not see the results of a truly comprehensive survey here. Regrettably (and without comment whatsoever on prose issues), I must oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Alt text is not a FA requirement. It is a matter for individual preference (you could always add the text yourself). Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not required, but it is something all FAs should have. It tells those without images enabled on their browsers and the visually impaired what the image shows. -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (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 article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) .

Irataba

Nominator(s): Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Irataba (also known as Yara tav, from eecheeyara tav; c. 1814 – 1874), the last independent head chief of the Mohave Nation of Native Americans. He was the first Native from the Southwestern United States to meet a US president; Abraham Lincoln gave him a fancy cane. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Should use upright for the lead image as well, if possible

Two days ago, another user suggested that I remove the upright parameter from all images, so I'm not sure what to do with the conflicting advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As the picture tutorial explains, omitting upright from an image that is taller than it is wide has the potential to create display problems; it suggests using upright=1.0 to obtain the default thumbnail width, which would accomplish what that other user appears to want. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Did this edit fix the problem? I don't know how to add the upright parameter for the infobox image. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed this. To clarify, upright should be used when the image is meant to be taller than it is wide; in other cases omitting the parameter and using default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• File:Homesteader_NE_1866.png: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Also need US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that, but I did add the US PD tag as requested. If this image's PD status is questionable, I'd be happy to replace it, but I'll retain it until you explicitly tell me it should be removed. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is likely PD, but the tag you have added does not appear to be correct — the image description gives a date of 1886, but your tag states that "it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". Can you explain why you selected that particular tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not up on all the different tags, so I picked the wrong one. Can you please point me to the right one? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this one correct? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one will work — you might consider removing the life+70 tag since we can't demonstrate that it's correct, and it isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

I will have to spread this review over several days. I'll copyedit while reviewing, please treat those as any other edit.

• Infobox
  • artist's rendering jarred. We don't normally use that phrase for a portrait and this was published during his lifetime. Is there any reason why you have described it so?

    I think the source that I got it from said that. I'll remove it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks. The file source does indeed say that (linked in the file description). It would be good to check the original in Harper's Weekly Magazine, but I have not found it online. Perhaps I was wrong to moan about this... --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Early life and vision
  • is misplaced (talking about "goose grease insead of mud").

    Thanks. I fixed it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • According to historian...: It looks as if some content has gone awol, since this sentence talks about dreams or visions with no previous mention (apart from in the title of the section).

    That's correct. I removed lots of content after a talk page discussion suggested that Frank Waters isn't a good source for encyclopedic writing. I just wanted to at least mention the importance of visions to Mohave, so the article wasn't completely sanitized by Western standards. What should I do? 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

    I agree with RHM22 below that the information about dreams does not really belong here. Perhaps you could try moving it to the next section, Adulthood, which in fact is talking about the Mohave tribe rather than Irataba himself. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

    Mirokado: Sorry to butt in here, but I'd like to point out that Rationalobserver has removed the bit about dreams for now, until and unless the reference he/she ordered includes information which might suggest that it's relevant to Irataba.-RHM22 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

    Ah yes, I see that now. I think I had forgotten to refresh a browser tab. You are welcome to comment if you think it will help! --Mirokado (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Contact with European Americans
  • Beale's Wagon Road began at Fort Smith...: I imagine it was only called this subsequently? Perhaps: "His journey began at Fort Smith and continued through Fort Defiance, Arizona before crossing the Colorado River near Needles, California. (ref) This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing.(ref)"

Those are awesome suggestions. Thanks and done! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

More comments later, run out of time tonight. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have several comments about the images. The first, which is what started me looking at them, is arguably stylistic choice, but others are more substantial issues, so I end with a suggestion for changes:

For these reasons, I suggest removing the color images and moving the two black-and-white images mentioned. --Mirokado (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are great suggestions, thanks! Completed here Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And thanks to you for the quick response. The left/right disposition may need a bit of tweaking, that is best done after looking at the article several times, thinking a bit and fine-tuning at leisure. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking of images, I know that Mirokado has suggested alternate wording for the infobox caption, but how about something like "Irataba as depicted in 1864"? I don't like "February 1864", because its meaning is unclear.-RHM22 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  That would work well, I think: good suggestion. --Mirokado (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Trip to Washington D.C.
  • Perhaps the current note 8 about previous trips could move to the end of the previous section, after "... suggested they bring Irataba to Washington so that he could see firsthand the United States' military might.(ref)"
• Notes: here I also raise what might be a stylistic issue in the absence of substantial points:

  • The notes contain callouts to references which appear earlier in the article, whereas we are used to looking down to find the references
  • The notes are sandwiched between the references and the citations to which they refer, resulting in more scrolling than necessary.

  For these reasons I recommend moving the Notes section in front of the References section. This is also the order in the numbered list of contents in WP:FNNR which is very commonly used.

I've now read through the article once. You are currently making quite a lot of changes, so please could you ping me when you are ready for me to go through it again? Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've incorporated your above suggestions with these edits. I got a new source today, so I added a couple of points from it, but I don't see any significant issues with stability, and I don't foresee adding much more. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you have now got that new source. No more tonight but I will get back here in a day or two. --Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lead
  • It is not necessary to repeat the birth year in the lead text after it has appeared in parentheses. (It is quite OK to repeat it in the Early life section though).
• Early life
  • semi-subterranean: is clumsy. I think "half-buried" might be better? Any other synonym?
• Contact with European Americans
  • Do we know anything more of that "traditional game played with a hoop and pole"? Is it still played in traditional communities or as a performance piece?

More later. --Mirokado (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the first two; thanks for those suggestions. The hoop and ball game is often mentioned, and Kroeber talks about it at length (here). But I'm not sure if it's still played or displayed. I'll look into it. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Contact with European Americans
  • Why is the current note 1 a note? It looks as if it is directly relevant to the subject and another activity which can be mentioned in the body of the article.

I've read through until the Fort Mohave section with no further comments at this stage. Please respond to RHM22's "Speaking of images" comment above, which has become sandwiched by strikeouts. I'm sorry to do this in such little bits (I'm nursing a broken ankle while back at work part-time), but I'm reasonably satisfied that I will support in the end! --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the note to the article body and changed the lead image's caption as suggested (). Don't worry about the pace; it's perfectly fine. I'm just grateful for your input! I hope your ankle feels better, I broke mine during my basketball playing days, and it was a doozy! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22

I learned quite a bit from this article! It's well done overall, but I do have a few comments and suggestions, organized by section.

Lede: "This elicited a stern response from the US War Department, who in..." I think that the War Department should probably not be referenced as a person. In other words, "...from the US War Department, which in..." would probably be preferable.

Early life: "Irataba or Yara tav, from the Mohave eecheeyara tav, meaning "beautiful bird"..." Maybe you could include "meaning "beautiful bird"" inside parentheses rather than between commas? I think it would help make the sentence a little easier to digest.

Early life: Another point that I must bring up is the quote about dreams here. I know you've addressed it above, but I think it should probably be removed for now, since it has no clear relevance to the subject. If you had some information about how Irataba had some significant dream or vision, then such a quote would be useful in the context of that. However, as it is, it doesn't really belong in this article, regrettably.

Adulthood: Do you think that you could include a sentence or two about Irataba's involvement in these war parties? As it stands now, this section suffers a similar problem as the quote in the previous section. I know that Irataba was a Mohave and that the Mohaves were warlike, but how does that relate specifically to Irataba?

Contact with European Americans: Is J.C. Ives the same person as Joseph Christmas Ives? Some of the chronology of the latter seems to conflict, so maybe not. If it is, he could be linked.

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: "Around 2 p.m. on August 30, the emigrants working near the river were attacked by approximately three hundred Mohave warriors, who let out terrifying "war whoops" as they sent arrows flying into the camp." Where does the phrase "war whoops" come from? Was that a quote from someone involved? If so, could you add something along the lines of "...who according to X, let out terrifying "war whoops"..."?

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: Do you think that the bit about the comet is relevant here? I was thinking that maybe it should be relegated to the notes, since it doesn't really seem pertinent to Irataba or the attack on the party.

Fort Mohave: "...the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing..." how about "...the US War Department established a military fort at Beale's Crossing..."? I just think that reads a bit nicer.

Fort Mohave: "vice versa" probably doesn't need to be italicized, as an expression quite common to English.

That's it from me! The writing is very nice overall, so I don't really have any other suggestions besides the above. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, RHM22. I've made an edit that adopts your great suggestions! Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there is anything else you think I should do. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Ok, it looks good enough for me. I'd like to see something in there about how Irataba was involved in the war parties described, but if there's nothing available, then it's acceptable as-is, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, RHM22. I'm not aware of any sources other than Waters that put Irataba in the context of war parties, but I'll keep looking. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I added this, which speaks indirectly to the point. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver: It looks good. Since you don't know of any precise information relating to Irataba as a warrior, I think that what do you have helps to avoid that non-sequitur effect, which sometimes removes the reader from the narrative and makes them wonder why it's relevant. It would still be better if there were some sort of direct correlation, but since you don't have the information to state that explicitly, I'd say it's just fine as it is. Thank you for considering my suggestions and working them into the article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Today I ordered a copy of a 1970 doctoral dissertation by Fulsom Charles Scrivner that includes a chapter about Cairook and Irataba, so hopefully that source will allow me to tie-in this point and others, such as the importance of dreams to Mohave. Thanks a lot for your review and encouragement! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! More good information is always better. I hope you will be able to expand a bit upon his early tribal life. Please ping me whenever you'd like me to come and take a look.-RHM22 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am striking my support for now, as the article is currently undergoing considerable alteration, per Mirokado's statement above. I will revisit later.-RHM22 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by John

On first look it's going to be an oppose from me, just on prose. That's without getting past the lead yet. What is a "principle chief"? --John (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

See Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so it should be "principal chief" then. "Principle" and "principal" are different words with different meanings. I think there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article. --John (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm dyslexic, so I sometimes do silly stuff like that. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was misspelled even in your comment. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates#Supporting and opposing "To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it."(original emphasis) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. If you don't your oppose is meaningless. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. The article should not have been submitted to FAC in this state. I recommend a rewrite and a resubmission after this is done. FAC is not the place to have your article improved. --John (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nor is it the place to enact revenge for your buddies! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Can everyone please keep this sort of nonsense out of here? John is correct that FAC isn't meant as a forum for general article improvement, although almost all submissions do require touchups before passing. The FAC coordinators will decide how much weight to give reviews and comments, so there's no need for accusations and other claptrap that is better reserved for other sections of this website.-RHM22 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Boson

In March 1865, he helped defeat the Chemehuevi in response to their allies, the Paiutes, having killed two Mohave women in retaliation for the Mohave's killing of a Paiute medicine man after he failed to heal nine Mohave people afflicted with smallpox. Irataba attacked the Chemehuevi first because they had disrespected the Mohave, and to avoid "a fire in the rear" when he turned his attention to the Paiutes, who were planning an attack on the Mohave farm and granary on Cottonwood Island.

--Boson (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree; that's a twister! Did this edit fix the problem? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Some things still seem a little unclear:

• Why "helped defeat the Chemehuevi? Since he was the chief of the Mohave, this seems to suggest that there was another tribe involved on the side of the Mohave.
• I think "in response to their allies, the Paiutes, killing two Mohave women" would be better expressed using finite verbs rather than nouns/gerunds ("response", "killing") and it took me a while before I was sure whose allies the Paiutes were.
• The reason for attacking the Chemehuevi first seems a little unclear. The logical reason for the timing/order would seem to be 'to avoid "a fire in the rear"', but "because they had disrespected the Mohave" is mentioned first; that might be a reason to attack them, but not necessarily to attack them first.

--Boson (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the input! I've looked at this so many times it's getting harder for me to spot the problems or find solution to the problems I do see. Did this edit fix it? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's much clearer now. --Boson (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Looks like there are substantive issues here that will be best addressed outside FAC. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC) .

Mark Oliphant

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Mark Oliphant, an Australian scientist who played a key role in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II. He is credited with the discovery or co-discovery of deuterium, tritium, helium-3 and nuclear fusion. Regrettably, he is not as well known as he should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN1: I know this is the format that NLA gives, but it's redundant
• FN2, 37: title should use endash
• Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source
• FN74: ABC is not a work, it's a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the second point. They seem to already use the endash. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• They're both displaying as hyphens for me (the latter is now FN36) - I would fix myself but they're both {{cite DOI}} so I'm not sure how to get at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, they probably shouldn't be using {{cite DOI}}, given the message at the top of its documentation page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A gnome went around creating {{cite DOI}} templates at one point. I wasn't happy, because they caused formatting problems, particularly with the author links. Replaced both with {{cite journal}}. And corrected the endashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. All my comments below have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• "heading a group at the University of Birmingham that included John Randall and Harry Boot, who created a radical new design": shouldn't that be "which", not "who", since it refers to a group? Or perhaps rephrase.

  I was thinking that the sentence is too long, and split it in twain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest giving the date of the MAUD Committee report in the lead.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "and as such opposed to eating meat": I think this would be more natural as either "and as such were opposed to eating meat" or "and as such opposed eating meat".

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• The two paper titles listed in "Early life" differ in their capitalization conventions. I assume you're following the sources here, but I think it would be harmless to regularize them (and any later paper titles) to whichever version is standard on WP.

  Regularised to title case. Caused by different styles among journals. MOS:CT is the standard in the MOS, which is just monstrous. And calls for title case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Looks like you regularized it in the citations but not the body of the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Missed one. Done now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• On my screen the "coincidental" quote is not apparently indented because the image of the Cavendish Laboratory is to the left. How about moving Rutherford's lab image to the left, the Cavendish to the right, and the Poynting building to the left?

  Swapped the images around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "He managed to not only convince the Americans that an atomic bomb was feasible, but inspired Lawrence to": I think "not only" requires an "also" later in the sentence.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  I tweaked it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The establishment of a world-class nuclear physics research capacity in Australia was intimately linked with the government's plans to develop nuclear weapons. Oliphant was a staunch advocate of such research, declaring that Britain needed to develop its own nuclear weapons": can you clarify how a research institute in Australia supported plans for Britain's development of nuclear weapons? Were the two countries so closely linked constitutionally at that time that research for one was automatically to the advantage of the other?

  To answer the last question first: no, they were not so closely linked constitutionally at that time, and were drifting ever further apart. While Britain postured that development of its own nuclear weapons was part of retaining its status as a Great Power, there was fear that the United States would show up late for the next war, as it had in 1914 and 1939. For Australia, the fear was of a repeat of the Pacific War, when an Asian power came bearing down on Australia and its South East Asian neighbours. So the two thought they were on the same page, but weren't. But they did need each other. The United States had cut off Britain's access to uranium from Africa and Canada, but Australia could supply its needs. It could also provide a nuclear test range. Australia hoped that Britain would supply it with the nuclear weapons that were developed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  That clarifies it for me, but I think some indication of this should be in the article -- I've lived in both countries, and I didn't follow this, so I think most readers won't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "he selected one of the capital's most striking designs, and oversaw its construction": it doesn't become one of the capital's most striking designs until completed, so perhaps "he made the final selection, and oversaw the construction of the capital's most striking designs"?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure we need two separate pictures of the same monument at the end of the article.

The article is in great shape; I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: FYI, the only thing I'm waiting on to support is a clarification in the article of the relationship between the UK's and Asutralia's nuclear policy -- as it's currently phrased I think it's confusing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph. Hope it is clearer now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That does it for me. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

• "today": There's a potential fight here over WP:DATED. Not my area of expertise.

  They are all generated with the {{Inflation}} template, so will never become out of date, but to avoid giving the impression that they will, I tweaked the template so they now all say "equivalent to AUD$75,000 in 2015" (or whatever the sum is). The year is generated by the inflation template, and will always be the current year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  I think that's an improvement ... but I consider it above my pay grade to make that call. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm agreed on Mike's remaining points.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Gaff (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Permissions on the three gallery shots at the bottom of page: "My camera, my software and I created this work entirely by ourselves.)" This is an odd claim to have on photos of a sculpture and some plaques. That's a trivial concern. However, are these problematic images in therms of freedom of panorama?

  Yes, we have Freedom of Panorama in Australia. Any 3-D public artwork may be photographed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• the images released by the museum as cc by sa 2.0 are presumably owned by the museum, but not clear who actually took them.

  A museum employee as part of their duties, so the Science Museum asserts copyright. It was released to us under the GLAM program. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• otherwise looks good to me.

Comments from Curly Turkey

• Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of the following comments:

  None necessary, but I tweaked the grammar at a couple of points. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hairsplitting, and I won't make an issue of it, but is "Atheist" a religion? (In the infobox)

  "There is no God, and Dirac is His prophet." I think what happened was that someone removed the religion card from the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• The article makes heavy use of inflation adjustments for salaries, etc. As the template's documentation points out, its use should be restricted—money "means" different things at different times and in different situations, and a simple conversion based on the CPI can give a distorted sense of what these numbers "meant" in their times (for example, calculations based on CPI and on PPP can give widely different results).

  It works okay for everyday items. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  Salaries and government outlays are not everyday items. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• he worked on it with his friend Ernest Lawrence at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California, on electromagnetic isotope separation: I assumed "it" meant the bomb, but then we have "on electromagnetic isotope separation"—I don't understand what this means

  Changed "on electromagnetic isotope separation" to "developing electromagnetic isotope separation". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• She was called by her second name, Edith.: I'm not sure this is relevant, as she's never mentioned again, and an entire sentence on what she was called puts perhaps undue weight on what she was called.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• and Laurence Oliphant, the British traveller and mystic: any relation?

  Possibly a distant one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• the killing of pigs on a farm: if this means their slaughter, perhaps that would be a more appropriate term (as opposed to joykilling, say)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oliphant later recalled that Burdon "taught me the extraordinary exhilaration: this reads as "Oliphant taught me"—either the quote should be introduced explicitly as a quote, or "" should be interpolated for "me".

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• per annum: again, I won't make an issue of it, but is there any reason to prefer "annum" to "year"?

  It sounds very awkward, probably because "per" is Latin, so "per year' would be mixing the two languages. Everyone says "per annum". I think teacher would strike out "year" and write "annum" in red. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• research into nuclear physics: not "research in"?

  "in nuclear physics" sounds awkward. It would also mean two "in"s in close proximity, which would incline me to eliminate one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• He was the first to conceive of the proton synchrotron: it might be a good idea to explain briefly what this is

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• "spend whatever was necessary to bring nuclear physics to Birmingham in a big way": quotes require attribution; is there some reason this shouldn't be paraphrased?

  The quote is sourced. paraphrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  Moot now that it's paraphrased, but "requires attribution" means you have to say whose quote it is in the te, and not merely source it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've stopped at "Manhattan Project"—if I forget to return, ping me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• theoretical issues involved in an atomic bomb: in developing an atomic bomb? This could be read as theoretical issues in an actual atomic bomb.

  I don't follow you. "theoretical issues involved in developing an atomic bomb" would not be correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  Well, I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• energy of tons of dynamite: given the colloquial use of "tons of", it might be better to reword to something like "several tons of". And shouldn't this be "tonnes" in AusEng?

  Yes (Style Guide 11.9); but I'm summarising the Frisch–Peierls memorandum. (Style Guide 11.28) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• "United States" pops up a lot, often in quick succession—it doesn't appear that you use "US" or "U.S." at all. Is there a reason for that?

  In AusEng, it is "US" (Style Guide 7.5) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  It looks like Tony1 dealt with this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• as it was not government policy at the time to confer honours on civilians: as opposed to "was government policy ... not to confer honours"? The former sounds like they merely neglect to.

  If you think it reads better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• It was academic suicide: Why?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• The establishment of a world-class nuclear physics research capacity: is "a capacity" the right term here?

  Changed to "capability" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• You might want to specify that the McCarran Act was an American act, and that the State Department was American—it could be read as Australia restricting Oliphant's travel

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• one of the capital's most striking designs: "the capital" would be Canberra?

  Correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Age newspaper reported: this sounds strange to me—would you be opposed to rewording it to something like "The newspaper The Age"?

  Deleted "newspaper" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Rosa, suffer before her death in 1987: do we know what caused her to suffer?

  No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• his son Michael having died in 1971: outliving a son is usually a pretty big deal. Do we know the story?

  Cancer. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Electromagnetic separation was a technique Oliphant had pioneered back in 1934.: should this not be mentioned when it happened chronologically, then? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  Done, but many editors dislike chronological order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "that was the prevailing attitude of almost the entire white population of Australia until well after World War II": won't make an issue of it, but you might want to reconsider having removed the non-breaking space in "World War II" here. It's particularly ugly for the "II" to break at the end of a paragraph.

  Done, but nbsps cause a lot of problems. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Curly, how are things looking now from your perspective? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the inflation templates, and I strongly recommend Hawkeye take a look into why they're an issue. I don't think it's a big enough issue, though, so I'll give this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:49, 7 April 2015 (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) 13:39, 18 April 2015 (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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 .

Russulaceae

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a well known (among mushroom enthusiasts) family of fungi which also has considerable ecological importance. I boldly submit this as my first FAC, after expanding it over the last months, with much appreciated help from Sasata, Circeus, and Casliber, and having passed a GA review. The article draws on a wide range of different sources, most of them research articles. This is partly due to the fact that the family's taxonomy has changed a lot over the last years, which is not yet reflected in many standard mycology works and field guides. I'm looking forward to comments and critiques! Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support (mostly) The article meets most, or all, of the criteria, depending on the way you look at it. It is certainly comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and very stable. The prose is very good, but I can't say it is exactly brilliant, as WP:FA? states. It is one of these things were I can't give examples, but is just the minute differences between choice of words and way to phrase that make all the difference between very good and purely brilliant. Gug01 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support This review is for the second set of criteria. The article has a clear and concise lead section, has appropriate structure, and has a consistent format of using footnote citations. Gug01 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• File:Lactarius_rubidus_spores_1000x.JPG: what is meant to be the description on the image page?

This looks like a broken template linking to the original source of the image (Mushroom Observer). I am not familiar with Commons and don't know if this can be repaired. Can anybody help? Otherwise I can replace the spore image with one of slightly lower quality, but with a good description. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed that (just skimming) - the template name was misspelled. GermanJoe (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• File:Uniflora-root.jpg: do we have evidence of the listed permission? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've asked the user that uploaded the image. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I had received permission via email correspondence with Martin Bidartondo (who I had also fact check the article on mycoheterotrophy when it was initially written). I never went through the formal documentation procedure, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Peter G. Werner. Is this accepted as evidence? The image is surely informative, and I would like to keep it in the article. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter, if you still have that correspondence I would suggest forwarding it to OTRS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review The quality of refs is fine: all academic, reputable organizations, or books. However I see an inconsistency with web refs: Ref 28 doesn't have a publisher, most of them have the publisher as part of the title (which I haven't seen before so I don't know if that is or isn't allowed); as for book refs some have locations and some don't. HalfGig talk 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Book references now all have locations, and websites have publishers as separate parameters. Also added some English translatons of foreign titles, where helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'm not a fungus expert, but I've reviewed a few fungus GANs, so will make some comments as a "layreader"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• In the last half of the articles, there are a lot of single sentence paragraph, is it possible to merge some of these? Looks a bit fragmentary/disjointed now.
• There are three or more "introduction" sentences in the beginning of some sections that end without citations, but they should probably have citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, was offline over the weekend. I'll see how I can integrate your comments this evening – thanks anyway! Tylototriton (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Merged some paragraphs in the "Chemistry" and two other small sections.

However, after reviewing, I do not see where an introductory sentence in a section would need citations. They are merely "wrappers", and the facts they contain are all backed up through citations later on in the respective section. Could you give me an example where you think a citation is necessary? Tylototriton (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, in FAs, it is best to have citations after every paragraph to be safe, including "wrappers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced; I feel citations should be used where necessary and not simply "to be safe". For me, these introductory wrappers act a bit like the lead for the whole article; the sections as a whole have references where appropriate. But I'm not a very experienced editor, if others support your view, I can add references... Tylototriton (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd do it myself. But well, let's see what do others say? You have any view on this, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The name Russulaceae was first validly used in 1907" I'd suggest replace "used" with "named". FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reformulated this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "does not meet the requirements for valid publication" Why? Couldn't hurt to elaborate in a sentence.

Done. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "The agaricoid species in Lactarius" Why is agaricoid italicized? It is not a genus name or foreign word.
• Likewise for: "Laterally stiped (pleurotoid)"
• There are more such issues in the rest of the article.

Used italics when I introduced a technical term. In that particular section, paragraphs are structured by fruitbody morphology, so I used those keywords as "anchors". IMO this improves readability. I noticed though the use of italics was not consistent in the "Chemistry" section, fixed this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Some characters of the mushroom-forming genera (marked with *) can be less obvious or absent in tropical species" Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the asterisk before the list?

It does. Rearranged the paragraphs. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "It is the only among the mushroom genera in Russulaceae" The only what?

The only genus. I think this is correct English, but I'm happy to reformulate if it really sounds strange. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "In the Tropics" Why capitalisation?

Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Their basal position suggests this has been the ancestral trophic mode" What basal means here may no be clear to most readers.

Changed "basal" to "early-branching". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "subsequent authors reaffirm nevertheless that "one of the corticioid species in the family shows any sign of mycorrhizal activity." How can the statement of one writer be attributed to "subsequent authors"?

True, fixed this. Somehow thought the paper cited had more than one author. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "few information is available on" Is this proper English?

No. Fixed to "little information". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• We could have an etymology under taxonomy. What is the name derived from?

As for all fungus and plant families, the name is derived from the type genus, so any etymology would be better placed in the Russula article (which actually has info on this). Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• "popular mushroom-forming fungi" If only some of them are edible, I'd assume the group is not "popular" as a whole? Not the intro doesn't state why they are "popular".

Popular means well known and easily recognisable, even if not eaten. Not sure how I can make this clearer. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Just write well-known then? Popular seems a bit informal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That should be it, Tylototriton. When these issues are addressed, I should be ready for support. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Worked through your suggestions, thanks for the thorough review! Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - All issues adressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Looks good - few queries below:

• I'd change "has significantly changed ideas about the taxonomy of the family." to something like "has significantly changed ideas about relationships within the family." - and tchange the next "relationships" to "affinities" in the next sentence. makes the segment more accessible to the lay reader without sacrificing meaning.

• Link genera at first instance in body of text.

• Can go either way on refs for the wrappers....

Otherwise looks good and worthy of FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Included your suggestions, thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on comprehensiveness and prose - nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes

@Casliber and FunkMonk: How are things looking for you guys now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll look though this today... FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Article essentially meets the FA criteria. There is some link duplication, redundant wording (use of 'also', for example), and a vague 'rather small compound', but nothing that derails the presentation. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Tried to address some of the redundant wording. Tylototriton (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tylototriton: You can install this script to help you spot duplicate links; I removed a few that seemed excessive, the rest I leave to your discretion. Now it's just occurred to me that this might be your first FAC nomination, in which case we usually ask for a reviewer to perform a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if any reviewers still watching the page have done that pls let me know, otherwise I'll post a request at WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Installed the script, but it seems you've found them all? I linked taxa in the phylogeny and the image boxes even if they were already linked somewhere in the text, for more superficial readers... Tylototriton (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Tylototriton has been inactive since mid-April. Hopefully he will be returning to this nomination soon to address GermanJoe's comments below, or this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm back now. Addressed the comments below. Tylototriton (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

• Welcome to FAC, I see you've done quite a bit of high-quality writing.
• "their size ranges from 2–17 mm diameter or less in Russula campinensis to 30 cm (12 in) ...": I fixed the garden path ... most will read that as "from 2 to 17", until they get all the way to the second "to", and realize that's the "to" that goes with the "from". To fix it, I had to simplify, and decided to drop the "2" ... if that's important, you might go with "as low as 2" instead, or rewrite.
• "clustered in "rosettes",": ambiguous, since both the word "rosettes" and quote marks in general can mean different things. Link it instead of enclosing it in quote marks.

Term is not really necessary. Replaced it with cluster. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but reluctantly, because parts of it read like the contents of a database rather than an encyclopedia article. I think perhaps some pruning would fix the problem, but what to prune is up to the editors of our biology articles, particularly the fungus articles, not me. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for ce; some information got however mixed up in the lead, brought that back in shape. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks (online) - all OK

A few (non-academic) spotchecks, as requested on WT:FAC, focussing on 10 randomly picked online sources:

• ref #1 (3 refs) - mostly OK, but the exact detail "now-obsolete" in usage "b" is apparently not mentioned - the book only mentions this genus as "chromospore", please double-check

Lotsy considered Russulina a separate genus at that time, whereas it is now a synonym of Russula – I clarified this. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• ref #5 - OK
• ref #17 (6 refs) - all OK
• ref #38 - OK
• ref #50 - OK
• ref #57 (3 refs) - all OK
• ref #97 (2 refs) - first OK, second one sources "the Mediterranean orchid Limodorum abortivum only associates with Russula delica and closely related species", however the source notes "a predominant association with ectomycorrhizal fungi of the genus Russula in Limodorum abortivum and its close relatives ..." (emphasis mine) - it looks like the article's statement is too strong and exclusive here.

True, corrected this one. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• ref #105 - OK
• ref #110 - OK (general summary statement, covered by source)
• ref #112 - OK (all mentioned examples and their regions sourced).

Aside from 2 questions, all statements are covered by their sources without any signs of close paraphrasing. When a reference was used multiple times, all usages have been checked (but IANAM). GermanJoe (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• The PDF-link for ref #35 is acting up (404 error and the archive server for it is down for maintenance, grml). Not a big problem, as a JSTOR-link is provided as well - but you might want to keep an eye on it (or just delete the 2nd link, if it doesn't come back soon). GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted the second link. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

All minor points have been addressed, thank you (status updated). GermanJoe (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2015 (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) 13:24, 9 May 2015 (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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC) .

Blackrock (film)

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an independent Australian film that was inspired by the murder of Leigh Leigh (which is a previous successful FAC nomination of mine). Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed (one fair-use). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now - did browse before...now where was I.....

I'd add who Felicity Holland and Jane O'Sullivan are (are they film critics, sociologists etc.) - helps understand the context.

ditto Brian Joyce

Otherwise looks pretty good overall WRT prose and comprehensiveness.

Thanks for your comments. The journal article itself does not introduce them, though google reveals that Jane is an academic. I think it's reasonable to assume that Felicity would be also, so i've described them as such. Brian Joyce is introduced in the 'Theatrical origins' sub-section. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

ok my bad - support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. Looks good; all my issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• "his relationships with both Rachel and Diane": I think it would be more natural to say "Rachel and his mother".

I though about this while I was writing the plot; what concerns me is the rest of the plot section. I.e should "Jared joins Diane and Cherie" and "Despite learning of Diane's illness" be changed to "Jared joins his mother and Cherie" and "Depite learning of his mother's illness" respectively? I thought I should be consistent, and it didn't sound right to keep using 'mother'. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I'll think about it some more and see if I can come up with a better approach, but I've struck the comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The film's critique of criminal masculinity, however, undermines the status of previously celebrated masculine lawbreakers in Australian history and cinema": why "however"?

Good point, removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can you give a date, even an approximate one, for Joyce's initial approach to Enright? If not I think this sequence should be in past perfect to make it clearer to the reader that we're going back in time prior to the film. A date for the Sydney Theatre Company commission to Enright would be good too.

I don't think so, but i'll keep looking. Leigh was murdered in November 1989. The draft for the play was completed in "early 1992". I can't find anything that narrows down the time that Joyce approached Enright anymore than that. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Struck; if there are no sources then no worries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "By December 1995, Vidler was working with Enright as an unofficial script editor. He stated that they were having trouble finding financing for the film." This is a little bit proselinish; if the source supports the two things happening around the same time, can we combine them? "By December 1995, Vidler was working with Enright as an unofficial script editor, although they were having trouble finding financing for the film" or something similar. Unless there's some reason to doubt Vidler's reliability we don't need to ascribe this to him inline.

Done. Freikorp (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "her attempts failed after the film received government financial backing; the film received financing and assistance from the New South Wales Film and Television Office." A bit repetitive; could we make this "her attempts failed after the film received financial backing from the New South Wales Film and Television Office", and combine the refs?

Good point, done. Freikorp (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• The "Film adaptation" section doesn't say the film was shot in Stockton explicitly. It mentions that Stockton landmarks were visible, which made me wonder if they had been intercut with wherever it had been shot; then I remembered the lead mentioning that it was shot in the town where the murder took place. Then the controversy is mentioned. It wouldn't hurt to make it explicit, either by adding a few words to the place where you mention the Stockton landmarks, or by moving that section below the mention of the controversy, and making it explicit at the point that the controversy is mentioned.

Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are a dozen or so uses of "stated" or "stating", which are often unnecessary and are very stilted when overused. They're appropriate for a reporting a statement, particularly an official statement, and a very occasional use is OK, but there are too many here. Just using "said" is usually OK, "said" is an almost invisible word; but if you want variation, you can sometimes rephrase to avoid needing to use a verb at all -- for example, see my suggested rewording above about having trouble finding financing, which eliminates a "stated".

Removed 10 uses of the terms. Freikorp (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources yet. Some of the later sections, in addition to the issue with "stated" mentioned above, also feel a little listy; there's a bit of recitation of what various people said, rather than anything more directed. It's hard to avoid this with reception sections, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your comments. I've attempted to address everything so far. If you give me some specific examples of 'listy' stuff that you'd like changed i'll see what I can do. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've struck everything above. I'll have another read through, probably today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Hi Mike. Did you have time to finish taking a look at this? Let me know if you'd like me to review something in return. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to get back to this sooner. In a plane on the way to a cabin with unknown cell reception so may not get to it this week, but will do so as soon as I can. Thanks for the review offer; do you have a humanities background? I have radiocarbon dating at FAC at the moment and would love to get a non-technical reader's opinion. The only reviewer so far who does not, as far as I know, come from a technical or scientific background raised a comment I'd like to get more opinions on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: No worries take your time. Can't say i'm overly familiar with that subject, so I can give you a nontechnical opinion on it :). (Bolding so I get everyone else's attention) I won't have computer access from March 21-29, and I don't think i'll have time to look at your FAC before I go, though hopefully it will still be open when I get back. If so i'll have a good look at it. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

More comments.

• I think the lead is a little short. You don't mention the questions of historical accuracy, for example, and I think there's room for a little more detail on some of the areas you do summarize.

• Better now? Freikorp (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The film's portrayal of the rape and murder at a teenage party": I think "a rape" or just "rape" would be better than "the", which doesn't really work with "a party".

• Done. Freikorp (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• 'concluding it was "almost guaranteed to find a distributor in the U.S"; the film never found an American distributor': I think some connective tissue is needed between the critical comment and the contradicting note. Perhaps 'concluding it was "almost guaranteed to find a distributor in the U.S", though in the event the film never received American distribution'.

• Done. Freikorp (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Brien theorised that some of the condemnation the film received may have been due to public frustration with the legal system, as the film achieves justice for the victim, whereas no one was ever convicted of raping Leigh; citing the film as an example of why sensitivity and care must be taken when fictionalising an actual crime". The last clause, beginning "citing the film", is intended to be parallel with "theorised", but it's so far away from it that it's hard for the reader to see that, and the punctuation doesn't help. How about "Brien theorised that some of the condemnation the film received may have been due to public frustration with the legal system, as the film achieves justice for the victim, whereas no one was ever convicted of raping Leigh. Brien cited the film as an example of why sensitivity and care must be taken when fictionalising an actual crime"?

• Done. Freikorp (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I made some copyedits; let me know if you disagree with any of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Mike Christie; i'm happy with your changes. Freikorp (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

All the changes look OK, except that I copyedited the lead a little -- I think the way you had it was redundant: if you say Leigh's family opposed it, you don't need to say the film-makers didn't have the victim's family's consent. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tomandjerry211

Support

• Good Job overall so I'm supporting this article, although next time I'm suggesting you send stuff to A-class before FAC?
• The Plot section has a number of paragraphs that are unsourced.

• Plot sections do not require sourcing, as the film itself is the source. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm horrible at film reviews, so I didn't know.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think citing Infobox data is necessary, if it is cited in the article

• Most features articled tend to at least have a citation in the infobox for box office revenue; i'll wait for a second opinion on this :) Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Same thing as before.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• You might want to broaden your research a little bit (I only see eight sources).

• There's only 8 book and journal sources, but there's also 13 online sources, 11 offline newspaper sources and 2 citations from the film itself. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, didn't notice, supporting.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've got something or this you might want to review for the reward.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose I'm supporting you on prose, since it looks OK for a FA.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Citations with multiple pages should use "pp." not "p.", and ranges should use endashes not hyphens
• Some books include locations , others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Freikorp (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Ɱ

Support I read this top to bottom and made minor changes; see the article history. I have no complaints or suggestions past what I just changed, this looks very good.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (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) 01:52, 7 April 2015 (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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) .

Deinocheirus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) IJReid (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a dinosaur which was only known from a pair of giant arms since 1965, and remained a scientific mystery until more fossils were described just last year. This setup was greatly paid off by just how bizarre the animal turned out to be; a humpbacked, duckbilled, ostrich-dinosaur... With enormous hands. Since only three specimens are known, their history is described in detail, and all important sources about the animal have been cited. Since the true nature of this dinosaur was revealed so recently, most available images only show the original pair of arms, spiced up with a few additional images created in the last few months. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The articles is pretty good, but it needs to be clarified a little bit. A few of the terms may be confusing by some peoples standards. Also, the article does not make clear whether Deinocheirus is an herbivore or a carnivore, though it implies Deinocheirus might be an herbivore. I think that that information should be added. Gug01 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for comment, could you list which terms that need clarification? And the article mentions several times that the animal was an omnivore, therefore neither. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Hypothetical_Deinocheirus.jpg: what is the basis of this image? Same with File:Map_mn_umnugobi_aimag.png, File:TarbosaurusDB.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• The first one is based on a skeletal restoration in a 2014 scientific paper, I'll reference it in the file description. The Tarbosaurus image should be based on a skeletal restoration of that animal, but I'm not the author of the image, so cannot point to the exact publication. What do you mean about what the map is based on? FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• How did the creator know where to put the borders? Was it based on a previously existing map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, IJReid could you take a look at adding the 2014 ref to the restoeration, then I'll see if I can find a more "official" source for map location. Perhaps even a map form a scientific paper... FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, although commons doesn't seem to have any more than a single author parameter. IJReid  15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I found a much more relevant map in this free scientific paper, showing the location of the formation itself, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I have made some copy edits. Change any you are not happy with.

My only concern if whether or not "understorey" is canadian/british english, as the rest of the article is this. IJReid 

Thanks for copy edits! FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that Deinocheirus mirificus is the only species in the genus. If so, the lead should says so.

Mentioned.

• Why is the article about the genus and not the species? The infobox gives the species binomial name, implying that this is the subject of the article.

Well, the genus only has one species so all info about the species is also about the genus and vice versa which is why monotypic genera have a genus not species article. I believe this was decided somewhere. IJReid  14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is an old Wiki Project dinosaurs convention, but dinosaurs are also more commonly referred to by their generic names in the scientific literature, so it make sense here as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is my ignorance, but what do the daggers in the infobox mean? Classifications not officially recognised?

It means extinct. IJReid  14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's currently a very slow moving discussion about those daggers: In short, we don't know what to do with them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1965, a pair of large arms, shoulder girdles, and a few other bones were first discovered" This is unclear. Presumably the point is that the genus not the bones was first discovered at that time.

Added "of a new dinosaur", as it was only declared anew genus later.

• "Deinocheirus was an unusual ornithomimosaur, the largest of the group" I think clade would be better than group.

Reworded as well.

• "its skull shape indicates a diet of plants, whereas fish scales and gastroliths were found" Why diet of plants whereas gastroliths? They can be for grinding rough plant matter.

Reworded.

Reworded further, gastroliths are not only used for grinding plants.

• " have been attributed to Tarbosaurus" A bit more info would be helpful - e.g. "the predatory therapod dinosaur Tarbosaurus."

Mentioned tyrannosauridae, which should be good enough.

• "The two other known specimens are smaller, the holotype by 6%, and the smallest by 74%" Does this mean that the smallest was an infant? (I see you say below it was sub-adult.)

Mentioned.

• "The 2014 cladogram suggested that ornithomimosaurians diverged into two lineages in the Early Cretaceous; Deinocheiridae and Ornithomimidae." It may be my ignorance, but I do not understand this. The cladogram appears to show four divisions of the ornithomimosaurians before the Deinocheiridae/Ornithomimidae one. Also why is ornithomimosaurians not capitalised?

added "major", ornithomimosaurians is not capitalized because groups above genus rank are only capitalized when the original Linnaean name is written, such as Ornithomimosauria. IJReid  15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Deinocheirus is thought to have been widely distributed, as specimens have been found 50 km apart." I do not understand this. Surely 50 km would be an absurdly small range for such a large animal?

For three specimens, might want to ask FunkMonk on this one. IJReid  15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The source says "These new specimens suggest that Deinocheirus was widely distributed in the Nemegt Formation (Bugiin Tsav is 50 km from the holotype locality at Altan Uul III". So will add "within the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• "It may have competed for trees with other large herbivorous dinosaurs" Why particularly trees and not other plants? Also this comment is repeated below.

Reworded

• The last paragraph in the article is not about Deinocheirus. I would make it a shorter introductory paragraph in the palaeocology section. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it discusses contemporaries of Deinocheirus, which is of some importance to the article. IJReid  14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it is there to put the animal in its ecological context. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anything else, Dudley Miles? FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Support and one quibble. "This specimen became the holotype of the currently only species Deinocheirus mirificus in 1970." This is clumsy and "currently" is WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps "In 1970, this specimen became the holotype of the genus's only species, Deinocheirus mirificus." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reworded, but kept currently. It only takes one new discovery which could happen or may already have happened but not been described at any time to find a new species, so we cannot look into the future. IJReid  02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A fair point, but for a similar reason 'currently' is generally prohibited - one discovery and the article is no longer correct. The usual solution is to say "as of ". I thought of suggesting this but it seemed a bit pedantic for the lead. Maybe it should go in. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FunkMonk, can you look at this? IJReid  14:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Reworded further. "Currently" is redundant, since if a new species is discovered, we will change the text to reflect this. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: I'm slowly going through this article looking for grammar issues, and it looks pretty good so far. One thing that stuck out to me, however, the use of millimeters and inches (in Description) for an animal that is so large. I fear there may be a disconnect for the reader with a sentence like "The only known skull, belonging to the largest specimen, measures 1,024 mm (40.3 in)". That may be how the description appears in the scientific literature, but it seems overly technical in an encyclopedia for general readers.

Should larger units be used instead? FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think so, at least for the larger measurements. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this, IJReid? I'm not much of a numbers guy. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, now the smallest unit is cm. IJReid  15:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite this concern, the rest of the article is looking good so far. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Deinocheirus is thought to have been widely distributed, as the only three specimens found have been 50 km (31 mi) apart." Seems like a mistake. Is there a missing "not"? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Also discussed above, it is within the formation, the paper says: "These new specimens suggest that Deinocheirus was widely distributed in the Nemegt Formation (Bugiin Tsav is 50 km from the holotype locality at Altan Uul III,". FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

After this edit, it's more clear what was meant. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Firsfron, long time no see! Will look at these comments later when I get home. And thanks for copy edits! FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey FM! It's very good to see you! I'll do a more thorough copyedit tomorrow, but things are looking good. Keep up the good work. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

One thing I noticed, looking through the article at the images, was the large number of images of those famous huge arms. But this article has no image of the entire fossil skeleton. Are there really no free skeletal diagrams? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No photos yet apart form the skull (which we are extremely lucky to have!), since the new fossils were only described last year, in a non-free journal. We do have a couple of selfmade diagrams, but it would probably be a bit of a copyright problem if we made a skeletal diagram based entirely on another diagram... But I'm sure more free images will be available over time, and there's already extra room at the bottom of the History of discovery section. Otherwise we'll just replace some of the current images (no need for so many casts). FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, there is nothing to be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure something more will show up. On this note, the many arm images are not just for decoration, but also to show them from different angles, in different poses, and to show that the animal is important/famous enough to be exhibited in various museums worldwide. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Next up: Some reference tightening. I tried to verify the following statement: "David Lambert supported this view in 1983, speculating that the claws could be used for attacking other dinosaurs of all sizes. (ref name:"lambert1983") But the page numbers given, pp. 59–227, are vast. Since the citation is for a single sentence, it is odd that the page numbers are so extensive. You will probably want to narrow down the pagination for verification purposes. No one will want to hunt around through 168 pages to locate the correct info. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Will see if we can find the part of the book online (it is an old addition), otherwise it won't hurt much to just remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't find anything, should it be removed? Or perhaps someone with Google books access could be asked to check? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lambert is a popular writer rather than a scientist, and so his theories wouldn't hold much weight in the scientific literature anyway. I think it's safe to remove. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed, didn't really add anything. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a few places in Description where the prose seems highly technical. Rather than just wikilinking the terms, it would be helpful to the reader to explain what a few of the anatomical terms mean. "Each scapulocoracoid of the shoulder girdle has a length of 1.53 m (5.0 ft). Each half of the paired ceratobranchialia measure 42 cm (17 in). The shoulder-blade was long and narrow, and the deltopectoralis crest was pronounced and triangular. The humerus was relatively slender, and only slightly longer than the hand. The ulna and radius were elongate and not firmly connected to each other in a syndesmosis. The furcula, an element not known from any other ornithomimosaurs, was U-shaped. The hindlimbs were relatively short, and the thigh bone was longer than the shin bone, as is common for large animals. The metatarsus was short and not arctometatarsalian, as in most other theropods. The claw bones of the feet were blunt and broad-tipped instead of tapered, unlike other theropods, but resembled the unguals of large ornithischian dinosaurs." Firsfron of Ronchester 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, will try to fix this tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I can help. Meanwhile, there's another reference I couldn't verify because the number of pages cited are extensive. The sentence reads, "This geologic formation has never been dated radiometrically, but the fauna present in the fossil record indicate it was probably deposited during the early Maastrichtian stage, at the end of the Late Cretaceous about 70 million years ago." The citation is pages 1-500, which seems like overkill for a single sentence. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems Reid fixed the source. I explained some anatomical terms, but not sure what to do with the rest, as they don't really seem to have common names... FunkMonk (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. All of my concerns have been handily addressed by the two nominators, the article seems quite polished, and is similar in depth and breadth to other Featured Articles on dinosaurs. Well done, gentlemen. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by karanacs Thank you! My standing with my son will go way up now that I can talk about this dino he doesn't know about yet.

Cool, and should go even further now you helped improve this article... FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Some points:

• "of the currently only species" - I read that three times and don't understand what it is saying. Does it mean "currently the sole species"

Changed after comments above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is it important to note what sizes were extrapolated from the incomplete holotype - isn't that information out of date now? If it needs to be kept, I would move it down to the history of discovery section

It is outdated, but I think the text makes that pretty clear, especially since it comes after the current estimates. "History of discovery" is mainly for fossil discoveries and its context. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But if it is outdated, why does it even need to be in the article? I write a lot of history topics, and for the most part I exclude information that has since been debunked (unless it is something really well-known and needs to be explicitly mentioned as being false). Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know most of the terms in the second paragraph of description, except for ulna, radius, and humerus, which were the only ones defined. Would it be difficult to summarize the other linked terms in 2-3 words? Or to find an image that labelled all of those?

I assume you mean words like Scapulocoracoid, ceratobranchial, and metacarpus? To be honest, I don't know of any common terms to explain these. Perhaps we could add such terms (with pointers) to the diagram under classification (which also mentions several anatomical terms), IJReid? Like this image: Perhaps also add such to the "sail" diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Added, under a new name so that the other can remain as multilingual. I haven't been able to find any sources yet for where the ceratobranchial or furcula would be, but will add them when I find some. The sail diagram will come next as the terms for it are more complex. Do you know how to add a straight line in photoshop FunkMonk? IJReid  00:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, there are varous ways to do it. First, if you hold down shift while drawing, your lines get straight. Then there's also something called the "line tool", which you pick by right clicking on the button that has the rectangle tool and other tools. These two are probably the most obvious ones. I preferred the old image though, without the black and grey spots... FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The image you've added to the article is very helpful!!! The only problem is its location. It's way down the page after the scary terms. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Placed the images a bit differently, which also made room for a photo of the Okavango Delta under palaeoecology. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Any development on the captions, Reid? FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Labelled the vertebrae diagram, I presume that is what you mean by captions. IJReid  13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Did you figure out the straight lines? May be a bit puzzling without them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Straight lines are done, are they a bit too numerous? IJReid  14:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the amount is ok, IJReid, you could just move the text and lines a bit away form the drawing so they don't touch/overlap it? FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• 2012 in paleontology is linked, but 2013 is not. Both years are mentioned in the context of announcing new specimens, so link both or neither

Removed, except for in the taxobox. Seems a bit much for every year. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I actually know what a gastrolith is because my kid makes me read so many books on dinosaurs, but I have a feeling most readers won't understand that. Another sentence in that paragraphy, explaining what they ae/what they are used for, would help.

Added (stomach stones). The text currently says "supports the theory that these gastroliths helped the toothless animals in grinding their food", isn't that enough for explanation? FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what facultative herbivory means

Added (optional). FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The only thing keeping me from supporting right now is the outdated estimates on the creature's size. If there's consensus that the info needs to remain, I can be swayed to strike that. Gug01, Dudley Miles, Firsfron of Ronchester, would you mind weighing in on that with your opinion? Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing is, we have "outdated" info under classification and diet as well (while clearly explaining these are not the current theories), and it is important to note these issues, and in the context they belong (not in the history sections, which are about circumstantial issues, such as fossil discoveries themselves). This is also how it's done in other dinosaur FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, Karanacs, but I think the outdated size estimates are useful, here, as a background to the history of scientific knowledge of the animal. It would be less comprehensive without that info, in my opinion. It's possible that the outdated info could be moved into its own section, as an alternative. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Casliber (GA reviewer) would like to weigh in as well. I'll come clean and say I'm firmly against removing the info, and don't think it should be moved to another section, away from its proper context, per other dinosaur/palaeontology FAC precedents. I don't think anyone is mislead, since it is clearly explained as outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer they were left in too. Part of the fascination and interest with paleontology is the estimates scientists have to make from fragmentary remains, both of dimensions and characteristics, and this critter has been interesting WRT the speculation regarding these - it is an integral part of teh story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I as well firmly believe that this info should be kept. Interested users should be able to know how close or far off scientists were with estimating the size and weight of Deinocheirus and how it compares with the data now that almost the entire skeleton is known. IJReid  22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Any further observations on this, Karanacs? It is probably good to take a look at other dinosaur FACs as precedents. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I forgot to come back last week. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks as well! IJReid  14:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN14 returns 404 error

Removed ref and info until another link can be found. IJReid  17:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the contact website for hiring the exhibit that features the holotype arms, so though it is a pretty low quality website, it is the only source that provides the relevant information, remember archive.com can always be used when a link dies. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Very broad page ranges - in some instances in the order of hundreds of pages - are not useful for verification purposes. Can we include more specific pagination?

Done.

• Books should not link to Amazon, per Template:Cite_book#URL - these links are included on the ISBN page

Removed

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Might want to ping FunkMonk. IJReid  17:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It was the first website to publish photos of the finds. It is some sort of "official" Mongolian website. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• New Scientist should be italicized

Done. IJReid  17:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• FN18, 28: edition is not part of the title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. IJReid  18:03, 20 March 2015 (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) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (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 article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) .

I Ching

Nominator(s): Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten this article on one of China's most difficult and storied classic texts. A top priority article in the China, Philosophy, and East Asia WikiProjects. Would be pleased to hear all comments. Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment(s) from Gaff

There is a problem with citation to Marshall 2001: Marshall 2001, p. 50-66. Harv error: link from #CITEREFMarshall2001 doesn't point to any citation. --Gaff (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed this, thank you Shii (tock) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review by --Gaff (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• File:I Ching Song Dynasty print.jpg AGF: PD-OLD. Hyperlink goes to source in Chinese, so AGF.
• File:Shang dynasty inscribed tortoise plastron.jpg No concerns: CC-3.0 photo "own work" by trusted editor on commons, taken of museum piece
• File:Yarrow stalks for I Ching.JPG No concerns: CC-4.0 photo "own work" by trusted editor on commons, taken bundle of sticks
• File:Diagram of I Ching hexagrams owned by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1701.jpg I think this is fine, but request a more experienced opinion to sign off. Licensed as PD-OLD. It is a scan from a book published in 2004 of a print owned or stored in an Archive. Print from at least 1700s. Could the Liebniz Archive still have copyright, somehow, if the print had never been published prior to the 2004 book??
• File:Flag of South Korea.svg No concerns: PD see image title.
• File:Flag of South Vietnam.svg No concerns: PD see image title.
• File:Yin and Yang.svg No concerns: PD see image title.
• Final note: The set of 64 hexagrams of the I Ching should certainly all be PD, but somebody has placed attribution license on some of them, such as File:Iching-hexagram-04.svg. This is 1) probably a bogus claim and 2) not an issue for this review.

To get expert input, I've requested and received some comments on this article via email from S. Marshall, author of . I've already edited the page to respond to his points, except for three:

• He insists that Zhouyi is one word and not Zhou yi (other sources seem to disagree)
• He has some complaint with the description of changeable lines; I've asked for more details on this (He has now written back and confirmed that there is no WP:RS that would back up this specific complaint.)
• He thinks more space should be devoted to how completely modern scholarship has overturned earlier views. I will have to look into this. Attempted to address this here.

Shii (tock) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just now saw that this is an FAC, excuse my tardiness.

I'm not sure why we are paying any attention to what Marshall has to say on this article... He's certainly not an expert on the subject in the eyes of anyone but himself, and I don't think any serious sinologist would cite his work. I'm concerned that Shii has been citing his 2001 work, which I don't think is a wise choice (see David Pankenier's review of this book). I know sinology isn't your main field, Shii, so please feel free to get input on sinological works' validity and reliability from editors like User:Kanguole and myself who are more familiar with that area.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked him simply because his email was readily available. As you can see from the resulting edits, he had a number of simple, factual criticisms to make which I generally found were backed up by sources, and I believe the article is better for it. Looking forward to your own comments. Shii (tock) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shii (talk · contribs), I've got some down time at work today and am going through the article making some revisions and comments. I'll post them here when I'm finished, probably just in a large bulleted list.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Textual Review by WhiteWhirlwind

I'm going to do these in bullet form, I hope it's not too difficult to follow along.

• "The I Ching"
  • at some point in the future this will be needed to be changed to Yi jing, I know a lot of sources still use the Wade-Giles spelling, but no reputable publication would do so in 2015.
    • I am going off the book titles for now, e.g. Redmond & Hon 2014, Shaughnessy 2012, Shaughnessy 2014 all show this is the common name Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• "/ˈiː ˈdʒɪŋ/"
  • I've never understood why we consider Random House Webster's to be an acceptable source for (often crappy) pronunciation of non-native English terms. In any case, this should be changed to standard Mandarin "/ˈiː ˈtɕiŋ/".
    • Man... who did this? Maybe I left this over from the pre-rewrite version. Fixed Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph of lead
  • I know I rewrote part of this, but I just want to say this is an excellent paragraph.

• 2nd paragraph of lead
  • I'd rephrase this to "...produces six apparently random numbers between 6 and 9. These numbers are turned into..." Better flow
    • Done Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• " of the readings found in the I Ching is the matter of centuries of debate"
  • Grammar error
    • Done Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Section headings
  • I'm on the record as against section headings where editors try to get cute and finesse things, like "The divination text: Zhou yi". I try to stick to simple ones like "History", "Content", "Influences", etc. Not a deal breaker, just my opinion.
    • I agree that the section heading might be changed, but FWIW I provided a list of 8 sources that distinguish between Zhou yi and Yijing -- basically all of the sources used in the article. Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• "decision-making"
  • Misplaced Pages editors have chosen to eschew this sort of hyphenation, just space it
    • Done Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• "the Changes of Zhou or Zhou yi.(Chinese: 周易; pinyin: Zhōuyì)."
  • This is a bit of a mess here. I recommend "Changes of Zhou (Zhou yi 周易)", which is standard in sinology but has traditionally been less common in WP articles. Either adopt my suggestion or just clean up the periods/parentheses a bit.
    • Done. Will address the next two thirds of this tomorrow Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The name Zhou yi means a book of "changes" (Chinese: 易; pinyin: Yì) used during the Zhou dynasty"
  • I mean, not really – it just means "Changes of Zhou".
    • Alternate wording offered Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• " Feng Youlan proposed that the word for "changes" originally meant "easy""
  • Two things here: 1) check and see which is more common, this form or "Fung Yu-lan", I seem to see the latter more often and I think it's the one Feng used in his lifetime. 2) You have no source for this sentence, so if you're not quoting anything either consider adding that this may be influenced by the modern meaning of yi 易 as "easy", which is common in most dialects. If you're going to say something like "there is little evidence for this", you should probably have a reliable citation.
    • The citations are at the end of the paragraph Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The Zhou yi is attributed to the legendary world ruler Fu Xi."
  • This phrasing makes it sound like a present day situation. I'd rephrase to something like "The Changes were traditionally attributed to the legendary..."
    • Alternate wording offered Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The basic unit of the Zhou yi is the hexagram (六十四卦 liùshísì guà),"
  • The term liushisi gua 六十四卦 refers to the "64 hexagrams" as a whole, single hexagrams are just gua (as are trigrams).
    • Done Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• "(彖 tuàn),", "The word tuan (彖) refers to a four-legged animal similar to a pig. It is not known why this word was used, and it is possible that it is a homonym for an unknown word. The modern word for a hexagram statement is guàcí (卦辭). (Rutt 1996, pp. 122–3)"
  • I have no idea why Rutt would write this and not mention that tuan is usually glossed as a loan for duan 斷 "decision". (Knechtges 2014: 1881 notes this, I'm surprised you missed it). I haven't found any mainstream reviews of this book, and I've never heard any scholar mention or appraise it as a good work. Not sure I would cite from it.
    • Changed. Rutt is cited as the single best translation by Redmond & Hon 2014, part of a series published by Oxford University Press and the American Academy of Religion. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, I see. I'm not sure how I feel about that attribution... Hon and Redmond (the latter I've never even heard of, and he doesn't seem to be a great expert on the subject) aren't what I would call Yi experts, and this wouldn't be the first time a major press published a dud. Unfortunately, this Hon and Redmond book only came out in October 2014, and so there aren't any reviews of it out yet. I'm curious to see how the expert reviewers appraise it. My local university library doesn't have this book yet, and I have no quasi-legal e-version of it like I do for many Chinese topics (doesn't leave the room, Shii).  White Whirlwind  咨  02:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I am aware of the need to be cautious with these books, but Hon is the author of The Yijing and Chinese Politics: classical commentary and literati activism in the northern Song Period (SUNY Press) which was widely reviewed and cited. The book has received several positive blurbs from Sinologists, here. Shii (tock) 03:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I saw those reviews on the OUP site. Those are the standard blurbs from author friends, I'm more interested in seeing the published reviews in major journals. Those tend to be more honest.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The book opens with the first hexagram statement, yuán hēng lì zhēn (元亨利貞)."
  • This has proven a very tricky phrase (maybe phrases?) to interpret over the centuries, but I think Shaughnessy (2014) has the best discussion of it. I'd summarize what he says.
    • Will need to go back to the library tomorrow for this. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• ", but in five cases (2, 9, 26, 61, and 63) an unrelated character of unclear purpose."
  • You're missing a verb somewhere in here.
    • I thought this was grammatical, but since it's unclear I added a word Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The Zuo zhuan and Guoyu contain the oldest descriptions of divination using the Zhou yi."
  • Consider including translations here, like "Zuo Commentary (Zuo zhuan)", or at least a descriptor like "ancient narratives".
    • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "In the Zuo zhuan stories..."
  • I think this entire paragraph is unnecessary and should be deleted.
    • I added it because of the long descriptions of "changeable lines" in previous revisions of the page, making me think this was an important topic. You can delete it if you want Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "In 136 BC, Emperor Wu of Han named the Zhou yi "the first among the classics","
  • Citation needed.
    • This is something I worked on for a while. Eventually I got a good source in Smith 2008. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "and the Shuogua attributes to the symbolic function of the hexagrams the ability to understand self, world, and destiny."
  • This is the first and only time you mention the Shuogua – you'd need to introduce it if you intend to keep this clause in the article.
    • Not sure what introduction is necessary other than "one of the ten wings"? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The Japanese word for "metaphysics", keijijōgaku (形而上学; pinyin: xíng ér shàng xué) is derived from a statement found in the Great Commentary that "what is above form is called Dao; what is under form is called a tool". The word has also been borrowed into Korean and re-borrowed back into Chinese."
  • This probably isn't necessary and can be deleted. I'm not sure that source is reliable, in any case.
    • I think it's a non-trivial explanation of the value of the Ten Wings, but it is a bit wordy and the source is not the most reliable. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The I Ching was not included in the burning of the Confucian classics, and textual evidence strongly suggests that Confucius did not consider the Zhou yi a "classic"."
  • Citation needed
    • Shchutskii 1979 and Smith 2012, as given Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "During the Eastern Han, I Ching interpretation divided into two schools...."
  • In the following sentence, you need to introduce the two, such as: "The first school, known as New Text criticism, sought to..." and similarly with the Old Text pai.
    • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Only short excerpts survive,"
  • The term "fragments" is generally used in this context in sinology
    • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "At the beginning of the Tang dynasty, Kong Yingda was tasked with creating a canonical edition of the I Ching."
  • By whom?
    • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "One was the yili xue (義理學, "principle study") approach, which was based on literalistic and moralistic principles. The other approach, taken by Shao Yong, was the xiangshu xue (象數學, "image-number study") approach, "
  • You need to italicize foreign terms like yili xue. I'd actually rearrange like this: "..."principle study" (yílǐ xué 義理學) approach..." The last sentence of this paragraph needs a citation, too.
    • This was added by someone else. It appears to be a confused duplication of the Han section so I will remove it. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1557, the Korean Yi Hwang..."
  • Some title/descriptor needs to go between "Korean" and "Yi Hwang", this reads strangely as is.
    • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "...was later taken up in China by Zhang Zhidong."
  • A descriptor like "Qing scholar and official" would be good here
    • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Early European
  • This is a nicely written section. Good job.

• "as described in China's most ancient histories, in the 300 BC Great Commentary, and later in the Huainanzi and the Lunheng."
  • "most ancient histories" is a bit awkward here, since that term is debatable in and of itself.
    • I mean "histories" as in a genre of non-fiction writing... maybe a better term can be suggested? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "In East Asia, besides its widespread use in divination, "
  • I believe I mentioned this previously, but Yijing divination is actually not at all common in East Asia anymore, and hasn't been for quite a long time.
    • Indeed, I rewrote the section above it accordingly. I meant "widespread throughout history" but I'll just remove the adjective. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• "it had notable impact on 1960s counterculture figures such as Carl Jung, Philip K. Dick, John Cage, and Bob Dylan."
  • Citation needed
    • Citations can be found on the I Ching's influence page. Is this proper MOS? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• " Richard Rutt's 1996 translation incorporated much of the new archaeological and philological discoveries of the 20th century, and it is considered the most accurate available in English."
  • Citation really needed. I almost winced when I read that. I'd delete this entire sentence.
    • Citation is provided, it is Redmond & Hon 2014 Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Translations
  • How did you determine which were "the most notable English translations"? I have an MA in Classical Chinese language and literature and have never heard of a number of these, such as Pearson's weird "feminist translation" and the Wu translation.
    • Various contributors to the article added these. Some list of most notable translations is necessary for an article about a book... Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Of course. I'd stick to the ones Knechtges mentions, including Rutt (1996) ....  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid I've just started a study abroad and can't get access to that Knechtges volume anymore. Would you be willing to clean up the list of translations for me? Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I can. Take a look at Kanguole (talk · contribs)'s note on the below bullet, if you haven't already.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Marshall (2001)
  • I'd recommend deleting this as a source and any references thereunto. I can't find any serious sinological studies that cite it, and David Pankenier's review of it is pretty damning.
    • It doesn't really matter and the source can certainly be removed if the claims attributed to it are unusual, but it is cited in both Redmond & Hon 2014 and in Rutt 1996. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not convinced that those two works' citation of Marshall (2001) necessarily carries any weight. There are random Daoist blogs that cite them, too. The fact that Knechtges and Shaughnessy (two vastly more well known scholars than Hon) don't mention it is telling. I'd like to get a look at this Hon & Redmond book so I can form some kind of appraisal of it. I have a basic knowledge of Hon, and the problem is that his specialty is not classical works or philology, it's modern and late Imperial stuff, and that gives me a bit of pause in giving weight to his works on this subject.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Sure, we can put this off until you get a look at the Redmond book -- I think you'll find it fairly discriminate, and I expect positive reviews in academic journals when they do come out. Marshall 2001 is currently used only for the very vague statement about dating the events being referenced to. I'm not sure where to go for an alternate source for that, but I'm sure one can be located. Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I very much doubt there's an alternative source for that, since it refers to Marshall's own hypothesis that hexagram 55 refers to an eclipse observed at the Zhou city of Feng, that this eclipse occurred in the year of the conquest of the Shang, and that this was an eclipse known from astronomical calculations to have occurred on 20 June 1070 BC. No-one else seems to take this seriously. Pankenier's review demolishes the argument, and most authors now favour a date of 1046 or 1045 for the conquest. Kanguole 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Kanguole (talk · contribs), White whirlwind (talk · contribs): I've removed all references to Marshall, replacing them with Shaughnessy where appropriate. Hope this resolves the certainly legitimate concerns you've raised. Shii (tock) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
              • You've kept The Zhou yi itself shares some of its features with even older Shang dynasty analysis of oracle bones. I didn't see this in Shaughnessy 2014. He does mention that some oracle bones associated with the predynastic Zhou include groups of 3 or 6 numerals, which several scholars link to the trigrams and hexagrams, but I see no justification for a link with Shang divination. Thus illustrating the section with an image of a Shang divination is also misleading. Kanguole 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
                • I was basing this off of the following specific statement: "although there were numerous developments in the conduct of divination, certain features remained constant throughout ancient Chinese history and the various media used to divine." Shii (tock) 08:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • The quoted statement is quite vague, but from the discussion in that chapter, it appears that it refers to the religious context and purpose of divination. (Though I'm not sure whether his claim that the Shang oracle bones were prayers rather than questions is the consensus view.) I don't think it supports this sentence, which appears to suggest a connection between the Zhou yi and the procedure of Shang divination. In any case, we shouldn't be citing broad statements like this without context. Kanguole 13:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
                    • I don't think it would be fair to include absolutely nothng about Shang oracle bones when Shaughnessy spends 4 pages at the very beginning of his book describing the various links with the Zhou yi and why the oracle bones are useful for Zhou yi studies. Feel free to change the wording if you think something else would be more appropriate. Shii (tock) 13:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope this has been helpful. Let me know if you have any questions.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose>Comment

My objections mainly because the "Influence" section is too short, I understand there's a main article I Ching's influence, but that article aloso had same problem, far from what it's should be, and lot sentence without source. Also I have some concern about the selection, I mean why Carl Jung listed, according to the article I Ching's influence, "Psychologist Carl Jung wrote a forward to the Wilhelm–Baynes translation of the I Ching", also no source to follow, I just feel that wrote a forward to some translation doesn't count for "notable impact", we don't know what he wrote, and how's I Ching really impact his life, his professional or personal opinion.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jarodalien: Please note that this is not an FAC for I Ching's influence but for I Ching. I have expanded the "Influence" section and added a quote from Jung, is this what you wanted? If not, please be more specific. Shii (tock) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand this is not FAC for I Ching's influence, so just like I said before, "mainly because the "Influence" section is too short". Meanwhile, normally sections with {{main}} template, means this section is only an epitome for that article, just like lead section. But even when I consider this, this section are still too short. For example, I think it should mention the influence for divination, at mainland China, there's been a long history for people using I Ching to predict their future, choosing graveyard, homestead, (influence with Feng shui), even their spouse (with influence of "Bazi", calculate by people's birthday and exactly time), those influence also effect other country or continent. For as far as I know, there's still least tens of thousands people practicing Hexagram or Bagua for living (for a street that 3 blocks from my home, there's least 15 blind people do this, because some people lives here believe, when people lost their eyesight - normally born that way, cause by accident doesn't count. - for somehow they could open "another eye" to look into your future). My English is very poor, hope doesn't cause any misunderstanding.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Between you and White_whirlwind, who says the I Ching is no longer widely used in China, opinion is evenly divided. I have found it best to remain silent when the sources have so little to say about modern use of the I Ching. Sorry this makes you reject my work entirely. I wish I could find something better to say in that section. Shii (tock) 07:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about my opinion makes you feel that I "reject" your "work entirely", so I switch to Comment, hope that helps. Maybe I Ching "is no longer widely used in China" like used to be, but their influence still strong, especially places less developed. Maybe I feel this way mainly because I live here, like we had a old saying "当局者迷", means when someone get involved, there's big chance they couldn't seen the whole picture. So, this is just my opinion, you already done a excellent job to writing this article, I only feel there's some place could been better.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally think your anecdotal evidence makes perfect sense. In Japan, blind people have similar social roles. I just can't find a good source to attest to it. I will keep looking... Shii (tock) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

This is done, except for the hexagrams, for which I'm not sure alt text is possible Shii (tock) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Looks like there are substantive issues here that will be best addressed outside FAC, and the nomination has not attracted any support after more than 3 weeks. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Can you give an example of one of the substantive issues? I was under the impression that the FAC was progressing well. Shii (tock) 21:28, 6 March 2015 (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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC) .

SMS Dresden (1907)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another German light cruiser, this one joined von Spee's squadron following the outbreak of WWI, and it was the only survivor of the Battle of the Falkland Islands in Dec. 1914. This ship was eventually tracked down and forced to scuttle at the Battle of Más a Tierra on 14 March 1915. You might note that the centenary of the sinking is a little more than a month away - I'd very much like to have the article through FAC in time to run on the centenary if at all possible. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. Parsecboy wanted to go ahead and nominate this, since an anniversary is coming up ... and that makes sense to me. All issues have been dealt with at A-class, and I expect it to pass A-class shortly. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Now passed A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of prose issues Support: all the issues below have been addressed. They cover everything I found right to the bottom of the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Nothing serious, but a few things stuck out.

• "SMS Dresden ("His Majesty's Ship Dresden") was the lead ship of her class, built for the Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine)."

Are we putting the translations to English in the parens, or the German? The rest of the article puts English in the parens, so I'd suggest the same here.

A good catch - I had forgotten to fix this when I rewrote the article.

Generally I found this statement to be a bit odd. Is it no more like "SMS Dresden ("His Majesty's Ship Dresden") was a German Imperial Navy ship, the lead ship of her class."

Yeah, that's a good point - see how it's worded now.

• "She had one sister ship, Emden."

Could this be combined with the former statement? A two-ship class doesn't seem to deserve three links.

Just cut it altogether - it's really not all that relevant to this article (or at least shouldn't be in the lead).

• " twelve coal-fired Marine-type water-tube boilers."

Is Marine a proper name? If not, should it be lower case? Is this referring to the Kaiserliche Marine, and thus a specific type? If so, I'd like to see a link here, or some explanation of what it is.

Another leftover from the old version - Gröner always refers to them as Marine-type boilers, which seems to have been a translation error - it should probably have been translated as "naval boiler" (which basically means water-tube boiler)

• "Dresden thereafter joined the reconnaissance force"

then instead of thereafter?

Sounds fine to me.

• "She made it back to Kiel, where repairs were effected. The repair work took eight days"

She made it to Kiel where she spent the next eight days being repaired."

Yeah, I wasn't really fond of how that turned out, but when I was writing it I couldn't think of a way to split the sentence for the citations, as the NYT article covered the fact that the repairs were in Kiel, and HRS covered the length of time it took - see how it's worded now.

• "Regardless, von Spee and those who favored the attack on the Falklands won the argument."

There are five ships and four captains (three plus admiral perhaps?) have been mentioned. Am I incorrect in thinking "those who favored" means the captain of either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau? I found this bit a little confusing.

A good point - yes, the captains of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the ones who supported Spee in attacking the island.

That's it! It makes for exciting reading. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Fixed.
• Some of the images are a bit small to use at default size - can we enlarge them?
  • I have my defaults set at 300px - which ones in particular were you thinking?
    • The line drawing and the first two maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I forced the line-drawing and the second map to 300px, since those both looked fine on my screen as is, and the first map to 500px - how does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• File:Dresden_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • Cut the dead link - the citation to Jane's has been improved and should be sufficient.
• File:Escadre_allemande_d'Extrême-Orient_1914_1915-de.svg: what is the source of the information presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It was derived from File:Ostasiengeschwader 1914-15.png, which is based on The Viking Atlas of the World War I, along with File:Cruise of the Emden 1914 Map.png, which is from the official British history of the war - should I add the atlas info to the derivative map? Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images (only one currently has it). -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

John

Why was the article moved over into American English? This version seems to use UK ("metres") and thus WP:RETAIN would suggest keeping it there. --John (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The first version had "paralyzing" instead of "paralysing", which is AmEng. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. The language of the guideline has the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default (my emphasis) and I suppose it's a judgement call what constitutes a stub. I wouldn't oppose over this I don't think. I am still reading the whole thing. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no real hard-and-fast threshold for where an article becomes Start-class, but the limit for DYK is 1,500 characters, and the initial version was slightly over 2,000. WP:STUB says "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text..." - which the initial version easily surpasses. Thanks, John. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a few slight adjustments. I may have a couple of questions before I support. It is looking good. --John (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Question Why are we capitalising and italicising Maat? --John (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't need to be capitalized, but it's not commonly used in English, so it should be italicized. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd agree with that, and I think it looks far better now. There was one other thing I wanted to ask but I can't remember what it was. It can't have been that important. I now

Support. --John (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Convert meter ranges to yards, not feet.
  • Good catch - though I left the second one since depth is usually measured in feet.
• When I was researching the Otranto article, the biography of the ship that I looked at made no reference to any hits on that ship, despite German reports. There's also no mention of any hit in the ship's log.
  • Added a bit to clarify this.
• Still like to see some references to the Warship International article on the hunt for the ship that I mentioned earlier.
  • Yeah, I don't know that I'll be able to include it given the very short time-frame - I put in the article request but we'll see if I get it in time.
• Suggest combining these two sentences: Meanwhile, the Royal Navy had deployed a pair of battlecruisers, Invincible and Inflexible, to hunt down the German squadron. The British ships were commanded by Vice Admiral Doveton Sturdee.
  • I think John fixed this in his copyedit.
• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking it over. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support, with one minor quibble:

• In "World War I", "What von Spee did not know was that..." sounds too colloquial. Maybe just "Von Spee did not realize that..."
• That aside, I could find nothing that needs to be changed or clarified. Very nice article, good luck with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds fine to me - thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Should use the same rounding for converted measurements in the infobox vs the article body
  • Should be fixed now.
• Naval Review should be italicized
  • Cleaned up that reference.
• Since AuthorHouse is a self-publishing service, what makes that book a high-quality source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A good point - replaced with a better source. Thanks as always Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (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 article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC) .

Master of Puppets

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, considered an artistic pinnacle of thrash metal. The band would experience increased popularity afterwards, becoming heavy metal's leading act in the 1990s. This record is subject of many musical analysis about the roots of extreme metal and its further development.--Retrohead (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support I'm not much of a music guy, but I recall being impressed by this article when I first encountered it (at DYK?) and it's only got better since then. I made two entirely trivial edits. The prose is wonderful; like the last time I read it, makes me actually want to listen to a metal album. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nergaal

• I think the intro should mention some of the most notable tracks
• "in 2006 by playing it in its entirety." → where? during a single concert?
  • During the Escape from the Studio '06 tour, mentioned in 'Live performances'.
• "musicianship" is this a real word?
  • Yes, it is—it means the technical quality of one's playing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• "on signing Metallica" mention year
  • You mean when Alago signed the band? 1984, mentioned in the background.
• "The original artwork was sold at Rockefeller Plaza, New York City for $28,000" when?
  • In 2008, added.
• "The album was recorded with the following equipment:" if you use ":" why is everything after it split by "."s?
  • Corrected, used semicolon instead.
• "in the sense of "assault and battery"." says who?
  • Joel McIver, cited at the end of the third sentence.
• "at 220 beats per minute" is this a lot?
  • Compared to today's mainstream music, incomparably faster.
• "off-kilter 5/8 time signature on each fourth bar" what do kilter and bar mean?
  • Off–kilter means unbalanced or awry. Bar measures a small amount of time in written music.
• " two-and-a-helf "
  • Corrected.
• in "Music and lyrics" why did you have each paragraph cover 2 songs instead of 1? also, this section should have linkers like "the first/second/third/nth song"
  • Largely because the songs are not equally covered. You have "Disposable Heroes" in three sentences and "Battery" in five, so I tried each paragraph to contain similar quantum of information.
• "1986 is" never start with a number
  • You mean the sentence shouldn't begin with a year? I've seen many FAs with sentence structures such as this.
• accolades section should mention the years when the lists were put together
  • The publishing dates are visible in the reference templates. I think mentioning them in the prose is going to make the text tedious.
• "Professional ratings" table is a bit short imo
  • I decided to omit receptions such as "favorable/unfavorable" because they seem variable from reader to reader. Spin, Rolling Stone, and BBC Music don't feature ratings, and that's why they are omitted from the table.
• the last part of the 2nd para in "Commercial performance" should probably be moved into the accolades/critics section
  • Could fit there, but since it discusses the impact of "thrash metal's first platinum album", it's per se connected to the commercial performance.
• this section could perhaps list the countries where the album ranked
  • The countries are listed in 'Charts'. It would seem repetitive listing them on two places.
• "Metallica Through the Never" mention year pls
  • Year added.
• "crosses were rising from the stage during the song" → add reminsicent of the album's cover art
  • Done.
• "after having been retired for a number of years" why? I thought that MoP is by far one of the most popular of their songs
  • "Battery", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "Damage, Inc." were retired, "Master of Puppets" was performed in shortened version.
• charts list seems a bit surprisingly short imo. any year-end charts?
  • You have the positions per year in this diff. The album wasn't a notable commercial success in its initial years, but gained recognition after 1991.

Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  • Done.--Retrohead (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Image check. File:Metallica - Master of Puppets cover.jpg has an acceptable non-free media rationale. File:Metallica - Master of Puppets.ogg and File:Metallica (1986) Welcome Home (Sanitarium) sample.ogg seem acceptable as well; I think that 3 is a bit borderline with the "minimal use", but acceptable. File:Kirk Hammett playing.jpg has an acceptable licence in Flickr, which has been already reviewed in Commons. Article check will follow. Cambalachero (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• More comments by Cambalachero: I will check section by section, and leave the intro for the end (as it must be a summary of everything else)
  • Background and recording section: I don't think that "musicianship" is the right word for that context. If it is the technical quality of the music, then it can not be "aggressive"; that's the style, not the quality (thrash metal, as any other genre, has good quality and bad quality performers). All the sentences with maintenance tags must be fixed. "Metallica was motivated" is a bit wordy, and lacks a reason: I would expect a sentence using that word to clarify why or what motivated someone to do something (if they wanted to make a well-received album just for the heck of it, then you may use the verb "want"). "Hetfield and Ulrich described the songwriting process as starting with "guitar riffs, assembled and reassembled until they start to sound like a song".": all quotations must have a footnote immediately afterwards. Question: did Mustaine tried to sue Metallica for the rights of "Leper Messiah", the logical consequence of his claim, or did it stay confined to things said to the press? (if it's the later, then it's fine as it's written). "and decided to record" is wordy. "Hammett recalled that the group was "just making another album" at the time and "had no idea that the record would have such a range of influence that it went on to have".": again, immediate reference after quotation. "The cover was designed by Metallica and Peter Mensch and painted by Don Brautigam" Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • First of all, thanks for the suggestions. I think Mustaine has not sued Metallica for using ideas of his own because those things are legally hard to prove. He hadn't done that with "The Four Horsemen" vs "The Mechanix", which is a more obvious copyright violation than this one. Summa summarum, it's just a speculation. I understand "musicianship" as a style of playing/performing, in our case, "aggressive" performance. I'm little puzzled by the "cn" tags because every information is sourced. For example, the first two sentences are sourced with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame biography, including the "aggressive musicianship and vitriolic lyricism". Instead of repeating the cite at two places, I used it at the end of the second. Other notes are under way.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Mustaine couldn't have sued over the earlier songs, because he's credited for them and thus gets royalties (he couldn't legally block them from using the songs). With "Leper Messiah", assuming his claims are true, he'd have to have some kind of proof—a demo recording or something. If he doesn't, then all he can do is bitch in the press, which he sure loves to do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, I know that he's credited and receives royalties for his first songs with Metallica, so there's nothing to complain about (he's not the first guy who left a band and left behind songs written for it). That's why I asked about Leper Messiah, as being the uncredited author of a song sounds like something that could start a legal battle, if it could be proved; and if such a battle took place the article should have talked about it (featured articles must be comprehensive). But, as said, if it didn't go beyond the press, the current coverage is fine. As for the tags, I really don't understand what does "Metallica hired Q Prime's Cliff Burnstein and Peter Mensch" mean. What is Q Prime? It is not clear from the context, and I don't think it has anything to do with Star Trek... Cambalachero (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Music and lyrics" section. Comments such as "were considered" or "were praised" must detail who thinks those things. ""Battery" is about anger and refers to "battery" in the sense of "assault and battery"", can we rewrite that sentence without using the same word three times? It may be better to link Cocaine dependence than just cocaine, as it's more precise for the context. Cambalachero (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Brock Helander is the one who praised the lyricism for its honesty. I could credit him in the prose, but it will sound trite. A search on Google Books will offer you many critics who spoke positively on the lyrics. I could mention the author if you insist, but that would hardly be of any interest to the reader.
• "Critical reception" main section, I did not notice any problem. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, but the credit there goes to Dan56.
• "Accolades and legacy" section: you mentioned Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax, and then said "these bands were being called the "Big Four" of thrash metal". Perhaps it is evident from context, but you should clarify that the fourth one is Metallica. Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarified, mentioned Metallica along with the rest of the big four.
• "Commercial performance" section: "Master of Puppets became thrash metal's first platinum album and by the early 1990s it successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal." Are we talking about Master of Puppets, or about Metallica? As for the early 1990s (not the mid-1980s), if I remember well the bands that "successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal" were bands like Pantera and Biohazzard, which redefined thrash metal even further; Metallica's black album was a huge success, but not one that redefined the whole of heavy metal as "Master of Pupets" did. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Corrected. The author meant that thrash metal as a genre redefined mainstream heavy metal in the early 1990s, not solely this album or Metallica.
• "Touring" section: There is a contradiction with the article about Cliff Burton. Here, it says that the driver was charged with manslaughter, there, it says that the driver was determined not at fault for the accident and no charges were brought against him. Which one was it? Besides, you may add File:Clifford Burton Memorial Stone At Crash Site.jpg to the section. Cambalachero (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The driver was accused for the accident, but the court found him not guilty.
• "Live performances" section: add a reference for the claim that "Master of Puppets" is the most played Metallica song (does someone keep the track of those details?) Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Does the band's website counts as an appropriate source? I know it's primary, but it's the best one I could found on Google.
• Lead section: "Many bands from all genres of heavy metal have covered the album's songs, including tribute albums." This seems something interesting to talk about, but it not mentioned later in the article. Perhaps you should add a new paragraph at the "Accolades and legacy" section, talking about this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is likely based on the 2006 edition of Kerrang! ('Accolades and legacy') in which the album was covered by a variety of bands.
    • Metallica was motivated by fans and critics expectations to make successful album. I wanted to ask something: Is it obvious (from the context) that Cliff Burnstein and Peter Mensch are managers working for Q Prime (record label)?--Retrohead (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Clarified, nevermind.--Retrohead (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cptnono (Might take a day or two, putting this in my own queue and asking the coords not to archive this just yet juust in case it looks like its becoming stagnant..Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is a clarification needed tag in the first paragraph of the body. I can't tell why but it needs to be addressed or removed.
  • Addressed. It was whether Burnstein and Mensch were managers, which I thought was obvious from the context, but clarified anyway.
• "El Cerrito" should be clarified with California. People outside of the area probably don't know where it is and he article doesn't mention the state beforehand.
  • Done, wrote the state within it.
• "The recording took longer than the last album because Metallica developed a perfectionist sense and had higher ambitions.for this one" or some other change?
  • For this album, mentioned at the end of the sentence.
• I wanted a little more about the cover while reading the article. I always assumed the art was more related to Disposable Heroes than Master of Puppets but could be wrong. Regardless, I would still like more info on the background of the art if a source can fill that hole.
  • Will search for more info. Sorry, but major Metallica biographies don't offer larger information on the cover (such as inspiration, creation, etc.) What is in the article is all I can provide.
    • I had a hit on my first try: "Rock and Roll Always Forgets: A Quarter Century of Music Criticism" pg101. Surely there is more out there.
• "The album was recorded with the following equipment:..." could be its own paragraph. This could maybe be expanded if you felt like it and found sources but is not necessary to reach FA.
  • The equipment information was provided by Curly Turkey (big thanks for that). I don't have the magazines, so this is the best the article can offer.
• "...who had his arm severed in a car accident." should this read "recently had" or "after he had"? It comes across as trivia otherwise.
  • Time adverbs such as recently are not allowed per WP:RECENTISM. In my opinion, this is less verbose than going with "after he had".
    • I don't think I properly expressed my concern and RECENTISM doesn't apply in the sense that I am getting at. The line needs to be reworked in some way.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, got you point. Already fixed.
• The sentence with "both open with a fast thrasher with an acoustic intro" is hard to follow. Can you edit it to make it clearer (I believe that if I stumbled on it someone who doesn't enjoy the genre will have a harder time).
  • Agree, "thrasher" sounds like a fancruft a bit.
• There are a couple tags in the "Music and lyrics" section.
  • Addressed, credited the author.
• ""Battery" is about anger and refers to 'battery' in the sense of 'assault and battery'." Should "the term" be used somewhere in that line?
  • Done, thanks for the advice.
• I can't read the source but "The theme is cocaine addiction, a topic considered taboo at the time." jumped out. If that is hat the source says then keep it.
  • Yes, that is the exact sentence I used from King's book.
• Several of the thoughts in the review section look like they need to be in quotes. Maybe the following section, as well.
  • These are largely paraphrased, that's the main reason why they are not in quotes.
• I don't understand "and offered readers the cover album Master of Puppets: Remastered". Was it on special order through the magazine?
  • The CD was part of the magazine's issue. It was kind of a gift to the readers.
• "The driver maintained that he hit the patch of black ice, but Hetfield disputed that." What did Hetfield and the charging officers believe? What was the result?
  • The driver was accused, but found not guilty.
    • I understand. Did Hetfield say he was drunk, negligent, reckless, or something else like that?Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• I also think that the article could be a little overkill with nonfree content. Not enough to withhold support but throwing it out there. Speaking of nonfree, some of the writing read like something I would see in a professionally published book instead of a volunteer project like Misplaced Pages. I could not find any blatant copyright vios from what I could check so I trust that you just did a really nice job. I'm not too worried but do a quick run through to double check close paraphrasing.
  • Thanks for the kind words.
• Speaking of links, #12 is a dead link.
  • You need to have username on Classic Rock to be able to read their articles. I don't have and that's why I can't access the page on their website. Luckily, I managed to read the article before the staff introduced the new rules.
• Ref #3 and #5 (I'll let you check the rest) notes pages but instead lists chapters.
  • The counter on Google Books doesn't display the pages, that's the reason why I cited the chapters instead.
    • I believe chapters can be used instead of pages: Template:Cite bookCptnono (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice overall. I like that it doesn't get too wiki genre warish. Good style. Good writing. I believe most of the above is reletively easy to address. Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I see no consensus to promote developing after nearly six weeks, nor much recent activity, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 14:28, 20 March 2015 (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 article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC) .

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

Nominator(s): Harrias 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've walked these halls, but let's give it a whirl. My main area of concern with this article is how accessible it is to the layperson. The GA review, which was a while ago, was carried out by another editor with good knowledge of cricket. I think I at least have provided sufficient wikilinks to help with this, but I'll let you judge for yourselves. This is a potential WikiCup nomination. Harrias 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

On first read through, this looks comprehensive and well written. Some comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is a lot of overlinking, particularly, but not exclusively, of players' names. I suggest running the script
  • Done, I think there is only one left, which I prefer to leave for clarity. Harrias 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• At least one ref, 33, lacks a publisher
  • Fixed this. Harrias 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure of the point of redlinking previous final contest in 1993.
  • I was hoping it would be a blue link by now, but I haven't got to it! Removing the red link from the lead, but left it in the later section. Harrias 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that either "top-scored" or "recovered the innings" are grammatical
  • I have replaced these, hopefully the replacements work! Harrias 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I've addressed the (easy) two, and will have a look at the others later, when I've got a bit more time! Harrias 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No rush, it will give me time to find more nitpicks (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Despite losing regular wickets—I think you mean "Despite regularly losing wickets" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Same with "Australia lost regular wickets" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Good points, both changed. Harrias 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• You switch between numbers and words for wickets eg "205 for 5" but "201 for five". stick to one style Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice spot, it should all be consistent now. Harrias 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• first team of either gender — "gender" applies to words, not people. Should be "of either sex" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't know that. Fixed. Harrias 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No further queries, so I've changed to support above. Nice to see an article about women's sport, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick first run-through comments from TRM

• The prose in the lead is somewhat repetitive, and I understand why, but repeating "women's cricket" three times in two sentences is a little too much for my taste.
  • I don't disagree, but I'm unsure what to do about this to be honest! Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• " first on foreign soil" isn't this a shade tabloid?
  • Modified. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Our article on Nicki Shaw has her as "Nicky Shaw". Plus be consistent.
  • Sorted; weirdly, I wasn't even aware it was sometimes spelt "Nicki", who knows what I was doing when I wrote that! Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Could link "toss" to coin flipping.
  • Linked to Toss (cricket). Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• "scored the most runs for" would prefer "was the highest scorer for"
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Link ball to delivery (cricket).
  • Done. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Is it "Player of the Match", "player of the match" or "Man of the match"?
  • I think I have consistently used "player of the match" in the prose, although I appreciate that the infobox uses "Player of the Match". I'm not aware of "Man of the match" being used? Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Is "traditional rivals" a quote, it seems like it might be so quote it. If not, it's a little OR.
  • Personally I think it is a bit OTT to require inverted commas, but I have placed it within them nevertheless. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• "of only 34 runs", "eased to a total " it's a tough one, but saying things like "only", "eased".... turns this from an encyclopedic article into a sports report...
  • Journalese is a weakness of mine. Tweaked those examples. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Link "spin bowlers".
  • Linked. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• "Marsh took a career-best five wickets" any thoughts on linking to a "Five-for" at the Glossary of cricket terms here?
  • Linked to Five-for (which redirects). Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Consider finding a link for "run-rate".
  • Linked to run rate. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• "England's following match was against the West Indies, and they once again surpassed 200 runs after batting first." be careful with these sentences, I would suggest it's ambiguous who "they" are.
  • I see what you mean, but don't the sentences around it provide enough context to eliminate that ambiguity? Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• " the run scoring" why not stick with run rate?
  • Who knows, changed. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• In the "Build up" section, there's an odd selection of whether to link the year or not, final or not etc.
  • Removed the red link for 1993. The use of final or not makes sense to me, but I can stand to be corrected. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• New Zealand Herald should be The New Zealand Herald.
  • Fixed. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• You didn't add (ICC) after the first use of International Cricket Council.
  • Added. Harrias 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Ref 23, "Wisden Cricketer's Almanack" should be "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack".

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: If these are the "quick first run-through" comments, I'm worried about the "thorough read-through" comments! Harrias 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, sorry. I know my cricket, and yet even I find some of the sentences and paragraphs impenetrable. The causes of the impenetrability are generally too much use of numbers, especially within the same sentence. Also, and this is fundamental, as it concerns comprehensiveness, which is more important than ptose: there are five paragraphs of prose about preliminary matters and only two on the match. Yet it is the latter that purports to be the subject of the article. Is there not more that can be said about the match? Do the FA criteria not require a greater degree of comprehensiveness? Venue? Crowd? Time of day? Weather? Umpires? . Some examples of prose/sourcing issues:

• "In response, New Zealand began positively, and were boosted by a half-century from their captain, Tiffen, but the spin bowling of Edwards, Marsh and Colvin controlled the run rate, and New Zealand were eventually bowled out for 170, Edwards taking four wickets." - That's quite an amount of work for one sentence to do.
• "New Zealand were drawn in Group A of the competition, along with the West Indies, South Africa and their "traditional rivals" Australia." - Where are these quotes from?
• "Prior to the start of the competition, Jenny Roesler of Cricinfo suggested England and New Zealand, along with Australia, as the favourites to win the competition. The final was a repeat of the 1993 final, when England won at Lord's." - We jump here from a pre-tournament prediction to the tournament final, which is a huge leap for the reader. Should the former sentence be earlier in the article?
• "New Zealand set a record partnership for the second wicket in women's ODIs in their final match" - the reader immediately wants to know, "against whom?" yet doesn't find out for another three sentences.
• Are live ball-by-ball commentaries reliable sources for FA standards? ()? Look at the work that footnote 25 is being asked to perform; it is surely too much.

Cheers. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Mkativerata. I always thought that comprehensiveness could be an issue, but until an article comes to FA itself, this is often hard to discern for sure. I can work on any prose issues, and integrate a bit more of the information presented in the infobox and scorecard into the prose, but the unfortunate fact is, women's cricket is no subject to much coverage, even for a World Cup final! Without adding irrelevant "padding", I can't really see any way of significantly extended the match summary, and in fact, if the reliability of the ball-by-ball coverage is questioned for FA, then it would have to be shortened. I am more than willing to put in work if you think the article can eventually reach FA standards within those confines, but if you feel that will permanently prevent it from achieving the required standard, then I can accept that. Harrias 11:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I think this is one of those articles that is pretty much incapable of ever being an FA. There are only some articles that are capable of meeting both criteria 1b and 1c; for others, the high-quality sources just aren't there or are there in insufficient quantity to make the article fully comprehensive. You're probably 98% there in terms of making the article as good as it can be, but even 100% would fall short. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no reason why an article of this length and comprehensiveness, using quality sources like Cricinfo should be prevented from becoming an FA. Unless, of course, we really want to start reinforcing the idea that minority sports or sports for women are automatically precluded because the coverage isn't as thorough as that of the men's game. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There is every reason. The criteria tell us that the article must "neglect no major facts or details". This one does: the account of a six or seven hour match is very brief, and there is no information in the prose about the venue, crowd, weather, umpires, etc. The criteria also tell us that the artcle is to have "high-quality reliable sources". A Cricinfo article may well meet that description; ball-by-ball coverage is a different matter. I'm well aware that my views on the capacity of this article to meet the FA criteria are an indirect consequence of bias in the coverage of women's cricket. But so it must be. We can't turn a blind eye to our generally applicable FA criteria to account for that bias. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, there is no reason. Discussing a six or seven hour match or even a five day match in the "comprehensiveness" you seem to be seeking would become a turgid and unreadable morass of text. If the key points are highlighted, and in particular with cricket, that's never ever going to be down to a ball-by-ball-by-blow account, an article shouldn't be summarily dismissed as never being able to achieve featured status. I am, however, interested by the fact that there seems a clear indicator here that minority and women's sports events such as this are being described as impossible to hit FA. Probably worthy of wider discussion. Do you know what the shortest FA is? I'd be fascinated to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably Tropical Depression Ten (2005). Harrias 08:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: I've added some more detail on the venue and similar as requested. I haven't addressed the other concerns as yet, but with these additions, are some of your concerns regarding comprehensiveness alleviated? Harrias 12:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll re-visit my oppose over the next day or so. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I note Mkativerata's offer to revisit the oppose but even then we would not have the level of support required to keep this review open after running more than six weeks. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 13:47, 28 March 2015 (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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) .

Shepseskare

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Shepseskare, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, the fourth or fifth ruler of the Fifth Dynasty (2494–2345 BC) during the Old Kingdom period. Shepseskare lived in the mid 25th century BC and probably reigned a few months at the most. This article includes virtually everything that is known about this pharaoh and is part of an effort to improve all articles pertaining to pharaohs and pyramids of the 5th dynasty. It is my first FAC, all comments welcomed! P.S: the article has been promoted to GA on February 7th, 2015, I do not know why the GA icon does not show up.

Support. I reviewed for GAN and thought then that this impressively comprehensive article was suitable for FAC. Rereading it I remain of the view that it covers a little-known figure about as thoroughly as is possible; the prose reads admirably, the sources are wide-ranging and well cited, the balance is fine. This article far surpasses anything I can find elsewhere on the web, and I am happy to support. I imagine a spot-check of sources will be wanted if there is a consensus for promotion, and as I am going to the British Library today or tomorrow will carry one out. (Iry-Hor: the GA symbol shows all right on my machine: try clearing your cache.) Tim riley talk 07:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I now see the icon. Let me know if you find anything new on Shepseskare during your British Library trip! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment You should simplify the Reign column of the infobox to something like "Uncertain; likely for less than a year or seven years in the 25th century BC". All that detail and citation doesn't belong in an infobox; move it to a footnote or two.—indopug (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok done! This indeed clarifies the infobox. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see the FAC instructions and avoid using transcluded "done" templates-- they cause problems in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Source spot check: I checked a 10% sample: refs 6a–b, 12, 26, 28a–c, 31a–b and 50. All absolutely fine. I haven't done the general source review as I find others are better at that task than I am. – Tim riley talk 14:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22

This is a nice article with much useful information about a very obscure subject (my favorite kind). It's nearly there, but I do have a few comments which I think are important to the quality of the article.

• Lede section: "...and is likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..." This isn't really correct, since Shepseskare has been dead for over four millennia. Maybe change it to something like "...and was likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..." or "...was likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..."

Ok! Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lede section: "Fifth Dynasty" is used in the lede, while "5th Dynasty" is used in other parts of the article. Additionally, the capitalization varies throughout the article; sometimes "dynasty" is capitalized, and sometimes it's not. This needs to be standardized throughout the article. My suggestion would be to Capitalize, based on our article on the subject and the various Egyptology templates used.

I agree, it should all be capitalize now, as in "Fifth Dynasty". Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Historical sources: "...Remarkably, Shepseskare is..." I'd probably remove "remarkably" here.

Ok I have removed it. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Duration: This is worded strangely: "...had a reign of only between one to two years." First, "only" adds a bit of awkwardness before "between." Second, "to" would normally be "and" in this context. I suggest "...only reigned between one and two years."

Corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pyramid: This section describes Verner's team as "Czechoslovak archaeologists," while he is himself referred to as a "Czech Egyptologist" earlier. I know that Czechoslovakia existed at the time of the 1980 expedition, but it might be a good idea to reword it a little bit to make that clearer to readers who might be familiar. Something like "a Czechoslovakian archaeological team...", linking "Czechoslovakia" for the unfamiliar reader.

Good point, I have updated the sentence with a wikilink to Czechoslovakia. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• General comments: Nowhere in the body of the article does it say that Shepseskare was a pharaoh. Keeping in mind that the lede section is a summary and not an introduction, it is essential that everything in the lede be found also in the article. Once you've gone past the lede, the article seems to assume that the reader knows who Shepseskare is. Also, the lede and infobox are the only places in which the era of his reign (the 25th century BC) are given. The century doesn't need to be wikilinked, by the way.

I agree, I have added a small section "Identity" with references about him being a pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all that I found on my read-through, other than a few typos and such that I've corrected.-RHM22 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm changing to support, as all of my concerns have been addressed. I would consider integrating the 'Identity' section into one of the two succeeding sections, as it is a bit small. However, as it is, I think it meets our standards of quality. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I merged the "Identity" subsection in the "Contemporaneous sources" one. It is now the first 2 sentences of the subsection. This looks better since there is little to say about his identity. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That looks excellent. Very well done.-RHM22 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Great article. I also learned that Memphis is not where I thought it was... Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

Source check

I've spot-checked the citations to every source available to me, including Shaw 2000, Clayton 1994, and the linked online sources. I found several irregularities.

• The link for Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005 is a duplicate of the link to Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000.

Yes it is a mistake, I don't have an url link to "Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005". I had copied the entry of "Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000" and then filled up with the details of the 2005 one when I wrote the article but forgot to remove the url. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why does the link for the Kratovac source lead to a video of an AP report that doesn't involve Kratovac? Shouldn't it link to this, or something similar, instead?

All the AP report came out the same day and the same day as the video with Kratovac as the author so I put her up. I thought the video was nice to keep but I have now replaced the video by the link you provided. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• The Clayton citation should be page 61 rather than 60, unless the pagination of your copy is somehow off from mine by one page.

Well I have the book as a pdf and it is clearly p. 60 on the book. Note that it shows up as p. 61 in the pdf reader. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's odd. It's definitely 61 in my copy, but if it's just a pagination difference, it doesn't matter. A. Parrot (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• What's the page number for the Redford 2001 citation?

Unfortunately I have not noted it when I had the book. However the book is an encyclopedia organized in articles and the articles are rather short. This one is a couple of pages long and, with the title, would be easy to find for any reader with the book. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the article title is missing. Which one was it? I suggest specifying the article's author, as well. The Morkot citation template in Eye of Ra is an example, if you're not familiar with how to specify chapter and author in an edited book. A. Parrot (talk)

This was due to an error of formating in the sfn template, so that the article name was not showing up. I have corrected this, the location is now visible, being the article "Fifth Dynasty" written by Hartwig Altenmuller. I have also located the page numbers and I have added those. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Verner 2000 transliterates but doesn't translate the inscription on the serpentine seal. (I can recognize the words "beloved of the gods… beloved of Hathor" in the transliteration, but my knowledge of Egyptian is so limited that I couldn't say with certainty that that's what it means.) Because translation of Egyptian requires such specialized knowledge, it would be preferable to find a source that does translate the text, although I know that may not be practical.

Yes Verner does not translate and I know of no source which does. The text is extremely simple, being a few words long, so I did the translation. I don't think this constitutes original research since the text has only four words that anyone with a bit of Egyptian can understand. Feel free to remove it if you prefer, but I think this would be a loss for the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'll let it be. A. Parrot (talk)

• The Lehner citations are kind of mixed up. Citation 30a (in the caption of the illustration of Abusir) should refer to p. 142, not 148. 30b and 30c should probably be consolidated with the current Citation 52, as they all belong in that 146–148 page range.

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't find support in my copy of Verner 2003 for Citation 33. Page 58 is nothing but a photo. More concerning, I can't find mention of Khau-Ptah anywhere in the book, so 33b needs a substitute ref. The sentence supported by 33a ends with a direct quotation that I assume is from 34, so it's probably best to have only one citation at the sentence's end.

Again it is a matter of edition: my page 57 is a photo but the p. 58 (i.e. probably your 59) is text, as in the Goog books version here. About 33b, I had put it for "his reign must have been very short" for which it provides a reference. I realize that this is in the context of the tomb of Khau-Ptah, however refs 43 and 44 both already indicate that Shepseskare's name is omitted in the tomb, thus referencing the first part of the sentence. I have reorganized the refs for the sentence but I have kept it. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. The second-to-last sentence in the paragraph still concerns me, though, as it's not supported by a reference and isn't quite as obvious as the sentence that follows it. I'd be more comfortable if it were removed. The paragraph would still imply that Khau-Ptah's biography supports a short reign, without slipping into original research. A. Parrot (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A. Parrot Sorry for the delay, I have removed the sentence as you advocated. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Some sentences at the ends of paragraphs lack citations (the first paragraph of the Historical sources section and the second-to-last paragraph of Duration). I realize they're rather obvious statements, but it's best to have a source at the end of every paragraph.

Done, except for the second-to-last paragraph of Duration, I actually do not know what to put here: while we have refs stating that Shepseskare is not listed by Khau-Ptah and that Neferefre is, I don't have one reference stating that this Five-Dynasty account is more accurate than Manetho. Yet it is quite obvious. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. That sentence can stay. A. Parrot (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check over your other sources again, to make sure all the links go to the right place and that everything is cited to the right page. I know it's easy to make mistakes because you think there's something in the sources that isn't there, or is actually somewhere else. I had to re-check the citations for Eye of Ra about three times.

A. Parrot About Eye of Ra, you have 6 problems with the sfn template for refs 10, 14, 18, 22, 25, 28. You can see these thanks to a special script for this, see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm afraid I don't have time today to look over this article again, but I'll have time on the 16th to reply to you in detail. A. Parrot (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Other points

• Should the lead section mention the alternate spelling "Shepseskara"? It's not a major difference, so I don't think it's absolutely necessary to include, but I thought I'd bring it up, especially as Verner uses it some of the time.

Done, I agree, I have added the alternate spelling in the lede. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I know that Verner's views are going to predominate in this article, as he's done the most recent and detailed work on the pyramid site, and that attributing his hypotheses to him is better than omitting his name and treating them as fact. Nevertheless, the frequent mention of his name might give the reader the feeling that it's slanted toward his views. To avoid that impression, I've made some edits to avoid the repetition of his name, and I toned down some of the language about his disagreements with Kaplony (here). See what you think of my changes, and consider whether you might want to do more along the same lines. Not a necessity, just something to consider.

Good point and well done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe I can support this article if the referencing flaws are cleared up. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I've looked at the new references for the image, and they all check out. Good work. A. Parrot (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• What is the source of the information presented in the map? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Sorry for the delay. The image is entirely similar to the plan of the Abusir necropolis given by Miroslav Verner in the following source:

Verner, Miroslav (2000). "Who was Shepseskara, and when did he reign?". In Bárta, Miroslav; Krejčí, Jaromír (eds.). Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000 (PDF). Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. pp. 581–602. ISBN 978-80-85425-39-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) See in particular p. 602. I added this ref to the picture caption. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Added this info to the map's image as well for future re-users. Ideally all maps, graphs and other images depicting data should have source information (in theory at least). GermanJoe (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Verner 2000, p. 602. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVerner2000 (help)

It looks like everybody is supporting this as FA, so what next? Iry-Hor (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Iry-Hor: Once consensus is achieved, one of the FAC coordinators will come by and promote it. However, the process often takes quite a bit of time, so that plenty of consensus can be achieved. The reviewers might also request an image (already completed) or source review prior to promoting.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I am discovering the FAC process so I wasn't sure what to do next. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2015 (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) 02:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Older nominations

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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC) .

Forest raven

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a familiar Australian bird...well not that well-studied really. While buffing up its relative (Australian raven) which is a featured article, I read alot about the forest raven. The article is shorter as less is known, however I think it is pretty comprehensive and can't see anything else to improve. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cas—can you note whether this will be a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support - images are free, sample of accessable refs check out. Prose are tight, generally good to very good; have gone through with a light ce. A fine, well sourced and informed article. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

thx - all good, just had to flick back one bit which causes confusion as "Australian raven" is only one of the three species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Corvus_tasmanicus_map2.jpg: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• If you would like a different/better map, with clear sourcing, let me know. --Gaff (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I might have a crack at will be redoing the map actually. I've done it for others. And adding the consensus distribution and ref. thanks for offering. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

update- have found a map of southeastern Australia and added range onto it. In article now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Casliber: I copy/pasted your reference to make the new map File:Corvus tasmanicus species distribution map.svg. Please confirm the accuracy of the map, since I have not actually seen the data. Better yet, please email me a copy. I'm sure you're aware that the IUCN map is less detailed. Let me know if you have ideas on how to improve it. --Gaff (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been tidying up and I misplaced the goddamn thumbstick....will email as soon as I find it :P found and emailed. looks alright to me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments from Gaff

Looks good overall. Most images are from one source, who may or may not be expert on bird identification. Given your report that there are no other corvids on the island, shouldn't be an issue. --Gaff (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• * I fixed the Stresemann citation, since "date=The Auk" seemed an idiosyncratic format.
• Should the species synonyms be in the infobox?

Yes, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• First read through, the second paragraph of the taxonomy section was confusing. I wasn't sure if we were talking about the forest raven, using synonyms, or other birds in Australia and Tasmania. Second read through, I get it. Maybe some copyedits here could make this section more clear. It is a confusing story, for certain, and you have done a great job getting the details in there, but there might be a way to make it flow more smoothly.

Have been looking at this - how's this then? I have switched the order of the first two sentences, so the para begins by pointing out that it is difficult to tell teh difference, which then helps explain why Gould only described one species initially Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Capitalization for little and Little raven is inconsistent. The first mention of Little Raven cannot be wikilinked as currently written, because it is split up "incorporating Little and Australian ravens". Consider rephrasing to allow an early wikilink in the text. I also like when the binomial is given with common name. That is how you (or somebody) did it in the little raven article: "little raven (Corvus mellori)" and "Australian raven (C. coronoides)". I don't know if that is a rule or just personal preference, but the scientist in me likes to see binomials.

Little should be lowercase here, was missed after the capitalisation wars. I've oscillated between listing binomial names alongside common names in articles. There are a few to add.....will do shortly and see how it looks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• C. cecilae is mentioned but not linked. Was this name subsequently discarded altogether? Please clarify.

It is the Torresian crow, though now it is Corvus orru Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Maybe instead of "C. cecilae (crow)" you could link as "C. cecilae (crow)"? Looks odd that only the word crow is linked. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think its better to list the name as I have done now - "crow" is not what is meant so spelt out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please spell out acronym IOC, as nonspecialist will not know what that is.

I have unabbreviated it to International Ornithological Committee Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• This sentence seems odd, "As the climate was cooler and dryer, the aridity of central Australia split them entirely." Do you mean as the climate changed, it led to a split?

Yes, added "as the habitat between became inhospitable" hence leading to long term separation of the populations. Is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• "wingspan between 91 and 113 cm " conversion needed? done. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Too much going on in this sentence? "Sexes have identical plumage, however the male is generally larger, although there is considerable overlap in size between individuals." Maybe "Sexes have identical plumage. Males are generally larger, although there is considerable overlap in size between individuals."
• "blue-purple sheen" is it iridescent? Iridescence is a wonderful word.

Well, yeah, but "blue-purple sheen" is fewer syllables and means the same thing ..also never seen the word "iridescent" used with corvids.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough! --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• The progression of eye color changes with age is perhaps given in too much detail in the lede. Consider shortening it there and keeping it long in the body of the article.

trimmed in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• Use {{convert}} template on "The gap between the two populations is around 70 km, shrinking to 30 km at Dorrigo."
• Wikilink "Mount Wellington" ??

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• "sclerophyll forest" wikilink

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• The map definitely needs improvement. Sounds like you are already on it. I would like to see the different populations mapped out.
• "areas of 40 to 400 hectares have been recorded" -- unit conversions needed? Not sure on that one. I can check if you don't know.

to acres. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are no wikilinks in the entire first paragraph of Behaviour section, though some bird species mentioned for first time.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Does it matter that the citation style is inconsistent? <ref name="" />in most instances, then {{sfn}} in others. --Gaff (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I only use sfn for individual different pages or page ranges from a book, otherwsie we end up with an unnecessarily complex reference section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Makes some sense. I may ask you more about that in the future, for articles that I am building. --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Relict raven redirects to Forest raven and is a common name for Corvus boreus source. Might be something to add, if not already there (I'm short on time right now, but see you have covered some of the Rowley work from 1970). --Gaff (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are still a few minor fixes still on my laundry list, which may or may not be helfpul in improving the article. There is also the discussion below about what exact detail should be in the lead and particularly the first sentence. In my opinion, that is a discussion perhaps best held at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Birds so that some overall guidelines can be reached. The current verbiage is in keeping with Featured Articles on similar species (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Birds/Showcase). I am a newcomer to FA review, so the delegates will want to consider my vote accordingly. I have spot checked only a few references, but seemed okay. --Gaff (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maury

This is really very minor, but now's the time to address it. I have found that many articles on the wiki add meaningless jargon to appease a certain technical faction. In this article I can see this in the very first sentence, which contains the statement "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae". I don't think the target audience gives a crap about these two definitions, yet will be tempted to interrupt their reading to click-through to ensure they're not missing something important - and they aren't. These terms may be important to some bird nerds, but such stuff belongs in the body or sidebars and I suggest removing it. That's the first sentence, I'll give it a better read-over later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents...In many instances, I completely agree that ledes are over detailed. (See also: "Mammals are a clade of endothermic amniotes") I do not think, however, that "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae" is overly detailed. Just my bias, maybe hypocritically so... For comparison, I looked at the first 4 of the 137 featured bird articles Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Birds/Showcase and all have something similar. I'm only a minor bird nerd, having looked through a handful of field guides and read two books about crows. Even still, knowing passerines and corvids informs this article without creating too much distraction. But I can see your point... --Gaff (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, it's a fine line we tread withj jargon and accuracy. For instance, I'd love to change "corvidae" to "crow and raven family", however that loses accuracy (and I have been corrected previously) as the family contains jays, northern hemisphere magpies and nutcrackers. "passerine" is pretty broad and I think one linke to corvidae is not a big deal, especially when it says "family" right before it, so the reader who doesn't know the phrase gets an idea its a group of related organisms. I do want to eliminate as much jargon as possible though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So this is a type of crow, right? Is there any reason to be more specific than that in the lede? We have a whole body to be specific in. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

we-ell it depends...do you consider to be a raven as a type of crow? or are both of equal "rank" as it were? A bit like horses and ponies really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)\

Precisely. And we have an entire article to flesh out that definition. And why do we still have the entirely useless term passerine in there? We may as well say it has wings. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, I'd find it pointless to say "The forest raven is a bird" as that is patently obvious, and feel that "passerine bird" is more exacting and more educational to the reader as it helps define the critter more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Passerine bird" is not more exacting - a classification that includes half of all birds is less exacting that "raven". Your argument is precisely the sort of problem I'm talking about, jargon because it seems cool to include jargon and sound smart, when doing so actually lowers the readability of the article. I'm not talking about replacing this word with that, I'm talking about removing it all. If the reader can't figure out that this is an article about a bird, having them click through to passerine isn't going to fix that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Casliber here, it has nothing to do with "being cool" (why the weird accusations?) but is about accuracy. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, therefore info about classification has to be included. Otherwise it wouldn't be a summary, would it? It is the norm across animal articles to mention important parent taxa in the intro, "corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". There is already a Simple English Misplaced Pages, so we don't have to dumb this down to that level. There might be a point in "passerine" being so broad as to be pointless, though... FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". Precisely my point. Do you really think that using the term "feline" in the intro improves the article compared to "cat"? If the reader hasn't heard the term they'll have to click on the link to find out something they already know. This is useless filler. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Then it would appear the intro of pretty much all animal articles are wrong in your opinion, which makes it a wider discussion that should be taken up at Wikiproject Tree of Life or some such, not the FAC of a single article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Support from IJReid

This article is a very good read, and as I completed the GA review for the Australian raven, I believe I have learned a fair amount about the species and genus now. I would support this as a Featured Article, but I have two nitpicks. The caption of the first photograph outside of the lead starts with a lowercase, this should be uppercase. Also, the second paragraph of Taxonomy and naming is difficult to fully understand. It would be best to mention the names of the taxa rendered redundant to C. australis. Also, the reasoning the first revisor was required are not mentioned, and this might cause misinterpretations about the taxonomic history. In reply to Maury Markowitz, it is appropriate for the sentence to include "passerine", as raven is already mentioned, bird is much too general, and Corvidae is noted very soon after in the same sentence. IJReid  03:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

well-spotted on the caption and fixed now. Will have a tweak on the para a bit later. thanks for the support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I can't see much wrong with this. Just a few minor comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• As with the other two species of raven in Australia—although technically correct, given the taxonomic complexities I wonder if " other two species named as ravens..." might be better?

hmmm, to me that implies the names are less valid than other common names. The feather bases are used as a valid sorting tool in Australia, and the evolution supports the name split here between Australian ravens and crows....I think it also makes the flow a a litle awkward. Might pass on this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• perished of tuberculosis in 1778—what's wrong with "died" ?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• as evidenced by the forest raven only found in closed forest refuges on the mainland but a wider variety of habitats in Tasmania — I would add a "being" and an "in"

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• the forest raven could be confused with the black currawong,— really?

my mother in law pointed at a pied currawong the other day and thought it was a magpie...after that I think anything's possible.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• The call is considered the most reliable means of identification in areas where its range— subject of "its" is "call"

expanded instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Forest raven Vocalization"—in the audio caption, capitalisation looks odd

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Forest ravens fly from Tasmania and the mainland to islands well offshore in Bass Strait and may even traverse the strait entirely. It was…—"ravens…it"

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing else, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Hey Cas, long time no see–Please add alt text for all images. Good luck! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord note

Just a reminder you'll need a source review, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

John

Tentative support on prose. Like to take one last look but it looks great so far. --John (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it's been a couple of weeks I'll take the opportunity to close this now, John -- I'm sure Cas will welcome any post-FAC tweaks you see fit to make... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review from Laser brain

Everything looks fine—I didn't note any problematic sources or any problems with formatting. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2015 (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 article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) .

Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two early science fiction magazines together in one article this time; the two have almost identical histories. These two were unusual in that they had no budget for fiction: the editor had to get his stories free from friends and acquaintances. Since his friends included several writers who would go on to become famous in sf, this worked out better than you might expect. The magazine also features some of Hannes Bok's early work, and since it is all out of copyright I've been able to include two of his covers -- he had a very distinctive and characterful style. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree they appear to be fine, but it'd be good to state your source for copyright non-renewal explicitly. Adam Cuerden 09:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I checked via , so it would be easy to add that, but I'm not sure where the standard place to add it would be -- the license template doesn't have parameters. Where does this information usually go for out of copyright images? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I usually link right above the license tag. File:Alex_Schomburg_-_Harl_Vincent_-_Marvel_Science_Stories_for_April-May_1939_-_Illustration_for_Newscast.jpg might be a good template. By the way, Abebooks has a couple copies of these magazines available, so the images might be improveable. Adam Cuerden 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done; I didn't include the license in that parameter because it appears lower down; not sure if that's the standard way to do it or not, but it's what happens when you use the wizard to do uploads. I have copies of all these magazines, and can scan the covers if you're interested, but unfortunately they're in boxes at the moment (along with about 5,000 other old sf magazines). If you really want to restore these old magazines I could keep you busy for a very long time once I get the boxes unpacked! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a major boon. We could start with trying to get major artists and authors, and go from there. Have to be vigorous about copyright checking, but we always need to be vigorous about that. Adam Cuerden 13:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll scan some; I'll check with you before doing it, and it'll be a while, because they're in boxes, but I think this will be great. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Generally very strong.

• Perhaps you could more clearly clarify the relationship between the two publications in the lead? Also, perhaps the alternative name should be mentioned and bolded?

  Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• The last paragraph in the publication history section could probably do with some attention

  I tweaked the tense in one place, but I may not be seeing what you're seeing -- can you be specific? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  The "had he been able to achieve it" thing is throwing me- are you suggesting that he was lying in the advert? I'm also unclear what "In the event" adds. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  The sources don't say he was lying, but personally I think it was likely to be a bait and switch. That issue of Writers' Digest appeared before any issues of either Cosmic or Stirring had appeared, and there's no question Wollheim knew he couldn't pay that rate initially. At best he was hoping that by the time he received manuscripts he might be able to start paying something, if the magazines were successful, but most likely if he liked a story he planned to offer little or nothing for it. The payments Kornbluth received were well below half a cent a word, and I'm not aware that any other writers were paid at all, though they may well have been. It's possible that he believed the Albings would pay that rate after two or three issues, but there's no way to tell.

  What I meant to convey in that paragraph was (a) the fact that he did offer a payment rate, before the magazine launched, and (b) to position that rate against the rates other magazines were paying, so that a reader understands what that rate indicates, and (c) to make it clear that he did not in fact manage to pay the rate. "In the event" is meant to be a transition: I meant no more than "As it turned out". What do you think could be done to improve the paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fascinated by this printer error- perhaps it could be expanded upon in a footnote if the information is too trivial for the main body?

  It's an interesting story but I don't think I have the sources to be explicit. Knight's story is about little alien invaders whose bodies were incredibly resilient, so that bullets would cause their bodies to distort but would not harm them. They call humans "the Brittle People". The story is only a page or two long, and the point, if I recall correctly, is the realization at the end that the little aliens are invincible. This depends on the reader understanding who the Little People are (the aliens) and who the Brittle People are (the humans). In the opening sentence, the printer changed "Brittle People" to "Little People", presumably because he assumed it was a mistake on the writer's part. I met Damon Knight years ago and asked him to sign my copy of that issue, and he did, and also corrected the misprint, writing "Brittle People, dammit!" above the first sentence, and signing it. If I can find that issue in my basement I could take a picture of that correction with his signature and include that in the article I suppose, but I'm not sure that's sufficient evidence for a discussion in the text. As it happens, Damon told me he didn't own a copy of that issue any more, so I later found one and sent it to him, which was a nice thing to be able to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  What a fantastic story- both about the misprint and your interactions with Knight. A Google Book search suggests that sources may exist. Any details you can include would be very interesting. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  I had no idea the details were out there; thanks for finding that! I've added a footnote; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• "In his autobiographical anthology" I note that our article on the book suggests that it is a story anthology rather than autobiographical?

  It's both -- it's a collection of all the stories which to that point had not been collected in his short story collections, interspersed with autobiographical reminiscences. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Wollheim later commented to Damon Knight that because of the payment he could sue Asimov for royalties whenever his name appeared in print." A nice factoid, but it's not completely clear now- too many pronouns for clarity.

  Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "In contrast to Tremaine's attitude, John W. Campbell, who in 1938 had taken over from Tremaine as editor of the leading science fiction magazine, Astounding Science Fiction, was not concerned by Albing's policy." Again, a little convoluted

  I cut the clause about Campbell taking over from Tremaine; it's true but not strictly necessary to the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Although Campbell was proved right when the magazines ceased publication" Sorry to be picky, but Campbell was certainly not proven right by the fact the magazine ceased publication. Perhaps you could say "Although the magazine did cease publication after a relatively short amount of time, ..."

  Thompson's comment in the source is that Campbell's "prognosis" was proved correct, by which he appears to mean Campbell's assertion that the magazines wouldn't be competitive. I think ceasing publication is evidence that they weren't competitive, which I think is what Thompson meant. I've changed this to "Campbell's prediction"; does that help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  How about "although Campbell was correct that the magazine was unable to compete with paying magazines" or something like it? Technically, for Thompson's preduction to be proved correct, it would have to be unsuccessful because of the low quality of the content, which goes against the following setence. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, that's definitely better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• There seems to be some inconsistency between the use of "science fiction" and "sf"

  It's deliberate variation -- I use "sf" because "science fiction" is a long enough phrase that is repeated often enough in these articles to get tedious. "Sf" is the standard abbreviation, but I don't think it's necessary to use it all the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I made some fixes- please double-check them. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits all look good to me. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I will get back to this in the next few days- sorry for the delay! J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Some quick further comments:

• Quotes, even in the lead, should always be cited.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Was the crucial typo in the first sentence or the last sentence of the story?

  The first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Some months later Wollheim was able to find another publisher," Perhaps mention the name of the publisher here?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made some more tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits look fine; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose and content. I've not looked into the sources/images in detail. Great work. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support -- recusing from coord duties:

• No dab or dup links
• Prose looks good, I just tweaked here and there
• Structure is simple and straightforward
• Content/detail seems sufficient, especially given the short life of these mags
• I'll rely on the review above for image licensing
• Sources all look reliable and happy with the formatting

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No prob -- I forgot to add, just picking up on your nom statement, that the covers you've been able to include are indeed very special! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I think Bok's work is really unusual and deserves to be more widely known. The May 1941 Cosmic cover, in particular, is terrific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

One nitpick: *"Knight would later become a member of the Futurians, but he was still living in Oregon at the time the story appeared in print" - We haven't established that location had anything to do with membership. Should this be explicitly mentioned? Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. They were a New York group; I've now mentioned that before the comment about Knight -- does that fix it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That fixes it :) Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (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 article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) .

Gary Cooper

Nominator(s): Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the American film actor Gary Cooper, noted for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances. His career spanned thirty-six years, from 1925 to 1961, and included leading roles in eighty-four feature films. He was a major movie star from the end of the silent film era through the end of the golden age of Classical Hollywood. His screen persona appealed powerfully to both men and women, and his range of performances included roles in most major movie genres. Cooper's ability to project his own personality onto the characters he played contributed to his appearing natural and authentic on screen. The screen persona he sustained throughout his career represented the ideal American hero. Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Support – As one of the peer reviewers. At an earlier stage in its history the article was long and, in parts, discursive. The nominator has since tightened it up admirably, and it is now comprehensive without being overlong. The prose is a pleasure to read, the sourcing and referencing are wide and thorough, the proportions and balance impeccable. I leave it to the experts to comment on the images, but as regards the text I am happy to support for FA. – Tim riley talk 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Collect

Oppose Undue coverage of Patricia Neal and abortion makes me quite concerned. The affair is of minor biographical value, and a couple of sentences would suffice. I say this as a person whose GA Joseph Widney was achieved by massive removal of "stuff". Collect (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I responded to your discussion on the Gary Cooper talk page, but I'll copy that response here for the reviewers. Cooper's love affair with Neal was well-publicized and documented in Neal's autobiography, as well as all of the Cooper biographies. By all accounts this was not a casual fling, but a serious relationship, which led to Cooper's three-year separation from his wife (which you also deleted)—a major event in his personal life. After his death, Cooper's daughter Maria reached out to Neal and helped her through a difficult time. A few sentences about their affair and the direct impact on his marriage is appropriate for this article. If the focus of your objection is the sentence on abortion, delete that one sentence. A fair argument can be made for its removal. Keep in mind that a number of editors have recently reviewed this article—GA and Peer Review—and it was not brought up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this here and the article talk page. Bede735 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Made edit on that basis - also removed an "also" etc. OK? Collect (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes. Bede735 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Support Another happy PR participant. This article is very well written, nicely balanced, covers all the aspects of Cooper's life I would expect it to, and is an enjoyable read throughout. Excellent work! - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Support I conducted the GA review for this and was happy with many of the improvements during and since with the peer review. There may still be too much personal life info for some people, but it is clearly very well researched and written and some readers will like the length.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

Support I have been making visits to this article since it's GA review and the article has improved to a great extent. My only comment is that it would be better to archive all newspaper and magazines article references to prevent dead links. Otherwise, great job! — Ssven2 10:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Gary_Cooper_Signature.png: what is the original source for this?

I created the signature image from an autograph I found here: PSA (fourth image in the scroll). I added a link to the original source to the image page. Bede735 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• File:For_Whom_The_Bell_Tolls_trailer.jpg: IMDb is not a good source for copyright status - check for renewals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the link on the image page with one from TCM, also with no copyright notice. Bede735 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jonas Vinther

Support Having spend a lot of time on this article myself, I believe it's worth FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut