Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2016

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2016 [1].

---

Amazing Stories Quarterly

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Amazing Stories Quarterly was a companion to the first science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories. Critical opinions differ as to its quality: "important" according to one source, with the same work being described as "turgid" by another. It's a fairly short article, but I think I've found every source that specifically talks about the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Support with one caveat, namely that I wonder if it's worth splitting Publishing History and Content into separate sections -- each occupies two paragraphs, sufficient for their own sections, and it kind of pulled me up short to go through the mag's entire history from a publishing perspective, and then start again with its content. I mean it's not a killer for me, so if you want to see what other reviewers think, that's fine. Otherwise, short but sweet -- the prose (which I copyedited a bit) seems fine, and I think we get a reasonable idea of the kind of fiction published. Good to see you back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and split the sections; I think you're right that it reads better that way. To avoid some ugly wrapping of images I also moved the table and second image to the right and left respectively. Your copyedits look good. Thanks for the review, and the welcome back -- I've spent the last year listing five or six thousand of my books on eBay, which turned out to be very time-consuming and left me with little time for Wikipedia. I'm done now, though, and should be active again from now on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Source review -- apart from a tiny error that I fixed, couldn't spot any formatting issues, and all refs look reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit and support. I undid one of your changes, to the lead; since Sloane was the editor, rather than a writer, I don't think your wording quite works -- it makes it sounds as if he was writing the stories himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant "they consider the work Sloane published in the early 1930s to be some of the best in the new genre." I've made the change. "consider" (intrans.) means "deliberate" or "reflect" in AHD and M-W.

Great work, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Support with adequate responses to my review below. A fine article indeed! starship.paint ~ KO 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Here are my comments: starship.paint ~ KO 04:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• I can't help but feel that the lede is too long and thus intimidating, especially since the body is rather short.

  I've trimmed it a little; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Could I get more background on Hugo Gernsback, Bergan Mackinnon, Bernarr Macfadden in Publication history?

  There's not much more to say about Mackinnon, as far as I can find out. I could add a little more about both Gernsback and Macfadden, but it wouldn't really have anything to do with this article, and since they're linked I felt that was OK. The thing that might be added is that there are rumours that Macfadden forced Gernsback into bankruptcy because Gernsback wouldn't sell the magazines to him, but this is just a rumour. It's mentioned in the Amazing Stories article, since that's much longer and more detailed, but this is such a short article I felt it didn't fit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Could you re-state in Publication history that it was a US magazine? Where in the US was it available? Was it ever available internationally?

  I've added "U.S." to describe Amazing Stories, which is mentioned first in the text; since Amazing Stories Quarterly was a companion magazine I think that's good enough. There's no information on where it was available -- that probably means it was available more or less nationwide, but I don't have any source so I can't say that. There were no overseas editions -- many of these magazines had Canadian or British editions, but not in this case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• How about linking 50 cents so in Bibliographic details?

  I don't think so -- that's about a specific coin, and the price doesn't really relate to the coin. I do link currency when it's unfamiliar (e.g. pre-1971 UK currency) but here I don't think there's a need. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: okay, those are adequate responses above. Some further stuff, about Gernsback's policy of running a lead novel, could you provide more examples of those?

  There are a couple more already mentioned in the article -- I don't say "lead" for all of them, since there's never room for more than one novel in a magazine. I mention The Bridge of Light by Verrill, The Birth of a New Republic, by Breuer and Williamson, and White Lily, by Taine. I think that's probably enough -- the sources mention those, and although I could list others not mentioned in the sources I don't see a reason to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie:there's never room for more than one novel in a magazine - I didn't know that. Does the article say that? Saying lead novel leads me to think there might be more than one novel in a magazine. starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  The article doesn't say that, and from a quick look at some sources it appears that the term is used but never defined. I could put in a note saying 'There was never more than one novel in an issue; since novels were the longest fiction in the magazine they were usually described as the "lead novel" ', but I can't really source this -- I would have to claim it didn't need sourcing. If that works for you, I can add it, but I'd have to remove it if challenged by another reviewer. Do you see an alternative? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: I would change 'lead novel' to 'novel': The first issue of Amazing Stories Quarterly was dated Winter 1928 and carried a reprint of H.G. Wells' novel, When the Sleeper Wakes. Gernsback's policy of running a novel in each issue was popular with his readership... and later in the body also ... they approved of Gernsback's policy of publishing a novel in each issue starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done, with a slight tweak to avoid "novel" three times in two lines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: great, I'm going to put my support above. starship.paint ~ KO 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why did you choose the Winter 1930 issue as a picture? How about displaying the final original publication: Fall 1934?

  I think it's a stronger picture at thumbnail size -- the circular surround on the Fall 1934 cover makes the remaining elements of the picture pretty small. I also think the strong colour contrasts make the picture easier to appreciate at a small size. I agree there's a reason to have the first issue displayed somewhere, though it's not compulsory, but I think the argument is weaker for the final issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, point taken. starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• There is one Canadian reprint of this magazine. Worth a mention?

  Nice find -- I didn't know about that; it's not mentioned in the other main sources. I've added it and sourced it to that page. I should mention that philsp.com is run by one person, so it might be questionable under WP:RS, but the online sf encyclopedia treats it as reliable and links to it frequently, so I think it's OK. I've contacted the SFE and suggested they add this information to their page on the magazine; if they do I'll switch the ref to their page instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good work. starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Review concluded. starship.paint ~ KO 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments: A nice little article, just a few points. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• "he decided to follow it up with a regularly quarterly magazine": Do we need to say "regularly", or is that implied by "quarterly"? If we need it, would it not just be "regular"?

  It would, but I agree it's not needed; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• "though apparently the decision to discontinue the magazine was not taken until some time later": Do we really need "apparently"?

  There was never any announcement of the decision, so "apparently" was a signal that this is a deduction, rather than a direct citation. (The source makes the same deduction.) I don't think it's necessary, though, so I've cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Although readers' reactions to the Wells novel were negative": Where did these reactions come from? How did they give their "feedback"?

  The source just says "Gernsback's readers did not like the story"; it's almost certain that Bleiler is referring to the letters page in the magazine, where readers would have shared their opinions about the magazine's contents, but since he doesn't say that I would prefer not to. I do have a couple of these magazines, but they're in boxes so I can't look to see if there are quotable letters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• "and began a competition for editorial letters from readers": What are editorial letters?

  Gernsback asked readers to send in letters containing proposed editorials on science-fictional themes; the source (Wolf & Ashley) refers to one of the winners as "another of the prize-winning editorials". I've clarified this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Is it worth giving brief details of the plots of any of the stories mentioned?

  I never know how much of this to do, since it seems hard to know when to stop. Other reviewers have suggested this for other magazine articles though, so I'll have a go at this and report back when done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  OK, done. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• In the "Bibliographic details" section, we have quite a few sentences beginning "The". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  I've eliminated one, but the paragraph is just a recitation of dry facts so I'm having trouble finding good paraphrases. Is that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: All looks good to me now. Nice piece of work! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2016 (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) 17:39, 26 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2016 [2].

---

English Benedictine Reform

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The English Benedictine Reform was the most important religious movement in later Anglo-Saxon England. It was also very significant politically, artistically and for the development of the Old English language. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll leave comments below; it might take me a couple of days to get through the article.

• Do we need the longish quote from D.H. Farmer in the first paragraph of the body? The quote provides a definition and background information, and doesn't represent an opinion of Farmer's. I'd think this would be better off in Wikipedia's own words.

• I used the quote because I could not see how to convey the information without plagiarism, but I will have another think. Dudley Miles (talk)

• Now done. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• How relevant is the translation of the Rule into Old English? If the translation has no particular connection to the reform movement, I don't think it needs to be mentioned.

• I think it is relevant as an early achievement of the reform, but in the wrong place, so I have moved it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• "led to increasing preference for pastoral clergy": should be "to an increasing preference, I think.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not really a FAC comment, but I was interested to see that the transfer of property went from the church to the crown; I am sure I recall someone (Wormald, I think) saying that at some relatively early date some of the A-S kings were finding that there so much had been given to the church that they had less available to grant, both to kings and nobles. I imagine the point at which this reverses is before the start of this narrative, so probably it doesn't need to be mentioned.

• I think it started with Alfred. There were earlier disputes over property - e.g. between Coenwulf and Wulfred - but no significant transfer of property so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I don't have the sources you use for saying that Alfred deplored the decline in monasticism, but a look through the relevant chapter in Abels' Alfred the Great found this: "There is absolutely no reason to believe, however, that Alfred planned a systematic monastic reform". You don't say he did plan reform, but are you sure Alfred is worth mentioning in this context? Abels points out that Asser praises the two foundations, Athelney and Shaftesbury, but that Alfred was generally happy to take lands from the church as well as endow it.

• I was trying to make the point that the revival of the church and learning dates back to the end of the ninth century, but it only becomes specifically Benedictine in the middle of the tenth. I will look at whether I can make this clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at it more closely, Alfred's role is controversial. I have shortened the main text and added a note. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think another sentence or two on the continental reform movement would be good, either towards the end of the background section, or near the start of the early development section. You mention a disagreement between Wormald and Cubitt about where it started, but then say that links existed with Fleury Abbey, and that Louis the Pious's reforms of the 810s were studied in England, neither of which point gives any information about the reforms on the continent. Not much is needed, perhaps just a date and name or two, and a sense of when the movement began and when it gained strength.

• Another point I will look at further. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have revised the continental origin as I am not sure there is a disagreement. Wormald says that it started at Cluny, but it seems to be generally accepted that Fleury was more influential. I have added the reason that Louis the Pious was influential, but I do not think I can say more about the continental movement. I would need to get hold of sources on this, and I am not sure it is sufficiently relevant for the work it would require. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  What you've done works well, and is all I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• "where they met monks from the European reformed houses which provided the inspiration for the movement": does "movement" refer to the existing continental or nascent English reform movement?

• Clarified English movement.

• I'd suggest switching the order of the first two sentences in the paragraph about the Regularis Concordia, in order to get Edgar's motivation followed by the result, rather than the reverse.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• "who stated that he had sought advice": any reason not to shorten this to "who had sought advice"?

• Done. Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Some aristocrats founded new monasteries, such as Æthelwine, Ealdorman of East Anglia, who founded Ramsey Abbey in 969": needs to be rephrased, since Æthelwine is not a monastery.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• "He did not merely attempt to revive the historical church, but improve it": suggest "He did not attempt merely to revive the historical church, but also to improve it".

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• 'Blair describes the basic aim of the movement, both in England and on the Continent, "to establish and disseminate high liturgical, spiritual and pastoral standards".' I think you need another word or two before the quotation; perhaps "as being".

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• The "Aftermath" section mentions the decline in bishoprics held by monks at the end of the quote from Blair, then discusses it again in the middle of the following paragraph. Can you combine these two in one place?

• Deleted first mention and tweaked arrangement.

• Suggest replacing "in my opinion" with "..." in the quote from Nicola Robertson, as you already say this is her "view".

• Tweaked wording.

• "music by Continental and English composers, many written hermeneutic Latin": presumably should be "written in"?

• Done. Thanks Mike Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

-- I've completed a pass; only very minor points. I'll look through some of my sources and see if I can find anything else to say, but this looks comprehensive to me. Great work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. I have a couple more comments, but these don't affect my support. As I thought, most of my sources focus on the earlier period and aren't much use here. These are all very much suggestions; no need to incorporate them unless you feel they are beneficial.

• Peter Hunter Blair, in his Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, in discussing the effects of the reforms, says that "not least in importance [was] the training of a second generation in centres so widely scattered that much was able to survive the second Scandinavian onslaught". (p. 176, 1960 reprint of the 1956 edition, though if you have the new revised edition it would be interesting to see if a similar comment remains in the text.) That might be a point worth adding, particularly if you can combine it with Alfred's comment that on his accession in 871 there was nobody south of the Thames who could understand divine services or translate from Latin (mentioned in Lapidge's article on "Monasticism" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia). Though that might be synthesis, so perhaps not.

• I am doubtful on both points. On the training of a second generation, more recent histories emphasise the decline in the second generation rather than continuity. Alfred's comment is often quoted, but I thought a general reference to the ninth century decline was sufficient in the background section. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blair also suggests that the fact that biographies of the three main protagonists were written within a few decades might have obscured the role of some of their contemporaries. He singles out Oda as a candidate and gives a paragraph of argument for the case (p. 173-4). You do mention Oda already, so it might not be necessary to expand on this.

• I think this is covered by a quote from Wormald in 'historiography': "The main sources for the reform are the lives of Dunstan, Oswald and Æthelwold, and this creates the risk of exaggerating the role of these three men at the expense of the many lesser-known men who contributed to the process". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• You don't mention the "near monopoly" of monks on bishoprics till near the end of the article; Blair says that the methods of election of bishops in the Regularis Concordia "led in practice to a predominantly monastic episcopacy". Whether you pick up this point or not, it might be worth mentioning the increasing frequency of monks as bishops early in the article, before you say it declines later.

• Yes I missed this and will look at it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Lapidge's article on "Monasticism" in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia, in discussing the expulsion of the secular clergy from the Old Minster, says parenthetically "thus depriving them of their wealthy benefices". I think it's a point worth making; the discussion in the article is mostly about the religious consequences, and this is a good opportunity to show other consequences of the reform.

• Another point often made which I will look at again. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blair spends some time describing the influence of Ramsey (p.177), which, he says, sent monks to Winchcombe, Pershore and Evesham; and adds "It was from these areas and particularly from Evesham that late in the eleventh century monasticism was carried to the north of England and even farther afield to Denmark, but this was not until some years after the Norman Conquest." This is later than the period you're focusing on, but might go in the aftermath section.

• The question of whether the movement led to any missionary activity is one I never managed to clarify. In an early draft I had a quote from Farmer saying that one of its achievements was inspiring missionary activity in Scandinavia, but I deleted it as I never found any source discussing this supposed activity. I am not well informed on the post-Conquest period, but my impression is that the establishment of Benedictine monasteries in the north was a Norman initiative. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your support and very helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  I won't strike anything above, since my support's not contingent on any of these points. Per your comment above about not being well informed on the post-Conquest period; I'm pinging Ealdgyth, who I'm sure is well informed. Ealdgyth, any thoughts on the comments above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Barlow English Church 1066-1154 doesn't mention much about the reform movement's influence after the Conquest, but does say that one aspect was the veneration of Mary, including the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and the Feast of the Conception. Barlow notes that although Lanfranc supressed the Feast after the Conquest at Canterbury, it continued at Ramsbury and was even exported from Ramsbury to Fecamp when Herbert Losinga (who was from Fecamp) was in charge of Ramsbury. OTher than that - there is not a lot of the influence of the Benedictine reforms of the late 10th century on the Church after the Conquest. In general, historians tend to see the period prior to the Conquest as a "slack period" of reform/etc in the English Church. There was a lot of change after the Conquest, but that change is mostly linked to the incoming Normans, not to the 10th century reform movement. Keep in mind that there was a strong monastic reform movement in Normandy during the 1040s and 1050s, and that many of the new bishops/abbots/monks in England who came from Normandy were involved in the Norman monastic reforms. Will try to review shortly, although the Benedictine Reform of the 10th century isn't a strong point for my knowledge. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments I'll certainly be supporting this impressive and enjoyable article. A few small points first:

• Eleven sentences in the piece start with "However,...", which I find a little obtrusive. Once one notices such repetitions they begin to distract one's attention from the content.

• I have eliminated most of them. Curious that the Oxford Thesaurus does not have one satisfactory synonym for "however", but according to an Oxford blog Fowler says that it is OK to start a sentence with "But". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The latest (4th) edition of Fowler says (p. 125), "The widespread public belief that But should not be used at the beginning of a sentence seems to be unshakeable. Yet it has absolutely no foundation in grammar or idiomatic usages, and examples are frequent in good literature." And I agree. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Early development
  • Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which had great prestige because it held Saint Benedict's body, and was more conservative." – a possible ambiguity here. Was its prestige for two reasons – the saint's body and the conservatism? If not, perhaps reverse the ingredients: "Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which was more conservative, and had great prestige because it held Saint Benedict's body" or even "England's closest links were with the more conservative Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which had great prestige because..."

Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Æthelstan's cosmopolitan intellectual court" – I'd be inclined to put a comma after "cosmopolitan".

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Saints and relics
• "more prominent location in order to them more accessible" – a word missing here; I'd make it "more prominent location to make them more accessible", thereby losing the otiose "in order".

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Second para: Alan Thacker gets his forename on both mentions of him; once would do, I think.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Aftermath
  • I think (but am never confident when tangling with Anglo-Saxon material) that "Abbery" is a typo.

• Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Importance of the reform movement
  • The MoS bids us rationalise punctuation within quotations, and I'd change the spaced hyphens in the Ryan block quotation into spaced en-dashes.

• People are always telling me to use en-dashes, but Template:Spaced en dash does not say how to add one. Is there an ascii code for it? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is an ASCII code for an en-dash, but at the bottom of the WP editing page, below the Save page, Preview etc buttons is a box offering a choice of Insert, Wiki markup etc. If you have it on Insert (to which it defaults, I think) the en- and em-dashes are to its right – just click on either while your cursor is at the appropriate point of your text. I've done the necessary in the article. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• So is the short dash immediately right of the insert box an en-dash, and the long one an em-dash? A spaced en-dash would presumably then be with a space before and after? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• That's it exactly. The MoS calls for either en-dashes with a space either side – thus – or alternatively for em-dashes with no space—thus—on either side. Neither form is officially preferred over the other, though from casual observation I'd guess that a majority of regular nominators of FACs opt for unspaced em-dashes. I, quelle surprise!, am in the minority, if so. I'll leave a note on your talk page about how to do en- and em-dashes in Word, which you may find useful if, like me, you do a fair bit of your drafting offline before pasting into WP. Tim riley talk 11:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Legacy

• "appealing to pre-Conquest charters, and forging new ones if necessary" – "forging" conveys fakery to me, and unless that's what you have in mind (but perhaps it is) I'd be inclined to find another verb.

• Definitely fakery, and I have amended to make this clear. Medieval monks faked charters to support their claims on an industrial scale. I have not seen any figures, but I have the impression that most surviving charters are fraudulent. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good grief! Well worth emphasising. I had no idea: nice goings on! Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That's all I can find to quibble about. – Tim riley talk 11:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. To my lay eye this article seems comprehensive and authoritative, and it is certainly a pleasure to read. As far as I can judge it meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Just a few quick thoughts I'm afraid:

• I think "learnt" is a bit informal and I would certainly expect to see "learned" here – second paragraph in the lead – but maybe I'm just being old fashioned!
  • Fowler (3rd ed) says that learned is usual in AmE and learnt in BrE. Tim riley talk 16:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Is that not "usual" in the sense that "learnt" is usually found not in AmE but in BrE, rather than that it's the usual form in BrE? I'm not overly fussed either way – I was taught not to use "learnt" in a formal context, but I'm also fond of breaking rules! Not that there is one ... Nortonius (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Now I look again, I think you're right, Nortonius. The current edition of Fowler expresses a mild approval of "learned" on the grounds that it is common Anglophone currency whereas "learnt" isn't. And a swift online search of the complete works of the Bard throws up only five learnts to sixty-one learneds, and there are no learnts at all in the King James Bible. I'll shut up now. Tim riley talk 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Changed. I rather like learnt, but if Fowler prefers learned, what can I do but submit to a Higher Authority? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In 963 Edgar appointed Æthelwold Bishop of Winchester": I think "as Bishop of Winchester" might be an improvement to flow.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• "[K]ings from Æthelstan onwards [were enabled] to see themselves as heirs of the Carolingian emperors": the only problem there is that none of Britain was ever part of that empire. Maybe just qualify as "spiritual heirs" or similar.

• The problem is that the source says "heirs", and I think changing it to "spiritual heirs" would be too far from what the source says. The fact that English kings could not literally be the heirs of the Carolingians does not mean that they did not see themselves in that light. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I remember being struck by how Pauline Stafford and others saw royal enthusiasm for the reform as strongly political, besides spiritual, taking the line that reformed monasteries were engines for pro-royal, i.e. pro-Wessex, centrist propaganda. I've only scanned through very quickly and I see that line mentioned, e.g. in the longish quotation from Keynes under "Importance of the reform movement" and once or twice elsewhere, but I don't see it developed. I know you'll be working from your sources, Dudley, and I haven't kept up to date on this issue. Also I'm still too pre-occupied to go digging in sources myself, so I'm afraid I'm not being very helpful. I just wonder what you might think of it, as I once came to see the political aspect as a central strand myself.

• There obviously has been a change of approach in the last thirty years. Historians of the reform up to the 80s, some of them Catholic priests, were instinctively sympathetic to the reformers. Modern historians are much more sceptical, a point I have brought out, for example, in the section on 'The reform and the crown'. Nevertheless I think the political aspect can be pushed too far. After all, the reformers - and their supporters - unquestionably believed that they were doing their religious duty. But they were also aristocrats aligned with family factions within the aristocracy, which greatly influenced their actions in practice, a point I have tried to bring out. Of course I am happy to look at any points you bring up from your sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not being more helpful, maybe I'll be around more in a week or so, fingers crossed. Nortonius (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Obviously most of the way there, but I had some issues.
• The lead should prepare the reader for the fact that (I think this is right) it will be a long time before anywhere north of the diocese of Worcester is mentioned. The situation in the north, or lack of it, is mentioned at the end, but was there really so little effect there? Oswald was Archbishop of York for 20 years. Durham is not mentioned at all.

• I have added the lack of success in the north to the lead. Although Oswald was A of Y, he did not have to power to dispossess local elites to establish Benedictine monasteries without the king's support, and the king was not powerful enough in the north to impose his will. As discussed above, it was only after the Norman Conquest that the Benedictines were able to establish themselves north of Burton-on-Trent. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• The nomination promises "It was also very significant politically, artistically and for the development of the Old English language", but there is little beyond a few anodyne comments on art and literature (and nothing on architecture, always a big monastic priority). All the references are from general/political/church historians as far as I could see. Nor are there links to what relevant articles we have - Beowulf (the MS), Cædmon manuscript (prob c. 1000, Canterbury), Old English Hexateuch (more the text) or other works of Ælfric. No doubt others.

• I have not found sources establishing the relevance of Cædmon and the Hexateuch. More could be said about Ælfric in view of his importance, and I will look at this further. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• The one specific ref to an artistic work says "The Benedictional of St. Æthelwold, written for him by a monk called Godeman,..." and says nothing else at all about beyond it being the "outstanding work of art to have survived from this period" - for entirely unspecified reasons. This should be "scribed", as he was certainly not the author, and may well have had nothing to do with the illumination. It would be more useful to say something about the scale and style of the illumination rather than just naming the scribe.
• Dunstan actually was an artist, whose work probably survives. You might mention this, and use the famous (probable) self-portrait with Christ.

• Thanks for covering these two points. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Simon Keynes in pp. 14-15 of his Introduction to: Backhouse, Janet, Turner, D.H., and Webster, Leslie, eds.; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, 966–1066, 1984, British Museum Publications Ltd, ISBN 0714105325 (the key work on the art) has things to say about Edgar's purely practical motives for promoting the reform which don't seem to be said here.

• I will check Backhouse for anything Keynes adds there to his general remarks quoted in 'Importance of the reform movement' Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keynes makes some useful points which I have added, but I do not see that he does on Edgar's role. The article says "the regulation of monasteries by a uniform Benedictine rule was designed to unite the kingdom ideologically and enhance royal prestige.[35] The monks depended on the king in a way that the local ealdormen did not, so their loyalty could be trusted and they could act as a counterbalance to powerful local families." This covers most of Keynes's points. He also says that Edgar aimed to extend his influence in recently conquered areas where his authority was weak, but John Blair argued in 2005 that this was an area where the reformers failed, and his point has been generally accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• "An individual would patronise the same foundations that other family members and allies supported, but despoil the lands of houses associated with his political adversaries. Æthelwine of East Anglia and Ælfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia were the leaders of the two rival factions. Ælfhere despoiled Æthelwine's Ramsey and was an enemy of Archbishop Oswald and an ally of Bishop Æthelwold. Æthelwine, a friend of Oswald, sometimes despoiled Æthelwold's Ely." Lots of "despoiling", not a word that conveys much to the modern reader! It would be useful to give an idea of what this involved.

• Revised to make clear that despoiling was seizing land belonging to monasteries. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The reformers aimed to enhance the Christian character of kingship, and one aspect of this was to raise the status of the queen; Edgar's last wife, Ælfthryth, was the first king's consort to regularly witness charters as regina.[41] Æthelwold was close to Queen Ælfthryth, and supported the claim of her son Æthelred (978–1016) to be king against his elder half-brother, Edward (975–78). Dunstan supported Edward, who succeeded on Edgar's death in 975. Æthelred became king on his half-brother's murder in 978, and Æthelwold was then a powerful figure at court until his death in 984.[42]" - it's not clear where, after the first sentence, this leads us. Doesn't regina need italics or quotes, or both?

• Rearranged to hopefully make it more logical.

• I must say I prefer "nobles" to "aristocrats" in talking of AS matters.

• A search of Google Scholar shows that historians often use "aristocrat". I use both interchangeably. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from names and places there are relatively few links; I may suggest some.
• "Ealdorman Byrhtnoth of Essex gave Ely Abbey "thirty mancuses of gold, twenty pounds of silver, two gold crosses, two lace palls containing precious works of gold and gems, and two finely made gloves".[43]" - so he did, but after his death his widow also gave them a (lost) narrative hanging depicting his deeds, which is a key and much-discussed work in AS art history, which you might mention. He is also reasonably well-known as the hero of The Battle of Maldon, which you might say.

• I have added the link to the Battle of Maldon, but I do not have a source for his widow's gift. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I might have more later. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments. I did not find much on artistic aspects, but I will get hold of The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art in the next few days and follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I can add bits if you would like that. I have that and:

• Webster, Leslie, Anglo-Saxon Art, 2012, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128092
• Wilson, David M.; Anglo-Saxon Art: From The Seventh Century To The Norman Conquest, Thames and Hudson (US edn. Overlook Press), 1984.

- both standard accounts, plus other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have ordered the other two books you mention from the London Library, but I should be very grateful if you would add to the article as you of course know vastly more about Anglo-Saxon art than me, and will do a much better job of improving it. I have also ordered Insular & Anglo-Saxon art and thought in the early medieval period, edited by Colum Hourihane. The LL also has Anglo-Saxon art : a new perspective, C.R. Dodwell, but this is already out on loan. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have Dodwell, who is good and full on noble donations in particular. There is also a recent survey of AS art by Catherine Karkov, The Art of Anglo-Saxon England (Boydell, 2011), which I don't know (nor the Hourihane). But the ones I have should provide plenty (though not much on monastic architecture, where there are precious few remains). Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your additions, which have greatly improved the article. I will look at Backhouse, mainly for Keynes's comments, but I do not think I need to look at other sources as you have covered the artistic aspect so fully. Is there anything else you think I should cover? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at the moment, other than what you've said above. I will look again & probably tinker with what I've added a bit more. I see the relevant chapter of another of Dodwell's books is mostly online, btw, here; I also have a hard copy of that. That has (first page) a factoid on monastic bishops that might be relevant to a point above. I can add quickly on Byrhtnoth's hanging and other noble gifts from the first Dodwell, and a sentence or two on architecture. Perhaps not for a few days. Sorry I can't do the sfn refs. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to deal with the sfn refs. I still struggle with en-dashes, but Tim Riley has kindly given me advice on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That's the one thing I run a tool/script for - it seems to keep everyone happy, though I can't remember where I got it. I'll run it now, so revert if you don't like. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod I checked out the books in the London Library today. The Hourihane does not seem to have anything relevant to the Benedictine Reform, but Karkov discusses it extensively, so I will read (or skim) her book. If I add anything to the article which is not right, please correct it. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

She comes from a different angle to Dodwell & Wilson, as her intro says (I've only read what google gives you. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits Johnbod. Could you please advise the page numbers in Dodwell, as sfn does not allow for a citation of chapters. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added the page numbers relating to architecture, which also contrast with the other contents of churches and their fittings. I don't really like "Fittings in Æthelwold's churches were richly decorated with gold and silver, but only a few minor pieces survive.[84]" refed to the non-specialist Yorke. This implies Æthelwold's churches were unusual or original in this respect, which they certainly were not. All A-S churches blinged up to the maximum they could afford, or get given, and had done since the days of Wilfrid, which Dodwell emphasises throughout; "Golden Age" catalogues the little that remains. Webster 194-205 gives a compact account of church art beyond manuscripts, or Wilson 190-200 (not so good). We do actually have an article on the Brussels Cross, one partial survival. But the period of and after the reform saw very lavish fittings, mostly from donations, which do need a quick mention, perhaps better here than higher up. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do delete anything you are not happy with - and add text on the lavish fittings. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the caption to the Dunstan portrait to make clear that it is of him - in Karkov's words - "as a monk prostrate in humility before an imposing figure of Christ". She says it is not by Dunstan: "While neither the drawing nor the inscriptions on the book and rod are in Dunstan's own hand, his addition of the distich to the page makes it clear that the image was to be 'read' as a self-portrait. Indeed, as Dunstan added elements of both text and drawing to the page, the final image can be understood as his own work, and the distinction between the hands more the concern of modern scholarship and its pursuit of the 'authentic' than of the Anglo-Saxons". (p.171) Dudley Miles (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The other sources, including Webster 2012, think, after discussions, he probably did at least the monk's figure himself (also Dodwell "Perspective", which has a lot on Dunstan as artist).

How about adding a citation of Webster's comments to the caption? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The article could do with more illustrations. Do you think would be suitable for the 'Monks and clerics' section? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, though the colour is rather flat - compare "Golden Age" colour plate IX (and p. 60). The "lion mask B" had quite a future, & I think this one of the earliest. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have scanned it. OK now?

Yes, much better - you saw we have Ramsey Psalter? Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

PS See also comment above on changing anything you are not happy with. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added the image. It is a bit confusing that in Commons it is in "Category:Psalter of Oswald (c.975-1000) - BL Harley MS 2904" and "Category:Ramsey psalter - ca1310 - MorganLibM302-Lavantthal" is a 14C ms. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is - I have added "This is not to be confused with another Ramsey Psalter in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York (MS M. 302), made between 1286 and 1316." to the Psalter & Ramsey Abbey, and moved one image in the wrong category. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not get much from Karkov - I did not want to get into the application of post-colonial theory to Anglo-Saxon art! - but she was interesting on Swithun. I think I have dealt with all your points now, but please advise if not. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, well that is the modern way! None of that in Webster (2012). I think I have finished tinkering now, and am very happy to Support this excellent article. Do let me know if there are any issues on my edits (refs need sfn-ing as usual, I'm afraid). Btw, I have found links to this one missing at most related articles that mention the reform; I've added them where I've seen this, but no doubt there are many more. It all helps to drive views. But very nice work. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Johnbod. Your contributions have greatly improved the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Support I made some small tweaks. Otherwise, it looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks very much Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- Hi all, I can see there's been some discussion of sources above but has anyone signed off formatting and reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Several images have been added since Nikki kindly checked them. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I can attest to the reliability of the sources, but I have not checked formatting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Mike, I went through the citations and fixed a few formatting anomalies, so I'm ready to wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2016 (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) 14:14, 25 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2016 [3].

---

Requiem (Reger)

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Requiem compositions by Max Reger, notably his Hebbel Requiem on a German poem, but it covers also this poem, a motet the composer wrote on the poem, and his attempt to compose a Latin Requiem when World War I began - with the soldiers who would fall in mind. I tried to have the article ready for the anniversary of Reger's death, but failed, compare Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Requiem (Reger)/archive1. Afterwards, the article received copy-editing by Corinne, Fountains-of-Paris and (for GOCE) by Stfg, who listened to the music and consulted the score. I added the poem now, and my own translation. With thanks for all helpful comments and improvements, I try once more, this time with the centenary of the premiere in mind, on 16 July 1916 in a memorial concert for the composer. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest condensing the lead caption to just what precedes the first comma. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried to explain why the title is not Requiem but Zwei Gesänge. Do you think readers won't need that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think readers won't understand that from what is given now, probably best to explain in article text instead and keep it simple for the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The current caption is more confusing than clear. The point is already well made in the article body. The difference needs words and context, why an attempt at a summary in the lead capt? Seems an unnecessarily difficult tasking. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I moved it but see that it is now far away from the image, which I think should stay the lead image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Support I have a few tweaks yet to make, but this aricle, on a subject with a complex genesis, is very well explained here. I found the wording and flow very engaging and it certainly drew me in. Note I am out of my dept re content. Ceoil (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Definitely an improvement since last time. I've read through the article again and am happy that all of my concerns in the previous FAC have been addressed, so this should meet the criteria. Good work! JAGUAR  12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Support A deep yet lucid article, really awesome. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it, especially after the recent improvements. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Review by Curly Turkey

• Support on prose—Gerda's addressed all my concerns, and the article reads well. I'm not a subject expert, so I can't speak to its comprehensiveness, but it doesn't feel like it's missing anything important. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• I'm mainly looking a the prose—I looked at one of the sources only to check the context of a translation.
• It has been described as of "lyrical beauty, a dramatic compactness, and [of] economy of musical means" in which the composer's "mastery of impulse, technique, and material is apparent".—this requires in-text attribution, per WP:INTEXT

done --GA

• and as a result he was excommunicated—should mention he was Catholic, then

good idea, done --GA

• ''[[Isle of the Dead (painting)|''Isle of the Dead'']]''—it's surprising that this links to an article about a painting

clarified (not elegant though) - an article about the compositions is planned ;) --GA

• Following a full day of teaching in Leipzig, Reger died there on 11 May 1916.—he taught a day and died? What of? Was it expected?

now copied from the bio, - no it was not expected that the workaholic died --GA

• "a poetic narrator, divine voice, or even the dead [themselves]"—attribution again

the ref is also the attribution, no? --GA

Not for quotations, no. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please teach me something, how then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You just need something like "According to XXX, ..." or "The music critic XXX considered ..." Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

done here ---GA

• "a sequence of chromatically descending sixth chords"—attribution again, but why not paraphrase? It's not someone opinion, but a statement of fact, no?

yes, but how would you paraphrase if this is the best way to phrase it? - ref is attribution, as above --GA

• "pain, fear, death, and suffering—common associations with chromaticism since the sixteenth century"—attribution again

same again, ref is also attribution

attribution added ---GA

• The pagination of FitzGibbon is off—what you give as p. 3, for instance, is the third page of the document file, but is paginated p. 22 in the document itself (I imagine it's the 22nd page of whatever publication it comes from). The pages given will have to be fixed.

the topic was raised in the first FAC, - I chose the document pages because they appear on top (easily verified), while the journal pages are at the bottom (where you need to scroll to) --GA

If someone's using the original publication, "p. 3" won't be helpful, but "p. 22" will work for both the original publication and the PDF. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

fine, changed to pages in the journal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• {{nowrap|"(The}}—what is this {{nowrap}} for?

no idea, you will have to ask one of the copy-edit-helpers --GA

• the introit and Kyrie—just checking (because I don't know), but is it correct that "introit" is lowercase and "Kyrie" is capitalized?

Introitus would be capitalized, but introit is English, as mass is, - at least my understanding --GA

• adapted to suit Nazi ideology—any interesting details on this?

isn't using a German text instead of Latin, label Totenfeier (Celebration of the Dead), enough? --GA

You mean, it was adapted to Nazi ideology by being put in German? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't translated (put in German), - it had a Christian text and got instead a different content in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Did the Nazi version drop the Christian aspects? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

of course, - but I wonder if that detail belongs in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need a lot of detail. If it dropped Christian references and replaced them with Nazi ones, it should say so. The way it's worded, it could, for example, have retained the Christian references while adding Nazi stuff—for example: "It was then performed with a translated German text in which Christian references were replaced with Nazi ideology", or something—whatever the sources support. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

look again, I even quoted the one line and its replacement, - the latter in English, - it's not given in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There could be more, as in the source, up to comparison of one line of text before and after. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reger had composed Requiem settings before ... of a non-liturgical requiem—is the captialization of "Requiem/requiem" correct?

another question to the helpers - I don't like it too much (an "English" word that is Latin), so tried italics now, - --GA

Some nitpicks and personal preferences that won't affect whether I'll support:

• alto (or baritone) solo—I'd drop the parentheses

done --GA

• (To the memory of the German heroes who fell in the 1914/15 War), (The Hermit), (Two songs for mixed chorus with orchestra)—I find glosses in parentheses ambiguous at times—sometimes they can be mistaken for a parenthetical aside rather than a gloss. Putting it in quotemarks as well makes it unambiguous: ("To the memory of the German heroes who fell in the 1914/15 War")

I don't know exactly what you mean, perhaps because I don't know "glosses" in this sense --GA

• Just in case you don't know about it, you might want to look at {{sfnm}}
• (Ich habe nun zwei Chorwerke (Der Einsiedler und Requiem) fertig. Ich glaube sagen zu dürfen, daß diese beiden Chorwerke mit das Schönste sind, was ich je geschrieben habe.)—I'm in the habit of putting these things in footnotes ({{efn}}s), as they break up the flow of the text

Yes, but here he writes about the most beautiful things he has written, - I'd like to show that in the original. (+ in a way: the longer the phrase, the more awkward it is to go back and forth between footnote and text) --GA

—Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for excellent comments, - I tried to follow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I now added two attributions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: thanks for the review, Curly Turkey. On the subject of capitalization and italics, Gerda, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Classical music titles. When "requiem" is used as a genre, italicising and capitalizing it are definitely wrong. Of course italicize it when it's the title of a specific work or part of such a title. Foreign origin is irrelevant when the word has been taken into English as a common word. Lower case for "introit" is correct since it's used generically and is English. "Kyrie" is confusing. MOS:MUSIC mentions it in lower case, but since the word means "O Lord", and the Lord (God) would be capitalized anyway, there might case for capitalizing it. I don't have an opinion about that. --Stfg (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that I am not familiar enough with English to know if requiem can ever be a genre, - for me it's the rest of the dead. Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei will not be lower case (nor pluralized), and I'd like to see Requiem in the same group. However, do as the MoS commands ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

genre: I though the genre might be "mass", or "requiem mass", ready to learn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, whether you wish to call it a genre or not, it is a common noun. In English we don't capitalise words just because they are of foreign origin. We don't even italicise requiem. IT's OK to do so capitalise it in title case, but not when writing of "a requiem". It's so much a common noun that in English we can even pluralise it, saying for example that about 5000 composers have composed requiems. The MoS is right about this one. --Stfg (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC) clarified Stfg (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Gerda Arendt, following my thorough review of this article, I find that it easily meets the necessary criteria for featured article status. This article is very well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable. This article also follows Wikipedia's style guidelines, with an appropriate lede, structure, and consistent citations. The media in the article is also properly licensed as Public Domain, and the article is of an appropriate length. In the Lateinisches Requiem section, World War I is linked for a second time in the article, as is A German Requiem in the Hebbel Requiem section and SATB in the Structure subsection. There are several other duplicate wiki-links in the latter half of the article. As always, I enjoyed reading and reviewing this article, and I commend you on a job very well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from jfhutson

• What is the source for the English translation of the poem?

I did it myself, with some help, see talk, --GA

Ah, would help if I read the nomination I suppose-jfh

• "O soul, forget them not, o soul, forget not the dead", "Bless the Lord, o my soul". I've never seen "o" uncapitalized like this. Also, it doesn't match the full translation.

Are we talking the psalm translation? That could be changed. --GA

• Based on the title, one would think the "Performances" section would give a full performance history, but it only mentions one performance.

Changed. When I started the section, I hoped for more, but only this one stood out. --GA

I may come back and look some more later.--JFH (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for good comments, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I think this explains a complicated subject clearly. support --JFH (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Support with minor comments by Lingzhi

I still think "Durch die unendliche Wüste hin" would be better as "wastes", "wasteland" or "wastelands" rather than "desert". I also think the "Structure of Reger's Hebbel Requiem" table looks odd with cells missing below "Molto sostenuto". I think either find a table guru who knows how to stretch the rowspan of that one cell, or add ditto marks below it... but these are minor nitpicks.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

wastelands taken, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

the cells are not missing but the tempo is not changed, - the alternative is to have it once for all of the entries, but then it would appear rather low, - I wanted to see it rather with the first line, - compare "Gloria" in the table in Rossini's mass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I've changed the table so that molto sostenuto shows as applying to all the first six rows. Is that better? --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what I described as possible ("Gloria" in the Rossini), but what I don't like because it appears so low, not next to the first line. It's the first tempo setting at all. Let's see if I can find a trick, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I could, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Support The prose is much improved from the last go-round, and the article was fine in most other ways then. I offer the following quibbles, and I've made some edits hands-on.

• "who had died or were mortally wounded." I'm not certain I appreciate the distinction.

It came with copy-editing, but seems not the best solution for those who had already died and would die in the ongoing war. --GA

• "Following his advice, Reger managed the composition of the introit and Kyrie, combining both texts into one movement." I'm not clear what is meant by "managed". If it denotes an accomplishment, then possibly something like "Following his advice, Reger managed to combine the texts of the introit and Kyrie into one movement." Or maybe strike "managed to" from that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can do it better, - it's supposed to distinguish the completed composition of introit and Kyrie, while the rest remained fragment or was never even begun. --GA

• "but was interrupted" but had been interrupted

changed --GA

• "The work remained unfinished at Reger's death, and his publisher named the first movement the Lateinisches Requiem, Op. 145a." (after my edits). I've played with this some (the reason for mentioning Reger's death is to absolve him from the soon-to-be mentioned Nazi connection). But I really think you should re-arrange things so that this naming, or designating if you prefer, is the first time the term Lateinisches Requiem is used, at least in that section. To do otherwise seems out of order.

Will think about that. We said before that it was not finished, dropped in 1914 already, No wonder it was still not finished when he died. The publisher took what they could find, and assigned a completely unreasonable Op. number, pairing it with organ music. --GA

• "In sorrow we mutely lower the flags, for into the grave sunk what was dear to us" should sunk be sank?

Can't help the quote in the source. As I don't know the German, so I could not improve the translation. Poetic license? --GA

• "stating the performance duration as 25 minutes" "stating ... as" doesn't seem to work, possibly "giving" for "stating"?

yes, thank you, and for all the good comments, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well done. Sorry to be so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Source review

Those who go for tons of coding will enjoy the admirable referencing system used here more than I do, but once I cracked the codes and thereby penetrated the references I found all the citations linked appropriately to the refs. Most of the references are to online material; I could have done with a bit more bibliographical information for the printed source: the Peters edition of the Zwei Gesänge and the two Hoernicke press sources – dates and page numbers would be good. Otherwise the sourcing seems to me to meet the FA criteria. I'll reread the article and comment on the generality of the candidacy a.s.a.p., unless it has already been promoted. Tim riley talk 14:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim. I found one date for a paper, not yet for the other. Both were available online (see urls commented out), but then the paper reorganized the website, sigh. I may find paper copies somewhere in my folders - or not. Peters: I couldn't find yet when they published it first, - last was 2002. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Peters: they reprinted the first Simrock edition, after taking over the company. Can we derive a date, knowing that? Or should we just take the year of the last edition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

All that is wanted is that printed material is given a date and publisher, in a consistent form, enabling people to dig out the reference if they are so inclined. If two different editions have the same page number it doesn't matter which you refer to. Tim riley talk 14:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I heartily endorse Tims' view; personally I believe less is the new more; but this is fine. I did not spot check. Also am a requiem fanboy. Sorry FAC bosses. On the face this is huge advance and would like to see more. Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• WP:OVERLINK – I'd say "dramatist" is an unnecessary link to an everyday word; I doubt very much that people need a link to "German language"; and specifically (MoS) we don't link the major religions, of which Christianity is still widely regarded as one; there are repeated links to World War I, A German Requiem, SATB, pedal point, Schütz (with a third link later, this time calling him Heinrich Schütz), homophonic [there's a deadly trap for spell-checkers!], and Wiesbaden.

I unpiped playwright, but left the link which I had not added

I delinked German (language)

World War I: I reduced the links to only the first time, and said just "war" or "World War" later, because at Reger's time, there was only one, and that should be clear by then.

Brahms Requiem: I left one link for the German name and one (much later) for the English, - think that's clearer.

Schütz, homophonic, Wiesbaden: left once, - thanks for the precise collection! --GA

• Hebbel Requiem
  • "Edition Peters published it in 1928, stating the performance duration as 25 minutes, although the duration implied by the metronome marking is 14 minutes." The second part of this sentence, although I'm sure it's true, looks very like original research to me. I'd feel more comfortable if a third-party citation could be found on the discrepancy between the two timings.

The "13–14 minutes" come from the citation right after it, no? --GA

• Evaluation

**Just checking – in the Lenssen quote does the author really use the odd phrase "mid-aged man" rather than the idiomatic English "middle-aged man"? I can't open the full text to check. (Ought the reference to mention that a subscription is required?)

The abstract opens to me without restriction, and has mid-aged man. --GA

True, and fine for this quote, but if you're relying on the full text for anything you should, I think, mention that it requires subscription; fine as it is if you're not, of course. Tim riley talk 07:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I found this article of great interest. I count myself a classical music buff, but had never so much as heard of Reger's requiem(s). I shall go in search of it on the indispensable Naxos online library. The above points are all very minor, and I look forward to supporting the elevation of the article to FA in due course. – Tim riley talk 14:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim, for good points, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – happy to add it for an excellent article that seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 07:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Bencherlite

Despite the above reviews, I have some concerns. I took one small section, "Scoring" and found problems.

• "The Requiem employs a large orchestra[27] of two flutes, piccolo, two oboes, cor anglais, two clarinets, two bassoons, four horns, three trumpets, three trombones, tuba, three percussionists and strings.[8]" I don't know why we need two citations for the same orchestration - [27] doesn't explicitly say "large" either, so I'm unsure what the mid-sentence citation is for.

Thank you for looking closely. The passage is one of the early parts of the article, which explains some. I'll try to fix:

removing the first ref, - the better one just wasn't there yet in 2010. Dropping "large" - those who are interested in such matters will know that an orchestra with that brass section is large, - would you agree. --GA

• "It requires a similarly large chorus" - "similarly" is not the word to use here. More importantly, what is the source for a large chorus being required? It is not mentioned in source [30], the Hyperion booklet, which is the next footnote used.

changed to "a chorus to match", - it takes a few singers to be heard and understood over the brass (even if no source said so) ;) --GA

• "these requirements mean it has been rarely performed." No source (ditto) - nothing to support either the rarity of performance or the claim that rarity is based on the need for that size of orchestra plus chorus. (The orchestra looks to me to be pretty standard forces - triple not double woodwind, but even that's not unusual - we're hardly talking Mahler 8 proportions).

We [can] drop that sentence, however it's true that the rather short piece is rarely performed. --GA

• "Reger himself wrote a version for piano.[30]" I don't see this in the Hyperion booklet - yes, they record a version accompanied by piano but it is not stated that the version was written by Reger himself, unless I've missed something.

scoring source added, saying "Reger selbst erstellte den Klavierauszug der Komposition" --GA

• "To make the music more accessible" - is there a source for this claim that this was the motivation behind the arrangement?

yes, the program notes, added, --GA

• "The organ version was premiered in the Marktkirche in Wiesbaden" - is there a source for this, since it's not in [4], the CV of Reger's life?

yes, same, --GA

In addition:

• The "Recordings" table sorts by first name not surname.

will try to fix --GA

the conductors are by last name, the soloists are not worth sorting (sometimes one, sometimes four, a short table anyway), in a similar discussion one view was: don't make it sortable then at all, but I think that takes it too far. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Who is the publisher of the 2001 recording?

St. Bonifatius, Wiesbaden, as far as I know --GA

• The one-sentence section "Modern performance" ought really to be merged somewhere else or omitted - probably into a renamed "Scoring and performance" section (which is effectively what it is already, in fact).

good idea, done --GA

• Shouldn't Wiesbadener Tagblatt and Allgemeine Zeitung be linked / in italics? (I note that this is not Allgemeine Zeitung.)

I didn't notice that the Tagblatt has an article now, thank you for pointing that out, - ill to the other --GA

Personally I think that 3 paragraphs of biographical background is excessive. This is not the biography of the composer and we don't need to summarise a composer's life at the start of an article about one of his works. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote the section, our biography of the composer didn't have the information, - I added it there only later. It could be reduced now, but you were the first to mention it, - I'd like the voices of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Bencherlite's view makes sense. Keep the focus on the work and let the background be the background to the work rather than tangential (or not even that) matters. --Stfg (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked what to drop but found little that is not in one or the other way connected to the three works. Studies in Wiesbaden, explaining why Wiesbaden has a special relationship to the works, setting texts by Hebbel, dealing with Toteninsel, circumstances in Meiningen and Jena where he composed two of the works, - what should go? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally I don't object to any of that section. But it doesn't explain why Wiesbaden "has a special relationship to the works", nor why Toteninsel is relevant. I think that all of the first two paragraphs could go, except that the sentence about "Gebet" could be moved to a suitable place the last paragraph, saying something like "He had set words by Hebbel before, the first such work being "Gebet" (Prayer), Op. 4 No. 1." I don't feel strongly about it, but it would be one way to go. --Stfg (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

2 of 6 recordings were made in Wiesbaden, where he lived at several street addresses, well remembered, - which doesn't have to be pointed out ;) - I prefer to have a chronological approach to the background, - the reader knows that Hebbel plays a role from the first sentence, so can make the connection when the setting is mentioned, without a finger pointing. If I'd say "Toteninsel" is relevant for his approach to death, it would be OR, but showing the image provides a look at the context: the image that was "found in every Berlin home", as a quote says. I bet Reger didn't compose his work without knowing and meaning the image. Did you know that its scene was kind of quoted in the Jahrhundertring, as the Brünnhildenfelsen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that, but I don't see how it's relevant. Many works in all art forms reference death, and Reger presumably knew several. So what? "I bet ..." is OR already. As for Wiesbaden, I don't see how the fact that 2 of 6 recordings were made in a place where Reger lived is at all interesting. But look, you said "It could be reduced now" and asked for suggestions. Take it or leave it. I'm not ging to get dragged into a major debate over it. --Stfg (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear about the Jahrhundertring relation was just to point out how important that image was for many in that era, - not going to mention it in the article, nor anything about Wiesbaden other than the facts. An article about Reger's composition Toteninsel (Reger) is planned. Thank you, will think about changes, - at the moment I see two who want the background section shorter vs. nine who saw no problem, and myself. Thank you for thinking about it. As for Requiem/requiem, I looked again and found only one instance of "a ...Requiem" (beginning of History), - If you feel strongly about lower case there, please change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

My thought on background length is that reasonable minds can differ but it's within the range where I tend to suppress "how I would do it" and defer to editor discretion. So I'm inclined to think that it should not be an actionable point at this stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (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) 23:44, 18 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2016 [4].

---

Antlia

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a constellation with a few interesting tidbits. Buffed it up so I think it is the equal to the other 25 or so Featured constellation articles. Got a thorough going-over at GAN. All input appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

NB: A wikicup nomination. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addresses, so I'm giving my support for promotion to FA. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The article is a bit short, but it's difficult to see how it could be further expanded. Overall it looks to be in good shape. Here are a few points that caught my eye during a read through:

• "The system is classed as an A-type W Ursae Majoris variable": what is meant by A-type here? The term seems to be conflated with the variable type description. Only one of the pair is an A-class star.

the stars share a common envelope so are closer to each other in temperature than if they were separate. Actually simpler if I remove the subclassification so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• "...unusual hot variable ageing star...", "...and is a unique variable...": how is it unusual or unique? This is not quite clear.

It does not belong to any class of known variable star Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• "...yellow-white F-type star but it has almost no hydrogen": the article says it is deficient in hydrogen; meaning only that it is lower than normal.

As an R Coronae Borealis variable, it has a very low ratio of hydrogen. Might not be spelt out there but is elsewhere. Article itself talks of "striking" absence/weakness of H lines etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, yes. The 'R Coronae Borealis variable' article makes it clear that this star may have formed with negligible amounts of hydrogen. Praemonitus (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Peter Birren" and "Ian Ridpath": these names should be formatted in a manner consistent with the other referenced authors.

oops/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

copyedits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Its main stars have no particular pattern": I don't know what that means.

It means a recognisable pattern like an Asterism (astronomy)....but I have removed the sentence as does not add much. I think its faintness more of a reason it didn't get recognised and second bit not true anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• " All but one were named in honour of instruments that symbolised the Age of Enlightenment. ... [he] chose names mostly from scientific instruments": Seems repetitive.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Scanning quickly, it looks like you've addressed some but not all of Praemonitus's concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Image review

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

removed x 3 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• File:NGC_2997_ESO.jpg: source link is dead

Link is updated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro: A few nit-picks here, most of which concern making this a little more accessible for the general reader, which shouldn't be a problem in such a short article. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• "a historical air pump": How is a historical air pump different from any other air pump? Can we be more precise what we mean by historical? Later on, we link to "air pump" but not here.

good point - adjective removed and term linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• "the constellation was introduced by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille": Introduced seems an odd word to use here, unless it is a technical term.

not a technical term. Lacaille established it by setting out a number of stars and designating it an area of the sky. Could say "drawn up" but used "established". Open to other verbs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Abbreviated from Antlia Pneumatica, the constellation was introduced by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in the 18th century": In fact, there's something a little uncomfortable with the use of "abbreviated" here. The constellation wasn't abbreviated, it's name was. So, could we combine these ideas and say that Lacaille named it and (as it says in the made body) Herschel invented the abbreviation? Or something less clumsy than my attempt there??

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• "is counted among the 88 modern constellations": I know we link this, but as readers, we're left wondering what a modern constellation is, and how it differs from other constellations. Do we even need this in the lead?

we've done it for others. There are a fair few obsolete constellations that are no longer in use...but I guess present tense establishes that fact. On that basis I have removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The stars are so close they have a common envelope and will one day merge to form a single star.": I wonder, for the lead, do we need the part about the common envelope? It would make perfect sense if it read "The stars are so close they will eventually merge to form a single star", unless we can avoid repetition of "star".

See I thought the common envelope thing was really interesting. Have tweaked it a bit though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "lie within Antlia's borders": Not obvious to the general reader that a constellation may have a border

changed to "lie within Antlia" - could be "Antlia has" I guess too.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• "De Lacaille had observed and catalogued almost 10,000 southern stars during a two-year stay at the Cape of Good Hope, devising fourteen new constellations in uncharted regions of the Southern Celestial Hemisphere not visible from Europe": A few points here. I'm assuming this was his intention when he travelled to the Cape of Good Hope; but, did he do so of his own volition, did he do so on his own? Were other people doing similar things, or is this the random act of a madman? Did he base his constellations on anything, or was it just a case of "that looks a bit like an air pump"?

The new constellations honoured scientific inventions of the Age of Enlightenment. They were criticised for not looking like what they were supposed to represent but then again almost no constellations look like what they are supposed to represent... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "All but one were named in honour of instruments that symbolised the Age of Enlightenment": Did he name them, or did it come back to a committee? If the former, why not "He named all but one..."?

It woz 'im an' 'im alone yer honour, duly changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "John Herschel proposed shrinking the name to one word, which was universally adopted": When?

1844. Found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Though Antlia was technically visible to Classical Greek astronomers, its stars were too faint to have been included in any ancient constellations.": What do we mean by "technically visible"? It's a bit jarring to read that it was visible but they couldn't see it! What about something like the portion of the sky in which it is located was visible, the stars of the constellation were too faint to be visible for inclusion in anything?

Only brighter stars ended up forming the classical constellations - there were loads of fainter stars lying around that were not used. actually the more I look at it the more I realize the first segment is actually redundant....and have removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Lacaille depicted Antlia as a single-cylinder vacuum pump used in Papin's initial experiments, while Johann Bode chose the more advanced double-cylinder version.": This sentence is oddly placed here. Why not in the naming part?

good point. moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "while Johann Bode chose the more advanced double-cylinder version": In such a short article, can we not spare the reader a job and say who Bode was?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The International Astronomical Union later adopted it as one of the 88 modern constellations": When? Also, maybe a word about who the IAU are/were? And, again we might give a link, but I think we should explain here what the 88 modern constellations are.

I thought the name was pretty self-explanatory really. Will see what I can add about the setting of the 88 constellations in stone, as it were. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• "There is no mythology attached to Antlia as Lacaille discontinued the tradition of giving names from mythology to constellations and instead chose names mostly from scientific instruments": Again, this sentence is a little oddly placed; this would be better in the naming paragraph. The way this sentence is written, it also looks like his contemporaries were still using mythology. True?

not really - on thinking about it the sentence is silly and so removed (but readded the geography). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "According to some, the most prominent stars that now comprise Antlia were once included within the ancient constellation Argo Navis, the Ship of the Argonauts, which due to its immense size was split into several smaller constellations by Lacaille in 1763.": According to who? And, by "within" I assume we mean within the borders of the constellation, but not actually part of the "picture" they formed. Otherwise we are contradicting the previous part which says that the stars were invisible in Classical times. Again, may be worth making the distinction for the general reader. And this is a bit more context for what Lacaille was up to: so did he take what was there and re-organise it? Or was he looking for new stars?

ok, have re-read the sources, In essence the stars of Antlia lay within the area covered by Argo Navis but were not bright enough to be part of the ancient pattern as such Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The three-letter abbreviation for the constellation, as adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 1922, is Ant.": IAU linked here but not earlier. And no date is given earlier. I wonder should this be combined with the earlier information about the IAU?

torn here - we've always set out a characteristics section like this.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine if that is the standard format, not a big issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• "as set by Eugène Delporte in 1930": Again, a word or two of context would be good here.

added who he was. I have also added a footnote as it's a little bit off-topic but helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Beta and Gamma Antliae (now HR 4339 and HD 90156) ended up in the neighbouring constellation Hydra once the constellation boundaries were delineated in 1930": This is the first we have seen of any such delineation. Surely worth mentioning earlier?

It has been - they were the borders set by Delporte... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• In the part about the stars, I appreciate that we can't cater as much for the general reader (and I confess that my eyes glazed over a bit, so I might have missed something). However, I notice that "spectral type" is used a lot; I know nothing about this but notice that our article has sections on different letters, such as type K. Could we link each mention of spectral type to its letter in our article?

I have linked ones on first mention Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• "It is a loose face-on spiral galaxy of type Sc": What does loose mean in this sense? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

it's not too technical (just used in the lay adjectival sense), just means the stars are more loosely arranged than in some more compact galaxies.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy to support now. My only two remaining points are that I think it is worth saying more about the 88 constellations, as the obvious question is why were there modern constellations; the other one is that we now have the nicely informative "while German astronomer Johann Bode chose the more advanced double-cylinder version" but Bode appears from nowhere and it is not immediately obvious who he is, what he is doing and why he is doing it! However, these don't affect my support in any way. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks - I find it tricky sometimes in deciding how much context to include - the footnotes are helpful. Will do some reading and do other bit later when have some uninterrupted time....cheers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: I performed the good article review for this article a short time ago, where all of my concerns were addressed. I see that the article has been further improved since then. (As part of that review, I checked all sources to the best of my ability. In the end, I only had a couple of reservations about the technical prose, and I assume someone with a stronger astronomy background would help with that.) Saskoiler (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks again Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the GA source review/spotcheck and I think it suffices, thanks. Cas, I'm going to promote but could I suggest that the last two images might work better on the right, and also using "upright=1.n" (equivalent to 300px) for a proportional rather than fixed size? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks for that @Ian Rose: - moved images to right - not sure where the "upright=1.n" goes though... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 June 2016 (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) 23:11, 18 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2016 [5].

---

Kalki Koechlin

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Notifying (at the first user contribution)

• WP:GOCE1 reviewer User:Twofingered Typist

  Talk:Kalki Koechlin/GA1 reviewer User:FrB.TG

  Wikipedia:Peer review/Kalki Koechlin/archive1 discussant User:Yashthepunisher

  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive1 discussant User:Vensatry and User: Cassianto

  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive2 discussant User:Kailash29792, User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Jaguar, User:Ssven2, and User:Krimuk90

  Wikipedia:Peer review/Kalki Koechlin/archive2 discussants User:IndianBio, User:SNUGGUMS, User:J Milburn NumerounovedantTalk 17:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Indian actress Kalki Koechlin. It has been improved further after another WP:PR and a WP:GOCE ce. I believe that all the issues have been addressed and the article now meets the criteria. Share you thoughts, Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Koechlin is best known for her character roles that defy the stereotypical portrayal of women in Indian cinema, and has been credited in the media for publicly expressing her opinions. Similar things are written in Rani Mukerji, Preity Zinta, Priyanka Chopra, Kangana Ranaut and Sonam Kapoor's article. I'm wondering how so many actresses has broken the stereotype of female roles in bollywood and everyone is known for there outspoken personality. None of them is Arnab Goswami or Arundhati Roy. A dubious statement IMO.

I think its slightly unfair to compare Zinta, Chopra and Mukherji to Koechlin because they are not contemporaries, the conditions were wildly different in Bollywood back then. As far as Ranaut and Kapoor go I believe if you have followed these actresses you would be inclined to side with Koechlin's work (both on & off screen) to be more empowering. I really insist on keeping the statement.

How can you say Chopra and Mukherji are not contemporaries, when they are still acting? Anyway the fact that her roles defy the stereotype of women in Indian cinema is not mentioned or sourced in the article.

It sure is See - refs 134, 135, 136.

Following her portrayal of such characters as those in Dev.D, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, Shaitan, and Margarita With a Straw, Koechlin gained wider recognition and earned the tag of a "nonconformist". Where is the claim that I have pointed out? It only gives an Idea that she has done some off-beat roles, not that she brought a change or something. I'd suggest you to trim that bit from the lead.

"has established herself as somewhat of a Bollywood pioneer taking on unconventional cinematic roles" from ref 135 & "managed to subvert stereotypes by playing characters who are nothing like each other, [ranging from a prostitute to a sensual, unmarried writer, a disabled woman and a club DJ]" from ref 136 clearly point at "the breaking stereotypes" claim.

• She expanded her career to include screenwriting scripting They both mean the same.

Fixed

• There is one dead link.

Oh that has been archived, it's functional.

Not in my server.

I'll look into what I can do about it

I removed the repeat reference, try ref 58 from the article now.

• No source for the claim that Dev.D met with generally positive reviews.

I believe you mean the overall reception as in the case of Shanghai?

Yes.

Added

• Her portrayal of Sophie, a manipulative woman who is abducted by two corrupt policemen garnered mixed reviews by the critics. Again, you can't say "portrayed/portrayal" unless she plays a real-life character. Also, ref 7 says that the film "received good ratings from most critics."

Fixed

Partially fixed. Ref 7 claims otherwise to what's written. Also I'd suggest you to remove the DNA review, since 1 or 2 reviews doesn't gives a full Idea of the overall reception.

Ref 20 is for her role in the film, Ref 7 doesn't contain that information. Also, I think you have misread the article here - the "received good ratings from most critics." bit is for Shaitan and here we are talking about The Film Emotional Atyachar. The most I can do is removed ref 7 to help with the clarity.

Then remove ref 20 which is near 7, for obvious reasons.

I really don't think that you are getting what I am trying to say here. Ref 7 is less important here, Ref 20 has all the information, both about the role & her performance. I removed Ref 7

• Ref 23 is the RT link of ZNMD, while the prose talks about Shaitan.

My bad, fixed.

• Rediff --> Rediff.com

Fixed

• Remove either ref 38 or 39, we don't need to overcrowd the article with redundant sources.

Removed

• The Shanghai issue is still unresolved.

I am not sure what you mean here, there are no claims of critical acclaim there anymore

Then what's The film received positive reviews from critics,

Doesn't positive response and acclaim mean differently. I think it isn't that controversial to say the film received positive reviews. I did however added the reference that states that the film was well received.

Then you need to provide a source for that claim, not 2-3 positive reviews. Saying this the nth time.

I did Yash, I did. The ref 7, (HT) does support the claim. I am sorry that you have to repeat your points again and again, but I did sort this one just fine. (Looking for the same for —Dev. D and YJHD) NumerounovedantTalk 14:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No need to apologise. To sort these issues, remove those unnecessary sources from the article that doesn't support the 'received positive reviews' claim.

• Wikilink Witchcraft.

Fixed

• The film opened to a positive response from the audience, and emerged as one of the highest-grossing Bollywood films with earnings of ₹3.02 billion (US$45 million).[56] The film received mixed reviews,.. One claim is contrary to the other.

It's a different case in both the sentences, first it's the audience, then the critics.

What's "positive response from the audience"? Clearly box-office success. So remove that bit, it creates confusion among the reader.

Fixed

• Do we need to provide a review for every other film of her's ? Even the one like The film Emotion Attyachar?

I was asked to elaborate on the entry The Film Emotion Attyachar in the FAC, and then in the PR it was suggested that it should be further expanded by giving details of the role. Also its her only film role in between Dev. D and Shaitan.

• After the separation Koechlin said in an interview with Daily News and Analysis: "[But] everyone has doubts, we're all human. Even as an actor, you have days when you haven't slept enough, you don't feel like you're good enough or pretty enough... But ultimately, it's all about attitude. You must live with a little abandon and not be self-conscious. You ought to stop staring at yourself in the mirror, and just smile a little!" Sounds like a personal-diary stuff. This is why I was refering to quotefarm.

The article has had trouble because of this quote at numerous occasions but I believe it to be vital as its her perspective on life and womanhood. Do you think it would work if in a quote-box?

Quotes in the quote-box should be of some kind of Importance, not there feelings, IMO.

• Reviewing her work in Printing Machine, the journalist Subhash K. Jha Remove 'the', also he is more known as a film critic.

Done

• Place an mdash for the role coloumn of Love Affair in the table.

Done

• Either remove or shift ref 156 from the table.

I am not sure what you mean here

Never mind. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Same issue with YJHD. Only one review for the claim.

Done

I hope this is going to be its breakthrough attempt. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Left Comments. Thank you for the work put into this article. Really appreciated! NumerounovedantTalk 16:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Further comments. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 08:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I beleive all comments have been addressed. NumerounovedantTalk 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Do you have any further comments? NumerounovedantTalk 06:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher Where did you see "the pioneering a change in Indian cinema" in Chopra article? It's not in the lead or even something like that at all.Krish | Talk 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

"The family later settled in Kallatty, a village near Ooty in Tamil Nadu, where Koechlin's father established a business designing hang-gliders and ultralight aircraft" -do we know when?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really, I could not find any information on that. NumerounovedantTalk 18:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Taran Adarsh called her "truly awe-inspiring"," - you can't have the mush of a joke critic in this article. It's about time he was blacklisted, obviously paid for his gushing comments about everybody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll look for another positive review then! NumerounovedantTalk 18:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Her characteristic bee stung lips have been cited by Rediff.com as her trademark, contributing to her "raw sex appeal"." -reads like a Daily Mail article. Deary me, I'd have thought "bee stung lips" would wreak of cosmetic over indulgence, not raw sexuality..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Koechlin is particularly known in the Indian media and film industry for her dedication to her work and her professional behaviour.[" -professional behaviour?? I'm sure a lot of actresses are professional..
• " She was also the brand ambassador of the "Cinema For Care" section, aimed at creating awareness about disability issues at the All Lights India International Film Festival (ALIIFF) held in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala in November 2015.[153]" -was or is?

"was" - It was a one time event.

It's nearing FA quality I think, but in places needs a copyedit. I had to reword quite a bit as I went through to improve the flow. There's also some questionable claims like the bee lips and professional behaviour. Could still use a few people to give the prose a grilling and ensure it's definitely FA standard. Overall it definitely covers what needs to be covered and is a decent article, but I'm going to wait until Krimuk90 has looked at it again before making a decision.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I'll look into the issues, the professional bit has been mentioned in previous FAs like that of Priyanka Chopra, and I agree the bee lips might not be the most important parts of the article. However, Krimuk won't be a part of the FAC as he has decided to distance himself from the current nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 20:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I'd prefer not to mention things like that, Chopra included.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll rework the fourth paragraph, removed bee lips. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 08:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Done NumerounovedantTalk 07:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaning towards Weak support, as it's nearing FA quality I think. Could still use a few people giving it a read and copyedit though to ensure it's really there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright thanks! NumerounovedantTalk 09:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support—After going through the article thoroughly for the last two days, i find it well written and reliably sourced, with a liberal usage of free images. The article's tone is neutral and is very focused. Good job! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pavan! NumerounovedantTalk 11:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

• "Unable to find work there, she moved to Mumbai, where she worked with theatre directors and the founders of a Mumbai-based theatre company called "The Company Theatre" Atul Kumar and Ajay Krishnan who were looking for actors for a theatrical festival, Contacting the World, to be held in Liverpool." seems to be ungrammatical or a run-on sentence as currently punctuated. There may be some missing commas.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed NumerounovedantTalk 17:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to do. Is that a comma before "They were looking for actors"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• The content regarding Waiting seems to be dated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The film is yet to be released theatrically, so I believe we will have a better account for it then? NumerounovedantTalk 17:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Updated released date NumerounovedantTalk 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Should the lead mention that she has appeared in several widely viewed YouTube videos regarding various issues?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

That is an interesting observation, do you have something in mind? NumerounovedantTalk 17:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You might want to expand "Koechlin is also an activist and a celebrity endorser." However, I imagine a person who has done YouTube videos has also used social media such as Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, etc. Before I make a suggestion, do we have sources regarding any advocacy and/or activism in other social realms?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I think it's better to leave it the way it is. There can be a lot of conflicting claims here NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you could just say she has used YouTube as a platform or forum for issues that she advocates for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it reading awkwardly in the lead, I have added it in her off-screen work. NumerounovedantTalk 06:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• "under the banner of Quaff Theatre" is an idiom which is unfamiliar to me and many EN WP readers I am sure.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Was she reviewed for Colour Blind?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be at least a couple of reviews NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well. You know what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, fixed both. NumerounovedantTalk 11:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am quite satisfied with this article. It is very thorough. I can now support.

Thank you TonyTheTiger! NumerounovedantTalk 05:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that you bring this to my attention, I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how that is so, considering all the FAs that I have come across using the past tense. (See;Deepika Padukone, Priyanka Chopra, Brad Pitt among many others) I am sure there is more to it than the obvious. NumerounovedantTalk 12:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please ignore that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is inconsistent with this advice. It is confusing to me. Here is my interpretation. Write in past tense about things from to past. E.g., she made a movie, filmed a pilot. Write in present tense about things that are not in the past. A movie, although made in the past, lives for a long time if not forever (like a building). The movie is in the present like a building is. Thus, an opinion about a thing that is present is written about in the present. A critical commentary about a building or a movie would say. Critic X says the building is tall or the movie is good. We do not say critic X said the building was tall or the movie was good. Hope that helps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a really interesting observation, however it is at the end unlike anything that I have seen before. So, I would like other editors to comment here and reach a consensus before I make such a significant change. Thank you TonyTheTiger! NumerounovedantTalk 05:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not even an expert on MOSTENSE. I was just interpreting it based upon the WP:GOCE copyedit that I received after it was mentioned in a prior FAC. I was going to ignore the tense issues in this article until people dinged EmRata as having tense problems. The changes came mostly from Twofingered Typist and were ratified by a review of his work by Baffle gab1978. I doubt anyone already involved in this review is an expert on WP:MOSTENSE. So I am pinging those guys who know it and can explain it better than me since you have doubts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist did provide the article with ce. J would love to hear his comments here. NumerounovedantTalk 06:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOSTENSE suggests using past tense for past events. It seems to me that a three year old review should be in the past tense. If you want to change it to the present tense, feel free. Twofingered Typist (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you so much for you help! I believe that the issue is sorted then TonyTheTiger? NumerounovedantTalk 12:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, of course I am at a loss as to why 3-year-old reviews are past events and 2-year-old reviews are present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe reviews do get dated after a period of time, which is hard to define, it might as well be a year old or 3 years old. NumerounovedantTalk 05:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Numerounovedant, Twofingered Typist, Please reconsider WP:FICTENSE, when combined with MOS:TENSE, I believe it means commentary by critics is written about in the present tense until they are deceased or the film is considered lost.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you concerns (which is the lack of clarity here), however, what I can't seem to get my head around is the fact that why would so many (practically all) the previous FA articles use the past tense approach if this was such a significant issue. I came across 300 (film) where both past and present tense has been used in the reception section. I think it works either way. Still is's just an observation, I could be wrong. NumerounovedantTalk 17:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What we are dealing with is colloquialism. Ask any common person what they thought about a film that they saw and the will say. It was good/bad. Even though it is as ongoing as an building. Ask them about a building and they will say it is tall/beautiful/etc. We have a lot of common folk writing and reviewing our articles here. Did you even consider WP:FICTENSE when writing your article? It clearly exists although it is not a policy. MOS:TENSE is clearly a guideline. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS inconsistent with the current argument never is a Kosher consideration. We are suppose to look at MOS:TENSE and consider WP:FICTENSE. I don't think we can look at those and then invoke a 3-year rule. I think it is clear a film exists. In fact any building constructed today is more likely to be demolished 100 years from now than a major film is likely to be considered lost in 100 years. Films are more permanent than buildings now and we should consider them ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion. A 3-year rule is poppycock.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• I will restore my Support. I am fairly certain that I am confused on what MOS:TENSE actually means.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment

• that "and has been credited in the media for publicly expressing her opinions." - This seems to be a habitual claim with almost all Indian actresses. Not sure it belongs in the lead. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to the conversation above (with Yash), and can you suggest something that fits better? NumerounovedantTalk 16:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't watched any of her films, so can't really comment on the 'stereotype' thing. My concern is the 'outspoken' thing; that's quite a claim. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if the claim sounds boastful but if anyone who has followed her career closely would know that she has been more outspoken on such issues. Do you think Tony's comment of mentioning her work in Youtube videos would fit better as it is more factual? NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It borders WP:PUFF (not just with her case, but with other articles too). She is not even a known entity outside Bombay. More to the point, the claim is hardly encyclopaedic. I'd call only Arundhati Roy, Kamala Das and the likes as 'outspoken'. If the YT claim is an established fact, it may very well go into the lead. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe Ssven2 fixed it NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. You've already got 4 supports, so I just did a little copyediting, down to Critical acclaim (2013–present). Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

All your help is greatly appreciated Dank! Thank you. NumerounovedantTalk 03:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Krish!

• Well the article is pretty good in shape. However I came across some mistakes which are:
  • "Koechlin is best known for her character roles that defy the stereotypical portrayal of women in Indian cinema" — Someone please tell why this is necessary? I know she is a great actress, much better than those who call themselves no. 1 and get media attention for ex-boyfriends and fashion sense but she has a long way to go. Also it is used in nearly all "fancruft" Indian articles on wikipedia. Please remove it.
  • "One of the most popular Indian celebrities". Is she? NO.
  • She won Jury Award at 63rd National Film Awards but her filmography says Special Mention, both are different — she actually won an award unlike people who win Special Mention are only given certificates. Correct that.

That's it from me.Krish | Talk 07:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the lead, the jury/mention article is the same. In the table it does say award, Thanks for taking out your time for the review Krish. NumerounovedantTalk 11:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support: After fixing small things, I fully support the article. It is a well-written, unbiased and detailed description of a great talent. I would like to thank Vedant for working on articles like this. It's refreshing to see people like him picking such artists, who need more appreciation than those PR-led, attention seeking actresses who can't act. I hope you will continue to work on some other under-rated artists like her. Congratualiton. Krish | Talk 12:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Krish! I try doing my best XD NumerounovedantTalk 05:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SlimVirgin

Just a couple of points:

• She calls herself an actor, but we call her an actress. I was just wondering why.

There should be gender neutrality in the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• She calls herself a feminist, but the article says otherwise: "Despite being part of a number of feminism campaigns, Koechlin identifies herself as a humanist over a feminist." That relies on this 2014 source, which attributes that view to her. But in other sources, including more recent ones, [6][7][8] she makes clear that she's a feminist, so that should be fixed.

SarahSV ^(talk) 15:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking out the time for the review Does the sentence read better now? NumerounovedantTalk 13:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's better, but it's odd to hang it on the end like that. Feminism seems to be an important part of her life. Perhaps you could say at the start of that paragraph something like "Koechlin is a feminist and is involved with several humanitarian causes." SarahSV ^(talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed (hopefully) NumerounovedantTalk 11:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

According to the file pages, all the images in the article have been released by Bollywood Hungama, an entertainment website:

• File:Kalki Koechlin at the launch of Dessange's new look.jpg
• File:Kalki Koechlin with mother her Francoise Armandie at Prithvi Fest (cropped).jpg
• File:Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara Press Conference.jpg
• File:Kalki Koechlin and Emran Hashmi Shanghai.jpg
• File:Kalki Koechlin at the Lakme Fashion Week (2).jpg
• File:Kalki Koechlin watches the play 'Ishqiya Dharavi Style'.jpg
• File:Kalki and anurag at filmfare.jpg
• File:Kalki Koechlin snapped at an ad shoot (3).jpg

Did Bollywood Hungama take or commission all these photographs? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

They were taken by them. NumerounovedantTalk 13:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you expand on how you know this? The file pages say only that the website releases the images if they're in a position to do so, but they don't say whether they are, in fact, in such a position. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to follow up, the template for these images, Commons: Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, says that (of course) it doesn't apply to images on their website where the copyright is owned by others, which means that these images have not necessarily been released. The template page says: "Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload." So it seems that, for each image you've used, you're going to have to determine that Bollywood Hungama does own the copyright. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the license holds good for only images listed under: sets, parties, and press meetings. You may crosscheck with the OTRS ticket if you want. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: All the photos are from parties and events, the Shanghai one is a press meet. So, it satisfies the criteria Vensatry specifies.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The template says:

Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload (bold added).

It adds that it must be (inter alia) a photograph of a Bollywood party or event, taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer, and provided with a direct link to the source on the Bollywood Hungama website.

For example, File:Kalki Koechlin at the Lakme Fashion Week (2).jpg (here on the website) was taken at Lakme Fashion Week, which is not a Bollywood Hungama event, and there's no sign that it was taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Replaced the photograph from LFW to one from a screening event. NumerounovedantTalk 06:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You're referring to File:Kalki Koechlin at special screening of 'Margarita With A Straw'.jpg, which you added here. So now you have to do two things: (1) on the file page, you need to supply a link to that image; and (2) you need to email Bollywood Hungama, ask whether they own the copyright to that image, and if they do, ask them to release it. And you will have to do that for each image you want to use, either in separate emails or jointly in one email.

As things stand, there is no indication that these images have been released by the copyright holder. The group release to OTRS is from 2008 and is apparently worded in a very unclear way. So, as the template says, editors must make checks for each image, rather than relying on the group release. I'm sorry to raise this. I know it's a nuisance. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright Thanks! NumerounovedantTalk 16:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed all the images from BH, till I get any help on the issue because neither do I have the time or the motivation to go through the entire process. All Bollywood article use the images of BH use the images and I hope the editors associated with the articles of Bollywood understand and help resolve the issue. Thanks SlimVirgin for taking out your time. NumerounovedantTalk 16:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

One last thing, do photographs like the one here fall under the same questionable circumstance? If yes, I would like to know so I can contact the other editors with a more detailed description of the issue. NumerounovedantTalk 17:15, 16 June 2016 (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) 23:38, 18 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 [9].

---

Blast Corps

Nominator(s): czar 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Flush from its recent expansion as Nintendo bought major stake in the company, Rare handed an ambitious Nintendo 64 console project to four young, recent grads in 1996. They, in turn, released Blast Corps, a game of creative destruction, to universal acclaim, with one million copies sold. Even minding the indie movement, projects of such stature are scoped much differently today. Blast Corps led a series of Nintendo console games with consistently high critical acclaim (think GoldenEye 007, Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini). In comparison, Blast Corps was not so much a cult classic or sleeper hit as simply cherished. The game's creative concept was emblematic of the company's spirit and left fans hungry for more even two decades later. It was among the most anticipated re-releases in the 2015 Rare Replay retrospective compilation and proved to be the standout favorite among reviewers.

This nomination is part of the Rare WikiProject effort to improve the articles that correspond with the 31 titles included in Rare Replay. I rewrote Blast Corps from scratch using the best sources available on the subject, with extra care to mind the game's original reception (magazines from the 90s). The article went through a diligent good article nomination (@AdrianGamer) and an even more meticulous peer review (@J Milburn and Moisejp) and I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria. (Permission to start the nom early.) Time to get moving, czar 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808

Extended content

I will be reviewing soon (probably tomorrow). I also have God of War (series) up at FAC if you could leave some comments there. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 23:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC) I had meant to get to this yesterday, but got very busy and didn't have time. Lead Spell out "57", as well as other mentions of it throughout the article. Make it clear that it's Metacritic who said "universal acclaim". Development Was the game only released in Japan, North America, Europe, and Australia? Reception Why are you italicizing "IGN" and "AllGame"? --JDC808 ♫ 20:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Hey @JDC808, thanks for the comments. "57" should be fine per MOS:NUMERAL—most style guides have numbers in numerals above nine. It's fine to leave "universal acclaim" unsourced in the lede because it's made generalizable by the citation in the Reception section. (It's not being cited as a specific phrase in the lede.) Was it released only in the locations listed? As far as the sources I found go, yes. I italicize those two per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works as online review sites with original content (creative works). czar 23:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC) No problem on "57". That comment was based on the style of writing I'm most familiar with. Okay on "universal". For the releases, since it's only those regions as found by the sources, in the lead, instead of "A worldwide release followed at the end of that year.", I would rewrite it with European and Australian. When I first read that sentence, "worldwide" seemed a little awkward. It's also a little awkward in the infobox. I only questioned the italics of IGN and AllGame because when you click on their respective articles, they're not italicized. --JDC808 ♫ 01:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC) ✓ done, and I'll bring the discussion to those two pages in due time. I think there can be an argument against italicizing them, with some points valid, but in the capacity within this article, they're being used as creative works. czar 01:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the comments I've made, this article is very well done. I just looked at the article again and don't see anything oppose worthy. If I had to nitpick one other thing, it would be that I don't see the pic of the N64 necessary, but that's a personal preference that you don't have to change. With that, I Support this article's promotion. --JDC808 ♫ 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Blastcorps.png needs a more specific FUR - the purpose of this image isn't to identify the game, that's what the lead image is for. Perhaps to illustrate gameplay? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, missed that somehow... ✓ fixed czar 22:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Hi Czar. I'm basically ready to support. The prose is very good, and I have spot-checked a number of refs. Two small issues:

• Unfortunately the AllGame ref seems to be dead, including the archived version.
• I feel the last sentence of Legacy is a weak ending, doesn't flow well with the rest of the section, and sounds subjective as it's written. If you do decide to keep it, I would suggest maybe attributing the opinion to Rob Crossley within the text itself. And is there another place within the article it could be moved to where it flows better? Or maybe if it's not crucial to the article it could be cut altogether?

Besides that, great article! Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moisejp, thanks! I think I've addressed both, if you'll take a look. czar 04:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks great, I Support! (BTW, I also wanted to mention, congratulations on your Knight Lore FA.) Moisejp (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

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

• This is an outstanding video game article. It has lots of specifics, without leaving the reader behind.
• I'm not comfortable with all the quote marks. Quote marks mean roughly four different things, and readers don't always pick up on the right meaning. If the quote marks are quoting text, then in-text attribution is needed per WP:INTEXT. But I'll leave this problem for other reviewers.
• "EGM considered Blast Corps incomparable to other games": If "incomparable" is the right word here, then I'd probably delete "to other games". If they said it was hard to make comparisons, I'd use another word.
• Blast Corps is overused; "it" and "the game" could be substituted more often, and rewriting might reduce some repetition.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank! The counter to using the game's name is using too much of "the game"—this said, I changed a few. Appreciate your support. czar 22:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Source review:

• The tweet seems to be incomplete; I'd want a wikilink to Twitter somewhere, as well as an accessdate.
• Your Retro Gamer "A Rare Glimpse" source is formatted differently to other magazines; you've cited it like an academic journal rather than a popular magazine. Same for your Retro Gamer McFerran citation.
• Do we need retrieval dates and archive dates? I don't know.
• I'm struggling with your Crossley citation; where are you getting that page number from? If it's an article from Retro Gamer, surely we need the issue number for the page number to be meaningful?

A few spotchecks revealed no problems, and all of the sources are appropriate for an article of this sort. My own searches from the peer review indicate (but certainly don't prove) that no major sources have been missed, but a deeper search has thrown up some nice sources which may be worth citing (see the FAC talk page in a few minutes...)

I've put up a few reviews I found in respectable broadsheets. I think they'd be very much worth incorporating. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Some other driveby comments:

• postmortem? Unless this has a particular meaning in video game journalism, this is not the right word.
• Perhaps the composer belongs in the article body somewhere?
• Perhaps Matt Fox's view belongs in the review box?

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @J Milburn! I think I've addressed everything, if you'll take a look. I archived the tweet and started a discussion at {{cite tweet}} about linking directly to Twitter. I think it's silly to have retrieval and archive dates too but that was the practice last time I looked into it. The idea is that the archived version may differ from the live version, so the access date can show that the two differ. That said, I don't see why an access date would be needed if the archived version contains the same contents and would be willing to start that trend myself. (Discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Needing both access and archive dates.) The Crossley section was reprinted online, but I included the original magazine citation, which I used as well. I didn't see anything worth adding content-wise in the LexisNexis sources—newspaper sources tend to repeat the same stuff as the specialized sources with no new criticism—but I added a few redundant citations. There wasn't any good coverage on Graeme Norgate's composition process, so I felt it was best to exclude mention in the prose. And I don't give much credence to Fox's brief reviews, hence the short mention and why it isn't in the reviews box. Thanks again, and let me know if you see anything else? czar 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn ping czar 16:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm happy with source formatting and reliability. Comprehensiveness seems good. I may come back for a fuller review, but no promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Next steps

@WP:FAC coordinators: thoughts? czar 07:04, 13 June 2016 (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) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2016 [10].

---

Nothomyrmecia

Nominator(s): Burklemore1 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a spectacular, yet critically endangered species of ant. The history of this species is rather interesting, being presumably discovered in Western Australia in 1931 and described in 1934. The ant was not seen since and biologists believed it went extinct until a solitary worker was found in 1977. It was rediscovered near the town of Poochera, and as a result is perhaps the only town in the world that thrives off ant-based tourism. The ant is considered to be the world's most primitive ant, the "Holy Grail" of myrmecology and a living fossil, exhibiting a wide variety of odd behaviours. My purpose here is to ensure the article is a high-quality source of information about this unique ant and to honour the 60th anniversary of John S. Clark's death (who described Nothomyrmecia). The article was given an excellent copyedit and subsequently promoted to GA status on 21 January 2016. As well as that, I have done additional improvements, so the prose should be fine. Further improvements to the prose and article are most welcome, and I hope you enjoy. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tentative support from jonkerz

I've seen this interesting and important ant article grow from a small Start-class article to what it is now, and as far as I can tell there are no obvious issues. Formatting and structure is good, it is well-referenced, well-researched and broad in coverage, and it has already been thought a GAN where it was copyedited. Before changing to support I'd like to spot-check a couple of references -- not that it has been an issue in Burklemore's other articles, but an FA is an FA. Comment: I think Category:Insects described in 1934 are usually placed on the species redirect. jonkerz ♠talk 15:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your support and comments, I will respond swiftly to ensure this article gets promoted. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also removed the category, just went on the redirect page and saw it there. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review - OK (version)

• Checked images:
  • File:CSIRO ScienceImage 2478 Dinosaur or Fossil Ants Nothomyrmecia macrops.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops casent0172003 head 1.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops casent0902784 p 1 high.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops casent0172002 profile 1.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops casent0172002 label 1.jpg
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops occurrence map.png
  • File:Nothomyrmecia macrops feeding on honey bait.jpg
  • File:CSIRO ScienceImage 347 Dinosaur or Fossil Ants INothomyrmecia macropsI.jpg
  • File:The Big Ant.JPG
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Captions are factual and correct, and referenced in the Commons description or in a link on the Commons page. Not sure if this is a real issue, but two captions contain statements that are neither mentioned in the article or directly on the file's page (ie only outside of any Wikimedia project):
  • The fact that Taylor was the collector of "N. macrops worker specimen collected by Taylor" -- but it is mentioned in the link in the file description, and the article even includes the specimen label with Taylor's name.

I think there is a specific page on AntWeb that provides an overview of the specimen, including the collector. I'm sure that may be a useful source if we really need one. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• • The file descriptions of the same image and File:Nothomyrmecia_macrops_casent0172003_head_1.jpg do not mention that the pictured specimens are workers -- but that fact is linked from the Commons descriptions. jonkerz ♠talk 15:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Did some tweaks. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:ALTs probably OK, but I'm no expert and since they're not required I won't fail the image review even if turns out they're not 100% perfect
• Nikkimaria commented that several captions need copyediting. The ones I believe are somewhat odd are "Label view of Nothomyrmecia collected by Taylor" and "Sculpture of Nothomyrmecia in Poochera". I'm not a native speaker, but I suppose something like "Label of one of the Nothomyrmecia specimens collected by Taylor" and "Sculpture of a Nothomyrmecia ant in Poochera" would be easier to read.

Done.

Reference spot-checking - OK

• Ref numbers from [11]. 8, 9, 12 are OK (true to source, no close paraphrasing). More to come. jonkerz ♠talk 15:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to any coordinator reading: Just to get this off my chest, Jonkerz has initiated the image and source review (in which he is still doing the source review). Burklemore1 (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And btw, I have added another image of the ant. It is photographed by R.W. Taylor in a 2014 article he published, which is licensed under CC BY 3.0. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the image review. jonkerz ♠talk 13:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• More from the same revision:
  • 2a, 3a, 3b (the first two sentences from the taxonomy section): 99% OK, but there's no source for the name "Amy Crocker", but you dug up this the last time we talked about this, so I don't question that they are the same person.

Taylor 1978 mentions A.E. Crocker I believe, which is undoubtedly her.

• • 3p ("30 minutes"), 39, 56 OK
  • 46: too close paraphrasing? Not sure. From Ward, P.S.; Taylor, R.W. (1981, p. 182): "The brachypterous nature of the queens suggests that mating probably occurs near the mother nest" vs "Due to the brachypterous nature of the queens, it is likely that the winged adults mate near their parent nest" from [12].
    • Does it stray from close paraphrasing now?
      • Fixed; not completely sure it was an issue to begin with to be honest, I'm just trying to be thorough.
  • According to the PDF and Google searches, Taylor, R.W. (1977). "Nothomyrmecia macrops: a living-fossil ant rediscovered". Science. 201 (4360): 979–985. Bibcode:1978Sci...201..979T. doi:10.1126/science.201.4360.979. JSTOR 1746819. PMID 17743619. was published in 1978.

Changed.

• • 2b: "John S. Clark described Nothomyrmecia in 1934 as a new genus of Myrmeciinae" [slightly expanded/reworded in the current revision]. From what I can tell Clark put Nothomyrmecia in Ponerinae.

Did some major corrections.

• • 2c (Nothomyrmecia vs Prionomyrmex) OK, 25 (climate change etc) OK
  • [First sentence in the description section] 2d ("9.7–11 mm") OK, 33 (polymorphism) OK (but ctrl-F "In many species, the" on this page for a comment)
  • 29 [Taylor et al (1990)]: "highest number of chromosomes" OK, but the current revision also includes "insects with a 2n above 52 are ants" which I could not find in either Taylor (1978) or Taylor et al. (1990), possibly because my PDF reader did not manage to OCR the number "52".

"...and all Hymenoptera with 2n exceeding 52 are ants." - Taylor 1978

• • 32 (cladogram) OK
  • I haven't checked each and every one reference to confirm that the year/title/etc are correct, but of the one I've checked all except one (which has been fixed) are correct.

Comments from JM

You've piqued my interest.

• Is the second line of the lead a little specialist/long for so early in the article?

Did a minor cut.

• "The ant only remained in literature and from two specimens" Clumsy

Rewritten.

• "The average length of this species is 9.7–11 mm (0.38–0.43 in), and polymorphism does not occur among the castes" Again, a little clumsy. Species don't have lengths, and the relationship between the first part of the sentence and the second (which is a little technical, I feel) is unclear.

Split the sentence into two and did a little rewrite.

• "Nothomyrmecia was originally discovered by Amy Crocker[a] in December 1931, from two syntype workers presumably collected near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia." It wasn't discovered from two workers- that doesn't make sense. The opening lines of this paragraph don't seem to be in the right order; I'm struggling to follow.

Changed to "Nothomyrmecia was collected by ......" Not sure how you'd want the lines to be reorded in though.

• "mesosoma and gaster" Links?

Linked.

• "The type material is currently housed in the National Museum of Victoria in Melbourne." A bit out-of-place

Removed.

(Lost track of time. I'll be back some other time to finish reading...) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for willing to review the article. I will (hopefully) respond to your comments shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, back:

• I'm still not sold on the first paragraph of the lead; "The ant was only known from published literature until a group of entomologists rediscovered it 46 years later, 1,300 kilometres (810 mi) away from the original site." The first clause is weird, and "original site" is odd given that you leave it as an open question as to where the first specimens were from. (Also, "It is monomorphic, where it occurs in a particular form." is unclear)

Did some tweaks. I have now said the ant remained unknown to scientists until it was rediscovered in 1977, 1,300 kilometres away from the original reported site.

• "Queens are univoltine and only produce a single generation of ants annually" These mean the same thing?

Did a few tweaks.

• "Nothomyrmecia was collected by Amy Crocker[a] in December 1931, from two syntype workers presumably collected near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia.[" This still doesn't work. How about "The first collection of Nothomyrmecia was made by Amy Crocker[a] in December 1931, who collected two workers, which became the syntypes, reportedly near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia."

Done, thanks for the suggestion.

• "It is unknown where Crocker collected the insects she sent to Australian entomologist John S. Clark," It's a bit odd to list a reported location, then a presumed location, then say the location is unknown. You could probably drop this.

Dropped.

• "but the locations Clark provided had no Nothomyrmecia colonies present when the areas were surveyed" Perhaps this could be moved further down the paragraph?

Seems I removed this along with the above sentence.

• "from the site of the 1931 discovery" But we don't know where that is?

Not sure if this helps a lot, but I added "reported".

• "Its distant relationship with modern ants" What are modern ants? If you just mean extent ants, it would surely have to be other extent ants, as this one is extent

Changed.

• "non-tubulated fourth abdominal segment" Jargon

Removed.

• "would classify the ant into its own subfamily" You classify as, you place into.

Changed.

• "a new Baltic fossil Prionomyrmex species"- Name the species?

Done.

• "is a paraphyletic relative to Nothomyrmecia" I'm struggling with this. Relative of?

Yes, changed.

• "Dlussky & Perfilieva" How about "entomologists [or a more accurate description] G. M. Dlussky and E. B. Fedoseeva". Same with other similar mentions; "Ward & Brady", for instance.

Done.

• "in addition, transferred both taxa as distinct genera in the older subfamily Myrmeciinae.[17][18] Later, Dlussky also refers only to Ward & Brady's classification.[18][19]" I'm struggling with this.

I felt like this sentence, after realising, did not make much sense. Further, the final sentence of the paragraph tends to imply the same meaning so I have removed it.

• "his former interpretation as opposed to that of Ward & Brady's arguments" Do arguments have interpretations How about "his former interpretation as opposed to Ward and Brady's"? (You may want to consider splitting this paragraph; this may improve readability)

I have split the paragraph and used your suggestion, cheers.

• "In the Evans' vespoid scale" ??

Removed, I couldn't find any further explanation as to what it was.

• (If it's monomorphic, why do you bother to specify that the type specimens are workers? Or am I misunderstanding? ... I think I am.)

Well, because it's obvious; the type specimens are workers. It is monomorphic, though males are very easy to tell apart. Queens and workers appear very similar, but can be distinguished. Idk, I guess monomorphism only occurs in workers then?

To put things clearer, the type specimens are workers, not anything else. I think it's better to clarify what they are if the castes are difficult to distinguish.

• "concave occipital border" Jargon

Removed.

• "A sting bulb gland is only known in Nothomyrmecia and Myrmecia, an exocrine gland with an unknown purpose." This doesn't quite work

I did some tweaks.

• "there are more derived characters" What does this mean?

I decided to change this accordingly. I think it's more interesting to know that despite being the worlds most primitive ant, some features such as its sting apparatus is considered more advanced than other ants (example provided).

• "but the basal hamuli and apical set present" Struggling

Removed "apical set present" and latter sentence. Also described what the hamuli is if that helps.

• "two tibial spurs; the first is a long calcar and the second is short and thick" Again

Added brief explanation.

• "these ants have six maxillary and four labial palpae" More jargon

Added two brief explanations as to what these features are.

• "The unspecialised nature of the cuticle" Again

I added a link + brief explanation to "cuticle", though I'm not sure what you'd want addressed exactly. Perhaps the "unspecialised nature" part?

Ok, pausing there- I've read to the end of the description section. I'm finding the prose a little short of FA level at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

More:

• "Nothomyrmecia ants colonise areas at elevations of 85 metres (279 ft)." No more, no less?

Haven't found anything else that suggests otherwise. Perhaps "Nothomyrmecia colonies have been recorded at elevations of 85 metres (279 ft)? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• "soil and degraded limestone soil" The latter is a type of the former

Removed first instance of soil.

• "Nest galleries are 4–5 mm (0.16–0.20 in) in diameter that descends further into the ground at about 60° degrees, ending up to subelliptical and horizontal chambers 3–5 mm (0.12–0.20 in) wide." Unclear

Did some tweaks.

• "other sexual reproductive ants" Should this be sexually reproductive ants? Or do you mean "ants who are both sexual and reproductive"?

Changed to "sexually", using "ants who are both sexual and reproductive" would not make much sense to me.

• "but sometimes a colony may be overwintered" Slightly odd use of passive voice, I feel

Removed passive.

• "Nothomyrmecia is a polyandrous species" That's a genus, not a species

Changed.

• "colonies can be found by one or more queens" Founded?

Done.

• "The queens will contest for dominance" Compete?

Changed.

• "Reasons of brachyptery among queens are possibly due to" Clumsy

Did some tweaks, hopefully they're OK.

• "Notable biologists" Is this editorialising? (A fact you may find vaguely interesting: Wilson is quite widely read by philosophers of science and ethicists due to his work on sociobiology. As a rule, philosophers aren't impressed.)

Changed to "entomologists"

• "but neither was successful" Were?

Fixed.

• "Wildlife Conservation Act 1950" Should this be italicised? It is currently, but I'm not sure. (Same for the other mentioned Acts.)

Done.

• "With this said, it is unknown how widespread it is, and scientists are unsure if any threats are impacting the species." Reference?

Source added.

• "An increase in sea temperature would also threaten Nothomyrmecia" Why? Is this particular to this taxon?

Nothomyrmecia experiences cool temperatures due to the cold wind blowing off the cold Southern Ocean. If the sea temperature there was to rise, this would lead to fatal consequences (no cool habitat = no suitable habitat).

• "Measures needed to ensure the survival of Nothomyrmecia include fighting climate change, conducting surveys, and maintaining known populations through habitat protection" Slightly too how-to, I feel; we should report on measures others have proposed, not present certain actions as necessary.

Did a few small tweaks.

• "Local councils should also be aware of the conservation status of Nothomyrmecia" Again

Changed.

It's clear that some very good work has gone into this article, but the prose falls a little below FA-level, I think. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope the prose isn't too bad for opposition. I'll address your comments shortly (again). Burklemore1 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If it doesn't pass at this time (and it might!), a peer review might be able to give it the push it needs to pass next time. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of time I "push" articles as much as I can to whatever goal I set, whether it's FA or GA. While I'm not the best with prose, I'm sure I could get it to FA if I put my mind to it. If not, peer review will be especially beneficial; being new to FA, I do get nerved, but there's no problem at having a go. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: If you'd care to ping me after you've finished your re-wording, I'd be happy to add some further feedback. At the moment there are still quite a few minor stumbles in the flow of writing and a few tautological statements which I could help you iron out. And just for starters, I would recommend a wikilink to the key term 'caste' see Eusociality. Parkywiki (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, I'll ping you when Josh is happy to support or feel like his issues have been addressed. I linked caste to eusociality because the article caste is basically discussing the human aspects. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn, mind having a look? I saw you left a notice saying you will be busy for a bit, so no rush. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Parkywiki:, I noticed Josh may be absent for a couple of days, so do you feel like adding some comments in the meantime? Burklemore1 (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to delegates: The article has developed significantly since I left these comments; please do not take my comments as indicative of current problems with the articles. I neither support nor oppose; I'd like to find time to look through the article again, but may not; please do not hold up the candidacy on my account. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'll just skim through and leave some thoughts, then possibly add more later when I also have time (I'm currently working on getting my own article ready to nominate for FA.)

• I would reorder the first lead paragraph, and ask what the subject actually is. Is it the genus or the species? Either way, the second sentence starting with 'the ants' seems wrong. I would simply use 'its', so allowing the ambiguity around the subject to pass by unnoticed.

We're talking about the ant itself, which means the species itself. However, since it's a monotypic taxon, the species name is usually redirected to the genus, also used your suggestion.

• Still in the Lead: Whilst the story around the discovery of the species is interesting, I would not expect that to be the second sentence in the lead. So I'd put the third sentence in second place. (i.e. beginning The ant It lives in South Australia, nesting . . ."

Done.

• Queens are univoltine, producing a single generation of ants annually. This is both helpful and tautologous. Suggest: Queens are univoltine (i.e. they produce just one generation of ants each year).

Done.

• After its description, the ant remained unknown to scientists ... shorten to: The ant then remained unknown to scientists. . .

Done.

• The ant is monomorphic, showing little morphological differentation [sic] among castes. correct to: The ant is monomorphic, showing little morphological differentiation between castes. or : The ant is monomorphic, showing little difference in appearance between castes

Done.

• Two queens may found a colony together, but only one... You've already used 'found', so I'd prefer 'Two queens may establish a colony together, but ...

Done.

• ...collecting arthropod prey and sweet substances such as honeydew from Hemiptera insects. This is wrong as it implies all members of the Hemiptera produce honeydew, and I'm not also comfortable with 'Hemiptera insects' - it's like saying all beetle insects. It should at least be Hemipteran insects, but I would go for; ...substances such as honeydew from aphids.

Done.

• Potential predatory threats are restricted to other ants. This is ambiguous - it makes perfect sense when you know what it means, but it could be clearer. Which ant is making predatory threats to which ant?

Camponotus and Iridomyrmex to Nothomyrmecia. Did some changes.

• I've no more time this morning other than to make comments on the Lead section. My last though on the lead is to suggest that all the bit about discovery/relationships to other taxa should goes into one paragraph, and that you should make that the last paragraph in the Lead Section. I would also find a way to slightly strengthen the key main threat to the species which I think was climate warming and link this to their need to hunt on cold nights. Apols for any typos or lack of insertion of all your original wikilinks - must dash to work now. More to follow, if this helps? Parkywiki (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely helps, thank you very much for leaving some comments. I'll address your issues shortly. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Also have done some of this, just going to add some more detail about its threats and such. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Great to hear. So, I'll look next at 'Description' mainly because it's easier, but also because I firmly believe the structure of many FA articles on species are flawed in putting Taxonomy before Description, and I would generally put Taxonomy much lower down. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the subject - I just recognise that most people care to know about the species, where it lives and what it looks like before they learn about its detailed relationships, and I say that as someone whose first job was in a major national museum, dealing with the taxonomy of grasses.) You might want to look at pulling out the bit on eco-anto-tourism from the taxonomy section and putting it elsewhere more relevant to conservation or 'significance' Parkywiki (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure if I'd move it either way, I can't really find a better spot to place it. And it's always how I've structured articles I have worked on. Re eco-ant-tourism: I might as well move it to conservation, do you know a spot where it would fit in nicely? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Finally added detail in the lead about its threats and such, may need rewording though. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Description section - comments from Parkywiki

• Nothomyrmecia is a medium-sized ant, measuring 9.7–11 mm (0.38–0.43 in). In length, one assumes?

Yes.

So state it, please.

• The ant is monomorphic, showing little morphological differentation among castes - same comment applies here as in lead.

Changed.

• The hair is yellow, erect and reasonably long and common, but on the antennae and legs it is suberect (standing almost in an erect position) and shorter. What is the hair on? Maybe The hairs on the INSERT TERMS HERE is/are yellow, erect and reasonably long and abundant, but on the antennae and legs they are shorter and suberect (standing almost in an erect position).

On the body itself. Clarified.

• The pubescence is white and abundant. I'm unclear what the pubescence is on, and if there's a difference between hairs and pubescence.(I prefer the plural term, rather than 'hair', which tends to give and image of a fringe and parting).

Decided to remove it, I think pubescence shares a very similar definition with hair.

• Mandibles are less specialised than Myrmecia and Prionomyrmex, elongated and triangular. These mandibles are shorter than the head with 10 to 12 teeth I'd suggest inverting these two sentences to:The mandibles are shorter than the head. They have 10 to 12 teeth and are less specialised than those of Myrmecia and Prionomyrmex, being elongate and triangular in shape.

Changed, thanks for the nice suggestion!

• The head is longer than its width and broader at the back. It is broadest around the eyes with convex sides Because the eyes don't appear to be right at the back in the photo of the worker, I stumbled on this a bit. I've not looked at the original references yet, but perhaps this would be better: The head is longer than it is wide and broader towards the back. The sides of the head are convex around the eyes. (They actually look slightly concave to me, but there you go!)

Done.

• The node, pronotum, epinotum and thorax are longer than broad, and the mesonotum is just as long. I assume we need to know what it is that the mesonotum is as long as. (I assume as long as it is wide, but it's not clear, sorry).

Bingo! I checked the source and you were correct.

• There is a retractable stinger with the furculae (attachment sites for the muscles which help protrude the stinger) present at the back of the abdomen As the attachment muscle have to be present, isn't it acceptable just to say: A retractable stinger is present at the rear of the abdomen (I'd avoid 'back' because this could suggest the upper surface of the abdomen, rather than its end, and I doubt that is where it's located.

Reworded.

• A sting bulb gland is present in Nothomyrmecia; an exocrine gland, the functionality of this gland is unknown. Reword to: A sting bulb gland is present in Nothomyrmecia; this is an exocrine gland with unknown function. (but see next comment)

Used this suggestion.

• The location of the gland is between the Dufour's gland and the ducts of venom.[34] I think the use of the phrase 'ducts of venom' has come about because of a slight misinterpretation of the phraseology used in the abstract and in Fig 1 in Billen's 1990 paper in which he describes and names this new organ for the first time. Looking at the paper, it seems clear it should read as follows that this and the previous sentence should be worded. Try: A 'sting bulb gland' is present in Nothomyrmecia; this is a small exocrine gland of unknown function, first discovered and named in 1990. It is situated in the basal part of the insect's sting, and is located between the two ducts of the venom gland and the Dufour gland

Used this also, though "Dufour gland" will stay as "Dufour's gland" (that is how everyone words it).

• They have a jugal anal lobe (a portion of the hindwing), a feature found in many primitive ants, and a basal hamuli (a hook-like projection that links the forewings and hindwings). Now, I can't get full access to the reference you cite, so I can't tell whether this species has a single hamulus linking the fore and hindwings, or a number of hamuli. However, I'm confident it should either read as ...and a basal hamulus or as ...and basal hamuli - simply to avoid mixing singular and plural together.

The reference doesn't go into detail as to how many hamuli there are, but simply says "a series of hamuli" (which implies there are multiple).

OK, so they're plural. No need for 'a' before basal hamuli then, I'd suggest.

• In both the queen and worker caste, males are also known to have a ventral stridulatory organ. This doesn't quite make sense (both=two things, not three). Not only that, I think you've missed the key point of the reference - that no other Hymenopteran is known to have such an organ on the ventral side. I suggest: Adults have a stridulatory organ on the ventral side of the abdomen – unlike all other Hymenopterans in which such organs are located dorsally.

Changed.

• In all castes, these ants have six maxillary palpae (palps that serve as organs of touch and taste in feeding) and four labial palpae ... I've never ever heard the term 'palpae' being used, nor can I find it in a quick online search. Are you sure this is correct? I have only ever encountered 'palp' or 'palps' to refer to insect mouthparts. It's very unfortunate that a wikilink from palp redirects to a page exclusively on arthropod pedipalps. There's some work that needs doing over there, I feel. Can you confirm all the other factual statements in this paragraph are supported by the full citation given? I can only view the Abstract online, and this limited text does not support the rest of the paragraph.

This is what the text says: "Adult Nothomyrmecia and Myrmecia share other significant primitive features including a formula of six maxillary and four labial palpae in all sexes; 12 antennal segments in female castes and 13 in males; paired calcariae on the middle and hind tibiae; tarsal claws each having a strong median tooth; and a sting whose complete structure includes a furcula and two-jointed gonostyli, as in other primitive ants. The proventriculus of workers is actively dammed, with the cuticular structure relatively unspecialized, that of Nothomyrmecia being similar to Pseudomyrmex (Pseudomyrmecinae). Most of these features are present in various other primitive ants of subfamilies Ponerinae and Pseudomyrmecinae." I assume palpae is another plural form for palp (as palpi is plural too)? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• In general, the body structure of all Nothomyrmecia castes exhibits the primitive nature of the species. I think 'demonstrates' or 'reflects' would be a more suitable word than 'exhibits'

Done.

• The eggs of Nothomyrmecia are similar to that of Myrmecia, appearing as non-adhesive and subspherical. How about: The eggs of Nothomyrmecia are similar to those of Myrmecia, being subspherical and non-adhesive. (note: that-> those)

Changed.

• The morphology of the abdomen, mandibles, gonoforceps (an area apart of the external male genitalia) and the basal hamuli show it is more primitive than Myrmecia. the bracketed element does not makes sense and needs rewording.

Did some rewording, not sure if it's better though.

That's the end of the Description section for the moment. I'll see what else I can work on in the next day or two for you. Skimming forward, I am beginning to feel quite some unease that there are simply too many unnecessary technical terms being employed in this article. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, not impress. So I am going to challenge you on the over-use of terms such as Trophallaxis, pleometrotic, alates, brachypterous, trophic eggs etc. Unless a reader has hovercards enabled, or is a very well-informed naturalist, they simply won't stand a chance. I could excuse technical morphological terms in the 'Description' section, but less so in Behaviour and ecology, and there are clearly very easy ways round this - they're absolutely not essential to the understanding of the article, and serve to undermine its content. It is sometimes good to inform readers what the correct technical term for some process is, but the best way is to use a plain english explanation and follow it, if you really, really must, with the technical term in brackets (didacticism). You have already put explanations for some terms in the text, which is great. But I think others should go completely - alates, for example. Just call 'em winged adults! Parkywiki (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Did some additional edits by simplifying the terms. I think brachyptery would be too much pain to remove since it's quite commonly used throughout the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm - I think you've just made my point for me. In fact it is used 8 times, and well-explained on first useage - which you've clearly tried to do with other terms throughout, which is great. But in my view a Featured Article should not be overly complex (see WP:NOTJOURNAL, so do consider removing unnecessary technical terms whenever possible. Thanks for incorporating many of the other suggestions - glad this is helping. You are right, it's Dufour's, not Dufour - my error there. Do stick with 'palps' - it's by far the most well-known and understood plural form of 'palp', even if 'palpae' is used in this particular reference. Well done on incorporating these suggestions so promptly - more to follow in the days ahead. Parkywiki (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Distribution and Habitat - comments from Parkywiki

• Nothomyrmecia is present in the cool regions of South Australia and possibly Western Australia in mallee woodland and old-growth areas populated with various Eucalyptus species, including Eucalyptus brachycalyx, Eucalyptus gracilis and Eucalyptus oleosa. I sense ambiguity here which could be removed with some mild sentence re-ordering. Would this be more factually correct and unambiguous?: Nothomyrmecia is present in the cool regions of South Australia within mallee woodland and especially 'old-growth' areas populated with various Eucalyptus species, including Eucalyptus brachycalyx, E. gracilis and E. oleosa. It is possible that it occurs in Western Australia, too. In fact, the first ever description of the species was from a specimen collected from western Australia in 1931. However, doubt has since been cast over the accuracy of the labelling of that original specimen, and subsequent surveys have failed to re-find it.

Done, excellent suggestion.

• It is unknown how widespread Nothomyrmecia is, although the ant may be more abundant if it is heavily associated with mallee woodland. I think there may be some misinterpretation of points made in the citation from environment.gov.au. Firstly, 'abundant' definitely does not mean the same thing as 'widespread', and that online reference does not use the word abundant at all. The reference is stating that the species may be more widespread than known records suggest if it's association with mallee vegetation, and especialy mature areas of trees. (It's important to appreciate that many species can be widespread but extremely rare, whilst others can be less widespread but much more abundant - two very different things.) How about something like this?: The full distribution of Nothomyrmecia has never been assessed, and it is unknown how widespread it really is. If it does favour 'old growth' mallee woodland, it could have the potential for a wider range than is currently known from surveys and museum specimens.'

Done. '

• Recently, however, Nothomyrmecia colonies were located ... when?

1998, added in.

• Nothomyrmecia colonies have been recorded at elevations of 85 metres (279 ft). I think another reviewer commented on this. Clearly, altitude range has not been given in any other of your references, so I'd recommend you omit sentence entirely. If you feel that a single spot height genuinely does add value, you could say ...at elevations of around 85m ..., but I wouldn't.

Removed.

• Nest holes are difficult to identify, as they are only 4–6 mm (0.16–0.24 in) wide holes under shallow leaf litter with no mounds or deposited soil present, though guards are regularly seen. Try this alternative wording: Nest entrance holes are difficult to detect as they are only 4–6 mm (0.16–0.24 in) in width, and are located under shallow leaf litter with no mounds or soil deposits present, although guards are regularly seen. Note the deletion of the first comma. It's not clear where the guards are regularly seen, but I think we can pass by that one.

Done.

• Nest galleries are 4–5 mm (0.16–0.20 in) in diameter that descends deep into the ground; these galleries form into subelliptical and horizontal chambers 3–5 mm (0.12–0.20 in) wide. I can't believe this is right. How can galleries 3 to 4mm in width then 'form' into chambers that are actually smaller than the galleries? - this seems patent nonsense, and I suggest could be yet another misinterpretation of source material - or perhaps a simple typo for centimetres?. Please check and confirm. Beware mixing singular and plural forms together: Nest galleries descend; a single nest gallery descends.

No where near from nonsense Perhaps it was nonsense, but I have done some major changes. Better?

• These chambers are typically 18 to 43 centimetres (7.1 to 16.9 in) below the earth's surface. don't you mean soil's surface? What other planet could it be?

Changed.

Behaviour and ecology will have to wait for another day - but at a cursory glance I think the first paragraph of that section is in the wrong place, again being full of trivial detail and some clumsy phrasing. Move it to the end, or get rid of all but the really useful stuff. Parkywiki (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed most detail except for waste material being disposed of far away from the nest. This sentence was moved to the end of the second paragraph, I couldn't think of a better place. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour & ecology - comments by Parkywiki
Subsection: Foraging, diet and predators

• Workers are nectarivores and can be found foraging on top of Eucalyptus trees, where they search for food and prey. This sentence is does not quite make sense to me. How can the term nectarivore be justified if it is stated that the workers search for both nectar and other insects prey? Saying they are nectarivores should mean this is their main source of food, but obviously it is not. However, if the hunting is solely for the purposes of taking back to feed to the larvae, then this should be more clearly stated in this initial sentence.

Done.

• Prey items are usually 4 millimetres (0.2 in) or less,... The reference (only the abstract is available to me) actually states that prey are usually less than 4mm in size, so I recommmend correcting this statement to Prey items are usually less than 4 millimetres (0.2 in) in size,....

Done.

• ..and workers grab them [i.e.prey] using their mandibles and forelongs, what on earth are 'forelongs'? It sound like a made-up term, and none of the online references mention it, nor can it be found on Google. There is only one urban dictionary slang term: Forelong="A guys who has a big forehead but is actually very stupid and has a small brain inside." surely not?

Removed.

• Workers also feed on sweet substances such as honey coated on trees and... Please clarify. Honey coated on trees sounds like something scientists might do to attract/study them - it doesn't sound like a primary food source.

Removed instance.

• Despite being nectarivores, workers are known to drink hemolymph from the insects they capture... See above.

What can be clarified here though? I did some tweaks and moved it next to the first sentence.

• Captured prey items are given to larvae, which are carnivorous. - ah, so if all the prey is genuinely given to the larvae, and not eaten by the workers, then you should move sentence to become the second one in this section.

Done.

• Workers lay unfertilised eggs used to feed the larvae,.. For the first time I could suggest actually insert a new technical term. You could say Workers are able to lay unfertilised eggs specifically to feed the larvae; these are known as trophic eggs.

Done.

• Among adults, the winged adults and larvae, the workers exude anal droplets to their nestmates, as an act of food transfer. needs rewording.

Done.

• Workers are strictly nocturnal ants only active during cold nights; they do not emerge from their nests during the day. is 'ants' a typo? It would be better to say: Workers are strictly nocturnal, and only emerge from their nests on cold nights

Done.

• The ability to withstand such cold temperatures suggests that Nothomyrmecia encounters very few competitors, including dominant diurnal ants that are sometimes found foraging during warm nights.[44] not supported by ref The online abstract of Hölldobler & Tylers paper does not support this statement, or even allude to it - maybe the full article does? At risk of inserting 'original research' - and you will need to check for this - I would suggest the following wording makes more sense: The ability to withstand such cold temperatures suggests that Nothomyrmecia has adapted to reduce its exposure to competitors, including other more dominant diurnal ant species that are sometimes found foraging during warm nights.

I have done some major changes.

• There is no evidence that they use chemicals to communicate; instead, workers rely on visual cues to navigate around. factually incorrect The abstract of Holldobler & Taylors reference clearly states the following: "Nothomyrmecia employs chemical alarm communication when other ant species attempt to enter its nests" Now, if you mean that Nothomyrmecia does not use a chemical trail to navigate back to its nest, then you need to check and explicitly state this.

Done, I think. I am sensing that this FAC contained a lot of well-read references, but insufficient judgement or careful use of english to communicate the concepts in an effective, unambiguous way - which is absolutely essential for a Featured Article. But we do seem to be slowly getting there! More to follow later. Parkywiki (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure after your review, these problems will be dealt with, so we'll get there eventually. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Subsection: Life-cycle and reproduction

• Nuptial flight does not occur in Nothomyrmecia. Instead, they engage in long-range dispersal which... what does long-range dispersal mean? I'm guessing this means they walk away from the colony for some distance - perhaps this should be stated.

Done.

• These winged adults born around January, are usually young when they begin to mate. punctuation

Done?

• Queens are seen around vegetation trying to flutter their wings, a behaviour seen in some brachypterous Myrmecia queens suggest their vestigial wings

Done.

• ...and attract fully winged males Suggest:fully-winged

Done.

• However, a colony with two queens reduces to a single queen when the nest is mature, forming colonies that are monogynous Might I suggest: ..., forming colonies that are termed monogynous.

Done.

• Queens are semi-claustral and can be seen among workers searching for food, meaning that during the founding of the new colony, the queen has to forage so that she has sufficient food to raise her brood re-order sentence to explain jargon How about: Queens are semi-claustral, meaning that during the initial establishment of the new colony the queen will forage among the worker ants so that she can ensure sufficient food to raise her brood.

Done.

• Eggs are not seen in nests from April to September, and foraging activity greatly reduces and nests are sealed to avoid overwintering. Clarify I don't understand this - it doesn't seem to make sense to me and I can't draw any conclusion from what it is trying to communicate. Where are the ants? - sealed inside the nest, or have they sealed the nest with them on the outside? If the latter, why has foraging greatly reduces, and what are they feeding on?

I have decided to remove most of the sentence, didn't seem to relate with the following sentences after. Did some additional changes.

• Workers may be capable of laying reproductive eggs, although it is not known if these eggs give rise to males and fertile females. Check source The source (p164) actually states "whether worker-laid eggs give rise to males, or females, or both, is not known" Perhaps this suggestion would be more precise: Workers are capable of laying reproductive eggs, although it is not known if these develop into males, females or both. It avoids the unnecessary ambiguity of the word 'may' as well as any reference to the females being fertile, which isn't stated in the citation.

Done.

• It is also unknown whether workers are gamergates, but some nests possibly have inseminated workers that act as supplementary reproductives. Jargon

Not sure if my edits have made a difference, but please double check.

• Nothomyrmecia can recognise brood of their own by licking larvae, which also enables them to identify an alien conspecific that is transferring its colony odour to the larvae Jargon - clarification needed.

Likewise with many unnecessary statements, I have removed this.

• I have read the final paragraph of this section (beginning Brachyptery in Nothomyrmecia might relate...) several times. I still fail to grasp what is being communicated, despite the fine words. Maybe it's me. However, let me try an alternative, and you can tell me if I've got it all wrong, and then hopefully provide an even clearer version: The feature of non-functional, vestigial wings (brachyptery) may have evolved in this species relatively recently, as wings might otherwise have long-since disappeared completely had they no function for dispersal. Wing-reduction could somehow relate to population structure or some other specialised ecological pressure. Equally, wing-reduction might be a feature that only forms in drought-stressed colonies, as has been observed in several Monomorium species found throughout semiarid regions of Australia. As yet, there is insufficient evidence to confirm any of these scenarios. Don't be afraid to leave stuff out if you don't think it adds anything to an article. My preference would be for: As yet, scientists do not fully understand how the feature of non-functional, vestigial wings arose in this species.

Changed.

Conservation section coming up next Parkywiki (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so far for such an excellent and thorough review. I will try and respond to your comments shortly, just have a few things to do. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries - I've enjoyed it, though I suspect you might feel I am being over-critical. Here's the next bit. Conservation

This review has not been as difficult as I thought it'd be. It's a lot longer than my first FA, but nonetheless comprehensive and helpful. Being over-critical tends to make a FA candidate reach its quality a lot quicker though! Burklemore1 (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• However, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee states... Add Wikilink to Threatened Species Scientific Committee and make a stronger link between the first and second sentences of this paragraph. Try this: ..Conservation Act 1999. This is because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that populations are declining. Colonies are also naturally depauperate (lacking in numbers of ants), and their distribution is potentially quite extensive across southern Australia, due to the ants' habitat preference for living in old growth mallee woodland. With 18 sites known for this species, and the potential for many more being discovered, there seems little immediate possibility of extinction.

Done.

• The cold winds blowing off the Southern Ocean allows Nothomyrmecia to experience cool temperatures, so an increase in sea temperature would also threaten these ants need to match up singular-plural

Done, I think?

• Conservationalists suggest that fighting climate change, conducting surveys, and maintaining known populations through habitat protection may ensure the survival of Nothomyrmecia. Correct Conservationalists->Conservationists I also suggest that inverting the order of actions from the specific (range surveys), thru' habitat protection to wider climate change would sound more logical.

Done and done.

• They also suggest that its remaining habitat... This a bit tame. What we normally do is "advocate" or "recommend action", rather than simply "suggest", and this is what your refs seem to show. How about this?: They also advocate protection of remaining mallee habitat from degradation, and for management actions to improve tree and understorey structure. Because most known populations are found outside protected areas in vegetation alongside roads, a species management plan is required to identify other key actions, including making local councils aware of the presence and conservation status of Nothomyrmecia. This could result in future land use and management being decided more appropriately at the local level. Some colonies have been found on private property, where in one case the owner intends to conserve them. Not all colonies are found in unprotected areas; some have been discovered in the Lake Gilles Conservation Park and the Chadinga Conservation Reserve. More research is needed to know the true extent of the ant's geographical distribution.[26]

Done.

• In the Ceduna area. . . I'm not familar with the geography, but references seemed to be more specific in mentioning Poochera, than the wider area of Ceduna. (As a complete aside, I note the Poochera article could do with some correct information on number of areas the ant is found in, plus some citations to support it).

Upon reading the source, it does mention populations being destroyed in the Ceduna area.

• Do consider moving the section on ant-based tourism out of Taxonomy, where it clearly doesn't belong, and moving it to this section. In fact, eco-tourism would benefit from some further expansion, with sources such as this.It might even be worthy of an 'eco-toursm sub-section if there are enough reliable sources. I don't think you mention this in the Lead, and I feel this is very worthy of inclusion there, too.

How about a structure like this:

• Relationship with humans
  • Conservation
  • Significance

In the "The IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book" source, it goes into some detail about its scientific interest due to its status as the most primitive ant, can be cultured easily and could become a useful insect in experiments. Mainly for studies learning about insects and the physiology of nocturnal vision. Entomologists from all over Australia and around the world, namely North America and Europe, also arrive to Poochera for study, as they have done previously. In addition, the source you provided is considered reliable owing to the status of the author, who has published many peer review studies. The expansion of eco-tourism could be very beneficial. Perhaps this could make a nice new subsection? What do you think? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I will gird up my loins to face the Taxonomy section as soon as I can. Meanwhile do give consideration to my earlier recommendation to move Taxonomy lower down the article structure - it's so heavy and detailed that it's really off-putting, and should in my view be at least beneath 'Description'.Parkywiki (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved the taxonomy section below. Look any better? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• The first collection of Nothomyrmecia was made by Amy Crocker[a] in December 1931, who collected two workers, which became the syntypes, reportedly near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia May I suggest a small rewording of this sentence? It might avoid the momentary confusion I had when I took 'worker' to mean co-workers of Amy Crocker! It also orders the story better, I feel: The first collection of Nothomyrmecia was made in December 1931 by Amy Crocker[a] who collected specimens of two worker ants, reportedly near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia. Recognised shortly afterwards as a new species, these specimens became the syntypes. The discovery of Nothomyrmecia and the appearance of its unique body structure led scientists in 1951 to initiate a series of searches to find the ant in Western Australia. Over three decades, teams of Australian and American collectors failed to re-find it. Then, in 1977, Taylor and his party of entomologists from Canberra found a solitary worker ant at Poochera, southeast of Ceduna, some 1,300 kilometres (810 mi) from the reported site of the 1931 discovery.

Done.

• Currently, Poochera, where there are ant pictures stenciled on the streets, is probably the only town in the world with ant-based tourism. As previously suggested, move this to the conservation section.

Will get onto this after you discuss a proposal I have made in relation to this sentence.

Moved. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Having suggested a sub-section for 'Discover', we now need a second sub-section for the next bit. How about simply 'Naming'?

Done.

• John S. Clark described Nothomyrmecia in 1934 as a new genus of Myrmeciinae.[2] He did so because the two syntypes bore no resemblance to any ants he knew of, although they shared similar morphological characteristics with the extinct genus Prionomyrmex. Minor tweak How about: In 1934 John S. Clark published a formal description of Nothomyrmecia as a completely new genus of the Myrmeciinae.[2] He did so because the two specimens (which then became the syntypes) bore no resemblance to any ant species he knew of, although they did share similar morphological characteristics with the extinct genus Prionomyrmex. I've tried to avoid implying that he looked at the syntypes and then decided they must be new species (because until the specimens were formally described as a sp.nov. they couldn't be syntypes!)

Done.

• Its distant relationship with extent ants was confirmed after its rediscovery, and its placement within the Formicidae was accepted by most scientists until 2000. typo change 'extent' to 'extant' (unless it should have been 'extinct'? - please check source).

This was suggested by the reviewer above (while I didn't think twice and added it in). What I mean is extant.

• The single waist node led scientists to believe that Nothomyrmecia should be separate from Myrmecia and retain Clark's original proposal. retained - not retain. (In other words, at some time in the past a load of experts decided they wanted to keep the species separate from Myrmecia from that point onwards, and so, at that time, they 'retained' the original Clark proposal. If that's what you meant, then it should definitely be 'retained' in the past tense.)

Done.

• After examining specimens of Nothomyrmecia, Baroni Urbani stated that his new species and N. macrops belonged to the same genus, and the name Prionomyrmex would replace the name Nothomyrmecia and the subfamily Nothomyrmeciinae must be called Prionomyrmeciinae. suggest change to: After examining specimens of Nothomyrmecia, Baroni Urbani stated that his new species and N. macrops were so morphologically similar that they belonged to the same genus. He proposed that the name Prionomyrmex should replace the name Nothomyrmecia (which would then be just a synonym), and also that the subfamily Nothomyrmeciinae should be called Prionomyrmeciinae. (I suggest deleting the sentence beginning: Baroni Urbani further states that Prionomyrmex is a paraphyletic relative... as it overcomplicates.)

Done.

Genetics and phylogeny

• I couldn't find anything in this section that sounded incorrect, though I didn't understand a word of it and had possibly begun to lose the will to live. Oh, except that you need to explain what the diploid number 2n means, and I question whether Nothomyrmecia ants have dot-like acrocentric chromosomes, but metacentric chromosomes are sometimes present has strayed into WP:NOTJOURNAL. You decide if it's really relevant here.

I guess ants are that deadly then. I have removed the sentence you questioned and tried to explain what 2n means.

Various

• Caption: Two queens showing their brachypterous wings, as well as a worker and several cocoons I know it is frowned upon to have more than one identical wikilink in an article, but does this include usage within captions? My own view is that an image is often looked at separately from the article, so technical terms should be linked there too. Others more experienced in FA reviews should be able to advise, as this is the first I've got involved with. I see no reason why the caption shouldn't actually remove the jargon and state: Two queens showing their vestigial wings, as well as a wingless worker and several cocoons.

Done.

• Caption: Closeup view of the head state which caste - it looks like a worker.

Done.

• Caption: N. macrops male specimen suggest changing to N. macrops, winged male

Done.

• None of the images have alt text, and this is needed for FA.

Done, please check.

• The ant is monomorphic, showing little morphological differentation between castes. fix typo

Fixed.

• References: None of the links to your key reference 3 (Tyler 1978) gave access to a full article - just an abstract. You might wish to add this link

Done.

• I've not checked your other references, but I've now found a second complete online paper (I wish I'd found them before I started). See Urbani paper

Done.

• The Peer Review tools did flag up auto-suggestions that you needed to check for &nbsp between numbers and units, so you might wish to check for this. Equally, check you have used standard abbreviations for unit conversion - this was also auto-flagged up.

Done both suggestions, everything should be clear now.

That's the end of my technical and grammatical concerns. Perhaps you'd ping me and Josh Milburn when you've considered/acted on all these points. Before doing so, I suggest you printout out and do one final check for any remaining technical trivia you can delate, or any typos. I think it would then be worth us having another read through, as it has been a bit of a monumental task navigating through and unraveling the very complex phraseology and technicalities you have used.Parkywiki (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Parkywiki: I'm almost done with everything here, but I want to see what you think of a proposal I have come up with in relation to eco-tourism. I have found additional information that could form a nice subsection (see above). Burklemore1 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Well done for incorporating/responding so quickly. (Don't forget the alt-text captions for the images, or moving that second sentence in the lead a bit lower down)I think your idea is a good one to have a final section on 'Relationship with humans'. 'Conservation' and 'Significance' seem two good sub-sections. It may be that, on final reading, a different sub-title might fit better - but we can assess that when you've fleshed out the eco-tourism/climate change indicator/contribution to evolutionary research and all-round-brilliant-pet angle. I've just spotted this signpost at Poochera which states how painful the ant sting is to humans and how only 3 people have been stung, but that it causes a lot of swelling. Find some better sources than this badly-laid out notice and you have further info to add. It's nice to have a very scientific article on a species that concludes with a section on its significance to humans - and vice versa. (Must get back to finalising my own FA nomination to submit, now!)Parkywiki (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Alt-text' I'm afraid you will need to use much simpler and shorter descriptions than those you've inserted. Do see WP:ALT for advice, remembering they are intended to be machine readable for people with visual impairment.

• Head of worker dinosaur ant with large eyes and long mandibles
• Male dinosaur ant with long, functional wings
• Side view of worker dinosaur ant etc,etc. Parkywiki (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Used these suggestions, will be doing further fixes and tweaks. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also moved and did some reorganisation. More to follow up. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Parkywiki: I apologise for pinging you again in such a short time, especially since you are preparing your FAC. I have finalized everything here: I have attempted to address all of your issues. I assume you have more comments if you are doing a second read. I have done some edits to the alt text by simplifying them or I just wrote shorter sentences. The significance subsection has been created, and I have now added some info there. This includes its scientific interest, potential role in studies, and tourism (which is now mentioned in the lede). Unfortunately, I could not find some of the material you have mentioned, though I have added in a brief sentence about its pain as mentioned in Taylor (1977). Any suggestion/change to the new subsection name and/or content is most welcome. Also, I have been re-reading some sources and must discuss this: In regards to the "aphids" and "Hemiptera" concern, I noticed that the sources only state "Hemiptera". Here is one source as an example. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK - you'll have seen I have taken the liberty of making some direct edits to the page - all in good faith and in the same vein as my previous comments. I felt this was probably quicker than trying to explain them all here. I'll keep any edits in discrete paragraphs so you can see and check any changes, and revert if necessary. I use the top of my Sandbox page to collate comments before placing them here, so you could always get a sneak peak of my thoughts. Be aware, though, that I may make a statement there that I subsequently feel are invalid, and wouldn't place here. Parkywiki (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So far all of your edits are fine, I see no reason to revert them. I think at this point of time the article is looking excellent, I doubt you may find a lot of issues now. I'll just leave this for now until you have more comments to post here, and then I'll address them as usual. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Second pass - comments by Parkywiki I finally think I understand the article enough to go through it a second time and highlight outstanding issues.
Lead section

• The lead should reflect and summarise the main content. There are some key facts missing: Possibly not quite enough emphasis on its very restricted range, or dependancy on cold conditions for foraging. No mention of ant eco-tourism at Poochera.

Done.

• Due to the species' restricted distribution and potential threats to its survival, such as habitat destruction and climate change, which would reduce the geographical range of Nothomyrmecia as they only thrive in cold regions, the IUCN lists the ant as Critically Endangered. simplify - split and reword this sentence into at least two clear sentences.

Done.

• I have taken the liberty of reordering the sentences in para 2 to give greater logical flow - it was easier than trying to explain!
• They rely on their vision to navigate and there is no evidence to suggest that the species use chemicals to communicate. check this - my recollection from the references was that there is no evidence that they lay a chemical trail for navigation, but that they do use a chemical alarm signal to communicate. You will need to be be clear on this.

Done.

• regarding Hemiptera: The reference may use the term Hemipterans, but clearly it's not the entire Order. You could say ..honeydew on scale-insects and other Hemiptera. (actually it will be the Homptera, but let's not worry about that. See page 25 of this ref for a photo of scale-insects being tended.

Done, also did the same with latter instance.

• Probably worth dping a duplicate link check. I note that caste has been wikilinked more than once. Personally I like this, but it goes against FA protocols, I believe

I know someone who can stamp out any possible duplicated links. I'll leave them a message shortly. BTW, terms linked in the lead can be linked again in the body.

Description

• This is very technical, but it all makes sense, and complex terms are explained. I'm quite happy with this section now.

Taxonomy - Discovery

• This section could make mention of the completely 'chance discovery' of the species. An interesting account of its discovery here, plus a mention by none other than Bill Bryson here
• I don't like the words possible abundance in connection with a species' absence - it's counter-intuitive. Suggest changing to possible presence (or something similar).

Done.

• Move picture to right side as it's causing an indent in the 'Naming' header on my screen, and at various magnifications.

Done.

Taxonomy - Naming

• In 1944, British myrmecologist Horace Donisthorpe moved Nothomyrmecia to the subfamily Ponerinae, suggesting that all bulldog ants are Ponerine.[16] I query this interpretation The Donisthorpe paper you cite is merely a correction of errors that had been highlighted, in which confirms (because of his earlier error) that the correct sub-family to put N. macrops into is Ponerinae, and not Myrmecinae. You are wrong to state that Dinosthorpe 'suggested' that all Bullldog ants are Ponerine - he makes it abundantly clear that 'everyone knows this'. As you've not discussed bullldog ants at all up to this point, I'd urge you to delete the second half of this sentence entirely, as it adds seemingly pointless and flawed statements to the article, for no benefit. Remember it's WP:NOTJOURNAL.

Removed second half of sentence.

• ref error: in The Creaceous biocenotic crisis and the evolution of insects -> correct to Cretaceous

Corrected.

• The rest of this section now seems fine, if a little hard-going for us mere mortals.

Taxonomy - Genetics and phylogeny

• Nothomyrmecia and a Ponerinae ant, Platythyrea tricuspidata, share the highest number of chromosomes within Hymenoptera, with a diploid chromosome number 92–94. Studies show that all Hymenopteran insects with a 2n (as in two copies of each chromosome) above 52 are ants. I'm not quite sure what the significance or, indeed, reason for having this fact here is. Irrespective of that, if you feel it's important to keep in, I suggest rewording to: Studies show that all Hymenopteran insects that have a diploid (2n) chromosome count above 52 are themselves all ants; Nothomyrmecia and another Ponerinae ant, Platythyrea tricuspidata, share the highest number of chromosomes within all the Hymenoptera, having a diploid chromosome number of 92–94.

There have been many studies revolving around the chromosomes in members of the Myrmeciinae, I consider it important. (fun fact: it's relative Myrmecia pilosula only has a single chromosome).

• There are two hypotheses of the internal phylogeny of Nothomyrmecia: Could you make it clearer in the sentences that then follow which is one hypothesis, and which is the other, please? It could be that all you need do is simply need to change 'However...' for 'Alternatively...'

Done.

Distribution and habitat

• Nothomyrmecia is present in the cool regions of South Australia within mallee woodland and especially 'old-growth' areas populated with various Eucalyptus species, including Eucalyptus brachycalyx, E. gracilis and E. oleosa. citation needed?

Added.

• This gallery descends steeply into the ground towards a subelliptical and horizontal chamber that is 3–5 mm (0.12–0.20 in) in diameter and 5–10 mm (0.20–0.39 in) in height. This is still wrong! I checked the ref and my initial thought that you'd got the units wrong was confirmed. Page 983 states 3-5 centimetres, and height 5 to 10 millimetres. - please change this accordongly.

Oops, I see what you mean now. Changed.

• Behaviour and ecology - Foraging, diet and predators
• Workers transfer food to other nestmates, including winged adults and larvae, by exuding anal droplets from the anus - I believe you may have misinterpreted the page 984 quote about trophallaxis. My take is that the first half of your sentence is correct, in that food or fluids may be transferred between adults. However, Taylor states "Occasional trophallaxis has been seen between workers, and with sexuals or larvae, which exude anal droplets imbibed by workers." Isn't this implying that food/fluid transfer does occur between castes, but that anal droplets are exuded by the larvae, and taken up by the workers? Do please check this and see what you think.

Done. Life cycle and reproduction

• Nothomyrmecia is a polyandrous ant, in which queens mate with one or more males (an average of around 1.37) in a single mating season. I'm not sure that the queen:male ration is helpful here - it serves to confuse the reader by interrupting sentence flow. Is it needed? Alternatively expand it along the lines of: in one study of (18?) colonies, it was found that queens mated with an average of 1.37 males.

Done, and it is 32 colonies.

• Workers are capable of laying reproductive eggs, although it is not known if these develop into males, females or both.[51] This is further suggested by scientists, stating that workers could be inseminated by males and act as supplementary reproductives, as observed colonies showed high levels of genetic diversity.[44] maybe 2nd sentence could be restructured to: ...females or both. This uncertainty results from the suggestion that, because some colonies have been shown to have high levels of genetic diversity, worker ants could be inseminated by males and act as supplementary reproductives.

Done.

• The larvae are capable of crawling around the nest, swelling up dramatically and later buried in the ground to spin their cocoons I'm not happy with the ambiguity in this sentence. What causes them to swell up dramatically? Is it an alarm response, or is it just a weird way of saying that they grow very big? Who does the burying? Themselves? Or worker ants?

They swell up because they are ready to spin their cocoons. Workers bury them which allows cocoon formation, so hopefully my edits have solved this.

Final comments on this section to follow shortly Parkywiki (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Relationship with humans - Conservation

• After its rediscovery, the International Union for Conservation of Nature listed Nothomyrmecia as Critically Endangered in 1996, stating that only a few small colonies were known,[1] and it is a protected species under the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950.[38] I suggest splitting these into two sentences, putting them into proper chronological sequence.

Done.

• ...extensive across southern Australia, due to ... Should this be Southern Australia - the state, or just referring to the south of Autralia? I suspect the former.

The source itself says "southern Australia".

Relationship with humans - Significance

• The status of Nothomyrmecia being the most primitive living ant has caused scientific interest among the entomological community. most primitive Checking back, the article doesn't actually state that this is the most primitive ant, despite the CSIRO and IUCN references calling it just that. You should consider stressing that more within the lead, and ensuring it is properly cited.

Done, added sources to sentence.

• Because it can be cultured with ease, it could become useful in experiments and studies. citation needed

Done.

• This is evident for those studying insects or the physiology of nocturnal vision reword and/or cite - do check back to the source ref which actually states 'learning in insects' - and I don't think anything is 'evident' at all - it needs to be slightly tweaked to make it flow and make sense.

It's quite hard to not closely paraphrase the text, I'll see what I can do.

Done, I think.

• In addition, many scientists from the United States, Europe and throughout Australia have previously visited Nothomyrmecia to study its behaviour. clumsy On a relative scale, I expect very few 'scientists' have visited this ant colony. And why 'previously visited Nothomyrmecia?' In fact, I don't feel this statement is supported by the reference. , which states: "An intensive and continuous programme of studies on Nothomyrmecia is in progress, involving Australian, American and European ant specialists". Maybe they all cultured the specimens in their own countries? And can one visit a species?

Done, better? Considering this reference is over 30 years old, I don't think there would be some ongoing programme of studies. Did some tweaks.

• After Nothomyrmecia was rediscovered, the town of Poochera became an international interest to myrmecologists, perhaps being the only town in the world with ant-based tourism. suggest: After Nothomyrmecia was rediscovered at Poochera, the town became of international interest to myrmecologists, and is perhaps the only town in the world with ant-based tourism.

Done.

• Looking at the references in general, many of them are missing required information like publisher or date or date accessed (for web refs), and I am still finding some online which you haven't linked to in the reference, like this . (I've had a similar issue with my own FAC work, and need to check each one, line by line for all relevant fields before I submit it. I suggest you consider doing the same)

Well, that's probably all from me. Let me know when you've dealt with these. Regards Parkywiki (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

All site and news sources have access dates. Books and journals don't need publishers or access dates (if they are linked). Burklemore1 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Final comments from Parkywiki

• I'm not quite satisified with the wording of this final section, so have done a bit of reworking, and would like to suggest you consider using the following which I think rounds off the article more effectively: Nothomyrmecia macrops is widely regarded as the most primitive living ant and, as such, has aroused considerable interest among the entomological community [57]. Following its rediscovery it was the subject of a prolonged and rigorous series of studies involving Australian, American and European ant specialists and it soon became one of the most studied ant species on the planet. <ref name="Schultz_2000"/> Nothomyrmecia can be cultured with ease, and could potentially prove a useful subject for research into learning in insects as well as the physiology of nocturnal vision.[14][57] Since its chance discovery at Poochera, the town has became of international interest to myrmecologists, and it is possibly the only town in the world with ant-based tourism. Promoting it as a tourist attraction, Nothomyrmecia has been adopted as the emblem of the Poochera community.[61] Pictures of the ant have been stencilled onto the pavements, and a large sculpture of Nothomyrmecia has been erected in the town.[58][59][60]

Done.

• In humans, the sting has been described as "prominent and effective" with moderate pain. -I'm afraid this is a misinterpretation of the source. The wording here suggests that the sting is prominent and effective in humans, which doesn't make sense, and isn't the case. So I've edited it out from here and more correctly inserted it into the description section - I trust you're agreeable to this.

So I see, looks better! Thank you.

• External Link: Finally, you might like to consider inserting either this YouTube video of the ant from the Arkive website, or this overview page and video from the same well-respected website.

Done.

I think if you incorporate these last few bits of feedback we will definitely have got this article up to a really good standard, and certainly much more comprehensible than it was a few weeks ago. You've clearly put a lot of work into it - as I have now (!) - and I thank you for taking on board all my criticisms in such good spirit. I've enjoyed it. Moving forward, the one thing I might suggest for future ant articles and nominations that you work on is that you take just a few more moments to look critically at the statements you extract and reword from sources. Perhaps just being a bit more self-critical and considering carefully the readability and the implications of the way you word things - especially the really technical, jargony stuff which you clearly enjoy, but which isn't always necessary - will ensure you produce more great nominations in the future.

Although I have to admit to no previous experience of contributing feedback to FA reviews, I think with all that we've now done, plus you acting on the last three comments above, I can:
strongly support this article for Featured Article status.
It is:
well-written Yes
comprehensive Yes
well-researched Yes
neutral Yes
stable Yes
follows style guidelines concise lead/hierarchical section headings/consistent citations/acceptable images and alt-text. Yes
length Yes - we've backed it away from being WP:NOTJOURNAL, got rid of some more jargon, and all technical terms now have wikilinks and/or are briefly explained.

It would, of course, be appropriate to invite @J Milburn: and @Jonkerz: back to give their opinion once more. Parkywiki (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for your impressive, comprehensive and detailed review, I'll definitely take this on board next time when I nominate more future articles for FA. Your final comments will be addressed very shortly. I'm rather surprised you haven't contributed to FA reviews, your feedback was one of the best I have seen. Your suggestions will definitely be taken on board, it's just hard to not closely paraphrase from the sources themselves, hence different meanings. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course, being able to paraphrase correctly is a huge responsibility and a great challenge of Wikipedia, plus a useful skill in life, too. The more technical and complex the subject, the harder that task can be - and so the responsibility to fully understand something and rephrase it correctly is also greater. (If in doubt, leave it out. Got it right? Cite!) Parkywiki (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, this was a great struggle during my early days in Wikipedia, but it's getting a lot better. Perhaps Nothomyrmecia was a lot more complex than most other articles I worked on, hence the many points you raised. Will definitely take your considerations, cheers! Burklemore1 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf

I highly doubt if any more issues would be left after the thorough reviews above, but I am too interested in this. Will post all my comments soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Just curious, why is old growth in quotes?

Not sure, did some tweaks.

Jonkerz (below) notes some inconsistency in this. Whatever style you use, you must use it consistently throughout. Presently I see only one instance with a hyphen (old-growth, with the quotes, in Distribution and habitat) while others do not have a hyphen. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I think all instances have been fixed now.

• At places "Nothomyrmecia" is not in italics.

Done.

• Potential threats to its survival include habitat destruction and climate change; Nothomyrmecia is most active I think the two parts of this line are unrelated enough to be split into two separate lines.

Done.

• Link "nocturnal" to nocturnality and add "(active mainly at night)" (repeat in Description, first para)

Done both instances.

• "Described" can be linked to species description

Done.

• Dubbed as the "Holy Grail" of myrmecology, the ant was subject to great scientific interest after its rediscovery, attracting scientists from around the world. This line could be controversial, you may consider adding a few citations to support this in the lead. Same for Nothomyrmecia is regarded to be the most primitive ant alive and a 'living fossil' .

Done.

Description

• I would suggest short inline explanations for clypeus, scape (link?), occipital (link?), funiculus, gaster (link?), calcar (is it the same as "calcariae" that you mention and link later on?). I would have liked the same for the terms in the line The node, pronotum...long as it is wide, but it might get too wordy.

Doing.... Done, couldn't really find a meaning for "occipital" though, and calcar and calcariae are the same.

Thanks, now loads friendlier for non-experts like me! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• and reasonably long and abundant Not sure why you say "reasonably"

Removed.

• Can compound eyes, segment, stinger, palp, hydrocarbon be wikilinked?

Linked.

• triangular in shape "in shape" looks redundant

Removed.

• Link "primitive" to Primitive (phylogenetics), and "Hymenopteran"

Done.

Taxonomy

• Wikilink syntype

I believe this has already been done.

Oh, didn't see that. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Who are Baroni Urbani and Archibald?

Entomologists, don't know the nationality of Baroni Urbani because he has published articles in German, Italian, English and is situated in Switzerland. Well, he could be Swiss, since two of the three mentioned languages are official there.

It would be fine to say just "entomologists" then. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think in "Naming", the line on the meaning of the specific epithet should be swapped with the one on the generic epithet.

Done.

• "Living fossil" should be linked

Done.

• the age of the most recent common ancestor for Nothomyrmecia and Myrmecia is 74 million years old I think "the age of" should be omitted

This makes sense, but it would probably also be wise to say common ancestor ... is approximately 74 million years old. I seem to remember from the source that there was a 95% confidence in this figure, but an estimate age range somewhere between 55 million to 100 million years - worth checking. Parkywiki (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I have changed it to "approximately 74 million years old". Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• internal phylogeny of Nothomyrmecia: The subfamily "the".

I assumed you wanted "the" removed?

Yes, it looked somewhat weird, and "T" should have been "t" I think. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• It is possible that it occurs in Western Australia, too. In fact, the first ever description of the species was from a specimen collected from Western Australia in 1931 As this is discussed in the earlier section, we could shorten this to "It is possible that it also occurs in Western Australia, from where it was first described".

Done, but I changed "described" as "collected", because it was only collected there.

Thanks, better. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• However, doubt has since been cast over the accuracy of the labelling of that original specimen, and subsequent surveys have failed to re-find it. Can be omitted, looks like repetition. I don't feel it is necessary to include it in this section.

Removed.

• "Mallee" should be wikilinked, and perhaps 'old-growth' too.

Done.

• In 1998, however, Nothomyrmecia colonies were located in 18 areas along the Eyre Peninsula, a stretch of 400 km (250 mi) Given that many authorities had not managed to trace this ant till so long, it might be interesting to add what authority finally came across these 18 areas. Some survey team supported by the Government of Australia?

Done.

• I don't know about ant articles, but I like splitting the facts on Distribution and Habitat into two separate paras. You may like to start a new para from Nests are found in degraded limestone soil with Callitris trees present, I think it would look clearer.

Done.

• A single nest gallery is found inside a Nothomyrmecia colony Active voice would look better here.

Done?

• "Subelliptical" might be difficult to visualise.

Did change, but linked to a "wikt" link.

Foraging, diet and predators

• They search for prey in piles of leaves Who are "they", larvae or adults?

Worker.

• other sexually reproductive ants Not sure about ants, but is there some asexual reproduction involved as well? This line may seem to imply this. I would have gone with "other sexually active/breeding ants".

I think only one ant has no male caste and clones itself.

• Here you say "strictly nocturnal", but not in Description. Perhaps word them similarly?

Done.

• Workers from other Nothomyrmecia colonies I would say "different" instead of "other".

Done.

• Wikilink pheromone

Done.

Life cycle and reproduction

• Inline explanations for nuptial flight, overwinter, brachypterous (I see this is first mentioned in the last para of Description, so add it there, and can it be linked?)

I believe it already linked/explained, but I have done this now. Doing....

• In one tested nest, eggs are laid by late December and develop into adults by mid-February, although pupation did not occur until March Must be in past tense throughout.

Done.

• Adults are either defined as juveniles or post-juveniles "...are defined as either juveniles..."

Done.

• they swell up and later buried by workers "... and are later..."

Done.

• The last para, on vestigial wings, appears to belong more to Description.

Moved.

Conservation

• Entomologists such as E. O. Wilson and William Brown, Jr., made attempts to search for it, but neither were successful Would look better in Discovery. Also, say "neither was successful"

Not sure where I'd exactly put it though, hm. Moved + changed.

• due to the ants' habitat preference for living in old growth mallee woodland A bit clumsy, say "due to the ants' preference for old growth mallee woodland"

Done.

• In the nearby Ceduna area nearby to?

Did some changes.

• local populations of the ant were almost eliminated after the area was bulldozed and burned When was this?

Date isn't exact from the source, but definitely early 80s or so because of its publication date.

• Wikilink bushfire

Done.

• Nothomyrmecia is also dependent on cold temperatures to forage and collect food, so climate change is a threat to its survival "Climate change could be a threat to their survival, as they depend on cold temperatures to forage and collect food" would read better (I have tried not to repeat Nothomyrmecia).

Done.

• allow Nothomyrmecia to benefit from the cool temperatures it needs for night-time foraging I think "it" should be "they", as Nothomyrmecia has been referred to as "they" almost everywhere.

Done.

• where in one case the owner intends to conserve them Could not understand this.

Decided to remove the sentence, so no particular significance on keeping it.

Rest looks good. It was an interesting read. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent review, I think I've addressed your points. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Splendid! I am happy to support this now. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, your reviews have never disappointed me. I'm happy that you are satisfied with the article! Burklemore1 (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• support when other points cleared up. A rather dense read, but seems to meet the criteria to a non-specialist. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the support (after all points above are addressed that is), I'm very appreciative. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, just letting you know all the points have been addressed with the reviewer expressing support. I'm sure you're a lot more satisfied with the recent changes? Burklemore1 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

[resolved] Comments by jonkerz

• Shouldn't it be "old-growth mallee woodland" with a hyphen and not "old growth mallee woodland"?

Done I think.

• "Holy Grail" is formatted with double quotation marks, but 'living fossil' with single.

Done.

• There's still quotes around 'old-growth' in "especially 'old-growth' areas populated".

Done, what about now?

• Move the old growth link closer to the first mentioning; doesn't have to be the first as that would introduce a WP:EASTEREGG-y link ("old growth mallee").

Done.

• "The ant is monomorphic, meaning that there is little morphological differentiation between castes" this makes it sound like workers are morphologically similar to queens and males, but according to AntWiki, in ants, "monomorphic" means "In many species, the worker caste does not vary in body size or form" and "polymorphic" "Refers to variability in body size and/or shape within the same caste. Individuals of distinctly different proportions occur at the extreme ends of the variation range, and they may have different functions in the colony."

Done.

• From Taylor (2014): "The absence of caste polyethism has been previously reported in only one other ant species, the 'sociobiologically primitive' Stigmatomma pallipes". This seems important but it's not mentioned in the wiki article.

Added in.

• "In 1944, British myrmecologist Horace Donisthorpe moved Nothomyrmecia to the subfamily Ponerinae." Also mentioned Parkywiki, but the 1944 Donisthorpe paper is about a paper that reviewed another Donisthorpe article (perhaps this one?), and it only corrects a typo in that publication where Donisthorpe by accident listed Nothomyrmecia in Myrmecinae instead of Ponerinae. See also 2b in the source review.
  • Done.
    • Changed to "In 1943, British myrmecologist Horace Donisthorpe moved Nothomyrmecia to the subfamily Myrmicinae, but this was an error. He subsequently placed it back into Ponerinae in 1944." which I'm still not happy with because my point is that Donisthorpe didn't move Nothomyrmecia at all. How I read Donisthorpe (1944) is that "Myrmecinae" was a typo that any myrmecologist, including Donisthorpe himself, would have fixed if they noticed it. From Donisthorpe (1944): "the tribe is given correctly as Myrmeciini, but the subfamily, by a slip, as Myrmecinae instead of Ponerinae. Everyone knows the 'Bulldog' ants are Ponerine." Imagine the typo was "Donerinae", would you write "Horace Donisthorpe moved Nothomyrmecia to the subfamily Donerinae"? edit: More succinctly, it should be removed.

Whoops - well I decided to remove such instance if it had no meaning altogether. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

All the above issues have been solved, now for a long one, so grab a coffee or two.

"In 1951, Clark proposed the new ant subfamily Nothomyrmeciinae for his Nothomyrmecia, based on morphological differences with other ponerine ants. With this proposal, Clark assigned Nothomyrmecia to the newly established tribe Nothomyrmeciini. This proposal was rejected by American entomologist William Brown Jr., who would place it into the subfamily Myrmeciinae with Myrmecia and Prionomyrmex."

I'm confused by the sources/taxonomy myself, so this may be the rambling of a madman, but I think Clark (1934, p. 8) put Nothomyrmecia in the tribe Nothomyrmecii and subfamily Ponerinae and then Clark (1951, p. 16) erected Nothomyrmeciinae for Nothomyrmecia without (this is the first part I'm unsure about) mentioning the genus name Nothomyrmecia or tribe Nothomyrmecii/Nothomyrmeciini (because they are implied by the subfamily name), and then Brown (1953, p. 23) disagreed with the new subfamily placement and placed it in Myrmeciinae instead which meant -- due to some updated/magical rule in taxonomy (the second part I'm really not sure about) -- that the tribe was automatically-ish renamed to Nothomyrmeciini from Nothomyrmecii to conform with the new rules for taxonomy. As you can tell, I do not really know this for certain and my interpretation is mostly based on assumptions I've picked up reading articles, and a lot of that may be incorrect.

Doing some changes. The 1951 source is quite obvious and doesn't need any changes, equivalent to someone saying "that source doesn't say the sky is blue". Burklemore1 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomic history from AntWeb:

• in Ponerinae, Nothomyrmecii: Clark, 1934 <-- wiki does not mention Nothomyrmecii at all

Added in.

• in Myrmicinae, Myrmeciini: Donisthorpe, 1943 typo, not important
• in Ponerinae, Myrmeciini: Donisthorpe, 1944 correcting typo
• in Nothomyrmeciinae: Clark, 1951 + others <-- AW does not mention Nothomyrmeciini here, but the wiki article says the name was first used here

Did some changes

• in Myrmeciinae, Nothomyrmeciini: Brown, 1953 + others <-- looks like the name Nothomyrmeciini was first used here, according to AW

Done.

• in Nothomyrmeciinae, Nothomyrmeciini: Bolton, 1994 seems like this was not generally accepted
• in Prionomyrmecinae: Baroni Urbani, 2000 not generally accepted
• in Myrmeciinae, Prionomyrmecini: Ward & Brady, 2003 + others <-- current placement which isn't included in the body of the wiki article (taxobox only)

Done.

• as junior synonym of †Prionomyrmex: Baroni Urbani, 2000; Baroni Urbani, 2005 not generally accepted
• as genus: all authors except the two Baroni Urbani entries above redundant if we exclude not generally accepted placements

TL;DR: there may be some small issues with the taxonomic history in the current article, and it doesn't mention Prionomyrmecini except for in the taxobox.

Okay, what about now? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed and fixed. Thanks a lot Burklemore, for all your hard work on this article. I've switched to full support, but note that some captions may need copyediting.

And I thank you for your comments, image and source review, they have been deeply appreciated. I'm feeling confident that this article may face promotion, which is excellent. I can now work in full efficiency now that I have fixed my computers lag issues, heh. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2016 (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) 14:50, 11 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2016 [13].

---

Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Patricia of October 2015 was one of the most intense hurricanes we've ever seen. On October 23, Hurricane Hunters observed record-shattering winds and one of the lowest sea-level pressures in the world. The storm packed maximum sustained winds of 215 mph (345 km/h), a value equivalent to an EF5 tornado. Thankfully, Patricia weakened as dramatically as it intensified as it made landfall in a sparsely populated area of Western Mexico, preventing a worst-case scenario catastrophe. Meteorologically speaking, Patricia was an incredible storm that will be the subject of journal articles for years to come.

With a plethora of information covering its origins, mind-boggling intensification, subsequent dissipation, and numerous broken records, this special sub-article was warranted. Accordingly, this article is more jargon-heavy than most tropical cyclone articles but I've done my best to explain any of the more difficult concepts. Hopefully you enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it and thank you in advance for your comments/criticism! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Support by Jason Rees

• Additional raw data from this station indicated unrealistically high sustained winds of 266.04 mph (428.15 km/h) and a maximum gust of 1,137.89 mph (1,831.26 km/h) - Do we really need to go to two decimal places here?
  • Removed decimal places. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• In the following 12 hours, a well-defined 12 mi (19 km) wide eye formed within a ring of intense convection—with cloud tops of −80 to −90 °C (−112 to −130 °F)—forming "an almost perfectly symmetric [central dense overcast]" - So many lines.
  • I don't think there's anything wrong with this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• 957 mbar (hPa; 28.26 inHg) - I know mbar is the same as hPa but do we really need to be noting the mbar?
  • Thought it was worth including for context since it's from a recon observation rather than estimated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• I also thought I heard that Patricia has a 100 kt forecast error somewhere.
  • Probably form me on the FB chat group :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• The HURDAT templates need tweaking to update the links, but i will do that.
• "And coalesced into a Central American gyre[3]—a broad monsoonal circulation." - Would it be better to say and coalesced into a broad central american monsoon gyre?
  • The term given to the feature by Bosart, Papin, et al. is "Central American gyre" so that's what I'm working with. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Why do you not just say Atmospheric convection rather than going convection
  • Convection is simpler ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• A strong pulse in the Madden–Julian oscillation—a propagating mode of intraseasonal variability that traverses the globe and is associated with increased tropical cyclogenesis — may have aided in creating favorable conditions for further development. - I think it would be easier if you didnt define what the MJO is here but instead just link it back.
  • I think having the basics of why it's important to Patricia's development is worthwhile to the reader. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Thats fair enough but I think you may have been too technical here.Jason Rees (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• I have been looking through this article at times over the last 7 days and I feel that it meets the criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Support. Having reviewed it for GAN, I can attest that the article meets all of the featured article criteria. It is a very detailed, technical article for one of the most important hurricanes of all time. Since my review, Cyclonebiskit added more useful information, solidifying my support. For any interested onlookers, other similar featured articles include Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan and Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "the National Hurricane Center (NHC) saw record-high prediction errors." Made errors itself or observed errors by others? (It seems both from the details below. I do not like the vague "saw" and would either make this clear or delete the specific mention of the NHC.).
• " Interaction with the mountainous terrain of Mexico induced dramatic weakening, faster than the storm intensified." I think "faster than the storm had intensified" would be clearer.
• "set by Typhoon Tip in 1979 but no concrete determination of such can be made" - sounds a bit clumsy.
• The article looks good to me, although - as the nominator warned - it is too technical for me to be able to judge it properly. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Made some adjustments to the above sentences. Hopefully they work better now. Thanks for taking a look at this, Dudley Miles! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - lots of good research here, utilizing a variety of sources beyond the conventional assemblage of NHC discussions. Plenty of quality illustrations, ample wikilinks, and short but clear in-text explanations make it nearly as accessible as could be expected of such a technical article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I think everything is covered now. Just a courtesy ping since it's been more than a week :) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Image and source review by Wugapodes

Support Comment Sources are consistently formatted and refer to reliable sources. All good there I think. All images are appropriately licensed, however they lack alt text which is important for accessibility. Once alt text is added I will support. Other than that they images and sources are all in line with the MOS. Also, I am a participant in the Wikicup as is Cyclonebiskit Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 16:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I've added the alt text to all images as requested. Some of them are easily covered by the provided captions so I've just added "alt=Refer to caption" for those. Thanks for the image and source review! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Supported. A small thing is that I think there are a few where you used a template or wikilink in the alt text. I believe that alt text doesn't support markup, so that should be fixed, but it's not enough to hold this up over. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:46, 1 June 2016 (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) 14:24, 11 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 [14].

---

Dorset Ooser

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an intriguing and unique artefact from English folk culture; a horned mask (perhaps representing the Devil?) that was brought out for instances of mob justice in the Dorset village of Melbury Osmond during the 19th century. The artefact has attracted the attention of both folklorists and historians although sadly went missing at some point in the late 19th century. The article is currently rated as a GA and it would be great if it could be brought up to FA status; it is a fairly short article so if you have the time and interest then please give it a read and let us know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Just some quick comments:

• "of Guisard or Guiser, an old term for a Mummer" There are two terms?
  • Agreed; I've changed the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• "term for a Mummer.[4] Hutton instead suggested that the term might be a derivation of Wooset, a term" Repetition
  • Good point. I've changed this to "Hutton instead proposed that Osser possibly derived from Wooset". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• An interesting review points towards the possibility of more material; have you had a look at the book? There's a copy in my university's library, if you don't have easy access.
  • I haven't had a look at the book, although I can do so without too much problem. However, from a Google search I can't seem to find any reference to the Ooser inside the book, and of course the book's remit is the medieval rather than the nineteenth century. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've no doubt I'll be supporting... Very well-written. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Another small issue: How attached are you to the external links? At the very least, they could be a bit better formatted. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Josh; I have gone ahead and reformatted the external links so that they are standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:The_Ooser.jpg: source link is dead, author's date of death is missing, and when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I, too, am concerned about this. I'll be happy to support once it is resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I've had some problems here. While the photograph itself is late nineteenth-century, I can't find any sources in which it was published at the time. Rather, it seems that the photograph might have just been sitting in a museum archive somewhere prior to its appearance on various websites. Conversely, there is a second image, taken at the same time, which was then published during the nineteenth century. I have uploaded this second image as File:The Ooser 2.jpg and hopefully that can be used without any problems, Nikkimaria? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Watch for WP:Overlinking. It is permissible to repeat a link at the first occurrence after the lead if it is considered helpful so you could perhaps justify Margaret Murray, St George's Day and May Day but not Dorchester (linked in the lead, twice in usage and origins, and once in contemporary usage) nor Mummers Play (lead, etymology, usage and origins). There may be others, I don't think the Devil needs linking twice for example.--Ykraps (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the excessive overlinking; no link now appears more than once in the main body of the article. However, I have left the body link to the Devil because – while the concept may be familiar to most readers in those Western nations that have a clear Christian heritage – the idea may not be so familiar to readers from other parts of the world, such as India, which have very different mythological traditions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally I often repeat links from the lead in the main body because I believe not everyone reads both so if you think it helps with understanding then I guess that's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding the sentence, "...permitting it to be carried on the shoulders and worn as a mask", unless it's possible to do both at the same time, it ought to read, "...or worn as a mask.--Ykraps (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• It was in fact used as both at the same time. Given the head's weight and the fact that it was hollow, it was necessary to have it wresting on the shoulder's while a person's head was inside it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ah okay, then perhaps it ought to say, "...permitting it to be worn as a mask whilst being supported on the shoulders"? Just trying to remove the ambiguity.--Ykraps (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Good idea. I've changed the article prose accordingly, Ykraps. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand the sentence, "Dewar also recorded the villagers' claims that the Ooser was brought to the door of a tallet in order to scare the local children...". Tallet is linked to an article about a piece of clothing and clothes don't possess doors.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• This link shouldn't be in there. A tallet, or tallat, is a barn loft. I've amended the link to send the reader to the Wiktionary entry on the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be any serious copyvio problems. The high percentage returns seem to be caused by the use of quotes and proper nouns. [[15]]--Ykraps (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Although I'm not entirely convinced about the legitimacy of the main image, I don't know enough to argue the toss. just to say though, that as I understand it, UK copyright law differs from US copyright law, in that a reproduction of a 2D image has rights of its own (See National Portrait Gallery v Wikimedia Foundation for a high profile case on this subject). None of this seems to worry anyone else however so I guess it's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Many thanks for your comments, Ykraps! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comments taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think it would read better if it didn't jump straight into Description but at least mentioned origins of some sort....just thinking out loud about this as I don't have a set idea at this point. never mind - not sure it can be done.

• The article comes over as a little on the 'belief' side with (maybe) a lack of skeptical commentary, but I concede that nothing like that is coming up on Google Scholar so I guess we're pretty comprehensive.

Overall a neat little article and nice read. I support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: This FAC has now been open for a month and there are three expressions of support and none of opposition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Was there a source review that I'm missing? If not, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Laser brain (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Formatting of refs looks consistent
• Anon 2006 used 3 times - material faithful to source
• Anon 2009 used twice - material faithful to source
• Earwigs' copyvio - clear (some quotes bump up the % but ok)
• Brown 1952 used once - material faithful to source (also collaborates word origins etc.)

Happy with what I have seen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Why have you not used: The Dorset Ooser, by Daniel Patrick Quinn. Sure, it's self-published, but hosted by the Morris Men website you're citing. Singora Singora (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at that particular source, but concluded that there wasn't a chance in Hell that it would be classed as a Reliable Source. If Mr Quinn had chosen to publish it elsewhere, such as in the form of a journal article, then it would have been permissible; as it is it is simply a self-published word document found online. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

In terms of credibility, how does it differ from "About the Wessex Morris Men" on the website Wessex Morris Men. I mean, if the site is linking to (and hosting) Quinn's PDF, do you think it might be the source for their own content? Singora (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

While both sources can be traced to the same website, they are in fact quite distinct in what they are trying to achieve, and accordingly only one would be considered a Reliable Source on Wikipedia. The "About the Wessex Morris Men" page on the Wessex Morris Men website is being used (merely twice) in this Wikipedia article in order to support statements being made about the Wessex Morris Men themselves and the actions of one of their prominent members. This is perfectly okay for us to use, because, according to according to our policy on the issue, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". Basically it's fine for us to use the Wessex Morris Men website as a source to discuss the Wessex Morris Men. Conversely, Quinn's PDF article, although hosted on the Wessex Morris Men site, is doing something quite different; it goes into detail describing much more about the head, providing an overview of his own historical investigations into the Ooser. This simply doesn't come under the remit of our Reliable Sources policy. I hope that that clears things up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: Almost two months have gone by since this article was nominated at FAC, and it currently has three expressions of support, none of opposition, and has successfully passed its image and source reviews. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2016 (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) 14:16, 11 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2016 [16].

---

Freida Pinto

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a one-hit wonder. The article has had two peer reviews and as many (unsuccessful) FACs. The issues raised during the previous nomination have been addressed. I believe the article now meets the criteria. Look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(Talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Update – Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maharashtra, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mumbai, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Nicely done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks for the copyedits. I've made one minor change though. —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that works. Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

Support: Dank leaves little for other commentators on style! Happy to support, just some minor nitpicks for your consideration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• decided to become an actress at a young age— perhaps decided when young she would become an actress?
• garnered critical acclaim—"garnered" is a showbiz cliché, "received"
• assignments until the completion of her graduation in 2005—don't need the completion of
• highest-grossing film to date. —to April 2016
• relatively lesser-known—sounds a bit odd to me, perhaps relatively little-known?

• @Jimfbleak: Fixed all. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• :) - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the second claim in this statement: "The Indian media has criticised her "fluctuating" accent and dark complexion". Not sure why someone would be criticised for their complexion? Other than this, I think the article is very well-written, and has my support for its promotion. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Good catch, rephrased the bit. Thanks for the review. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

• Does Pinto claim Portuguese or Goan ancestry?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is clearly explained in the footnote. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Did Pinto get reviewed for You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Given that she had a minuscule role, it's almost impossible to find reviews. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    • What does "almost impossible" mean? Are they non-RS, passing mentions, or what? What do you think of describing her as the object of affections, which seems interesting here. I see her role is not central, but it could be described at least.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Why are the first and second film of 2011 in the same paragraph?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • She had four films in 2011. I decided to have two films each in a para. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Did Pinto get reviewed for Immortals? Is there enough content on that to make a separate para?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Added one. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Desert Dancer content seems to deserve its own para.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Between Immortals and DD she had appeared in just one documentary. It doesn't deserve a separate para. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that content beginning with "Pinto's first cinematic appearance in two years" is a new topic. In addition, its depth is sufficient to be a separate paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Where should the single and documentary go then? —Vensatry _(talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It is fine where it is. I think with the split you just need to make sure a new Desert Dancer para mentions 2013.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 04:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Did Pinto get reviewed for Knight of Cups?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Per 'You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger'. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    • At least you describe this role.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It's been described already. —Vensatry _(talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Were there reviews for Unity of the film and/or Pinto?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a documentary. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I think you should clarify that the film had 100 narrators so that the reader does not expect to find commentary regarding her performance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Done —Vensatry _(talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Between Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, there were 5 reviews. So the film was reviewed minimally.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how helpful is it going to be in her article. She was just a narrator among 100 celebrities (most of them being much popular than she is). —Vensatry _(talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Did Pinto get reviewed for Blunt Force Trauma?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Majority of the reviews talk only about her character. I'm struggling to find reviews about her from reliable publications. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Good luck.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • There are reviews about the film, but they don't cover much about her performance. I'd be glad if you could find stuff related to the same. —Vensatry _(talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Have you exhausted reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. —Vensatry _(talk) 04:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Would you mind revisiting the page? —Vensatry _(talk) 07:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll be by this afternoon.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that you bring this to my attention, I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, we use present tense for films and literary stuff. The guideline says: Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such. – critical reviews of films become past events over a period of time. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski was copyedited by WP:GOCE in this regard. Here is how I explained it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3 for Numerounovedant Please ignore that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is inconsistent with this advice. It is confusing to me. Here is my interpretation. Write in past tense about things from to past. E.g., she made a movie, filmed a pilot. Write in present tense about things that are not in the past. A movie, although made in the past, lives for a long time if not forever (like a building). The movie is in the present like a building is. Thus, an opinion about a thing that is present is written about in the present. A critical commentary about a building or a movie would say. Critic X says the building is tall or the movie is good. We do not say critic X said the building was tall or the movie was good. Hope that helps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Nowhere did I quote WP:OSE. We cannot use present tense while quoting somebody like Roger Ebert. Hope you're satisfied with Twofingered Typist's explanation at your nom. —Vensatry _(talk) 04:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

See ongoing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Convinced? —Vensatry _(talk) 06:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am not convinced on what is correct yet, but I am convinced that I am confused. Thus, I suggest that you ignore my concerns about WP:MOSTENSE, until further notice. I am quite pleased with the other issues of this review. I can now Support--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax – . Hi, Vensatry. I have performed several edits on Frida's article to help it qualify for a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back soon and I will !vote on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks for polishing the article. —Vensatry _(talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove Twitter from the external links, per WP:ELNO.
  • It's her personal (verified) account, so it's very much acceptable per WP:BLPEL. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• cnn.com --> CNN.
  • Oops, fixed. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Is "Alt Film Guide" a RS?
  • Replaced. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• What's ref 1 is for, to source her name? Or else you can place that at the end of her DOB.
  • It's for the 'Selena' part. Moved to infobox. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Yash. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- I didn't notice image or source reviews above so have listed requests at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• All images are licensed under Creative Commons with sufficient source and author information.
• Derivatives are clearly labelled with attribution of the originals.
• Originals of Flickr-based derivatives show no signs of problems on Flickr. GermanJoe (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, GermanJoe! —Vensatry _(talk) 11:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Source review

checking now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Joshi, Tushar ref used 3 times - material faithful to source
• Ramachandran, S. ref used 4 times - material faithful to source
• Daijiworld Media ref used 4 times - material faithful to source
• The Tribune (Chandigarh). ref used 4 times - material faithful to source

Ok looks in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for the review. —Vensatry _(talk) 05:54, 6 June 2016 (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) 13:55, 11 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2016 [17].

---

Borscht

Nominator: — Kpalion^(talk) 12:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A Jewish beet-based soup served cold with sour cream? A hearty Russian beet-and-cabbage soup that is served piping hot? Or maybe a Polish soup of fermented rye flour, which is way tastier than it sounds? You may have thought you knew what borscht is, but this article will show you it's all that and more!

It was recently promoted to Good Article status and featured as a DYK on the Main Page. I'm already out of ideas for further improvement, so I thought I'd take a shot at FA already. It doesn't seem, to me at least, to be much worse than Gumbo, currently our only featured article about a soup. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support from EdwininLondon

Delicious article with tantalising ilustrations. Great work. I support on prose, although I have a few comments:

• Is the lone reference in the lead really necessary?
  • It's there to immediately substantiate a potentially contentious piece of information, as virtually all claims of specific national origin are. —

Kpalion^(talk) 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I see, If it is contentious then it is appropriate, I agree. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Inconsistent use of comma in enumerations. For instance, there is a comma in the list ending with "onions, and tomatoes. " but not in the one ending with "acetic acid and lactic acid." There maybe others.
  • I've removed all commas that didn't seem necessary. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• The caption for the Ukrainian version: is it known which of the many variations it is?
  • Not really. The original uploader hasn't provided this information and there are so many Ukrainian variants that I would hate to guess which one this is. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about the semicolons in " from spring borscht made with spinach, sorrel and chard; to .." looks odd to me
  • Fixed. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• some people could benefit from an introduction: Burlakoff, Perianova
  • I'll see what I can add about them. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. Please let me know, if this doesn't suffice. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• It's not quite clear who is quoted in the blockquote "One could understand.." Pokhlebkin's quote on the previous line doesn't necessariy flow through.
  • The link between the quotation and its author was lost when Nikkimaria changed in-line quotes into block quotes. Personally, I'm not convinced that the block quotes are necessary, but I prefer to leave the decision to the reviewers. If the block quotes stay, please suggest how Pokhlebkin's name can be added back to his words. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, so I've integrated Pokhlebkin's quote back into the paragraph and put back the words "he wrote" to make it clear it's his. I don't read MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as a strict requirement, but rather as just a possibility, so I hope this will be fine. I've left Meek's quote as a block quote; I actually like how it visually closes the article. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is so much already, but I wonder if something about its iconic status could be added: references in literature or movies, if they exist. Just a thought. I will look at the sources later. Again, fabulous effort. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Edwininlondon! I'm glad you liked it. I've responded to your comments above. As for cultural references, in some cases you just know you have to mention this poem or that or movie. You can't write about bigos, for example, without quoting that delightful passage from Pan Tadeusz. There's nothing like this, though, that would immediately spring to mind for borscht. I've already added several borscht-related quotations from literature and film to the Borscht page in Wikiquote (see External links), but none of them seemed notable enough to include them in the article. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• Reference 34 "Chakvin, Gurko & Kasperovich (2014), p. 78" seems to point to nothing.
• The three " Strybel & Strybel (1993), " references seem to point to nothing
• Not sure about the format of "Pryslivya i prykazky.... "

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

All fixed now. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Caption of File:Leon Wyczółkowski, Kopanie buraków I.jpg in the article claims they are Ukrainian peasants. This sounds ORish; the image itself makes no claim of nationality. The painter was Polish, through I suggest simply changing the caption to peasants to avoid any undue claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The scene was certainly painted in what is now Ukraine, where Leon Wyczółkowski spent several years of his life. I'll try to find the most suitable source and add a citation to the caption. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. The Polish-language source contains a short biography of Leon Wyczółkowski, including the following information: "He then spends a shorter time in Warsaw followed by a ten-year stay in Ukraine and Podolia, from where he brings his excellent larger canvases: Beet Harvest, Crawfish Fishing and Fishermen." — Kpalion^(talk) 19:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • In 1893 it was, however, part of the Russian Empire. The peasants probably considered themselves... who knows. I do think it is ORish to call the Ukrainians. I again recommend avoiding nationality labels for the people in this picture. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
      • OK, I've modified the caption to specify the place rather than the peasants' nationality. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Reviewed this for GAN, one of the most beautifully written articles (maybe I am biased because it is so delicious? ;) ) I have come across. This will make a good FA. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a wonderful article and I've enjoyed reading it. I like the use of the images, though I would increase the lead image to 300px. I have a concern that a lot of the sourcing isn't in English, which I suppose is inevitable, but it also isn't really accessible. For example, looking at a random paragraph:

As the home country of beetroot borscht, Ukraine boasts great diversity of the soup's regional variants, with virtually every district having its own recipe. Differences between particular varieties may regard the type of stock used (meat, bone, or both), the kind of meat (beef, pork, poultry, etc.), the choice of vegetables and the method of cutting and cooking them. For example, while the typical recipe calls for beef and pork, the Kiev variant uses mutton or lamb instead, while in the Poltava region, the stock for borscht is cooked on poultry meat, that is, chicken, duck or goose. The use of zucchini, beans and apples is characteristic of the Chernihiv borscht; additionally, in this variant, beetroots are sautéed in vegetable oil rather than lard, and the sour taste comes solely from tomatoes and tart apples. The Lviv borscht is based on bone stock and is served with chunks of Vienna sausages.

References

The first source is this. It's not clear what that website is; is the link a copyright violation? Similarly it's not clear what the second site is or what the page numbers refer to. Google Translate didn't help. So I'm wondering how we're able to check the sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Page numbers are missing from a few sources. For example (these are only examples): Burlakoff is chapters only. No page numbers for Kuhlein and Turner or for Kulinariya (Кулинария) [Cookery] (in Russian). Moskva: Gostorgizdat. 1955–58. And it's not clear what the latter is. Some ranges are large, e.g. Karbowiak (1900), pp. 28–40. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks a lot for taking a look at the citations. Sorry, it took me so long to respond, but fixing citations is perhaps the most difficult taks in polishing a Wikipedia article. Anyway, I've added, corrected or narrowed down page number ranges, where possible. I've also removed links to those PDF files or online versions of books where I couldn't rule out the possibility that they were copyright violations. In any case, page numbers refer to print versions. In one case, where a citation was added by another user, I now asked him to provide the page number. As for Burlakoff, I only have access to an ebook version, with no page numbers. Per WP:PAGENUM, "if there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title", which is what I did.

I understand that it is difficult to verify sources that are offline or not in English. I am willing to provide, per specific request and for the purpose of this review, short verbatim quotations from the cited sources and my own translations of them. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kpalion, what I normally do when I review is pick a random paragraph and check the sourcing. Can you say what the two sources are for the paragraph I quoted above, and give some information about how they support the paragraph? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Both sources for this paragraph are Russian-language cookbooks. All translations below are mine.

The relevant passages from Pokhlebkin are:

Популярный на Украине борщ имеет массу разновидностей, практически в каждой области его готовят по своему, особому рецепту.

Borscht, which is popular in Ukraine, has a great many variants; practically in every district they cook it according to their own, specific recipe. (p. 83)

Различные варианты борщей чаще всего носят название местности, в которой они появились: борщ киевский, полтавский, львовский, волынский, черниговский, галицкий и др. В чем же заключается разница между ними? Во-первых, в характере бульона: костный, мясной, мясокостный, из различных сортов и сочетаний мяса (говядина, свинина, домашняя птица), во-вторых, в способе тепловой обработки свеклы (тушеная, печеная, полусваренная). Кроме того, набор овощей для борща может быть различным.

The various variants of borscht most often bear the name of the locality in which they appeared: Kiev, Poltava, Lviv, Volhynian, Chernihiv, Galician, etc., borscht. What is the difference between them? Firstly, in the nature of the stock: bone, meat or meat-and-bone, in the different varieties and combinations of meat (beef, pork, poultry), and secondly, in the method of thermal treatment of the beetroots (sautéing, baking, parboiling). In addition, the choice of vegetables for the borscht can vary. (p. 84)

250 г говядины, 250 г баранины, ...

[In a recipe for Kiev borscht:] 250 g beef, 250 g mutton, ... (p. 85)

Борщ полтавский готовят на бульоне из домашней птицы, от других украинских борщей он отличается еще и тем, что его заправляют не только овощами, но и галушками.

Poltava borscht is cooked on poultry stock; it also differs from other Ukrainian borschts in that it is filled not only with vegetables, but also with halushky. (p. 86)

Борщ готовить на мясокостном бульоне. Свеклу тушить на масле. Сальной заправки в этом борще нет. Особенностью черниговского борща является наличие кабачков, которые, как и помидоры, не пассеруют. Уксус и мука для заправки также отсутствуют. Вся кислота поступает от помидоров и яблок.

Cook [this] borscht on meat-and-bone broth. Sauté the beetroots in oil. Lard is not added to this borscht. The defining characteristic of the Chernihiv borscht is the presence of zucchinis, which, like tomatoes, are not sautéed. Vinegar and flour for thickening are also absent. All tartness comes from tomatoes and apples. (p. 86)

Готовить на костном бульоне. ... В почти готовый борщ добавить обжаренные на масле или сале сосиски, нарезанные маленькими кусочками.

[In a recipe for Lviv borscht:] Cook on bone stock. ... In the almost ready borscht, add Vienna sausages fried in oil or lard and cut into small chunks. (p. 86)

The other source, Kulinariya, contains only recipes (no descriptions like in Pokhlebkin), so it can't be used as a seconday source here, but as a primary source it does a good job of confirming what Pokhlebkin wrote. The recipe for Kiev borscht contains both beef and mutton (Говядина, баранина), the one for Poltava borscht has "goose or chicken" (Гусь или курица), and the one for Chernihiv borscht has, among other ingredients, beans (фасоль), zucchini (кабачки) and apples (яблоки). I only have access to the online (possible pirated) version of this book, but Off-shell, who, I believe, has a hard copy, may be able to confirm this source, as well as my translations. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kpalion: thanks for writing that up. It's clear that I won't be able to review this because of the language issue, but I did very much enjoy reading it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment anyway, SlimVirgin. I didn't do this earlier, but now I notified all the wikiprojects in whose scope this article is. I especially hope that members of the Polish, Russian and Ukrainian wikiprojects will help out with source review in their respective languages. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Seems comprehensive, well written, referenced, and illustrated. Lucky for you, Kpalion, that no grammar nazis are fighting around here, let's hope it will stay that way. Maybe I should try renominating the May Constitution of Poland again... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - Kpalion, I see you had a source review above, but as this is appears to be your first time at FAC, we will need a spot-check of sources for any plagiarism/copyvio concerns. I have requested one here. --Laser brain (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Earwig's ok - has false positive due to direct quotes.
• Garber ref used once - true to source
• Jewish encyclopedia used twice - true to source
• Lagnado ref used once - true to source
• Dembińska used 4 times - true to source
• Rothstein ref used once - true to source

I have limited access to sources but what I have seen above checks out ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (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) 13:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to all reviewers! — Kpalion^(talk) 20:26, 5 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2016 [18].

---

Portrait of Maria Portinari

Nominator(s): Ceoil

A short article about a small 1470s painting, once the wing of a doner triptych. Maria was to fall from grace soon after via her husband's recklessness as branch manager for the Medici bank, but outlived him; for how long and in what circumstances we don't know. Hopefully she was comfortable, but seems to have died young. My interest here is the headdress, but in terms of fifteenth-century fashion its not all that elaborate; less is the new black. Suggestions welcome. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Double_Portrait_of_Charles_the_Bold_and_Isabella_of_Bourbon.jpg: the source link attributes the image to Wikipedia - see WP:CIRCULAR. Also needs a US PD tag
• File:Hugo_van_der_Goes_Portinari_03.JPG needs original source details (author, date, etc) - uploader isn't the copyright holder. Same with File:Hugo_van_der_Goes_Portinari_04.JPG, File:AM._Lynen.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, there are all sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting piece. A few quibbles.

• "and the elaborately detailed necklace and expensive gowns of Maria held up to reinforce this view." possibly "as evidenced by Maria's elaborately detailed necklace and expensive gowns."
• "idealized" is this correct in British English?
• "Margaret of York" link?
• "The necklace is identical to that in van der Goes's Portinari Altarpiece " so you've told us a couple of paragraphs before, except you said it was similar. Suggest consolidation. The material related to the necklace is presently scattered through several short paragraphs.
• "Probably the henin was kept relatively unadorned so as the necklace could be more emphasised" "as" should probably be "that". "More emphasised"?
• "The necklace is very similar to that worn by Margaret of York at her wedding to Charles the Bold in 1468, an occasion the Portinari's attended." probably cut the apostrophe.
• "That depiction of Charles closely resembles that of Thomas in facial features, while Isabella and Maria also bear striking similarities." Which depictions are we talking about? I see only one portrait on the piece.
• "The portrait is very close to a depiction of Maria in van der Goes's Portinari Altarpiece, now in the Uffizi." No doubt so, but you've just linked the altarpiece very shortly before, with a varying description of its location (yes, I know they are really the same, but then why describe them differently?)
• "the latter artist" I see only one artist mentioned in the paragraph so far. I'd just say "van der Goes".
• "She was placed opposite her husband," As "she" lacks referents so far in this section, I might say "The portrait of Maria was placed opposite that of her husband ..."
• "they were at least partially accessible to the public." I might say "somewhat" for "partially"
• I would link apse
• "but her fate is unknown after" possibly, "but her fate thereafter is uncertain".
• "mona Maria" possibly choose a translation for mona? "Lady Maria", possibly?
• the last paragraph of "Commission" seems out of place and not really related to what is around it. It may be most relevance to provenance.
• "when it was leant by Léopold Goldschmidt of Paris" I'm not sure what is meant here.
• "Art historian Catheline Périer-d'Ieteren, while noting that Memling's portrait faces were rarely underdrawn, this panel contains "thin yet confident incised lines" which may be preliminary drawings for Maria's face, perhaps made from life." I think something's wrong with this sentence, the "while" implies some sort of a contrast is coming up, but I'm not sure where we get to that.
• "on Tommaso's inventory on his death" possibly "on the inventory taken upon Tommaso's death" or similar.
• "Records indicate a small intact winged altarpiece which stayed in their possession until around the time of the Napoleonic occupation, it was likely was broken up around this time." some small modification needed here, possibly a semicolon for the comma.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt - Have begun to address these, but some are trickier than others; ie the structural issues, particularly wrt the necklace, which via re-gigging statements, I hope, are ok now. Many thanks for the close reading. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

All addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Support very well done. Sorry to be so slow to come back.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, I am always appreciative of your insight and advice. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments: A nice article. Looking good from a first read, just a few little questions. Forgive any stupidity on my part. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Should we say somewhere "This is a portrait of XXX who was XXX"? (I'm a big fan of the bleedin' obvious)

  Yes. Have reorganised the lead along these lines. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• We never say in the main body who Tommaso was, or that he commissioned the portrait.
• "and was commissioned as the right hand wing of a triptych": I'm terrible with these, but should there be some hyphens here? I am never sure.
• "Although their size and the intimacy of surviving wings portraits suggests that they were commissioned for private prayer": Something not quite right here, unless I'm missing something. Should it be either "Although the size and intimacy of surviving wing portraits suggest..." or "Although their size and intimacy suggest the wings were commissioned..." (And should it be wing portrait rather than wings portrait? I'm ignorant on these things!)
• "The 1501 inventory places both portraits as wings, with a central Virgin and Child panel; una tavoletta dipinta preg[i]ata cum nel mezo una immagine di Nostra Donna e delle bande si è Tommaso e mona Maria sua donna dipinti in deta tavoletta (a small, valuable panel painting, with an image of Our Lady in the middle and on the sides painted Tommaso and mona Maria his wife).[8]": Should there be some quotation marks around some of this?
• " velvet like cloth": Hyphens?

I'll come back for another look later, and look forward to supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro1. Have begun to meet your demands, look forward to more later. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If you let me know when you have done tweaking, I'll have another look. (It's nice to feel like I'm looking at something cultural!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm about done now. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Support: An interesting little article. Two last minor points which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Although their size and the intimacy of surviving wings portraits suggests that they were commissioned for private prayer": Still not sure about this. As written, it looks like all surviving wing portraits are intimate. Is this correct? Or does it mean the surviving wings of the couple?
• Minor, fussy, pedantic point. There are two quotations in italian; the first has the translation in brackets, the second has the original text in brackets. For consistency, should we use the same order? Sarastro1 (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sarastro1 for taking the time to read my short article. Agree re your last points, now fixed, and cheers. Ceoil (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

Commission

• End of the first para closes without a cite.

• Now cited to the Getty. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Description

• "She is placed against a flat, opaque, dark background, her hands clasped in prayer." -- Since I've established that this isn't an offending splice, a preposition before the pronoun would make it sound a lot less like a beautiful quote without the quote marks.

  Um added a "with her hands" - is that what you meant. prepositions and pronouns are foregin language to me. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • mea culpa, yes, sorry. In my defence, my parents would be annoyed if I didn't at least display some kind of evidence of a university education every now and again. ;) Cassianto^Talk 23:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Art historian Lorne Campbell..." -- I prefer the use of the definite article, although I appreciate that that this may form part of personal style.

• Agree, but noticed there was a lot of "The art historian" constructs in there. Have gone with "the art hist" when there is no bio articel, and just by name when there is. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Her necklace is gilded and studded with pearls..." -- New para, new noun.

  Regiged a few opening praras re this. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Art historian Dirk De Vos..." -- again here. I'm seeing a consistency with this, so you may wish to keep the American form of omitting the use of the definite article. But it's up to you, of course.

  See above Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Although perhaps obvious, it may be better to confirm who's ear was exposed in the sentence: "Her ear was at one stage exposed...". Maria, or Ainsworth? Excuse my inadvertent flippancy, but there are some silly people out there!

  Yeah, no; clarification makes sense. Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Provenance

• "In 1916, the art historian Max J. Friedländer..." Switch to the BrEng form here, as per above.

  See above Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Art historian Catheline Périer-d'Ieteren..." -- oops!

  I'll get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Support -- Adopt or disregard at your discretion. A very nice little article! Cassianto^Talk 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, catches and support Cass. I am always appreciative of outside views, and this was most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The pleasure was all mine. Cassianto^Talk 23:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- For the benefit of any reviewers who might be interested, we're still looking for a source review for formatting and reliability here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Source review: Spot checks not done. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• All sourcing looks reliable and to an appropriate quality.
• For consistency, ref 11 should be 348–49
• In the source list, Ainsworth 1994 does not seem quite right. Unless I've missed something, the title of the essay is italicised but the work isn't. Isn't this usually the other way round? But I may have missed something obvious.
• We need a location for Burn in the sources
• Title needs italicising for Grössinger

Everything else looks fine Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro1, all done. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2016 (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) 12:52, 5 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2016 [19].

---

The Good Terrorist

Nominator(s): —Bruce1ee^talk 11:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is this article's second FAC, the first having only received an image review (thanks Nikkimaria).

I note that the images in this version are the same as in the previous FAC so that review will suffice here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Nobel Prize in Literature-winner Doris Lessing's 1985 political novel concerning a naïve woman who moves in with a group of radicals in London, and is drawn into their terrorist activities. Currently a GA, it has been peer reviewed and improved on since then. I believe it should be featured as it meets the FA criteria, but I'm open to any comments/suggestions. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tbhotch

• "by Nobel Prize in Literature-winner Doris Lessing" -> "by Doris Lessing". Adding awards to qualify people is not OK.
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Lessing was inspired to write the book" -> "Lessing was inspired to write The Good Terrorist".
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "by the 1983 Harrods bombing in London by the IRA" -> Needs a re-write. Also "IRA" -> "Irish Republican Army (IRA)"
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Several commentators have labelled The Good Terrorist a satire" -> "Several commentators have labelled The Good Terrorist as a satire"
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Several commentators", "One critic", "Some critics", *"Some reviewers", etc. ->
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "The Good Terrorist divided critics." -> Too short. Also,
  • Combined and reworded sentences. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "and described the characters as too "trivial or..." -> when you don't quote the "too" to describe something, you are the one that's adding a point of view.
  • Removed POV "too" and reworded, in lead and the Reception section. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not going to continue with it (for now). I suggest copy-editing it first, and once it has been CEd you can contact me. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I've attended to your suggestions above – I'll give the rest of the article another look over tomorrow. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tbhotch: I've done a little more copyediting, so when you get a chance, I'd appreciate another look at it. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'll continue these days. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary

• "The Good Terrorist is written in the third person from the point of view of Alice" -> shouldn't it be "The Good Terrorist is written in third person from the point of view of Alice" or "The Good Terrorist is written in the third person point of view of Alice"?
  • Fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• The paragraph "The abandoned house..." is too short.
  • I tacked the 1st sentence of the next paragraph onto the end of this one – it also deals with Alice and the house. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "she can't" -> " she cannot
  • Fixed – don't know how I missed that one. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Background

• "By 1964 Lessing" -> By 1964, Lessing
  • Fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "[T]he media reported..." -> who said the quote.
  • Fixed (it was Lessing). —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "She said she also knew who Alice's "boyfriend", Jasper, would be" -> Reword it
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Genre

• The Good Terrorist has been labelled a "political novel" -> by... whom
  • Expanded a bit. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• "William H. Pritchard took a harder line and questioned Alison Lurie's decision" -> Why don't you expand further Lurie's decision. Also, "harder line" sounds like a POV.
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• The Secret Agent -> The Secret Agent (1907)
  • Added year. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "alluding to Carroll's Alice" -> Link Alice
  • Linked. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Virginia Scott called..." paragraph is too short.
  • Expanded. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Themes

• "The American novelist Judith Freeman" is too short.
  • Expanded. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Critical analysis

• "Several critics have called the novel's title an oxymoron." -> "Several critics have called The Good Terrorist's title an oxymoron."
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Honours and awards

• Too short, I suggest a merge with reception.
  • Merged with Reception section. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Following Lessing's death in 2013," is also short.
  • Merged with previous section. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Publication history

• I don't know if the table is required
  • Removed. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

General

• "Harrods department store, the 1983 bombing of which inspired Lessing to write The Good Terrorist" needs a better caption
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've started working through them, but I'll continue tomorrow. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost done – I'll finish it later. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I've dealt with all your comments/suggestions, so, once again, when you get a chance, I'd appreciate another look at it. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry, pinging me is unavailable. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the Support, and for all your help and suggestions. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• "feckless", etc.: See WP:INTEXT: quoted material needs to be attributed in the text. It's especially important to attribute in a plot summary, otherwise the readers won't know if you're quoting Lessing or some reviewer.
• There are too many quotations for some reviewers' taste, but I'm not going to make a call on this.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dank: Thanks for your support and copyediting. As you suggested, I've gone through the article and added in-text attribution where necessary. I hope it's ok now. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments –

• The main thing that jumped out at me when I read through the article is exactly what Dank mentioned above me: the large amount of quotations. I've come to expect a bunch of direct quotes in reception sections, but it seems like at least a third of the content in each section other than the plot summary consists of quotations. This is a large amount. I don't want to be the one who causes the FAC to not pass, but I do wish a few more of the quotes were summarized in original prose.
  • Working on it ... —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, I've done some quote trimming, removal and converting to prose. I hope that's better. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• "and that she is not a good person, nor a good revolutionary." When there's a "nor" here, wouldn't the "not" be "neither"? That's how I've always seen FAC prose gurus handle such phrasing.
  • I think you're right – fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Plot summary: "only to become frustrated later by his aloofness and homosexual preferences." I hope you have a reason for saying "homosexual preferences" from the book, because there's about a 99% chance someone will leave an angry comment about that on Main Page day. Maybe just "homosexuality" would be better?
  • I changed it to "bourgeoning homosexuality" – he was exploring his sexuality. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Background: IRA should have its first use be spelled out in the previous section, not this one. Once that's done, the link here can be removed.
  • Fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Critical analysis: The same "not ... nor" bit from the lead is here as well.
  • Fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Publication history: "A unabridged 13 hour audio cassette edition". "A" → "An"?
  • Changed to "An". —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Also, there should probably be a hyphen in "13 hour".
  • Already fixed by Wavelength (thanks), but also have a look at the talk page here. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• The last paragraph is a little one-sentence stub, which isn't optimal. Would it be possible to merge it into the preceding paragraph? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Merged into previous paragraph. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Thanks for the review. I've attended to the issues you raised, so when you get a chance, I'd appreciate another look at it. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Weak support – I'm still not in love with the number of quotes, but that may just be how I feel personally. A good-faith effort was clearly made to reduce the quotation usage, and all of my other concerns have quickly been addressed. With that in mind, I'll offer a measure of support for the article. If someone more familiar with the typical structure of book articles than myself signs off on the number of quotations, than the closer should feel free to consider this a full support. Best of luck with the rest of the nomination process. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Giants2008: Thanks for your Support and suggestions. I'll have a look at trying to reduce the number of quotes further, but I'm reluctant to make too much change to the article considering the Supports it has already received were for earlier versions. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comments reading though now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Accompanying her is Jasper, a graduate she took in at a student commune she lived in fifteen years ago. - "fifteen years previously"?

Changed as suggested. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

why not just say "irresponsible" or "hopeless" or something instead of "feckless" in quotes?

Changed to "ineffective". —Bruce1ee^talk 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"'Roberta, a "comforting mother figure" --> why not just say, "the maternal Roberta"?

Changed as suggested. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Lessing called it "quite a funny book" --> needs dequoting, " Lessing called it humorous.

Changed as suggested. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"' "pressed into conformity" --> needs dequoting, "coerced into conforming" would be one option.

Changed as suggested. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"scorns their incompetence" --> needs dequoting, "derides/makes fun of/makes light of/highlights/dismisses their ineptness" would be some options.

Changed to "derides their ineptness"; also changed "selfproclaimed revolutionaries" to "self-styled insurrectionists". —Bruce1ee^talk 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I read this some time ago on my smartphone while out and about and forgot to comment - a good read overall and comprehensive. I really think some of the quotes need to go. Many can't be removed but I think the ones I have highlighted above can, and possibly some others too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. I've attended to the points you raised, and replaced a couple of other quotes with prose. When you get a chance, I'd appreciate another look at it. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, nice work - support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you for your Support and suggestions. I appreciate it. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - I have requested a source review since I don't see one done. Also, Bruce1ee, since you haven't been at FAC in a fair while I will ask for a spot-check of your sources for any plagiarism or copyvio concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Looking over sources. Going off this version for ref numbering etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• FN 19 and 25, Boschman, Greene and Yelin need locations for publishers. all done now I see. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• FN2 used 10 times - true to source
• FN22 used once - true to source
• FN39 used 9 times - true to source

• Copyvio tool clear too

i.e. looks all in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for the source review. Sorry, I jumped the gun adding the missing locations – I thought you were finished :) —Bruce1ee^talk 14:35, 2 June 2016 (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) 12:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Thanks for the promotion, and for your copyedits on the article. I appreciate it. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:12, 5 June 2016 (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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2016 [20].

---

Nights into Dreams...

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
EditorE, Rhain, JDC808, ProtoDrake, Z105space, Singora
Comments/No vote yet
Hahnchen
Oppose

Nights into Dreams... was at the time widely considered as one of the greatest video games of all time, as well as the de facto best Sega Saturn game (and judging from its not so competitve library, critics are inclined to agree). I worked very hard throughout November and December to bring this to GA, and I managed to achieve that before the new year. I believe that this complies per the FA criteria, and I think that it's ready to face a FAC. I made use of some print sources in this article since it is a 1996 game, so there are a few harvrefs in there. Online sources were quite hard to find, but I think it's comprehensive enough. JAGUAR  23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The development section is not comprehensive, so the article is not quite FA material yet. This article at Shmuplations should help rectify the situation. Indrian (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll start implementing that today. I wondered why it didn't appear in this VG:RS search engine, as I would have definitely used it. JAGUAR  14:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Hahnchen

• Oppose - Also unconvinced by its comprehensiveness. Not all comments below are oppose worthy.
  • No Japanese reception. This is important, Japan was by far the largest market for the Saturn.
    • I explained below that the amount of Japanese reviews/coverage I could find for this game is zilch. JAGUAR  19:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a fairly extensive "Making Of..." article in Retro Gamer, which you can email me for, while it covers similar ground to the references already used, but there may be something you missed.
  • The Hobby Consolas reference is a copyvio. Hobby Consolas itself is a valid source, if you need to link it to a version, see if you can find it at the Internet Archive.
    • I found the actual scan and replaced the url in the ref with it. Trouble is that it's in Spanish. If future reviewers want to do checking then I'll give out the copyvio English link. JAGUAR  16:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Same for Mean Machines.
    • Done. I'll make a harvref out of this later. JAGUAR  16:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Incomplete sales data - merely one mention in a table of questionable reliability. It's also confusing as to whether Nights was the "top-selling game for the Sega Saturn" worldwide or just Japan. The source strongly suggests the latter but could be misread.
    • In Japan; the sentence originally stated it was in Japan at the end, but I've rephrased it to "In Japan, Nights into Dreams was the best-selling game for the Sega Saturn and the 21st highest-selling game during 1996" for clarity. JAGUAR  19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Unreferenced release dates for the original game, and no information on its release, such as the $10M advertising campaign in the US.[21]
    • Added some bits on the $10 million campaign. JAGUAR  19:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Coming Soon has no relation to Crave Online, it is not the same as http://comingsoon.net I'm unconvinced it's a reliable source. There are better sources available such as Next Generation and GameFan.
    • I've removed Coming Soon and have added some bits from Next Generation. JAGUAR  19:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "A reviewer of publication...", suggests that someone is reviewing the publication, not the game. The Game Revolution reviewer is Colin Ferris; for Mean Machines, it is Gus and Dan. Edge doesn't do bylines for its reviews, it's a collective, so just state Edge.
    • Fixed. I can't use "Gus and Dan" as I can't find their surnames, so I think it's best to collectively refer that review to its publication for now JAGUAR  16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Consider your quotes. Single word quotes are frequently read as ironic, you don't even need quote marks for single words.
    • Cut down on most JAGUAR  16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • hahnchen 11:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comments Hahnchen, I've emailed you and asked for the article, that would be great if I could get that. I've been busy in RL lately, so I should start addressing these in a day or two. I agree with you regarding the Japanese section, but my only concern is that the only Japanese reviews of the game are going to be scans, and I'll have no way of translating them. That is, if I can locate such Japanese reviews. I'm writing up a sandbox draft of the development section from the Shmuplations source at the moment. I'll go over this properly tomorrow. I might be able to sort out the development section when this FAC is still active. JAGUAR  20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hahnchen: I've come back to this review with a fresh mind, what do you think of the development section now? I've expanded it using both the Retro Gamer source you sent me and the Shmuplations interview. I'll take another look at the $10M advertising campaign tomorrow, but for now the minor stuff seem to be addressed. JAGUAR  19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments - The reception section still isn't good enough. Some points above not yet addressed, such as the "reviewer of", some further issues below are just a result of carelessness.
  • Nicovideo is user-generated content. You've cited a wiki. Even had it been a reliable source, what does "the game offered a 'force of very beautiful' and attractive graphics" even mean? Why would you quote that?
    • Removed. It was hard enough as it was to translate it, so it's not worth it. JAGUAR  21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "due to the game occasionally clipping and warping" - what does that mean? Is it a problem with the game failing to render certain sections because of faulty clipping, or does it refer characters "clipping" through surfaces? If you can't be exact, don't include it.
    • It's the former, the Saturn wasn't built to handle the game, so it did produce occasional graphical faults. The reviewer was right about something. I should have addressed it now. JAGUAR  21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • How do you know that the writer for the two Japanese Sega Saturn Magazine references are the same person as the prose implies? If there is a byline, state in it the reference, even in Japanese. Ask help from your translator regarding Japanese input.
    • This was a mistake on my part. The two magazines merely contained snippets of a review/overview of the game, so I picked out the particular praise they gave the game. I've removed "A reviewer of" as I couldn't find any reviewer's name in the articles. I spent three hours of the morning looking for those scans, and even longer taking out snippets of the only reviews they had of it. JAGUAR  21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What insight does this sentence offer, "A reviewer of Mean Machines Sega similarly praised the music and sound effects as "awesome" and impressive."
    • Just some additional praise, but it doesn't sound too meaningful, so removed. JAGUAR  22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "graphically vibrant colours" - as opposed to ungraphically vibrant?
    • Removed "graphically". JAGUAR  22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "whilst comparing its smooth animation 'as fluid as water'" - what about its rough animation?
    • Removed "smooth", I see what you mean. JAGUAR  22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The C&VG review is authored by Paul Davies, Ed Lomas and Tom Guise. Only Guise is given credit in the reference.
    • Good catch, added the other two. JAGUAR  22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Check for a GameFan byline.
    • Luckily I found the page and added a byline. JAGUAR  22:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Consider moving the "awards" section into the legacy section and removing the awards subheading. They're not really awards.
    • Done. JAGUAR  22:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I would consider moving the ports and sequel section to legacy. The series that the game spawned is its legacy. I'd keep Christmas Nights where it is.
    • OK, I've moved the remakes section under legacy and merged the "HD remake" subsection into the new remakes section, which is under legacy. I'm not sure about merging the Sequel section under legacy as that would create too many subsections and might look cluttered, so I've left that as it is. Let me know what you think... JAGUAR  22:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "using Silicon Graphics for graphical designs and Hewlett-Packard emulators for programming" - Silicon Graphics is a company, I'm assuming they had Silicon Graphics workstations, not that they outsourced the art. I'm assuming they used Sega Saturn emulators running on HP machines, not HP emulators.
    • Workstations yes, rephrased all. The interview wasn't too clear on this. JAGUAR  22:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • hahnchen 20:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All addressed, Hahnchen, thank you once again for the comments! To summarise, I've cut the snippets you mentioned and re-arranged some subsections. I left the "Sequels" subsection where it was as I didn't want to clutter the legacy section with too many subheaders. Please let me know if you've got anything else. JAGUAR  22:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to reconsider your use of quotes. "reviewer of publication" still isn't fixed. - hahnchen 20:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Hahnchen, I've got that now. I've rephrased all of the "reviewer of publication" quotes to "reviewer from", and I've also rephrased the Next Generation snippets. I've been told not to personify publications, but I like this style better. I also re-evaluated the quotes, getting rid of all single-word quotes and rephrased some others, so it's less reliant on quotes. I've never been good making use of quotes. JAGUAR  22:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Further minor points.

• What does "occasional build up" mean? Is it pop-in?

• Good find, linked. JAGUAR  21:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "added scepticism over the Saturn's ability to portray graphics", the Saturn can obviously portray graphics. Have something like, "Levi Buchanan from IGN believed the console was built... ...after observing clipping and warping errors".

• Changed to "Levi Buchanan from IGN believed that the console "was not built to handle Nights"". JAGUAR  22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "comparing its animation 'as fluid..." - you don't compare things as, you compare things to. You probably want "described its animation as being..." or something similar.

• Good point, some hasty phrasing on my part. I've changed this to "

• What does this mean, "Oshima created the character of Nights based on his impressions of travelling around Europe and western Asia"?

• Rephrased to "Oshima created the character of Nights based on his inspirations from travelling around Europe and western Asia". JAGUAR  22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "any sound-proof studios, anonymous team members" - why anonymous?

• I should have got rid of that weeks ago, removed now. JAGUAR  21:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• "In a 2007 interview, Iizuka stated..." - move this with the other Chrismas Nights development.

• Done. JAGUAR  22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• • hahnchen 19:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments and dedication to this FAC, Hahnchen. Much appreciated. JAGUAR  22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from EditorE

• Very weak oppose for now. The article is well-written and interesting to read, but there's some major elements about the game, mainly information and opinions in Japanese reviews and articles, not included in the article that's keeping it from FA status. However, that may be due to the fact that reviews only in Japanese print magazines are hard as hell to find or cite properly, so I'd say give the nominator a few more days to look for sources and improve it so I may or may not reconsider my final opinion. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'll do a serious search tomorrow, but from what I've found since November haven't been promising. Japanese scans from 1996 are indeed hard as hell to find, and impossible to read if you don't understand the language. But I do acknowledge that more Japanese reviews are needed for this, although I'm worried because I don't know where to start, and how to translate if I ever find them. JAGUAR  20:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hate to disappoint, but the only Japanese scans I found were, well, scans which couldn't be translated! Even then, they looked like snippets which couldn't compete with any English sources. JAGUAR  20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• EditorE what do you think I should do? It's been a while and I regret to inform that I've found absolutely zilch. JAGUAR  13:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, actually maybe this is could be passed. I was judging the article's comprehensiveness from the comments that came before mine in this debate. I think this is can pass now if you can't find anything else, so Support editorEهեইдအ😎 15:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain

As I've come to expect from Jaguar, this is a well-written and interesting article. I've noticed a few things, and I'll try to be as nit-picky as possible:

Gameplay

• I feel as though the Gameplay section should begin with "Nights into Dreams... is split...", instead of "The game is split...". This is a minor thing, but it makes sense to re-introduce the name of the game outside the lead.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• What is an "Ideya"? Some clarification would be nice here.

• I tried to clarify. This is a fantasy, after all. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "awaken" might work better than "wake up" (second paragraph), although I'm apathetic.

• Good catch, added. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• What/Who is "Nights"?

• Elaborated; I guess this is what happens when you put the gameplay section before plot... JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I find it strange that the ranking system ("between A and F") is introduced three paragraphs after "a "C" grade" is mentioned. I personally would have grouped the information together, to avoid any confusion, but this is pretty minor. Only change if you agree; I don't mind otherwise.

• I completely agree. Done some moving. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Since "A-Life" is one paragraph, I recommend removing the header (perhaps {{anchor}} instead?) and merging it with the rest of Gameplay. Just a personal preference, though.

• I initially thought it would have significance for its own section, but I know you're right, so I merged it. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• I see that "Ideya" and "Nights" are clarified in this section. Perhaps it would be better to move Plot above Gameplay, to avoid this confusion.

• I've elaborated both in the gameplay section, so this way of organisation should be fine. I'm not too keen on forcing the reader to read an extensive plot section before gameplay, but that could just be me. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Development

• Might be worth mentioning when Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was released.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Link Takashi Iizuka.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "due to there being no other games to use for reference" is a little awkward. Perhaps something like "due to the lack of games to use as reference" would fit better.

• Thanks, changed! JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to clarify what Christmas Nights is, since it hasn't yet been used outside the lead. Otherwise, the information about the game could be moved to the appropriate section instead.

• Good point, I've mentioned that it was merely an add-on here. I would try to keep the Christmas Nights section intact if possible. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ports

• Christmas Nights still hasn't been properly introduced yet. Perhaps this is just a minor thing, since it seems to be personal preference.

• I've elaborated it as an add-on in development, so I think that should be enough to let the new reader know what it is before they move to the Christmas Nights section. I'm trying to put myself in the position of a new reader, but I if need be I could move the "Ports" section after "Related games". JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Related games

• "due to the their dreams"—"the" seems to be a typo.

• Fixed. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "according to what hour it is" (third paragraph) also feels slightly awkward. Perhaps "according to the hour".

• Thanks, much better! JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Sonic may only go through the stage"—perhaps something like "Sonic may only play through the stage" would work better.

• Rephrased. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "defeat the boss - an inflatable Dr. Robotnik"—the hyphen should either be changed to a colon, a comma, or ndash.

• Agreed, changed to a colon. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's no need to link Takashi Iizuka again, nor restate his role, since this is already established in the Development section.

• My bad. Fixed. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Similarly, Iizuka only needs to be referred to by his surname in the last paragraph.

• Fixed. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• "while comparing its smooth animation as fluid as water" (third paragraph) is confusing to me. Perhaps this should be a quote, but I think some rewording here would certainly be beneficial.

• It was originally a quote, but I lost the quotation marks when I was advised to do. I've re-added the quotes back, so it makes sense. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Coming Soon" should be changed to "Coming Soon Magazine" to fit with the table (or vice versa).

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I recommend restating that Buchanan is writing for IGN; I got momentarily lost when I was reading it. I'm sure an extra word or two wouldn't hurt.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Same goes for Claude, of Coming Soon Magazine.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• There's some inconsistencies here, but overall it's much better than what I've seen in the past.
• Some of the websites seem to have their publishers listed (e.g. "1UP. IGN", and "Gamasutra. UBM Tech"). This is perfectly fine, but then I see other references that don't use it, like IGN (which would be Ziff Davis) and Eurogamer (Gamer Network). Is there a specific reason for this?

• I think that's a bad habit of mine. I've moved IGN to the website parameter and added Ziff Davies as the publisher (I did the same thing for Jumping Flash!). I done the same thing with Eurogamer's refs. If there's anything I missed please let me know... JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting that the websites and publishers haven't been linked. There's nothing wrong with it, but if seeking consistency, Sega should not be linked in refs 32—34, and Future plc should not be linked in the Bibliography.

• Done and fixed all.

This is all I could see right now, and most of them are fairly minor. Once these are fixed, this article will be one step closer to reaching FA. – Rhain ☔ 11:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Rhain! I've tried to address all of your comments, they've been very helpful. Sorry for the delay in getting to this, unfortunately my internet has been down for a few days so this was the earliest chance I could get to doing this. I've still got to find some Japanese reviews, but that's going to be an issue in itself! JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. A few more things:

• Since the third paragraph of the Sequel section is only one paragraph, it might be worth merging with the first paragraph. If you believe otherwise, I'm happy the way it is.

• Do you mean merging the two larger paragraphs into one? Or merging the one sentence third paragraph into the first? JAGUAR  18:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's still some issues with referencing, particularly with consistency. I see that IGN is linked upon every usage, but its publisher (Ziff Davis) is not. The same goes for the other references; for example, Eurogamer could be linked in ref #7, Gamasutra and UBM Tech in ref #8, GamesRadar in ref #10, and so on. There are also a lot of publishers missing, such as Future plc in ref #10 and #16, Ziff Davis is #46, Enterbrain in ref #47. I wouldn't have an issue if all web publishers were removed and only the website names were used, but it needs to be consistent either way.

• Thanks for spotting these. I think I've covered all of them now. JAGUAR  18:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

While I'm here, I might as well do an image review:

• File:NightsIntoDreamsBox.jpg is cover art with good rationale. That's good.
• File:NiGHTs into Dreams, Saturn version, Spring Valley.jpg is a game screenshot with decent rationale; it could definitely be improved. It's a little confusing to actually work out what's going on in the picture, but I suppose that's just 1996 graphics. Also, the image should be re-sized, as it is currently too large.
• File:Sega-Saturn-3D-Controller.jpg is a free image, with a proper rationale and relevant caption.
• File:Christmas Nights gameplay.jpg is a game screenshot with a proper rationale, and a caption that justifies its usage in the article. Personally, I prefer to omit captions such as "An image of..." and just cut to the chase, but that's not a problem here.

That's it for now. The article is looking good. – Rhain ☔ 00:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant the latter; merging the third paragraph into the first cleans up the one-sentence-paragraph issue, and it still flows quite well as it's all discussing a potential sequel. Up to you though. As for the references: they were looking pretty good, but I went through and made some changes to whatever I could find. I'm not sure if this is a prerequisite for FA, but I think it would be a good idea to archive all of the websites (I personally use WebCite, although the Internet Archive is great). There's also a few issues with links that could be fixed; they can be seen here. Nothing major, but they should probably be looked into if this is going to be a featured article. – Rhain ☔ 23:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again Rhain! I'll archive all the sources once I get my router working tomorrow (using tethered data at the moment, and I have to watch my limit otherwise it's going to be a costly bill). I linked all of the publishers and corrected some, such as moving 1UP to the website and adding Ziff Davis as the publisher etc. I hope I didn't miss anything else in that regards. Thanks for the fixes! JAGUAR  20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhain, sorry for leaving this late, I've been distracted lately but with a new support to this FAC, I've gained some confidence. I've shrunk the first image as you suggested, and improved its rationale. I've also changed the caption to the Christmas Nights image. I hope that's everything now, please do let me know if there's anything else you would like me to change. JAGUAR  21:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Not a problem. I've taken another look at the article, and I approve of all your changes. I recommend archiving all online sources, especially with so many websites shutting down lately, but I won't let this hold anything up. I'm happy to support this candidacy. Well done! – Rhain ☔ 07:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808

I will be reviewing soon (probably tomorrow). I also have God of War (series) up at FAC if you could leave some comments there. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 23:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Meant to get to this yesterday but got busy and didn't have time.

Lead

• I think it would be better to write this bit — "With the help of an exiled "Nightmaren", Nights,..." — as — "With the help of Nights, an exiled "Nightmaren",..." Someone unfamiliar with this game, like myself, wouldn't know what a "Nightmaren" is, so it would be better to introduce the character before introducing what they are.

• Good catch; done. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Continuing in that sentence — "they begin a journey to stop Wizeman, an evil ruler, from destroying Nightopia". I would rearrange this to say "they begin a journey to stop the evil ruler Wizeman from destroying Nightopia". The latter flows better.

• Thanks, added. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• "centred" - is this article done in British English? There was no indication anywhere.

• Yeah, I'm not sure if there ever was a "Use British English" template at the top, but I could add a edit notice if you want? JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I believe adding it would be better. --JDC808 ♫ 20:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• After Sonic the Hedgehog 2, put its year of release after it in parenthesis.

• Done. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

• I feel like there's a lot of information here. If possible, maybe try to make it more concise.

• I've condensed it a bit, but it's probably looking bigger now I had to merge a sub-section with gameplay. I'm always aiming for this to be comprehensive as it's the most important aspect of the FA criteria that people look out for. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis

• "Elliot is a basketball player who enjoys a game with his friends one day." Remove "one day", we're already told that in the first sentence.

• Good point, removed. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Once in Nightopia, they discover and release Nights, who tells them about dreams, Wizeman and his plans, and the three begin a journey to stop Wizeman and restore peace to Nightopia." How about "Once in Nightopia, they discover and release Nights, who tells them about dreams and Wizeman and his plans; the three begin a journey to stop Wizeman and restore peace to Nightopia."

• Thank you, added. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Development

• Second paragraph, italicize "Sonic" unless you're meaning the character (if character, link it). If you mean the studio "Sonic Team", add Team.

• Very good catch, I meant the Sonic franchise so I italicised it. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Throughout the article, I noticed some punctuation issues. Whenever you use "however" in the middle of a sentence, a comma goes before and after; you only have it before.

Thanks for spotting this. I've added commas after throughout. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what stuck out to me so far. I'll have another look once the above is addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 19:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review JDC808! I've addressed all of your points so far. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Release

• Year of release after Super Mario 64.

• Added in brackets. JAGUAR  21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

HD version

• "However, Christmas Nights' Sonic the Hedgehog level was removed." "Sonic the Hedgehog" needs italiczed, but because of the awkwardness it would present (two game titles back to back), reword as "However, the Sonic the Hedgehog level of Christmas Nights was removed."

• Thanks, well spotted. I must have thought that this was referring to the character for some reason. JAGUAR  21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• If you were referring to the character, then what was previously there is fine, but the series was linked, which is why I made this comment. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Christmas Nights

• Year of release after Daytona USA and Sonic CD.

• Added both. JAGUAR  21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In other media

• Year of release after the games.

• Done, but not sure if this makes it look cluttered... JAGUAR  21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, it looks fine. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

After completing the article, that's all that stuck out to me. --JDC808 ♫ 20:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again JDC808, I got everything. I admit I've never seen the years of release mentioned in prose, but I added it anyway. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know. Thanks again. JAGUAR  21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if there's actually a written rule, but for me, it's perspective.

All of my issues have been addressed. I Support this article's promotion. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note

@Jaguar: This will need a full check for potential plagiarism/copyvio issues (not just a spot-check) so you may wish to start seeking an independent editor familiar with FAC reviewing for that purpose. --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask somebody if they're willing to do one. JAGUAR  11:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I should add that this check should be done after any comprehensiveness concerns are addressed. If additional sources are not located, this will have to be archived in any case. --Laser brain (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just asked for some Japanese scans. Once I receive them, I'll implement it immediately. JAGUAR  12:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Good news, I've found three scans of the Japanese Sega Saturn Magazine, so I'll spend the rest of today implementing them. Once that's done, I'll request a copyvio check. JAGUAR  13:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a plagiarism/copyvio request here. JAGUAR  17:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Copyvio/plagiarism check done, would there be anything else needed? JAGUAR  20:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but we'll need each citation checked in light of recent items that were discussed on your Talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: ProtoDrake has checked every citation (see below) and couldn't find copyvios. I double-checked everything myself before, but it's nice to have another reviewer formalise things. JAGUAR  20:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio Review by ProtoDrake

I've run the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector (see results). While there are two large "Copyvio" alerts, they are for a user review from GameSpot, and what appears to be a fan blog. Otherwise, there don't seem to be any problems with the article: "Copyvio" alerts beyond those two urls are negligible. I don't see any reason for this article not to become an FA. I therefore Support its promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That should be fine, my guess if that both of those links should be discounted anyway. The GameSpot user review was an obvious copy and paste of this article before I edited it! Thanks for going through this, Earwig's Copyvio Detector was down when I tried to check this. JAGUAR  20:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: sorry for coming back to this. Laser brain said that every citation needs to be checked to ensure that there is no plagiarism/copyvio in the article. I've done it myself, but I need an independent reviewer to check it over and formalise it. It's easy, I would just check every source to make sure that the text in the article isn't completely identical to the text in the source. It would be doing me a massive favour if this can be done because this FAC is on the verge of being let through. If you can't do it then I'll ask someone at WT:VG, but I would be so grateful if you could! JAGUAR  00:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Of course I will, but I'm unable to check some of the links due to them being dead (such as CVG). This has nothing to do with a Copyvio review, but it needs to happen. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: I can't find any overt copyvios on the live links. The unlinked print references I can't check, of course. The dead ones are another matter again. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ProtoDrake. I double-checked them myself twice and couldn't find any. It's good to have somebody else look it over. Here is the English translation for the interview with Hobby Consolas, and a couple of Japanese scans can be found on Sonic Retro. But of course, foreign languages make it void. Thanks once again for checking. JAGUAR  20:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• @ProtoDrake: I'm sorry to be a pain here, but as I'm unfamiliar with your method and ability to perform copyvio checks, can you give me more information about your process and results? We need something more than "I can't find any overt copyvios". We need to make sure that we check for close paraphrasing as well as copied text, plus whether the source supports what it's citing. Generally I look for a side-by-side comparison of the article text and source text, for at least some of the citations. Can you give us more details please? --Laser brain (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  @Laser brain: I looked through the citations available and compared source with article for both direct lifts and unreasonable amounts of close paraphrasing. While there was inevitably some similar phrasing here and there (English is like that), I didn't find anything serious enough to hold up even an FA. If you don't have confidence in my abilities, I will strike my support from the record and another editor can be brought in. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  I have full confidence that the copvyio check was sufficient, as well as I'm confident that there were no copyvios in the first place. @WP:FAC coordinators: I think this is the oldest nomination now, I'm keen to see anybody else's take on this. JAGUAR  20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments from Laser brain

I started reading through this tonight to see if it might be ready for promotion, and unfortunately I am readily finding issues with the writing. This will need a thorough prose review from someone with an eye on criterion 1a before it could be considered for promotion. Examples:

• "Gameplay is centred around Nights flying through Claris and Elliot's dreams" Later you indicate that their dreams are separate, so this is incorrect punctuation.

• I think the reader would know that everybody's dreams are separate and never connected in any way. How would Gameplay is centred around Nights flying through the dreams of Claris and Elliot to gather enough energy to defeat Wizeman and save Nightopia sound? JAGUAR  12:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Extraneous "in order to" present at least twice in just the first para.

• In British English, "in order" is usually omitted. I don't know if it's a personal preference or if times are changing but I use "in order to" most of the time. I see what you mean, so I dropped both. JAGUAR  11:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• "imposes time limits in every level" Impose on, not in.

• Fixed. JAGUAR  11:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Naka began the project with the central idea being flight" Unclear writing—what does this mean?

• Rephrased to Naka began the project with the main theme revolving around flight JAGUAR  12:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced modifiers ("Oshima also designed", "was exclusively included with some retail copies sold")

• Very good catch! Rephrased. Also fixed a misspelling in Ohshima's name. I removed "exclusively" because the controller could be bought separately, although this was the only game it was bundled with. JAGUAR  11:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• "It has been included ... as being the best Sega Saturn game of all time" Grammar

• Changed to It has been included on multiple lists as being the best Sega Saturn game of all time, as well as among the best games ever made.

I didn't read past the lead. I'm hoping this one suffers from a bit of lead neglect syndrome and the rest is smoother. But, I think it needs further work. --Laser brain (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll get to this in the morning. JAGUAR  01:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll read further when I have time today, recusing my coordinator role on this one. If I don't find major issues, I'll try to just fix them. Style guides generally recommend that "I circled the block in order to find a parking spot" is synonymous with "I circled the block to find a parking spot". It's not that "in order to" is incorrect, but the old adage is not to use words you don't need. --Laser brain (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Laser brain: I should have everything addressed, except the first point regarding the dreams, as I think that the reader should already know that all dreams are separate. To me, the sentence "centred around Nights flying through Claris and Elliot's dreams" sounds right as it refers to two different people and dreams, not dreams that are shared with two people. I left a suggestion above but I'm not sure about implementing it. In addition, I went through the rest of the article with a fine-pick and copyedited some of the prose. Thanks again! JAGUAR  12:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: just a reminder. Were you going to leave any another comments? I understand that the involvement here might nullify your role as a coordinator, so if not, should I ping the other coordinator(s)? JAGUAR  19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The other coord has watchlisted, and will return in due course to look over how things stand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: just checking in, more comments were left along with two new supports. JAGUAR  15:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Cameo appearance by Wehwalt

Comment This comment criticizing the sourcing here was left in the FAC for Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar. Just passing it on. That's the limit of what I'm doing here (exits stage left)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know what he means by "incorrect". The sources have been checked over by myself three times and an independent review by another user has already been made. Maybe he meant formatting? I don't know. I'll check it out in the morning. JAGUAR  01:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Singora I see you've now dropped ref 66 (the one from 2007 that pointed to the Sega website's home page), but ref 41 is still wrong. There is no blurb by Andy Robinson re: "Nights Wii - First details". You need to archive all web links: your article is only as good as its sources, and when link-rot kicks in a few years from now this whole article will be worthless. Re-check your other sources, too, as I'm sure I found one more mistake. Singora (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Singora. I was on my phone last night and I removed ref 66 as I thought it wasn't needed; ref 68 and 69 is sufficient for the remaster. I was going to ping you this morning as I wasn't sure. I've archived ref 41, and the first paragraph mentions that the sequel had featured reviews from other publications. I'm going to archive all the online sources now. JAGUAR  15:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Singora. Cool. Check ref #41 (Andy Robinson re: "Nights Wii - First details"). I'm sure it's wrong. When you've archived all web links I'll re-read your article and most likely support. Note that archive.org will sometimes throw up a message saying the link couldn't be archived due to "robots.txt". If this happens, try using webcitation.org. If it's of any interest (and I'm sure it isn't) I once had an Atari 400 and spent disgusting amounts of time playing Pacman, Centipede and Star Raiders. Singora (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Singora: I've archived every online source, with the sole exception of the scans from Internet Archive, as it can never be archived. I think it's safe to say that the Internet Archive will never fall! Thanks for letting me know about webcitation, the only sources that had robot.txt in it was 1UP, but now they're safe. Regarding ref 41, I've rephrased it so it now mentions that its sequel was first previewed on a Spanish publication, although it received mentions from two magazines before it. That's what the first paragraph of the source was saying, and hopefully I've cleared that up? I don't play as many video games as I used to (shock), but I grew up with this game! Thanks again for your comments. JAGUAR  18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I'm not an expert on his game nor have I ever played it but the article looks to be comprehensive, neutral and well-written. All sources are archived so no dead links. Z105space (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

More from Singora Singora (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
You've archived things properly. I see now you and I were talking at cross purposes re: ref #41. Compare:

• The original URL: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161186
• With the archived URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20070715053247/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161186
• Notice how the original redirects to the URL: http://www.gamesradar.com/?id=161186

In other words the original link has "rotted" to the extent that it now points to a different domain. As such, you should remove the original from the source. Other than this, Support on sourcing and structure. I don't have time to re-read and check the prose as I've promised to check some PDFs for another article (ie, a guy called Wehewalt).

Thank you for that support! I've removed the original URL, well spotted. 15:08, 2 June 2016 (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) 13:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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