Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2017

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) 23:58, 31 December 2017 [1].

---

Ho Ho Ho

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Since it is almost Christmas (at the time of the nomination), I have decided to put this article on the 1997 Christmas album by American singer and drag queen RuPaul as a way to celebrate the holiday season. Ho Ho Ho consists of thirteen tracks, including ten covers of Christmas standards and carols, and three original songs written by Joe Carrano and RuPaul The album was frequently referenced as an example of camp though RuPaul did specify that he recorded several more serious covers, specifically "All Alone on Christmas" and "Hard Candy Christmas”.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this nomination. Surprisingly enough, this would be the first Christmas album article to reach the FA level if this is successful. I hope that everyone has a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "is a 1997 Christmas album and the third overall studio album" - overall is redundant

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Released on October 28, 1997 by Rhino" - I'd clarify that Rhino is a record label

• Clarified. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and serves as a follow-up to Foxy Lady (1996)" - I'd give a very brief description of the genre for Foxy Lady here

• I do not see how the genre would be relevant here. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Ho Ho Ho consists of thirteen tracks, including ten covers of Christmas standards and carols, and three original songs written by Joe Carrano and RuPaul " - missing a period, I think

• Added a period. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The album was frequently referenced as an example of camp though RuPaul did specify that he recorded several more serious covers, specifically "All Alone on Christmas" and "Hard Candy Christmas"." - Referenced by whom? Also, the second half of this sentence is a mess; what do you mean he specified that he recorded moe serious covers? Super vague language

• Added that critics were the ones referencing the album as an example of camp. I am not sure what you mean by the "super vague language" comment on the last part though as i feel that it is pretty clear that it is conveying that RuPaul stated that he did more serious interpretations of the songs as opposed to this camp classification. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "However, some commentators responded negatively to the record's use of humor and the clarity of its overall message." - did they respond negatively to its clarity, or to its lack of clarity?

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "It was also included in a parody list discussing the alt-right, the "War on Christmas", and the bathroom bill. " - punctuation needs focusing here; the way it's used this reads as a parody list, the "war on christmas"...

• I respectfully disagree with you on this matter as I think it is quite clear that the sentence is conveying that the list is on the following things (the alt-right, the "War on Christmas", and the bathroom bill) and the commas separate the different parts that are included in the list. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• " In support of the record, RuPaul filmed a television special as a part of his VH1 talk show The RuPaul Show (1996)." - I'd remove the "a" before part.

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

How exciting to see one of Ru's albums at FAC! Since it's so short, I'm using an especially fine comb. More comments after these are resolved. ceranthor 03:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! I greatly appreciate your comments so far, and I am looking forward to the rest of your review. Hopefully, this nomination will inspire others to work on other articles on RuPaul's music and career. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In the lead, I meant to clarify that Foxy Lady was Rupaul's previous album. ceranthor 15:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• That is pretty clear through the phrase (serves as a follow-up to Foxy Lady) and the year also makes it clear that Foxy Lady was released prior to this one. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I've changed it to "follow-up to his 1996 album Foxy Lady."

• Thank you for the response; I am still not certain how your editing is that different as all you did was move the date from parenthesis to a short descriptive phrase, but I am fine with your edits. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• ""You can hear us having a good time. So whether it was a Hanukkah album or a Kwanzaa album, it didn't make a difference, because the chemistry is there."" - citation for direct quote?

• It is all cited by Reference 3; a majority of the first paragraph is cited by the reference and I do not see any need to repeat the citation multiple times throughout the paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "after years of attempting to record one with producer Lucian Piane.[3][6]" - clunky

• How would you record revising this part? I cannot find another way to phrase this? Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyedited to "after he spent years hoping to record one with producer Lucian Piane.[3][9]". I've also moved it around; feel free to tweak the location. ceranthor 19:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• However, RuPaul identified "Hard Candy Christmas" as one of the "serious ones" on the album, and said it was only referenced as camp due to "the fact that [he is] doing it". - citation for direct quote?

• See above. The citation is later down in the same paragraph as all of the information in that paragraph is sourced from that reference (i.e. in this case, it is Reference 2). Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "While highlighting the changes made to the songs' titles, Ken Veeder of The Advocate positively responded to RuPaul's interpretations of the Christmas classic in "the gay way"." - citation for a direct quote?

• See above; same reasoning for last comments of the same type. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "During an interview with the publication," - which publication?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Newman questioned the effectiveness of the record's overall message, noting that RuPaul's message in the liner notes about "creating one's own family for the holidays" did not fit with the image of "Ru's Christmas panties around his ankles". - citation for direct quote?

• See above for my responses to similar comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

More comments coming. ceranthor 15:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review so far! Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "RuPaul co-produced the album with American music producers Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato, who both work for the production company World of Wonder." - could we cut the "who both work..." bit to just "with American musics producers... names... from the production company World of Wonder"?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The album's record label Rhino executive promoted the album through the tagline: "Celebrate Christmas with classic holiday songs and camp, RuPaul style!"[4]" - any idea where they promoted it?

• I am assuming that it is just in random promotional materials, such as print publications. Here is the quote in full from the source: ("Celebrate Christmas with classic holiday songs and camp, RuPaul style!" trumpet the good folks at Rhino Records who have unleashed this 13-track collection in stores.). Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• On the fourth track, RuPaul provides a "naughty" interpretation of the single "Santa Baby". - I find this sentence confusing, since the original definitely isn't innocent...

• Removed as it is rather silly. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Alternatively, his covers of "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" and "Hard Candy Christmas" were noted for their use of camp - could you mention here that the cover is titled "I Saw Daddy Kissing Santa Claus"?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Christmas Train (Medley)", serving as "a sassy summary of the season’s favorites atop a white-hot club mix".[1] - why the quote? It doesn't feel appropriate here; could you describe the song in your own words?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• The final track is a remix of the "Celebrate"; - Is there a word missing here? It seems like it

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• " and writer from OutTV referred to it as a "collection of cheeky and cheerful tunes"." - missing an "a", I think

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In a 2016 retrospective review, Serene Dominic of Tucson Weekly included RuPaul as part of its list of artists who should not have released a Christmas album for Ho Ho Ho." - The way this sentence is written makes it sound like Dominic actually dislikes the album; anyway you could rewrite it to change that would be great.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Any idea how many total copies the album sold? Is that available anywhere?

• Unfortunately, I could not track down this information. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with this. Once these are fixed, I hope to support. ceranthor 02:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate your help with this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. ceranthor 15:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Support ceranthor 15:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

• "made available on October 28, 1997 by Rhino on cassette, CD, and digital download" - It was made available on digital download in 1997? Are you sure? That seems a bIt anachronistic.

• Thank you for catching that! I am not sure how I missed that one. I have corrected it. I have changed this in the "Recording and release" section and the "Release history" chart. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "During an interview with the Gay Times" - I'd specify what year the interview was in.

• Added the year. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd add the year the parody list was written to the body, and probably to the lead as well.

• Added the year. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all I found. Looks really good. Freikorp (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Freikorp: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Not much to quibble over here. I noticed ref 18: "Queerty" – what's the background here? Why is this a high quality reliable source? Otherwise, sources look appropriate and in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: Thank you for the review. Newsweek referenced it as "a leading site for gay issues", so it seems to have gotten some credibility through that. I could not find a list of editors or an about page on the site. Just for clarity's sake, the source is an interview with someone if that makes a difference. I could easily remove it from the article if necessary though as it is not extensively used. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'll leave it you, though you might wish to consult other (knowledgeable) editors about whether to keep it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: Thank you for the reply. I am trying to be better at learning about source reliability and appropriateness so I greatly appreciate the feedback. Would it be okay if I make a post on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask about this? I am not tied down to the source either way, and would not mind if it needs to be removed as it is not used as an integral part of the article. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day or night! If I hear anything back from the RSN, then I will post a link and/or quote from the discussion on here to clarify which way the decision goes in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

I'll be posting some comments within the next day. JOEBRO64 23:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ho Ho Ho, also known as VH-1 Presents RuPaul: Ho Ho Ho,[1] Is it possible to move this citation out of the lead?

• I moved the information to the body of the article so it could be cited there. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works, AllMusic should be italicized.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Since I could not find any major issues, I'm happy to support this now! I found this a comprehensive and well-written article. Well done. JOEBRO64 19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2

• I found no major issues with this article other than the fact that Release history simply says 2009. Could it be a bit more specific?

• That is a good point, but unfortunately, I could not find a more exact date as digital platforms list the album's original release date as opposed to the date in which it was released as a digital download. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also "In a 2016 retrospective review, Serene Dominic of Tucson Weekly jokingly included RuPaul as part of its list of artists who should not have released a Christmas album for Ho Ho Ho. The article was written as a parody of the alt-right and the "War on Christmas", with Dominic joking that the album led to the creation of the bathroom bills." feels too small for a paragraph considering it only has two sentences. Maybe it could be merged into another paragraph or simply be expanded.Tintor2 (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am hesitant to combine the paragraph with another one as it represents a different topic/idea than any of the other paragraphs in the same section. The closest one would be the paragraph on the retrospective praise, but I think the Tuscon Weekly source uses the album more as a humorous moment as opposed to a real review. I would also not want to expand it as I do not want to give undue weight to one source but having more than two sentences devoted to it if that makes any sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Leaving my support then.Tintor2 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:RuPaulHoHoHo.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:MichelleVisageimage.png: Use seems fine, license as well although the lack of EXIF is odd. AGF on second source, first source for the caption checks out.

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you as always! Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for Status Update

• @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if either one of you could provide an update on this nomination. It has received several reviews, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful end of the year. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2017 (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) 23:58, 31 December 2017 (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) 23:42, 31 December 2017 [2].

---

Valley View (Romney, West Virginia)

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is my second submission of this article for FAC review. I have sufficiently addressed the issues and suggestions raised by editors during the first FAC review process for this article. Unfortunately, I was not able to address them during that review period. I am eager to receive additional guidance, and to incorporate all the suggested changes so that this article may finally attain FA status. Thank you all for taking the time to review this article for FAC! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Valley_View_Romney_WV_2013_01.jpg: did the creator release the image under that specific license? Same with File:Valley_View_Romney_WV_2013_02.jpg
• File:ThomasFairfax6th.jpg: source link is dead and the two license tags are redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you so much for completing an image review for this article! The first two photographs of Valley View were provided to me by the author to share on Wikimedia Commons under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" license at that time. Please let me know if you there is any additional documentation that is needed for this. I am currently working to find the appropriate source link for the Lord Fairfax portrait black and white reproduction. What would be the appropriate license for this image? Thank you again! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If the author explicitly released them under that license, should clarify that in the source line (and ideally provide an OTRS ticket). For the Fairfax image, the first of the two would be sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Nikkimaria! Thank you so much for your additional guidance. Regarding the Valley View photographs, I have added that both photographs are "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license with [the author's] expressed permission." As for the Fairfax image, I have found the same black and white reproduction of the portrait painting in a book at Google Books: Pulliam, Ted (2011). Historic Alexandria: An Illustrated History. San Antonio: Historical Pub. Network (HPN) Books. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-935377-41-2. OCLC 740815622. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). If this is not permissible, then I will omit the photograph from the article. Thank you so much in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you so much for your review and guidance! Please let me know if you have any other suggestions in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, please let me know if you see any other impediments that would preclude this article from receiving FA status. Thanks again for all your continued guidance! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "As of 2012": The year is probably too old for "as of" at FAC.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Dank, thank you so much for taking the time to complete your review and copyedit of this article. It is much appreciated. I also removed the "as of" sentence. -- West Virginian (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 6: Page ranges need to be consistent; compare this (and ref 9) with ref 20
• Ref 28: What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Ref 32: Likewise this
• Sources: I can't find any citations to Maxwell & Swisher
• Explanatory notes; these should be cited to their sources in the normal way, i.e. using "<ref>" at the end of each note.

Otherwise sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, thank you for taking the time to review this article and to provide your guidance and feedback here! I am currently working to address each of your points one at a time. Reference 20 has been made consistent with References 6 and 9. -- West Virginian (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, I've replaced the two sources questioned above with online and hardcopy newspaper articles. I also removed the Maxwell & Swisher reference. (There had previously been content sourced from Maxwell & Swisher, but it was removed during previous review processes). I attempted to fix the explanatory notes, but I am still receiving an error. Any assistance you could provide would be incredibly helpful and appreciated! I am currently working to find a solution to this. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions for edits in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• I can't see, myself, what's causing the error message. Someone with a better grasp of harvard referencing should take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, I was able to incorporate the explanatory notes into separate internal citations below. Please let me know if this will work. If not, I'll see if I can find an acceptable solution. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any further suggestions. Thank you again for taking the time to engage in this review, and to provide your feedback for improvement. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, please let me know if you find the current footnote layout acceptable. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions in the meantime, and I'll address them immediately. Thank you again for taking the time to review this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• For the time being, leave it. It won't be a barrier to the article's promotion, though it would be good to find a better solution eventually. I have many outstanding commitments at present, and I won't be able to add to this review for the time being, although I'll keep an eye onits progress. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, I definitely understand and I thank you again for your review, and for all your efforts here! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, I know you are busy with many other projects at the moment, but I couldn't help but excitedly let you know that I was able to find a solution to the explanatory notes issue. Please take a look whenever you are able to and let me know what you think. Thank you tremendously again for all your guidance and feedback. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Looking foward to reading, comments to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• property: when did it belong to Fairfox?
• "the Collins family": I thought I should have known them already ;)
• "two-story (double) wood porch": in the lead, I'd be happy with one of the two terms.
• "locally significant architecture", what does it mean, compared to "significant architecture"?
• How about a hint at "registered monument" in the first paragraph, explaining why we should read. Railroad information seemed a bit off-topic to me.

• Gerda Arendt, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article and offer your comments and suggestions here! I will be addressing each section at a time. The property belonged to Fairfax from 1719, when he inherited the Northern Neck Proprietary, until 1749 when the tract on which Valley View stands was purchased from Lord Fairfax by John Collins. I've added 1719 and John Collins to the lede for specificity's sake. I've also changed "two-story (double) wood porch" to "two-story wood porch." Valley View's architecture is significant in the context of its era and location, which is why it was written as "locally significant" versus "significant." I've moved its NRHP listing to the top of the lede, and removed mentions of the scenic railroad. The house is visible from the railroad, but this bit of the lede was removed several reviews ago, so I've removed the rest. Please let me know if the lede requires any additional work! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I like what you did. What I say is always just question and suggestion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Parsons

• The image needs a bit of caption to explain (to someone like me who looks at images first) why it is there.
• 2nd para: please repeat which Parsons died.
• do we have to understand "Collins Tract" when first mentioned?
• "James Parsons Jr. was a farmer and cattleman who was born in Hampshire County. In her 1913 Parsons' Family History and Record, Parsons' relative (and family genealogist) Virginia Parsons MacCabe wrote about him ..." - Forgive me, but after James, I am surprises by "her". Yes, after another line we get Virginia, but can you reword that, bringing her name forward?
• "In 1855, Parsons began building the present-day Valley View house, 1 mile (1.6 km) north of Romney on the Collins Tract." - I think this is missing at least a comma, after Romney, but suggest to place the position at the end.
• The cost of building comes rather late ;)

• Gerda Arendt, thank you again! I've removed the portrait of Lord Fairfax. I've also added the full name of James Gregg Parsons. The property became known as the Collins Tract by the Parsons family due to its previous ownership by the Collins family, and probably to differentiate it from the Parsons property at nearby Wappocomo. I added a brief explanation at its first mention. I also reworded the problematic sentence as thus: Parsons family genealogist Virginia Parsons MacCabe wrote the following description of James Parsons Jr. in her book Parsons' Family History and Record (1913): "He was square and honorable in business, and had a large circle of friends; he had the urbanity and the gentility of manner which characterizes the true gentleman". I removed "1 mile (1.6 km) north of Romney" from the last problematic sentence. Please let me know if you have an outstanding issues with this section, and thank you again for your comments! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I like that as well, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Harmison

• "a hotel (the Virginia House)": why in brackets?
• "... Charles had bought after the war. Influenced by her childhood home ...": again he-her
• Harmison dies rather suddenly after the railroad interlude.
• please explain what "a contemporary kitchen building" means compared to "a contemporary kitchen" (later I understand better that it's an additional building)

• Gerda Arendt, I changed the first sentence to: Charles Harmison's older brother had moved to Romney, where he established and operated the Virginia House hotel. I also made several modifications to the Charles Harmison subsection, including to address the issue you mention above. The railroad was included in this section, since it is chronological and it was a further modification of the farm. I moved Harmison's death to the paragraph below. I used contemporary in this case, because the kitchen was new for its time. I also removed building from the last sentence. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Exterior

• I never need 4 refs for one fact.

• I've fixed this so that is just three references at a maximum. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Geography

• why so late? - An image of the landscape earlier would help my understanding.
• very sudden end ;)
• any floor plan, or perhaps a hint where one can be found in the sources?

• Gerda Arendt, I moved Geography section to the top and renamed it "Geography and setting." Unfortunately, I was unable to find a floor plan. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or notice any other items that need adjusting! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Gerda Arendt, thank you so much for the review, and for your support! Please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be addressed in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

The house at Valley View is a two-story brick Greek Revival-style structure with a rectangular architectural plan. - you've mentioned it's a Greek Revival residence in the first sentence, so no need to repeat.

Each of the original eight large rooms (of the 1855 structure) - bracketed bit redundant and can be removed

Reading the lead, I don't get a sense of why it's notable. any other information that can be added as to why it was placed on the register I think would be good here.

The Mayhew family, which owns Valley View, also owns Valley View Island - this sentence sounds like it is introducing the Mayhews...except they've already been mentioned in the previous para. Needs to be rejigged so the first mention is more of an introduction

and Lord Fairfax selected a portion of it for his manor. - why not just, "who selected a portion of it for his manor."

Charles Harmison's older brother had moved to Romney - Repetitive. I'd change to "his older brother had moved to Romney" and append to previous para as subject matter flows on.

I still don't get a sense of why this was heritage listed. Some embellishment of the architecture section would be good.

A nice read overall Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Cas Liber, thank you so tremendously for taking the time to perform this review and provide your valuable feedback and suggestions here. I addressed all your comments in the article's prose, and would like to see if my rewriting has hit the mark. Please let me know if there are any outstanding issues with this article, and I will address those as expediently as possible. Thank you also for your kind words regarding the article--I am so glad you enjoyed reading it! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, am content now on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Nicely written and thorough. I made a small number of minor edits as I went; please revert any you think are misguided. Here are a few more suggestions:

Lead

• ¶2 "His wife Elizabeth Smith Harmison, inspired by her childhood Virginia home Western View and the scenic South Branch Potomac River views, named the farm Valley View." - Unless he had more than one wife, "Elizabeth Smith Harrison" should be set off in commas. Western View should be set off in commas as well.
• ¶2 "Following a series of owners, the property was purchased by the Mayhew family in 1979." – Grammar. Suggestion: "The most recent of a series of owners, the Mayhew family bought the property in 1979."

• Finetooth, I've added commas as suggested and I've also re-worded the sentence regarding the Mayhew family's ownership. Please let me know if this works, and if you have any other suggestions for this section. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

History

• Rather than repeating "ownership" in the four subheads in this section, I'd consider deleting the word "ownership" from all but the first.

• Finetooth, wonderful suggestion and done! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Harmison family ownership

• ¶3 "brought his wife Carrie Belle Fox (1870–1953)" – Commas around "Carrie Belle Fox (1870–1953)" unless George had more than one wife.

• Finetooth, another wonderful suggestion and done! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Mayhew family ownership

• ¶1 "The tract on which the Valley View residence is located currently measures 6.63 acres (2.68 ha)." - Flip to active voice and tighten? Suggestion: "The Valley View residence lies on a 6.63-acre (2.68 ha) tract."
• ¶3 "...to survey and document its architecture and history...". – Vague. Replace "its" with "the structures' "?

• Finetooth, I concur with both and have incorporated these suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Exterior

• ¶2 "...four nine-over-six double-hung wooden sashes on the first story..." – Add a note or a link explaining "nine-over-six" and similar terms? I think nine-over-six means nine panes in the upper sash and six panes in the lower. Yes? No?

• Finetooth, you are indeed correct! This may make for a great sourced footnote. Let me work on addressing this before I continue with the rest of my responses. Standby. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Finetooth, I've added a footnote with three references describing and defining the components and technical terms of sash windows mentioned within the prose. Please let me know if this will require any additional elaboration. Thank so much again for addressing this! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Interior

• "Although the house's foundation is low, the height of the interior walls and the full-sized attic make it appear tall from the outside." – Clarify what "it" refers to, the house or the foundation?

• Finetooth, thank you for this catch! The it refers to the house, and I have clarified this in the sentence per your suggestion. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

General

• The Wappocomo image needs alt text.
• There are a few duplicate links; e.g., board-and-batten, smokehouse, and ice house in the "Architecture" section and linked again in "Kitchen addition" and "Ancillary structures".
• No problems with disambiguation.
• No dead URLs.

• Finetooth, I've added alt text to the Wappocomo image so please let me know if this is satisfactory. I have also de-linked the duplicate links. Thank you again for a thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and please let me know if you see anything else that is outstanding and needs to be fixed! Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Finetooth, thank you tremendously for your review and suggestions. I am reviewing them as we speak and will respond once I am finished! Thanks again, and Happy New Year's Eve! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Everything you adjusted looks good to me now, and I made a few more minor changes that you may want to review. Switching to support on prose. Nicely done article. Finetooth (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Finetooth, thank you so much for taking this time, especially on New Year's Eve, to thoroughly review this article and provide such thoughtful guidance. Please let me know if you have any further guidance. Your subsequent edits work perfectly. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Happy New Year. Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2017 (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) 23:42, 31 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2017 [3].

---

Rogožarski IK-3

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a pretty reasonable home-grown Yugoslav fighter aircraft of which only 12 were produced. Their pilots fought bravely against the April 1941 invasion of their country, but most if not all were destroyed in the fighting. The design was used as the basis for the locally built post-war S-49 fighter. This article went through Milhist A-Class review a year or so ago, and has been stable since then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Rogozarski_IK-3.jpg: bit confused by the sourcing here - is this own work, or taken from the given site? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Own work by the look of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

The only thing I can find is that you need to lose "England" from the location of the Green & Swanborough book. Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The first sentence of the lede is rather information packed and could profitably be trimmed of a couple of adjectives, IMO.

  Trimmed.

• Link machine gun, prototype, Kapetan, windscreen, fuselage, airframe, undercarriage, hangar, squadron, regiment

  Think I got them all.

• "Pilot group" reads oddly, perhaps evaluating pilots or somesuch?

  Changed.

• What type of 20mm cannon armed the prototype?

  Good pickup, don't know how I missed that. It was a Hispano-Suiza 404, added.

• in Belgrade and the parts were assembled at the company hangar Suggest replacing "the parts" with "then"

  Done.

• Can any of the claims by the Yugoslav pilots be confirmed by German records?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  It isn't clear what claims were confirmed from German records and what weren't. Shores et al usually nominate recorded German losses, but don't differentiate the IK-3 victories from the ones by other aircraft.

  Thanks for the review, Sturm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  Supporting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

Kudos for writing an interesting article about a relatively obscure plane. It isn't there yet. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I tentatively support, even though it is short, subject to these copyedits. HJ Mitchell, feel free to ping me next time you think I have forgotten to complete a review, which in fact I had. Sorry about that. --John (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John, your copy edits were great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

No disrespect to John, but "it isn't here yet" is not a particularly helpful comment, and doesn't leave a lot to go on.

• The new streamlined low-wing monoplane design Several aircraft are mentioned in the section above; are we talking about the IK-3 here?
  • Have tried to make this clearer.
• These pilots observed that the controls were highly sensitive but the only real criticisms related Is sensitivity of the controls a good thing or a bad thing? Why the "but"?
  • Good point, John editing it out.
• distortion caused by the convex What do we mean by distortion in this context?
  • Visual, John picked this one up too.
• although the Yugoslav aircraft The IK-3? And why "although"? "Although" has negative connotations but higher speed is usually a positive attribute for a fighter plane.
  • dropped, John got it.
• placed an order with Rogožarski for 12 aircraft Why such a small order? Lack of confidence in the design? Budgetary constraints?
  • the sources don't say, but I think more than anything it was about the conservatism of the higher authorities combined with budget issues; they later put in a order for another 25.
• at 5,400 m (17,700 ft) Perhaps make clear that this is altitude?
  • Done.
• destroyed by factory personnel Deliberately? Scuttled? Sabotaged? The lead suggests it was a deliberate scuttling but this could be read as an industrial accident.
  • Deliberately, added.
• was captured by the Germans in April 1941 and by the end of June a second IK-3 had been obtained Is there any need for the passive voice there? Do we know how the Germans managed this?
  • Unclear from the sources, but they may have been able to cobble together another one from the remains of the incomplete aircraft that were sabotaged by the factory personnel.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• All done, Harry! Thanks for the review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with that. It's on the short side, but if only a handful of them were built and they only had a short career then there's not going to be reams to write about them. Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this looks good to go, can I nominate a new one please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed at GAN and ACR so would like to recuse as coord and walk through shortly, so Sarastro1 could you make the call on the above request? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ian

Having checked changes since my last edit around the time of the article's ACR, and performed a minor ce, I see nothing preventing elevation to FA status -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 31 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2017 (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) 00:59, 31 December 2017 [4].

---

Arthur Sullivan

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 11:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan has been a Good Article for nearly ten years, and we think it is time to bring it to FA, to join W. S. Gilbert and Sullivan's English composer peers, Elgar, Delius, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Walton, Britten et al. The article has just had a particularly thorough and helpful peer review – our warm thanks to colleagues who contributed – and we now think it is ready for consideration as a Featured Article. – Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 11:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sir_Arthur_Seymour_Sullivan.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • I'm afraid we don't know. Ellis and Walery was a well-known partnership (or possibly company) but I don't think anyone knows if this photo was taken by Ellis, Walery or an employee. If there is a problem with it on Commons we can easily show that it was published in the UK before 1923 (it was the standard image of Sullivan used in books and journals) and put it on en.wiki instead. Tim riley talk 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Would it meet the criteria of PD-UK-unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • On the face of it, I think so, but I don't know if a partnership/company is covered by that. Tim riley talk 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Indeed, Ellis & Walery published the image, but it was taken in the 1880s, *before* they formed their partnership; they (or the Walery gallery) must have purchased it to reproduce or reproduced it on behalf of Sir Arthur. This was probably first used as a carte-de-visit by Sullivan himself in the 1880s, and the photographer is definitely "unknown". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Okay. Suggest swapping in the UK-unknown tag, with that explanation of why the authorship is unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Tim, please check my update of the description and source on the Image page, and adjust if necessary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Looks spot-on to me. Tim riley talk 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• File:Arthur-sullivan-circa-1855.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • Done, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• File:Arthur_Sullivan,_The_Lost_Chord,_Reed_Miller_1913_(restored_1).ogg: if the singer lived until 1923, you can't use a life+100 tag for the recording until 2024
  • Ss - may I leave the sound files to you? I am even less clued up about them than I am about image files. Tim riley talk 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I changed this to a life+70 tag, which is all that is required for Britain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• File:Arthur_Sullivan,_conductor,_by_Lyall.jpg: if we're using a URAA tag that states the image is PD in its country of origin, we should include a tag indicating why the image is PD in its country of origin
  • Tag added: the appropriate one, I think (and hope) Tim riley talk 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• File:Chieftain_poster_1894.jpg: source link is dead
  • Rectified. Tim riley talk 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• File:If-you-go-in-verse-refrain.tif and File:Mikado-trio.tif should include an explicit copyright tag for the original works
  • For the writing or the printing? (Though in fact they are the same within a matter of months)? Tim riley talk 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Were the music and lyrics copyrighted separately? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Not specifically, as far as I know. I don't think (though I may be horribly wrong) there was any specific register of copyright in 1880s England. Iolanthe was premiered and its libretto and score (piano version, as used here) published in 1882; ditto for The Mikado in 1885. Tim riley talk 21:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay, tag based on the first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks for that: now done. Tim riley talk 14:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• File:Sullivan-1870.jpg: if the author died in 1918, we can't use a life+100 tag until 2019
  • Should it be on Commons at all? Ought it to be an en.wiki file? Tim riley talk 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Where was the card published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Britain, and almost certainly London. Sullivan was not internationally famous as early as that. Tim riley talk 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I've changed it to life+70, which is all that is required for Britain. For US, Nikkimaria, isn't there a tag we use when an unpublished image was taken more than 120 years ago?
          • Are you thinking of {{PD-US-unpublished}}? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Yes, thanks! Now added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• File:Arthur_Sullivan_-_wax_cylinder_recording.ogg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ss - may I leave this to you? Tim riley talk 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed! Now I feel useful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, please let us know if we've resolved all the image questions satisfactorily now. Thanks so much for doing the review! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt

Support per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for support here and input at PR. Both greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Smerus

Support - peer review was pretty comprehensive and all my points were dealt with (and mostly to my satisfaction  :-)). Eminently worthy for FA, is the opinion of this highly susceptible editor.--Smerus (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Smerus, thank you so much for input at PR – you certainly put us through our paces – and your support here. Tim riley talk 19:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

• Comment It's looking great; I made a few wee nips and tucks which I hope you won't object to. There might be a few others; "excruciating"? One request; although it's no longer a FA requirement, I like to see alt-text on images for the benefit of users of screen readers. Would that be possible? --John (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added alt-text. Would you be so kind, John, as to review it and either make any adjustments needed, or let me know if you see any problems with the alt text? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather cross with myself for missing that. It's something I habitually check on when reviewing other people's nominations. I discussed it with a blind editor who told me how important alt-text is and gave me tips on making it concise but helpful. Tim riley talk 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• C sharp minor, rather than C# minor? --John (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure which is more "encyclopedic". Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll see both employed in WP articles. Unlike Grove we haven't got a house style on this. It does matter, however, that the usage is consistent within any article, and I'll read through and make certain it is here. Tim riley talk 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Later: checked. All is well. No ♭ or ♯ signs in the text. There's only one "flat" (apart from the one in Victoria Street) and one "sharp", both spelled out. – Tim riley talk 09:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• He became friendly with the future impresario Carl Rosa and the violinist Joseph Joachim, among others. Are we worried that the reader may think he made no other friends in this time? I think we may safely omit the last two words, though I wouldn't oppose over this.

I think the last two words are needed, as these were only two of the famous musicians he met there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I guessed that was what you meant, and I think it's certainly a lot better than it was when it said Among those with whom he became friendly were the future impresario Carl Rosa and the violinist Joseph Joachim. Wording like this always makes me think of a children's party which advertises "Biffo the Bear, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and more". I would favour naming them if they're noteworthy, and if not just taking it as read that of course he met loads of interesting people; he was a genius, after all, and they tend to attract each other. Third opinion? --John (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

On balance, stet, though I don't feel strongly on the matter. Tim riley talk 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Here are (most of) my edits so far. The only one which is other than minor is a slight shortening of the Legacy section, which seemed repetitious. --John (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ssilvers. --John (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Great article, thank you for writing it. I now support. --John (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Very comprehensive and a good read. Two things you may want to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Two "best known"s in the first para.

Thank you very much for these comments, and your support. I fixed this first issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is so much an a side issue that you can ignore it altogether, especially if it involves extra work. I just wondered if there is any obvious reason why the golden legend suddenly lost its popularity.

This is a good question, but our article on The Golden Legend answers it pretty well. Basically, after Sullivan's death, his critical reputation declined sharply, as we discuss here, and nearly all of his non-G&S music suffered from neglect. The G&S Discography quotes Arthur Jacobs as writing: "no work more cruelly illustrates the posthumous decline in Sullivan's reputation as a 'serious' composer". In addition, a new generation of composers, especially Edward Elgar, brought fresh new choral and orchestral works to the British musical scene that crowded out Romantic music. The "Victorian soppiness" of the sentimental libretto is also partly blamed. It wasn't until Hyperion released the first (and I think only) professional recording of the work in 2001 that the public could give the music a fair hearing, but even that cannot rescue the libretto. According to Robin Gordon-Powell, like other serious Sullivan pieces, The Golden Legend has been performed increasingly in recent decades, but not nearly as often as during Sullivan's lifetime, nor by many leading orchestras. Given the blue-link to the work's own article, and the length of this article, I'm not sure we want to spend any ink on this here in the Sullivan article. Tim, what do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, it was more idle curiosity that an actionable request anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

• Support My concerns were dealt with at PR, and the article meets the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Sources missing Dunhill 1928.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added the source now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Good luck.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from DBaK

I'm delighted to support this interesting and well-constructed article. I have some very minor queries, which do not affect my support:

• The Royal Aquarium came as a bit of a surprise to me. I wondered if the article would benefit at all from saying what it was in a word or two rather than making people click through to find that AS wasn't really conducting shoals of fish. Not a showstopper, though, if you would rather leave it as a bit of a "wait, what?" moment.

I added the word "Theatre". Does that work for you, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Tim riley talk 18:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I was not sure about the use of "fracture" for the problems in the G–S relationship. Maybe it's just my dialect of English but I wouldn't ever say that ... rift, schism, split, breach, conflict ... are those too wide/final-sounding? Even just disagreement? But YMMV.

I am an American, so I would also usually reach for a word like "rift", but we are writing in British usage for this article. "Fracture" certainly is more vivid than "split", conveying the pain involved, and I have no difficulty in understanding it. The G&S break-up was not just a conflict or disagreement, as the article explains; it was a painful break or fracture. What do you think, Tim: "rift", or leave it as "fracture"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think all the contemplated nouns would do quite well, and I'm v. happy with what we now have. Tim riley talk 18:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• There's a very overprecise inflation figure where the original says "became an instant sensation and raised an unprecedented £300,000". At the moment the inflated figure shows as "equivalent to £30,991,659" but it really shouldn't, and ought to be rather more rounded, probably to £31,000,000 or £31M or whatever. But not all those figures, please.

This is an automatic currency translator that will adjust automatically over time. It is used frequently in WP. But perhaps there is a better tool that you know of? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Finally, I find this awkward: "The sheet music for his best received songs sold in large numbers and were an important part of his income; many of them were adapted as dance pieces." The songs perhaps were, but the music was. It can't stay quite how it is; if you change were to was then the first chunk is OK but the second reads with more difficulty. I'd be tempted to rephrase it so everything is plural - you would then be talking about the songs and their effect and the medium, sheet music, would be less important and not dictate agreement. I'm sorry I can't quite suggest a model answer right now but I bet that a More Good With Word Person could. Oh, and if "best received" stays in, does it need a hyphen? I forget ...

Good catch. I've fixed this, and I moved the bit about the dance arrangements to a footnote, as those were actually a little later. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

...best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, very much, DBaK, and happy holidays to you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ssilvers for the useful responses. For the inflation, you might try adding the r=N parameter for rounding so for example:

• {{Inflation|UK|300000|1899|fmt=eq|cursign=£|r=-3}} gives "equivalent to £35,927,000 in 2021"
• {{Inflation|UK|300000|1899|fmt=eq|cursign=£|r=-4}} gives "equivalent to £35,930,000 in 2021"
• {{Inflation|UK|300000|1899|fmt=eq|cursign=£|r=-5}} gives "equivalent to £35,900,000 in 2021" and
• {{Inflation|UK|300000|1899|fmt=eq|cursign=£|r=-6}} gives "equivalent to £36,000,000 in 2021" which looks the same now but won't always!

For the record, I am British but I would still never use "fracture" like that, and have no problem with "rift" ... not of crucial importance though! Cheers DBaK (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I added the rounding parameter. Thanks again! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Solo/solos

One more minor point. Ceoil just did a little run of edits, most of which is excellent – sorting out "Sullivan" where it was ambiguous between Old Dad Sullivan and Little Pickle Arthur ... good stuff. However, I'm not sure about this one which changes this: During this first year at the academy Sullivan continued to sing solos with the Chapel Royal into this: During this first year at the academy Sullivan continued to sing solo with the Chapel Royal. My reasoning, speaking as a (cough) "musician" (well actually a brass player or rather someone who owns some brass instruments but please let's not split hairs here) is that "solos" sounds like he did a few tunes when picked out or requested or whatever, whereas solo sounds like he was actually appointed, which I don't think was the case. He was a singer who did some solos, but not in the role of Solo Singer, I think. Certainly, I was startled by the alteration, feeling it a substantial change in meaning. Does this resonate with anyone else or is it just my senile maunderings (again?? sheesh!). Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And don't think I'm over "fracture". Ha, not by a long chalk. I can bear a grudge as well as the next man ... revenge is a dish best eaten cold (with lots of custard), is all. Bwaaahahah! DBaK (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

He was appointed head chorister ("first boy") in 1856 (Jacobs, p. 12) and would thus have been the first choice for any treble solos, so I think either the singular or the plural is applicable, and will be happy with whichever we all decide on. Tim riley talk 10:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "solos". -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I've looked again and especially at the First Boy bit a couple of paragraphs above the "solos" spot (duh!). I'm no longer sure that my objection is at all valid: just go with the consensus? Definitely not worth fisticuffs; shutting up now! Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from BB

Subject to resolution of sources matters below. I commented at peer review and have no further issues with the text. A significant article whose promotion will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Brian, warmest thanks for your input at two peer reviews and here, and for your support. I can safely speak for both us in saying we are most grateful. Tim riley talk 13:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Some ref numbers have changed since I started the review – I hope the numbers quoted below are current:

• Ref 86: (StageBeauty.net) How is this a high quality, reliable source?
  • Deleted. Citation to Gaye does the job on its own. Tim riley talk 13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Tim, I don't have Gaye, but I doubt that it confirms that this was the second-longest run in history (to that date). Can you confirm? The Gillan site was accepted in the Pinafore FAC. Gillan is a published author and researched every musical theatre long run up to 1925. It is a valuable resource. Note that it is cited in various books. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine: by all means put it back in. I haven't got Gaye to hand this evening, not being at Riley Towers. If BB is happy with the Gillan page, then fine. Tim riley talk 21:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, here is part of the FAC for Pinafore:

I wrote: [Gillan's] non-profit, educational website provides extensive information about Victorian and Edwardian era theatre. It includes numerous biographies and picture galleries of actresses of the era, reprints of Victorian news items about the theatre, extensive postcard histories, and articles about historical subject of the era. This part of the website is a unique compilation of information that he has gleaned from The Theatre magazine and presented in a convenient table format available nowhere else. The website is praised here and linked to here and here, among other places. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This was so good a rebuttal that you now have your first G&S entry in my FAC cheatsheet, here! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 92: (NYT) link goes to a blank page
  • Mended. Tim riley talk 13:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 184: (Pietre-Stones) something wrong with the title as shown?
  • Repaired. Tim riley talk 13:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 216: (Pall Mall Gazette) You should add the "reproduced" note, per 183
  • Indeed. Now done. Tim riley talk 13:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 282: (Elgar) Currently returning "page not found". Check your url: I found the article here
  • Thanks for that. The ODNB has recently had a big revamp, carefully buggering up more URL links than this one. I've re-linked to the archive version, though I see that, inexplicably, no author is now credited for it. I propose to keep Maine's name in place nevertheless: I have a printed copy of the text (identical) in its previous archive manifestation, and his name is there all right. Tim riley talk 13:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 297: Says "Wolfson 1973", but the only Wolfson listed in sources is dated 1984 and has a different title. I can't find ant citations to the 1984 Wolfson, though note 25 mentions an undated Wolfson. Since note 25 is uncited, I reckon the answer is to add the citation here.
  • Yes. Done. Tim riley talk 13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• In the sources, Farrell is lacking publisher location.
  • Added. Tim riley talk 13:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources appear to in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for these points. All now addressed – I hope to your satisfaction. Tim riley talk 13:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks from me, too, Brian. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I'm very pressed for time at the moment, but I hope a few driveby comments will help in the article's development.

• "a Symphony, a Cello Concerto (both 1866)" I'm not keen on this; I think you should either use "symphony" and "cello concerto" with links to our articles on the genres, "a symphony" and "a cello concerto" with links to the particular pieces, or spell out the names of the pieces in italics.

Thanks. Lower cased now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "hymns, parlour ballads and other light pieces" Links?

I've linked parlour ballads (although commenters in previous years have asked us to unlink it), but linking "hymn" would be Overlinking, I think, and "other light pieces" is described in more detail below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "two cantatas" Link? Also for "Shakespeare" and "grand opera"?

Linked cantata and grand opera. Shakespeare is already linked in both the Lead and in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "By the waters of Babylon" Would Title Case be appropriate? You use it for other "songs" further down.

Done. Tim, please check to see if you think it's now consistent throughout. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A few minor tweaks made (pronouns in lc) Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "of musical styles, including Schubert, Verdi, Bach and Wagner." Are Schubert etc. really "musical styles"?

Now changed to "musicians". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Redrawn. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "His Irish Symphony and Cello Concerto" As before. I can't pretend to know much about the norms in academic writing about classical music, though!

I italicized these. Tim, please compare with the prev. instance and check my changes to the italics/quote marks for the various Overtures to see if you agree that we are consistent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've always found sticking to the Manual of Style's music section a safe course, and have done so here. Titles readjusted where necessary. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in those genres" How about "in their respective genres"? Again, this may be my problem...

This was changed per comments at Peer Review. I agree with you and would rather return to this. Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you both, and have changed the wording. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "his Overture In Memoriam" Again. I'm now suspecting that I may be wrong, though I do note that you refer to "his overture Marmion" in the same way that I would!

All italicized now. Again, Tim, please check. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

MoS formatting now applied. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "promise that just at present we can boast."[33] In" Is this consistent with MOS:LQ?

The rule says "If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside." It doesn't specifically discuss what to do if something is more than a fragment but less than a sentence. In this case, the long quoted passage is nearly a full sentence, missing only the word "It is" at the beginning, and the punctuation in the quoted text "coincides with the end of the sentence containing it". Does LQ still require the punctuation to be outside the quotation mark? Please let me know if I am misinterpreting the spirit of the rule. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan's most enduring orchestral work" I confess I'm not sure what this means.

It means that it is his "orchestral work" that continued to be performed most frequently through the 20th century and today, except that such a statement would be hard to prove. Hughes and other writers use the phrase "most enduring". Any ideas, Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Though we have borrowed the word from Hughes, it is, I agree, not ideal. I can't for the moment think of a concise alternative, but will ponder. It's a good point. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Onward, Christian Soldiers," Why italics? Would "Onward, Christian Soldiers" not be more appropriate?

Thanks! Good catch. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and the oratorio, The Light of the World (Birmingham Festival, 1873)." Remove the comma? Alternatively, change "the" to "an"?

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The Daily Telegraph commented" I know some at FAC disagree with me, but I see this as unwarranted personification. How about "The Daily Telegraph's reviewer commented" or something?

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is complete nonsense, although the change does no actual harm other than adding needless verbiage. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "One wrote, "it" Why the comma? "One wrote that "it..." might work?

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed back into good English. This is oratio recta, not obliqua. (I don't say I am never guilty of using a "that" before a direct quote, but it is better to refrain.) Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "same brain."[71] A" Is this consistent with MOS:LQ?

An entire sentence is included in the quote, although an introductory clause is not included, so I think it is correct as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "song was "Orpheus with his Lute" (1866), and a well-received part song was "Oh! hush thee, my babie" (1867).[12] The best known of his songs is "The Lost Chord"" Apparently(?) inconsistent use of capitals in song titles.

Fixed. Please check, Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

MoS changes applied. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "of a "national musical stage" ... free from" Why the ellipses?

Now blitzed, as Tim would say

Stopping there; hope to be back at some point! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent comments, Josh Milburn! Of course, my changes are subject to correction by Tim. Looking forward to reading the rest! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a few more minutes:

• "Carte, "[I]t" Again, I find these commas really quite jarring.

What do others think? It looks better to me than adding "that" here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It is. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "an interviewer, ""The opera" Typo, I assume?

Thanks! Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "earnest still."[124] He" MOS:LQ?

Fixed -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "episode "the strangest comingling of success and failure ever chronicled in the history of British lyric enterprise!"" Would it perhaps be better not to preserve the exclamation mark, and instead go for "enterprise"."?

The exclamation point is important, I think. The LQ rule says "other terminal punctuation, such as a question mark or *exclamation mark*, may be retained." Am I misreading it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• (Jumping back up) "penalty of £3,000 for his delay"- could we perhaps have a 2010s translation?

It means that the contract included a provision stating that if Sullivan missed the deadline (Carte's planned production date), he had to pay £3,000, which he did. Feel free to suggest language that you think would be clearer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant for the currency! What is that £3k in today's money? (You provide this elsewhere in the article for a different mention of a payment.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Bahaha! I've added the currency translator! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "heir next opera, Utopia Limited" Should there be a comma in that title?

Done, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The Beauty Stone (1898), with a libretto by Arthur Wing Pinero and J. Comyns Carr was based on mediaeval morality plays." Comma after "Carr", perhaps?

Done, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning some of the film adaptations of the operas?

No, I think that belongs in the Gilbert and Sullivan article, D'Oyly Carte Opera Company article and individual opera articles, where they are already mentioned. None of the film adaptations were, y'know, Oscar winners, and only one was really even a "feature film" (the 1939 Mikado). The adaptations are really only of interest to serious G&S fans and film history buffs and, as I said, they are generously covered elsewhere in G&S-related articles. We do mention that Sullivan is "portrayed on screen in The Story of Gilbert and Sullivan (1953) and Topsy-Turvy (2000)," both of which were arguably successful films. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Both relationships ended by early 1869" had ended, perhaps?

Tim? In American Eng., shorter would be better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The plain past tense seems sensible to me. I don't think the pluperfect would add anything of value. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "with the American socialite, Fanny Ronalds, a woman", again, either lose the comma after socialite or change the to an?

Comma deleted! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the autograph manuscript" What is an "autograph manuscript"?

It is the composer's original manuscript. The custom was for them to sign them. What do you think, Tim -- does this need to be "his original, signed manuscript", or something like that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Autograph simply means hand-written by the composer. This is the normal term, and can stand, I think. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "started to refer to her in the diary as" Why the?

Changed to "his". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1896 the 54-year-old Sullivan proposed marriage to the 22-year-old Violet Beddington (1874–1962), but she refused him.[180][n 28]" Perhaps you could move the note into the main body, to avoid a too-short paragraph? Just a thought.

The footnote material is not very important to Sullivan. What do you think, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Better where it now is. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Henry Lytton wrote, "I" Noting, again, the slightly surprising comma use.

This seems correct and normal to me. Is it a Brit. Eng. problem, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. This is the normal way of introducing a direct quote in BrE. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also, you don't seem to close the Lytton quote.

Thanks. Good catch! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "performed with D'Oyly Carte" Why not just Carte? Or is this a different person?

Carte is the person's surname. D'Oyly Carte is the name of the opera company. Now clarified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "where she had the opportunity to play Josephine in 1879" Josephine has not been introduced. Is she the lead?

Yes. Now clarified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "a D'Oyly Carte chorister" Again

Should be clear now that I've linked it earlier in the paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "an Imperial March, composed" As before- a weird mix of genre and title!

Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• A helpful rule of thumb in judging whether "march" or "overture" etc is part of the title is to ask yourself if you could refer to the work without it. You couldn't just call this piece "Imperial", and its correct title is "Imperial March". That said, perhaps here we should use a definite rather than an indefinite article before it. What think you? Tim riley talk 10:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I made it "his". Howzzat? -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I say – cricket! We'll make an Englishman of you yet. Excellent tweak, I think. Tim riley talk 20:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In Young's view" Who? I don't think this person has been introduced yet.

Tim, I moved "Percy" higher. Do we need to say "Biographer" or "Musicologist", etc.? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As he has a link, I think not. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "certain ways he seldom" Comma after ways, perhaps?

It has been cruelly drilled into me by Tim riley that Brit. English does not permit such a comma. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, I have never said never in BrE; all I say is that we use it only when it helps the reader. It is not needed in "On Monday I went shopping" but is helpful in "On first reading Joyce, Beckett was excited" because without it one is confronted, at first glance, with a hitherto unknown personage named Joyce Beckett. I don't think the comma is especially needed here, but it would do no harm. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik identified" Again, this feels like undue personification, but YMMV.

• If this usage is good enough for Fowler and Gowers, which it is, then it's good enough for me. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and Benedict Taylor, writing in 2017, concurs.[209] In a 2009 study Taylor adds Schubert" Can an earlier study add to a later?

I'll let Tim handle the above two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Taylor (2017) concurs with the earlier comment. In 2009 he added Schubert to the list of possible influences. Tim riley talk 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• That looks good to me, Tim. By all means make it so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "of long finales."[211]" MOS:LQ?

Thanks. Moved the punct outside the quotation marks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Richard Silverman, writing in 2009, points to the influence of Liszt in later works – a harmonic ambiguity and chromaticism – so that by the time of The Golden Legend Sullivan had abandoned a home key altogether for the prelude." Could this perhaps be expanded on a little or some links provided? It's a little tricky for this non-specialist!

Thanks. I added two links. We have been cautioned repeatedly to keep these sections as concise as possible. This is a truly technical sentence, and, as a person who has performed Sullivan music since the 1970s, I am confident that there is nothing to be gained by expanding it, and that any music historians who might want to know more about this will need to read Eden and Saremba's tome, if they can stand it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent changes, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, stopping there; really strong so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks, and looking forward to any further comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Drive-by comments"? No fear: lots of valuable points from Josh there, and I too hope for more. Tim riley talk 20:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll hopefully get to the bottom this time!

• "achieve "the clarity to match Gilbert's finely honed wit with musical wit of his own."[215]" Again, I wonder if the period belongs outside the quotemarks.

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and probably Utopia Limited." Utopia, Limited, perhaps?

Yes, done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Hughes cites "If you go in" (Iolanthe) as an example" Title case for songs?

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan often followed suit and produced phrases of simple repetition, such as "Love is a plaintive song" (Patience) and "A man who would woo a fair maid" (The Yeomen of the Guard)." As above, and presumably the phrases are in those songs, rather than being those songs (as I think is suggested by the current sentence structure).

Yes and Yes. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also "Go away, madam" in the next paragraph.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• ""Expressive glances" (Princess Ida)," Again

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but "smoothly negotiates" doesn't sound that neutral. Perhaps it could be reframed slightly to make it clear that this is Hughes's judgement, rather than a fact we are reporting!

Replaced "smoothly" with "among" Tim, would you prefer "from ... to ... to ..."? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any any careful reader of the sentence would miss the fact that we say this is what Hughes says. Restored. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "or "Then one of us will be a queen" (The Gondoliers), where" Caps again

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "to the ear."[12] Both" Again, I think I would put the period outside of the quotemarks.

Again, this is a complete sentence, so I believe the rule requires the punct to be inside the quotation mark. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in "I am so proud" (The Mikado)," Caps- there are several others over the rest of that paragraph.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "graceful tune for the ladies" Ladies feels a little old-fashioned.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• What's a fugue? Would a link be possible?

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "from the Epilogue to" Why caps? If you're referring to a piece called "Epilogue", presumably there should be quotemarks.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "as "Brightly Dawns our Wedding Day" (The Mikado) and "When the Buds are Blossoming" (Ruddigore).[238]" According to MOS:CAPTITLE, pronouns and verbs should have their initial letters capitalised- Our and Are.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and starting with The Yeomen of the Guard, the" We may disagree, here, but I would put a comma after and, to make starting...Guard parenthetical.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Hughes instances "Kind sir, you cannot have the heart" (The Gondoliers), "Free from his fetters grim" (The Yeomen of the Guard) and "In vain to us you plead" (Iolanthe).[248]" Caps

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in "Hereupon we're both agreed" (The Yeomen of the Guard), and Rodney Milnes called "Sighing softly" in The Pirates" Caps. Also, this is one of only two places where you shorten The Pirates of Penzance to The Pirates. I'd recommend spelling it out in full.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The influence of Mendelssohn pervades the fairy music in Iolanthe." pervades isn't the most neutral term.

What's non-neutral about "pervade"? It would be more boring to write "is heard throughout", but I think "pervades" is better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you're right! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "He made use of dance styles to enhance the sense of time or place in various scenes: gavottes in Ruddigore and The Gondoliers,[256] a country dance in The Sorcerer, a nautical hornpipe in Ruddigore, and the Spanish cachucha, and Italian saltarello and tarantella in The Gondoliers.[256]" This is a slightly twisty-turny sentence. (Sorry, that's not a very useful comment.)

Are you suggesting semicolons instead of most of the commas? Looks ok to me. Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy with semicolons. I am never certain which I think look better - commas or semicolons - in a short list like this. I've changed to semicolons. See what you think. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "styles in his later opera, The Rose of Persia" Why the comma?

Deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Of the sextet "I hear the soft note" in" Caps

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "duet "Who are you, sir?" from Cox and Box,[259] and the whispered plans for elopement in "This very night" in" Caps

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "jingoistic "He is an Englishman" in" Caps (MOS:CAPTITLE says that the first letter of verbs always needs to be capitalised.)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• ""With catlike tread" from" Caps

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "calls Bouncer's song" Again, I'm slightly puzzled- is this a title?

Most (all?) of the song titles in G&S are just the first phrase of the song's lyrics. But a few numbers have become widely, but unofficially, known as "The Bell Trio" or the nightmare song, etc. Tim, do you think that "Bouncer's Song" should be so in quotes, or just as is? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It would look very odd in quotes, just as, say, "Basilio's aria" would if we were writing about Mozart. But there would be no harm in calling it "We Sounded the Trumpet". I don't think it would be an improvement, but would do no harm. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "to Arac's song" Same again

Tim same question. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ditto.

Later (brain belatedly catching up with eyes, sorry): do we need to say "in Act III", as Arac has only that one song in the whole opera? Tim riley talk 20:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Shame! Shame! Arac has 2 songs. In Act I, he sings "We Are Warriors Three" (his brothers just note their agreement with his descriptions: "Yes, yes, yes, masculine insects!"

Ah, but the score refers to the Act I number as a Trio. Tim riley talk 18:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless! (Alternatively, "The score is a liar!") -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In "A more humane Mikado", at" Caps

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G minor" Are italics definitely right, here? I'd treat it as a song, but I don't really know.

Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Tricky. If I correctly read the MoS music section it should be plain type, as it is not a name (like, say Eroica) but a title (like "symphony"). No quotes around it either way. I've removed the itals. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "A distinctive four-note theme is associated with the character Iolanthe, and the Fairy Queen's music parodies that of Wagner heroines such as Brünnhilde." Both of these characters are from Iolanthe? I think this would be worth making clear.

I made a change. Looks ok now? Tim, please check (I introduced the LC's fugue a 2nd time, but is it helpful here?) -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks spot-on at it now is, me judice. Tim riley talk 18:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Tower of London" Link, perhaps?

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan finally redeemed himself in critical eyes with The Golden Legend in 1886." Could we have a citation for this? Without one, it comes across as synthesis.

Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll add one. No lack of them, but I'm not at Riley Towers among my books this evening. A Boxing Day task, I think. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a suitably full one from Stanford's Studies and Memories now added. Tim riley talk 12:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Hopes for a new departure were evident in The Daily Telegraph's review of The Yeomen of the Guard (1888)," Ditto

Not synthesis here, since this is what the review says. I changed it from "evident" to "expressed". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, sorry. I think I misinterpreted the sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan's only grand opera, Ivanhoe (1891), received generally favourable reviews" Ditto- I am guessing that all of this is supported by the following citations, but I think it could be a little clearer!

Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

We could add further references if anyone else would like them, but the statement is not contentious or in doubt. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Added a citation that surveys the reviews. Tim riley talk 13:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan's 1897 ballet Victoria and Merrie England was one of several late pieces that won praise from most critics" Ditto. Sorry to be a pain. It reads very well, we just need to be clear about citations.

Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, not contentious, but I'm happy to pile on the citations if wanted. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Tim riley talk 13:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "that foul unforgettable episode."[288][n 36]" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotemarks

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "As late as 1966 Frank Howes, music critic of The Times, condemned" Again, this may be my problem, but I'm not keen on this construction. How about "Howes, a [or "the"] music critic for The Times...". A critic of The Times would be someone who criticises The Times, surely?

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Google Howes's successor, Richard Morrison, and you see he describes himself as "chief music critic of The Times". I think the change is unnecessary, but perfectly harmless. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "sound musicianship."[291] The" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotes, here.

I'm not sure; as above, I'd think that enough of the sentence is quoted as to make it more logical to put the period inside the quotes. Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am struck by the fact that only one post-'50s critic is quoted. If I was being much too critical, I'd say that a little more could be done to stress just how big a deal Sullivan is!

The biographies cited contain "criticism" and are more recent. Ainger is 2002; Eden and Saremba are 2000. There are reviews of some of the new recordings we could go through, I guess. Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a couple of downloads (via JSTOR) of recentish articles from The Musical Times about the rehabilitation of Sullivan's reputation. We could certainly add a quote or two if wanted, though I am conscious that the article is already on the long side. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Are any by eminent writers/historians or published in eminent journals? I could likely find some reviews of recent performances reviewed by New York Times critics, gushing about Sullivan, but I don't think they would really add any "scholarship" to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Check the quotemarks on the music sample titles

Sorry, what's the issue? Do you understand this comment, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being cryptic; this was the kind of thing I was meaning. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for fixing that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The Golden Legend (2001)" I don't think that wikilink goes where you want it to!

Good catch. Don't need to link it at all, though, as we've referred to it fairly recently above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and The Masque at Kenilworth and On Shore and Sea" Overlinking, perhaps?

These two haven't been linked since early in the article, so I think it's probably a good idea to link them here, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No objection from me! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "includes The Window and 35 other Sullivan songs" The whole cycle of The Window, or just a single "song" called "The Window"? If the former, other songs is a bit odd; if the latter, it should be "The Window" and not The Window

The whole cycle. I changed "other" to "individual", but it seems clunky to me. Tim, what do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it will serve as it now is. As St Paul says, They that endure to the end, they shall be saved. The intrepid readers who make it this far will be inured to our prose. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Mackerras's Sullivan ballet, Pineapple Poll," Already linked earlier in the article; also, I wonder whether "Sullivan ballet" is a good idea... "Sullivan-inspired ballet" or something, perhaps? I don't know, thinking aloud.

The ballet's score is not just "inspired" by Sullivan, it's actually a pastiche/arrangement of Sullivan's tunes, mostly from the G&S operas. Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A really strong article, and I applaud you for taking on such a topic! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. I'll let Tim go through it. I'm not sure about some of the LQ comments. Can any LQ experts please comment on my responses to those above where I did not indicate that I made the suggested change? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There's every chance I'm mistaken about MOS:LQ, and plenty of other reviewers weren't concerned. It's certainly not a big problem! One final little thought: "Characteristic "counterpoint of characters" from The Mikado, Act 1" (from a caption)- that sticks out as an uncited quote! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this refers to the same Jacobs cite as at the beginning of the paragraph. Tim, would you add the cite to the caption, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we really want a citation in a caption when it's slap bang next to the identical words and citation in the text? I'll add it if you both think we need it. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's really needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to thank J Milburn for this very helpful and thorough review. We disagree on a few points, but in general the article is definitely the better for the above comments and resulting changes. A Merry Christmas to you, JM, and many thanks for your input. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Support; I do think that the addition of a few citations to avoid the appearance of synthesis/OR would be valuable, as well as (ideally!) some more recent quotes showing the revival in Sullivan's popularity (all discussed above), but I'm sure that won't be too tricky. (I also do feel that direct quotes should always have clear citations, but I'm not going to push too hard on that point.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support, Josh, especially after my snapping about your ankles once or twice above. I meant to add the promised extra cites today, but RL intervened, and I hope to do it tomorrow. Your allegedly "drive by" (hah!) comments have been really valuable and we are indebted to you. Tim riley talk 19:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure; and yes, it did end up being quite a batch of comments- a reflection of the length of the article, and certainly not its quality! Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you both. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, many thanks; your comments have helped us to improve the article greatly! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Very sorry I wasn't able to join the Peer Review, so my belated, and minor, points are here. The article is exceptionally well-written, structured and sourced and, although I'm hardly a suitable judge, appears to give comprehensive coverage of Sullivan's life and of the available texts. A few minor thoughts below:

Lead

• "Four years later, the Impresario Richard D'Oyly Carte..." Why is Impresario capitalised?

• A typo that crept in during the earlier review. Now amended. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "He died at the age of 58, regarded as Britain's foremost composer" - I'm no judge but this concluding comment in the lead doesn't seem to me to be entirely supported by the coverage in the "Reception" section. That appears to suggest that serious critics had already become rather "sniffy" about his work, and conveys a sense of his talents being squandered rather. I appreciate The Times obituary called him England's "most conspicuous composer ..." but is that quite the same as "foremost"?
  • A fair point. It's demonstrably true, but I'll add a supplementary citation. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Having now dug up some confirmatory citations (Jacobs, p. 376 and Young, p. 93) I am reluctant to put them in the lead. Except for direct quotes I don't think a good lead should have citations at all, if the main text is OK, and I think it is here. In addition to the Times reference mentioned above, we have the Maine quote about being the nation's composer laureate. I could add a footnote incorporating the Jacobs and Young extracts too, if wanted, but I think it would be a work of supererogation. Tim riley talk 12:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Beginnings

• "one anthem was given at the Chapel Royal" - again, my ignorance is probably showing but can one "give" an anthem, like a concert?

• I think perhaps "performed" might be safer. I've changed it. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

1870s; first collaborations with Gilbert

• "The Daily Telegraph's reviewer commented that the piece illustrated the composer's "great capacity for dramatic writing of the lighter class", and other reviews emphasised the felicitous combination of Gilbert's words and Sullivan's music. One wrote, "it seems, as in the great Wagnerian operas..." - Super-picky but does "reviews" work here? Should it be "reviewers", or perhaps "One critic wrote..."?
  • Trimmed. We don't need to mention the anonymous critic. His paper will suffice. There is a spirited brawl over this, above, and j'y suis, j'y reste. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• "He accepted the latter post reluctantly, fearing that discharging the duties thoroughly would leave too little time for composing; in this he was correct." Perhaps just, "He accepted the latter post with reluctance, fearing correctly that discharging the duties thoroughly would leave too little time for composing."?
  • I should be sorry to lose this little coda. Not only do we mention (in a footnote) that Parry found the same, I wanted to add that Fauré found it too, in spades, when heading the Paris Conservatoire, but reined myself in. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Early 1880s

• "1822 dramatic poem based on the life and death of St. Margaret of Antioch for its basis" - may well be me, but the proximity of based and basis read a little oddly; is the "based" needed?

• No, and now blitzed. That's three unnecessary words off the word count! Thank you! Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Sorry to add back 3 words, Tim, but the poem is the subject of the cantata, or the cantata is adapted from the poem. The cantata is not the poem itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• "increasingly viewed his work with Gilbert as unimportant, beneath his skills, and also repetitious. After Iolanthe, Sullivan had not intended to write a new work with Gilbert,..." - You've two "with Gilberts" in close proximity. If that's a concern, perhaps "increasingly viewed his work with Gilbert as unimportant, beneath his skills, and also repetitious. After Iolanthe, Sullivan had not intended a further collaboration,..."

• I think it would be better to change the first, which I have done, I hope satisfactorily.

• Yes, it's much better than what we had for several reasons. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The composer wrote on 1 April 1884 that he had "come to the end of my tether" with the operas:" - Why not just "Sullivan wrote ..."

• Indeed. Done. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The piece ran for 672 performances, which was the second-longest run for any work of musical theatre, and one of the longest runs of any theatre piece, up to that time.[n 20]" - Does Note 20 also support the "second-longest run" statement? If it doesn't, a citation to close the paragraph is probably needed.

• No, this is copper-bottomed. The citations certainly cover the text. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Later 1880s

• ".. that he revive an old idea for an opera set in colourful Venice" - while, as Tim knows, I'm partial to a bit, or a lot, of Ruskinian polychromatic stonework, is there any particular reason to describe Venice as "colourful" here?

• This is an attempt to convey concisely that the piece was envisaged as a glamorous scenic celebration of Venice, after the austerity of the Tower of London. We could lose the adjective, but I'd be reluctant to do so. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. We could say "sunny" instead of colourful, which is an adjective that I believe Sullivan used in correspondence. I think Gilbert used the term colourful to mean, really characterful or fanciful, in that Victorians imagined (rather correctly) that Venice was a land of delicious flavors, beautiful vistas and lilting music. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

1890s

• "the historical elopement of Dorothy Vernon with John Manners." - appreciate there's no direct link, but a link to the Duke of Rutland might help?

• I'll leave this to my partner in crime. My reaction is No, but then you know I think we all link far, far too much to be helpful to readers. I'll happily accept whatever Ssilvers thinks about this point. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, the real problem here is that the elopement is almost certainly *not* historical; it is merely legend. I changed historical into "legend of the". I definitely don't think that linking to the Duke of Rutland is helpful. We already link to our article on Haddon Hall (opera) and to Dorothy Vernon, both of which explain all of this. The Duke of Rutland article does not even mention *this* John Manners -- it mentions his grandson of the same name, the 8th Earl of Rutland, and other descendants of the same name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Death, honours and legacy

• "His Te Deum Laudamus, written to commemorate the end of the Boer War, was performed posthumously" - I think this needs a tweak, it certainly threw me. Sullivan dies in November 1900 but the war doesn't end until May 1902. Perhaps something like, "written in expectation of victory in the Boer War"?

• I say! Well caught! Duly amended. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "by the universities of Cambridge (1876) and Oxford" - Am getting dangerously above my pay grade and may well be slapped down but, if it were just one, would it not be "by the University of Cambridge"? Thus, should it not be similarly capitalised when it's two? Steps back and awaits explosion...

• It's a nice point. I don't know that I ever met it before. Of course as a Guardian reader I am used to seeing all sorts of distracting lower case ("lord chancellor" etc) but I am old enough to have been brought up to capitalise more than is now fashionable to capitalise. I've changed to ulc here, subject to any objections from other reviewers or my co-nominator. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Oh, I've no objection, if it's usual!" -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Romantic life

• "Rachel's parents did not approve of a possible union with a young composer with uncertain financial prospects" - avoid the double "with" by replacing the second with "of"?

• Good. Yes. Done. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "A contemporary account described Ronalds this way: "Her face was perfectly divine"".. - the "this way" is slightly discordant to my untrained, and unmusical, ear. Is it needed, or would "thus" do?

• I'm not sure "thus" is much better, but it's one word less, and I've changed it. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Thus" sounds rather faux-Shakespearean to me, or at least quaintly eccentric. How about "as follows"? I don't feel that strongly: "I am a quasi-Englishman: Behold me!" -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've redrawn to avoid the problem. Tim riley talk 10:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Leisure and family life

• "Sullivan loved to spend time in France (both in Paris and the Riviera),..." - "Sullivan loved to spend time in France (both in Paris and on the Riviera),"?

• Indeed. Done. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Bertie stayed with his Uncle Arthur for the rest of the composer's life" - not quite sure as to the meaning of "stayed", here; "visited" - (doubtful?), "lived with" - (perhaps?), remained constant? Is there a better word?

• "remained" is better, I think. Done. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Orchestration

• "For his large-scale orchestral pieces, which often used very large forces," - quite out of my depth here, so layman's queries. I don't understand this, does it mean a large orchestra, more instruments? Can it be clearer?

• Yes, a large orchestra, but I'm not sure it's confusing as drawn and am reluctant to have "orchestral" and "orchestra" in such close proximity. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"*Hmm. We do say "large" twice in the sentence. Victorian performances often employed several hundred musicians. At the Leeds Festival in 1880, Sullivan was given "only" 111 orchestra musicians, and he begged for a dozen or two more, as they would give the orchestra "full" sound. The Festival declined to pay for this. I guess it is worth emphasizing that they were "very large". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Musical quotations and parodies

• "a theme in the slow movement of the Irish Symphony "an outrageous crib"" - link "crib for non-English speakers, although the link's not great? crib?

• I'll leave my learned friend to consider this when he returns to this page from a few days' absence over the yuletide holiday. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• My understanding is that we should generally resist adding links in direct quotations. In this case, especially since the link is not terribly helpful, I think that advice seems wise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Knighthood and later years

• "The World called it "one of the greatest creations we have had for many years." - by an odd chance, I've just used this publication in another article. There, Mark Girouard quotes it as "World", without the definite article. Harris definitely has The World?

• "World" without the definite article looks rather peculiar to me. I'll check and amend if the contemporary sources show the article was not used. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1:. I've checked this, and the definite article is a definite necessity. This, now I check, is the paper in which Bernard Shaw wrote most of his musical criticism (though he didn't write this: it was by his usually waspish colleague Louis Engel). The paper is The World, and if it is that publication to which Girouard refers, he's got it wrong, and if I were you I'd add the "The" regardless. Tim riley talk 10:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tim riley: - Tim - many thanks. I shall amend Cragside accordingly. KJP1 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it from me. Most of the above you can consider and discard, but I think there are a couple that might warrant a little further thought. It's a fine collaborative piece and fully merits FA. Happy Christmas. KJP1 (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, KJP, for these points. Seasonal greetings most warmly reciprocated. Tim riley talk 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Very helpful comments. Taken together with those of other commenters, I think they give us confidence that we now have solved most of the issues that might arise for our readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (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) 00:59, 31 December 2017 (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) 00:30, 31 December 2017 [5].

---

Southern boobook

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This article got a thorough going-over at GAN and I think is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)\

Image review

• Have to say, I'm having trouble figuring out from the legend which of the map colours is meant to be which - for example, which of the greens is pale and which is dark?

that was tricky....I will see what I can do - i.e. make the range map of one subspecies paler and eliminate the political boundaries. ok I made the pale green more unambiguously paler and removed the political colours, leaving all land not inhabited by this bird white. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay... what is the colour covering most of Australia? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It is the cream colour denoting the range of subspecies ocellata Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Ninox_boobook_fusca_Keulemans.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agreed with Nikkimaria; I had an issue with the legend as well. Perhaps the legend could have things like █ to supplement the name of the colour? Umimmak (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

okay, I think I can come up with something in a few hours where I have a spell of time and can focus on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Umimmak

I don't feel like I have enough experience to support or oppose. I have some initial notes and questions; feel free to do with as you please.

Lede, infobox, and Taxonomy

• [Addendum: Infobox image: do you want to specify this is S. b. boobook, not any other subspecies? 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]

added subspecies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• [Addendum: How do you pronounce "boobook", this is an unfamiliar word to me, at least and I can think of at least three plausible pronunciations: /bubuk/, /bubʊk/, or /boʊboʊk/. And as a general note, maybe it isn't standard for ornithologists but all of these pronunciation spellings of the calls aren't super clear. For "mopoke", e.g., I could imagine it trying to represent a call like /moʊpoʊkeɪ/ or /mɑpoʊk/, but as the source also has "morepork", which presumably reflects a non-rhotic pronunciation, I guess it's something like /moʊpoʊk/. It might be helpful if prounciations of the English representations of the calls can be added in with reliable sources 03:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC).]

it's pronounced "boo" (as in a ghost says..) "book" (that which you read). Come to think of it I haven't seen a source for this....will look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• I noted my suggestion re the map colour above
• How are the author citations for Ninox boobook and Strik boobook both Latham, 1801? Missing parentheses?

oops, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• IUCN should be updated to reflect the new 2016 version, and should be cited as suggested in Template:IUCN

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• [Addendum: Perhaps the taxobox should also list the subspecies? Or at least mention how many there are. 03:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]

link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Parentheses around subgenera should not be italicized.

got it...I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "A local Aboriginal word" -- do we just not know which language? local to which area?

local to the Sydney area. See the next para. I am pondering how to reorder this added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "this is now regarded as a synonym." The word "now" is unhelpful (MOS:CURRENT) -- say who synonymized it and when, or use the Template:As of to note it was in 2017 when you checked whichever database.

it was realised it was a synonym from early on. Took out "now" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "renaming S. boobook to Ieraglaux (Spiloglaux) bubuk." I'm confused, so he just randomly decided to invalidly emend the specific name?

aah the old days. there was more of this going on in the early days of taxonomy. If I can find an RS that explains I can add as a footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• S. maculatus all of a sudden gets mentioned like the reader should be familiar with it. I'm presuming this is some other species than than another synonym (like S. marmoratus), so wikilink?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• And so your list of synonyms doesn't reflect all combinations which are synonymous, then, since you only have A. marmorata, not S. marmoratus? Which is standard?

good point. it isn't listed in the source for some reason... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• More of "the native name", okay maybe we don't know which language but do we know where Dawes or Caley asked for the indiginous name? Like what you do later for Gould.

See above - I will look up and add something on this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Dutch naturalist Gerlof Mees and evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr" makes it seem like Mayr is Dutch as well

added Mayr's nationality Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• [Addendum: Who transferred it Ninox was it Mees in 1964? 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]

Blyth in 1849 was the first - added this now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• why did you italizice the *b* in "cytochrome b"? And that should probably be wikilinked.

I often saw it italicized..however our page does not have it such so de-italicized. And linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is it kosher to just refer to a specific name by itself as you do for "leucopsis", "novaeseelandiae", and "connivens"?

possibly a tad informal...I will rectify tweaked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Do you have any secondary sources that talk about Wink et al.'s and Gwee et al.'s studies? How were they received by others?

Gwee's is really recent, but will likely see the addition and subtraction of subspecies. Winks helped confirm the split accepted by the IOC world birdlist (consensus bird taxonomy worldwide), though they cite Schodde there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "A 2017 study by Singapore-based biologist Chyi Yin Gwee and colleagues [...], In a 2017 paper, Gwee and colleagues" -- this makes it seem like they're not the same paper.

oops, removed 2nd intro. must have forgotten that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Subspecies

• [Addendum: caption should be capitalized, and I personally think it should give credit to the illustrator, viz., John Gerrard Keulemans 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Eleven subspecies are recognised by the IOC" Template:As of? This is esp important in case they change due to Gwee et al's recommendations. It also might be better to have more of an introduction here, say which subspecies have been suggested to be reclassified by Gwee et al., for instance.

have added version and date of publication. Am coy about speculating future additions and subtractions (which are almost inevitable) - they are listed in text anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Type localities of the subspecies?

damn there are alot of these... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: like I said I don't consider myself an expert in FA bird articles; I just wanted to raise the issue and see if excluding them was made for a reason. Maybe if not for the subspecies perhaps at least for the species as a whole? Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added it for the species as a whole and ones (such as lurida and ocellata) where they don't come from an island (eg. The type specimen for Kangaroo Island is just listed as "Kangaroo Island" in the source...which makes it repetitive and not really informative Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• "It is sometimes included in the nominate subspecies." -- are König et al. claiming this synonymy or merely reporting others have?

reporting others Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• " it is known to the local people as" again who are they? The peoples local to which area? Aboriginal Australians are not a homogenous group.

here it refers to the indigenous people of Rote Island. have changed "local" to "indigenous" - should I add "of Rote Island" here too? worried it might be a bit repetitive... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit unclear...the source makes it seem like these are the names in two different languages, but right now the article reads as if they're two terms of a single language instead. Umimmak (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ok, have added "of Rote Island" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I was more getting at how the source says one word was used by the people in one part of Rote Island and the other by the people in another part, i.e., they're presumably different languages, not just synonyms of the same language. Even changing people to "peoples" might be clearer. Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added in the localities - I can't assume anything about the language(s) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• When did S. fusca become N. b. fusca?

added some material. Not 100% sure that Mayr was the first to have it as a subspecies but his was a comprehensive review Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• "than subspecies boobook" Is it okay to just have subspecific name insteas of N. b. boobook?

formalised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• "collected by Kuhn in 1902 on Moa." Who's Kuhn? You only give his last name like we know who he is.

I meant to get back to that - I thought he was one of the notable scientists named Kuhn but he doesn't appear to be. So have modified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just assuming throughout that in the absence of providing a different basionym that these subspecies were all described explicitly as a subspecies of N. boobook.
• "different to subspecies boobok" Is this standard in Australian English? "Different to" is often proscribed in formal American English, although I think it might be acceptable in British English I just saw this in academic Australian English so you're good with "different to" I guess 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

yup Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Umimmak (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Description

• [Addendum: "Roosting boobook" image -- is this a southern Boobook? Is the subspecies known? 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]

subsp. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• No sex difference in size?

added - females often a little larger and heavier Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The bill is black with a pale blue-grey base and cere" It's a bit weird to all of a sudden discuss cere in the midst of several sentences discussing color, especially since this is likely to be an unfamiliar term.

it is wikilinked, and is a part of the beak...? Not sure how to rephrase this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• I wonder if it might be useful to have photos illustrating differences with possibly confusable species?

problem is, we don't have any photos of Tasmanian boobook... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• "in mainly Eucalypt forest" why is Eucalypt capitalized?

a mistake. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• "In fact, it can adapt to any habitat as long as there are some trees present" -- this seems a bit strong... surely not every habitat?

erm...it is true. I have seen them twice in quite inner suburban Sydney Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There are trees in the taiga as well, I'm reluctant to say they could adapt to that habitat. Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Behavior

• [Addendum: lowercase common name 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]

Oops, hangover from pre 2014 case wars Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's a shame there's apparently(?) no free audio. I wonder if it might be useful to bring up the sound file in external links within an "external media" template
• "the second note generally lower than the first" clarify lower in pitch, not volume

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Birds give a harsher version of the call when mobbing intruders" wikilink mobbing

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• "one and twenty metres (3-70 ft)" Is there a reason you don't use the convert template? At the very least the hyphen should become an en-dash

ndashed now....didn't use template as didn't want to muck up prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The young vomit up pellets " make less garden pathy.

Wow, never seen that article before! Fascinating! Still, not convinced it's garden pathy but did change to "regurgitate" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• "which becomes quite smelly" The word "smelly" strikes me as being entirely too informal for an encyclopedia

hmm, I don't but happy to change to another simple word - "malodorous" strikes me as too long, "foul-smelling"..I guess "stinky" is out too then...what would you suggest? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, just raising a point and making sure you've thought about your word choice; if you think "smelly" is fine, then perhaps it is I who has divergent views. Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and raptors such as the brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus), [..], and probably powerful owl seize young birds." I'm confused, is "probably powerful owl" a common name for a species of owl?

yes - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Fix your brackets w/ the binomen Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Prey species were mainly ..." I wonder if this list should be split up instead of a single sentence that spans half the paragraph

split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

References

• You're inconsistent about the use of |via= -- I don't think it's necessary to say via BHL if that's where the URL goes.

I never used it but someone else added...I have removed them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is just my own personal preference, but I'd prefer to see a more consistent use of DOIs and links to the publisher's versions, e.g., doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1846.tb00135.x for Gould 1846

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking Gould in a reference that immediately follows a sentence wikilinking Gould.

umm...if you're in the reference section? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• The google books link for Gould does not take the reader straight to the relevant page.

Found a better link. switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Gould 1846 also lacks volume information.

added it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm confused why you list Giacon's first name as "Gianbattista (John)"; he listed his name on the chapter as "John Giacon" doi:10.1515/9781614510581.251 [moved 03:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• ISBNs should all be consistently 13 digits and hyphenated

Done what I could - one is ten digits only Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Strange that something published in 2008 would have the old format... Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking in references in general -- why would the reader want to know more about the journal Zoologische Verhandelingen?

I think it is rare but not impossible that somoene would be interested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• [Addendum: You just cite Higgins 1999 as if he's the author of the entire book, but he's only the senior editor. You seem to only be citing from one chapter which has its own title, author, and pages, within this book, and these should be specified in the reference. Umimmak (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]

Higgins is main compiler - each species account is a (sort of) chapter. The text is very dense and lists loads of links. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, so was there an author for the southern boobook chapter in addition to the Higgins? Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not that I could see Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• [Addenda: why don't you have the full citation for "Is the Timor southern boobook a separate species?" You should have the date (2010), volume (28), issue (1), page (10), journal (Boobook) at the minimum. 03:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC) ]

No excuse. must have been in a hurry. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Umimmak (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I fixed a couple of obvious typos. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• it was for many years considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999—perhaps keep temporal elements together as it was for many years prior to 1999 considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand

changed to "generally" as most authorities lumped but there were a few splitters here and there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• continent and Tasmania— is Tasmania not considered part of the Australian continent?

twaeked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• The legend for your map would look neater if you had the left align column of colour boxes vertically aligned

I'll look into it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) —over-precise conversion for this purpose

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Link babbler, Pellet (ornithology) powerful owl

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• killed with rat poison— any particular poison?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed to support above, a nice article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

Lead

• "Described by John Latham in 1801, it was for generally considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999." Something wrong here.

offending preposition removed. I forgot it when rewording before. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Breeding

• Does the male defend a territory outside the breeding season?

It's not clear - so mentioned this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Does the female help with defending the breeding territory?

It's not ruled out...but not mentioned either Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is the pair bond maintained from one year to the next?

Anecdotal bit suggest not monogamous over years Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Does the female start incubating when the clutch is complete - or does she start when the first egg is laid? In other words - do the eggs all hatch at the same time (synchronously)? If not, presumably the last born does not survive when food is scarce.

Source doesn't say - moreover sometimes the young hatch at teh same time and sometimes ...not. I added what I could. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• How long do southern boobooks live? What is the oldest recorded?

15 years 11 months - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

After posting the above I discovered that the Higgins article is available online. The answers to my questions are not always straightforward

Higgins can be tricky as it can be a mass of primary sources unintegrated. Also have to tease out NZ material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC).

• Perhaps mention that the young stay with their parents for some weeks after fledging. p.860

post fledging dispersal added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Some sites are reused for up to 20 years, especially if broods have been successfully raised in them before." I find this sentence confusing. To me it suggests that an individual pair could use a site for up to 20 years - but southern boobooks do not live that long.

I added "by the species" to indicate that this does not mean a single pair Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

All good. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from WereSpielChequers

Nice read, I've made some tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. Not sure if the phrase "Caves or ledges are alternative roosting sites if there are no trees available." is fully compatible with the idea of them being restricted to habitats where there are trees. But anyway the prose is of FA standard ϢereSpielChequers 23:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

changes look fine. I realise the critical adjective there is "suitable" (trees)... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The article looked good when I GA passed it, and of course looks even better now with additional fixes. I would give dates for the artworks, though. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks and added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 December 2017 (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) 00:30, 31 December 2017 (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) 23:21, 30 December 2017 [6].

---

Kate Winslet

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Who hasn't heard of Kate Winslet? She is the ingenue in that big-boat movie. She is the pedophile Nazi in that Holocaust movie. She is the brainwashed Australian who pees on herself. She is the mother who is erotically spoon-fed a peach cobbler by a convict. She is the girl with the blue hair in that "what-really-happened-in-this-movie" movie. Oh, and she's also every Apple customer's dream woman with a hairdo to die for. Will she next be the woman with a big shiny star on Wikipedia? Kind reviewers and collaborators, let's make that happen. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:RMS_Titanic_3.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: added. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was reverted, saying that it isn't a US work. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: changed to a different image. I'm not well versed in copyright laws, but this seems to include a UK PD tag since the image was taken at the docks of Southampton. Is that apt? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Potentially, but even if so we still need to know its status in the US - Commons requires that images be free in both US and country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: got it. Changed to one in the US PD. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, when and where was that one first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the description page the photograph was taken in Ireland in 1912, but it has a US PD license. I'm really no expert at this, so am I missing something? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Two things: since it's on Commons we need to worry about what its status is in country of origin, and that US PD tag requires us to demonstrate a pre-1923 publication (not simply creation). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Umm...that seemed a bit above my paygrade, so I've removed an image of the Titanic in favour of a DiCaprio shot. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 11: page ranges require ndashes, not hyphens. See also 81, 117, 203, 207, 216, 218, perhaps check for others I may have missed.
• Ref 30: requires page no.
• Ref 31: "Plays and Players" is the name of the journal, not the title of the article that contains the information you are citing
• Refs 46 and 52 appear to be the same source, although 52 has the wrong date
• Ref 61: "Los Angeles Magazine" is the publication. The title of the cited article is "Say Anything"
• Ref 91: requires page no.
• Ref 102: The link on "Collider" goes to the wrong article
• Ref 159: Publisher missing
• Ref 184: Dead link (Belfast Telegraph)
• Ref 189: Publisher missing - it's implicit in the title, but should still be given
• Ref 222: Where does the source text confirm the information cited to it: "Winslet's weight fluctuations over the years have been well documented by the media"? Not on p. 182.

Otherwise, sources seem of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: thank you for the review. All done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A couple of points still outstanding: Ref. 30 – Itunes is not the publisher of the "Heavenly Creatures" soundtrack. And the link in what is now 101 is still going to the wrong Collider article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: umm... iTunes is the website that I've used to cite the Heavenly Creatures soundtrack. What should the publisher be?

As for the Collider source, it opens the right page for me. Is it not doing so in your browser? That's strange. What is it redirecting to? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can work it out, the soundtrack publisher is BMG Rights Management. iTunes is merely the means of delivery. As to Collider, it's not the link to the source that's the problem, it's the link on the publisher's name. I think the link you want is to this, not to an article about particle acceleration. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: oh, lol. Silly me. Sorry about that. Done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Resolved comments from – Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I had to provide some comments after reading that charming post in the nomination. My comments are below and focus primarily on the prose: In the following sentence (At school, she was made head girl and took part in productions of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and played the lead role of Wendy Darling in Peter Pan.), I would add “and” between Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe rather than a comma. You are listing two things tied to the verb “took part” and the later half of the sentence on her role as Wendy Darling is separate in terms of that. This is more of a clarification question, but in this part (she played key roles as Miss Hannigan in Annie,), do you think that you should include the full name of the character “Miss Agatha Hannigan”. Miss Hannigan is probably the most recognizable to a majority of readers, but I just wanted to raise this point to you. This is yet another clarification question about the same sentence. Are you using the Oxford comma in this article? If so, there should be a comma after “The Jungle Book” in the list of her key roles? If not, then it is fine as it currently stands. In this sentence (To support herself she worked at a delicatessen), there should be a comma after “herself”. When reading the sentence on her appearance in Casualty and looking at the cited reference, I found the following quote “She once told the Radio Times that appearing in Casualty taught her a big lesson in how to be natural in front of the camera.”. Do you think it would be relevant to include information from this quote in the article or would it be too small/trivial? (I am not necessarily recommending using the quote as you could paraphrase it if you feel that it is necessary). I thought about including this, but I couldn't find the original Radio Times interview, so I decided to leave it out. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense; just wanted to point out as a possibility. If you could not find the original Radio Times interview, then it is best to avoid it as you have done. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) In this part (and said that after returning home she would "just sit and sob my heart out”), there should be a comma after “home”. In this part (and thus asked her to practice tai chi, read gothic literature, and learn to play the piano), I think that a link for “gothic literature” would be beneficial. In this part (a young woman with suffragette leanings who falls in love with her cousin,), do you think that a link for “suffragette” would be helpful? This part (After unsuccessfully auditioning for Kenneth Branagh's 1994 film Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Branagh cast Winslet for the part of Ophelia,) needs to be revised as it currently reads that Branagh unsuccessful auditioned for his own film. If you want to keep the dependent clause in the beginning, then Winslet would be to be in the primary subject position to connect with the clause. I am not certain what this sentence means (Despite the acclaim, Jude and Hamlet were not widely seen.). It is a little ambiguous as it could mean one of two meanings: 1) both films were commercially unsuccessful or 2) both films had limited theatrical releases (or a hidden third option of both 1 and 2). I would make the meaning clearer. This part (With a production budget of US$200 million, Titanic's highly arduous principal photography) will need to be revised as it could be read as the principal photograph having the production budget of US$200 million rather than the film itself. Sorry for pointing out nitpicks like this, but there needs to special care when using dependent clauses in the beginning of a sentence to match it with the subject of connected part. There are quite a few quotes in the article (which is fine), but I am not certain that the "luminous performance” quote is really needed. I think that you can paraphrase this. For this part (That same year she provided her voice to a fairy for), there should be a comma after “year”. I would add the year in which Elegy for Iris was released. Right, so this is what I feel about this, and the subsequent comments about including the year in which novels were released: Since most of Winslet's films are adaptations of books, plays, memoirs, etc, I don't particularly wish to have a "sea of years" mentioning the release of each of them. Do you believe it's absolutely necessary to mention the years, or is my concern valid? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I was under the impression that it was a required part of the prose as it adds context to when the books, plays, memoirs, etc was released compared to the adaptation, but I understand why you believe it is not necessary and would get in the way of the prose. I am not necessarily a fan of the "sea of years" either, and I much prefer the way you have currently worded it so I understand your point and I think that everything is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I am not sure about the value of the second image in the “2004–2007: Romances, comedies, and Little Children” subsection as it is rather low quality and you can only see half of her face. I have changed it to a closer-shot of her face. Do you think it's better or should I remove it entirely? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Since there is already been an image review, I would not worry too much about it as a much more experienced users than myself has already given it the OK. I am not a huge fan of the photo, but it boils down to personal preference so I think it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I would add the year in which The Feminine Mystique was released. Do you think it is notable to include how people paralleled her Oscar win for The Reader with her performance in Extras (specifically the line “I’ve noticed that if you do a film about the Holocaust, you’re guaranteed an Oscar.”)? Just wanted to bring this to your attention. Haha, yes. I did think about this, but decided against it to enable readers to make the connection themselves. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense to me. You have actually done it in a really smart way that if a reader goes through the entire article, then the connection between the two is rather obvious so I think that is really cool. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I recall that there was a lot of controversy surrounding The Reader, and Winslet’s character in particular. Do you think it would be appropriate to add a small part about that? Since it more so deals with the character and not Winslet’s performance, I understand if you think it should be kept in the article on the film itself. Just to clarify, you mean the controversy about her character's sexual relationship with a minor, or the appalling Harvey Weinstein brouhaha? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Actually not either (though I completely forgot about the sexual relationship with a minor part), I was more so referencing Winslet's portrayal of a Nazi/perpetrator of the Holocaust as I know that attracted some pretty strong opinions on both sides. I remember taking a Holocaust literature class during my English M.A., and my professor hated both the book and the movie for this reason. Again, I am not sure if this information is necessary for the article on Winslet or for the article on the film (and book) as it is not directly tied to Winslet's performance (more so tied to the premise itself). Hope this makes more sense. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) In this part (Winslet took two years off work until she was "ready to engage with my creative side again”), do you think that “my” in the quote should be changed to fit the flow of the sentence? I would include the year in which the Divergent novel was released. Same goes for Matilda and The Dressmaker novel. I am not sure about highlighting “a film series” in the subsection title as she only appeared in two films of the series. It seems a little bit like undue weight to me, and both films could be clumped into the “Critical disappointments” part of the title. Umm... you see the two Divergent films were box office hits despite the critical lashing, and I wanted the title to reflect that this period in her career did involve a bit more than just a series of critical disappointments. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Understandable. I forgot about the commercial aspect of the films, especially given how the film franchise fell apart in subsequent releases. I think that I just left my own personal dislike for the series color my opinion there so I apologize for that lol. Thank you for the clarification, and I agree with your choice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) This is more of a clarification question (yet again, sorry about that), but is “flop” appropriate for a Wikipedia article? Just wondering as it sounds rather informal. I think it's fine. Box office bomb or box office flop are commonly used to indicate a commercial failure in multiple FAs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Do you think that the “2016–present” subsection should have a subtitle to go along with the rest of the subsections? I do want to, but I couldn't think of something apt. Maybe if Wonder Wheel gets her awards attention later this year, I can come up with something. Do you have any suggestions? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I could not think of anything either, and since the section will most likely be continued with her further career activity, it is probably best to wait until some sort of theme forms over the course of the next several years. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Link “A Christmas Carol”. It's already linked in this part, "Winslet's third film release of 2001 was the animated film Christmas Carol: The Movie, based on Charles Dickens' novel", despite not mentioning it by name. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) In this sentence (Woody Allen's Wonder Wheel, a drama set in 1950s Coney Island, was her next release.), I would substitute “her” with “Winslet’s” to avoid confusion with the previous sentence. I would include the criticism against Winslet for working with Woody Allen for Wonder Wheel considering the director’s history and her response to it. Do you think it's necessary to do this? She did face quite a bit of flak for working with both Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, for obvious reasons, and I did think about adding a sentence or two about it, but then I thought: Winslet has nothing to do with those controversies at all, does she? And her response to allegations against them has typically been a polite "no comments". What do you think? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I would normally agree with you, but given the cultural context of the Weinstein case, there has been a heightened awareness of film industry people with more unseemly pasts (Allen being one for obvious reasons). In her interview with the New York Times here, she gave an actual response to a question about working with Allen despite the allegations that went beyond a "no comments". She also made a "no comments" response in Variety here. And media outlets were rather critical of her decision to work with Allen and her response, as noted by these sources: 123. There seems to be criticism against Winslet for either side-stepping the conversation entirely or praising Allen while condemning Weinstein. Hope this makes sense; I have a tendency to ramble. I just figured that a small sentence or two may be helpful (as it directly relates to Winslet), but if you feel that it is more appropriate for the article on the film, let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Winslet is misspelled in the caption of the photo for this section. The image itself is not the greatest, but I understand there is not much out there right now that can be used (I am sure in the future it will be replaced with a higher quality image). Do you think her role as an English voice actor in Mary and the Witch's Flower should be mentioned? I chose not to do mention this since it's a dubbing job for a foreign film. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I am not sure about the construction of opening sentence for the “Humanitarian endeavours”. It is a little bit disorienting to have a sentence start off with “An orange-coloured top”. Do you think it would be better to start off with Winslet or whoever sold this top instead? (This is more of a stylistic preference though so it is up to you). What is the relevance of the image in the same section? How does it connect with the material? It may be better to have this one replace the second image in the “2004–2007: Romances, comedies, and Little Children” subsection. Well, the image doesn't really connect with her charity work, but none of the free images available on Commons do. So got to do the best with what we've got. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Makes sense. Again, a more experienced reviewer than myself has already passed this for an image review so there is not wrong with it so it is fine as it currently stands. I just found it an odd choice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC) In the third paragraph of the “Humanitarian endeavours” section, there are two sentences that start with “In 2015”. In this part (In a 2008 interview she said that), there should be a comma after “interview”.

Wonderful work with the article as a whole and I apologize for the large amount of comments. Please let me know if any of my comments require further clarification. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Either way, I enjoyed reading this article and it was nice to learn more about this particular actress. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for such a positive review, Aoba47. There's no need to apologise at all. I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in giving this such a detailed review. Most of your concerns have been addressed. Awaiting your comments on my responses to the rest of them. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I left the responses to your comments above. Everything appears to be handled, but I have a few additional questions about the Reader and Winslet's work with Woody Allen. Hope you have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for the prompt response. Having thought it over, I agree with your comments on The Reader and the Woody Allen bit. I'm intrigued by your professor's reaction on The Reader, as I loved the novel tremendously. Anyway, I've included a sentence or two about both the "controversies". It was quite challenging to summarise these bits given that they may not reflect the entire truth. Do you think it's okay or does it need more work? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your responses. Just for clarification, I am actually quite interested in both the book and the film adaptation of The Reader as I find it quite a fascinating premise (not to sound trivializing when discussing such a large traumatic historical event), but a lot of my academic writing in graduate school focused on trauma studies that included the perpetrator's point of view so I guess it makes sense then lol. I am very happy with the additions that you made as they are very strong and great ways of dealing with rather difficult subject matters (wonderful choices for the supporting sources too). If the Allen discussion unfolds any further, then that part may be subject to change, which is fine. I fully support this for promotion; a very interesting and informative overview of the actress' career. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Aoba47. It was a pleasure interacting with you. I'll take a look at your FAC later this week. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, and it was a pleasure working with you too. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose from Moisejp

I've read the article twice and made a number of small copy-edits throughout. Two minor suggestions that don't affect my support:

• "Catherine Shoard of The Guardian took note of the "emotional honesty" Winslet brought to her part, but criticised the film." Readers may wonder what about the film Shoard criticised.
• "The cast rehearsed each act like a play and filmed it in sequence. Winslet collaborated closely with Fassbender, and their off-screen relationship mirrored the dynamic between Jobs and Hoffman." It would be nice to know in what way the their off-screen relationship mirrored the dynamic between Jobs and Hoffman. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: thank you for the support and for your helpful copy-edits. I really appreciate it. As per your two points, I've elaborated on the prose. I hope the infos are clearer now. Thanks again, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from ArturSik

Also Support on prose. I have read the entire article and as you might have noticed I've made a few minor amendments. Overall, it all looks good to me and could be promoted. Well done :) ArturSik (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the copy-edits, ArturSik. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Krish

• Support: This is a very strong article and it really deserves that bronze star.Krish | Talk 14:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Krish. That's very kind. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Harry

• She subsequently eschewed parts in blockbusters "subsequently" is on of those words that makes a copy-editor pause; off the top of my head, it means at least three different things. Unless you're implying a causal relationship between Titanic and her eschewing blockbusters, I'd suggest replacing "subsequently" with "After Titanic" or at a push something like "later".

Tweaked. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• in which she played one of her first roles set in contemporary times read a little awkwardly

I've tweaked it. Does it read better now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Do we need so much emphasis on her awards in the lead? Sure, things like first BAFTA/first Oscar are lead-worthy but as it is I think the multiple awards are weighing down the prose (and presumably her mantlepiece!).
• This sentence reads awkwardly, probably because you have "joined the divergent series" sandwiched between two named roles for which you mention her awards (again! See above).

Right, so I've split the sentence into two. Is it better now? I've mentioned 5 of her awards in the lead -- the Oscar, the Emmy, the Grammy (all of which are highly notable) and the 3 BAFTAs. I can remove the BAFTA wins if you think it's a bit much? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kate Elizabeth Winslet was born on 5 October 1975 You don't need to repeat the full name and DOB in the body (I'm pretty sure that's in MOS:BIO)

Removed her middle name from the sentence but kept the DOB as the MoS doesn't forbid it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Punctuation should go outside quote marks unless it's an integral part of the quote (MOS:LQ)
• with The Washington Post writer Desson Thomson calling her Generally avoid using "with" like that; it's not really professional-level writing

Changed.

• What does "campaigned heavily" mean? "Campaign" is a verb more commonly associated with politicians than actresses.

Changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe try and find a way of eliminating a few uses of "of the same name"

Done.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• While vacationing at Richard Branson's estate "vacation" is hardly ever used in British English, and using it as a verb sounds like nails on a chalkboard to most Brits.

Changed to "holidaying". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Winslet is widely considered to be among the best actresses I always pause at phrases like "widely considered", especially when they're followed by a plethora of references. Do the sources say she's widely considered, or are those four footnotes meant to demonstrate the width of the consideration? I know it's a subtle point, but we can't say "widely considered" in Wikipedia's voice unless the sources say exactly that. Combining multiple sources that say she's the best actress (or similar) and using that to demonstrate "widely considered" is original synthesis, which is considered a Very Bad Thing™ on WP, even if it's probably true!

Changed to "Several journalists consider Winslet to be among the best actresses of her generation". I believe that's not synthesis. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• A journalist for Elle Any reason not to name them?

The journalist isn't mentioned by name in the source, hence I made do with "a journalist". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I removed a couple of curly quotes; check for more (MOS:CURLY); I tried a find-and-replace but it couldn't tell the difference

A little difficult to spot these, but I couldn't find any offending ones. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I made quite a few edits as I read through, mostly to the prose and few other minor bits and bobs; please check my edit summaries and revert if I've messed anything up. I enjoyed reading it. A few modest hurdles before it's ready for its star, but nothing fundamental. More importantly, if I was going to watch a Kate Winslet film over the weekend, which one would you recommend? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: thank you for the review and the copy-edits. I'm glad you enjoyed the article.

Anyway, if you're in the mood for a highbrow drama, then I'd highly recommend either Revolutionary Road or Little Children, which are among my favourite of her films. But given the time of the year, the warm and fuzzy The Holiday is both timely and a suitable distraction from the woes of the world. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely give one of those a go. I've had a look over the changes and your replies and I'm satisfied, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ Michell. Do let me know if you end up watching any of these films. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

I see a few too many quotes that could be summarised. Why "orange-coloured"? Although not a vegetarian, in 2010 Winslet narrated a video for PETA that showed animal cruelty in the production of foie gras? Is there a connection here? Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I did wonder about "orange-coloured" and nearly edited it out as I was going through, but I figured someone at some point has thought it might be ambiguous and it doesn't hurt anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't "orange top" cover it, if it's important? --John (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, John. So the orange top Winslet wears in Eternal Sunshine has a bit of cultural significance to fans of the film. As for the "vegetarian bit", I can remove it if you want, but the reason I kept that in was because she supported a PETA campaign despite eating meat. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So what? --John (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Better?. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. --John (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, the quotes.

• "quite stocky as a child" 1

• "I didn't lock myself away and give up on my dream. I fought back." 2

• "acting master class" 3

• "just sit and sob my heart out"

• "a bright-eyed ball of fire, lighting up every scene she’s in" 4

• "making Sue into a sassy, defiant woman who would rather be right than happy" 5

• "hit a certain level of intellect that I don't believe I have" 6

• "well beyond her years" 7

• "You don't understand! I am Rose! I don't know why you're even seeing anyone else!" 8

• "big, bold, touchingly uncynical" 9

• "stifled ardor with [...] pained delicacy" 10

• "still had a lot to learn" 11

• "burn[ing] out by the age of 25" 12

• "obliviousness and optimism" 13

• "really brave" 14

• "Showing the kind of courage few young thesps would be capable of and an extraordinary range [...] from animal cunning to unhinged desperation, [Winslet] holds nothing back." 15

• "most daring actress working today" 16

• "continuing to explore the bounds of sexual liberation" 17

• "correspondence of spirit between them" 18

• "too ridiculous" 19

• "the zanier part" 20

• "uniquely funny, unpredictably tender and unapologetically twisted romance" 21

• "electrifying and bruisingly vulnerable" 22

• "her corseted English rose persona in favor of a drunken, motormouthed bohemian" 23 (shortened)

• "radiant and earthy as ever" 24

• "exceptional in a delicate and finely tuned performance" 25

• "the showiest role and filthiest one-liners" 26

• "perfect" 27

• "registers every flicker of Sarah’s pride, self-doubt and desire, inspiring a mixture of recognition, pity and concern". 28

• "struck by how emotionally crippling that must be" 29

• "tiny, oppressive, claustrophobic" 30

• "the best English-speaking film actress of her generation" 31

• "there isn’t a banal moment in Winslet’s performance—not a gesture, not a word" 32

• "there was nothing of her that I could relate to" 33

• "honesty and truthfulness" 34

• "a haunting shell to this internally decimated woman" 35

• "absolutely fearless here, not just in her willingness to expose herself physically, but her refusal to expose her character psychologically" 36

• "incredibly powerful, upsetting and disturbing" 37

• "quiet, heartbreaking masterpiece" 38

• "terrific—intelligent, focused and seemingly devoid of ego" 39

• "the Citizen Kane of awful" 40

• "her pleasure in the text is infectious" 41

• "more vulnerability than strength" 42

• "mawkish and melodramatic" 43

• "what she can to add layers to her vulnerable-victim role" 44

• "emotional honesty" 45

• "strength and grace" 46

• "gravitas that isn’t always in the script" 47

• "really glamorous, nasty piece of work" 48

• "cold and crass" 49

• "never looked more painted and tired" 50

• "likable and charismatic" 51

• "in a permanent state of falling apart" 52

• "shabby character with feverish life" 53

• "unbelievably heartbreaking" 54

• "mess" 55

• "only time in my life that I've ever lost control of my instincts" 56

• "surprisingly amicable" 57

• "we go to the park, kick a ball around, go to a museum, watch a movie together or just hang out at home playing Monopoly" 58

• "there's no way I'm going to allow my children to be fucked up because my marriages haven't worked out" 59

• "The countryside, particularly, is very good for my head. I love that I can go for a walk, pick blackberries and feed them to the baby as I go along." 60

• "unconventional" 61

• "less of a family" 62

• "getting breakfast and packing lunches and doing the school run" 63

• "soul and attitude of a jobbing actress, trapped in the body of a movie star" 64

• "gravitates toward troubling roles in smaller films" 65

• "thorny, potentially unsympathetic" 66

• "unsentimentalized, restless, troubled, discontented, disconcerted, difficult women" 67

• "the most prepared and well-researched actor on set" 68

• "to reposition directors’ and producers’ perspective on her" 69

• "angst-ridden women" 70

• "women who are either finding their way out of a situation, looking for love, having some struggle within love, or questioning the big things in life" 71

• "you have to confront your true feelings every single day. And that’s pretty exhausting. Then you have to go home and make dinner" 72

• "she has the kind of personality that puts an entire room at ease, dropping F-bombs and self-deprecating remarks intermittently, while charming everyone with that buttery English accent" 73

• "authoritative, almost ambassadorial aura" 74

• "articulate, sophisticated, [with] a definite hint of grandeur" 75

• "unfiltered, frank, sometimes blunt" 76

• "a refreshing lack of pretension" 77

• "I just didn't want people to think I was a hypocrite and that I'd suddenly lost 30 lbs or whatever" 78

So, 78 quotes! This is way too many. I think most of them can be summarised or just removed. I'm not going to put a number on it but I'm looking for a substantial reduction in the quotes. --John (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, so before I trim/remove these (I'm sure some can be paraphrased; but I'm not entirely sure or keen on a "substantial reduction"), I'd like to ask @WP:FAC coordinators: to kindly clarify how many quotes are too many at the FAC? Does the FAC requirement mandate us to use as few quotes as possible or is that something we can work around depending on the article? More specifically, as you can see above, barring a few "long ones" none of the quotes are more than a couple of words each. Is that problematic as well? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, there isn't an actual number, but I think 78 is definitely way too many. Although it has a slightly different and narrower focus, you may find Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Reception sections again and the essay WP:RECEPTION to be of interest. Don't overuse direct quotations. Paraphrase whenever you can—it's easier to quote rather than rework the wording to fit the point of the paragraph, but it's your job to make the argument. Use quotes for illustration, not because you can't think of any other way to say something. is how Mike Christie puts it, and I think that is right. Take (more-or-less at random) no.57: "surprisingly amicable". Are we really saying there is no way to summarise this without quoting verbatim from the source? Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V is certainly an easy way to write an article, but it does not lead to an article that is "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard", hence my raising it here. --John (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Would a 50% reduction work? I think I'll be able to do that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to haggle over numbers. Instead, as we both accept there are too many, why not start to cut out the least essential ones first and see how we go? --John (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@John: did a fair bit of trimming. What do you think now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Good work. --John (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

John, Krimuk, is there more to do here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hope not. :D John? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. I can't properly look just now. Can you give me a couple of days? John (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I can look at this properly tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. --John (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've struck the ones that have been dealt with. Well done for doing that. We are down to around 50. --John (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I am working my way through copyediting the article with a view to tidying up fanspeak and further summarising quotations. It is broadly ok and I am confident I can finish this by tonight. --John (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think. --John (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Units Still on course to meet that deadline. What about units of human weight? The article uses pounds, but this isn't right in UK usage. Older British people use stones and pounds, and younger ones use kilos. How should we solve this? --John (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's be consistent in our usage. What's the most acceptable unit, and we'll stick to that? WP:UNITS says that for the UK "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

So stones/pounds, with a kg conversion? --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, 185 pounds (84 kg) isn't quite right. I think we would want 13 stone 3 and the kg conversion. A bit tough on Americans who might not know either unit, hence my raising it here. --John (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• 13 stone 3 pounds (84 kg) or 13 stone 3 pounds (84 kg; 185 lb) seem like the choices. I'm not wild about using three units but maybe that's the least bad. --John (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Linking We shouldn't link inside a quotation. So we can't say, for example, Her next film, an adaptation of the Australian gothic novel The Dressmaker, was described by the director Jocelyn Moorhouse as "Unforgiven with a sewing machine." --John (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you suggest we fix this? Also, I'm not sure I agree with the removal of the "Citizen Kane of awful" quote. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnotes. --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Just an idea (it might be stupid) but does Unforgiven "with a sewing machine" go against MoS guidelines? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like the quote. I counter-propose "Her next film, an adaptation of the Australian gothic novel The Dressmaker, was described by the director Jocelyn Moorhouse as being reminiscent of Unforgiven."--John (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

John and Ian Rose could we please wrap this up now? I'd really appreciate it if we could close this before the year ends. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

All done now, John? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. I fixed it. We never use stones as decimal fractions. I think it looks damn clumsy with three units, as I said above, but as you point out that's what the MoS recommends. I'm happy to sign off on this if you are. --John (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I now support. Nice work. --John (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Wish you a very happy new year. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2017 (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) 23:21, 30 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2017 [7].

---

Lancashire Fusiliers War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm back, and with another war memorial! This one is in Bury, which today is in Greater Manchester but in 1914 was in the southeast corner of Lancashire. This part of the world is particularly well-endowed with war memorials, not least because of the local regiment—the Lancashire Fusiliers. Over 13,000 men served and died with the Lancashire Fusiliers and the effect of such losses on its garrison town, Bury, is still evident a century on. Wikimedia UK kindly gave me a modest grant to travel to Bury and take several of the photos used in the article. The regiment no longer exists, but their memorial is well taken care of, having been adopted by the successor regiment. If that wasn't enough, there's more historical interest with its architect, whose father and great uncle both served in—you guessed it—the Lancashire Fusiliers.

It's an interesting, if poignant, story and I hope this article tells it well. All feedback will be gratefully received! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Sources: all in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Was a part of the recent A-Review, see no changes that need be made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support An enjoyable read, and an article that meets the FA criteria. There are two points you could look at, the first extremely minor, the second just minor. What you do with them, if anything, I leave to your discretion, your action will not affect my support:

• In the lead: "dedicated to members of the Lancashire Fusiliers killed in that conflict, and located in Gallipoli Gardens". The "and" feels a bit clunky to me. Maybe "dedicated to members of the Lancashire Fusiliers killed in that conflict; it is located in Gallipoli Gardens" or similar? (I don't press this point, as others may think the sentence is fine as it is).
• In Design: "a single tall, tapering obelisk in Portland stone (similar to those on..." as it's a single obelisk shouldn't it be "a single tall, tapering obelisk in Portland stone (similar to that of..."

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Gavin. Glad you're enjoying the series so far. I agree with you on the lead and I've altered it slightly, but "those" refers to Northampton War Memorial, which contains a pair of obelisks which is why it's plural despite this one only being a single obelisk. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha - I understand now. (You could have "similar to the pair on...", just for clarity, but it's six of one, half a dozen of the other really, and not really worth changing, unless you like it). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "A plaque by the memorial records that the architect's great uncle, Major Engelbert Lutyens, also served in the regiment." Maybe this? "A plaque at the memorial records lists the architect's great uncle, Major Engelbert Lutyens, as a member of the regiment."
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, Dan. I've re-ordered that sentence. I didn't like my version but I didn't really like yours either. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Another fine article on Lutyen's collection of memorials. Some comments below, for consideration but not necessarily for action, and none precluding my support. KJP1 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "Lutyens was commissioned in light of a family connection" - "Lutyens was commissioned because of or owing to a family connection?

• I quite liked "in light of" (more than "because" or "owing"), but happy to discuss it if you feel strongly.

I absolutely do not! KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "while its motto is inscribed further down and a dedication is inscribed on the base" - two "inscribed"s in close proximity, replace one with incised or etched?

• Reworded this.

• "but the barracks closed in the 1970s and the memorial was relocated." Perhaps reordered as "was relocated when the barracks closed in the 1970s."

• Done.

• "It was relocated again in 2009, this time to sit in a public park renamed Gallipoli Gardens,.." - You've two "relocated"s in close proximity, and does the memorial sit? Perhaps, "In 2009, it was moved again, to a public park renamed Gallipoli Gardens,..."

• Done.

• "later that year it formed part of a national collection of Lutyens' war memorials." - You and I know what that means, but I'm not sure "formed" will be clear to all readers. Perhaps, use the "was recognised as" you use later?

• Done.

Background

• "This along with his work for the Imperial War Graves Commission led to commissions for war memorials across Britain and the empire." - I'd probably stick a couple of commas in and link empire. "This, along with his work for the Imperial War Graves Commission, led to commissions for war memorials across Britain and the empire."

• Yes for the commas, not sure the link would add much.

• "Captain Lutyens, himself the son of an army officer, spent most of his career in Canada;" - I think his career as a professional artist was longer than his career as a soldier,[8], so perhaps "spent most of his military career.."?

• Good point. His father should really have an article himself.

• "The Lancashire Fusiliers (previously the 20th Regiment of Foot) was swollen" - the juxtaposition of "Foot" and "swollen" read slightly oddly, but it might just be me! Perhaps "was expanded"?

• Ha! That hadn't occurred to me, but I think the meaning is clear.

You have no sympathy for my gout! KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "an area which was then part of Lancashire but has since become Greater Manchester" - well, not the totality of GM. Perhaps, "an area which was then part of Lancashire but has since been incorporated into Greater Manchester"?

• Reworded.

• "The Lancashire Fusiliers's" - here you use "s's" but in the lead and the Design and History sections, you use "s'" as in Fusiliers'. Tim will know which is preferred, I can only suggest consistency.

• Done (without the second "s").

Design

• Nothing here except I do like Pevsner's "more moving in its modesty" quote (p=183). Usable?

• Yes, definitely.

History

• Nothing to add.

Thank you very much! Sorry it's taken me a few days; things got unexpectedly busy here. And profuse apologies for the accidental rollback the other day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. I was slightly thrown by the rollback, as it seemed uncontroversial!, but assumed you were having a bad day. Hope things are more relaxed for Christmas. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a misclick—ironically I was aiming for the "thank" button! Thanks again for having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that we have no alt text on this article. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. In any case, I shall be promoting shortly. Sarastro (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2017 [9].

---

Tottenham outrage

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The events of the Tottenham outrage of January 1909 read like a piece of particularly tawdry prose from a penny dreadful. Two dastardly anarchists undertake a wages snatch and are chased by police and members of the public (including, at various times, football teams and workmen). The dastardly anarchists keep up fire from automatic pistols throughout the subsequent chase; the police are largely unarmed, but manage to borrow firearms from passing members of the public on four occasions (yes, seriously!) The chase was on foot, by car, grocer's cart, milk float and, bizarrely, by tramcar. In the end the dastardly anarchists commit suicide rather than be taken by the forces of law and order (even though one of them fails in his attempt), but the £80 they stole has gone missing... It all sounds like a ripping yarn, except it was all true and cost the lives of one unarmed policeman and a ten-year-old boy caught in the crossfire. All constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map, lead, and Daily Mirror images
• Since the images are hosted on Commons, they should also include a tag indicating their status in the UK. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Nikkimaria - both points done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

...so I did. Here goes:

• "Paul Helfeld (also given as Hefeld[12]) aged 21 in 1909, and Jacob Lepidus (also given as Lapidus[13]) aged 25 in 1909..." -- A little repetitive. Any chance of one "1909", "aged", and "also given as"?
• "the terms "socialist" and "anarchist" had been conflated in the British press, which used the terms interchangeably to refer to those with revolutionary beliefs." -- terms/terms
• "Special Branch thought that there was a political element in which Salnish was involved..." -- "Special Branch suspected that there was a political element to the robbery in which Salnish was involved..." May as well use the lingo?

Robbery and chase See this and this for my copy edits - I feel like Dank saying that! Support. All good, feel free to revert any of them Cassianto^Talk 20:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I may've undone your intervening edits in an ec.

• You did. I shall biff you next time I see you! - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No you won't. I'm not having fisticuffs at Riley Towers. Tim riley talk 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cass, these (and your copy edits) are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

A few quibbles in doing so, and I apologise for missing these points at PR. (One – well, I at any rate – will invariably spot additional things on rereading.)

• Lead
  • "The robbery was undertaken by …" – "undertaken" seems an odd term, as though the robbery had been put out to tender. I think perhaps "committed" might read more naturally.
  • "Jacob Lepidus, two Latvian immigrants who were pursued" – perhaps a comma after "immigrants" to close the subordinate clause?

• Background
  • "the largest Jewish community at the time" – just belt and braces, but I wonder if "the largest Jewish community in the world at the time" might avoid any doubt.
  • "because of the influx into one part of Tottenham, north London, gained the nickname Little Russia" – on rereading this I struggle to break it into its constituent parts. Does it mean one part of Tottenham was "Little Russia", or north London was "Little Russia"? If the former we need something like "because of the influx into one part of Tottenham in north London, the area gained the nickname Little Russia". If the latter, we need to lose the comma between "London" and "the".

• Criminals
  • "a bomb he was carrying … detonated prematurely" – I don't know the answer and ask merely to check: can "detonate" be used intransitively? Bombs are certainly detonated, but do they detonate?

These very minor points do not detract from my support for the promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the criteria. Highly readable, widely and thoroughly cited, well illustrated, and balanced. – Tim riley talk 19:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim, for your comments at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • One last point, I forgot to add ("old, old, Master Shallow!") – if this were my FAC I'd have cropped the picture of PC Tyler to make his head roughly the same size as that of poor Ralph Joscelyne. Tim riley talk 23:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Done! - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Leaning support, very interesting, I had never heard of it. Quite a slow motion urban chase. A few comments.

• "The car from the factory joined in the chase, driven by Wilson; he paused and PC Newman boarded the car before they gave chase again." You use chase in two slightly different ways. I might change one of them.
• "As the car neared the two criminals, they turned and open fire." opened?
• "He was taken to hospital by a member of the public on a bicycle," I might reverse "on a bicycle" and "by a member of the public"
• "One policeman borrowed a pistol from a bystander, made his way round through the scrub until he was close enough to fire, but the gun was faulty;" an "and" is needed somewhere.
• I gather Lepidus shot himself as he was being shot by others. I don't think you clearly convey it.
• I might put the exact date in the lede. I had to chase it down a bit in the article.
• "Oak Cottage" later referred to as "Oak Cottages".
• "In early February 1909 Herbert Gladstone, the Liberal Home Secretary defended the government's record on immigration, including those who had been subsequently expelled from Britain for criminal activity." I'm not certain the sentence as a whole makes sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Wehwalt. I've addressed your comments with these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Very enjoyable.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ritchie333

Looks good, I've just got a few comments:

• I've changed the "Little Russia" link to Little Russia, London. Although that article says "It became commonly known as "Little Russia" when a large number of Russian immigrants settled there after fleeing the 1917 Russian Revolution", that can't be right as the Middlesex source used here name-checks it in 1906.
  • We don't mention the 1917 revolution; we refer to the period between 1875 and 1914, which peaked in the late 1890s. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The influx of émigrés" - any particular reason to use "émigrés" here?
  • Are you querying the use of the word in general, or the use of accents with "émigrés"? - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The word specifically, I'm just wondering if there was a purpose to use that term instead of, say "immigrants". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for variety - we use "immigrants" a couple of times earlier and "immigration" in the next sentence. I'm fine swapping it over if you think it misleading or something. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I see your point about avoiding repetition of "immigration" - this is an encyclopedia article, not a Daily Express rant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Wilson 2015, Chapter 2" - did you mean to cite the whole chapter, or should there be specific pages?

LOL. If you think the Mail and Express are bad (and they are), you ought to have seen what the press was saying back then! The Manchester Evening Chronicle in 1905 was banging on about "the dirty, destitute, diseased, verminous and criminal foreigner who dumps himself on our soil". (although I'm sure the Mail would love to print things like this again now!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• • This is from Google Books, and the closest I can come to a specific reference is the chapter - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• According to this contemporary map, there is no "t" in "Chesnut Road"
  • Quite right - spell checker was being "helpful"! - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• "according to members of the group, both men had criminal records" - could we change "both men" to avoid repetition of "both"?
  • Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• "it is not known whether the robbery was politically linked or a more straightforward criminal act" - as we've already mentioned "political element" in this sentence, wouldn't it be simpler to say "whether this was the case or was a straightforward criminal act"?
  • Yep, swapped over - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• "the west bank of the River Lea until they crossed the river" - can we lose one of the "rivers"?
  • Also done - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And that's about it. No surprises to see the Daily Mail being an apologist for racism; some things never change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's great - thanks Ritchie. If you could let me know about the "émigrés" point, I'll have another look. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a minor point, so I don't see any reason to not support at this point, so I will. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Ritchie - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

I know this area well, so I read this excellent article with great interest, although I was slightly surprised that the Tottenham outrage article wasn't about the even more dastardly Arsenal F.C.. I agree with Ritchie333's final comment too. Just a couple of comments that you are free to ignore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• six miles (9.7 km); nine yards (8.2 m).— In the circumstances, I wonder if the metric conversions are over-precise
• known Russian revolutionary— Is the "known" necessary?
• gold, silver and bronze— Usually the lowest value British coins are described as copper, whatever alloy is used
• Police Constables— Query capitalisation.

Many thanks Jimfbleak - all tweaked accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise

Hi Gavin, how are you? I hope all is well. Pretty sure I’m going to support, just noticing some very minor stuff.

• Legacy: “The lengthy procession included white-plumed horses drawing Joscelyne's coffin and black-plumed horses drawing Tyler's; both were draped in a Union Jack, which were escorted by policemen, a police band, men from the local fire brigade, a contingent from Royal Garrison Artillery and tramway employees.” Slightly awkward phrasing in that “which” looks like it is tied to Union Jack, but is then followed by a plural verb. Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• “On her death, the capital sum was paid to the Metropolitan and City of London Police orphanage fund.[63][64][i] Mrs Tyler later married PC Williams, who had taken part in the chase; he died in 1925.” I think this is the same person? If so, it is a bit jarring to read that she was “later married” after her death is mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Moise, all is good, thanks; I hope you are also well and thriving. Thanks for the tweaks you've done on this article. I've amended the two points you've mentioned; do they look OK for you now? Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it's all good now. This article was a very nice read. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Moise – much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

I (lightly) edited this fine and pacy article as I read through in more or less one sitting, so have nothing to grumble about here. Not sure what the scrolling equivalent of a page turner is. Timely and relevant, and am very impressed. Ceoil (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ceoil - that's much appreciated. Thanks also for the edits. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Malik Shabazz

I think SchroCat has done a fine job of bringing this article to FA standards. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll point out that I've made a few minor edits to this article over the past nine years.[10][11] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Malik, your thoughts are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

I've come to this cold hopefully I bring a new perspective.

• Can we make the opening sentence or two a bit ... punchier? I find this one of the hardest parts of writing an article, but the reader should know what the subject of the article is and why they should care within the first few seconds.
  • Better now? All the 'big' info is in the first sentence now, so this should work. - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• at the nearby station Police station? Might be worth specifying—"station" without further qualification usually means a railway station, which is what I initially assumed.
  • Yep, added. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Relatedly, is it safe to assume these officers belong to the Metropolitan police?
  • Yes, they are. I've added a link a little further up to say that. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• a pistol borrowed from a member of the public Can we say anything about whether it was unusual for random members of the public to have access to firearms like that, bearing in mind that Britain has never had the American obsession with guns?
  • I've gone back over the sources, and none of them really address this point. The fact that police borrowed guns from FOUR members of the general public (and that the duck shooters also joined in), speaks volumes to us, but not even the newspapers at the time commented that it seemed excessive! – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• One policeman commandeered a pony If you're going to link to commandeering (personally I probably wouldn't, but it's a matter of editor judgement), it should be on the first mention.
  • I was in two minds about the link, but decided that it's probably safer to include (someone is bound to link it later, I think), so I've moved the link upwards. – SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Eagles descended pun intended? ;)
  • Ha! - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• while entering the room while Lepidus shot himself repetition
  • Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• What's a Coroner's warrant?
  • I've reworded this to make things a bit clearer. – SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• the firearm used by the police It's worth noting here that British police officers didn't (and don't) routinely carry firearms, and a link to police use of firearms in the United Kingdom could be included.
  • I've added a footnote where the first gun was borrowed about the police use. They were issued with guns for night patrol only. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A very nice piece of work. That was all I could find to criticise and even that is mostly nitpicking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Harry. I think I've covered all I can (the public gun ownership point isn't covered in the contemporary or modern sources), but I've worked through the rest. Let me know if there is anything else you think could be addressed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

One last quibble, which I just spotted while I was looking for something else: I notice you have two books dedicated to this incident in the "further reading" section whereas the books you use as references all cover the incident within a broader scope. Far be it from me to tell you how to write a article, but shouldn't the two dedicated works be cited, both for strict compliance with criteria 1b and c but also because they might contain details that the authors of the more general works didn't think worth including in their books? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ah yes: one of these (the Harris book) is self published, so we can't use that one. The other, Barton, I have and intended to use, but after I read five pages that were lifted almost entirely from the text I largely wrote for the Siege of Sidney Street, I have taken the view that we can't really claim this as reliable (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968#Published plagiarism of one of our articles for a discussion of the book). There is no real systematic souring used within the book either and the bibliography section contains only five sources (three of which are self-published books and one is this website). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I wouldn't be inclined to include a book that lifted text from Wikipedia at all. But I'm happy, so support. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Harry. I see you have another memorial up for review: I've enjoyed these and I'll be along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

A couple of minor formatting issues:

• Should the BBC news item be included among the websites rather than the "News articles"? And "BBC News" should not be italicised as it's not a print source.
  • I think it could be in either section, but as it is from BBC News, rather than from one of the other parts of the site, I think it's probably best in the news section. I've tweaked the citation.
• There's a minor format inconsistency in that the Morgan news item is cited by its title, whereas the others seem to be cited by author's name. Is there a reason for this?
  • None! Now redone. – SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian. All readjusted now. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from GRuban

Mostly minor issues, gripping story.

* The lede states "much of the press coverage was anti-Semitic in nature" without ever having mentioned the two were Jewish. Either remove this until the body, or mention they were before then (it mentions they were Latvian something like 4 times).

• On that note, "The two Latvians committed suicide at the end of the pursuit." - how about "The two criminals" or "The two robbers" or something in that vein; surely that is the key point, rather than their nationality?
• The "weapons used" pictures are in the Criminals section, though the text that they illustrate isn't until the Robbery and chase section. Either pics down or text up.
  • No. There would be too many images in the Chase section, and the text wouldn't work well enough in the higher section. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Christian Salnish, who Special Branch considered to be" - whom
• "£80 in gold, silver and coppers" - copper? Seems strange that only it has the "s"
  • Not really. "Coppers" is what non-silver coins are called in the UK. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Can we write a few sentences on why, though the police were unarmed, the public generally carried pistols? It seems very surprising that the public was so heavily armed.
  • Already sufficiently covered. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• " Lepidus threatened the conductor with a pistol and ordered him to drive; although he had never driven a tram before, he managed to get the vehicle moving." - "he" is a bit unclear ... how about "the conductor managed" ... ?
• "window–locked in with her children—she" - seem to have different types of dashes there
• "he died in 1925.[63] On her death, the capital sum of the money raised for her was paid to the Metropolitan and City of London Police orphanage fund" - date of her death seems called for
  • Not in sources - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The board was also instructed to examine whether the firearm used by the police—the .450 Webley Revolver—was suitable, and whether sufficient numbers had been issued." - In what sense was the revolver used by police? Didn't the ones involved borrow most of their pistols from the public?
  • Already sufficiently covered. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The two victims" picture box seems badly titled, given that one picture is of the grave of a policeman, while another memorializes either the whole gun battle, or Lepidus, very debatably a victim. I'd expect Joscelyne.

* "Although there was some initial confusion about the backgrounds of Helfeld and Lepidus—The Star reported that they were Italians—the actions of the two men led to a debate on immigration control." Dates would be good here - when did the Star report, and then withdraw, that they were Italians, and when was the debate?

• No pictures of Helfeld and Lepidus?
  • No, or I would have included them. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Donald Rumbelow, in history of the event" - ...his history of...?
• "£1,0550 in 1909 equates to" - comma after 4 digits?

--GRuban (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• All covered, except where commented otherwise. - SchroCat (talk)

• Methinks you missed a number, actually.

• "The two Latvians committed suicide at the end of the pursuit." -two robbers/criminals/fugitives...
• "Christian Salnish, who Special Branch considered to be the organiser" - whom
• "although he had never driven a tram before, he managed to get the vehicle moving"
• "Memorials to the two victims" - does not, in fact, contain pictures of memorials to the two victims

::*No. These do not need to be done, except the Salnish point. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

also

• "was felo de se ," - remove space before comma

• There is no space - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Very strange; you are right that it's not there in the source, yet it's clearly there when you either look, or copy and paste. I'm guessing it must be an issue with the template. OK. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• ""felon of himself"; it is an archaic legal term" . can be just ": an archaic legal term". Not that there is anything wrong with semicolons, but brevity is wit.

• It's fine as it is, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

--GRuban (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I have to insist about the "Memorials to the two victims" caption, since the rest are issues of style, but this is a matter of fact. The images are not, in fact, of memorials to the two victims. There is a plaque to Joscelyne, http://www.plaquesoflondon.co.uk/page3516.htm but this isn't that. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Insist away. I'm sure you'll probably find it offensive, because it's disrespectful of our subject or something. - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

::* Oppose over what seems to be trivially easy to correct. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually - may I just change it, myself, rather than oppose? It seems such a small thing. If you don't like my change, you can revert. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

How staggeringly petty. You are, or course, entirely able to edit the article yourself and change it to whatever you desire: I have no greater say over the text than anyone else, but if you'd rather oppose than make the edit, I'm sure the co-ordinators will make up their own minds on the best course of action. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'd rather make the edit; just didn't want to edit war. Thank you for your kindness, and thanks for a fine article. --GRuban (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I found the death date of Tyler's widow, Emily! 1937. Barton, Geoffrey (2017-01-16). The Tottenham Outrage and Walthamstow Tram Chase: The Most Spectacular Hot Pursuit in History. Waterside Press. p. 73. ISBN 9781909976405. Retrieved 14 December 2017. It doesn't say anything about where her fund went, but I'll trust your source on that. From your comments above, I assume you will not object if I add it to the appropriate place? --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source - see my response to HJ Mitchell's question about it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Testing times

[It has been a while ... lets see if I can remember how this works...]

Congratulations on this tour de force. I seem to recall quite a lot of the content was there some years ago. But is it much much better referenced and illustrated now. (If you are looking for other articles to improve with a similar pedigree, perhaps the Garden House riot?)

Some comments:

• Many of the sources - even the more recent ones - seem to use the capitalised version, "Tottenham Outrage".
  • Some do, some don't, but it's not a formal name for it, and I think that the current version falls in line with the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry, I am struggling with a sentence in the lead: "There were twenty-three casualties; two fatal and several others serious, among them seven policemen." Why the semicolon and the comma? Seven policemen were serious casualties? (One of them was killed.) And I may be wrong, but isn't it usual to include the (dead) perpetrators among the number of casualties? Four killed, 21 injured?
  • It's since been re-written in response to Harry Mitchell's comments. How does that look now? I'm happy keeping the deaths of the two criminals separate from the other casualties as they are dealt with in the next sentence and are the only ones who committed suicide. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• In the chase section, the roads are still there, so some of the detail of the route from the old versions (shown in the Daily Mail map) could be added, if desired
  • I'll have a look again at those. As the actual road names are of limited interest I left them out, but on reflection, perhaps a few names used would be better. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Perhaps one more mode of transport to add: as I understand it, a Police Inspector Large gave chase from the factory scene on a horse.
  • That's not coming up in the reliable sources, or in most of the news searches I'm doing (although I see it repeated in unreliable sources and internet searches). I'll keep looking for something we can use. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Also, the police commandeered a tram going in the opposite direction and reversed after the perpetrators as they escaped by tram - that tram-chasing-tram incident is shown in the lead image, I think.
  • Quite right - now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• In the aftermath section, the article gives the names of three of the five PCs who were promoted to Sergeant. The other two are already mentioned in the article but not named. One was PC Nicod - he was the one shot while creeping through the scrub with the faulty gun - and the other was PC Dewhirst - he rescued the children from Oak Cottage.
  • Yes, now added. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Two constables were advanced in pay grade. One was PC Newman - already named before, so he could easily be mentioned here again. The other was PC Zeithing: do the sources say what his role was?
  • It sounds odd to say, but nothing that would really justify inclusion. The Waldren source states that:

"Lepidus was still being chased by a crowd of police and public and when 38-year-old Frederick Mortimer threw a brick at him he turned to fire at them. A bullet passed over the shoulder of Constable Zeithing and hit Mortimer in the chest. Several more shots passed through the lapels of Zeithing's greatcoat."

I was trying to avoid putting too many minor details into the sequence, which is why this was left out. - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• One old version had a nice quotation about the Outrage from a report in The Times on Monday 25 January 1909, Issue 38865, page 9: "An amazing series of outrages, singularly rare if not entirely without parallel in a civilized country, occurred on Saturday forenoon in the neighbourhood of Tottenham marshes."
  • I saw that article, but aside from the slight hyperbole of The Thunderer, it doesn't seem to add anything to our understanding (and it's factually questionable, given what revolutionary/"anarchist" got up to in Germany, France and Italy!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Perhaps worth mentioning that PC Tyler did not receive the King's Police Medal because posthumous awards were not made until 1977.
  • Yes, I took that out of the version when I gave it a full re-write. I think it crosses into synthesis to mention that point. It is probable that Tyler would have got an award if only wounded, but we cannot say he definitely would have got the award and only his death stopped that. If there is a source that states that, we may be able to work it in, but it would have to be a news item from the time, rather than speculation from a modern source, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well done again. No doubt this could be featured on the main page on the 110th anniversary in January 2019? -- Testing times (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Testing times. I've covered most of these; only the question of Large's horse acquisition is proving troublesome to find, but I'll do some searches of local newspapers a little later. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose from John

Nice article. Why "committed suicide"? --John (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending resolution of this, I'm going to note I oppose this article's promotion. --John (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolution of what? From question to oppose in eight hours because I haven't answered you? I am sure that the co-ordinators will draw their conclusions from your rather unclear comment and decision to oppose. (I don't know what your question is about. Is it why they committed suicide: feel free to ask them, if you wish to know. Is it that you don't like the terminology: perfectly acceptable, given the court determined that they committed suicide. Or is it something else entirely?) - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

John, please do try and grow up. I had you down as being better than this. Cassianto^Talk 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That's right, I oppose because I don't think this wording matches the court verdict and it doesn't represent good encyclopedic practice. One commits a crime, usually. It'd be like saying "committed abortion"; just a little bit prejudicial! Having said that, was suicide still a crime in England at this time? --John (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

felo de se was the verdict, which is suicide. See note F. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Until 1961, apparently. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but an oppose, seriously? This could be fixed as a result of a simple comment. Please don't allow your opposing views on the Butler talk page to bleed through to this one; it comes across as very much sour grapes. Cassianto^Talk 17:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, the only sense in which this is influenced by our other recent disagreement is the strong conviction that I'd rather sort this out here than wait until TFA or later. If it can be fixed, then let's fix it. --John (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to fix, let alone using this as a basis for an oppose. @WP:FAC coordinators: , just so the co-ordinators can keep an eye on how an Oppose !vote is being misused. SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's a good guide to responsible terminology in reporting suicide. See p11. --John (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something; it was illegal at the time of the outrage to "commit" suicide. Thus, you commit it, as you would theft, and you would expect to be indicted for it. Since 1961, people who "attempt" suicide are institutionalised sectioned. Cassianto^Talk 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I see that your attempts to change the terminology in the MoS last year was rebuffed, and that there is no consensus or guideline against using "committed suicide". We do not need to follow what the Samaritans say when the coroner was talking about the pair committing suicide, and when yes, this was an offence in UK law. (And good luck working your way through Suicides by occupation. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, we truly have the tin ear for language, don't we? Since 1961, people who "attempt" suicide are institutionalised. is my quote of the year right there. There is also nothing in the MoS specifically prohibiting us from calling Albert Einstein a kike. And yet we don't. Hmmm. Maybe it's a 1a and 1d thing. This was what caught my eye, and it's worth opposing over; also, in my experience, where there is one gross infelicity like this there will be many. But this is enough for now. --John (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where abouts in the world you come from, but in the UK, people who attempt suicide are often sectioned under the Mental Health Act. What would you call it? Cassianto^Talk 21:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Then the co-ordinators will take into account that your attempt to have this term banned at the MoS didn't gain a consensus, is used on articles of all standards and as (sub)categories here, is used in publications like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and was used in the coroner's case that we're talking about here, which is reported as such in cnotemporary and modern sources. Still, in your opinion this is worthy of a strong oppose, or even a normal one? I'm afraid that your campaign to somehow change the language from what is expected and commonplace just looks a little silly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's not like the Samaritans would know anything about suicide, is it? Here are some stats for you: One person in 15 in Great Britain has attempted suicide. That's about 4 million, many of whom will have made more than one attempt. 63,622 a year are sectioned, not all of whom will have attempted suicide. Still think it's true that "Since 1961, people who "attempt" suicide are institutionalised"? Your unfamiliarity with the nuances around this sensitive topic is showing, and the article fails on NPOV as a result. You could change it to "killed himself" which is neutral and unobjectionable, but if you can't or won't, my oppose still stands. As regards "somehow change the language", this is already the language that informed sources use, as I've shown. --John (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• • • I don't really think people give a flying toss about your oppose, if I'm honest. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking how pathetic and desperate you've come across as in allowing a personal grudge from Josephine Butler to influence your "strong oppose" here. Cassianto^Talk 06:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • • I think it would be better if you split your comments into two, one each aimed at the person you are replying to. Given your poor formatting, you are replying to me on things I have not said, which is sloppy. Regardless of all that: this is Wikipedia, not the Samaritans. Your attempts to change the language at the MoS gained no credibility, and your Oppose is, frankly, laughable. We could change the language, but this would not reflect the reliable sources. I think it's time to take your little crusade elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• @WP:FAC coordinators: I'm afraid my well of good faith on this died a long time ago, given this editors recent behaviour (at Butler, threats at my talk page, a little 'hitlist' of diffs in his sandbox, ready to bully me into ANI, his miraculous appearance on a thread at ANI I have commented on, and now this. I am always happy to deal with editors acting in good faith, but this editor falls a long way short of such behaviour, and I'll have no more to do with them. - SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You pinged the wrong folks - TFA is for the people who choose/schedule the FA for the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Ealdgyth - SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I was drawn to this by the unintended TFA ping, and I have to say that it seems extraordinary to slap in an oppose within hours over a single phrase. Whatever the Samaritans say now, at the time suicide was a crime, and could be committed just like theft or murder. I can see why SchroCat sees parts of WP as a hostile environment. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, suicide is still being committed. News story with FP link-"committed suicide two days later". We hope (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• This "strong oppose" is such nonsense one can hardly believe one's seeing it. The time may come when "commit suicide" is not considered acceptable, but it has certainly not come yet, nor is it Wikipedia's function to agitate for it to do so. In The Guardian, which I have read for more than fifty years but cannot deny is so politically correct that its style guide bans the term "politically correct", the phrase "commit suicide" appears this very day (page 38), and the excellent Newsbank site records 2,065 incidences of the phrase in the past year in UK papers. Tim riley talk 15:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have to agree with my colleagues above that this oppose is without merit and should be disregarded by the coordinators. "Committed suicide" is a normal, everyday English-language phrase. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I feel I need to recuse as coord and say that I'm with those who find "committed suicide" a common term without unusually criminal-related connotations (though I daresay it was indeed a crime when these events took place anyway). I'm afraid that "took their own lives" or some such sounds rather like a "passed away" kind of euphemism... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a euphemism but the clear and neutral "killed himself". Sad but not shocking that so many are tone-deaf on this matter in late 2017. Would they be fine with "committed adultery"? "Committed blasphemy"? The world moves on. John (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "committed adultery" and "committed blasphemy" are valid comparisons -- perhaps it's just me, perhaps it's a regional thing, but I think the terms adultery and blasphemy themselves are heard far less than they once were, meaning that "committed adultery" and "committed blasphemy" are also heard less. The same can't be said for suicide, nor, as I think is fairly clear from the participants at this FAC as well as examples noted in the real world, for "committed suicide". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And you're welcome to your opinion. Labelling something as a crime which was not prosecuted as a crime nor in practice actually a crime at the time seems a valid comparison with adultery and blasphemy. Would we say "committed abortion"? I think at one time we might but in 2017 it would look funny. So we wouldn't. NPOV is a FA criterion. Some of the hysterical and bad faith responses to my oppose indicate I've got a nerve here. Why not just use neutral language? But if it's vital to keep the Victorian phrase then you'll have to manage without my support. John (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

...I'm confident the article will manage perfectly well without your support. Cassianto^Talk 16:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from SarahSV

• Support. I've read this through twice and thoroughly enjoyed it. The writing carried me along, and I was able to imagine it all very easily. I made a few changes, including swapping an image and adding some section headers to create shorter sections. The impact section at the end now covers the King's medal, monument, plaques, etc. Feel free to undo the changes. A couple of issues:

• I wasn't sure how to copy edit the following, and I can't see the source: "Special Branch suspected that there was a political element in which Salnish was involved, but as both Helfeld and Lepidus died during the chase, it is not known whether this was the case or was a straightforward criminal act."

I changed it to: "Special Branch suspected that Salnish's involvement meant there was a political element to the crime, but as both Helfeld and Lepidus died during the chase, that aspect could not be pursued." I'm not keen on "that aspect could not be pursued" but couldn't think how best to express it. Is it correct that, with the men dead, they had no way to investigate the political angle?

• I've tweaked to "Special Branch suspected that Salnish's involvement meant there was a political element to the crime, but as both Helfeld and Lepidus died during the chase, the motivation behind the crime was never established." Does that work for you?

• "Although his wounds had begun to heal, surgery was carried out on 9 February to remove pieces of bone. The injury caused him to contract meningitis ..." The original injuries or the surgery?

• The original wound: now clarified

SarahSV ^(talk) 17:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi SarahSV, Many thanks for your edits and comments. I've been watching them all, and I don't think any should be reverted. The only one I am mulling over is the picture of Tyler's grave, and wondering if the sculpted element is better than the full monument. (If it was a better picture I would be more inclined to retain, but I think I'll live with it for a few days to see if the slightly odd angle is OK or not!) I've made two alterations based on your comments, which should clarify matters, and which I hope you like. Thanks again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome, and I like your changes; it's all clear now. I know what you mean about the odd angle. But it seemed to look better in that section with the other images, although I'm not sure why. I assume that you've seen these images of the cottage and the spot where Helfeld was captured. [12][13][14] They seem to be postcards. If that's true, and if they were created before 1923 (which seems likely), you could upload them. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• How about a compromise crop? --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's neither fish nor fowl, and the 'twisted' aspect of the picture looks worse in the crop. I think it should be the full monument, or the close up of the sculpture. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

It's a fascinating, and well-written, article on a decidedly odd little historical byway. I had my say at PR, and it's improved further since then. I've no wish to reignite the debate, but the Strong Oppose above is as absurd as it is depressing. KJP1 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, KJP1, for your thoughts and comments at PR and again here - they are always appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ian

Since I've recused as coord anyway, I thought I might go through the article in detail. It certainly moves along at a fair clip -- appropriately given its subject -- and my ce was pretty minor, nothing particularly vital. My only question -- and I'm assuming I didn't miss anything -- is whether there was any informed speculation as to what happened to the missing money? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Many thanks for your tweaks and comment. Speculation, yes; informed speculation, no! There are a couple of blogsites who say they think they have guessed, but nothing reliable we can use. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Iridescent

A few (minor) points, that don't impact on my supporting but which you might want to look at:

• Jewish immigrants—mostly poor and semi-skilled or unskilled—settled in the East End of London—what is the relevance of this? As any football fan who's fallen into the "Liverpool Street to White Hart Lane is only a couple of stops and it doesn't look too far on the map, it's such a nice day I think I'll walk" trap has found out to their cost, the East End is a good six miles as the crow flies from Tottenham, by 1910 standards practically a foreign country.
  • It's there for background to illustrate the influx into certain areas. We clarify the Tottenham influx in the next line by referring to it as North London. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Was the population of Little Russia really close to 100% Jewish, rather than just generic Russians? As far as I'm aware the Jewish communities were mostly further south, around Seven Sisters and Tottenham Green; the location of the old Tottenham synagogues (near Markfield Recreation Ground, just south of Tottenham Police Station, and on Lansdowne Road a little way south of Spurs) would appear to back that up.
  • Tweaked to reflect a more general Russian influx. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I'm normally no great fan of the {{inflation}} template and its kin, but on this occasion it would probably be worthwhile to give some kind of indication as to what £80 was worth—something like "£80 (about £8,900 in 2023 terms)". Otherwise, to anyone unfamiliar both with English currency and with relative inflation over the last century, there's no way of knowing whether this was a trivial sum or the equivalent of the Great Train Robbery.
  • Yep, now added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Off-duty policemen from the station—all unarmed—I know what you mean, but it's not technically the case since even if they didn't have firearms, they would still have had assorted truncheons and clubs.
  • Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• (very nitpicky) Re a plaque in [Tyler's] memory was installed at Tottenham police station, is this a reference to a now-lost plaque that was installed at the time, or to the existing plaque which was put up in 2009? Either way, there should be a picture of the plaque at Tottenham if we're going to have the others—if Commons's editors have more common sense than to have a camera in open view in N17, I can take one next time I'm in that vicinity.
  • It's one from 2009 – installed on the centenary. I suspect it's this one, but that's posted with all rights reserved. If you're able to grab one at some point, that would be great. - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• (even more nitpicky) Is there anything in declassified Soviet (or Tsarist) archives that sheds any light on whether the suspects were in fact agents of an international conspiracy rather than just a couple of chancers? This is very much a case of "it would be nice to know"; I'm not expecting anyone to wade through handwritten secret police archives if the material hasn't already been published!
  • I've found no reference to anything. It's such a minor event in history that if there was anything, it's been overlooked. On the other hand, it could just have been a local thing by a couple of desperate bad boys doing something on the side. Maybe something will come out in the future, which would be good. – SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue at all in supporting this. This is a topic with which I'm reasonably familiar, and I can't see any apparent deal-breakers. (And I agree with every other person to comment thus far, that "committed suicide" is the correct term to use in this case.) ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Iridescent, much obliged for your thoughts here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Misc.

• Nice work. Question on short footnote formatting. Is there a rationale behind your choice, when author is unavailable, to use article title + publication title rather than just publication title + year? I would think the latter is more consistent with the standard author + year format, but open to being wrong. czar 16:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There are no set formats for these links that I managed to find, as long as the link in the reference drops onto the correct link. As the wording on the reference link matches the wording on the first part of the source, it seems logical. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• To any one of the admins here, it appears we have a collection of IPs...*ahem*...who have a problem with the "committed" in the widely used and wholly accurate term "committed suicide". Can someone keep an eye out? Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What would an admin be keeping an eye out for, exactly? --John (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring and using multiple accounts, both of which they were doing. Cassianto^Talk 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Pff. Not really. It takes two to edit-war and that's a dynamic IP making a reasonable edit and defending it in article talk. --John (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from TRM

(with apologies if these have already been covered above, and as always, take or leave, nothing is fundamental...)

• "In the 19th century Tsarist Russia, " I would expect a comma before Tsarist.
  • Although common (particularly in American writing), it is not necessary or needed, so it's OK to leave out. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "many emigrated," I would reiterate "many Jews emigrated".
  • It wasn't just Jews emigrating, although they made up the bulk of the numbers, so there's a little leeway there. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• " of Jews into some" why "into" and not just "in"?
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "On 1 May 1907 Paul Lepidus" comma after 1907.
  • As above - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "assassinate the President of France" why not expand a touch, "Armand Fallières, the president of France"?
  • Yep, done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Chesnut Road" really?
  • Yep. I checked a couple of sources before including, (even though the autocorrect still changed a couple of them!) - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "the factory sat opposite Tottenham Police Station, which was part of the Metropolitan Police" this seems odd phrasing to me, that the Station was "part of the ... Police", rephrase?
  • Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "On 23 January 1909 Helfeld " again, a comma after the year?
  • As above - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• " £80 " worth using an inflation template to let us know how much this means these days?
  • Now shown in a footnote - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "10:30 am" -> "10:30 a.m."
  • According to MOS:TIME, both are ok as long as it's consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "he shots hit Wilson's coat, and one pierced his clothes and cut across his stomach." avoid three ands, maybe "he shots hit Wilson's coat; one pierced his clothes and cut across his stomach."
  • Yep, now done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "few minutes later.[39][29][31]" ref order.
  • Switched around. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Trivial stuff, but I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, TRM. All adjusted, except where commented on. Cheers for your thoughts – much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  Okay by me. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  Cheers, RM! - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comments: We seem to have a clear consensus to promote here, and I cannot remember the last time one article had so many supports. The only sticking point seems to be over "committed suicide", but the consensus is that this is fine, despite one oppose over the issue. Therefore, I shall be promoting shortly. I notice that most of the images have alt text, but not all. For consistency, I think we need one or the other, but there is no need to hold up promotion over this issue. Sarastro (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Sarastro1: I'll sort the alts out. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2017 [15].

---

Nigel Williams (conservator)

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Williams was a conservator at the British Museum before conservation was recognized as a profession, and as an early figure in an emerging field, he reconstructed a number of world famous artifacts. When only 23 he was tasked with restoring the Sutton Hoo helmet, regarded as “the most iconic object” from "one of the most spectacular archaeological discoveries ever made", and near the end of his life he took to pieces and reconstructed the Portland Vase, “probably the most famous glass object in the world”. He spent his entire career, and most of his life, working at the museum, and died while in Jordan to work on an excavation.

Like Williams’s life, this article is short but complete. It draws on all the available sources for his life, and for his life’s work. Thorough yet concise, it focuses on someone whose job was to work in the back rooms of a world class institution, and comprehensively details his life, his career, and his contributions to the field of conservation. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, only a slight change is needed - FUR for File:Nigel_Williams_with_Portland_Vase.jpg should link directly to this article, not a dab. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the (extremely fast) image review, Nikkimaria. Fixed the link. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• The two works by Williams that are cited should be listed separately, as they are sources for this article while the others are not.
• Preferably, ISBNs should be standardised in 13-digit form. This is a useful converter.

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. Should ISBNs be 13 digits even if the copyright pages only list 10 digit numbers? Also, do you mean that I should move the two Williams works in question into the bibliography section? It feels a bit odd to break up his list of works. How about instead making "Bibliography" it's own section (rather than a sub-section of references), and making "Works by Williams" a sub-section thereof? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The recent trend at FAC is to convert 10-digit to 13-digit format, to achieve presentational uniformity. On the other point, if you wish to keep the Williams oeuvre intact, you could subdivide the list between "Cited sources" and "Other works". Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thanks for the explanation. I've reformatted the ISBNs (and added dashes as appropriate, which that tool is also useful for). I'm not quite sure what you mean by "subdivide the list between 'Cited sources' and 'Other works'", but I have reordered the list of works—please let me know if it is appropriate as stands. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Declaring my interest at the outset, I undertook the GAR. I thought then, and think now, that this is a fine article. The prose is of a high standard and, to the best of my knowledge, the article covers the major events of Williams's significant, but sadly short, life. The sourcing is impressive and I am relieved to see that the Sources review has not identified any major issues. The images are well-chosen and the whole article presents a balanced view of Williams's considerable achievements. Overall, an article that merits Featured Article status. KJP1 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Pretty close; I've made small changes. Could do with detail at some points - where in Surrey? Which Roman mosaic (and a link)? Ancient Greek vase painting or Pottery of Ancient Greece need a link. The cryptic "Icon" in the notes needs explaining better. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and suggestions, Johnbod. Added the links, and changed "Icon" to "Institute of Conservation." Unfortunately Williams's obituaries do not say where in Surrey he was born, or what mosaic he helped lift. Perhaps Abila.pao, who wrote one of them, has an idea? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod, from emails with Andrew Oddy, it appears that the mosaic was the Hinton St Mary Mosaic. He said he was "reasonably sure" of this, and I found a contemporary account of its excavation by Kenneth Painter (who wrote the Williams obituary mentioning the lifting of a mosaic) in which he included Williams in the acknowledgements. Citing to this article, I have therefore added that the mosaic was "likely the Hinton St Mary Mosaic, thought to be one of the earliest known depictions of Christ."

Oddy was not sure about where Williams was born, as he was only told "Surrey" at Williams's funeral. I could conceivably try to track down the contact information for Myrtle Bruce-Mitford, Williams's partner, but even so, I'm not sure if "personal communication" would be considered a valid reference.

Oddy also sent over the unpublished eulogies spoken by him, and by Rupert Bruce-Mitford, at Williams's funeral. These include some nice personal details—Williams relaxed with jigsaw puzzles, for instance, quite appropriate considering his profession—which I will incorporate soon. As these are fairly minor in the context of Williams's life and profession, however, I wonder if your suggestions about the article have been adequately addressed? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support, given the above. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

I met the article in a DYK review and am pleased with its growth. Minor points:

Lead

• "There his work included the successful restorations of the Sutton Hoo helmet and the Portland Vase, in addition to more minor achievements." - For me, the sentence could end after "Vase".

• Done. Good idea, that sentence has always bothered me.

• "in his early- to mid-twenties" sounds overly precise, for the lead at least.

• I see what you're saying, but to me this language reinforces the previous sentence, which says "from an early age was given responsibility over high-profile objects."

• "Other objects, including the shield, drinking horns, and maplewood bottles were likewise reconstructed." Did he do it? Then better active voice.

• Changed to "He likewise reconstructed other objects from the find, ..."

At the British Museum

• "Williams also proved skillful ..." - the sentence grew to too much complexity, - split perhaps?

• Split with a semicolon.

• "Between these achievements Williams was also known for piecing together ..." - Was he known for it, or did he just do it, without publicity?

• Changed to "Williams also pieced together...", although it was shown by the BBC.

Sutton Hoo

• "As the re-excavation ..." - the year in the middle of the sentence seems a bit in the way of the flow.

• Put the sentence at the beginning.

HMS Colossus

• It's the second link in the body for the Portland Vase. If an additional link, I would link in the image caption of the infobox, where many readers may see it first.

• Done.

• "Beyond that too little generally survived" - it takes too long to find out what it refers to.

• Reworded.

Portland Vase

• Can we have his promotion to Chief Conservator in chronology, instead of mid-sentence?

• How would you rephrase it? It's an aside to the general topic of the Portland Vase, so I don't think it should be the focus of a sentence unless it's in a different section.

• Was it mentioned before, except in the lead? If yes, no need to repeat here, if no, perhaps better at the beginning, with a year instead of relative 5 years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal life

• "She herself contributed" - can we avoid "herself"?

• Changed to "She likewise contributed"

• "Williams and Bruce-Mitford had a daughter together" - do we need "together"?

• Removed.

Death

• "Williams "made a great contribution ..."" - I'd like to know who said or wrote that, not only a reference.

• Added.

Thank you for highlighting an unusual life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughtful comments, Gerda Arendt. I've incorporated all but two of your suggestions, and responded to them individually above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Support. Need sleep ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda Arendt; it's always nice to see that bolded "support," which makes it feel as if the article is one step closer to that shiny gold star. Per your advice above, I've moved the mention of Williams being made Chief Conservator to the general paragraph about his time at the BM. Hope this didn't ruin your Christmas—or your sleep! Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: reviewing is refreshing! I like his quote, says a lot about the person ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• His schooling was unfortunate "unfortunate" in Wikipedia's voice is editorialising, and that doesn't seem like the most appropriate adjective in any case.

• Removed and reworded.

• If his academic achievement was poor, as implied in the previous sentence, do we know how he got into the Central School of Art and Design and why he was specifically recruited for the BM?

• It's not clear that it actually was poor. The source said "unlucky," which has slightly different connotations than "unfortunate" (another good reason to remove that word). Regarding the recruitment, according to the unpublished eulogy from his old boss (recently obtained, as discussed above), "He had been recommended to us by the Central School of Arts and Crafts, where he was excelling in his metalworking course." I've now incorporated that into the article.

• "the abiding passion of his life." The full stop should go outside the quote marks unless it's an integral part of the quote (MOS:LQ)

• The period is part of the quoted source. Is that what you mean by integral?

• If it's in the quote then it's fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can we try and group references at the end of paragraphs or at least sentences and maybe reduce some redundant ones for information that isn't particularly controversial? Refs in mid-sentence create a lot of visual clutter that impedes readability.

• I've removed a few, and put a few others at the end of the sentences when possible. I generally find it much more useful and efficient to have citations after the part of the sentence that the support (though after a clause whenever possible). It makes it significantly easier to verify cited facts, since one can seek out the particular source(s) without having to wade through half a dozen others first. It's particularly important when a work isn't easily available online; ILLing one book is a lot easier than ILLing six.

• The highlights of his professional life I worry about a statement like that in Wikipedia's voice. Can we attribute it to Williams or whoever said it?

• Changed to "His most significant work came at the beginning and the end of his professional life".

• in 1983 rose to become the Chief Conservator This is extremely pedantic, but isn't a rise something one does gradually through a career, rather than the appointment itself?

• Changed to "was promoted to".

• The Sutton Hoo helmet was his pièce de résistance Whose opinion is this? It's fine if it's his opinion or the source's, but it needs to be attributed; putting it in Wikipedia's voice is editorialising

• Changed to "Williams's colleagues termed the Sutton Hoo helmet his 'pièce de résistance'". The exact phrase is in both of his obits.

• considered "the most iconic object" considered by whom?

• I'm not sure calling the helmet the most iconic object from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial is particularly controversial; I would compare it to calling Tutankhamun's mask the most iconic object from his tomb. Lots of bling in either case, but the "face" stands out. The article on the helmet also has a section on its cultural impact. The three options are 1) to leave as is, considering the above, 2) to say something to that effect without a direct quotation, or 3) to attribute anyway (in which case I would find different quotations, since saying "according to the folks at Google who worked with the British Museum to catalogue their highlights" doesn't quite have the right ring to it). What do you suggest?

• If the statement can stand on its own, just remove the word "considered" and the quote marks, but if we're keeping them we need to know whose consideration it is. Am I making sense?

• Rephrased without the quotation/attribution.

• "was thus reduced to a jigsaw puzzle without any sort of picture on the lid of the box" Great quote and an excellent analogy, but whose is it?

• Done. (Also added a bit of information from the eulogies.)

• The crowning achievement Same concern with editorialising

• Changed to "The crowning achievement to Williams's career, wrote his museum colleague Kenneth Painter, was..." The first sentence in the obit is "Nigel Williams crowned his career with his restoration of the Portland Vase, the most important surviving Roman glass vessel, and one of the greatest glasses from any period."

• Regarded as "probably the most famous glass object in the world" A less generous reviewer would stick a {{by whom}} on that; who regards it?

• It's in the foreword to the 1990 issue of the Journal of Glass Studies (published by the Corning Museum of Glass), which dedicated the entire issue (~200 pages) to the vase. The foreword, however, does not have a named author. Do you have a suggestion for how to attribute the statement?

• You could attribute the quote to the journal itself, or if you're confident that the claim will stand on its own just remove the "regarded as" and make the claim in Wikipedia's voice.

• Attributed to the journal.

• The restoration of the vase began, was filmed by the BBC, Deconstruction of the vase was achieved etc: can we try and reduce the use of the passive voice?

• Reworded.

• The "Works by Williams" section should probably be a section in its own right rather than a subsection of the bibliography—bibliography can be either works consulted or works by the subject but using both meanings in one article is going to cause confusion.

• This is how it used to be, but I changed it per Brianboulton's advice (see above). I agree with you that the works should be together, and I would like them to be below the references, since a number of them are cited. Other than that, I'm fine with pretty much anything.

• I'm happy to defer to Brian. It's not something I feel strongly about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

These shouldn't be too vexing to address, but I do think the unattributed quotes and editorialising need attention before promotion. Otherwise, excellent work. It was an interesting read. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read over the article and make those comments, HJ Mitchell; good points about editorializing and attribution. I've addressed most of what you pointed out, although left a few questions for you above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. A few replies inline. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, HJ Mitchell. Addressed the two points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I'll gladly support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 28 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2017 [16].

---

Greek battleship Salamis

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Salamis was a Greek capital ship project that arose in the naval arms race between Greece and the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, shortly before the Balkan Wars that involved the two countries, and more importantly for this ship, World War I, since that war ensured the ship would not be completed. Salamis represented years of development work, arguments between elements of the naval command, machinations behind the back of the Greek Prime Minister, and ultimately, protracted contract disputes between the builder and the Greek government. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Battleship_Salamis.jpg: is this image original to that source, or does it provide attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no credit given in the source - many of the photos in Conway's are credited as being part of the Conway Picture Library, but the illustrations like this one are not. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Added the three potential names. (None are specifically identified in the text, as Parsecboy said; they're just given a general attribution alongside the authors at the very beginning of the book.) Happy to email a screenshot if needed! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks Ed, I hadn't thought to look for that. Parsecboy (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Nothing wrong with the sources, which are entirely appropriate and of the right quality. However, I find your choice of "Footnotes", "Endnotes" and "References" as headings a little odd. "Footnotes" and "Endnotes" esentially mean the same thing (I don't remember seeing "endnotes" used in this context before). The three elements would be bettter combined as subsections under a single level-2 heading, which I suggest should be "Notes and references", with level-3 subheadings: "Notes", "Citations" and "Sources". You don't have to adopt my proffered wordings, but they would be much better within a single main section.
• The only format error I can find is a "p." missing in 22

No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Brianboulton, thanks for the review! I fixed the pp. The sections were my choice, I believe; I've used them before. It's a division built on MOS:FNNR, with explanatory footnotes/citation endnotes/general references. Parsecboy, I wouldn't object if you wanted to edit the sections. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a critical issue, but I believe some thought should be given as to whether the present arrangement represents best practice. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The formatting I usually use is this. I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. What are your thoughts, Brianboulton? Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:APPENDIX specifies Lvl 2 headers for things like notes and references with Lvl 3 headers used if you wish to distinguish between books and journal articles etc. Grouping footnotes, endnotes and references, with individual Lvl 3 headers, under a single Lvl 2 header as you'd prefer, Brianboulton, violates that, IMO. I'll also point out that the screenshot used to illustrate MOS:Appendix shows notes and references each with Lvl 2 headers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "(Greek: Σαλαμίς or Σαλαμινία)": WP:LEAD has been tightened up within the last year. Now it permits "a single foreign language equivalent name" in the lead sentence, so pick one or the other.
  • Trimmed the second one.
• I don't follow "which contributed to her classification as a battlecruiser", since you're calling the ship a battleship, so I removed the related text from the lead. Give it another whack. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There was a line in an earlier version of the article about how the ship has been called a battleship and a battlecruiser, but that fell out somewhere along the way - how does this strike you? Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Looks good, back soon. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• "the outbreak of World War I in August": I don't object to that, the case can be made for August, but is it consistent with our other WWI articles?
  • A good point - July is probably a better choice.
• "The hull ... She": Is a hull a "she"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A good question - changed that to "Salamis"
• There was a passage in Development that seemed ambiguous to me; I tried "The Ottomans ordered the dreadnought Reşadiye in August 1911, threatening Greek control of the Aegean. The Greeks were faced with a choice of conceding the arms race, or ordering new capital ships of their own." Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that seems fine to me.
• "Still, the British had hopes of obtaining the contract after the number of British officers that had been seconded to the Greek Navy in recent years.": Seems ambiguous to me.
  • Is "Still, the British had hopes of obtaining the contract due to the relationship between the Greek and British navies, reflected by the number of British officers that had been seconded to the Greek Navy in recent years." clearer?
    • Sure.
• "Hovering over all of these was the possibility that the dreadnoughts of the South American dreadnought race could be put up for sale." Hovering in what way? The connection should be mentioned first.
  • Would it work to add something along the lines of "...up for sale, a prospect both countries pursued."?
    • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Done, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

Just a few comments from me:

• "the invitation of a British naval mission" - to do what exactly?
  • A good point
• suggest using the Ottoman names for the two pre-dreadnoughts bought from Germany
  • It seems to be more correct to me to use the German names in this context, but I've added a note on their Ottoman names
• Armstrong's proposal was higher in what respect, cost?
  • Yes - something probably got lost in Ed and I rewriting that section a few times
• link beam, draft and displacement
  • Good catch
• where were the TT to be located?
  • I'll have to look again, but I don't recall Conway's or Greger saying.
• suggest linking Cabinet (government) and dropping initial cap
  • Good idea
• just check that you consistently use future tense when discussing any bits of the ship that weren't actually fitted, for example "and they were (to be) electrically operated." Mainly around the armament, turrets etc
  • Yeah, I wondered about that, since the turrets were fitted, just to other vessels. I could go either way on this - Ed, do you have an opinion? Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• "soon shift to the Ottomans in the near future" is a bit redundant, ie soon and near future. Trim?
  • Good point
• Are there ISSN's available for the journals?
  • Have added ISSNs for the two that were missing an identifier. For the record, the ISSN for Nausivios Chora doesn't work in Worldcat, but I got it directly from the journal - I've been told that Worldcat isn't exactly the best-curated site. Shrug.

Otherwise, looking good. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PM. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support; I was a part of the A-Class review, and find nothing further I would like to comment. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent article, I've made one minor style change, I find it to be FA compliant. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2017 [17].

---

Super Mario World

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time nurturing this article after its GA status got taken away a few months ago, and now it's here. It was quite shocking to see how much little coverage this game got despite its magnitude and apparent status as the "greatest platform game of all time" (though you will find the original reviews gleefully exclaiming that "Sega does what Nintendon't"). As a result this article has a beefed bibliography (for VG standards) and relies mostly on offline scans—if you need access to one for checking please just ask. After a vigorous copyedit and polishing I think this article is ready to face FAC now. Thankfully I've learned from past mistakes and have corrected my habits for over-complicating things. JAGUAR  21:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

• Release dates in infobox should be sourced, if possible.

• All released dates in the infobox are now sourced. Unfortunately I couldn't the Australian release date, so I removed it. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• it was first released in Japan on 21 November 1990, in North America on 13 August 1991 and in Europe on 11 April 1992 Dates in the lead should usually be generalized, per WP:VG/DATE.

• Good point—I've compressed this. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• which led to fierce competition between the two companies.[27][19] Refs are out of order.

• Fixed. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'd expand a bit on the reception of the GBA version. It only says that it was positively received, with no context as to what was praised or criticized.

• I've added a bit of context from the given reviews although I didn't want to expand on it too much. Also reordered the refs. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• and innovative level design enhanced the overall experience.[45][43] Out of order refs.

• Fixed. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• The soundtrack and audio effects were also well received by critics.[43][46][44] I'd simplify to just "audio". Also the refs are out of order.

• Fixed and simplified. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• More of a suggestion, I would make the legacy section separate. It's not really part of the game's reception and is more about its influence on Mario.

• I've separated the two sections. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about taking this to GA before you did but I'm sure how I wouldn't have gotten as far as you did. Great work; once my comments are addressed. I'll support promotion. JOEBRO64 21:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: that was quick! Thanks for taking a look at this. I should have hopefully addressed all of your concerns. I can expand the reception of the GBA port further, if you wish? I'll double check everything in the morning anyway. Thanks again. By the way, I was actually thinking of taking Super Mario Bros to GA before you had the same idea! JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you addressed everything, so giving you my support. Good luck on this; I think you did an amazing job. Keep up the good work! JOEBRO64 22:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• NintendoLife --> Nintendo Life in ref 4.

• Fixed. JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• GamesRadar --> GamesRadar+

• Per WP:VG/S, website stylisations are almost never used. I've never seen the plus included before... JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 64 is missing publisher's name.

This one? Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Yashthepunisher: oops, completely missed this one. Added website and publisher. JAGUAR  15:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is "Cubed3" a RS?

• Cubed3 has been listed as a situational source per WP:VG/S. Per this discussion it has been determined that for its use is acceptable for Nintendo related content. The author in question is also a developer and worked and worked at Cubed3 for eight years. JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Empire should be linked.

• Linked all publications. JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: thanks for taking a look at the sources! I should have clarified all of the above. JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (It is the first entry in the Super Mario series developed for the SNES), I would recommend linking “Super Mario” to the article on the main series.

• Linked. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• The games Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, and Super Mario Bros. 3 is linked twice in the article.

• Removed duplinks. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Do you think that “Fire Flower” should be linked?

• Good idea, linked. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• For this part (If all lives are lost at any point in the game, the "Game Over" screen will appear,), do you think that “Game Over” should be linked? In this part, do you think that “Continue” should be linked?

• Sounds good. Linked both. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• For this part (Nintendo EAD handled development), I would spell out the EAD part as it is the first time it is brought up in the body of the article.

• Written out fully. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• For these parts (then-upcoming Super Nintendo Entertainment System (known as the Super Famicom in Japan)) and (to the limitations of the Nintendo Entertainment System), do you think it should made clear that these systems are commonly referenced as SNES and NES respectively? You have done so in the lead, but not in the body of the article.

• Oops, done. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• In this part (Super Mario World was ported to the Game Boy Advance), do you think that GBA should be added after “Game Boy Advance” in parenthesis?

• I missed this. Done. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Aoba47! Much appreciated. I should have addressed all of the above. Writing this article was quite an enjoyable experience. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. This was a very fun and interesting read and I enjoyed reviewing it. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review:

• File:Super Mario World Coverart.png: Fair use rationale and usage seem OK to me.
• File:Supermarioworld.jpg: That image is not being used for "identification" but to illustrate how the gameplay elements look like, so I'd rewrite the rationale slightly. Other than that use and license seem OK.

• I've rewritten the rationale. JAGUAR  15:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Takashi Tezuka, Shigeru Miyamoto and Kōji Kondō.jpg: The usage seems fine for me, but in light of some of the examples cited on commons:De_minimis#Guidelines I wonder if the image may be a derivative work - Mario is an important aspect of the image and also easy to recognize.

• I can crop Mario out of the image if you think that's best? JAGUAR  15:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Yoshi-concept.png: I think this non-free use rationale is too perfunctory - would the article suffer severely from its absence?

• Removed. I wasn't too sure how to phrase the rationale anyway. JAGUAR  15:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Super Mario All-Stars and Advance.jpg: That one does most likely not meet WP:NFCC#8 - we don't need to see the covers to know that re-releases occurred. And even if, we'd need a better rationale for use not just the boilerplate for infobox/lead images.

• Good point; removed. JAGUAR  15:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through this, Jo-Jo Eumerus! I've removed the sketch of Yoshi and the combined cover arts image from the article. You're right, I don't think the cover arts served much of a purpose. I would prefer it if those games had their own articles anyway. Regarding File:Takashi Tezuka, Shigeru Miyamoto and Kōji Kondō.jpg, do you think I should crop it? JAGUAR  15:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that I am not a copyright lawyer, cropping out the Mario figure on the left may diminish the issues. A photo that incidentally includes shirts featuring a copyrighted character design may not be a copyright issue, but the current image has a little too much copyrighted character design. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a cropped version. I had no idea that having a mascot (nor shirts for that matter) in an image could become a copyright issue. JAGUAR  15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It can be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Jc86035

• @Jaguar: Shouldn't this article be in American English, since it is AFAIK the primary variety of English used in Japan? Every other article for the main Mario series uses American English and the American date format. Jc86035 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, Japan neither uses American nor British English as a primary preference. Super Mario Galaxy and a few others are not in American English; in these cases neither variant is better than the other. JAGUAR 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tvx1

• The lead mentions all the re-releases. I feel that this year's re-release with the Super NES Classic Edition merits a mention here as well.

• Added a mention in the lead. JAGUAR 19:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• The "re-releases" section contains the following passage with regards to the differences with the GBA version: "Other differences include the inclusion of Luigi as a playable character". That claim is simply wrong. Luigi was very much present and playable in the original SNES version.Tvx1 15:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of this, but then again I haven't really played this game vigorously enough. I've removed the sentence. JAGUAR 19:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: thanks for looking through this! I should have addressed both. JAGUAR 19:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's fine now. I have no further remarks myself. I played the original on the SNES and I also played the GBA version (I still have it lying around somewhere along with my old GBA sowhere) and I now the SNES Classic edition as well. Luigi was present in both the original version and the GBA version but in a different manner. In the original version they worked in the classic two-player mode, with one player operating Mario and the other operating Luigi with both players co-öperating by alternating trying to beat a level an thereby progressing through the lands. Luigi was merely a palette swap from Mario having no other differences in their appearance. In the GBA version both brothers were present in the single player mode, with the brothers having both physical and behavioral differences akin to their appearance in Super Mario Bros. 2 on the NES, with Luigi also affecting Yoshi's behavior when riding him. The player was able to change between the brothers at will. Just in case, here is a link to the manual of the GBA version and here is one to the one of the SNES version. If you desire so, I could try to make a screenshot from the GBA version. Just let me know.Tvx1 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading the GBA screenshot! I understand that Luigi was also a palette swap on the original Super Mario Bros (an article I'm quite tempted to push to FA once I get the energy). I'm unsure if it's worth mentioning in the re-releases section but the gameplay section already states that Luigi is the second playable character. JAGUAR 12:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Support – Have read-through the article throughout and deem it to meet the FA guidelines. Note that I have fixed multiple redirect links, of which you are free to correct if they are not directed at their intended articles. Good job! MWright96 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. Much appreciated. JAGUAR 12:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The1337gamer

• There is no mention of the coin-op arcade version of Super Mario World. You might have some difficulty finding coverage from reliable sources on it as the cabinet is quite rare. But for the sake of completeness, I feel like it's existence should probably be mentioned in the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I did come across a mention of a coin-op machine during my research a few weeks ago, but thought it was too obscure to put in. But you're right, perhaps it does deserve a mention to bolster comprehensiveness. I'll see what I can do. JAGUAR 20:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Oooh, a video game I've actually played!

• similar to that of earlier entries in the series, with players controlling Mario Don't use "with" to join clause like that

• Removed. JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• populated with obstacles and enemies, with the player traversing the stage by running As above

• Replaced. JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• which are lost when an enemy attacks Mario, falls into a pit of lava, or runs out of time The player loss lives when an enemy falls into a pit of lava???

• Oops, I see how this sounds confusing. I've rephrased the sentence and added a couple of other examples. JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• If the player gets hit by an enemy Shouldn't "the player" be "Mario" here for consistency

• Fixed. JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• permanently alters some sprites and the overworld map's colour scheme I don't know what that means. What are sprites (presumably not the soft drink!), and it might be easier to explain what the changes to the colour scheme are.

• I actually wasn't sure as I never got that far into this game! After watching a few YouTube videos to confirm my thoughts, the overworld's colour scheme does indeed get changed from green to red, blue to green etc. I've linked sprite (computer graphics) and elaborated on this a little, hope that's clearer? JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• However, while resting on the beach "However" isn't adding anything there

• Removed. JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• ever since Super Mario Bros., however, Nintendo However again; this one could just easily be a "but" or a "though"

• Replaced with 'but'. JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• received positive reviews upon its release, with critics enjoying its "with" again

• I've really got to stop doing this! Rephrased. JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing major. You have indeed learnt from your previous nominations about over-complicating things! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking through this, Harry! I should have hopefully addressed all of the above. I like to think that I'm improving myself after each FA, and now I really focus on getting rid of the "with" connective. You should have seen how awful my first FAC was! JAGUAR 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a very common flaw. Tabloid newspaper editors like it because it saves on space but we're aiming for a more formal and professional style, especially for a featured article. Hopefully we all improve with experience. Anyway, happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I never grew up reading tabloids so I don't know where I get that habit from. I'll be sure to avoid using that connective for my next nomination. JAGUAR 18:31, 27 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2017 [18].

---

2006 Bank of America 500

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 Bank of America 500, a NASCAR Nextel Cup Series race held in Concord, North Carolina at Lowe's Motor Speedway on October 14, 2006. It was the 31st race of the 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and marked the midway point in the season-ending Chase for the Nextel Cup. It was won by Evernham Motorsports driver Kasey Kahne, his sixth victory of the season. This is the third time the article has been nominated at FAC; the previous two were failed because of a lack of interest. Since then, I have made adjustments to the prose to make it more understandable and clearer to read. I will be going for the Four Award. All comments are welcome. MWright96 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• There are inconsistencies in the ways some references are formatted. For instance, in ref 1 you give "work" (Jaysticks) and "publisher" (ESPN), which is fine. But in ref 6 you only give the work, no publisher. In ref 11 you give the work and a location, no publisher. In ref 14, ESPN is given as the work. These are examples – there are similar cases elsewhere in the list. None of these is an error as such, but you need to be consistent in how the information is presented.
• Another oddity is in your use of locations. Why is "Charlotte, North Carolina" given as the location of the Houston Chronicle (ref 18) and The Spokesman-Review (38)? And why is "Concord, North Carolina" given as the location of the Sporting News (ref 22), USA Today (28), the Amarillo Globe-News (31), the Motor Racing Network (32), the New York Times (!) (33) and NASCAR (36)? These locations seem to bear no relation to the publications or the publishers.
• Ref 2: The publisher is given as USA Today Media Sports Group, but the site says "Racing-reference.info is part of the NASCAR Digital Media Network."

Other than these issues, sources are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thank you for your comments. I have made the necessary changes. MWright96 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

To comment on the Ref 2 issue: R-R was previously part of the USA Today Sports Media Group. I'm not sure when they moved under NASCAR's media umbrella - it was probably within the last two years - but there's good odds at the time that reference was originally placed in the article, they were USA Today-affiliated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

I'm hoping to look over this tonight. ceranthor 17:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "It was held on October 14, 2006, before a crowd of 175,000 in Concord, North Carolina, at Lowe's Motor Speedway, one of ten intermediate tracks to hold NASCAR races." - think this sentence could be split into two
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Riggs regained the lap twelve laps later, " - Think you mean lead, but unclear
  • Yes, have now corrected that mistake. MWright96 (talk)
• "until he was passed by Dale Earnhardt Jr. who led the next 31 laps." - should probably be a "for" after led
  • Corrected. MWright96 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The victory was Kahne's sixth of the season, and the seventh of his career." - was it early in his career, then? A very brief bit of background/clarification would be nice, just at the end of the sentence
  • Have added mention it was his seventh of his career since he debuted in 2004. MWright96 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Three practice sessions were held before the Sunday race - one each on Thursday, Friday and, Saturday." - why the hyphen?
  • Hyphen has been removed. MWright96 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any way to break up the "race" section? It's incredibly long and dense, which makes it hard to read all at once
  • Have added three sub-sections into the text. Thoughts? MWright96 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments only. This looks to be in good shape, prose-wise. ceranthor 21:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Kahne appeared in victory lane in front of the crowd of 170,000 to celebrate his sixth win of the season[2] earning him $305,889" - which earned him
  • Changed. MWright96 (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Shortly after leaving his car, Martin felt the championship was an achievement that he was unable to secure: "They tell me a lot of people are having trouble anyway, but we didn't need to throw that away,"[34]" - meant to be a period at the end?
  • Yes, have now added the said period. MWright96 (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think the prose looks good. I'll read through once more after these are fixed. ceranthor 04:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on the prose. ceranthor 15:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Usernameunique

The Bushranger, looks good if slightly jargon-y, some mostly minor prose points (and a few questions) are below. Feel free to disregard stylistic points you disagree with.

• "one of ten intermediate tracks to hold NASCAR races; the others are [long list]." Perhaps put the part after the semicolon in a footnote instead of in the paragraph, but up to you.
  • Have added a semi-colon per your suggestion. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The standard track at Lowe's Motor Speedway..." Is there more than one track?
• Drivers' Championship. Do you really need the entire top ten? Without knowing a) how many points they each had, and b) how many points were at play in this race, there's really no context to say who among the ten was in the running for the championship at the time.
  • Have added points for the first three in the championship. 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "and Ford was a close third on 179." Do you mean with 179?
  • Yes, have now adjusted the prose accordingly. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Johnson was the race's defending champion." Seems like it would be better suited to go immediately after the section about the top 10 in the Drivers' Championship, or in parentheses immediately following Johnson's name.
  • Moved the text to after the top ten standings in the Drivers' Championship. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "right-hand tire compound." What is a right-hand tire compound?
  • Made a slight prose correction. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "After he was rammed by his teammate Brian Vickers in the UAW-Ford 500..." Need some context here. Was that the most recent race?
  • Yes the UAW-Ford 500 was the most recent race of the 2006 season. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "hoped the track's surface would be more predictable." Than the last race on this racetrack? Than the surface on the tracetrack of the UAW-Ford 500?
  • It was the previous race at Lowe's Motor Speedway. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Although he had a poor start in the chase, Kahne rectified this..." Perhaps start with Kahne's name, since otherwise it takes a moment to realize you're no longer talking about Gordon. Also, should "chase" be capitalized?
  • Implemented both points. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "attractiveness of the organization's wiliness to become competitive." I think you mean willingness. Also, you probably don't need "attractiveness of," which is somewhat redundant.
  • Have now removed the redundant information. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "He was joined on the grid's front row by Kahne ... and held the pole position until Riggs' lap." Who held the pole position until Riggs's lap? The way the sentence is structured it refers to Riggs, but that doesn't make sense (Riggs held the pole position until Riggs's lap).
  • Kahne held the pole position until Riggs set his lap time. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "after using a provisional." What's a provisional?
  • Added wikillink to explain what a provisional is. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "who elected not to set a lap time." What does this mean? Does it preclude someone from qualifying, and if so, why would they elect to do so?
  • Shepherd set no lap time due to a lack of preparation MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "his team knew his car was good, and achieved a good draw." Perhaps change one of the "good"s to something else.
  • The first "good" has been changed to "decent". MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "He stated when returning to the track, his team wanted..." Should be "track that his team wanted..."
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Edwards was eleventh-fastest, Hamlin set the twelfth-fastest time, and Harvick was 15th." How about "Edwards was eleventh-fastest, Hamlin twelfth, and Harwick fifteenth" to condense it a bit.
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Jeff Gordon in 13th and Burton in 15th." How about thirteenth and fifteenth to keep it consistent?
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "7:04 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time." How about 7:04 p.m. EST instead?
  • Per MOS:TIMEZONE, it should be spelt out. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "in the tri-oval." What's this?
  • It's a turn that is not officially recognised by NASCAR. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "This triggered ... the track temporarily." Bit of a run-on, perhaps split in two.
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "which was damaged in the lap two." Should be "had been damaged."
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Sorenson ran into the rear-end of Dale Jarrett's car, who spun backwards..." What lap? Also, should be which spun backwards.
  • The accident occurred on the 33rd lap; implemented prose adjustment. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "After the pit stops, Kahne reclaimed the lead after battling with Raines." Two "after"s.
  • Replaced the first "after" with "Following". MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "in arrears of." "Behind" would be more straightforward.
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "because he lost the use of..." Should be "because he had lost the use of..."
  • Now reworded. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Green-flag pit stops started six laps later..." Maybe "again started," since an earlier round of green-flag pit stops led off the paragraph.
  • Done. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "his car got airborne in the process." Should probably be "went airborne."
  • Changed this. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "rounded out the top ten finishers." Do you need the word "finishers"?
  • Nope, have now removed. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "his sixth win of the season[2] which earned him $305,889." Should be a comma after season, otherwise it says he won six races that each paid him exactly $305,889.
  • Comma added. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Penske Racing South were given penalties..." Were given, or was given?
  • That would be "was given" MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• "ahead of Kenseth on 5,718." Perhaps "Kenseth, who had 5,718." --Usernameunique (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique:, I think you meant to ping @MWright96: who is the nominator. . I can answer one question right away though, there are multiple tracks at Charlotte/Lowes; there's a 0.25-mile (0.40 km) track that's located "in" the frontstretch area, on the top in this image, as well as "roval" course that runs into the infield between the start-finish line and Turn One (also visible there on the left side of the image). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thanks for the correction/answer. Striking that from the above points. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Usernameunique Made all of the changes you have suggested above, except for the one point concerning the wording of the time zone of which I have commented why it should remain spelt out and not in acronyms. MWright96 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick turnaround MWright96, adding my support. Two minor points from above still remain, but implement (or not) at your own discretion. First, you still use the word "wiliness" (i.e., craftiness) when I believe you mean "willingness." The second is the point about putting the list of racetracks in a footnote. What I was suggesting was a separate notes section such as this one, which keeps the information but doesn't clutter up the text. That's definitely a point of personal preference, though, so no need to do that unless you want to. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Usernameunique Of the two changes you have suggested, I have implemented the one concerning the misspelt word in the first sub-section. Many thanks for the support. MWright96 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Reading through right now—just letting you know it's in process! --Laser brain (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• (Mid-read comment) The article seems to violate WP:PSEUDOHEAD at this time. Please use the normal markup for section headings and not semicolons. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed. MWright96 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but I came down with a bad cold and haven't had much of an urge to sit at the computer. Promise I'll be back within 1-2 days to post a review! --Laser brain (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused by the wikilink for "Chase for the Nextel Cup" in the lead. It goes to "Chase for the Sprint Cup" which in turn redirects to NASCAR playoffs. But there's almost nothing in that article about the 2006 "Chase", which is actually written about in 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series.
  • The links are now directed to 2006 Chase for the Nextel Cup. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• The lead and probably the rest of the article need to be checked for MOS:NUMERAL compliance. I see inconsistencies in sentences like "Riggs retook the lead on lap 31 and maintained it for the following sixteen laps, until he was passed by Dale Earnhardt Jr. who led for the next 31 laps."
  • Have made some changes over that issue. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "while Jeff Gordon dropped to tenth because his engine failed in the race's closing laps" This seems to be somewhat of a leap. Wouldn't he have dropped to tenth because he failed to score points in the race, or score enough points?
  • Have reworded to say he failed to score enough points due to his engine failure late in the race. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• I found the section about fuel cells and tires in "Background" to be difficult to follow. Why was the fuel cell change mandated and the history behind that? You mention more pit stops and tire changes but why is that desirable? Etc.
  • Could not locate any information rather than they were mandated. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Tire supplier Goodyear brought a new right-hand tire in hopes that racing would be improved." How/why?
  • I could not any information on why that change was necessitated. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think it can be left as-is. The way it's written, it reads like Goodyear brought one tire. Is that so, or did they bring a supply of them? "[R]acing would be improved" is too vague. If we don't have any more context or information, we should remove it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • The text "racing would be improved" has been removed since there is no context over that and have clarified to say it was a supply of right-hand tyres. MWright96 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Each driver ran two laps" I'm sure you don't mean this literally but it's too colloquial for an encyclopedia.
  • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Was Riggs' 28 second time for two laps, average lap, etc?
  • It was Riggs' fastest of the two laps he was allowed to set. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "achieved a good draw by recording his lap time in the latter half of qualifying" Unsure what this means.
  • Have removed that piece of information. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

More in a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looking good for the most part. I made a few changes. I think this statement needs editing for voice: "Shortly after leaving his car, Martin felt the championship was an achievement that he was unable to secure" --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That statement should be somewhat improved. MWright96 (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support the article's promotion to FA at this point. It's shaped up into a fine account of the race with an encyclopedic tone and good sourcing. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Lowe's Motor Speedway.svg - Verified public domain
• File:Lowesmotorspeedway.jpg - Verified public domain
• File:ScottRiggsPocono2007.jpg - Listed as public domain on Commons but honestly this kind of photo makes me very uneasy. Basically a user uploaded it and said, "Yeah I took this" and there's no evidence to the contrary, but it strikes me as odd that a random person who doesn't seem to be a professional photographer would be able to get this sort of photo.
• File:Dale Earnhardt Jr 2008 Cropped.jpg - This photo and the one it was cropped from will need to be deleted on Commons as copyright violations (and removed from this article). The uploader claims it's the work of the US Army, but if you look at an archive of the source web site, the photo caption says "Photo courtesy of Hendrick Motorsports" which means they have the copyright and the image is not free.
• File:KahneAce.jpg - Verified CC BY 2.0
• File:TSM350 - Kurt Busch 2 - 2015 - Stierch.jpg - Verified CC BY 4.0
• File:JeffBurtonAugust2007 crop.jpg - Verified CC BY 2.0

Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from Bcschneider53 I'll also note that the user who uploaded the Earnhardt image (which has been deemed not okay) is the same person who uploaded the "fishy" Riggs image (KaseyKahneFan). The problem is that this is the only image of Riggs on Wikipedia (though there is an image of his car from the season before). Unless someone can find a replacement via Flickr or something, we may have to do without an image of the polesitter this time. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

KaseyKahneFan uploaded the cropped Earnhardt image but not the original. That editor is still active on Commons and I'm assuming good faith (they probably found the image on the National Guard web site and didn't read carefully). As far as the Riggs image, I'm not actually sure what the community standards are on Commons for removing images that may be copyvios but without evidence. That particular user hasn't been active in 10 years so it's unlikely they can shed any light on the situation. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Ah, ok. Good catch. Also (and this is quite late, but), welcome back! Glad to see you around again. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while there are some pictures of Scott on Flickr Commons, they're either BY-ND or BY-NC-ND licensed... except this one which just, well, no. We want a picture of Scott Riggs, not The Blur. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Just now seen this. The copyvio image of Earnhardt has been replaced with one from 2012. MWright96 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That still leaves the Riggs image in question -- perhaps further opinion from say Nikkimaria or Jo-Jo Eumerus? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Tricky, tough to prove anything either way. Given this, this, and this I'd be inclined to say it probably isn't free, but I haven't found an exact match predating the upload. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There are professional photographers who upload to Wikimedia, or who license their images which then get uploaded to Wikimedia. In this case the lack of EXIF and the file description imply that the file was altered before upload, before Nikkimaria's third image. My sense is that we don't have enough information to make a clear cut decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Update, due to the uncertainty concerning the Riggs picture, I have uploaded a freely licensed picture of him from Flickr. MWright96 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

MWright96, I don't think it should hold up the review, but it can't hurt to drop a message under this flickr photo and see if they'd be willing to license it appropriately for Wikipedia. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Usernameunique Don't think that the image is suitable on the basis and I believe the picture that I posted is more than suitable. MWright96 (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2017 (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) 23:01, 24 December 2017 [19].

---

Cragside

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk), DBaK (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong, made his fortune in hydraulic power, guns and warships, transforming Newcastle's industrial landscape in the process. His wealth enabled a further transformation on the Northumbrian moors above Rothbury, where he created Cragside, "the most dramatic Victorian mansion in the North of England”, and its equally dramatic 15,000-acre estate. The house is notable, too, for its technical innovations using water power, providing electric lighting and water-powered spits, dumb waiter, dishwasher and dinner gong. The financial misfortunes of his successors brought this remarkable house into National Trust stewardship in 1977, opening to the public two years later. KJP1 and DBaK hope that you enjoy the article and that, if you do not already know Cragside, you might one day feel inspired to visit this extraordinary house and its estate. Any and all suggestions for improvement most gratefully received. KJP1 (talk), DBaK (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Support, I was pleased with responses in the peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Gerda - much appreciated, and many thanks for your input at Peer Review. KJP1 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

re Krupp (below): I think to use "Krupp's" as short for "Krupp's firm" is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! I think that there is something slightly weirder than that about it, but I cannot at the moment put my finger on it and I am worried about sidetracking myself off down a rabbit hole. If I can't nail it easily then I am going to suggest to KJP1 that we just revert to "Krupp" which is, I think, indisputable. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Direct quotes should be cited wherever they appear, including in image captions

Think these are done now. KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:William_George_Armstrong.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - many thanks. The first I shall fix immediately, the second will need a bit more digging as I picked it up from Commons. Will get back. KJP1 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Um! Not sure. The immediate source is a commercial site, J. Cosmas Vintage Photography[20]. I don't think they own the copyrights, just actual images taken from magazines etc. The original source appears to be Cassell & Co., who published a series from 1890-1894 entitled "Cabinet Portrait Gallery". The photographers were W. & D. Downey, who operated a studio from the 1860s to the early 20th century. If this image was published in, say, 1890, it's now 127 years old. Does this make the PD tag acceptable? There are one or two others in Commons, but none that captures him so well. KJP1 (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Published in 1890 in the UK? Because it's on Commons, it needs to account for status in the US (for which, given an 1890 publication, the current tag is fine), but also in its country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes - somewhere between 1890-1894 in the UK. I've added a ((PD-UK-unknown)) , but this can't really be right as we do know the authors, William and Daniel Downey. William died in 1915, and Daniel in 1881, so what tag should I use to show we do know the author but the work's out of copyright in the UK? Sorry, more questions than answers. KJP1 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For some reason Commons doesn't appear to have an equivalent to our {{PD-UK}}, but PD-old-70 should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I couldn't find an equivalent, and when I used PD-UK, it told me "deprecated template". I shall hurry off and put PD-old-70 on. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Now all done, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Together with a few minor points I must have missed at peer review (apologies).

• Debden/Debdon
  • I notice we have both "Debden" (4 times) and "Debdon" (twice). The latter is correct, I think.

Done - by DBK.

• William Armstrong
  • "Krupp's" looks fine to me but I feel I ought to point out that the Wikipedia article on the company calls it just "Krupp".

I think the consensus (better get that right) is that "Krupp's", for the firm belonging to Krupp, is acceptable.

• Kitchen, service rooms and Turkish bath
  • "…a dumb waiter and a spit run on hydraulic power" – a very minor quibble, but are they both run on hydraulic power or just the spit? From the lead I infer the latter, but the wording is ambiguous here.

Done - but perhaps not very well? KJP1 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Armstrong's heirs: 1900–the present
  • "rewiring of the entirety of the house" – a slightly long-winded way of saying "rewiring the whole house"

Done - by DBK.

• Architecture and description
  • Again, although it doesn't trouble me, our article on the subject is on "neoclassical architecture" with no capital letter and no hyphen. (The OED is of that view, too.)

Done - by DBK.

• Technology
  • There is a certain amount of repetition here. In the second paragraph, you repeat the mention of incandescent lighting from the preceding para, and you tell us again about the hydraulic spits in the kitchen. These, by the way, were a single spit when we met them in the "Kitchen, service rooms and Turkish bath" section, earlier.

Done - The spit is now singular, and hopefully the repetition is removed. I've tried to split the section into "the technology" and "the uses to which the techonology was put". I hope this works for people. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Grounds and estate
  • "Armstrong bought land continuously" – unless he bought without taking breaks for rest and refreshment you mean "continually".

Done - by DBK.

Nothing of sufficient importance there to delay my adding my support for the promotion of this excellent article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 19:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Tim, hugely appreciate the Support. DBK or I shall go through and address the above. But for now, having stumbled inadvertently across the final thread here, Talk:Josephine Butler, I think I shall just go to bed and despairingly pull the duvet over my head. KJP1 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My thanks too Tim. You're absolutely right about Debdon. (I checked Dixon, Heald, Smith and the OS map.) I think you are probably right about Krupp too (and Heald certainly thinks you are). I have a nagging feeling that there is some justification somewhere for the Krupp's usage (and so does our Krupp article where there is, erm, one non-possessive example!) but I am not sure that ferreting it out is worth the candle, if you will pardon the colliding metaphors. (Update: Dixon also says "Krupps". I'm still not sure it's worth chasing though.) We'll catch up with the rest as soon as possible. Thanks again DBaK (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

There is one thing I'd like to question: the article seems to repeat some references rather unnecessarily, for example:

• "When this was completed in 1869, Shaw was asked to propose enlargements and improvements to the shooting lodge Armstrong had constructed at Rothbury some four years earlier.[20] This was the genesis of the transformation of the house between 1869 and 1884.[20]"
• On a walk with friends, Armstrong was struck by the attractiveness of the site for a house and, returning to Newcastle, he arranged for the purchase of a small parcel of land and decided to build a modest house on the side of a moorland crag.[13] He intended a "house of eight or ten rooms and a stable for a pair of horses".[13] While I'm on this point, what's the purpose of the quote marks? If it is a quote, who said it?
• Armstrong's architect for Cragside's expansion was the Scot R. Norman Shaw. Shaw had begun his career in the office of William Burn and had subsequently studied under Anthony Salvin and George Edmund Street.[16] The former had taught him the mastery of internal planning that was essential for the design of the large and highly variegated houses the Victorian wealthy craved. Salvin and Street had taught him to understand the Gothic Revival.[16]
• When this was completed in 1869, Shaw was asked to propose enlargements and improvements to the shooting lodge Armstrong had constructed at Rothbury some four years earlier.[20] This was the genesis of the transformation of the house between 1869 and 1884.[20]
• In August 1884 the Prince and Princess of Wales made a three-day visit to Cragside; it was the apogee of Armstrong's social career.[32] The royal arrival at the house was illuminated by ten thousand lamps and a vast array of Chinese lanterns hung in the trees on the estate, and by six balloons from which fireworks were launched, and a great bonfire lit on the Simonside Hills.[32]
• It belongs to the first phase of Shaw's construction work and was completed in 1872.[67] It has a large bay window which gives views out over the bridge and the glen.[67]

I'm sure you get the message. Could you go through and blitz the ones you don't need, unless it follows a quote. Aside from that, this is a most engaging article. Cassianto^Talk 20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto, many thanks indeed. The Support is much appreciated. Entirely take the point and shall see to the multiple, "duplicate" ref.s just as soon as I can. KJP1 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cass - I think I've now done these. I've certainly done the ones cited above, and a few more, but it is quite possible I've missed a couple. I also took out the unreferenced quotes re. the original shooting box. Think they must have been a hangover from some earlier version. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

I had my say at PR, and the article has got much stronger since and it easily fulfils the FA criteria. I'm not a specialist in the area, so this review is based on the prose element only. – SchroCat (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks SchroCat, both for this and for your earlier help at PR: much appreciated. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for your input, both here and at PR. The article's much improved. KJP1 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from HJ Mitchell

I reviewed this in detail at the peer review in the knowledge that the nominators were heading for FAC. I also have a copy of one of the books in the bibliography (Houses of the National Trust by Lydia Greeves) and a couple of other books that cover it in passing so I have no concerns about accuracy or comprehensiveness (comprehensivity? You know what I mean anyway!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell - Many thanks, Harry, for your support and help. I feel that comprehensionivenessdom is almost certainly the word for which you are looking. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Harry, greatly appreciated. The Greeves was a great suggestion. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

Having also participated in the PR. Excellent stuff. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil for your support here and your help there too. It is a great pleasure to work with you again. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil - many thanks indeed. Shaw's not Burges, but it is a great building. Just not Fin Barre's, or Coch, or The Tower House, or.... With all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Moisejp

Minor comments:

• The lead mentions that "honoured guests under Armstrong's roof, including the Shah of Persia ... and the Crown Prince of Japan" visited, but in the main text I could only find the less explicit mention of "Japanese, Persian ... and German dignitaries".

Done'ish - The Shah of Persia, the Crown Prince of Afghanistan and the King of Siam are now explicitly cited. I shall have to dig a little more to unearth where I found the mention of the Japanese Crown Prince. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't at present find the reference to the Japanese Crown Price, so have replaced him with a brace of, cited, Prime Ministers. KJP1 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Architecture and description: "Such challenges only drove Armstrong on, and overcoming the technical barriers to construction gave him great pleasure,[56] and was made easier by his use of the workforce and the technology of the Elswick Works." The sentence is a little long, and includes three instances of "and". Suggest to consider breaking it up where the second "and" is.

Done - by splitting. KJP1 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Technology: Mentions the hydraulic "spits", while the Kitchen... section mentions "spit" (singular). Moisejp (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Done - with a singular "spit". KJP1 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Moisejp - thank you so much for your support and for your very useful comments. Both KJP1 and I are up to our eyes in it today ... I don't know what he's up to exactly but for me it's a perfect storm of last day of term at one of my schools plus a load of family jollity. We are both hoping, therefore, to have on Saturday a proper time to address your comments and others remaining, so please don't think we are not interested ... quite the contrary! Thanks again and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes - thanks indeed. I hope we have addressed, almost all of, your comments satisfactorily. I am still searching for the specific reference to the Crown Prince of Japan paying a call. If I can't locate it, I shall just remove it from the lead, but I'm quite certain I didn't dream it. It's just a question of which of the books it is in. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Mainly minor formatting points:

• Ref 29 requires ndash in page range

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 42: The title is inexactly given

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 43 and 103: As the original source is printed, The Guardian should be italicised, as should The Telegraph in ref 105. You have done this for ref 124

Done - x3. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 55 returns a 404 error message

Not yet done. So it does. Blast. May need to find another source. KJP1 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

KJP1 I've just emailed you about this: please have a look, Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This is now done: I got this book this afternoon. It's nice. Please note (1) I have no idea what I am doing here so my version of Ref 55 needs a check please and (2) the source does not support the word "severe", so it is in our voice. Maybe that is OK though, as a characteristic of this style?? I know that we do not have to cite every adjective, but I just want to make sure we are playing fair by our readers. Thanks again Brian, and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You really are a star. I am glad the book is nice. Since you went to the trouble of buying it, I've put it in Sources, in full, and sfn'ed the cite. KJP1 (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick query. I've put it alphabetically under V but wonder if van Marle should actually go under M? KJP1 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely M, thanks KJP1. Also, if it is used alone then please capitalize the V. The book was written by Jeroen van Marle, but the book was written by Van Marle. I know, but hey. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Which I have now done, though it does look a little odd to me right now. It does seem to be the correct convention to follow, though I will have a bit of fun looking for more stuff like this in which NL – assuming this is even the right country! – will be found on p. 159. Another way to make it display perhaps better (though YMMV) would be to make their last name ""Marle" and their first name "Jeroen van" – though not explicitly specified this is what is implied in the previously-mentioned PDF. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 90: can you be sure of its reliability? The site specifically states it is unrelated to any government department, so where does it get its authority from?

For a long time, BLBO was the only on-line source for the listing entries compiled by English Heritage. As the source material are the entries, just in digitalised form, I think they are authoritative. Certainly, I've used them extensively in many architecture articles. That said, I could convert it to Historic England if it's preferred, as they now carry the listing entries themselves?

Comment I think I'd prefer HI as it looks more professional now; it would also bring the building ref into line with the bridge ref (112) which is already HI. DBaK (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Done now - replaced with Historic England cite. Hopefully, correctly formatted! KJP1 (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 118: Again, the title is inexactly given

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 121 links to an IDMb site, not the BBC

Not yet done. Blast again. I shall see if I can find it in the BBC archive. KJP1 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've had a preliminary look at this. I have not succeeded in tracking down a BBC ref. For now, I have put in a ref to Meades's own web site, without being sure that this is OK ... comments? Thanks DBaK (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 122 and 123: the former gives publisher as "BBC.co.uk" and the latter gives "BBC" (italicised). The formats should be consistent; in my view the correct form in "BBC" (unitalicised).

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• External links: The Victorian Web is a cited source and should not be listed in this section

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• ISBNs; it has become customary at FAC for ISBNs to be standardised in 13-digit format. When this is not shown in the book itself it can be obtained from this converter

Done - x9. KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Brian - many thanks indeed. If you're ok with the Meades (121), I think we are now clear, except for the cite for the Neoclassical style of the Villa Hugel. But DBK is on the case and we should resolve it soonest. Lord, what a truly hideous house that looks. KJP1 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, many many thanks Brian - it's been very useful indeed. As for the Villa Hügel ... gosh, yes - sort of Belsay Hall without all the jollity and fun :) ... And with regard to the neoclassical bit, that's fixed with the ref and the claim, so done, thanks DBaK (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

An excellent and well-illustated article. Just one suggestion, which you are free to ignore; "Engineer of Rifled Ordnance" — even as a Brit I'd never heard of this. I assume it's an honorary title, perhaps a footnote to clarify? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jim - really glad you liked the article and thank you for the Support. The suggestion is a very good one, which we certainly won't ignore. I'd not heard of it either, and indeed had spelt it incorrectly until DBK noticed the error. I shall see what material can be gleaned for a footnote. Very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And footnote duly added. Rather more than an honorific, as it turns out. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Note to co-nom

DBaK - Having addressed the issue of the Crown Prince of Japan, albeit not entirely satisfactorily, I think we've responded to all of the comments made above. Am I missing any, or is there anything that you think we need to consider further? KJP1 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

KJP1 Sounds great to me. I'm glad you sorted out the Crown Princes - I only had evidence for visits in 1953 and 1991 (yes really!) by which time it was a bit too late for Lord Armstrong to be flogging battleships to anyone unless via a ouija board. My last minor worry was the Krupp/Krupps/Krupp's thing which was really just an irritating niggle (albeit one I might like to follow up one day) and in which another editor has satisfactorily de-knotted the situation by zapping the S entirely, which must be right and is not up for petty linguistic discussion! So, yes, I think we are up to date, thank you. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Marle looks a lot better. Great spot checking how he's cited elsewhere on here. KJP1 (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An early Christmas present

Ian Rose, DBaK - Ian, we're at eight Supports, we think all the issues are addressed, and we've got green lights at the Image and Sources reviews. Any chance of wrapping this one up before Christmas? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think we're about there but I would recommended attributing all quotes inline. Some already are but on a quick scan I noticed at least two that weren't: re. "wonderful hydraulic machines" in the lead, and red squirrels in Grounds and estate. As it is I can't be sure if Saint and Binney have said these things or are quoting others (TBH, the squirrel one isn't particularly memorable in itself and would best be paraphrased if you can manage it)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose, DBaK - Ian, many thanks for the comments and the copy edit. I've paraphrased two of the inline quotes (gun and squirrels) and attributed the other. I think that's caught them all but I'll have another read through, and I'm sure DBaK will too, if he's not too tied up in festivities today. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't caught them all. But I think I have now, either by paraphrasing or by attributing, with the single exception of the quote under the main image in the infobox. Does this needs attribution to? Its from a Victorian magazine called World, quoted by Mark Girouard. I could certainly do it, but it may be a little clumsy. I'll have a go, and DBaK can then correct the grammar! KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And now attempted. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose for the ce and very useful remarks and KJP1 for the additional edits. I think it's looking good and I haven't picked up any more. I did a tiny change which you will have seen, where an ex-quote no longer needed some re-engineering but I don't see anything else at the moment that I want to fiddle with further! Best to all DBaK (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

DBaK - Great, I'm hoping we're now good but we'll see if Ian agrees. By an odd coincidence, I was working on an FAC today which also had a quote from the World, the source for "palace of a modern magician". Two uses of a long-forgotten Victorian periodical in a single day - who'd have thought. Have a great Christmas and I hope we'll be able to toast this soon! KJP1 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - gosh yes, amazing! I had a little look in on Sullivan too - great article. And yes, all reciprocated. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Tks for that guys -- time to open your Christmas present I think... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's really great - many thanks, Ian Rose. Have a good one. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose, DBaK - Indeed it is. Much appreciated, Ian. Merry Christmas and cheers! KJP1 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2017 (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) 23:01, 24 December 2017 (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) 23:09, 24 December 2017 [21].

---

Segundo Romance

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

After getting both Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album) FA, I've been wanting to get this article FA as well for a long time but never had the motivation until. The article was promoted GA in 2014 and recently received a peer review and a copy-edit (courtesy of GOCE). This article follows a similar structure to the other two FA articles mentioned above. This is the second of the four bolero albums that Luis Miguel released and I'm very fond of as I am with the other two. Erick (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Segundoromance.jpg: use is justified, but we don't need quite SO much repetition in the FUR to say so! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for catching that, I have addressed it promptly. Erick (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (Segundo Reomance comprises cover versions of boleros (Latin ballads),), I would recommend linking “Latin” to “Latin music (genre)” for clarity.
• In the same sentence, change “Reomance” to “Romance” as it is a spelling error.
• The structure of the following part (Four singles were released: "El Día Que Me Quieras" and "La Media Vuelta", which reached the top of the Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart in the United States, and "Todo y Nada" and “Delirio”.) is a little off to me. I would put the chart placement for the first two singles in a separate sentence following this rather than putting everything in a single sentence. I would suggest revising this portion to read and flow better as a whole.
• In the same sentence, link El Día Que Me Quieras (song)
• I was a little confused by this sentence (Like its predecessor, the album helped continue the popularity of boleros.). Where did the album help to continue the genre’s popularity? World-wide? Clarification is necessary here.
• In the infobox, you have Latin ballad and bolero as two separate genres, but in the lead, you include “Latin ballads” as a translation for boleros. This is a little confusing.
• For this sentence (Miguel excluded one track, "Lo Mejor de Mí", composed by Rudy Pérez, because he felt it would be more proper to perform it as a ballad for his next album rather than a bolero.), change “rather than a bolero” to “rather than as a bolero”.
• I am a little confused by the insertion of this part (slow ballads "endowed with romantic lyrics”). Is this a definition of boleros in general or a critics’ take on Miguel’s interpretation of boleros? If it is a definition, then I am not sure why it is not connected to the first instance of bolero in the body of the article. If it is from a critic’s review, then you will need to attribute it and make it more defined.
• For the audio sample, you do not need to include the artist’s name in the title.
• For this sentence (All three singles reached number one in Mexico.), could you provide a wiki link to the actual chart in Mexico?
• I would recommend providing more structure to the “Critical reception” section. Right now, it appears more like a list of quotes from critics without any real direction.
• I would imagine that a “Release history” section and chart is necessary for this article.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aoba47, couple of things. Since sources refer to this album as a bolero album, I've removed Latin ballads from the infobox and linked it instead on the lead. I took your advice about the general definition of boleros and moved it to the background section. I fixed the structure on the lead as well regarding the singles. For the popularity of boleros, I worded it to similarly to Romance (Luis Miguel album)#Influence and legacy as sources indicate Miguel helped the growing trended that he started with Romance. The reviews on this album are quite short (some of them having only one sentence or two(!)). So what I did was cut down the quotations and carefully avoided paraphrasing. The source for the Mexican songs chart is apparently UPI according to the link, an organization I am not familiar with. I honestly don't see the need for a release section since there wasn't a deluxe edition or anything like that for the album. Erick (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I understand your point on the release information, and I agree that it is best to keep the article the way it is on that front as there was not particularly special on the release as a whole. Please let me know if you have addressed everything else and I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've removed mentions of the songs being #1 in Mexico as I have no way of knowing how reliable UPI is and the songs predate Monitor Latino. Anything else I might be missing? Erick (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Everything looks good to me. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Looks good. I have a small number of questions and suggestions related mainly to prose and style issues.

Singles

• The caption for the 22-second sample ends with "The opening of the track features a "romantic accordion" being played with AllMusic critic Jose F. Promis commenting that it sets the "tone for the rest of the set". I would replace the awkward "with plus -ing" construction. Suggestion: The track's opening, which features a "romantic accordion", sets the "tone for the rest of the set", according to AllMusic critic Jose F. Promis.

Critical reception

• ¶1 "According to Promis, the album "which further established Miguel as a first-rate balladeer"." - This is not a complete sentence. Delete "which" and just use the rest of the quote?
• ¶1 "...he praised Miguel's "scrumptious, sophisti-pop take of "Nosotros" and "Delirio"." - The Manual of Style advises against links inside a direct quotation. Perhaps you can paraphrase and move the sophisti-pop link outside the quote.

• ¶1 If you keep the quote as is, it will still have a minor punctuation problem that can be solved by using single quotation marks around 'Nosotro' and 'Delirio' to avoid confusion with the outer set of quotation marks.

References

• Some of the citation titles use title case, while others use sentence case. Citation 61 uses caps for the initial letter of every word. It's best to choose either sentence case or title case and use it consistently throughout. Nitpicky, I know.

General

• Alt text looks OK.
• Citation 60 returns a 404 error, and the archive-url goes to a page in Dutch that seems unreadable.
• The dab checker finds no problems.
• I unlinked one duplink. The checker found no others.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Finetooth: Thanks for the feedback Finetooth. Looks like Ed Morales's book was removed from Google Books so I've just removed the url and accessdate and will use the page number for verification purposes. For the references with sentence cases, it is mainly due to how capitalization rules in Spanish is different from English regarding titles (only the first letter of the first word and proper nouns are capitalized). Of course, if you want me to use the English cap rules for those references, I don't mind. Other than that, I believe I have addressed everything that you brought up. Erick (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I see what you mean about the Spanish caps. MOS:CONFORM recommends internal consistency but allows exceptions for any typographical changes that might alter the original meaning. I'd leave the Spanish caps as they are, but I'd make sure that all the English ones are in sentence case as in "Luis Miguel grows up and moves on with his latest albums" for citation 61. Does that make sense? Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In looking at the citations again, I noticed some unhyphenated ISBNs in the reference section (citations 4, 18, 53, and 60). A converter lives here. It's a two-step process. Enter the unhyphenated 13-digit ISBN to convert it to a 10-digit ISBN, then enter the 10-digit ISBN to convert it to a 13-digit ISBN with hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Finetooth: I think I understand what you're saying, so I've amended all titles of English-language articles to use the proper capitalization and fixed the ISBNs. If it's not what you meant, please let me know so I can further amend it if necessary. Thanks! Erick (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• My explanation was a bit murky, and so are the guidelines. I tweaked a few of the English-language newspaper citations a bit more to make them all sentence case, just like the Spanish-language ones. That might be as close to consistent as we can get. The ISBNs now look fine. I'm switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Richard3120

• "It earned several awards, including the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance" – I think "won" is a simpler and better choice of word than "earned".
• "Despite the success, Miguel did not release another album of boleros; instead, he recorded Aries" – well, yes he did release another album of boleros (several, in fact)... just not immediately. This needs to be rephrased as something like "Despite its success, Miguel did not immediately release another album of boleros as the follow-up".
• "Four months later, he confirmed that he would begin recording another collection of classic boleros..." – four months later than what? Do you mean four months after the release of Ariel?
• "Manzanero helped with arrangements and song selection; Calderón was involved with the string section and Cibrian with music direction" – the semi-colon could be replaced simply by a comma here.
• "Miguel excluded one track, "Lo Mejor de Mí", composed by Rudy Pérez, because he felt it would be more proper to perform it as a ballad for his next album rather than as a bolero" – as it stands, this doesn't convey the fact that "Lo Mejor de Mí" was recorded as part of the same sessions for Segundo Romance, but ultimately Miguel decided to hold the track back for his next album.
• "Within two days, the album sold over one million copies" – is this worldwide, or just in the U.S.?
• "In Mexico, it was certified quintuple platinum for shipping 1.25 million copies" – as the rest of this paragraph is discussing the album's performance in the U.S. I think this sentence should be moved to the next paragraph which talks about the album's performance in Latin America, and should follow the opening sentence "The album was also successful in Spanish-speaking countries".
• "Segundo Romance was followed by two more bolero albums: Romances (1997) and Mis Romances (2001). In 1998, all three albums were compiled on Todos Los Romances..." – as these two sentences stand, on first glance it looks like Segundo Romance, Romances and Mis Romances were the three albums compiled on Todos Los Romances, whereas of course it should be Romance, Segundo Romance and Romances... this needs to be clarified.

I'll have another look and see if I spot anything else. Richard3120 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thanks for your comments. I believe I have addressed your comments except for one. I'm not clear what you're asking for on the sentence regarding the exclusion of "Lo Mejor de Mí". A rewrite or a removal? Erick (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: just a rewrite for clarification – was "Lo Mejor de Mí" recorded at the same time as the rest of the album, but Miguel then decided to hold it back for his next album? Or did he consider recording the song for inclusion on Segundo Romance, but ultimately decided not to record it then as a bolero, but later on as a ballad?

The rest is fine apart from it currently saying "four months after the Aries" instead of "four months after the release of Aries". Otherwise, I think it's looking good – well done. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

According to an article on El Informador, it was supposed to be part of Segundo Romance but decided to hold back. So it's definitely the latter. Any suggestions for the sentence? Erick (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"The song "Lo Mejor de Mí", composed by Rudy Pérez, was considered for inclusion on the album, but Miguel decided against recording it as he felt the song would work better as a ballad for his next album, rather than as a bolero". Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120:, yep, that's a very good one. I've amended the sentence to the suggested one. Thanks! Erick (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: It's been a week since my last comment, have I resolved everything? Erick (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies Erick, I got sidetracked with other things... yes, it all looks good to me now. Good luck with the FAN. Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 2: Can you clarify the nature of the source "Americas (English Edition)"? Is it a print journal? If so the title should be italicized.
• Ref 45: Who is the publisher? "Durango.net" is the website name, but who publishes it?
• As a general point, with major publications such as the New York Times it's not necessary to add the publishing company, e.g. "The New York Times Company" as this creates unnecessary clutter. Not a point worth addressing in this nomination, but worth thinking about considering in future.

Subject to the above, sources (mainly in foreign languages) appear to be appropriate to the subject and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I've added the publisher for Americas per the article, replaced Durango.net with a book as the website appears to be self-published and there's a lack of mentions of it. Erick (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The tables in this article don't appear to comply with MOS:DTT. (Please {{ping}} me if you have any questions; I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I am confused by what you mean on the tables. Could you be more specific please? Erick (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

To make an WP:ACCESSible table, the (gray) header cells need to say whether they refer to the column or row. So, for example, the table that says "Chart (1994)" at the top should have that cell marked as scope="col", to indicate to people using screen readers and other devices, that the the whole first column is about the 1994 charts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Got it. I believe I have addressed the problem. Erick (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but that looks like an improvement to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• " released on 30 August 1994 by WEA Latina." - probably should clarify this is a record label
• "Like Miguel's 1991 album Romance, Segundo Romance comprises cover versions of boleros (Latin ballads), written between 1934 and 1993." - no need for the comma before written, since it makes the written bit less clear
• "It was recorded in early 1994 at the Record Plant in Los Angeles, produced by Miguel with Juan Carlos Calderón, Kiko Cibrian and Armando Manzanero." - the way this sentence is written makes it sound like the Record Plant was produced by Miguel etc. Rephrase.
• "Four singles were released: "El Día Que Me Quieras" and "La Media Vuelta", "Todo y Nada" and "Delirio". " - clean up comma use. Shouldn't be X and Y, Z and Q. It should either be X, Y, Z, and Q or X, Y, Z and Q.
• "The album was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide." - more than, not over
• "In 1997, fellow Mexican singer Cristian Castro recorded the track for his album of the same name.[16]" - I don't really see why this is worth mentioning within the article. I'd exclude it. It's crufty.
• "Segundo Romance comprises 11 cover versions of classic boleros, the oldest dating to 1934.[13] " - Why do you mention this fact twice within the same section? I think it works better here in this second instance better than the first.
• "The arrangements consist of strings, saxophone solos, and a piano." - Elsewhere you haven't used the serial comma; you need to be consistent throughout
• "Other styles include covers of Carlos Gardel and Alfredo Le Pera's tango "El Día Que Me Quieras", which uses a bandoneon, " - you should briefly explain what a bandoneon is in addition to linking it
• "which features horns, strings, and Spanish guitars." - serial comma used here but not elsewhere
• ""Somos Novios", "Cómo Yo Te Amé", and "Yo Sé Que Volverás".[14]" - same as above
• "Its music video, directed by Pedro Torres,[26] filmed in black-and-white, features Miguel reminiscing at a bar about a woman who deceived him." - run-on sentence. Can be easily remedied by adding an 'and' after Torres
• "The third single, "Todo y Nada",[28] reached number three on the Hot Latin Songs and number one on the Billboard Latin Pop Airplay charts.[21][29] " - anything about its music video since the others bring those up?
• "To promote the album, Miguel began his Segundo Romance Tour in August 1994 with 16 shows at the National Auditorium in Mexico City, which drew an audience of over 155,000" - more than, not over
• "AllMusic critic Jose F. Promis gave Segundo Romance four-and-a-half out of five" - I think you mean 4.5 stars out of 5; please clarify
• ""a first-rate collection of timeless Latin American standards" and praised Miguel's vocals and the production." - citation after direct quote?
• "Enrique Lopetegui of the Los Angeles Times gave the album three out of four," - stars note again (as above)
• "Mario Tarradell of the Miami Herald was less pleased with the album, writing that it "pales in comparison to the original"" - citation after direct quote?
• "Tarradell criticized Miguel's vocals "on autopilot,"" - this doesn't make sense. Reword the sentence to better convey your point.
• "despite competition from Cristian Castro, Juan Gabriel, La Mafia and Plácido Domingo, who was favored to win by John Lannert of Billboard for his album De Mi Alma Latina.[39]" - I assume you are referring to Domino, but that's not super clear from this sentence structure. Please tweak accordingly
• "Miguel won Pop Male Artist of the Year, Pop Album of the Year, and Video of the Year f" - serial comma used here but not elsewhere
• "Segundo Romance was the Pop Album of the Year by a Male Artist at the 1995 Billboard Latin Music Awards,[42]" - Odd way of phrasing it. I think it would be better to say it won the award for Pop Album of the Year
• There's a lot of passive voice in the awards section. Try to use more active voice
• Lots of passive voice in commercial performance too.
• "Like its predecessor, Segundo Romance continued the revival of interest in bolero music." - Awkwardly phrased; "helped to revive interest in..." would read better.
• 'According to Enrique Lopetegui of the Los Angeles Times, both albums "created a revival for the bolero—the old-fashioned, string-based romantic messages of unrequited love were embraced even by young listeners".[60] Ed Morales wrote in his book The Latin Beat: The Rhythms and Roots of Latin Music from Bossa Nova to Salsa and Beyond: "Beyond merely being a revival, Romance and its 1994 follow-up, Segundo Romance was a significant update of the genre.' - You switch between putting a period inside quotation marks and putting it outside. I think putting it inside is preferable.
• "In 1998, Romance, Segundo Romance, and Romances were compiled on Todos Los Romances, released by WEA Latina.[65]" - serial comma used here but not elsewhere

Weak Oppose - There seem to be a decent amount of prose issues with this article remaining. I think they can be fixed fairly easily, but the writing still needs a good amount of work, in my opinion. ceranthor 01:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks for your comments, I believe I have addressed most of the issues you brought up. Couple of things: "Todo y Nada" has no music video which is why there is no mention of a music video for that song. I am confused by what you mean by active and passive voice on the commercial performance. This is usually how it's done on other FA albums. Erick (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Support - Most of my comments were fixed, but I went through and made a few more tweaks. Now think this is ready. ceranthor 18:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Given how long this has been open, I'm a little concerned to see prose issues being identified. If this is not to be archived, I think we need to see a fairly fast turn-around on this. Sarastro (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I have work from Sunday to Wednesday so I won't have enough free time to address the prose issues. My free time on Wikipedia right now are for sandbox drafts. I will work on the article this Thursday. Erick (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That is no problem, it certainly wouldn't be archived before that. Sarastro (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I'll keep an eye out for your fixes, but if you could give me a ping when everything's resolved, I'd appreciate it. ceranthor 02:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and" before "produced", please. It's so boring I don't want to read it. Just noticed that in the lead. Tony (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

• Not sure why the English translation of the album's title is parenthesized.
• "his record label" implies that he owns the company, does/did he?
• There's a mishap in the musical style subsection "(an accordion) from Argentina)"
• In the accolades, I found another accidental mistake "Segundo Romancewon"

Other than the minor errors and questions I have found, I believe the article meets FA criteria and support its nomination once my comments have been addressed. Best – jona ✉ 17:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@AJona1992: I believe I have addressed everything you brought up. I used the preview to see what it looks like without the parenthesis, and it just looks naked. Thanks for the comments though jona! =) Erick (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Article now satisfies my support. Best – jona ✉ 20:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: I addressed the issues brought up by Ceranthor and supports from the user and AJona1992. Is the article good to go? Erick (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we're probably about there but what's with the red-linked song sample? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ian Rose: Fixed. Erick (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2017 (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) 23:09, 24 December 2017 (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) 23:49, 23 December 2017 [22].

---

Chains of Love (TV series)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that cuffing season is in full effect, you could celebrate it by learning about this rather unique dating game show. In a concept compared to "televised prostitution” by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chains of Love revolves around a man or woman being chained to four members of the opposite sex for four days. Critical reception towards the show was primarily negative, with a majority of the criticism directed at the premise.

This show represents a rather interesting slice of early reality television programming, though I could still see a network like VH1 rebooting this for the controversy. Also, for a bit of television trivia, the development of this show actually indirectly led to the production of a far more famous series known as Fear Factor. This nomination also continues my weird fascination with UPN programming as I have put several other shows from the network through the FAC process in the past. I am looking forward to everyone’s comments. I hope you all have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moise

Lead:

• The second sentence talks about a “man or woman”, then the third sentence is about a group, then the fourth sentence starts with “This person”. It feels a little far, especially when the group was talked about in between. It’d flow better if you could find a way around that. Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the note; I have revised the section. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the lead ("The program was originally ordered by NBC, before UPN produced it") and in the Production section ("UPN produced Chains of Love, along with three other reality television shows, as part of its "aggressive" campaign to air more unscripted content on the network") is there any reason not to say "UPN began producing" instead of "UPN produced"? It the context it seems like that would flow a lot better. Moisejp (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, now I see that NBC never actually produced it, and they gave up on it before any episodes were made. Still, I think you could make that transition clearer by changing the wording from simply "UPN produced". Moisejp (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing this out. I am sorry for missing this earlier. I have corrected the two instances pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The show was compared to other dating game shows, such as Temptation Island and The Dating Game." I know nothing about those other dating game shows. As a reader, if given this information in the lead, I'm interested to know at least a little about what aspects of these other dating shows was deemed similar, otherwise the sentence is meaningless to me. Moisejp (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have revised this to hopefully read better. Aoba47 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Aoba. This looks likely better. (On my second read-through after, I'll have one more check for how everything flows as a whole.) But maybe I wasn't clear in my other comments above, but I was also hoping you could tweak the two instances of UPD produced. I'll continue my review soon. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response! I apologize for missing your earlier comment; I am not sure how that happened. Hope you have a great day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay:

• "John Carman of the San Francisco Chronicle interpreted the Lockmaster as the show's version of the Grim Reaper." I'm not sure what this means. All Carman says is "who is the show's Grim Reaper" and it is not clear what aspects Carman is talking about, or what aspects of the Lockmaster would be realistically comparable to Death personified. Maybe Carman was joking? It's really hard to know. I might suggest removing this sentence. Moisejp (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. I was actually look at this sentence in particular the other day, and I do admit that it is rather silly. It also generally disrupts the flow of the information being presented either way. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• "When one contestant remains, the Picker can choose to split the remaining cash with them if he or she feels that a "love connection" has been formed.[1] The Picker can also choose to keep the money for themselves." Here you use two different strategies for designating someone who could be a man or woman ("he or she" / "themselves"). I've always vaguely felt people should decide to use one strategy or the other but not both as they are kind of opposing ways of treating the problem. But it's not a strong opinion, and if you disagree with me, I won't insist. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Changed the "he or she" to "they". Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Production:

• "Garfinkle had previously worked on Blind Date.[1] It was also produced by people who were involved in the development of the Big Brother franchise." Could you give more background about these shows for people like me who have never heard of them? Maybe what kind of shows they were and the years they ran, at least. But I guess if you put the years for them, you'd possibly have to start putting the years for all the other shows in the article. Maybe you can find another way to give them little introductions. I have heard of Melrose Place, but if you think it is appropriate, you could give it a mini-introduction too. Some people out there might not know it.

• Added two descriptive phrases in front of Blind Date and Big Brother. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• "it's become more like a soap opera with the competition": I really don't know what this means. Ah, OK, after reading it several times I now think it means that because there is competition among the contestants, the show is like a soap opera. Maybe it would be an idea to paraphrase this quotation. At first I was reading it like "the competing networks were treating it like a soap opera", which doesn't make sense. Moisejp (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Paraphrase the quote. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• "UPN began producing Chains of Love, along with three other reality television shows, as part of its "aggressive" campaign to air more unscripted content on the network." Do you have any information about the circumstances between NBC giving up on it and UPN picking it up? Was it shopped around more, or were there other circumstances that made UPN aware of the opportunity to produce it?

• Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any further information on this matter. It just appears to me that UPN somehow became aware of the property and that it was n longer being produced by NBC, and then took it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The New York Times' Bill Carter identified Chains of Love as part of a "second wave of reality shows" " Can you develop this more? When was the first wave? Were the two waves different from each other? What ended the first wave and brought on the second wave? Even if this info isn't used in the current source, maybe you can dig around and find supporting info elsewhere. As it is, the statement doesn't tell us much that we can sink our teeth into. Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Expanded the paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast history:

• "Kay explained that UPN had allocated a lower budget for the Chains of Love advertising campaign than it had for Gary & Mike." "Explained" in relation to what? Would a different verb be better here?

• Replaced verb. Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Consider breaking the last paragraph in this section into two, from "UPN cancelled"? It's not clear how the first part and second part of the para are related. Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree; I have separated the paragraph into two. Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception:

• "On its debut, Chains of Love received primarily negative feedback from television critics.[9][10] Even though he heavily panned the series as "crass, exploitative and demeaning", the San Francisco Chronicle's John Carman wrote that he was interested in watching how each of the men would approach the situation differently." I feel there is a somewhat awkward transition here. The first sentence is all about negative reviews but then the first example (sentence two) is worded in a way that the non-negative is emphasized.

• I have made a new paragraph with the more positive remarks toward the show and changed the part in the lead associated with the criticism. However, I have kept the first line of the first paragraph as it is cited by the two sources, which both claim that the show received a primarily negative response from critics. I can change that if you feel it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Entertainment Weekly's Dan Snierson described it as "the most bizarre and captivating reality series in TV history" due primarily to its premise." This is not negative at all; its describes the show as "captivating". Maybe you need a different topic sentence, which won't set the reader's expectations that the paragraph will mostly be about negative stuff.

• See above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph in this section, the statements by reviewers are so short; I urge you to try to develop these more, so that the reader can get deeper understanding of what it all means. The paragraph compares it to a bunch of other shows. What aspects are similar? What are the premises for these other shows being compared to? As I mentioned above, maybe readers (like me) are not at all familiar with these other shows. As I was reading through the paragraph, all the comparisons meant very little to me. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with you. I have cut some parts of the paragraph, and added further context to other portions. I can edit it further if you feel that more context is needed or I can remove the paragraph entirely if you do not believe it adds much to the overall article. Thank you again for your review as always. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Moisejp: Just wanted to double-check with you on this matter and the rest of the review? Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Second read-through: The article is improving. Rather than responding to your changes above individually, I'm reading this with (somewhat) fresh eyes, and am going to comment on the content in a "clean slate" kind of way.

• In the lead there is "Media outlets questioned whether the show's airing on network television had restricted its content" which is quite clear, but I felt in the Broadcast history section "Media outlets questioned whether the show's broadcast on network television had a direct impact on its more mature content" is less clear. The meaning is maybe illustrated in the hot-tub example that follows, but I still didn't get the whole picture immediately when I read it. Could you change "had a direct impact on" to something like "limited"? Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Minor suggestion, but the lead might flow slightly better if you put the sentence about never being re-released on DVD, etc. at the very end of the lead. This wouldn't follow the order of the main text, but for me that's no problem. But it's up to you.

• Moved. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the lead, is there a mini-intro you can give to Manhunt? Something along the lines of "simulated fugitive-chase show Manhunt"?

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding an mini-intro to The Dating Game and Blind Date but now it sounds very repetitive with "dating game shows like The Dating Game". Maybe something like "other shows where contestants seek love partners, such as The Dating Game and Blind Date. Moisejp (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll continue my comments very soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments so far! Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Production:

• "Newsweek's Marc Peyser believed that NBC dropped out of the project on "moral grounds"." Are there any more details you can give about this? Moisejp (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, he did not provide exact examples of this. The quote was taken from this sentence ( No, what's amazing about "Chains" is that it's the first reality program dropped by a network on moral grounds before it ever aired.). He is primarily referring to the show's content with this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• " UPN began producing Chains of Love, along with three other reality television shows, as part of its "aggressive" campaign to air more unscripted content on the network." Have you considered trying to paraphrase "aggressive" here, if a suitable synonym exists? Moisejp (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Paraphrased. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Professors David Croteau and William Hoynes listed Chains of Love as an example of a program that expanded on the basic principles set out by Survivor in their 2003 study Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences." Did they give any details on which basic principles were expanded on? Moisejp (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Replaced with a source that goes more into depth on this. Let me know if it needs further clarification. Both shows feature a specific way of editing a contestant to better appeal to a large audience. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The network's entertainment chief Tom Nunan said the series was intended to improve the network's ratings, saying" Try to avoid repetition of "said... saying". Moisejp (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Replaced. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Valentine found the series was primarily an example of physical comedy." Were any more details about this given (e.g., in what ways it was physical comedy)? Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the paragraph with the quote given by Valentine: (Mr. Valentine described Chains of Love, a show once owned by NBC before that network passed on it, as mainly very, very funny in a physical comedy sense, although he added, There's something very powerful about being chained up to somebody else.) It seems that he is referring to the physical comedy coming from how the contestants are chained together, but I am not sure how to put it in the article without it coming across as original research as he does not provide a specific reason or connection between the two ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast history:

• Is there any mini-introductory info you can give about L-90? It is a short, kind of unusual name and is mentioned suddenly, and the reader is left to figure it out. Of course there is "created the campaign". Moisejp (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Added a mini-intro for that part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• “Kay said that UPN had allocated a lower budget for the Chains of Love advertising campaign than it had for Gary & Mike.” This doesn’t seem like the most worthwhile point to add, unless more context is given about why it’s relevant. Are there other details about the marketing campaign that you could add instead, or information about the existing details that would increase the reader’s understanding in a meaningful way? Moisejp (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the sentence in question (though I do think it is somewhat helpful with understanding the budget for the promotional campaign in comparison to another series, but I understand your concern about it). I think that I have covered all of the information from the source. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll continue my review ASAP—thanks! Moisejp (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• No worries, thank you for doing the review in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• You have Broadcast history under Reception. Should it be?

• I modeled this article after several featured articles on television shows and episodes, and they frequently combine the two together under the "Reception" heading. I have separated the two for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the Reception section, the number of quotations is perhaps a little bit more than would be ideal. If you could find good paraphrases for any of them, it would be beneficial. Moisejp (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have paraphrased a few of the quotes; let me know if more needs to be paraphrased. Thank you again for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I am now ready to support. Good work on the article. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 7: Harvard error

• I think that I have corrected this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 14: link gives 404 message

• Unfortunately, I could not find an archived version of the site so I have removed the source completely. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 23 and 28 appear identical

• Thank you for pointing this out; I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• There are no citations to Castleman and Podrazik, which should be removed from the book sources

• Removed. I had thought about using the source, but could not find a good place for it. Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page ranges (see Bell, also Madger) require ndashes not hyphens

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Subject to the above, sources seem of appropriate quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: Thank you for the source review! I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

This article looks pretty good written. I give this my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

I'll be posting some comments in a little while. JOEBRO64 20:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• I feel like some of the quotes, such as "a burly dude in a dark suit and shades" and "creative conflicts with the show's producer" could be paraphrased.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Put EW in parenthesis after Entertainment Weekly. Some readers may not know what EW means.

• The EW part is not necessary as the critic was already introduced in the same section so I removed that part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Later dating shows, Elimidate Deluxe, Lap of Luxury, and Tethered, were described as borrowing elements from Chains of Love - such as?

• Added more to this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all I found. Overall, this is a well-written article, and there wasn't much that I found. Once these comments are addressed, I'll support promotion. JOEBRO64 11:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my concerns. I support this promotion. Good luck! JOEBRO64 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Bcschneider53

I cannot find anything in this article that would lead me to oppose it. As the most active member of the Game Shows WikiProject, I will not give an official support as doing so would constitute a conflict of interest, but I do want to congratulate the nominator on a job well done. Best wishes for the rest of this nomination! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Images

• File:ChainsofLoveTitleCardUPN.jpg: NFCC#2 rationale needs some polishing, seems like.
• File:ChainsofLoveInChainsofLove.jpg: I don't think the NFCC#8 rationale here is sufficient - I certainly don't miss any essential aspect of the topic if it was gone.

ALT text is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for your comment. I have revised the NFCC#8 rationale for the second image and the NFCC#2 rationale for the infobox image. Please let me know if you believe that the rationale for the second image is strong enough, as I will remove it if you believe that it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Still not good on that NFCC#2; the point is not whether the author can use it but whether other people can't use it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for your response. I am not entirely certain what you mean though, could you provide some further clarification? I apologize for my confusion and misunderstanding. I have attempted to revise it further, but I am still not understanding what you mean. I have put in something to address the respect forcommercial opportunities, which is what is being asked for by the NFCC#2 point. Thank you again for your help so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• The NFCC#2 rationale needs to explain why the image won't compete with a commercial use by the copyright holders. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Bcschneider53

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: IIRC, you did image reviews for a couple of my FACs in the past. The NFCC#2 rationale that I have always used is: "This image is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material; it is merely used for informational purposes." Since The American Bible Challenge and The Chase (U.S. game show) passed the image review without much problem, would such wording in the rationale solve the issue at hand in this review? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• That would be fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Aoba47: Thank you. I have updated the rationale accordingly. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for clearing this up. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

• What was the name of the Dutch show it was adapted from? I'd specify this in the Production section, along with a translation if necessary.

• Unfortunately, I could not locate the title of the Dutch show. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• 'and can remove three contestants' - Do three contestants get removed together? Or one at a time after intervals? I'd clarify this in the lead and the body.

• Clarified it in the lead; I think it is already clear in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to specify 'between the ages of 12 and 34' in the lead? This sentence also doesn't make it clear whether the online campaign was to promote the series or gather contestants, or both. I'd say 'UPN promoted the series with a a month-long online campaign'

• I think that it is important to include part of the idea as the show was marketed towards younger women; I have removed the ages, but revised it to make it clear who the campaign was directed towards. I have specified that the campaign was done to promote the show. Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all I found. Looks really good. Freikorp (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Freikorp: Thank you for your comments! I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for Status Update

• @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if either one of you could provide an update on this nomination. It has received several reviews, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful holiday season. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Krish!

• Support: This article is well-written and more than worthy of that bronze star. Nice work Aoba47. Krish | Talk 04:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ssven2

Don't see any major faults with the article now. Good work, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2017 (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) 23:49, 23 December 2017 (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) 23:49, 23 December 2017 [23].

---

Knuckles' Chaotix

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC), TarkusAB^talk 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nipples the Enchilada! Totally not Sonic! Three other pointless characters! C-3P0 and R2-D2! The dynamic duo of TarkusAB and TheJoebro64 present: Sonic On the 32X Without Sonic! Anyway, after Tarkus and I completely re-wrote this article from scratch, correcting many long-time inaccuracies and giving it a smooth prose, we successfully brought it to GA-status. It previously appeared on the main page in the DYK column, and has just undergone a copyedit. I believe it can stand among our best articles now, as it's the internet's most complete resource on this game. It's an obscure game so it wasn't easy finding sources but we pulled it off in the end. Enjoy! JOEBRO64 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I've added myself as co-nominator after JoeBro's approval since I helped bring this article to GA and will help with the FAC. I will add that I believe we found every piece of information on this game covered by RSs. Since it has never been re-released, and was on a 1990s console that was a commercial/critical failure, it remains relatively obscure and was hard to find information for. TarkusAB^talk 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing images

• File:Knuckles' Chaotix Coverart.png: License, (boilerplate) rationale and use seem OK to me.
• File:32X Chaotix.png: The use rationale seems questionable to me: We already have the cover to identify the game, and the rationale needs to be clearer about what is being illustrated.

• Improved the purpose rationale.

• File:Sonic Crackers shot.png: Not sure that this needs an image to illustrate. Maybe it needs a better explanation how the understanding of the article topic would be harmed by its absence.

• I'd argue that this image is justified because the fact that it was originally Sonic Crackers and that it had Sonic and Tails is a really important part of the game's development. I've updated the purpose of use to reflect this.

ALT text everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've gone and improved the purpose rationales and responded above. Thanks for reviewing. JOEBRO64 11:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• In this sentence (The game featured Sonic and Tails, and experimented with the ring force bond physics), I would add “developers” in front of the verb “experimented” as I am not sure that the verbiage really matches up with the present noun “The game”.
  • Reworded a bit; I think it looks better now.
• Do you need to clarify that that the 32X is an add-on for the Sega Genesis to avoid a potential misreading of the 32X as its own platform or entity.
  • Yeah, I've clarified it.
• For this sentence (Some characters and concepts introduced in Knuckles' Chaotix later featured in other Sonic games and media), I think that you need “were” in front of the phrase “later featured”.
  • Done.
• In this phrase (game that shares the same basic gameplay elements that defined earlier entries in the Sonic series), I would add a link to the main article on the Sonic series/franchise as this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article.
  • Done,
• In this phrase (due to their slow and destructive nature), I would substitute “and” with “or”.
  • Done.
• Could “Chaos Rings” be linked with Chaos Emeralds? This is more of a clarification question, but the two ideas seems pretty closely intertwined with one another.
  • The Chaos Rings are basically Chaos Emeralds in this game, so I've link to them.
• In this sentence (Power-ups are placed throughout the attractions providing players with rings, shields, and speed shows, among other boons.), do you think that a link for the word “Power-ups” would be beneficial?
  • Yep. Done.
• This is more of a clarification question, but what is meant by this part (each level changes to a specific time of day)? Do you mean a day-night system, or that it changes to different types during the day (i.e. morning, noon, etc.)? I think some clarification here would be helpful if possible.
  • It changes to a different type of day; I've hopefully clarified this.
• In this sentence (Before entering an attraction, the player begins in the Attraction Information Center, which acts as a hub world. Here, the player can choose a partner and an attraction to enter, and see which attractions they have already completed.), there is quite a bit of repetition of the word “attraction”, and I would advise trying to avoid that.
  • I've removed the first and last uses of attraction.
• I think that the following sentence (In the bonus levels, the player is free falling and can pick up power-ups as they fall.) can be revised to read better. The repetition of the word falling seems a little weird to me.
  • Changed last "fall" to "proceed".
• In this phrase (in the original Sonic the Hedgehog's scrapped sound test option), I would include the year in which the original game was released.
  • Done.
• I am not sure about the phrase “as did the 32X platform”. Is an add-on considered a platform?
  • Technically, yes, it's considered separate as it had its own library.
• For this sentence (The game's presentation was met with divided opinions.), the references need to be put in the correct order.
  • Done.
• I do not think that IGN should be in italics.
  • I always italicize IGN per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Major works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized."
    • Makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47(talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Responded above. I hope I've clarified everything. JOEBRO64 22:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Passing comment: I was enjoying the flow of the Reception section until my eyes hit "gamesarefun.com" ...doubtful reliability—I'd strike it (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Czar: Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it. Looking at the site, I think their only claim to reliability would be that they're a sister site of RPGfan -- other than that, the staff didn't look to good to me. JOEBRO64 10:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think that Template:Video game reviews, used in this article, complies with WP:DTT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Can you explain how it doesn't comply? The use of the template appears in line with standard use in WP:VG. TarkusAB^talk 12:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't see anything wrong with the template either. JAGUAR  20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are unfamiliar with this part of the MOS, but FAs are supposed to comply with every page of it, so I thought you'd like to know about it.

To make an accessible table, when there's a header cell that tells you want to expect in the first column, then that header cell should be marked as scope="col". AFAICT, the template isn't doing that at all. I assume that the template is older than the guideline, but, still, it should probably be brought up to date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

OK well it sounds like you have an issue with the template programming. That's out of our control. I looked at the table and believe the headers for the columns are properly "scoped" for accessibility. Maybe bring this up at Template talk:Video game reviews, I don't think a FAC is the right place for this. TarkusAB^talk 05:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

• It would be nice if the infobox image had a caption. Is it North American cover art for example?
  • Added a caption.
• "but rather another internal development team at Sega. Development on the game can be traced back to a 1994 internal prototype" - repetition of internal. I think you can safely lose the second instance as "1994 prototype" sounds just fine on its own
  • Done.
• " the game itself has not been re-released except for a brief period through GameTap in the 2000s" - '2000s' sounds quite vague here, try late 2000s perhaps?
  • Changed to "mid-2000s".
• "However, a reviewer for Next Generation" - I'd change this to However, a reviewer from Next Generation
  • Done.
• "IGN called the level design simplistic, calling it bland and seemingly unfinished" - repetition
  • Changed the first "called" to "considered".
• Ref 19 (CVG) and ref 30 (GamePro) are missing publishers
  • Added CVG and GameFan publishers. GamePro already had its publisher; I think you meant GameFan. JOEBRO64 21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The prose is polished and I was impressed with the flow of the reception section, though I'm still unsure about personifying publications. Good work with this, once all of my minor quibbles are dealt with I'll be happy to support. JAGUAR  21:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thank you for your comments! I hope I've resolved them. JOEBRO64 21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them. I'll be happy to lend my support now! This article is well written and quite comprehensive for its subject matter. I couldn't find many issues with it. JAGUAR  21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Wani

I'll be performing a source review as requested by the nominator. Wani (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 2: The date should be March 26, 2008, not May.
  • Done. JOEBRO64 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 3: The last footnote about special stages should be citing page 22 of the manual, not page 19.

Do you have any links to scans I can use to check these sources, or nah?

They are collected here: [24] TarkusAB^talk 00:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Wani (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: Hey, is Ref 5 included in the link? I can find Issues 29 and 30 for Mean Machines, but I can't find 32. Wani (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That one is here: [25] TarkusAB^talk 12:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Can I get a link for Ref 24 (Xbox World) as well? Wani (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Joe do u have this one? I don't. TarkusAB^talk 06:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB and Wani: That one is here. JOEBRO64 23:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 4: I didn't see any mentions about the game's plot in those two pages (i.e. source content doesn't match article prose).
  • Added better source. It's in Japanese but it does verify these details. JOEBRO64 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 5: Reference is just missing page numbers (14-18).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 19:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 7: I'd probably change the date formatting for consistency, since almost all of the other sources appear to use month/day/year.

Don't forget to change accessdate and archivedate formats as well. Wani (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. JOEBRO64 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 8: There isn't a date parameter. It should list February 22, 2010.
  • Done. JOEBRO64 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 10: Website parameter missing, which I guess should be Sonic Retro or whatever this website is. Despite it citing EGM, has the reliability of this site been discussed previously?
  • Found the actual interview and replaced it. JOEBRO64 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Need to change your date formats again. Wani (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 11, 12: Again, are these sites reliable enough for use? I'm just comparing to WP:VG/RS, so when stuff pops up that's not listed there, I'm not sure how flexible I should be (especially for an FAC).
  • As far as I'm concerned, they're reliable for interviews. See Wikipedia:Interviews. JOEBRO64 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 15: No name or date parameters (James Newton/June 23, 2011). Nintendo Life should be listed under website parameter, not publisher.
  • Done. JOEBRO64 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 21: Repeat of Ref 7.
  • Removed. JOEBRO64 12:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 22: No date parameter (January 6, 2014). Author last name needs minor fix as well (Dargenio → D'Argenio).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 12:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 23: Put GameSpy in website parameter.
  • Done. JOEBRO64 12:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 28: Change date and archivedate formats. Also, the source speculates Tails might have been intended to appear in the ending, not necessarily as a playable character, so the source isn't really supporting the article prose.
  • Done. It does say that he was intended to be in the game as a playable character: At one point during development, Tails was intended to be a playable character. He was only partially completed and had most of his assets stripped from the game. ... In earlier versions of the game, [he] can fly (as elements of Tails are still within the game at this point). JOEBRO64 12:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I didn't bother to read further down. Wani (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 35: Needs date (July 10, 2007).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 36: Reference title is wrong (Gamasutra – The Art & Business of Making Games → GameTap Gets New Licensees, Officially Launches). Also, website parameter just needs a minor adjustment (www.gamasutra.com → Gamasutra).

Actually, going back a little, Ref 12 needs the same change as well (www.the-nextlevel.com → The Next Level). Wani (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 38: Repeat of Ref 1.

Maybe do this one last, since the reference numbers will change for the ones below. Wani (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 43: Missing date (February 23, 2008).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 44: Missing date (August 14, 2014).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 46: Why is the publisher listed as "News Corperation"?
  • Whoops. Fixed. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 48: Missing date (May 2, 2011).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 49: Missing date (July 16, 2013).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 50: Missing date (June 23, 2004).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 53: Missing date (June 10, 2017).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 54: Missing date (September 14, 2016).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 55: Missing date (Jan 6, 2004).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 57: Change reference title (GameSpot review → Sonic Rivals 2 Review). Add name and date (Lark Anderson/January 9, 2008).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 60: Shorten reference title (A Longer Look at Modern Sonic - Sonic Forces - PlayStation 4 - www.GameInformer.com → Sonic Forces: A Longer Look at Modern Sonic).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 62: Missing name (Lucas M. Thomas).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 63: Missing date (October 21, 2016).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 66: I don't know about the use of this source. The part about the game lacking Knuckles' Chaotix is from the comments section, not the blog post itself. Is Sean Lane just a random person?
  • I didn't know it was just from the comments, so I removed it. Hardcore Gamer 101 is considered reliable though, since it has editorial policies and its authors are from other reliable sites/publications.
• Ref 68: Missing date (April 2, 2015).
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've pretty much looked through all of them, which was a lot quicker than I thought it'd be. There's some sources left that I'm having trouble finding (mainly reviews), so if you guys could provide me the links so I can check them, that'd be very helpful. I'll list them below. Wani (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sonic Heroes". Xbox World. Future Publishing (2): 36.
• "Knuckles' Chaotix review". GameFan. DieHard Gamers Club. 3 (5). May 1995.
• "Review Crew: Knuckles' Chaotix". Electronic Gaming Monthly. Ziff Davis (70): 34. May 1995.
  • The 1UP review is actually a reprint of the review in EGM. JOEBRO64 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• New Games Cross Review: カオティクス. Weekly Famicom Tsūshin. No.332. Pg.31. April 28, 1995.
  • ファミ通 TarkusAB^talk 02:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• "ProReview: Knuckles Chaotix". GamePro. IDG (81): 62. June 1995.
• "Knuckles Chaotix". Next Generation. Imagine Media (6): 104. June 1995.

@Wani: All done. I'll try to find those other magazines. JOEBRO64 20:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wani: I wasn't able to find the full Next Generations, GameFan, and GamePro reviews, but this website has a short section from each of them. JOEBRO64 20:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Sorry for the delayed response. As far as sources go, I have no more outstanding concerns, so I'll throw in my support for this FAC. Wani (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Is this good to go? JOEBRO64 20:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• I intend to review this later today. ceranthor 21:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "a collection of characters known as the Chaotix." - brief description here of the group for unfamiliar readers
  • Made it clearer.
• "six Chaos Rings." - same note as above
  • Done.
• "Gameplay is similar to earlier Sonic games," - I think this should be more elaborate, and assumes that the reader knows more than the average reader about Sonic games
  • Elaborated, using info about the basic gameplay.
• "he concept was moved to the more powerful 32X add-on" - more powerful?
  • Reworded a bit.
• "The story follows the group's efforts to save a mysterious island from Doctor Robotnik and Metal Sonic, who are using its magical Chaos Rings for their evil plans.[4]:2" - Chaos Rings, which *insert their purpose*, for their evil plans
  • Done.
    • This is still unclear. ceranthor 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Rewritten. The story is not elaborated in the game, only in the manual and the story is drastically different between the English and Japanese manuals. When you take into account the variances between regions, the common aspects reduce to a very simple story that can't really be explained further than how it is here. TarkusAB^talk 03:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• "the fifth ends in a boss fight with Robotnik" - Robotnik, a *insert description here*.
  • Done.
• "Collecting all Chaos Rings unlocks the best ending, in which Sonic and Tails make cameo appearances.[7]" - what's indicated by the best ending?
  • The Chaotix show up with Sonic and Tails and it's shown they stopped Robotnik. I've clarified that.
• "Development of Knuckles' Chaotix began in early 1994 as an engine test, Sonic Crackers,[b] " - think you should clarify that Sonic Crackers is the name

I think this is clear as is, especially as it's italicised as a title, and adding something like "an engine test titled Sonic Crackers", would just be an unnecessary word. Popcornduff (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Seconded.

• "directors Masahide Kobayashi, Atsuhiko Nakamura, Naohisa Nakazawa, producers Hiroshi Aso, Makoto Oshitani, Mike Larsen, and artist Takumi Miyakewas." - semicolons between groups
  • Done.
• "and the project was titled Knuckles' Ringstar, later renamed Knuckles' Chaotix.[18][19]" - grammatically the last bit doesn't make sense; it should read "and was later renamed" or "; it was later renamed"
  • Used your first suggestion.
• "The prototype ROM image can downloaded and played with emulators.[10]" - Missing a "be"
  • Done.
• "These characters have been dubbed "The Chaotix" in retrospect.[26]" - does this include all five of them? It's a little unclear
  • It's Mighty (though we rarely see him), Espio, Vector, and Charmy. I've clarified this.
• "A complex palette system was implemented, allowing each level to load a unique palette." - redundant to say palette twice in the same sentence
  • Fixed.

I'll post some more comments in a bit. I don't think the prose is quite ready yet. ceranthor 22:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Vector the Crocodile was reintroduced after being designed to appear in the original Sonic the Hedgehog's (1991) scrapped sound test option" - This is incomprehensible to me as a general reader. I think "after being designed to appear" should be "after appearing in...", and what is a sound test option?
  • He was never in the final game. He was designed to be in it but never was. I've cleaned this up.
• "The game also features two new characters: Espio the Chameleon, whose color changes subtly while he moves to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the 32X console," - I feel like this is a bit crufty, and might be better as a footnote
  • I think this is fine as it is; it's the only information we have on his creation.
    • Does the source explicitly say this? It reads like original research
      • It does not. The source reads "His USP (?) was the way his colour pulsated as you played — about the best special effect the awful Mega Drive 32X could muster up." All it is saying is that his color changes were by use of the 32X's power, but is doesn't say it was made "to demonstrate" the system's power. Also the phrase seems out of place, sandwiched between Vector and Charmy's origins. I have removed it. TarkusAB^talk 01:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• "With the enhanced features of the 32X," - such as?
  • Reworded.
• "With the enhanced features of the 32X, the developers were given more freedom compared to previous games.[30] To take advantage of the hardware, several levels feature dynamic sprite-scaling effects, and the special stages were rendered with 3D polygons.[2] A complex palette system was implemented, allowing each level to load a unique palette.[5] The music was composed by Junko Siratsu and Mariko Nanba.[14]

Knuckles' Chaotix was released in North America on April 20, 1995,[31] and the following day in Japan as Chaotix.[32] It was released in Europe in June that year.[33] From 2005, it was available for a few years for macOS and Microsoft Windows via the subscription service GameTap.[34][35][36] The game is a valuable collector's item due to the 32X's commercial failure.[37]" - Far too much passive voice. Needs copyediting.

Copyedited and reworded.

• " whereby Tails would get lost off-screen, they felt the physics were "clunky" and took time to get used to." - Don't think the sentence should end on an unnecessary preposition; reword instead.

That's a necessary proposition, though... Popcornduff (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Either way, the sentence needs to be copyedited. ceranthor 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Rewritten TarkusAB^talk 03:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is it, but I may add a few more comments once these have been addressed. ceranthor 01:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I think I've resolved everything, and responded above. Popcornduff rebutted two of your comments, and I agree with him. JOEBRO64 13:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Replied to a few that I don't think have been fully remedied yet. I will look again tomorrow and if I'm satisfied, I'll be happy to support. Thanks for the timely response. ceranthor 01:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Critics found the tethering physics cumbersome, although some appreciated Sega's attempt to innovate in the series, and criticized the level desig" - too many ideas in this sentence, and it doesn't read smoothly as a result
  • The tethering physics comment is the main piece here. I removed the level criticism comment. TarkusAB^talk 05:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• "team[11][12][13] including: directors Masahide Kobayashi, Atsuhiko Nakamura, Naohisa Nakazawa; producers Hiroshi Aso, Makoto Oshitani, Mike Larsen; artist Takumi Miyakewas; and young members of the staff who had worked on Sonic CD (1993)." - is the colon necessary?
  • I don't know I'm not too good with punctuation. Removed. TarkusAB^talk 05:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, support. ceranthor 15:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comments: This has four supports but looking through I see quite a few prose issues which make me wonder how carefully 1a has been looked at. For example, "Knuckles' Chaotix, however, introduces a partner system whereby the player character is tethered to another with "ring force", producing rubber band-like physics" is a little clunky and I'm not too sure what "producing rubber band-like physics" means. "Development can be traced back to Sonic Crackers, a 1994 prototype for the Sega Genesis featuring Sonic and Tails, with which the developers experimented with the ring force tether" is also quite hard to understand. "The partner mechanic offers actions" is also a little tricky for the general reader. None of these issues are enough to make me want to oppose or recuse, but I think this needs a last copy-edit from someone, and I'd like another prose review before we promote. (In passing, the reception section looks very good to me) Sarastro (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I performed another copy edit. TarkusAB^talk 23:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Gameplay is similar to earlier Sonic games; players must complete each level while collecting rings and defeating enemies.". Should that be a colon?
  • Yeah, good call. Done. JOEBRO64 11:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The game has been considered the last classic game of the Sonic series and a declining point for it." Passive voice is coy, even here in the lead where not much detail can appear. What is a "declining point"? You mean already it shows decline, or it's the high point after which there has been a decline?
  • The game has been called the moment when the Sonic series began to decline. Reworded the entire sentence. JOEBRO64 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "This tether behaves like a rubber band and must be handled appropriately to maneuver the characters through levels."—you may as well write "through the six levels".
  • Reworded a bit. JOEBRO64 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Knuckles' Chaotix is a side-scrolling platform game" at the start of the first section—almost identical wording at the very opening.
  • Un-identical now. JOEBRO64 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "boost"—can that be an intransitive verb? Check, please.
  • I trimmed the sentence a bit. JOEBRO64 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "... level.[6] Bonus levels are hidden throughout the levels, and can also be triggered by finishing a level with ...". Pity four of them so close.
  • Reworded to remove most instances. JOEBRO64 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Collecting all Chaos Rings unlocks the best ending, in which Sonic and Tails are seen with the Chaotix, who have freed the island from Robotnik."—maybe "preferred ending"? What do you call "best"? "who have", is which set of people (plural)?
  • There are two endings in the game; the "bad" ending is seen if you don't have the rings, but the "good" ending is seen if you do. I've changed to "good" in quotations. JOEBRO64 11:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "all the Chaotix members"—why not drop "the"? Or you can add "of".
  • Removed "the". JOEBRO64 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit of a yawn, but ok I guess. Tony (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: I hope I've addressed your concerns. Responded above. JOEBRO64 20:30, 20 December 2017 (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) 23:49, 23 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 [26].

---

Rhode Island Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... another coin, with quite a bit of chicanery going on, though it doesn't get the bad press as much as others. Enoy. Wehwalt (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "This incensed coin collectors, and led Congress to move in the direction of banning commemorative coins due to the abuses.": I can't tell what this sentence from the lead is referring to; I didn't see it in the text, reading quickly.
• "depositary": I don't know, I think there's a chance of confusion with "depository".
• "had been wound up, having shown a profit of": To British ears, "had been wound up" is "was made nervous or angry". Maybe this? "wound up with a profit of"
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the support. I've adjusted those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 7 needs pp. not p.
• Refs 8/9/10: The links on the page ranges aren't particularly helpful, as using them doesn't provide a means of entry beyond the paywall. The useful link is found in the sources section.

That's not the same source. I could supply a link to the Congressional Record on ProQuest Congressional, but I'm not sure if it would be useful, you still need the subscription.

• Sources: I can't find citations to Yeoman 2015

Last one of the article.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The obverse image lacks a clear statement that the photos is Bobby131313's own work, although I'm fairly certain that that's true.

I think that the circumstances make it clear.

• The other image is properly licensed.
• Shouldn't there be another comma after 'Island' in Providence, Rhode Island Tercentenary half dollar?
• Add a link to Rhode Island in the lede.
• Concur with Dank, that the last sentence in the lede is awkward.
• Agree with the criticisms of the design, the human figures are badly done and what's up with Williams' cuffs and arms? And the Indian's right forearm seems oddly lengthy. And the lettering does dominate the design, although perhaps that helps to minimize the impact of the central image.
• I think that it's a good thing when my artistic critique of the design is longer a than my substantial review of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I won't disagree with you about the design, which seems ugly and cartoonish. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support, in line with my review cop out. Nice piece of work. In addition to Sturmvogel's comments, I have just one point about a word in the Background section:

• "applied political pressure to get the coin": is "get" the best word - makes him sound like he was trying to obtain a single coin for himself. Would "commission" or similar, work instead?

Aside from that minute nit-picking, this meets the FA criteria on prose. – SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Lead

• ¶2 Link House of Representatives?
• ¶2 "The amended bill was approved by both houses..." – Amend this to say "both houses of Congress" and link Congress?

Background and legislation

• ¶1 Link Puritan?
• ¶1 Link Massachusetts Bay Colony?
• ¶1 Link Salem?
• ¶2 "...sold by the government—Congress, in authorizing legislation,..." – I think a semicolon or a terminal period would be more appropriate here than an emdash.
• ¶3 "for passage in the Senate" – Link Senate?

Preparation

• ¶1 "The Tercentenary Commission's coin committee originally proposed the seven stars from an early version of Providence's seal, with the anchor from Rhode Island's seal and the state motto, "Hope". – Maybe "... originally proposed including in the design..." for clarity?
• ¶1 Link Philadelphia Mint? Likewise Denver Mint and San Francisco Mint?

Production, distribution, and collecting

• ¶4 "...that he could not consult Grant about some issue as Nichols apparently had suggested..." – "Some issue" seems confusing. Maybe delete "about some issue"?

General

• Alt text would be nice even though not required. I don't know if there's a way to add it to the infobox images.
• No problem with disambiguation links.
• No dead URLs.
• No duplinks.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. With the exception of alt text (I will be happy to, if someone knows how) in the infobox, I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Moise. I have read through twice and it all looks very good. Moisejp (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just a couple of things before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Link Salem and Orpheus
• Providence Tercentenary Commission— I get no sense, as a Brit, of what this was. Was it a business, a charity or a politically appointed committee?

I can't find a huge amount on the commission, but I've added a bit. Likely it was chartered by the state legislature, and consisted of prominent locals. That's how it usually was. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting much on the commission, but I thought it was worth asking the question, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that there is no alt text on the images. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But that is a choice for the main editors, and is not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2017 [27].

---

More Hall Annex

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

From 1961 to 1988, this unassuming building on the University of Washington campus in Seattle handled nuclear research experiments and helped promote the safety of nuclear power to the public. It later became the subject of a battle between the university and preservationists before it was demolished early last year. The article has been sitting as a GA since just prior to that demolition, and I've made some touches here and there with the help of a copyeditor. SounderBruce 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• I don't know if I'll have time to review this one, but I've got a question, concerning "proudly showcased", "crown jewel", "proudly showcasing", "promote the apparent safety of nuclear energy", and "digitally preserve": who are you quoting, and could none of these be paraphrased? See the WP:INTEXT guideline. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've paraphrased a few, and outright removed the quotes from some phrases. The two remaining quotations are direct quotes, from Prof. Babb and the Trust, and I feel they're appropriate. SounderBruce 04:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Looks good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• "preservationists held a wake for the building": That's not what "wake" means. (Understood that it's an attempt at humor, but the tone isn't encyclopedic.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "100 kilowatts (kW) thermal" - I think thermal kilowatts would be more familiar to most readers
  • Bri's source shows that kwt would be the correct order.
• Try to vary sentence structure in the lead; four consecutive sentences start with "The X..."
  • Done.
• ". The reactor room was 'proudly showcased' by the building's design, with large windows allowing views of reactor experiments from the outside." - citation?
  • Removed; though the lead doesn't necessarily need citations if the same quote is repeated.
• "Amid concerns from preservation groups and the City of Seattle, the UW Board of Regents ultimately decided in February 2016 to demolish the structure." - Think despite might work better than amid?
  • Done.
• "The research reactor was an Argonaut class reactor with an initial output of 10 kW thermal, later increased to 100 kW in 1967" - same note as the lead
  • Done.
• "15 ft (4.6 m) high, 20 ft (6.1 m) long and 19 ft (5.8 m) wide." - comma after long
  • Done.
• "running for some days at half power or for as little as 10 minutes.[6]" - how are these two things close enough to be compared? This doesn't seem like an appropriate comparison
  • It's not meant to be a comparison between the two figures. Dropped the "or".
• Keep the serial comma consistent throughout; you use it in some places but not others
  • Done.
• The sentence structure of "Design and functions" is very choppy; vary it some

• Link nuclear engineering?
  • Done.
• "The proposed 10 kW reactor was approved by the university's Board of Regents in April 1959, proposing a two-story " - redundant, and this doesn't make sense gramatically "the proposed reactor..., proposing"?
  • Fixed.
• " The building would be designed by TAAG architects Wendell Lovett, Gene Zema and Daniel Streissguth, all members of the UW faculty.[11" - why the change to would instead of saying it "was designed by ..."
  • Done.
• "Jentoft & Forbes, who would be paid $308,082 for the project; the building would be on the eastern edge of the campus at a site proximate to various academic engineering buildings and would "promote the apparent safety of nuclear energy" by being located directly on campus." - same note as above
  • Done.
• "Student use of the reactor was replaced by commercial use to produce nuclear isotopes for medical use.[3]" - commercial use by whom?
  • The source doesn't elaborate beyond "medical uses".

Here are some comments to start. ceranthor 22:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks for the comments. Only have a handful that I've left to do later. SounderBruce 04:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Sounds good - just let me know when you want me to read over it again. It looks like it's in pretty good shape. ceranthor 16:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• "They designed the reactor room with large windows that allowed observation from the outside, in an attempt to promote the safety of nuclear energy." - think 'promote the safety of nuclear energy' could be phrased better; I think promote is what bothers me here
• "It will be replaced by a new computer science building." - think it's useful to mention in the lead when it will be done
• "The research reactor was an Argonaut class reactor with an initial output of 10 kWt," - I know it's already in the lead, but it would help to reintroduce for unfamiliar readers what kWt indicates
• First paragraph of design and functions still needs more sentence structure variety

Once these are addressed, I think it'll be ready in my opinion to be an FA. ceranthor 16:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I've reworked the Design section and made other changes in accordance with your second set of comments. SounderBruce 08:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Support then, on the prose. ceranthor 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All referencing appears to be in good order, based on sources of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This reads well. I made five minor proofing changes. Please revert any you think are misguided. Here is a short list of questions, suggestions:

• NRHP infobox. If the building has been delisted, there's a slightly different infobox for delisted properties. On the other hand, it may still be listed even though it no longer exists.

History

• ¶3 "...in a ceremony attended by Dr. Norman Hilberry of the Argonne National Laboratory" – Delete the academic title, "Dr.", and replace with "Norman Hilberry, a physicist of the Argonne National Laboratory"?

• Moved things around a bit to emphasize that he is the laboratory's director.

Preservation attempts

• ¶1 "...based on an application from UW architecture student Abby Inpanbutr (then Abby Martin) submitted in spring 2008." – Slightly better as "...based on an application submitted by Abby Inpanbutr (then Abby Martin), a UW architecture student, in spring 2008."?

• Done.

• ¶1 (here and in the NRHP infobox) – Was the More Hall Annex delisted by the NHRP? If so, when"

• As far as I'm aware, the building has not been delisted.

• ¶2 "In May 2015, it was named...". – To make instantly clear which building the "it" refers to, replace "it" with "the More Hall Annex?

• Done.

Replacement

• ¶1 "The Board of Regents approved its construction in January 2017, which began later in the year." – Better as "In January 2017, the Board of Regents approved its construction, which began later in the year" since "which" modifies "construction" and not the date?

• Done.

General

• The images have alt text.
• No dead URLs.
• No duplink problems.
• No problems with disambiguation links.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Finetooth: Thanks for the review. Other than the NRHP delisting, I have made the changes you suggested. SounderBruce 03:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looks fine. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2017 [28].

---

RSPB Minsmere

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd long wanted to write an FA on this flagship RSPB reserve, but lacked sufficient sources. The site celebrated its 70th anniversary in 2017, leading to the publication of a major article in British Birds which, together with Bert Axell's book, purchased for the princely sum of 98p, gave me all that was necessary. Thanks to DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered for for fixing some of my less felicitous edits Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "The Great Storm of 1987 destroyed 3,000 trees in one night, leading to significant tree-planting. However, it was noticed that other badly affected woodlands nearby had been colonised by woodlarks, and some recently acquired arable land was acidified and converted to heathland to encourage open-ground species, rather than being forested as had been originally intended.": I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Many areas were reforested, but some arable land was ..."

• I'm not quite sure what you are after here, but I've rewritten to make less wordy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• "The reserve is also protected as part of the Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The site is also included in the areas covered by the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Suffolk Heritage Coast": Do something about the "also ... also".

• Lost an "also" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Dank thanks for your copy edit and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest linking/expanding/revising the lead caption to either help readers understand what the "scrape" is or to avoid using that term at this point
• Possible to reformat the caption of the simplified map to have one colour per line? Also suggest a wikilink on "hide". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for review Nikkimaria, all done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

A question of consistency: some of your PDF sources carry retrieval dates while others don't. Is this in accordance with a principle? Personally I think they are required for all online sources. Other than this point, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton. I'm minding the shop for a moment or two. I am sure you are right but I think I will need the boss to fix them ... if I get some time tomorrow I will have a careful look whilst trying not actually to wreck it! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, thanks for looking. The standard policy is that we have access-dates for on-line-only sources, which can change, but not for on-line copies of hard publications. I've now checked and added access dates where missing to all pdfs except those for copies of journal articles and those where an isbn indicates a hard copy publication. I think it's now consistent throughout Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "The 1,000-hectare (2,500-acre) site was acquired in 1947" the body says a management agreement was signed, and the property was purchased later. Possibly substitute "reserve was established" for "site was acquired" or similar?
• "The river mouths were finally closed " I imagine this means all of Suffolk as you've only mentioned the one river.

• Source says "mouths", referring to this area of Suffolk, but only one at Minsmere AFAIK, so DBAK's change is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• I might link "hide" as appropriate. It may not be as common a word over here.
• It might be useful to mention the size of the reserve in 1947, as various expansions are mentioned.

• I'll add an RS source shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• "former arable land". Was it no longer capable of being farmed when sold, or did it lose that potential on being sold? "Formerly arable" makes me think of farmland poisoned by wastes, which is probably not the case here.
• "The avocet first started its recolonisation of Britain in 1947, four pairs breeding a month after the reserve was acquired by the RSPB. Numbers now vary between 40 and about 140 pairs per year." In Britain or on the reserve?
• I'm a bit taken aback by the final sentence of the article, which is a sentence by itself and seems a bit POV, and prominently so in light of the fact that it does conclude the article and gets the last word. The reader might take it as commentary on the immediately-previous discussion of the nuclear power plant. I think just attributing the prediction would be enough to take it out of Wikipedia's editorial voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Attributed as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for reviewing. I think that DBaK has fixed the points that I've not addressed above, let me know if there is something we have missed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up the layout before. Trying again:

1947: Yes, good point thanks. Reworded into something similar to how the RSPB put it themselves.

Rivers I will try to check. Update: After a bit of reading around I can report that I am confused. As you say it could mean either; in addition it might mean that there were multiple mouths at Minsmere although we don't mention this possibility and we'd need a ref. (We mention it having been an estuary but nothing much more specific about the structures.) I have ordered the Axell book but I doubt that it will be here before Jimfbleak is. So the only fix for now that I see as reasonable is to make it a singular mouth at Minsmere, as that must be right locally; if it has narrowed the field too much then Jimfbleak can no doubt open it up again! Thanks,

Hides - Oops. We had it in a caption but missed the lead. Fixed, thanks.

Size - to check. Update: according to a contemporary local newspaper report quoted by a local history society site (scroll or search down to Dec 27 1947), they acquired 1,500 acres in 1947 so yes, well short of the eventual 2,500 acre total. I agree this needs sorted, but I'm not sure how to fix it or whether that can be regarded as an RS, so I am parking it here, and waiting for a grown-up to sort it out! Thanks for the query

"Former arable" - yes, still arable at sale. I chickened out of buying the source article or subscribing to some complex rental system BUT the free sample includes that bit! Fixed.

Avocet - to check. Update: it's the local number of breeding pairs. The RSPB says that nationally it's about 1500 pairs, and another reserve has 170+ so there's no way that the 40-140 is anything but Minsmere. I know I'm arguing this backwards as I don't have the source but I am confident that this is correct and that Jimfbleak can confirm it. Thanks. I've updated the article to reflect this,

Final sentence. Gosh yes. A bit of a structural issue perhaps. I will discuss it with the boss and try to see a fix.

My not responding to all of these at once reflects only the lateness of the hour.

Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• One thing more. The reserve is exactly 1,000 hectares? Or is that just a round figure. Given that it has been added to over the years, it would be surprising if it were on the dot.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, I've been unable to find figures other than 1000 ha or 2500 acres, so I've no idea how rounded they are. I take your point though, and I've added "roughly" to the mention in RSPB era. I didn't think it was necessary in the lead, but feel free to add if you disagree. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support All looks good then. Sounds interesting, wouldn't mind a stroll there someday myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Yes, it's the RSPB's flagship reserve, you can see maybe 100 species in May Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. I was tempted not to point out the pleasing misspelling "tortoisehell" (there is no doubt a tortoiseheaven too) but that's all I can find to quibble about. A pleasure to read, seems comprehensive, well and widely sourced and beautifully illustrated. Tim riley talk 19:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Tim riley, thanks. I shall have nightmares about tortoisehell now (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment by William Avery

• I'm a bit uneasy about the clause "Peat cutting is recorded to have taken place at Minsmere from at least the 12th century". It looks like the less acceptable variety of double passive to me. It might it be better to start with something like "Records show that peat cutting has taken place...", or perhaps some other recasting? William Avery (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks William Avery for your useful comment. Yes, and actually the ref supports a more direct statement anyway, so I have made it so. It is the cutting, not the record of the cutting, that is important here. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    • You are right. The indirectness was the underlying niggle. William Avery (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Support. Very interesting account. It makes me a bit sad that it's a 4½ hour drive away. William Avery (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It's a truly lovely place. The thing that could help with the 4½ hour drive is to stay overnight in a pub in Westleton! With best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you William Avery. The Eels Foot Inn in Eastbridge is walking distance from the reserve too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Spot check by Cas Liber

• FN5, FN6 and FN20 check out (i.e. material faithful to source). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article - all in line with the FA criteria. The only quibble I found (too minor to affect my support) was in the Landscape section: "Two extensive sandbanks lie in the sea off the coast": a bit of a tautology, with the sea being off the coast? I'll leave it to you to decide whether to act on it or not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, good point - they couldn't really be anywhere much else! Thanks SchroCat; I've detautologized (?) the description there. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks from me too, SchroCat Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from edwininlondon

Excellent article. Very little to nitpick about:

• have been recorded on the reserve -> used twice in short succession
• 1500 -> inconsistent with the earlier "5,800 species"
• quite a few weblinks used as source. Adding archive urls would help prevent link rot in the future
• reference 24: I could not see Cathy Smith mentioned on the given page. I only looked because 22 and 23 do not have an author
• ref 42 has a name surname switch error. The real names are David Moore, ‎Marijke M. Nauta, ‎Shelley E. Evans, Maurice Rotheroe

Great work. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for support. I've fixed the text and ref infelicities (don't know where Cathy Smith came from) and I'll add the archive links later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that there is no alt text on the images. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But that is a choice for the main editors, and is not worth delaying promotion. Sarastro (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2017 [29].

---

British hydrogen bomb programme

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the British development of the hydrogen bomb in the 1950s. I created it in my Sandbox on 13 May 2017, and moved to to the mainspace on 1 June. Since then it has passed DYK, GA and A class reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Operation_Grapple_May_1957.jpg: source states image is PD not CC BY-SA

  Changed to the correct licence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg: when/where was this first published?

  Probably back in 1945. The Canadian government asserts that copyright has expired, hence was subject to Crown copyright and was first published more than 50 years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, but for US status, which rationale from the tag is believed to apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I believe it is the first one. The image was made available as part of the press kit from the conference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Castle_Bravo_007.jpg: source link is dead.

  Substituted another URL. Replaced with a nicer image I found in the process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Nothing much to say here:

• It would look neat if isbns were in consistent format (see Macmillan)

  Ran the ISBN script over the aricle, but that was the only inconsistent one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• We generally have "Basingstoke, Hampshire", but for Arnold and Smith, just "Basingstoke"

  Changed to "Basingstoke, Hampshire". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Talking of Basdingstoke, the publisher is variously given as "Palgrave", "Palgrave Macmillan" and "Macmillan". Are these three different imprints? If not, choose one format.

  I just copied what it said in the indicia of my copies. According to the Wikipedia: Palgrave Macmillan was created in 2000 when St. Martin's Press Scholarly and Reference in the USA united with Macmillan Publishers in the UK to combine their worldwide academic publishing operations. The company was known as simply Palgrave until 2002, but has since been known as Palgrave Macmillan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the required standard of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  I made one tweak. "Boost" has a technical meaning when we are referring to nuclear weapons. When detonating the Castle Bravo device, the Americans made a big mistake. They enriched their lithium to 40% lithium-6 and assumed that the more abundant lithium-7 contributes nothing. However, they discovered the hard way that if lithium-7 is hit with a neutron hard enough, it fissions to produce helium, tritium and a neutron. The tritium fuses; the neutron can cause additional fission. The bomb exploded with a force of 14 Megatons instead of 4 Megatons, to which the scientists could only say: "oops". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Interesting, professionally written. I don't know enough physics to wade deeply into the technical stuff, but I'm able to comment on prose and style. My suggestions and questions are simple and few.

Decision

• ¶1 "...15 megatonnes of TNT (63 PJ)..." – For clarity, link TNT and PJ?

  I can't link TNT, because the conversion template is being used, but I have linked megatonnes of TNT and PetaJoules. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• ¶5 "...had touched off a storm of protest", and "stormy debate" appear almost back-to-back in the same sentence. Replace one or the other? Or is this intentional?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• ¶6 "...looked favourably on the idea..." – I think this would read a bit more smoothly if it were altered to "...looked favourably on the idea of a moratorium...".

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Organisation

• ¶1 "...had agreed to some flexibility in exceptional cases" – Delete "some" as unnecessary?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• ¶ "...another committee was established under Lord Waverley..." – He's identified as Sir John Anderson in ¶2 of the Tube Alloys section. For clarity, should he be identified in the same way in both places?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• ¶3 "He was too senior to be placed in Corner's theoretical physics division...". – Who or what is Corner? I don't seem to find an explanation earlier in the article.

  He is introduced earlier, in the "decision" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Preparations

• ¶2 "Testing of the boosted designs was carried out in the Operation Mosaic tests in the Monte Bello Islands in May and June 1956." – Rep of "testing...tests". Suggestion: "In May and June 1956, Operation Mosaic tested the boosted designs in the Monte Bello Islands."

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 Add the location of the Monte Bello Islands to the above sentence?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• ¶4 "It was estimated that 18,640 measurement tons...". Link or explain "measurement ton"?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• ¶5 "The design was frozen in April 1956." – Would most readers find something like "The final design was approved in April 1956" more instantly clear than "frozen"?

  That wouldn't be correct though. "Frozen" means that you tell the engineers to stop fiddling with it so you can ship it. Further changes go into the next release. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

First series

• ¶1 "had not attempted this..." – Replace "this" with "an airdrop of a hydrogen bomb" or something similar?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

General

• No dead URLS and no problems with duplinks, alt text, or disambiguation.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• All looks fine. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article in detail at Milhist A-Class review, and could find little to comment on then. I've reviewed changes since then and can't see anything that needs tweaking. Great job! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Some images have alt text while others do not. For consistency, I think we should go down one route or the other. In any case, this is not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 [30].

---

Golden jackal

Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the golden jackal, which is a Eurasian canine that is similar in appearance to a small gray wolf. The article receives an average of 700 visitors a day with occasional spikes of twice that. It was listed as a WP:GA on 29 November 2016 based on the work of User:Mariomassone, has since been expanded by 30kb, and recently reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. If successful, this will be the only extant wild Canis article at WP:FA level. William Harris • (talk) • 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the range map in the article body Now scaled up 300px
• File:Tibetan_mastiff_(white_background).jpg: source link is dead New link provided. Note: this is a Pinterest link.
• File:Dogs,_jackals,_wolves,_and_foxes_(Plate_I).jpg should include publication date and author date of death. Same with other images from that source Dates now provided on all of these images
• File:MSU_V2P1a_-_Canis_aureus_skull.png: source gives a publication date of 1998 and has a clear copyright notice - the scan was digitized with permission, not seeing support for the given tag Replaced
• File:Albino_Jackal_2.jpg: source link is dead, on what are we basing the given copyright tag, and what is the status of the work in the US? Pix removed; copyright held by the Iranian Cheetah Society 2015
• File:Canis_aureus_subspecies_range.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Image now populated with references provided for their distribution found in the "Subspecies" section.
• File:T2JB005_-_Good_luck_go_with_you,_O_chief_of_the_wolves.JPG needs a US PD tag.Tagged

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria, thanks once again for getting us "outlaws" compliant. My only concern is with the Tibetan mastiff image, and seek your opinion on that one, please. William Harris • (talk) • 11:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, did you have a specific question about it? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Only the use of a Pinterest link and if that is sufficient; that pix appears to have been taken from the same site as our pix from China. The Chinese website that the image was derived from has a broken link (as you have found), and has most likely been moved elsewhere. I attempted to track down the artwork to a gallery in China (using English) but the best I could find was text about where it had once been displayed while on tour across a number of galleries. Thanks for your advice. William Harris • (talk) • 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

*Comments taking a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For starters, I wouldn't say straight off that it looks like something else, and you then mention gray wolves again in the next sentence. I have been bold and rewritten like this, how do you feel about that? I'd add female weight maybe and body length of both sexes.

I started off with a quick description of what it is. Then followed this with some detail (which could appear later in the lead). We appear to have shifted to describing where a thing lives before describing that thing. We need to ask ourselves what is most important for the first sentence - that it looks similar to a small wolf or what its distribution is? I saw a taxidermied one standing beside lupus at the city museum today - it looks like a small wolf. Perhaps there is other wording that comes to mind?

I had deliberately avoided putting too many measurements in the lead - I only wanted to compare the size roughly with the small Arabian wolf, and leave the other measurements to be found in the text.

Agreed/point taken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reinstated Corinne's earlier version of this paragraph; it is currently the best proposal on offer where we share common ground.

The distant ancestor of the golden jackal is believed to be the extinct Arno river dog that lived in Mediterranean Europe 1.9 million years ago. - "distant" is subjective...actually pretty close in paleonotological terms...

Agreed, amended.

Golden jackals are abundant in valleys and beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, and seashores - "beside" strikes me as an odd preposition to use here...I'd go with "alongside" or "near" or somesuch

Amended to alongside - much better word.

Despite its name, the golden jackal is not closely related to the African black-backed or side-striped jackals, being instead more closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf, and Ethiopian wolf. - I'd move this line to the etymology section.

Removed "Despite its name", removing this as a naming issue and focusing on the relationships under Evolution.

Given that we're saying in the lead it has seven subspecies, presumably the results that are discussed in para 2 of Taxonomy section are now accepted. In which case they should be written in past tense rather than present/future tense.

Amended.

When hunting alone, it will trot around an area and occasionally stop to sniff and listen. Once prey is located, it will conceal itself, quickly approach, then pounce - convert to present (rather than future) tense

Amended.

In the Cooperation section you're using italics rather than quote marks for jackal sounds. Need to align. Personally I prefer italics but not a hard and fast rule...

Amended.

In the past, the tiger and the leopard were enemies of the jackal, - err, "enemies" is not a word I'd use here .."competed with" or something

Amended.

Overall, kudos for taking this article on, and I think it is not too far off FA status. I'll have another read later. Please check you're happy with my changes overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial comments. William Harris • (talk) • 11:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Some vertebrate species have binomial names after in brackets, others (such as pallid harrier) don't - they should be aligned. My personal preference is to do so to avoid seas of blue in links but not a hard and fast rule by any means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials to clearly distinguish who these are and avoid confusion, especially the aureus subspecies. The trees and shrubs have binomials because those were given in the orignal references but I am not sure that Wikipedia's attempts at matching these to article names has been entirely successful - there is some confusion. The diseases and parasites have binomials because these were given in references and I have absolutely no idea on this topic and will leave following what these are to the parasite purists. In summary, I have tried to minimize the use of binomials unless it helps to avoid confusion. There is some inconsistency, however it is also reasonably accurate.

point taken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A thought, if GOJAGE is notable is it worth a sentence or two on them in material about conservation?

Excellent proposal, now included. Is the external link still required?

Nope, so I removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

muskrats constituted 12.3% of jackal faeces contents - "muskrats constituted 12.3% of jackal faecal contents"...?

Amended.

I am finding little else to complain about...which is a good thing.. ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagree "Doc" - the more you prescribe, the healthier the article becomes. William Harris • (talk) • 07:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ok, support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any other prose glitches standing out, nor any other glaring omissions of information. I am iffy on y'all's preferred version of the lead but accept your rationale for keeping it that way and can see the point. Is not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements. I thought the external link might go. Regarding the lead, I expect there may be other proposals before this process has finished. We have yet to hear from "dino-boy" (Funkmonk) - it is only a matter of time :-) William Harris • (talk) • 10:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Just a few minor format points:

• Page range formats should be consistent. In most cases you use the "full number" format. e.g. "140–41" but on several occasions you use shorter forms . See e.g. refs 9, 29, 32, 83, 91 and possibly others

In accordance with WP:CITET, for a journal article I provide the range of pages the article appeared on in the journal. For a book I provide the specific page that the topic refers to, unless it refers to text that spans multiple pages. Much of Heptner refers to text that spans multiple pages. I could have used here the one reference and covered pages 138-165 but that may have made finding one passage difficult for a reader.

• You don't generally give publisher locations for book sources, but in ref 23 you do.

Many thanks: (1) I try not to give locations as it is not worth the effort in a world of global publishers, plus (2) I noticed that the link to the page is now broken, so I have removed that link, thanks.

• Ref 48 has an open page range. Since the book has nearly 400 pages, is it possible to close it?

Ooops! Amended.

Subject to the above, sources are in good order, of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks; I wondered who was going to wade through all of that. I use inline citations and place all of the references neatly under the Reference section to help someone like you conduct an inspection. William Harris • (talk) • 08:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne

William Harris While I am flattered you would reinstate my earlier wording with this edit, I have to say that I think Cas Liber's wording was better. It is too early in the article for a somewhat convoluted construction such as "compared with which...". The simple, direct wording of Cas Liber is better. If it is just the inclusion of Eastern Europe as one of the places in which the golden jackal is native, that detail can be fixed. Is there anything besides that you didn't like in Cas Liber's wording?  – Corinne (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I will ping some people for further input as it is an interesting conundrum...@John:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to be very precise with this one because once it gains FA this will then form the "template" by which other wild Canis submissions will follow in the future. If you were a primary school teacher and were to ask your students the question "What is a golden jackal", how might you award marks to the following answers: (a) it is a small wolf (b) it lives in Southwest Europe........

I am inclined to refine the first sentence further to simply "The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small, wolf-like canine". Or even canid. Then we might explore where it lives. Further debate is warranted. William Harris • (talk) • 03:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I much prefer "small wolf-like canine" to "looks like a small wolf" Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

I have provided a new version of the first paragraph, which attempts to capture our viewpoints. "Wolf-like canine" also sets the scene for its cousins to join it on these pages at some time in the future. From here on, I will be guided by the decision of the majority of editors here - over to you folks. William Harris • (talk) • 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

William Harris I know a lot of thought has already been given to the lead, but I'd like to make a few suggestions:

1) I would remove "wolf-like" in the first sentence. Two sentences later you have "It resembles a small gray wolf".

2) Upon looking at the first few sentences, I think the sentence beginning "In Europe, it is expanding beyond its current presence" interrupts material that is describing the species. I also think it is a detail that does not need to be so early in the lead.

3) I found a place where that sentence about Europe would fit. It is just before the last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead, which is:

• In Europe, jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves, with the jackal's expansion being attributed to their occupying those areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

Both sentences are about expansion of range, so belong together. You could add the information as follows:

(a) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe. Since jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves, this expansion is attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

If you wouldn't mind leaving the fact that jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves to later in the article, you could make this sentence more concise by leaving it out:

(b) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, with the expansion attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

or

(c) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, the expansion being attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

Then, without the sentence about expansion, the first two sentences of the lead are more cohesive:

• The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small canine that is native to Southeast Europe, Southwestern Asia, South Asia, and regions of Southeast Asia. It resembles a small gray wolf, but with shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.

 – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a good proposal, Corinne, and I can see that you have given it much thought. It would be wise to wait a day or so and see if other editors have any comments on it. William Harris • (talk) • 03:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Cas, FunkMonk: because this article may form a "template" by which other wild Canis submissions will follow in the future, do you have any comments on Corinne's proposal for the lead above, please? I believe that we need to keep "is a small, wolf-like canid" in the first sentence, using the word canid and not canine (I have changed my position across all of the wolf-related articles now on the use of canid). This is because it is an evolutionary biology term - the group that you see in the cladogram in the article are the "wolf-like canids" as defined by Wayne 1993, refer Canidae#Phylogenetic relationships point one. These have been widely referred to in the literature by this term since then. How the rest of the lead paragraphs should pan out I am not concerned.

William Harris • (talk) • 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If "wolf-like canid" is a specific term/concept, then I agree that it isn't necessarily redundant when you say it is similar to a grey wolf later on. Other "wolf-like canids" may not be as physically similar to grey wolves as this jackal, the African hunting dog certainly isn't, for example. But perhaps "wolf-like canids" could be in quotation marks or something, to show it isn't just a descriptive term. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I would hyperlink it similar to what I have done with the Dog:

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is a member of genus Canis (canines) that forms part of the wolf-like canids.

or words to that effect. We could then begin to link all of the cousins up with this statement and adjust for relative size....

The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small, wolf-like canid that is.....

William Harris • (talk) • 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me. Is it a widely accepted term? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on Google Scholar and Google book it is. I know that Wayne used it in a secondary source which I will track that down later tonight. It is now time for me to further develop that section in the Evolution of the wolf with a ton of secondary sourcing. William Harris • (talk) • 00:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have included what we have to date in the lead, which includes Corinne's second point. I am still not sure about her first point: "It resembles a small gray wolf..." William Harris • (talk) • 08:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Corinne, I think I have cracked the puzzle. Please review the first paragraph as it reads now and let me know what you think. I am not sure about using "...the jackal is smaller and possesses...", the word "still" might fit in there either before or after the word "smaller". Else, you may be something else in mind! William Harris • (talk) • 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

William Harris The beginning of the lead sounds much better, and I'm glad you moved the expansion-into-Europe sentence to the end of the lead. Two concerns:

1) About the first paragraph of the lead: the first part sounds fine now. I have a concern about this sentence:

• The heavier male weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf that weighs 20 kg (44 lb).

I believe, by "the heavier male", you mean relative to the female golden jackal, but to the average Wikipedia reader, this may not be clear. This sentence follows a sentence in which you mention three species and do a lot of comparing. Some readers may wonder if this is more of that comparing, and refers to a male of one species being heavier than one of the others and, since three species were mentioned, ends up being confusing. I'm not sure you need at this point to mention that the male golden jackal is heavier than the female. I recommend being very clear and avoiding any possible confusion. Instead of "the heavier male", I would write: "the male golden jackal", or, if you think it is clear enough, "the male jackal".

The other concern is in the last sentence of the lead, which presently reads:

• In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, the expansion being attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

I know you used one of the two versions I suggested, but now, upon re-reading it, I think it would be better to make this sentence more concise:

• In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

You can explain more later.  – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Fixed ping.  – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Amended as suggested, thanks Corinne. If you are happy with it, then I am happy with it. I look forward to bringing articles for FAC review as it attracts some very talented editors that see things from different aspects and they add value to the article. It is similar to developing a work of art - it is a work in progress. William Harris • (talk) • 00:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence in the lead:

• The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf that weighs 20 kg (44 lb).

I don't know why I didn't see this before, but unless "that weighs 20 kg (44 lb)" is being used to restrict "Arabian wolf" to one type of Arabian wolf, the weight information is non-restrictive (non-limiting, non-identifying, non-essential information), so the clause should begin with "which" and be set off by a comma:

• The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf, which weighs 20 kg (44 lb).

Another possibility is to change "which weighs..." to a prepositional phrase:

• The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb).

It's a bit odd to compare the "male jackal" to the "Arabian wolf". Shouldn't it be the "male Arabian wolf"?

• The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the male Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb). or

• The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the male wolf, which weighs 20 kg (44 lb).  – Corinne (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

William Harris I'm still not happy with the wording of the first paragraph in the lead. I'm going to copy the second and third sentences here:

• Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest gray wolf (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle. In contrast to the Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb), the male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb).

The first sentence begins, "Compared with the Arabian wolf". The second sentence begins, "In contrast to the Arabian wolf". Those phrases are too much alike to have both of them in such close proximity. I actually think the second sentence, with the weights, is not necessary in the lead. You've already said the jackal is smaller than the Arabian wolf. You can leave the weight details to later in the article. Also, between the two sentences, you have the word "wolf" three times. If you remove the second sentence, that goes down to two. You might consider changing "which is the smallest gray wolf" to "which is the smallest of the gray wolf species", or "which is the smallest of the gray wolves":

• Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolf species, (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.

• Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolves, (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.

 – Corinne (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Corinne, I concur fully. Although when looking at specimens "compare" usually means "where are these the same?" and "contrast" usually means "where are these different?", your suggestion produces a superior product. Many thanks. William Harris • (talk) • 20:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

William Harris I hope you don't mind that I've continued to make a few small edits. I wanted to ask you about something in the big table in the middle of the article. In the far right column, you have a list of about ten things in small print (a small font). I was wondering why there was a space between the first item, balcanicus, and the second item, caucasica.  – Corinne (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I am always thankful for your edits, Corinne. If you find a way to remove that weird space, then please do so. William Harris • (talk) • 05:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

William Harris Regarding this sentence:

• The taxonomic integrity of the colloquial name "jackal" is therefore questionable.

I think this sentence would be beyond the comprehension of the average WP reader. I wonder if you would consider either explaining the phrase "taxonomic integrity" or changing the sentence to something like:

• The usefulness of the colloquial name "jackal" is therefore questionable.

• The accuracy of the colloquial name "jackal" to describe all jackals is therefore questionable.  – Corinne (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne; second sentence implemented. (I am beginning to feel as if I am running a marathon, the finish line approaches, and I am exhausted. William Harris • (talk) • 20:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, again, William Harris. I read the comments of Edwininlondon with interest. I think most are spot-on, and good catches. Regarding the last sentence of the lead, while I prefer "where wolves are few or non-existent", I can go along with the "where there are few or no wolves" wording (I changed "no or few wolves" to "few or no wolves" – I think it reads better). However, I'm even wondering whether we need "few or no". I would guess that there is no way to determine for certain whether an area contains no wolves at all. I'm wondering if we could avoid using "few or no wolves" and merely say "where wolves are scarce", or "where there are no wolves". If not, then O.K., leave it as it is.

Leaving it as is would be best because it captures what the researchers were saying. Areas of few wolves is good for jackals, areas of no wolves at all are even better.

On another issue, in that sentence, "The jackal is expanding beyond its native grounds in southeast Europe into Central Europe, occupying areas where there are few or no wolves", you have "southeast" in lower-case whereas in the first sentence of the lead you have it capitalized: "Southeast Europe". Shouldn't capitalization be consistent? Also, in the first sentence of the lead, why do you have "Southeast Europe" and "Southeast Asia" but "Southwestern Asia". Why is it "Southwestern" for one but "Southeast" for two? Finally, I forget – is this article using American English or British English? If the latter, "Southeast" might be written "South-East" or "South East". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Compass points and MOS:COMPASS.  – Corinne (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We have gone for American English, and the inconsistencies above have been amended. Thanks! William Harris • (talk) • 10:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

John

Is the article intended to be in British or American English? It currently uses both which isn't allowed. --John (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello John, the article was developed by two editors that write in British English but we are aware that we write largely for a North American audience on Wikipedia, even though there are no jackals in NA. Please feel free to make edits where you find it necessary. William Harris • (talk) • 09:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That isn't a good answer. Due diligence would have been to take care of this prior to the nom. It appears (tentatively) to have been written in American English per this old revision. Therefore per MOS:RETAIN it should still be. --John (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure you can make that assumption based on a 300 word article. To the best of my ability, this is American English. On what basis do you believe that it is not? William Harris • (talk) • 12:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote above. It cannot have both as it has now, and it certainly can't pass FAC with mixed spelling. --John (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an example? That would be a basis. William Harris • (talk) • 12:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Right there in the lead. "Gray" is American, "colour" is British. --John (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(butting in) given it's an Old World species...my preference would be British...but not strongly fussed. William Harris, it's a Thing that we just choose one regional spelling and go with it. If US is easier go with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) easiest is to make it US, have changed the "colour"s and "odour"s...no "-ise" words...so I think we're US-ified now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou both for your edits that have improved the article. I was initially considering which flag to put this article under and was not aware of MOS:RETAIN. Given that if it were to be placed under British English then there would later follow a battery of unknowing changes from mobile phones across North America and endless reverts, which gets us all nowhere, I went for US spelling as best I could. (Note to self: when creating a new article, badge it under Australian English to begin with, unless similar to my Dire wolf and Beringian wolf FAs they have a North American association.) William Harris • (talk) • 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Strewth cobber! We better do dingo in strine when we make it bonzer! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have slowly been redeveloping dingo over the last year, a bit at a time, as there are a number of competing "interests" at play in that article. One day she may make it to these pages and she is clearly badged under the Southern Cross. But Crikey!, that does not stop some of our western hemisphere cousins from trying to place a "z" where an "s" should be.  :-) William Harris • (talk) • 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon, some preliminary comments here. I ran the citation bot on the article some days ago[31], and it highlighted some issues. Maybe they have been fixed since. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• "|journal=Boll. Mus. Civ. St. Nat. Venezia" Better to spell out journal name.

I missed that one; amended.

• "Mammals of the Holy Land" has an incomplete pages field: "pages=142–". It actually has two page fields, also "|page=142".

The dash is completed. There are two page 142s because 142-145 is the reference, and the other 142 is the page delivered when clicking on the google books link.

• it is probably best to merge the etymology section nto the taxonomy section. The MOS discourages single-sentence (or single-paragraph) sections.[32] They disrupt the flow and simply look bad...

Agreed, amended.

• The last paragraph under "In folklore, mythology and literature" needs a citation.

Reference cited. The 1920 US publication was the earliest available in Google Books that offered clear page numbers; a 2016 version by Macmillan - the publisher of the original 1894 version - did not. William Harris • (talk) • 03:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• "(Canis aureus, "golden dog") I don't think this should be hidden away in a parenthesis, and we could know what language it is in.

Amended.

• "Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) passes along the maternal line and can date back thousands of years.[8] Therefore, phylogenetic analysis of mDNA sequences within a species provides a history of maternal lineages that can be represented as a phylogenetic tree" This seems a bit much for an article that is not about DNA analysis, I think it could be made much shorter, if it's even needed.

Disagree. Have a quick look at the latest at Talk:Coyote regarding the simple term "basal" - please don't underestimate what "basics" some editors might challenge in the future. I do not want to have to be drawn back to this article in the future and have to search for citations and explain basic concepts to a disagreeing editor. We have it both explained and well-cited; if people find it a bit much then they can press on and ignore it.

• You don't link various species when they are first mentioned in the article, such as coyote, wolf, black-backed jackal, and African golden wolf. Check throughout.

Amended.

• You could also give their scientific names in parenthesis, but that is of course optional (though I think it helps), and I see you do it in some cases, so it should be consistent.

Please refer to my reply to Cas Liber commencing: "Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials..."

• I'm not very impressed by the photo selection, we have no close up of the head (could be nice in the description section), and no good photo of the entire animal. I think even the taxobox image is dull, since most of the legs are obscured, and there is out of focus grass in the foreground (even the animal itself is unsharp). Surely there must be something better on Commons or Flickr, where dozens of photos can be found.

Hello Mario, I understand that you have artistic interests and can differentiate a picture of a jackal from a wolf, would you like to select from Flickr] and Commons where appropriate, please?

Flickr has too many copyrighted pix or those not meeting Commons requirements. Commons has provided some pix now added to the article. The taxobox image has been replaced by one showing the complete animal.

• "Results from two recent studies of mDNA from golden jackals indicate that those specimens from Africa are genetically closer to the gray wolf than are the specimens from Eurasia." But are the African jackals more closely related to the wolves than to the Eurasian jackals?

Expanded on.

• "The word "jackal" appeared in the English language around 1600. It derives from the Turkish word çakal, which originates from the Persian word šagāl." What does this have to do with evolution? looks like it belongs in the former section.

Ooops, amended.

• I think you could define what a jackal even is, and state if they are not a "natural" taxonomic group.

Addressed after much searching, a major improvement to this article and will be to other related articles.

• "An unusual fossil found in Azokh Cave" Why unusual?

Clarified.

• Looks like the range map could need a source for the information shown in it on Commons. And on this note, you have a better map fully sourced under distribution that could take its place, I don't see why we need both images, the one with the subspecies makes the one without redundant. Also frees up space for better photos in the distribution section.

Replaced.

• "A haplotype is a group of genes found in an organism that is inherited from one of its parents.[23][24] A haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a single mutation inherited from their common ancestor." Also seems a bit too detailed.

Similar for mitochondrial DNA above.

• "Three golden jackal–dog hybrids from Croatia" I don't think that vertically long image looks very good here. There is already clutter in that area between the cladoigrram and other images, and it doesn't really tell of much of this animal as a species. If any photo of a hybid should be used, it would be better of a live animal.

Such a photo does not exist. Galov 2015 is the only record where we have specimens, photos, and a DNA analysis confirming that these are hybrids. The only option now would be to remove the pix, and given that it already exists following the link to Jackal–dog hybrid then I shall do that. Relocated phylotree to section "Evolution" - clutter removed.

• "Outside of India, golden jackals in the Caucasus and Turkey indicate the next highest genetic diversity,[25] while those in Europe indicate low genetic diversity,[27][28] which confirms their more recent expansion into Europe" Doesn't this contradict what you said about the lack of fossils in the Caucasus earlier?

No contradiction - the fossil record for every ancient lineage is sparse. We do not know when they first took up residence in the Caucasus, but based on DNA it was after they expanded out of India and well before they arrived in Europe.

• "may represent two ancient populations that have survived into modern times" What does "ancient" mean here?

We did mention 6,000 year-old fossils from Greece 2 paragraphs above, however this new amendment spells it out.

• "It is regarded by some authors as not a separate subspecies but is C. a. moreoticus" As?

Reworded sentence.

• "All species within the wolf-like canids" Among? Also, the term could maybe be defined.

I have added some further detail.

• "One of the largest in the world" Largest what? Jackals? Golden jackals?

Amended.

• Just a thought, but many of the subspecies articles are very short and have redundant info, I'd personally just merge them here.

The consolidation of some of those articles into here is a good one, however given that their creator was also the editor that brought this article up to GA standard and we do not know what his future plans for these articles are, plus it is outside of my scope here, I believe that it is best left for now.

I think that covers it and the article has greatly benefited from it, thanks. William Harris • (talk) • 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Changes look good, I'll review the rest of the article soon. You could perhaps experiment with image alignment, staggered placement, so they don't all form a wall on the right side. And as a general "rule", the subject of an image should face the text, not away from it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I did some further layout edits. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Adults may howl to accompany the ringing of church bells, with their young responding to sirens or the whistles of steam engines and boats." If they react to such, what about howls by other canids?

I could find a study within species but not exposure to the howls of different canids.

• I still see various species mentioned throughout which are not followed by their scientific names, also, all species linked in the intro should be linked at their first occurrence in the article body.

Regarding links, refer to MOS:DUPLINK - what is your assessment of its application to the article?

It says "a link may be repeated in ... and at the first occurrence after the lead." FunkMonk (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It says Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. My request for your assessment was regarding: "Do you believe that would be helpful to the reader?

I would personally find it helpful, so I assume other readers would too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, and now have a reference point (FA Review) should I come across this matter in other articles the future. Will implement.

As mentioned to Cas Liber above: Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials to clearly distinguish who these are and avoid confusion, especially the aureus subspecies. The trees and shrubs have binomials because those were given in the original references but I am not sure that Wikipedia's attempts at matching these to article names has been entirely successful - there is some confusion. The diseases and parasites have binomials because these were given in references and I have absolutely no idea on this topic and will leave following what these are to the parasite purists. In summary, I have tried to minimize the use of binomials unless it helps to avoid confusion. There is some inconsistency, however it is also reasonably accurate.

It would be best if there was some kind of consistency, but seems arbitrary now. There are also some plants mentioned that don't have binomials, though you list them for others. I'd just add binomials from the linked articles if the sources don't mention them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Too much work for no value-add; I have removed the binomials. If people want further information on the plant then they can follow the provided hyper-link to the article.

• "3–8 pups, Tajikistan 3–7 pups, Uzbekistan 2–8 pups, and Bulgaria 4–7 pups; in India the average is four pups" Why do you only spell out a number at the end?

In accord with MOS:NUMERAL, "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Ranges are currently a subject of discussion here. My preference is to always use numbers - that is why we invented them. However, that is not the MOS approach.

• it seems that there is quite some overlap in scope between the foraging and diet sections to the point where they might be better off merged into a "foraging and diet" section. What is the rationale behind separating the two? Messes a bit with the flow when related info is divided by several sections.

A good point looking at the text, now restructured. Foraging describes a behaviour, diet describes items that are eaten. There is also an overlap between "diet" and "livestock, game, and crop predation", however I regard these as "stand-alone" summaries.

Hello FunkMonk, after discussion with Mario concerning the rationalisation of the subspecies, the following is decided:

• Mario believes that the Sri Lankan jackal article should be maintained because it is an island subspecies, and may in future turn out to have interesting genetics
• I believe that the European jackal article should be maintained because it is class=B, size=26kb, 27 visitors per day, and I can envisage further interest being shown by European readers and editors in the future as this jackal expands further north and west
• The other subspecies are now consolidated into the golden jackal article and they now act as redirects.

William Harris • (talk) • 00:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Will return with more. FunkMonk (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Like the diet/foraging issue, it is also a bit puzzling that the "cooperation" section is 50% about interaction with other predator species, so it would seem to fit under ecology as well. Personally, I would just have a unified "behaviour and ecology" section, like you see in for example bird articles, so that the separation and placement of the various subsections doesn't seem so arbitrary.

You have opened up a major cross-road here. Currently, the golden jackal structure is similar to Gray wolf (class=GA) and a number of other Canis related articles. However, it could be restructured similar to Dire wolf (FA) and Beringian wolf (FA), which both includes the major topic of "Adaptation" with a number of sub-headings covering these topics. My preference would be to follow the two FA-level Canis articles. Your view on this approach, please?

Yeah, I think it's more sensible to follow current, recently featured articles, than one that was featured long ago and now demoted... But then again, the GA Coyote, which I reviewed, incidentally, seems to have a structure similar to this article... FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I will assume that the same person in the past has had influence on both topics - the Eurasian golden jackal and the North American coyote are comparable. Either structures look fine. Given that environment gives rise to prey species (and other food sources), and prey species gives rise to predator species, I will pursue a structure in line with the 2 FA articles.

• ^Why do you have two quotes by the same writer in the same section, but in different quote box styles? I'd just cut the short one. Furthermore, how do we know those quotes refer to the golden jackal specifically?

The technique allows part of quoted text to be extracted to give more emphasis, however in such a small section of the article it can be removed. The cited reference chapter is titled "Golden Jackall", but I see your point and have put a short sentence leading to it.

• I'd give author and date for all the artworks.

Amended.

• I'd list current competitors first and past competitors last.

Amended.

• Text on habitat would usually be grouped with text on distribution, and legal status would be on its own.

Split as part of the recent restructure.

• It seems very unnecessary to write "hunted or "unprotected" after every single country listed. Rather say, something like "hunted in the following countries:" and then list them there.

Amended - looks much better.

• "Taenia hydatigena, T. pisiformis, Taenia ovis" Why is the last name not abbreviated?

Ooops! Amended.

• "that can be caught from ingesting infected raw fish, which can lead to metagonimiasis." What does this have to do with the jackal?

Amended.

• "forests and crop fields. Jackals den in the bouldery hillocks that surround flat areas" Something seems to be wrong here. Dens?

The noun "den" can be used as a verb in the English language, meaning to build a den. However, for clarity I have now spelt that out for our wider readers.

• This frame[33] is from a supposedly freely licensed Youtube video. If we want, we can simply upload the full video and ad it to the article.

Excellent idea! WP:COPYVIOCITE warns to be careful with Youtube regarding the copyright status of works on it. The video was reviewed on 15 May 2016 by an Admin, who was happy with its legal status. I will place it under External links unless you advise otherwise.

The video could even be displayed directly in the article instead of the image (like the videos[34] I once added to the thylacine article), but that is of course outside the scope of this review. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the footage comes with a Beyond Russia logo displayed and a piano soundtrack, else this would have been a good addition.

• "born on the Golan Heights" In?

Amended.

• "There are no known attacks on humans in Europe." Why is this in the livestock section?

Amended. It was located there before we had an "Attack" section.

• "Its winter fur also differs from a wolf's by its more fulvous-reddish color." Only stated in intro.

Amended to something more descriptive. I question the original reference - Heptner - over the tawny colour as there exists the Red wolf, but of course he was referring to wolves just within Eurasia. Let us take a global perspective.

• "It is listed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List due to its widespread range in areas with optimum food and shelter." Only stated in intro.

Amended.

• It seems habitat and distribution should perhaps be grouped together? That is at least how it's done in many other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Beringian wolf, Dire wolf, Coyote, and Gray wolf as examples do not do this. However, I had already been giving this some thought and it seems a logical step under Adaptation. I am not clear on which of these two would come first - could you provide me with a couple of examples to look at, please?
• Structure: your view on "Livestock, game, and crop predation" and whether it should be moved out from under "Relationships with humans" and placed under "Diet"?
• Structure: your view on "Attacks on humans" and whether it should be moved out from under "Relationships with humans" and placed under "Behavior"?
• Else, leave the above two of these where they sit now because it appears that humans are largely responsible for driving jackals to this attack behavior and the jackal's predation on cattle, crops etc.

The project with most FAs that uses a similar structure is the bird project, here is a list of their articles:[35] Most have a separate section called "Distribution and habitat", and the info seems to be covered in that order within the section. I think the order doesn't matter, but the info at least seems it belongs grouped together... As for livestock predation/attack sections, I think it belongs in the human relations section, since, well, that's what it is. Jackals wouldn't be able to attack livestock if humans hadn't made it readily available... FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I like their approach and have now implemented - Genus Canis just joined the birds! William Harris • (talk) • 05:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If it works, it works! FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• One last thing before I support, I think it could be stated more explicitly that jackals are not a natural group, but simply a name given to similar looking/living canids? FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

We are stepping onto thin ice with this statement. They are "not a natural group" in what way? They are morphologically almost indistinguishable in size, dental, and skeletal measures, and identified apart by coat colour (Wayne 1989) e.g. "golden", "black-backed", and "side-striped". Therefore, the original namers called them all "jackal". Before the identification of the golden wolf in Africa, they were regarded as sympatric in East Africa and have been noted sharing a kill together (Wayne 1989). On the phylogenetic tree, the next step in "Canis" out from the golden jackal (i.e. discounting "Cuon" and "Lycaon") are the two African jackals. They can potentially hybrize as they have the same chromosome number. To the best of my knowledge, no researcher has stated explicitly that these are not a natural group. The best that we might do is to highlight that these are 3 separate species that happen to share a common name of "jackal" as they look very similar in size and morphology, that they do not have a "single exclusive common ancestor" (Vila 1999), and perhaps that the African jackals diverged from the lineage that led to the wolf/dog one million years before the golden jackal did. William Harris • (talk) • 21:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, a "natural group" would be a group wherein the members are more closely related to each other than to anything else. Jackals, on the other hand, do not seem to form such a group, and the term does therefore not refer to a monophyletic group. So if any source states they are polyphyletic, don't form a clade, or something like that, it could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Done!

• Support - there ya go! Everything addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your attention to detail and the inordinate amount of your personal time that you have put into it. The standard of this article is now beyond my expectations. William Harris • (talk) • 11:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Table

The table in this article doesn't appear to comply with MOS:DTT. (Please {{ping}} me if you have any questions; I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing, I did not know that MOS:DTT even existed. How does it look to you now? William Harris • (talk) • 06:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but that looks correct to me. Thank you. (I think that a lot of people don't know about MOS:DTT.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A few points

• 1. Redundancy. The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a wolf-like canid that is native to -> The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a wolf-like canid native to
• 2. Redundancy. Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolves -> Compared with the Arabian wolf, the smallest of the gray wolves
• 3. Redundancy. It is described as being a small, jackal-like canine -> It is described as a small, jackal-like canine
• 4. Redundancy. The oldest golden jackal fossil is 20,000 years old and was found at the Ksar Akil rock shelter near Beirut, Lebanon -> The oldest golden jackal fossil is 20,000 years old, found at the Ksar Akil rock shelter near Beirut, Lebanon
• 5. Poor structuring
  • 5.1 You have: "There are seven subspecies of the golden jackal. The golden jackal is not closely related to the African black-backed or side-striped jackals, being instead more closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf, and Ethiopian wolf."
  • 5.2 Try: "There are seven subspecies of the golden jackal, all closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf and Ethiopian wolf, but only distantly related to African black-backed or side-striped jackals"
• 6. Possible improvement. Golden jackals are abundant in valleys and beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, and seashores. They are rare in foothills and low mountains, and they avoid waterless deserts and snow areas -> Golden jackals are abundant beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, seashores, and in valleys. They are rare in foothills and low mountains, and avoid waterless deserts and snow areas
• 7. Redundancy. a breeding pair and any young offspring -> a breeding pair and (young) offspring
• 8. Style. with the ability to exploit food -> and able to exploit food
• 9. Redundancy. and the raccoon in the Caucasus -> the raccoon in the Caucasus
• 10. Style. RE: "In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast". This doesn't work. If the jackal's presence has expanded to beyond the southeast, then the southeast is obviously no longer its "current presence". Re-write along the lines of:
  • 10.1. In recent times the jackal's habitat has expanded to include areas / territories in .....
  • 10.2. Evidence obtained since [enter date] indicates that the jackal now exists (thrives?) not only in southeastern Europe but also ...
  • 10.3. While the jackal was traditionally found only in the southeast of Europe, it has in more recent times adapted to environments in ...

The above points cover your lead paragraphs. Bangkok / Nov 19. 49.49.233.169 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Really good catches of less-than-optimal wording. In item 1 and item 2, I prefer leaving in the relative pronouns "that" and "which". I think it makes the sentences clearer. Leaving them out is, of course, more concise, but slightly more journalistic and may make the material slightly less clear for the non-expert reader. In item 3, I changed the verb form from "as being" to "as having been". I think it makes it clearer that the sentence is referring to the extinct species, not the modern golden jackal. In item 4, I reversed the order of the phrases, putting the participial phrase, "found..." first. In item 5, I also reversed the order and put "not closely related to..." first. This wording keeps the word "instead". Regarding item 6, before deciding upon a possible change in wording, I need to ask William Harris something about this sentence:

• They are rare in foothills and low mountains, and avoid waterless deserts and snow areas.

Is there an important distinction between being rare in a habitat and avoiding a habitat? If there isn't an important distinction, we can use only "are rare in". If the distinction is important to make (and are less rare in waterless deserts and snow areas), perhaps we could add "generally" before "avoid": "...and generally avoid waterless deserts and snow areas") (in an attempt to indicate that they are less rare there).

Thanks both for your suggestions and edits. This is the sentence from the lead. The distinction is important because they can be found in foothills and low mountains, but rarely so. They avoid deserts, but snow when they can. However, I have just done further research and found that although they avoid the deserts of Central Asia, they can live in the Sind desert of India and are thought to be dry-habitat tolerance. I have made the changes.

In item 7, I'm not sure. If the "basic social unit" could be just a breeding pair, then the word "any" suggests that the basic social unit could be either a breeding pair and young offspring or just a breeding pair. But that might be splitting hairs, since most breeding pairs would have young offspring, so I guess the IP is right to remove "any". Regarding whether to remove or retain "young", William Harris would have to say whether the basic social unit could include older offspring.

It can be a pair (intending to breed), or a pair with its young offspring. We could simplify it to "a bonded pair and any young offspring"?

I'm sorry, William Harris, I didn't see this until today. I prefer "breeding pair", as you had it. I think "bonded pair" is less comprehensible for the average reader. Also, I would leave in the word "any".  – Corinne (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

In item 8, I prefer to leave it as it is. I think "with the ability to" suggests and points to a somewhat unusual ability, while "able to" is blander. Also, with the "able to" wording, you have the suffix "-able" (in "adaptable") followed closely by the word "able". In item 9, I have to ask William Harris whether all the animals before "and the raccoon in the Caucasus" are competitors only in the Caucasus or are competitors in diverse places around the world. If the former, then I think "the" should be removed. If the latter, then the word "the", after "and", suggests that the the raccoon only in the Caucasus is a competitor. It seems that the steppe wildcat is a competitor only in Central Asia. To make it clearer that the raccoon is a competitor only in the Caucasus, and the other animals listed before it are competitors around the world, we could re-word the sentence: "and, in the Caucasus, the raccoon, and, in Central Asia, the steppe wildcat".

Your final sentence above is the correct one, Corinne.

Regarding item 10, I suppose the IP is right about the phrase "current presence". Of the three suggested alternatives, I prefer 10.1 because it is the most concise of the three. The only problem might be the vagueness of "in recent times". Of course, this will probably be explained later in the article, but if you wanted to be more precise here, you could be a little more specific: "In the last fifty years...", "In the last two centuries...", etc. (whatever it is). Well, that's all.  – Corinne (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Our contributor has found a logic error in the lead. Perhaps a more accurate revision: "The jackal is expanding beyond its native southeast Europe into the Baltic states and Central Europe, occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent." Readers can then go to the text for further information on this expansion.

William Harris • (talk) • 01:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

As discussed above, the amendments have been made. William Harris • (talk) • 10:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A few more comments

I've read through the whole article again and would like to say I like it. However, I do think it's a FAIL. I say this after reflecting on how end users such as my son (English-Thai; Bangkok; aged 13) and mother (English; in her seventies) would view it. You have, for example:

• Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) passes along the maternal line and can date back thousands of years. Thus, phylogenetic analysis of mDNA sequences within a species provides a history of maternal lineages that can be represented as a phylogenetic tree. Like it or not, this means zilch to the average reader, and is a huge turn off.

• Jackals in southwestern Tajikistan can carry up to 16 species of parasitic cestodes (flatworm), roundworms, and acanthocephalans (thorny-headed worms), these being: Sparganum mansoni, Diphyllobothrium mansonoides, Taenia hydatigena, T. pisiformis, Taenia ovis, Hydatigera taeniaeformis, Dipylidium caninum, Mesocestoides lineatus, Ancylostoma caninum, Uncinaria stenocephala, Dioctophyma renale, Toxocara canis, Toxascaris leonina, Dracunculus medinensis, Filariata and Macracanthorhynchus catulinum. Oh, please. Whatever happened to footnotes.

The content is good, but the presentation is sub-par. Learn how to use footnotes. Focus on presenting engaging, well-written content for your target audience (my son and mother, for example) and put the boring, academic stuff in footnotes.

Finally, don't use the word "thus." Trust me on this. Bangkok / Nov 21. 49.49.233.169 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Contributors do not get to decide on an article's Fail or a Pass, they get to decide on Support or Oppose; refer WP:FAC "Supporting and Opposing". As interesting as your personal musings might be, if you oppose then please provide your reasons in terms the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Else, these comments might be moved to the Talk page. William Harris • (talk) • 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

To the Bangkok IP: your suggestions and criticisms are welcome here as long as they are constructive. Several editors are working hard here to get the article into shape. Your attitude, reflected in such comments as "Like it or not, this means zilch", "Oh, please", "The presentation is sub-par", and "Trust me on this", is not constructive. We are at the end stage of weeks of work, and close to approving an article that reflects the best of Wikipedia. The editors on this page are experienced reviewers of Featured Article candidates, so, in addition to reading the Featured article criteria, you might learn something by studying their comments and the resulting changes. You could also look at some other featured articles in zoology and compare them to Golden jackal.  – Corinne (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC) To see a list of featured articles, go to Wikipedia:Featured article.  – Corinne (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Corinne, it is the sock of an indef-blocked editor. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon

I don't know much 'bout biology .. but I can give a few comments on prose:

And fine points these are, thanks.

• 2 sentences in a row starting with "The oldest golden jackal fossil"

I am not concerned regarding these; they were designed to be in this form to keep the message comparable, simple and clear.

• Not closely related to .. -> stylistically I would favour starting saying what it is related to. Or maybe make more of a point that sharing the common name doesn't make it the closest.

Amended.

• the Aeroflot hybrids, are these (mostly) golden jackal hybrids? If not then I'm not convinced this sentence should be in the lead

These are all golden jackal hybrids.

• ungulates in lead should be linked

Amended.

• where wolves are few or non-existent -> feel free to ignore me but I'd favour "where there are no or few wolves."

Much better; amended.

• The golden jackal, Canis aureus – "golden dog" in Latin – also known as the common jackal, Asiatic jackal,[1][4] and Eurasian golden jackal, -> you've lost me here with the commas and – ... Would it not be better to deal with the alternative names in a separate sentence? And should these alternative names not be mentioned in the lead? That seems common in FA species articles.

I am not concerned about the use of commas and a dash; these are all elements of English grammar. The WP:COMMONAME is golden jackal. The MOS:ALTNAMEs are, in my opinion, not significantly used widely enough to warrant appearing in the lead nor in their own sentences.

Sorry, let me rephrase this: I think the alternative names should live in a sentence on their own. Now it is unclear if Linneaus made these alternative names in 1758.

Now I understand and you are correct. Amended.

• originated from a larger common ancestor -> if this has a name, mention it

The researchers did not propose a name for this ancient jackal ancestor. (Hopefully, one day we may have the DNA technology to get a sequence from the Arno River dog to compare with all three jackals, to then ascertain if it was the ancestor.)

• years before present (or YBP)-> do we need this or can we just say years ago, like we have in the next paragraph "in India 37,000 years ago"?

Yes, we use YBP only twice in this article so we can dispense with them. Amended.

• During the Last Glacial Maximum, 25,000 to 18,000 years ago --> now I get confused when this period was. Previous paragraph said the end of the period is 20,000K YPB, but here "during" stretches to 18,000 YBP, which isn't necessarily even the end

Amended.

• represent two ancient populations from 6,000 years ago -> why ancient here? aren't the Indian ones much older?

The paragraph did commence with "Outside of India", however I have clarified with "ancient European populations from 6,000 years ago."

Just so I understand: any population you say ancient because there has been no interbreeding and this population has been in the same place. These criteria don't apply to other populations, which is why you don't use the word ancient for them?

That is correct; these appear to be the oldest lineage in Europe, undisturbed for 6,000 years. I have just added a bit more detail to that section. It would be nice to simply state that the population in SE Europe emanated from Greece and Dalmatia, but some further work is required before we are able to say that. (Else, I would have had it in there! The direction of a proposed future study appears to be focused on what DNA can be extracted from the fossil samples). William Harris • (talk) • 09:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Balkans originated from those expanding from Southeast Europe -> this made me stop, since Balkans are part of Southeast Europe.

It should have read "Baltic" - a splendid pickup of my error. Amended.

• the Baltic states -> poor states. Everybody else is spelled out but they are lumped together

I have now spelled these out under Distribution.

• if this jackal -> this suggests that it is one and the same animal. Is that the intention?

I have divided this into two sentences to help make it clearer.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to them. William Harris • (talk) • 11:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Continuing ..

• their current litter of pups and older siblings -> I didn't expect the siblings of the breeding pair to be part of the unit. Or do you mean their older children?

Given that it is rare for a litter to be had so late in the season that its members are still around in the next Spring, I think we can remove the siblings altogether.

• I don't think it is necessary to include the 1941 description of the sound it makes. I certainly don't like it.

I took a look online and there is footage available of golden jackals howling. It did not sound like the description, which may be subjective. I have removed it.

• Leopards once hunted jackals, but today the tiger is extinct -> this juxtaposition doesn't work for me

Amended.

• similar diets, with the jackal being three times bigger than the red fox -> not sure what the size comparison has to to do with what they eat. Am I missing something?

Amended.

• open to anyone that -> anyone who

Amended.

• In Europe, there are an estimated 70,000 golden jackals -> was already said 4 or 5 paragraphs earlier

Amended.

• In Tajikistan, jackals carry at least 12 tick species -> I read that as each and every jackal there has at least 12 ticks. But is that what you meant?

Overly generalised, now amended.

• In Israel, some jackals carry -> repetition of carry

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Amended, thanks. William Harris • (talk) • 11:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks; you have applied a fine-toothed comb to the article. William Harris • (talk) • 20:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comments

Whatever the merits of the IP comments above, I do not consider them actionable against the FA criteria. This has been worked on very hard by a lot of editors. I'm happy that everything has been very carefully looked at and will be promoting shortly, there are just a few minor housekeeping points that can be addressed after promotion. There is currently no alt text on this article. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice; however, that is a decision for the main editors. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your adjudication on the IP matter Sarastro1. Regarding alt text, most of the pix are well described through their captions, however descriptive alt text will shortly be applied to the range map in the taxobox. Regarding duplicate linking, I have installed the script - thanks - however I will copy-paste below here some text from an earlier conversation above, which lead to the duplicate linking, and seek your opinion as how to progress. William Harris • (talk) • 02:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding links, refer to MOS:DUPLINK - what is your assessment of its application to the article?

It says "a link may be repeated in ... and at the first occurrence after the lead." - User:FunkMonk 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It says Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. My request for your assessment was regarding: "Do you believe that would be helpful to the reader?

I would personally find it helpful, so I assume other readers would too. - User:FunkMonk 09:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems this new duplink script has the same problem that suddenly appeared in the old one; the first occurrence of a linked word is also marked as a duplicate for some reason, which makes it hard to figure out what links to remove. It wasn't always like this, it used to only highlight links on second occurrence. Maybe Evad37 has comments on this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My script (User:Evad37/duplinks-alt) seems to be working, as far as I can tell - the first occurrence of a repeated link is highlighted with a green border, and the repetitions are highlighted with a red border. E.g. in the latest revision [36] the second paragraph of "Evolution" has two links to Transcaucasia (there are also other close-by repeated links elsewhere in the article which should be fixed) - Evad37 [talk] 01:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there ya go. I'm red/green colourblind, so it's very hard for me to discern when the lines are that thin. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2017 [37].

---

Elcor, Minnesota

Nominator(s): DrGregMN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Elcor, Minnesota, one of many small mining communities that once existed on the Mesabi Iron Range of Northern Minnesota. Elcor was a mining location, built by the mining company to house the workers for its mines. Many of these communities quickly came and went; Elcor was one of the few communities which had some staying power, existing for 59 years before it was abandoned. Unlike many other mining locations, the residents of Elcor had something special and unique: amenities other locations lacked, which included their own post office, mercantile, churches, law enforcement, a primary school and a railroad station. Because Elcor was an unicorporated community, it was extremely difficult to research a ghost town like this, and a lot of time and resources went into amassing information about the veracity of the community. No resource was left untouched in the preparation of this article and it provides the most comprehensive information about the community in one source. The article is modeled loosely on the FA Pithole, Pennsylvania and comments from both Peer Review and the GA Review procees seem to indicate it meets FAC criteria. The article both reads and flows well thanks to multiple revisions by the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. DrGregMN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Don_H._Bacon.jpg: don't agree that a non-free image is justified here

I have removed the File:Don_H._Bacon (at least for now) per the recommendation of Brianboulton below.

• File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Elcor,_MN.jpg, File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Captions fixed.

• With regard to File:Don_H._Bacon.jpg, the image was provided by Cleveland-Cliffs for use by the authors in their copyrighted publication. I can't be sure the image is not free, since the photograph was taken before the subjects death in 1922. If this becomes an issue as the nomination progresses, it can be removed.
• With regard to File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg, I cannot be sure when it was first published. This was a free leaf that was in the Minnesota Collection at the Reference Collection of Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota. The librarians could not track down the original source, but were able to rule out Sanborn Maps from the scale. We were able to provide a rough date from the information contained on the map. I can contact/visit the University of Minnesota again in an attempt to track down the source, but am not hopeful since the librarians were unable to do so the first time.
• With regard to the File:Elcor,_Minnesota.jpg, this is from the Krause collection of donated photos to the Iron Range Historical Society. I do not believe they had a specific publication date, but a rough date is provided by the information contained in the photo. I will check with the Iron Range Historical Society to see if they can provide me with a more specific date of publication.

I have emailed the Iron Range Historical Society requesting this information.

Response from the Iron Range Historical Society: On Oct 23, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Iron Range Historical Society <ironrangehistsoc@gmail.com> wrote:

Greg,

Kathy and I looked at the Elcor reunion book and at the 3 photos we have in the Krause collection and none has a date or original photographer listed.

Sorry,

Shelly

Iron Range Historical Society

Post Office Box 786

Gilbert, Minnesota 55741

218.749.3150

Website:ironrangehistoricalsociety.org

Follow us on Facebook

From the appearance of the photo it is definitely pre-1923, but if this is a problem, I can change the license to published without a copyright notice. This photo has been used in other publications. I will return to the University of Minnesota when time permits to check again for the source of the final photo. Sorry, Nikkimaria! DrGregMN (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not when the photo was taken, but when it was published - both File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg and File:Elcor,_MN.jpg have tags based on pre-1923 publication, but if we can't demonstrate that we should use a different tag based on whatever publication (or non-publication) we can demonstrate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. I know the photo File:Elcor,_MN.jpg was used in the Elcor Reunion Book published in 1982 by the Elcor Reunion Committee without copyright: this is the earliest instance I am aware of its publication (it has appeared on other webpages since, but not Wikipedia). The Iron Range Historical Society was founded in 1973 and the original photograph was donated to them sometime prior to 1982, so I'm assuming a license of no copyright notice will suffice. To the best of my knowledge, File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg has never been published, so I am open to suggestion if the current license tag is inadequate. The File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg will take some work. If the original source cannot be found, what would you suggest? I would hate to delete the file from the article on a technicality. DrGregMN (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• With regard to the File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg, this was a donated photo from William Keller to the Iron Range Historical Society. This photo is edited from the original poloroid. The date stamp on the side of the original poloroid is Mar 67 (this information is a part of the file). DrGregMN (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nikkimaria! I have changed the licensing to the File:Elcor,_MN.jpg and the File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg to attribution. In reading the link http://www.uwyo.edu/ahc/_files/brochures/copyright.pdf, I realize that the photographer maintains copyright of even non-published, donated material even when deceased. Fortunately, for both of these photos we know the donors and the Iron Range Historical Society granted permission to use these photos (https://www.ironrangehistoricalsociety.org/photographs) unless they are restricted by the donor, so they should be properly licensed now. This is the way I have them captioned in the article as well. The librarians at the University of Minnesota are back working on the source for File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg. DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure I follow that line of reasoning - if the photographer maintains copyright, why would it matter whether the Society granted permission, since they're not the copyright holder? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following yours.

1. If the deceased remain holders of the copyright even if the photos were never published, and

2. If the family of the deceased donated said photos to the organization (i.e. the Iron Range Historical Society), and

3. If the Iron Range Historical Society grants permission to use the photos with acknowledgement

Does the attribution requirement not satisfy these requirements? I am frustrated and not sure what you are looking for with regard to the licensing of these images. I am trying to do the right thing. You are being less than helpful. DrGregMN (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

What you posted above was "the photographer maintains copyright of even non-published, donated material even when deceased" (my emphasis). If the copyright was not transferred to the Society with the physical photos, the Society does not have the authority to relicense them. In that case we would need to base our determination of copyright on the publication date (or whether it meets the requirements of {{PD-US-unpublished}}), not on what the Society says. Conversely, the attribution would be sufficient if the copyright was transferred to the Society along with the physical donation - do we know that? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, I would have to check with the Iron Range Historical Society. I know when they receive a donation, the item is tagged and numbered and documented describing the item(s) and person(s) who donated it. I don't know if the print items, photographs or family histories they receive have the copyright transferred with them. Bear with me, my first FAC, I'm learning as I go.

Per subsequent discussions with the nominator, believe images should now be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments

Welcome to FAC. I haven't done a complete review, but can offer a few points for your consideration:

• The very brief lead looks too short to meet the requirement of WP:LEAD that it "should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." (my emphasis)

I will work on the lead to more effectively summarize the article later this weekend.

I have more effectively summarized the body of the article and added appropriate weight to the lead section. I put in a request for copy edit of the same.

Copy Editing of the lead section has been completed. Thank you, Jonesey95!

• I note at least three paragraphs in the article that are ending with uncited statements

There are only two by my count, the first paragraph in the Establishment section, and the last paragraph in the Abandonment section. The reader need only go to the geographic coordinates to see the mine is now centered over Elcor's former location, but how to cite geographic coordinates? Is it necessary since they appear twice in the Infobox? I was unaware that the Elements of Style required the last sentences of all paragraphs to be cited. Comments from both Peer Review and GA article review stated that the article might be "over-cited".

The three instances to which I refer are:

• First paragraph of the Establishment section. This can be resolved simply by shifting refs 20 to 24 to the end of the paragraph – although I'm sure you don't need all of them. The comments about overciting probably refer to your tendency, here and elsewhere, to multi-cite simple facts. One reliable source is generally enough in these instances.

I have started removing redundant citations, but this is by no means complete since it will take awhile to go through the entire article.

• Last paragraph in the Abandonment section – but the sentence is redundant given the explanatory text that precedes it, so I'd simply drop it.
• First paragraph of "Geography and climate" section, where only the first of the four sentences carries a citation.

Ahhh...got it! I forgot the copy editing had moved that section to the end of the article.

All have been corrected.

You'll find it's a well-established and now undeviating practice at FAC for paragraphs to end in citations. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Don H. Bacon's obsession with the letter M is largely trivia, and doesn't seem worthy of the amount of space you devote to it. The Bacon image, which I see has been queried above, adds little to the article and could, I believe, easily be dropped along with some of the adjoining text.

His penchant with "M" is important from the standpoint that some of the ships and streets of Elcor that he platted share the same names. The ships that are not directly relevant to the article could be deleted but the article would also lose some Wikilinks in the process.

I have reworded the section about Don H. Bacon, removing his photo (at least for now) and the names of the ships of the M fleet. It pained me to do this. Although they were not directly relevant to the article, they did paint a nice picture of how the streets of Elcor got their names.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Brianboulton! DrGregMN (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Brianboulton! I look forward to your next feed back.DrGregMN (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I'm about halfway through the sources check, and have yet to do any spotchecks. What I've found so far:

• Inconsistency in retrieval date formats (e.g. ref 1)

This reference was added by Sporkbot on 29 July 2014. Date published, date retrieved, date archived? Should the published date and retrieval date be the same? I didn't think bots made errors. I changed the retrieval date to the date that Sporkbot made the revision.

• The issue was the date formatting in this reference. I've changed it to be consistent with other references. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Page ranges require dashes, not hyphens (ref 5)

Fixed for all references with page ranges DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not quite all. Refs 5, 27 and 58 still have hyphens. Also, in page ranges the dash should not be surrounded by spaces, e.g. 75–76, not 75 – 76. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Page numbers need to be given for newspaper articles where there is no online link. See refs 6, 9, 15 and probably others

I have physical copies of all of the articles, but not necessarily the page numbers. This will require a trip to the Minnesota Historical Society to reference the microfiche. Please be patient. This is my first FAC nomination, so I'm learning as I go.

All fixed for newspapers with no online link DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 11: In what medium was this interview published?

Typewritten transcript of an Oral History (there is another handwritten manuscript of an oral history cited in the article as well).

• WP:PUBLISH states "All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people". You may have difficulty in arguing that typewritten or handwritten manuscripts fall within the definition of "published". Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I cannot argue "published". I can argue "transcribed". As for accessibility, one only needs to contact the Iron Range Historical Society for copies (or if one is feeling adventurous, travel there).

• Ref 22: "Vintage Minnesota Hockey", being an online rather than a print source, should not be italicized.

This is puzzling since it is not italicized in the citation template, but it is coming up italicized in the article. I tried reverting it. How to fix?

Changed website to publisher in the citation link. Fixed. DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 26, 27 and 28: Retrieval dates missing

Fixed for all references. These references have since been renumbered with the expansion of the lead section. DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 30: "Angelfire" is not a publisher, it's a build-your-own-website facility. In this case the article in question was originally published in 1983 by The Gilbert Herald

I removed Angelfire as the website. The bottom of the page states Gary L. Gorsha, so I have to assume it's his webpage at Angelfire (but I removed his name as well). I added the Gilbert Herald as publisher (the Gilbert Herald does not have a website).

• Ref 31: The publisher is evidently "State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources", not "Iron Range Tourism".

Fixed DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll start working on the rest. DrGregMN (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of three sentences, I have also removed redundant citations, limiting them to 1-3 refs per sentence.

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Brianboulton DrGregMN (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I was slightly confused by the changes in some of the ref numbers, but I'm checking out at the second column now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here we are:

• Ref 40: is it "Gilbert Herald", as here and ref 4, or "The Gilbert Herald", per 28? Consistency needed.

• Fixed

• Ref 49: I refer you to my comment on ref 11.

• This is another transcript of an oral history from a former Elcor resident.

• Then the problem is the same as with 11 – it's not a published source. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• I followed the cite:interview template. So the problem with transcribed oral histories is not the fact that they exist, but that they've never been published? This seems kind of harsh, especially when you consider that the oral histories are probably more accurate than the print sources. I can delete the references and keep the text the same, but then some material would be unsourced (examples for the Phillipich/Torresani interview would be the town had a night watchman first before a full time patrolman; the fact the rent was never increased by Pickands Mather, and what people did and how people obtained supplies prior to the establishment of the Elcor mercantile. All of the other Phillipich/Torresani citations have backup. For the Sedgeman interview, he specifically mentions the location of the school on Malta street, something Van Brundt does not). See my comment for reference 11 above. A way compromise?

• Ref 51: What is the nature of this source, i.e. in what form was it published?

• Book format published by the Iron Range Historical Society for the Gilbert Centennial. The page cited talks about the history of the Saari Campbell and Kraker Mercantile.

• We need the page reference. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Already done (page 15).

• Ref 52: What makes this a reliable source?

• This reference provides a list of names and dates of operation for every post office, past and present, in the U.S. (it also serves a resource for collectors looking for cancellation stamps from historical post offices, but this is not directly relevant to the article).

• Reliability is not judged on the basis of content, but on who published it and in what circumstances. I can't judge whether Jim Forte postal history is reliable or not by FA standards; as this is the third citation of a simple fact, the easiest thing would be to delete it.

• Done.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 56: Should be reformatted, using the cite web template.

• Fixed

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Brianboulton! DrGregMN (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't mention it. The main sources point that still needs to be addressed is the use of unpublished sources in refs 11 and 49. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• The transcribed oral histories have been deleted. This leaves some of the text unsourced, but most of the affected text still has back-up references. DrGregMN (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay in replying. This looks good, but you need to be sure that nothing significant is unsourced. Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Elcor is a ghost town, or more properly, an extinct town" This sounds too colloquial and does not give the dates. Maybe "Elcor is a former town which existed between 1897 and 1956"

• Fixed, but kept the term "ghost town".

• "It was never a neighborhood proper of the city of Gilbert,[2] and the people of Elcor were only generally considered to be citizens of Gilbert." The first part is implied in the previous sentence, and the second is so vague it is unclear what it means. I would delete.

• Compromised and clarified.

• "platted" I have not come across this word before and it would be helpful to link to plat for non-US reaaders.

• Fixed.

• Some refs such as 9 and 30 have no link to the article. Is no online link available?

• These newspaper references are so old as there is currently no online link. Per Brianboulton page numbers were added to these references since there is no online reference.

• I agree with Brian that there is too much about the letter M. I would delete references to naming mines, steamers etc, which are not relevant, and also delete the list of streets, which is excessive detail.

• This has already been reworked.

• " and was usually classed with the McKinley district." I do not understand this.

• Clarified.

• The paragraph beginning "The Elba group of mines" is not relevant to this article. You might move it to a new article on Minnesota Iron Company.

• Disagree. This paragraph provides a bridge from the community being platted by the Minnesota Iron Company to the ownership of Pickands Mather and Company, and refutes some misinformation about the community in other sources outside of Wikipedia; it is also outlined in the lead section. I can, however, add a Wikilink to the Minnesota Iron Company, although such a page does not currently exist.

• The 'Establishment' sub-section covers the whole history until abandonment. Maybe start a new 'Heyday' sub-section at "The community grew at the beginning of the century."
• "The communication system between the different ethnicities and the respect they had for each other was remarkable." This is not WP:POV and is better revised or deleted.

• Fixed.

• "There was never any crime or trouble in Elcor." This is more rose-tinted hindsight. The town would not have had its own law enforcement if there was never any crime.

• I don't agree that the presence of law enforcement implies criminal activity. This is cited in several sources, so I have to believe it's accurate. Regardless, it has been removed.

• "eighth grade" A link or explanation would be helpful for non-US readers.

• Wikilinked.

• "the rent did not increase until the homes were moved from Elcor in 1955." Are you saying that higher rents were charged after the houses were moved? If not, I would just say rents were never increased.

• Fixed.

• "The convenience of having a local store and post office was greatly appreciated by the town." This is colloquial and superfluous.

• Fixed.

• "Finally, the community was named "Elcor"" This implies that the town was named Elba for its first 23 years. If so, that should be stated in the lead and clarified here.

• Fixed. Clarified in the lead section. It is also hammered home in the first two paragraphs of the Establishment section. I think the current paragraph in the body section is acceptable (In 1920...official U.S. post office began operation...much confusion in mail due to another town named Elba...finally the community was named Elcor).

• "Mail was picked up twice daily, at 10:00 am and about 12:00 noon" This is excessive detail.

• Fixed.

• "Mining operations ceased." This is repetition.

• Fixed.

• "Sources differ on why the order was issued. Some recall the company wanting the land for a dump site. Others contended that the company no longer wanted to tend to the town's maintenance.[9] Still others thought the company decided it was not economical to own houses anymore.[56] No one in authority revealed what was to become of the land." This is again too colloquial in style.

• Fixed. Hopefully more encyclopedic, less colloquial.

• This is obviously a comprehensive account, although at times the detail is excessive. The main fault is the colloquial style and flattering comments, which at times reads more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback, Dudley Miles! DrGregMN (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• There are a few points where we do not agree, but I do not think they are important. The one issue you have not dealt with is that the 'Establishment' section covers the whole history until WWII. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, Dudley Miles. I missed that one. It's easy enough to fix, but I would like other reviewers to chime in before I do. In examination of the other five featured ghost town articles, they are always divided by Boom/Bust or Establishment/Abandonment without a "Heyday" or "Peak" subsection. I hope the other fixes are appropriate. Thank you again! DrGregMN (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Created new subsection "Peak Years". Thanks again, Dudley Miles! DrGregMN (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

Interesting topic. Prose needs some work though. My first comments below:

• At its peak, -> when was that?
  • It's peak population of 1,000 occurred after World War I with the Elcor Mercantile and U.S. Post Office being established in 1920. I have added this to the lead section.
• Sparta[20][21][22][23] -> not sure why a minor point needs 4 refs. One suffices. Same problem for quite a few other sentences.
  • Eliminated redundant citations.
• The community was first called "Elba" -> repetition of "The town was originally known as Elba" a few lines earlier
  • Deleted paragraph
• opened a few years later. -> since no year is mentioned in this sentence, not sure what later is
  • Deleted paragraph
• The history of Elcor dates back to 1897, when the Elba mine was put into operation -> again? Do we need this miniparagraph at all?
  • Deleted paragraph
• it was called the M fleet -> what is "it" referring to?
  • The ships and barges of the Minnesota Steamship Company, which was vertically integrated with the Minnesota Iron Company. This is explained in the following sentence. It gives important insight into the thinking of Don H. Bacon.
• listing the street names line by line is giving unnecessary emphasis, I think, but maybe other reviewers find it fine
  • Only one other reviewer has questioned this; other reviewers have not had an issue. I would like it to remain; again, it provides insight about the man Don H. Bacon.
• The Elba group of mines ... and was usually classed with the McKinley district mines, which included the Elba and Corsica mines -> Elba double
  • This clarification was added at the request of reviewer Dudley Miles. Previously this sentence read "usually classed with the McKinley district."
• after that date. -> is the reader supposed to know when the USSC got formed? Bit of a stretch
  • Date specified
• Was Jay Morse also an owner?
  • Yes. I think this sentence reads fine.
• Chinn was then on his way up in mining circles, becoming -> a "later" or "ultimately" or something would be good, otherwise becoming could be seen as referring to the "then"
  • gave becoming the adverb "ultimately"
• L. C. David when was (s)he appointed?
  • 1918, after Chinn became GM of all Pickands Mather mining properties in the Lake Superior region. The date is specified in the preceding sentence. I combined these sentences which hopefully provide the necessary clarification.
• The Oliver Iron Mining Company also owned -> not sure about the "also"
  • The Oliver Iron Mining Company also owned properties named "Elba" apart from Pickands Mather. This is one of the more important sentences in the article since there is a lot of confusion among some Iron Range historians as to whether the Elcor mining properties were owned by Pickands Mather or the Oliver Mining Company. It provides this distinction.
• but these were entirely different -> where were they located?
  • That is a very good question, one I do not have an answer to at this writing. In reviewing the source (Van Brundt), it does not specify. I could research the answer, but is the information necessary to the article?

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• fronted by a four-board-high fence which was fronted -> fronted twice
  • fixed.
• "Corsica" was attempted with the same result -> would be nice to give the same level of detail here as with Elba
  • There is no further detail in the source (Lamppa).
• was named -> is anything known about who had the idea? Or anything about the naming process?
  • In all of the information I've managed to acquire, I have not come across anything regarding the naming process or the particular individual that came up with the name "Elcor".
• whose record ->I think only in informal language can whose refer to a place. I would think not on WP.
  • Can you clarify this critique? I cannot seem to find what you are looking at...
    • Never mind. Fixed. DrGregMN (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Edwininlondon! DrGregMN (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Edwininlondon! Just wanted to quickly acknowledge your critiques and recommendations. I have been on holiday for the last week here in the United States and will hopefully begin work on these items later today. DrGregMN (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking much better. I give my support on prose.Edwininlondon (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

• I think the "Geology" section should come first in the article, followed by "Geography and climate". They chronologically precede the founding and history of Elcor. I see that earlier versions of the article arranged the sections as I'm suggesting.

• The Geology section was originally placed at the beginning of the article, but it was the consensus of the Wikipedia guild of copy editors that it be placed here.

OK. Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Geology

• ¶1 "...with pockets of high-grade ore..." – Link ore and explain what is meant by "high-grade"?

• Clarified with reference and linked

• ¶1 "... sediment deposited during the Precambrian era on the bottom of the Animikie Sea." – Since the Precambrian covers such a huge chunk of time, it would be better to narrow this and give a date range, if you can find a reliable source for these details. Judging by the Animikie Sea article, it looks like Proterozoic Eon might be correct.

• Clarified as best as possible with reference

• ¶1 "...a part of the Biwabik iron formation. The Biwabik iron formation...". Recast to eliminate the back-to-back repetition of "Biwabik iron formation"?

• Earlier versions of the article combined these two sentences reading "...Biwabik iron formation, a large sheet of iron bearing sediment..." The Wikipedia guild of copy editors broke this into two separate sentences.

• Could we trim the second instance, perhaps, to "The formation..."? Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. DrGregMN (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• ¶1 "This iron-bearing rock extends under Lake Superior from the Mesabi and Vermilion Iron Ranges, to the Gogebic Iron Range from northern Wisconsin into the Marquette Range of the upper peninsula of Michigan, and west to the manganese-rich ore of the Cuyuna Iron Range." – This would be more clear if you specified the state or states for each range; e.g., the Mesabi and Vermilion of northeast Minnesota; the Cuyuna Iron Range, southwest of the Mesabi in Minnesota, etc.

• Fixed

• ¶1 "Michigan's steel-blue high grade ores were quite different from the Mesabi ore, which was soft brown hematite." – What did the Michigan ore consist of if not hematite? What made it blue?

• Clarified

• ¶2 "The slate is from 50 to several hundred feet thick, and the four iron-bearing layers are from 400 to 600 feet thick." – Give in metric too? Ditto for other imperial (pounds, miles, etc.) quantities in the article.

• Fixed

• How many feet of overburden (slate, gabbro, or anything else) lay above the iron ore? It's not clear from the article that slate was the only thing the miners had to dig through to get to the iron.

• Expounded this sentence with regard to overburden. The slate is just below topsoil.

• It would be good to explain where the iron came from. Why was it deposited in such density in the Proterozoic and not before or after and why here?

• Clarified as best as possible with reference, but should probably have copy editing look at this section again. I will put in a request.

The geology section looks much better. I made a few copyedits as I went; please revert any you think are misguided. I have a further question about the following two sentences: "The four main divisions, from the top down, are the Upper Slaty, Upper Cherty, Lower Slaty and Lower Cherty. Below these are quartzite and granite, and Virginia Slate and Duluth gabbro lie above." It's not instantly clear where the slate and gabbro are. If they lie above the iron-bearing layers, it would make sense to begin with them and then name the four iron-bearing layers and then the quartzite and granite so that the reader can imagine this stacked from top to bottom in a stratigraphic column. Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. DrGregMN (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Geography and climate

• Add a paragraph here about Elcor's geographic location, including county, state, and part of state; name(s) of nearby town(s), distance from the nearest large city. Give the elevation, listed here. Mention the nearest highway(s).

• Done, with reference

• ¶1 "Normal annual temperatures...". – Maybe "average" rather than "normal"?

• Fixed

• Since you mention horse-drawn plows in the Peak years section, I would add snowfall info to the climate paragraphs. Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Done, with reference

Thank you, Finetooth! DrGregMN (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The geography and climate section looks fine to me now. I merged two gnis citations and added the elevation, using the same citation, to the infobox. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good, and I'm leaning toward support, but I have just a few more comments or suggestions.

General

• Usually the image credits such as "(State Archives, Minnesota Historical Society)" appear only on the licensing page for each image and are not included in the captions.

• Fixed

• From each of the captions, I'd delete "Minnesota" from "Elcor, Minnesota". No one will be confused by plain "Elcor".

• Fixed

• Although not required for FA, concise alt text for each image would be nice. See WP:ALT for details.

• Done

• The article has no dead URLs and no disambiguation problems and no duplinks.

That's all. Finetooth (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Finetooth DrGregMN (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Switching to support on prose.

Closing comment: There is no need to hold up promotion over this, but I notice that several of the references are not listed in ascending numerical order (e.g. "the name "Elcor" was chosen later, by combining the first syllable of the name of each mine.[17][6][18]", instead of [6],[17],[18]); I know that some editors prefer to list the references in order of relevance, so I have left them as they are but I just wanted to draw attention to it in case it was a mistake. Sarastro (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2017 (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. Sarastro (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2017 (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) 11:45, 8 December 2017 [38].

---

Three Sisters (Oregon)

Nominator(s): ceranthor 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a complex volcano of three summits in Oregon, one of which last erupted 2,000 years ago and could possibly become active again. I've worked hard on this article over the past few months, and I think it meets the FA criteria now, having undergone a reference tune-up. ceranthor 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the topographic map, which will probably require moving it down. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Made an attempt at this, though not sure if this is any better - feel free to tweak if you have a better sizing idea. ceranthor 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Nikkimaria. ceranthor 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'll do another image review here, but just a question: As a volcano in a well monitored region, is there a more recent update on the ground inflation than 2009? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The article cites this article from 2017 [39] and explains in the very last sentence that inflation has continued each year. ceranthor 14:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Secondary review:

• File:Three sisters2.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:USA Oregon location map.svg: License and use seem fine for me, perhaps it could be made clearer that it is derived from File:USA location map - counties.svg.
• File:Three Sisters topographic map-en.svg: License and use seem fine for me. I dunno if more resolution can be obtained without squeezing the text, at least in its current position.
• File:Middle and South Sister, looking north.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:North Sister.JPG: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Middle Sister from the north.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:South Sister.JPG: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Three Sisters Wilderness.JPG: License and use seem fine for me.

Everything seems to have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I went to the Commons page for the Oregon map to clarify its derivative nature from the other image. Thanks for your review. ceranthor 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 5: I'm getting "Error ORA-01722: invalid number". There is also a retrieval date missing, if the link can be made to work.
• Refs 11 and 35 appear to be the same source
• Ref 82: The title appears to be incorrect. And where is the date 2007-04-11 found?

Otherwise, sources appear to be in good order, and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I think I've addressed these. Thanks for your review and assistance! ceranthor 03:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Hike395 made some additions from this document that's in the public domain. Is public domain text acceptable within an FA, or would I be better off rewriting the content in my own words? ceranthor 23:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've not been asked this before. My personal view is that incorporating public domain data into WP articles was something we did in the early days, as a way of speeding the process of building an encyclopedia. We've moved on, rather, from there. Unless the text is short enough to appear in a quote box or as a blockquote, I'd say that in quality articles such as this you should rewrite the appropriate content in your own words. This is an opinion – I hope it helps. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

• Support on prose. My comments are located at the article’s talk; they were dealt with there. However, the rest of my minor comments still stand.

• Three Sisters vicinity with tilt-leveling networks and electro-optical distance meters (EDMs) - why do we need the initial when there is no subsequent use of it?
• In 2004 an earthquake swarm occurred with.. a comma after 2004.
• Might be worth wiki-linking global positioning system. FrB.TG (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the support. I think I've addressed all of these. ceranthor 19:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Finetooth

Support on prose and comprehensiveness Comments by Finetooth

This is quite well-written and nicely illustrated. I made a small number of minor changes as I went; please revert any that you think are misguided. Below are some questions and suggestions.

Lead

• ¶1 "The Three Sisters are three volcanic peaks...". – Delete "three" since their "three-ness" is clear in the lead photo and in context?
• ¶2 "South Sister, however, last erupted...". I don't think you need the "however".

Geography and geology

• ¶1 "The Three Sisters are located at the boundaries..." – Delete "located"?
• ¶2 "...the Three Sisters are approximately located at the latitude 44.103° N and longitude 121.768° W." – Tighten and recast slightly as "...the Three Sisters are at latitude 44.103° N and longitude 121.768° W, approximately"?
• ¶2 "...the Pleistocene epoch, a geologic period during which an Ice Age occurred" – It might be better to say, "the Pleistocene epoch,, during which multiple glacial periods occurred".
• ¶2 "...and glaciers ate away at mountains as they retreated." – Clarify that it's the glaciers that retreated rather than the mountains and replace the informal "ate away" with "eroded? Suggestion: "...and glaciers, as they advanced and retreated, eroded the mountains."
• ¶3 Link "fault" to fault (geology)?
• ¶6 Link Howel Williams?

Wilderness and climate

• ¶3 "As part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, motor vehicles and means of transport are prohibited within the Three Sisters Wilderness." – I'd recast this to put the modifying phrase next to the thing modified. Suggestion: "Motor vehicles and means of transport are prohibited within the Three Sisters Wilderness under the rules of the National Wilderness Preservation System."
• ¶3 I wasn't sure whether the above sentence meant "motorized" means of transport or "other" means of transport rather than "all" means of transport. Your four examples of means of transport are bicycles, wagons, motorboats, and helicopters. The last two are motorized, and bicycles sometimes are, but probably not wagons. I assume that skis, sleds, snowshoes, and possibly paragliders are allowed, but I don't know for sure. Can you clarify?

From the source: "Motorized equipment and equipment used for mechanical transport is generally prohibited on all federal lands designated as wilderness. This includes the use of motor vehicles, motorboats, motorized equipment, bicycles, hang gliders, wagons, carts, portage wheels, and the landing of aircraft including helicopters, unless provided for in specific legislation.

In a few areas some exceptions allowing the use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport are described in the special regulations in effect for a specific area. Contact the Forest Service office or visit the websites listed for more specific information.

These general prohibitions have been implemented for all national forest wildernesses in order to implement the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act requires management of human-caused impacts and protection of the area's wilderness character to insure that it is "unimpaired for the future use and enjoyment as wilderness." Use of the equipment listed as prohibited in wilderness is inconsistent with the provision in the Wilderness Act which mandates opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation and that wilderness is a place that is in contrast with areas where people and their works are dominant." [40] I suppose I could add that there are certain exceptions? ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a whack at recasting and came up with "Motor vehicles and other mechanical means of transport such as bicycles, wagons, motorboats, and helicopters are generally prohibited within the Three Sisters Wilderness under the rules of the National Wilderness Preservation System." Please tinker further if this does not seem to do the trick. Finetooth (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking again, I think the sentences about transport would be a much better fit in the "Recreation" section at the end of the first paragraph right after the sentence about horses. Finetooth (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• ¶ Can you add anything about high winds, storms, or floods on these mountains?

I can try and find something, but it wasn't mentioned in any of the sources as far as I know. ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

• ¶1 Link "genera" to Genus? But see my next comment first.
• ¶1 Since "heather" is a family rather than a genus, maybe "many others" would be better than "many other genera".
• ¶2 "In addition to predator bobcats, cougars, and coyotes, raccoons, martens, weasels, and American minks live throughout the Three Sisters area." – It's not clear which nouns are being modified by "predator", and most readers won't know if a mink, for example, is a predator or not. Can you clarify?
• ¶ The white furs are threatened by the mountain pine beetle. Are forest fires much of a threat to the flora and fauna? Is there any notable history of forest fires on these mountains?

Not that I know of. ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

North Sister

• ¶1 "Its deposits are rich in palagonite and red and black cinders, and they grow progressively more iron-rich with decreasing age." – This might be misunderstood to mean the deposits are still growing. Maybe "...and that are progressively more iron-rich the younger they are."

South Sister

• ¶1 Link tephra?

Climbing and recreation

• Since climbing is recreation, I'd shorten this subhead to one word, "Recreation".
• ¶2 "Today, the common trail lasts 11 miles (18 km) round-trip,..." – Maybe "covers" instead of "lasts"?

Recent history and potential hazards

• ¶1 "During a potential eruption..." – Delete "potential" and change to "an eruption" since it is clear from context that these cases are potential. Ditto for "Potential eruptions from South Sister..." since the sentence already says "could be"?
• ¶1 "Although the Three Sisters vicinity does not exhibit any fumaroles (steam vents) or thermal activity, and geologists have not discovered evidence of recent activity at any of the three volcanoes, there are a number of springs west of South Sister." – Link "spring" to spring (hydrology), and make clear what the presence of springs here might suggest to the geologists. Wouldn't they be connected to groundwater flows rather than volcanic activity? I'm not sure what the connection is. Are these hot springs?
• ¶2 "However, when the volcano was found to be potentially active when in 2000, satellite imagery showed a deforming tectonic uplift 3 miles (4.8 km) west of the mountain." – Delete the first "when"?
• ¶2 "...displayed that only small amounts of deformation occurred" – Maybe "revealed" or "showed" rather than "displayed" since "examination ... displayed" seems a bit off.
• ¶3 Link seismometer?
• ¶3 "USGS completed campaign GPS surveys..." – I'm not sure what "campaign" survey means. Can you clarify or link to an explanation?

My best response is this, but I don't think that clears it up much. What do you think? ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

After poking around a bit, it appears to me that "campaign" means something like "comprehensive" or "complex" in this context. I twiddled with the sentence, adding a paraphrase of the Unavco description you linked to. Please tweak further if you think I've misunderstood. Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

General

• No problems with disambiguation links.
• No dead URLs.
• Duplicate links: Pleistocene is linked twice in "Geography and geology". Silicic is linked twice in the main text, but that is probably OK. No other duplink problems.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Finetooth: I implemented your suggestions except for where I replied to your comment. Thanks for your review! ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Finetooth: Added a little bit about fires and about floods/lakes in the Wilderness. Also added a teensy bit more to the flora and fauna. Think I've addressed your concerns now! ceranthor 01:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

All looks fine. Switching to support on prose and comprehensiveness. I will add the caveat that some of the geology and the GPS stuff is a bit over my head. A geologist might notice things that I've missed. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Finetooth, for your helpful feedback and your support. I can try to reach out to some geology experts to make sure the article sufficiently covers the geology of the Three Sisters. ceranthor 18:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

If South Sister were to erupt, it would pose a threat to nearby life - strikes me as a bit of an obvious sentence. try and work it into the following sentence.

Other that that, reads well - looks like hte previous reviewers have done a thorough job....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Changed to "An eruption from South Sister would pose a threat to nearby life, as the proximal danger zone extends 1.24 to 6 miles (2.00 to 9.66 km) from the volcano's summits." Thanks for your review! ceranthor 15:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that is better. Comprehensive and proseful, nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ceranthor 21:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Ceoil

This is a fascinating and very enjoyable read, and have made some edits. I'm tentatively a support, although I wonder if Peakbagger.com is a RS. It seems W2.0 (ie user generated) from a glance. Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Mountain heights suggests that it may not be reliable in some contexts. It looks self published to me as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine. It should probably be replaced - the claims made are mostly statistical, so not worried. [41] needs a retrieval date. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Meant to bring that up, but it wasn't mentioned in the source review so I didn't think it was an issue. Thanks for that catch. I'll replace it accordingly. ceranthor 15:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, thats not good enough, the onus was on you rather than me, and you hoping to sake by. Resolved now by another, but tut tut. Ceoil (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: It looks like hike395 has kindly fixed your concerns. Thanks for the review. ceranthor 15:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspected that it might be an easy fix. The remainder of the sources seem fine. Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ceranthor 16:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Lead:

• The opening sentence tries to say too much and is a bit of a jumble
• Each exceeding - eek
• Located in the Three Sisters Wilderness, at the boundaries of Lane and Deschutes counties and the Willamette and Deschutes national forests - punctuation and tense mess
• on and around the mountains - Less is more, maybe snip to "the area" or whatever
• and still could erupt - phrased to scare children; state more in probabilistic terms. Ceoil (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Think I've addressed these, though not sure what else is wrong with the boundaries sentence. ceranthor 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support this for FA; my nickpicks aside, this is a fine, and in the end, well sourced, piece of work. Have read end top end; the prose are grand, perhaps even good. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Ceoil. ceranthor 17:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Note by Ceranthor

@FrB.TG: @Finetooth: @Casliber: @Ceoil: Just wanted you all to see that the article has been reorganized a bit, in case you had any objections to the changes. @Nikkimaria: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: One image has been removed and replaced. Four additional images have been added: in wilderness, geology, South Sister, and Recent history and potential hazards. ceranthor 00:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest scaling up the hazard map; new images are otherwise fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I tried 2.5 scale. If that's too big, feel free to lmk or tweak. ceranthor 00:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I would move the aerial view of Middle and South sisters to the right to eliminate the text sandwich. Finetooth (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to do that without it falling under the infobox, though? ceranthor 01:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but is that a problem? Btw, I like recent improvements including the structural changes to the geology text and the addition of the hazard map. Finetooth (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Images seem OK license and use wise. I wonder if In August 2017, officials closed 417 square miles (1,080 km2) in the western half of the Three Sisters Wilderness,[21] including 24 miles (39 km) of the Pacific Crest Trail,[22] to the public because of 11 wildfires initiated by lightning strikes. may be overly recentist; how often do such things happen? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it last happened in 2015, though I found one article suggesting fires nearby in 2016. It's frustrating that there's not one unifying history of fires in the area, as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure how to go about summing them up. ceranthor 13:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jsayre64

• For helpful context, the total ice volume on the mountains could be compared numerically to some glacier or group of glaciers elsewhere in North America.
• Some of the scientific language in the geology section really jumps in tone from the surrounding text, which is to be expected. However, in my reading of it, I thought that adding a few surrounding words of explanation for geologic terms and processes would noticeably improve the prose flow.
• Recent history and potential hazards: to me, this is definitely the best section in terms of prose quality, and I recognize that this is inherently aided by the topic itself (requiring an explanatory style more so than the other sections). One little thing: in the opening sentence, does "the area's volcanoes" refer to strictly the Three Sisters, or does this also include any of the very nearby volcanoes in "the Three Sisters region," as the sentence says?
• Say some more about wildfires. They're important. Maybe there have not been many big ones within the wilderness boundary, but fires affect virtually every high-elevation forest in the western U.S., so the article should have at least a bit more mention in order to meet criterion 1b.
• The last sentence of the second paragraph in the recreation section kind of bothers me. "After passing through forest, lava flows, and meadows, scramblers can see from the summit various cinder cones as well as North Sister and nearby volcanoes." Doesn't this refer to the North Sister climb itself, so why mention a summit view of North Sister? And which cinder cones? Of course one can see the other Sisters from up there.

I think this article is very close to worthy of FA status. I've done many small rearrangements to the wording as I've seen fit. Based on targeted feedback posted to the talk page, my understanding is that @Hike395: and @Vsmith: may still be carefully reviewing parts of this article. I think it would be wise to seek additional judgment from them. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jsayre64: I think I've addressed comments 2 and 3; I added explanations for some of the jargon. I am not sure what comparing ice volume on the mountains would accomplish. I think the last sentence in paragraph 2 from recreation was paraphrased from the source, which should be available online if you want to double check. Not sure how else to phrase it better. I am working on adding some more fire material. ceranthor 17:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Update - added some more about fire, but not sure how much more there is to add that would be worth including in this article rather than the main Three Sisters Wilderness article. ceranthor 17:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jsayre64: Everything has been addressed, I think, except the ice cover suggestion. I still feel ambivalent about how useful that will be - are you hard-set on its inclusion in the article? ceranthor 23:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Support (I stand by my opinion on that issue, but I don't think that alone merits holding up this candidacy.) Jsayre64 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the article, which has helped it invaluably, and for the support. ceranthor 02:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hike395

The article is shaping up nicely, indeed. I think only two small-ish work items are left:

• Per Brianboulton, above, the handful of quoted sentences from the USGS about vegetation species needs to be rewritten. Ceranthor, do you wish to do this?
• Per Jsayre64, above, the geological jargon in this article may be overwhelming to the typical reader. Adding a little context could really help. I can attempt to do this, unless Vsmith wishes to take a crack at it? —hike395 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: I'm happy to copyedit the quoted sentences. However, I can't find the original source material at the links provided. Are you sure they came directly from that map you linked? ceranthor 17:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think I've addressed the jargon now. ceranthor 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Nvm, found all the original source material at this point. Should be able to get it all copyedited by tonight, hopefully. ceranthor 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: Sorry for the updates - but I think I've addressed the public domain material, and formatted it to match the sfn template format. Thanks for finding more information! ceranthor 23:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I polished some of your edits. I think the article is in good shape. A last copy-editing pass could be useful. —hike395 (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vsmith: Would you be up for one last look? ceranthor 18:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fiddled a bit ... refiddle as needed. Vsmith (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! —hike395 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wilderness section?

@Ceranthor and Jsayre64: Now that the wilderness section has been expanded with information about the lakes and fires, I wonder if now has the correct title. Most of the material is not actually about the wilderness. Should we add subsections "Weather", "Lakes", "Fires" ? That may be overkill. Thoughts? —hike395 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Climate and wilderness suffices? ceranthor 14:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

We could change the title from "Wilderness" to "Wilderness and environment." Then, since the term environment overlaps a lot with ecology, we could change that title to "Flora and fauna," which is more specific anyway for what that section covers. Makes sense to me, but I bet there are other viable solutions too. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur with that assessment, Jsayre64. ceranthor 16:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I very much want to keep the Ecology section, both because of parallel structure with other mountain articles, and also because it segments the area into ecoregions (which is an ecological concept). In other articles, environment is considered distinct from ecology: the former is the interaction between humans and the natural world, while the latter is how the natural world would operate independently from humans. See, e.g., Environment of California vs. Ecology of California.

After thinking about it, I came up with "physical geography" for the subsection containing climate + hydrology + fires. Does that sound good?

(I keep finding little factual or clarity nits to pick, sorry.) —hike395 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. Any other suggestions, @Hike395:? ceranthor 16:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Human history section?

@Ceranthor: I was just looking at the French version of this article, which is currently an FA-equivalent. What stands out for me is that they have a section on human history and we don't. So, I'm currently translating it in my sandbox. The French article uses a photograph of Peter Skene Ogden, taken before 1854. That should be PD, right? —hike395 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to [42], it says PD, so yes, I assume so. ceranthor 01:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: Thank you for the fabulous addition - I would never have thought to look at the French language version of this article. ceranthor 21:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Support

I can't think of what else to do to improve the article, and I'm about to go on Wikibreak, so I'll give this my full support. —hike395 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, hike395!!! You and Jsayre, as well as the other commenters at this FAC, have been super helpful throughout this process. A well-earned break! ceranthor 04:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support just a few comments:

• "at the boundaries of Lane and Deschutes counties" I would say "boundary" rather than the plural. (also early in body of article)
• "Once the moisture is wrung from the air, it descends on the eastern side of the crest, which causes it to be warmer and drier." you use "it" to refer to two different things in the sentence.
• "The local area has a history of flash floods, including an event on October 7, 1966, caused by a sudden avalanche that reached the Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway." Is the explanation at the end intended to inform how the flood happened? Because it may not. The avalanche isn't described as blocking a flow of water, to my reading anyway.
• "Studies at Collier Lake and Diller Lake suggested that both had breached their dams in the early 1940s and in 1970, respectively. Other moraine-dammed lakes within the wilderness area include Thayer Lake on North Sister's east flank, Diller Lake on Middle Sister's east flank, and four members of the Chambers Lakes group between Middle and South Sister.[21]" As it's just been mentioned, Diller Lake does not qualify as other lake.
• "One of the earliest major eruptive events produced the rhyolite of Obsidian Cliffs about 38,000 years ago on the mountain's northwestern flank." I would move "about 38,000 years ago" to before "produced" and possibly enclose it in commas.
• "Hodge Crest, a false peak, formed roughly around the same time as the main cone between 28,000 and 24,000 years ago.[62]" I would move "between 28,000 and 24,000 years ago" to before "roughly".
• "The slopes of South Sister contain a number of other small glaciers, including the Lost Creek and Prouty glaciers.[" I would cut "other". I think it's clear these glaciers aren't the same as the ones before.
• Not much said about the political history of the Sisters, how they wound up in their reserve and if any economic use was made of them before. Who discovered them, from the Euro-western viewpoint?
• "Traveling over cinder cones, domes and lava flows, the hike becomes demanding from the last mile." I am not sure what "from the last mile" means.

Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Thanks for your helpful feedback and your support. I think I have addressed all of these, excluding the comment about the political history of the Sisters, which hike395 is working on developing as we speak per a similar comment above. ceranthor 17:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you ping me again when it's ready? Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course. ceranthor 20:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: It's been added now. ceranthor 21:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Only additional comment is on "Congress decided to sign the Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978," Congress doesn't sign acts.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to respond, but this has been addressed I think. ceranthor 23:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2017 (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) 11:36, 8 December 2017 [43].

---

History of the British farthing

Nominator(s): Arwel Parry (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin small in value but still a source of interest today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I'm sure I'll be supporting the promotion of this article, but a few minor drafting points first.

• Lead
  • "under license" – I know from dealing with old legal documents in Crown archives when I worked for a living that the noun was often spelt "license" in the nineteenth century and earlier, but it isn't now, and we need "licence" here. "License" is reserved for the verb.
  • "demonitised" – I can find no authority for this spelling, and would have changed it myself to the usual "demonetised" were it not for a lurking worry that it might be a specialist numismatic spelling I (not to mention the Oxford English Dictionary) knew nothing about. (It comes up again in "Victorian farthings" in the main text.)
• Early issues (1714–1775)
  • "according to numismatic writer Kerry Rodgers" – clunky false title, not becoming in formal BrE. The addition of a definite article will remedy the fault.
  • "King George died, and his son King George II took the throne" – "took" sounds a bit like a coup d'état. Perhaps "came to" or "acceeded to"?
• Soho and renewed regal issues (1799–1837)
  • Header: if one goes back to the lead one sees mention that Boulton's mint was in Soho, but there's no mention of Soho in the whole of the present section, and so the header looks rather strange.
  • "Boulton was given a license" – as in the lead: the noun should be "licence"
  • "Sir Francis Chantrey" – it looks a bit odd that Sir Isaac Newton has his Sir included in the blue link but poor old Chantrey doesn't.
• Victorian farthings
  • "the old copper farthing was demonitised …the Mint would still accept them" – singular noun with plural pronoun.
• Twentieth century and abolition (1902—1956)
  • The dash in the date ranges in the header and the first line of text has gone from en-dash (approved by the MoS) to em-dash (not approved)
  • Titles of monarchs: earlier monarchs are shown as, e.g. King William IV, but from this point, they are shorn of their job title, and are just George V etc. I slightly prefer the latter style, but whichever you choose it should be consistent throughout.
  • "Sir Bertram Mackenna" – another unfortunate knight deprived of his Sir in his piping.
  • "Deputy Master of the Mint Robert Johnson" – could do with a definite article before "Deputy" and a comma after "Mint".
  • "and the farthing was discontinued after 1956." – for clarity, perhaps "and production of the farthing was discontinued after 1956"?

That's my small clutch of comments. I look forward to returning to add my support in due course. – Tim riley talk 13:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for those helpful comments. I have implemented them, though I have chosen to take Sir Isaac's title outside the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad to add my support here. I wonder how many other of your supporters will ever have owned a farthing, as I did? They were already so rarely seen when I was a little boy in the late 1950s that one held on to those few that came one's way once in a blue moon. I always liked the wren motif. – Tim riley talk 19:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support ... and I appreciate the firsthand information about the time ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Today I got a 1944 wren farthing, a "young Victoria" penny, and an "old Victoria" penny at a flea market all for $6—cheap thrills! Moisejp (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be properly licensed. Moisejp (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The 1714, 1719, and 1946 coin images don’t seem to have alt text; it would be nice for consistency if they did. Also, the 1719 template seems irregular and possibly unnecessarily cumbersome when compared with the formatting of the 1714 and 1946 ones; in any case, it seems inconsistent. Moisejp (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Still working on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Those are now done, excepting the gallery, which I'm not clear if alt text can be added to.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources in good order, of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Tim's review left slim pickings for the rest of us. One comment: I think you need a gloss for "exergue". The current link is just far too cumbersome. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's fixed, thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

(I always liked the wren motif too...) - looking now..

• The two-sentence slim para at the top of the lead always bothers me when I see it...but I can see the rationale for having it (sort of). In this case I don't know why the lead is not in chronological order. I have reorganised like this but reverted so you could muse on it.

  I've adopted a modification of your language.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• The Early issues (1714–1775) section needs some background - the first sentence just sorta launches into, "Issuance of farthings had not been necessary during most of the reign of Queen Anne (1701–1714) due to a surplus" - which leaves me thinking, "wuh? did I miss something here" - so I look at Farthing (English coin)....forgetting momentarily about the act of union in 1707. Which then got me thinking, (a) do people see these as two completely separate coins despite having the same name? (I have no expertise in the area so I genuinely don't know), in which case (b) should this article be at British farthing rather than its current title? The two articles could be combined and still be much under 50 kb prose....

There were also Scottish ones ... most of the coin articles seem to break at the Act of Union. I didn't have anything to do with setting it up that way but I think that's a fair enough way to do it.

• Newton also died in 1727. Croker engraved the new King's head for the coinage; the Britannia design was not changed - these sentences are a tad short - can we link as, "As Newton had also died in 1727, Croker engraved the new King's head for the coinage, leaving the Britannia design unchanged" ?

Done a bit differently.

• The rest reads well.

• I wonder if there is anything that can be added on what one could buy with a farthing in the 18th century as reading it I have no idea what it is worth (not sure if this is actionable though)

I didn't find anything specifically on the 18th century, but I've added more on what it could buy in the 19th and 20th.

• Anything on nostalgia/popular culture - odd collections after it ceased to be legal tender etc. Rare ones that are valued highly now?

I'm not putting collecting in the history articles, with the exception of outstanding rarities like the 1933 penny. That seems better suited to the article on the denomination, whereas this is more chronological. I think that' everything. Thanks--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no idea about the uber-rarities. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• O-kay, all looks in order comprehensiveness and prose-wise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I like the wren too.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Moise

Early issues (1714–1775):

• "But beginning in 1713, there was a shortage of copper coin (the halfpenny and farthing). This planned issue of farthings was thwarted by the death of the Queen the next year." Feels like a bit of a jump from "there was a shortage" to "This planned issue". I'd expect to see the plan stated more explicitly before seeing "This planned issue".
• "Newton had strong views about the quality of the coinage, and the Anne farthing is a considerable advance on that of William III." The second half seems quite subjective. How about something like "and coin expert Richard Lobel has argued that..." (although I see he was just the editor of the book, and may not have written the relevant passage?).
• "Both obverse showed left-facing heads of King George and the inscription GEORGIVS II REX[b] on the obverse, and Britannia with the inscription BRITANNIA and the date in the exergue." Should it be "Both obverses"? Should "on the obverse" later in the sentence be removed? Moisejp (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Soho and renewed regal issues (1799–1837):

• "The farthing was produced in 1831, and 1834–1837, the last the year of King William's death." I suggest removing "the last" or changing "death" to "reign".

Victorian farthings:

• "In 1859, the government decided the poor state of the copper coinage demanded its withdrawal,[21] Bronze was deemed a suitable replacement,[22] Parliament passed legislation in 1860 that allowed the penny, halfpenny and farthing to be struck from an alloy of metals." I don't think this was meant to be one long sentence (?) but I leave it to you to break up as you like. Moisejp (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Twentieth century and abolition (1902–1956):

• "The obverse inscription was ELIZABETH II DEI GRA BRITT OMN REGINA F D[l] in 1953, and ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA F D." Is there supposed to be a specification of the years for ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA F D or is it all non-1953 years?

Those are all my comments. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I've addressed those comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Your changes all look good. Moisejp (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2017 (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) 11:53, 8 December 2017 [44].

---

HMS Neptune (1909)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Neptune was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships. Before the First World War, she served as the flagship of the Home Fleet and as a testbed for an experimental gunnery director. Like the rest of the British dreadnoughts, she had an uneventful war, only firing her guns during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Considered obsolescent, she was scrapped after the war. As always, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unexplained jargon. The article had a MilHist ACR earlier this year and I've recently made a few tweaks to add some extra links and clarify a few things so I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done, although I don't want to extend it the full width of the page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• File:Neptune(1909)_main_weapon.svg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Own work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, but based on what? What is the source of the relative placements shown? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Ummm, photos and drawings, I expect. Including the plan from Brassey's given above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "(47 mm (1.9 in))": ))
  • I'm a little puzzled by this; don't you like the doubled parentheses?
    • Thanks ... MOS doesn't mention this any more, so I have no objection. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• "subsequently": The word is commonly used with at least 8 different meanings on Wikipedia; please pick a different word. (But "Subsequent" is probably fine.)
  • Here's the only subsequently in the article: sold for scrap in 1922 and subsequently broken up I don't think that subsequent will work here.
    • I meant that the one appearance of "Subsequent" later in the article isn't ambiguous, as far as I know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Would "sold for scrap in 1922 and broken up" change the meaning? If so, what's the meaning of "subsequently"? I'm asking because I'm trying to come up with a complete list of all the things the word is used to mean. I'm hoping that when people see the full list, they'll agree that it's not reasonable to expect readers to know which meaning is intended. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • In this context I think the meaning is sufficiently obvious. I see only one possible meaning - that the vessel was broken up after it was sold for scrap. What other meaning could it have? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay, so it means the same thing as "sold for scrap in 1922 and broken up", right? Wrong? - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking this over, Dank.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Support from Indy beetle

• You display the BS abbreviation for Battle Squadron in the lede. I'd suggest removing the clarification from the lede and adding it the first time "Battle Squadron" shows up in the body under the "Construction and career" section.
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• "Neptune became a private ship on 10 March 1914". It might help to wikilink private ship, as unsatisfactory as that page is.
  • Linked in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• "The Royal Navy's Room 40 had intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic". Piping "intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic" to signals intelligence seems to push WP:EGG.
  • How would you suggest that it be handled?

I'd either remove the link all together or at least take "German radio traffic" out of it.

I'm going to change "traffic" to "signals" or "broadcast" to get rid of some jargon, but the link needs to stand to clarify what "intercepting a radio signal" means as I believe that not many readers are going to be puzzled by the concept of intercepting a signal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• You should wikilink the Action of 19 August 1916 somewhere in the "Subsequent activity" subsection.
  • I don't think that this article is long enough to warrant duplicating links between the lede and the main body, so those missing links that you noted are in the lede.
• "The ship was present at Rosyth when the German fleet surrendered on 21 November and Neptune was reduced to reserve on 1 February 1919 at Rosyth." It might be better to say "Neptune was present at Rosyth when the German fleet surrendered on 21 November and was reduced to reserve there on 1 February 1919."
  • That is a better way of expressing things.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
--Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 15: source is a wiki. How does this meet the FA criterion of quality and reliability?
• Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality and in consistent format. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the founders is a published naval historian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can you give a little more information? For example, how is editorial control exercised? As this is a wiki, what are the rules for editing the content – can anyone who logs in do this? Has the site been acknowledged or approved by a an institution such as a university or learned society? Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Editors must be approved by the editors-in-chief, who include two academic historians and the grandson of Earl Jellicoe, who published a book on the Battle of Jutland last year to commemorate its centennial. See for yourself [45]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, that seems OK. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ranger Steve

As you’re aware there’s a general consensus that FA ship articles should have a bit of context in them. This is doubly true here as there’s no class article to turn to for any details about the background and context of the ship’s design. As a result, after the lede the article opens fairly confusingly, with reference to a Naval Programme that isn’t explained. There should be some background to the naval arms race here; after all, before Neptune was even completed, the 1909 Naval crisis had occurred. Something on the evolving design of Dreadnoughts as context for Neptune’s innovations wouldn’t be out of place. I’d expect to see more substantial content here.

• Added a para on the budget issues and a little more about the design. See if that's satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Much better. I've added a reference to the wider arms race to clarify why the German programme had accelerated. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, although I've always thought that attributing the arms race as early to 1906 with Dreadnought's completion has seemed a bit of stretch to me considering that the Germans didn't respond with their own ships until a couple of years later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

“These guns were installed in unshielded single mounts in the superstructure. Neptune was the first British dreadnought with this arrangement as resupply of ammunition in combat was very difficult, the guns could not be centrally controlled, and the exposed turret-roof installations used in the previous dreadnoughts were difficult to work when the main armament was in action.” I’m confused by this; did the unshielded mounts solve this problem? If so, how?

• No, the problem with the older arrangement was their location, not being unshielded. I've rewritten most of the paragraph to explain things better. See if it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better, nice one. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The 4th image appears to show torpedo nets that are absent in the first picture, but this defence isn’t mentioned anywhwere.

• Reflects their coverage in the sources. Not even mentioned in Brown or Parkes; Burt only records the date of their removal and Friedman only mentions that they were ineffectual in protecting HMS Triumph in 1915. But I've added a link to the caption where they're visible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

“The ship was commissioned on 19 January 1911 for trials with an experimental gunnery director designed by Vice-Admiral Sir Percy Scott.” Is this the same one mentioned in the Fire Control section? Some clarification is needed as to this fact in either this or the Fire Control section. Also, it appears that she was commissioned purely for these trials from the current wording.

• All this has been reworded to clarify things. It's not entirely clear if the ship was taken out of commission between 11 and 25 March. Burt just say "commissioned as flagship" in his entry for 25 March.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

More context is also required in the career history as well. Her refit is mentioned and the changes are detailed in the preceeding section, but at the moment the sentence “the ship began a refit on 11 December.” stands out as unexplained. Why were the changes made, especially so soon after the outbreak of war? Additionally, when did the refit finish? Without a closing date I was unsure whether Neptune was present on the 23rd January in the following paragraph on first reading.

• There are neither explanations nor dates for the refit in available sources. It might have been to add the additional turret rangefinders mentioned in the fire-control section, but that's strictly a supposition on my part. Jellicoe didn't mention that she was still in refit on 23 January, so I can only presume that Neptune was there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. No problem if there's nothing in sources to clarify dates of the end of the refit, but I'm not happy with the supposition that just because Jellicoe doesn't say Neptune wasn't there, that she therefore was. That's a synthesis from two different sources that neither supports. I think you should probably remove the events in which it is not categorically stated that Neptune was present. At the very least, reword it to say something like "although the fleet sortied on the 23rd, the next event Neptune is recorded as being present in was...". While we're here, you might want to look at the page numbers in ref 26. 21 to 12?Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch on the typo in the page numbers. There's no synthesis here because I was pretty careful not to specify that Neptune participated in all of these patrols of the Grand Fleet until she is specifically mentioned; although a reader could infer that she did, which is exactly the implication that Jellicoe himself encourages in his book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That's clearly misleading. There's no evidence that Neptune was there so why mention it? Because it implies it - and you even admit a reader would infer that. Maybe not synth then, but the same problem applies; you're implying "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". That fails WP:NOR. Are you saying that there's no evidence that Neptune participated in numerous other Grand Fleet sorties mentioned in this article? Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Jellicoe rarely enumerates which ship participated in the manoeuvers and training exercises unless something out of the norm occurs. All I can do is cross reference his account with Burt to eliminate those which conflict with the refit dates, as incomplete as they are; so, yes, I'm saying that there's generally nothing explicitly mentioning which ships of the Grand Fleet participated in any specific exercise or sortie. Annoyingly, the wonderful logbook site only posts the logbooks for Temeraire and most of the QE-class ships, so there's nothing out there that I've been able to find to positively says that she didn't spend the bulk of the early war swinging at her moorings. I've done the best that can be done to describe the ship's activities in the early war period without accessing her logbook and I don't think that what I've done falls under WP:NOR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The appropriate Naval Staff Monograph for the Battle of the Dogger Bank (Monograph No. 12: The Action of Dogger Bank–24th January 1915 (PDF). Naval Staff Monographs (Historical). Vol. III. The Naval Staff, Training and Staff Duties Division. 1921. pp. 209–226., p. 224) lists Neptune as part of the supporting forces on January 24, which backs up that Neptune had returned from refit by the time of Dogger Bank.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

She was also present during the sweep that ended on 14 April - she is recorded in Monograph No. 29: Home Waters–Part IV.: From February to July 1915 (PDF). Naval Staff Monographs (Historical). Vol. XIII. The Naval Staff, Training and Staff Duties Division. 1925. p. 186. as sighting an (imaginary) German submarine on the return trip.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs, Nigel, I do have a habit of forgetting about the Naval Staff Monographs. I'll add those refs when I get a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I can understand the inclusion of Grand Fleet sorties as a thorough overview of events, but I'm afraid I cannot accept that a lack of evidence that Neptune wasn't there, is sufficient evidence that she was. Unless there are reliable sources confirming that Neptune was present in the Grand Fleet events described, it needs to be clearer that her presence is not confirmed. Nigel Ish's references above are great for confirming two events when they're added to the article, but I'm guessing from re-reading the rest of the narrative that there are numerous other sorties where it isn't clear if Neptune sailed. I'm afraid that I find these passages too ambiguous. There is a regular chopping and changing between the subject of the fleet, the Grand fleet, the ship and Neptune; it leaves an impression that Neptune is a subject in all of these events. But if that's not verifiable, I think it needs more clearly stating that it is only assumed.

I think that this is the best solution as it avoids extraneous wording and clearly spells things out. I put the note right after the first cite to Jellicoe, but feel free to suggest another location if you think it best. Also feel free to tweak the wording to your satisfaction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be a blunt statement, but it needs incorporating somehow. For instance, a footnote explaining this would suffice, making clear that only the events where Neptune is named in the text are ones that she has been confirmed to be a part of. Alternatively, some soft wording can be used. For example, this paragraph could be amended with the inclusion of the bit in italics:

The Grand Fleet conducted sweeps into the central North Sea on 17–19 May and 29–31 May without encountering any German vessels. During 11–14 June the fleet practiced gunnery and battle exercises west of the Shetlands,[29] and trained off the Shetlands three days later. On 2–5 September, the fleet went on another cruise in the northern end of the North Sea, conducting gunnery drills, and spent the rest of the month performing numerous training exercises. Although Neptune most likely took part in all of these sorties, she is not mentioned by name in records until October, when the ship, together with the majority of the Grand Fleet, made another sweep into the North Sea from 13 to 15 October. Almost three weeks later, Neptune participated in another fleet training operation west of Orkney during 2–5 November.

PS, are you using British or American English in this article? British would be practised, rather than practiced. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, that had somehow been missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

“Neptune was unsuccessfully attacked by the German submarine SM U-29” As U-29 was sunk herself on this occasion by Dreadnought, I think some more information on this event is warranted here.

• Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Much better Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

“The Grand Fleet conducted sweeps into the central North Sea on 17–19 May and 29–31 May without encountering any German vessels. During 11–14 June the fleet conducted gunnery practice and battle exercises west of the Shetlands, and the Grand Fleet conducted training off the Shetlands beginning three days later. On 2–5 September, the fleet went on another cruise in the northern end of the North Sea and conducted gunnery drills. For the rest of the month, the Grand Fleet conducted numerous training exercises. The ship, together with the majority of the Grand Fleet, conducted another sweep into the North Sea from 13 to 15 October.” Is the unnamed fleet at the start of the second sentence the Grand Fleet? If so I’d suggest rewording this to avoid repetition and to clarify that the Grand Fleet was the subject of both events in the second sentence. I’d also hack out some other mentions of Grand Fleet in the rest of the paragraph as it appears four times.

• <puzzled>Since no other fleet is mentioned anywhere else since the mention of the reorganization of the Home Fleet into the Grand Fleet, what other fleet could possibly be meant? Rereading the paragraph, the too-frequent usage of Grand Fleet are apparent, but the biggest offender, to my mind is "conducted". Consolidated a few sentences and tweaked the wording. See how it reads to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's better now, although there seems to be a typo with the word beginning? The issue was that grammatically, by referring to the fleet at the start of the sentence ("the fleet conducted..."), then saying "and the Grand Fleet.." introduces a second subject and implies that the first fleet referred to is not the same as the second. But it's fixed now, except that typo. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Admiralty is linked in the second to last paragraph, which is the second time they appear in the article. Given that they ordered the vessel I’d expect to see them mentioned somewhere previously.

• Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Great Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The ship’s obsolescence is mentioned in the lede but not in the main body and is therefore unreferenced. Was she made obsolescent by age or improved technology?

• Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Great Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Image captions: Two of these are a bit light given their assertions. In the lede image, why is Neptune at anchor and why is it before 1915? Similarly why is the 4th picture before 1913 (IWM says pre 1914 or 1911)? I’m guessing it’s because of an absence of later modifications, but that should be explained or referenced.

• For the first photo, even though no anchor chain is visible, she lacks a bow wave in a calm sea and her funnel smoke shows that the wind is blowing from behind her. Ergo, she's stationary or moving very, very slowly, with the odds being that she's anchored. The photo uses the dating of the original source, although it's probably while she's on sea trials in late 1910-11 as her gunnery director is missing as are most of her torpedo booms and her superstructure and funnels appear to be in their original configuration. But I'm not going to go through all that as I'm not an expert on the ship.
• The IWM dating was confusing as the pre-1914 probably refers to their category of photos taken before the start of the war. I changed the date to 1911, as per the other date on the IWM website, as the ship appears to be still in her original configuration.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think there's a touch of synthesis here. The source image caption for the first image doesn't mention being at anchor, and although I understand the points you're making about the bow wave and smoke, it's worth observing that there's no difference in those elements of the 1911 image, and there she's described as underway. Unless there's clear evidence that Neptune is at anchor, that suggestion should be removed. I'd say that it's fine to say something like "Neptune, before her 1914 refit" or something like that. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

How can it be synthesis if I'm using a process of deduction available to anyone with eyes to determine that the ship was mostly likely at anchor? And in the fourth photos, there is more of a bow wave visible, the funnel smoke is mostly vertical and the flags are mostly limp, but not entirely so. Ergo moving at a slow speed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Because you are assuming, even when you say yourself above she could be moving. And I see no difference in the bow wave in either picture. If it was blindingly obvious it wouldn't be a problem, but I see no evidence that Neptune is at anchor and there's no reliable reference for it either. Therefore the caption is original research and misleading. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty picayune, but whatever. Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it petty, but the requirements of FAC are quite clear: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Ranger Steve do you plan to revisit, or have anything further to add? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sturm has not finished making additions in response to my queries yet, and I've now expanded on some of them. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I've been rather involved in the WiR The World Contest of late. I think that I've addressed Steve's concerns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've made a few tiny changes, mainly moving the note to the first instance of the Grand Fleet being referred to without Neptune being specified. I feel this article has improved magnificently and am happy to switch to Support. Great work. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things:

• The first sentence in Background should probably be split.

• I tried, but could only shorten it a little. See how it reads now. If you have any suggestions on phrasing, I'll happily take them under advisement.

• "was that if the girders were damaged during combat, they could fall onto the turrets, immobilising them." Does "they" mean the girders or the boats?

• Girders is the immediately prior noun.

• "Notably, the exposed guns were difficult to work when the main armament was in action as was replenishing their ammunition. Furthermore, the guns could not be centrally controlled to coordinate fire at the most dangerous targets" does this refer to Neptune or to earlier ships?

• Earlier ones, as is spelled out in the prior sentence.

• "In the vicinity of the boiler rooms, the compartments between them were used as coal bunkers." Why not say "The compartments between the boiler rooms were used as coal bunkers."?

• Much better.

• "Two weeks later, Neptune relieved Dreadnought as the flagship of the Home Fleet and of the 1st Division on 25 March" I would cut the "Two weeks later,"

• It is rather redundant, isn't it?

A good read.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - my concerns were addressed at the Milhist ACR. Excellent work as usual, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2017 (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) 12:06, 8 December 2017 [46].

---

Megalodon

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very very large shark that went extinct a really really long time ago. It also got to GA a really very long time ago in 2008, and now I'm here to see it through FA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pbsouthwood

Image licenses:

• File:Megalodon shark jaws museum of natural history 068.jpg - looks OK
• File:Stenoshark.jpg - looks OK
• File:Megalodon tooth with great white sharks teeth-3-2.jpg - looks OK
• File:White shark.jpg - looks OK
• File:FMIB 45542 Cetorhinus maximus.jpeg - looks OK
• File:Megalodon scale.svg - looks OK
• File:Carcharodon megalodon.jpg - looks OK

• Source link doesn't appear to have original publication - when/where was this first published?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• File:Megalodon.jpg - looks OK
• File:Megalodon teeth.jpg - looks OK (dead link to source)
• File:Megalodon jaws on display at the National Baltimore Aquarium.jpg - looks OK
• File:Megalodon skeleton.jpg - looks OK
• File:Giant white shark coprolite (Miocene; coastal waters of South Carolina, USA).jpg - looks OK
• File:Meg bitten cetacean vertebra.jpg - not found at source url, page may have changed. OTRS ticket on file, assuming OK
• File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg - source archived, I don't know how to check licensing for this one.
• File:Physeteroidea - Livyatan melvillei.JPG - looks OK
• File:VMNH megalodon.jpg - looks OK. source checked, OTRS ticket on file.
• File:Megalodon teeth.png - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
• File:Orca pod southern residents.jpg - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
• File:Megbook.jpg - looks OK, but I am not expert on fair use.

File:Megbook.jpg and File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg should be checked by someone more expert. I am satisfied with the others. These two are probably OK too but I am not sure. Nikkimaria, perhaps you would be kind enough to check them. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The map appears to be pretty much identical to the source site, which is problematic given this statement. The book cover currently has no fair-use rationale for this page and can't be used here without one. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the book image, but I'm not too sure what to do with the map. It says you can use a modified version of the map, and the one on here is covered in dots, so that seems to check out. It says it can only be used as a resource, just not point-blank copy/pasted onto a page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg appears to be an unmodified version. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I switched it out with File:Land shallow topo 2048.jpg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK to me · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• All images have alt text. I think some could be improved. I will get back to this for details or make the suggested changes myself if you are happy with that. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I have made some alt text copyedits, and plan to do more. Feel free to revert if you disagree with them.

  Done with alt-text. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• External links look OK on Checklinks. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect check looks OK on Rdcheck. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sections:

Lead

• Infobox gives four synonyms as C. spp. Are they all Carcharocles spp? Phylogeny section appears to suggest that other synonyms exist.

Synonyms of Carcharocles sure, but not synonyms of megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment. If the accepted procedure is to list only species synonyms in the infobox, no problem. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that this has been changed. Looks OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• First paragraph suggested that Megalodon:The Monster Shark Lives is a documentary. I changed it. No action required · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• competing figures still exist as to when it evolved - What are Competing figures?

disagreement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the expression, is it standard or common usage in paleontology? I think it may be a bit obscure for the average reader. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is the visible V-shaped neck on the teeth?

the neck of the tooth is where the root meets the crown   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Phylogeny

• in 1960, the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four sharks Are these four sharks those which are now assigned to Carcharocles? If so it would be clearer to mention it.

I switched it to "those four sharks" because I figure it'd be confusing saying "the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four Carcharocles sharks"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External appearance

• This section seems excessively tentative. It suggests that the shark resembled at least four rather different extant species. It may be that there are different opinions as to which shark it most closely resembles, in which case this should be specifically mentioned, if possible mentioning the specific attributes that are hypothesized to match each of the species.

there’re three different ideas as to what it really looked like, so they’re split into three different paragraphs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps the section should lead with a mention that opinions differ, and possibly mention who holds which opinion.

I just opened the paragraphs with "one idea is..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That is better. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• However, since sand tiger sharks are displacement swimmers, and use drag to propel themselves; they are required to move around three or four times their own weight in water on each tail stroke. On the face of it, this does not make sense. Explain or link "displacement swimmer", explain how drag can propel anything, as it seems a contradiction in terms.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph is still incomprehensible to me, and is not linked to anything that explains it. I am not a specialist on animal swimming, but I am educated in basic hydrodynamics and have probably a better than average layman's knowledge of marine biology, so if I don't get it, I suspect that the majority of readers also won't get it. In this context does "own weight in water" mean an amount of water weighing as much as the shark independent of immersion medium, or an amount of water weighing as much as the apparent weight of the shark when immersed in water? I expect the latter, but then some indication of the apparent weight is needed, as for a neutrally buoyant shark this would be zero. If the former, that is a huge mass of water, and the reason escapes me. Axial swimming is not explained in the article and does not appear to be explained anywhere else on Wikipedia. A footnote may be useful. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"axial swimmers that flex their body for propulsion"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"own weight in water" means in the most literal sense possible "own weight in water"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The source specifies own mass, which is unambiguous. Weight in water is ambiguous as it can mean apparent weight. Own weight of water is less ambiguous.

I read the source. It also fails to explain the meaning of axial swimming and the requirement to displace a large mass of water by drag adequately. I also did a little research into fish locomotion, and found a resource which explains the differences between body forms optimised for acceleration, maneuverability and sustained high speed. I think Kent is trying to say that the sand tiger is optimised for acceleration and possibly maneuverability, but is an inefficient form for sustained high cruising speeds, which tends to be represented by less flexible bodies and high aspect ratio caudal fins, and preferably near neutral buoyancy to minimise induced drag. I am going to look for a suitable wikilink, but may have to resort to a redlink. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is clearer to me. If you are satisfied that that is the intended meaning of the source I am happy with it. OK for me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is a "pig-eyed appearance" intended to mean in this context?

the source said “pig-eyed” which means popping out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I accept that the source said "pig-eyed". I checked, and it is there, but I could not access adjacent text to see what meaning they intended. Nevertheless, I do not get a clear understanding from the expression as used in the article, and question its usefulness as a description on that account. I found definitions for pig-eyed in Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, which both say "small, deep-set eyes", quite the opposite of "popping out". I think we can reasonably assume that the authors meant small, deep-set eyes, and as the meaning is clearly not obvious, suggest that the article is changed to clarify. There is no entry in Wiktionary. Either reword or a footnote would do.

I just appendaged an explainer on the end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Anatomy

• Megalodon is represented in the fossil record by teeth, vertebral centra, and coprolite. Only one coprolite? If so, "a coprolite". If more than one, use plural form.

Teeth and bite forces

• What are post-cranial generated forces? Link would be sufficient.

I just removed “post-cranial”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Range and habitat

• Fossil remains show a trend for specimens to be larger on average in the southern hemisphere than in the northern, with mean lengths of 11.6 and 9.6 meters (38 and 31 ft), respectively; and in the Pacific more so than the Atlantic 10.9 and 9.5 meters (36 and 31 ft) respectively. The section in italics is not clear. Do the 10.9 and 9.5 meters refer to mean lengths in the Pacific and Atlantic (both hemispheres) repectively, or to mean lengths in the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere in one of these oceans?

11.6 and 9.6 metres mean length for the southern and northern hemispheres respectively; and 10.9 and 9.5 metres for the Pacific and Atlantic oceans respectively. The semicolon is there to separate the two   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

To what does "more so" refer? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what it sounds like? I use that every day to mean "a quantity more than..." (and on occasion "more like..." depending on the context, but you get the idea)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That is an explanation of the meaning, and is what I would expect it to mean. What I asked was what concept in the sentence "more so" refers to. Is it "a trend for specimens to be larger in the southern hemisphere than the northern", or just "a trend for specimens to be larger"? In effect I am asking whether the trend for larger in SH vs NH is exaggerated in the Pacific in relation to the Atlantic, or whether the trend for larger mean lengths in the Pacific than the Atlantic is greater than the hemispheric variation. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it myself after referring to source. No further action required if you are OK with the change. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Prey relationships

• Being an opportunist, it would have gone after small and fish and other sharks given the opportunity. First paragraph of the section states probably an apex predator, so maybe "Also being an opportunist...". In same sentence, "small and fish" makes no sense, but not sure what is intended. "Smaller fish"?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Checked: sample of 10 refs chosen from accessible websites. Some when checking specific content, some arbitrarily selected for no special reason. These checks are for validity only, i.e. the content is supported by the source. No comment on formatting.

• Roesch, B. S. (1998) - OK
• Does Megalodon still live - OK
• Alten, S. (2011) - OK
• Weinstock, J. A. (2014), Partly checked, some pages not accessible, no problem detected.
• Prothero, D. R. (2015), 1 use checked as OK
• Bendix-Almgreen, Svend Erik (1983) - OK
• Fitzgerald, Erich (2004) - OK
• Ferretti, Francesco; Boris Worm; Gregory L. Britten; Michael R. Heithaus; Heike K. Lotze1 (2010) - OK
• Renz, Mark (2002), partly checked, pages not fully accessible, samples checked were good. no problem detected.
• Siverson, Mikael; Johan Lindgren; Michael G. Newbrey; Peter Cederström; Todd D. Cook (2013) - OK

Additional checks when researching for clarification.

• Pimiento, C.; Balk, M. A. (2015) - OK

General criteria

• well-written: Could use some more copyediting. I will do what I can, but don't claim to be very good at it.
  • comprehensibility to the layperson reasonable for the topic. Some clarification needed as detailed above.
• comprehensive: Looks good to me.
• well-researched: Appears adequately cited, and those refs I have checked look good.
• neutral: As far as I can tell. No reasons found to suspect otherwise.
• stable: Looks fine. A lot of constructive work over the last few months and no recent edit wars.
• lead: Seems generally appropriate.
• structure: Also seems appropriate.
• citations: Not checked (yet). Looks OK on a sample check. (see above) I don't do ref formatting reviews, but have not noticed any obvious problems.
• media. See above: reasonable variety of images, appropriate for purpose, licensing issues appear to be fixed.
• length. Seems OK.

A lot has happened to the article since I last read through it carefully. Please ping me when the activity has subsided for a final check. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Well the last edit was over ten days ago, so I think things are kinda settling down now. User:RL0919 said he'll be reviewing prose to make sure sure all the language's not too sciencey and weird, so I might do some minor copyedits should he start up   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, on it. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

latest comments

• "Pig eyed" still does not add value for me, as it must be followed by an explanation to clarify, which would be just as effective without the original epithet. I will not oppose on this point, just saying.
• "Axial swimmers" applies to both sand tigers and great whites, and does not distinguish between the two. It basically means they swim by flexing the body sideways, as opposed to flapping or undulating paired fins. This reference] may help to distinguish between the sub-classes (anguilliform, carangiform and thunniform) of axial swimming of the sharks considered. I am not sure, but think the distinction you need to make is between carangiform and thunniform modes.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• largest fish that has ever lived -> largest fish ever known to have lived.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• However this result appears to be an error within the matrix and the average position for this individual is actually 19.6 meters (64 ft) What does average position for this individual mean in this context?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Megalodon, like contemporaneous sharks, made use of nursery areas to house their young, I think house is a bit of a stretch here. It suggests a more enclosed region than seems probable.

This covers up to end of section 3. My concentration is flagging, so will finish later. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

changed to "birth"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• ..where it is defined as a "hazard" to the era.. Hazard to the era?

it starts off every episode by popping up on the screen "location - x sea," "average temperature - x degrees," and "hazard - ..." and in this episode it said "hazard - Megalodon"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps hazard of the era would make more sense. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it myself. No more issues as far as I can see, moving to support · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Commented to end of article text. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal

• Mega shark series is a dab link, so that needs to be fixed.

that was one purpose,it just lists all the movies in the series   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Using a dab like that is a bad idea (it's just going to draw people trying to fix it), so I resolved by creating a Mega Shark (film series) article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• In prey relations, the text is being sandwiched between the two images, so if that could be fixed, it would be great.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

More by evening! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm gonna be gone over the weekend to a place where wifi is a foreign concept, so I'll answer any more comments on Monday (or Tuesday)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

wifi at last   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, completely forgot about it!

• Link naturalist.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• We could have images aligned to the left wherever possible, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location.

it also says the subject should be facing the text, so like the Megalodon painting shows the Megalodon facing the left so the picture should be on the right side so that it faces the text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, possibly over 200 centra. Only the great white approached it." Can these two sentences be merged somehow? (maybe "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, with the great white shark's equaling it, with possibly over 200 centra.)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is all I have to nitpick on. It is a really very well-written, solid article!Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Support - A very solid article, and well deserves a shiny star to it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll take a look at this soon. Some initial thoughts below. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seems the image layout could still be improved. In the Taxonomy section, the white shark or tooth image could maybe be moved down, so they don't cluster above, both next to the cladogram.

I moved the great white image down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Under "Teeth and bite force", the Baltimore jaw image seems a bit redundant and crammed-in, could be moved somewhere else.

any ideas where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It is slightly repetitive, so I'd just remove it or put it in the fiction section as decoration or something, but it's also a shame to remove it, so maybe just leave it as is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm leaving it as is then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• The vertebra under "Prey relationships" could be right aligned so it doesn't cluster with the skull photo.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In fiction" Still seems a way too specific and inadequate title for something that includes info about wrong dating of teeth. This has nothing to do with fiction, and instead of making a new section, it would be better to just make the title more inclusive.

I changed it to "Fiction and sightings"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How about "Fiction and misconceptions"? There have been no plausible sightings. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe fiction and cryptozoology? It may also be an idea to make the title even more generic, if we want to include for example non-fictional media appearances or such. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"Modern era"? "Appearances"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That's on the even vaguer end... "Modern era" could mean anything (all research is also modern?), and "sightings" is too uncritical, as it implies it has actually been seen. "Fiction and cryptozoology" is probably the most fitting after all, but if you want to be more inclusive, "cultural significance" could work. FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• The external links and videos should be cleaned up; some of the links don't work, and some are just redundant junk.

changed to "In fiction and cryptozoology"

I removed all the deadlinks and weird ones   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative combinations (of genus and species names, such as Carcharodon megalodon) should also be listed in the taxobox synonyms. It is also better to spell out the genus names in the presently listed synonyms, otherwise we won't know what genus each invalid species was assigned to. All synonyms should also redirect here.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there's a problem with listing genera separately from species here, though; Carcharocles contains species other than megalodon, so synonyms of that genus cannot be synonyms of the species C. megalodon itself. So what I meant is you should list full binomials as synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason why this restoration isn't used?[47] It doesn't seem like a white shark-like appearance has been ruled out, but it's explicitly mentioned as a possibility under description.

I checked the source and it doesn't actually have a picture of megalodon in it (or at least not one labelled "megalodon"), and it doesn't really have the same style as all the other pictures on the sight which makes me question it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

NobuTamura/Arthur Weasley is a pretty prolific paleoartist on Wikipedia (or at least was), he has done many images in different styles, from pencil to 3D, so there is no question it's his own. Much of his underwater work has the same style, see for example these:[48][49][50] FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I can find all those pictures on the website specified in the source, but I can’t find Megalodon on the website specified in the source. Also the article’s borderlining on picture overload and there’s already a pretty realistic Megalodon reconstruction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The image is right here on the site:[51] I agree there is an image overload, but that's mainly because we have way too many repetitive images of teeth (3) and jaws (5). There is only a single restoration of the animal, far from the description/anatomy section where such are usually placed, yet there is still room there (even if you keep the basking shark). It's up to you, but I think the balance could certainly be improved, and it's kind of inappropriate that the reader has to get that far down the article to get an idea how the animal looked like. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The image is licensed NC. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not on Commons[52], where the artist has uploaded it (and almost all the images on that blog) himself. In fact, he uploaded images for Wikipedia use long before he started his own website, and frequently asked for critique at the dinosaur art review page, so there is no copyright issue here (dual licenses are also fine). FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• There is a photo of a coprolite, is there any published information about this? Could be interesting.

added to the Anatomy section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In the past, the two major interpretations were Carcharodon megalodon (under the family Lamnidae) or Carcharocles megalodon (under the family Otodontidae)." This is very vaguely worded. Interpretation of what? What kind of interpretation? And what is "in the past"? You could say there has been a historical debate about its generic classification, and that one possibility is now in favour, but the current wording is just too weak.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Some argue" is listed as "weasel words", you could say "some researchers argue". FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am am the author of this section that was changed, I am quite unhappy with this change for a number of reasons.

"There has been some debate regarding the taxonomy of megalodon: some researchers argue that it is of the family Lamnidae, while others argue that it belongs to the family Otodontidae" as compared to the original

"The taxonomic assignment of C. megalodon had been debated for nearly a century, but has recently reached consensus. In the past the two major interpretations were Carcharodon megalodon (under family Lamnidae) or Carcharocles megalodon (under the family Otodontidae). However recently, consensus has been reached that the latter view is correct and that megalodon is of the family Otodontidae deriving from sharks of the genus Otodus, and thus should be placed under the genus Carcharocles"

No research for the past five or more years has suggested that Megalodon is part of Lamnidae,the latest papers I can see that suggest this are from the mid 2000's. The wording change seems to imply that there is still an active debate about the taxonomy, when there is not. I made this change to the wording and to the genus in the taxobox to specifically clarify this consensus so I am not sure why you changed it back, it gives a disingenuous impression to the reader. It is also inconsistent with the rest of the article, in the naming section it reads: "Megalodon was previously considered to be a member of the family Lamnidae, but it is now considered to be a member of the family Otodontidae, genus Carcharocles". So why only change the introduction? Again, I feel that this edit goes too far to the point of false balance and a misleading impression to the reader. As a point on the genus classification, genera are ultimately arbitrary as the sheer abundance of shark teeth mean that continuity between species of shark can be established. There are many chronospecies of megalodon that have existed since the palaeogene, and don't really effect the familial classification. My original edit might have been a bit too technical and clunky for an introduction, so I am not necessarily bothered by it simply being changed, but that the meaning is changed

Thus I am editing this section to draw comment, If you disagree then please respond to this comment, I am happy for my section to be changed as long as it accurately reflects that there is consensus in the Megalodon family classification.

Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There's this from 2016 that says "Carcharodon megalodon", but then again the taxobox uses Otodontidae, so I'm torn here. But in any case, fair point, there aren't that many that use that anymore, so I suppose it's kinda safe to say consensus's been reached; but in the rest of the article, should it take sides or should it not be changed from how it is right now? I'm not really sure there's a source that specifically says consensus has been reached, moreover they're just saying how it is in their opinion in an individual journal article or book or whatever   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response, sorry if the previous post came off as rude or cranky. Thanks for the reference, I think I have had similar discussions in the past. For this paper, it is not focused on Megalodon at all, instead as a discussion on the bite force of a living shark species, with Megalodons bite force being used as a reference. The fact that the paper does not mention the discussion of taxonomy of megalodon at all is quite telling, and the reference they cite is a 1996 paper which solely mentions the charcharodon name. Had they discussed the taxonomy at all and said something like "we disagree and treat it as charcharodon megalodon for xyz reasons", it would be worthy of merit, and thus the debate could still be considered active in that case.

However the people who were writing the paper appear to be zoologists and not shark paleontologists. I don't think that they dug particularly deep on the topic, simply due to lack of relevance to the paper, and therefore simply just took the bite force data from the 1996 paper and the genus name without scrutiny.

I think in future when we have disputes like this, only the opinions of current specialists should be considered. A lot of the time what happens is that someone who is not versed in the taxonomic debate does not read the literature carefully (Not that I blame them for this, publish or perish after all), typically doing a paper tangential to the topic (eg biometrics, population statistics etc). and cites older research, these articles are often given as a counter argument in Wikipedia discussions of there still being a debate on taxonomy, where in actual fact they have just blindly followed the taxonomy of the older literature, and don't really have an opinion per se. In these cases I think that references like this should be taken with a grain of salt.

Pretty much every paper that discusses megalodon taxonomy over the past 5 years or more agrees with the Otodontidae classification, so again I think we can consider this case fairly settled.

Now for your main question:

The genus level taxonomy for Megalodon is a complete nightmare. This is for a number of reasons, I will explain briefly.

Megalodons ancestry can be directly traced to a genus of shark called Cretolamna from the cretaceous period. After the K-Pg extinction, the genus split into branches. for most of the Palaeogene, the branch ancestral to megalodon is treated as the genus Otodus, one branch of Otodus becomes much larger in size and is then called Charcharocles, including several predecessor species like C. chubutensis etc, this then leads to Megalodon. As you can see, there are multiple genera covering a continuous sequence over 70 million years or more.

The genus and species concept works really well in in the modern world where you are only looking at a snapshot of time where every species is discrete. It also usually works really well in the fossil record as fossils usually only give a brief window into the past where is therefore also discrete for the most part. However the shear abundance of shark teeth means that continuity between species can be established over staggeringly long periods of time, where the form might change substantially. Which is unusual for vertebrates, but much more common for something like forams. In the fossil record normally eg dinosaurs, species are treated almost as if having spontaneously arisen and then gone extinct due to the incredibly poor resolution of the terrestrial fossil record. This why the problem is intractable, because it is a fundamental problem with the genus/species concept itself. I would personally stick with Charcharocles because this is the genus that the literature uses.

Hope this helps

Again thanks for the response, much appreciated

Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• The "etymology" section seems to be too specifically named compared with the content. Perhaps change to "naming", as it is not simply concerned with the meaning of the names.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz gave the shark its" I would rather say "this shark", when I read it first i thought you meant sharks in general as a taxon.

should I do that for every time is says "the shark" in the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it was just ambiguous in that instance. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

changed to "this shark"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• What did Agassiz base the name on?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The "fossils" section seems like a hodgepodge of text that belongs in other sections. Some of it is about evolution, some is descriptive, some is about extinction date. I think this should be spread out to more appropriate sections. Especially the last two paragraphs, which are entirely about morphology, surely belongs under description/anatomy, which is very short anyway.

I moved them to their appropriate sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Much better. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Relationship between megalodon and the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)" This caption seems misleading, since the cladogram shows the relation with many sharks, not just with the white shark. So it should rather be "including the white shark".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• " In this model, the great white shark", and "In this model, the great white shark is", very repetitive.

I did that to avoid confusion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You could say "according to one scheme" or such one if the times, to avoid repetition. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel like some people'd get confused why it suddenly changes from "model" to "scheme" (as if there's a difference) then back to "model"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• You should be consistent in whether you give scientific names after common names or not. Now you mention modern shark species without and some with.

where is the scientific name before the common name?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean some times you mention a species and give its scientific name afterwards, but sometimes you don't. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw one for the mako shark, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• You mention various geological ages without links or dates, but this will mean nothing to many readers, so you should add both.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "and predate the transitional Pliocene fossils." What transitional fossils? You have not introduced what these are.

considering great whites evolved 6.5 million years ago (at the very earliest), I removed it. I'm not really sure why the great white shark article says 16 mya considering I can't find anyone else who says that except for the one source they both cite (which I can't access)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Later on in the 1980s" Too informal wording.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "to classify the shark C. auriculatus into". Sounds weird, maybe say "was established to contain C. auriculatus" or some such.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Before this, however, in 1960," Insert sentence overload, you could easily cut "however".

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the phylogeny section, you are inconsistent in whether you mention authors and dates for theories or not.

added 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

• Many chronospecies are mentioned in that section, perhaps mention the word if the sources do.

it's mentioned in the paragraph about chronospecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, got to that part after I added the comment... FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "concluded that it is a paraphyly." The term needs to be explained, and the sentence is also wrongly worded. A taxon can be paraphyletic, it cannot be a paraphyly, which denotes the concept itself.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• The end of the Phylogeny indicates the species belongs in Otodus, but this is inconsistent with the rest of the article. What is the actual, current consensus, and when has it been established, and by who?

depends who you ask. Some say Carcharodon megalodon, some say Carcharocles megalodon, some say Otodus megalodon, and some say Megaselachus megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• You mention various subgenera, like Otodus (Megaselachus) megalodon, so this term could be mentioned.

I just wikilinked it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "in the 1980s, megalodon was assigned to Carcharocles." and "Before this, in 1960, the genus Procarcharodon was", why is it not in chronological order?

it’s less relevant. What’s most important is its relationship to the great white shark (classification at the family level), the rest of the paragraphs talk about its genus placement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "One idea on how megalodon appeared" Seems ambiduous, maybe say "one interpretation of megalodon's physical appearances is that".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• The Steno shark image takes a lot of vertical space, perhaps add the "upright" parameter.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The jaws may have been blunter and wider than the great white, and it may have had a pig-eyed appearance, in that it had deep-set and small eyes." The fact that these claims are in the same sentence makes it seem that the pig eyes appearance is also in contrast to the great shark. If not, it could be changed, maybe the order.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• The section "Anatomy" is incorrectly named; size and external shape are also anatomy. Maybe you mean internal anatomy.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Due to fragmentary remains" and "Due to the lack of well-preserved fossil megalodon skeletons" seems repetitive, and could be consolidated into one.
• The article appears to be in US English, yet you have metres and kilometres throughout.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• You mention informal names, yet overlook the fact that "megalodon" is itself an informal version of the specific name. Perhaps this could be stated, if the sources allow it. It is kind of similar to how thylacine is used.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "were based on a weaker evaluation of the dental homology between megalodon and the great white shark" I have no idea what this means. What is a "weaker evaluation" here?

changed "weaker" to "less-reliable"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure why "Largest known specimens" needs to be a separate section. Both examples are of teeth, so the text would seem to fit better in the section about teeth, which already contains measurements.

so people can find information quickly. Most likely people’re gonna be reading this article to see how big it got   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't they know where to look for it in the "estimations" section? In any case, the manual of style advises against short, single paragraph sections: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."[53] FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

merged with Estimations section

• "at the National Museum of Natural History (USNM), which is part of the Smithsonian Institution" Why is this needed?

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "but this tooth is still designated as intermediate." What does this mean?

intermediate tooth which is what the text before it was talking about, but I removed it since it's redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "hough a reconstruction at USNM approximate" Since you've aleady mentioned the museum, you could say "the USNM".

added "the"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "for its maximum confirmed size and the conservative minimum and maximum body mass of megalodon" Maybe these sizes could be listed here.

already listed in the Statistics section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Not for the white shark, whose size is specifically referred to here the only time, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

added max size for great white   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "and coprolite." I'm pretty sure it should be coprolites in plural.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "this means that most fossil specimens are poorly preserved" In a section about anatomy, that's not really what this means, but rather it is just the reason why.

changed to "consequently"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The jaws would have given it a "pig-eyed" profile." Not sure what the jaws have to do with the eyes, and isn't this repetition anyway?

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Chondrocranium" could be explained, also, the paragraph it appears in ends without citation.

looks like I accidentally deleted that ref a few edits back, fixed.

• "from Gram Formation" From the.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "crutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, possibly over 200 centra; only the great white approached it." Why not moved this to after tyou mention the fossils form Belgium, instead of after mentioning fossils from Denmark?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "a mature male, though relative and proportional changes in the skeletal features of megalodon are ontogenetic in nature, in comparison to those of the great white, as they also occur in great white sharks while growing." I'm not sure what you're saying here.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe the sentence under Locations of fossils could say "shown in the map below or some such, to make it clear that the text is connected to the image.

it's said in the caption what it is, and it's the only image in the section, and the only other thing in that section beyond that sentence is the table, and there's {{clear}} so it doesn't bleed into any other sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "its inferred tolerated temperature range is" Was?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "(although the megatooth lineage in general is thought to display a trend of increasing size over time)" What is the "megatooth lineage"?

changed to Carcharocles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The overall modal length has been estimated at 10.5 meters (34 ft), with the length distribution skewed towards larger individuals, suggesting an ecological or competitive advantage for larger body size." Why is this under range/habitat?

it talks about its habitat and its effects on it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "formidable predator", "a formidable feeding apparatus", seems repetitive when used in close succession.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Sharks generally are opportunistic feeders, but scientists propose that megalodon was largely a formidable predator." You could explain why "opportunistic feeder" is in contrast to "formidable predator". Especially since you later say about megalodon "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish", which sems like a contradiction.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "a higher trophic level" Could be explained.

does "more predatory" work?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems the term means it is higher in the food chain. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish and other sharks given the opportunity." Redundant.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish and other sharks" and "megalodon also would have been piscivorous" this means the same, redundant.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "some species became pack predators" Like which?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is a "killer sperm whale? You need to link and give a scientific name at first occurrence.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In areas where their ranges seems to overlap" Should be past tense.

fixed

• "The shark probably also had a tendency for cannibalism, much like contemporary sharks." You mention two different species in the preceding sentence, so specify megalodon instead of "the shark". This also avoids repetition of the word "shark".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Fossil remains of some small cetaceans, for example cetotheres, suggest that they were rammed with great force from below before being killed and eaten." How is this evidenced?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "They probably also targeted the flipper in order to immobilize the whale before killing it" and "This suggests that megalodon would immobilize a large whale by ripping apart or biting off its locomotive structures before killing and feeding on it" repetitive.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "preferred nursery sites" You need to explain what a nursery site even is before going into detail about it.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Neonate megalodons" Not sure why such an uncommon word needs to be used here.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Their dietary preferences display an ontogenetic shift:[20]:65 Young megalodon commonly preyed on fish,[26] giant sea turtles,[47] dugongs,[14]:129 and small cetaceans; mature megalodon moved to off-shore areas and consumed large cetaceans.[20]:74–75" This is almost word for word already explained in the Prey relationships section.

the Prey relationships section just says young megalodon ate more fish, but it goes more in-depth what mature megalodon eat   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• " from Ancient Greek: μέγας (megas) "big, mighty" and ὀδoύς (odoús) "tooth"" All this detail should not be in the intro.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• You capitalise as "Megalodon" a few places, which is inaccurate.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The shark has made appearances in several works of fiction, such as the Discovery Channel's Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives." I don't think you need to arbitrarily name one of many media appearances in the intro. Also, it is way too early in the lead, should be at the bottom, if anywhere.

figured I'd put it in the paragraph where it talks about what people are doing with it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

But why name one specifically out of several documentaries? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It was notable enough to get its own little paragraph specifically about it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Regarded as one of the largest and most powerful predators in vertebrate history," Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "looked like a stockier version" Likewise only referred to as stocky in the intro, but you also fail to mention the other possible appearances.

fixed, and I think "stocky" and "robust" are effectively synonyms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• You could mention in the intro that it is mainly/only known from teeth and vertebrae, which is the reason for the various size estimates.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Seems only a couple of points and answers need to be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - everything looks good to me now content-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 7: publisher location missing

Which one's that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-typed 7 for 2 – but ref 2 has since been replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 12: There are 21 citations to a page range 1–159. How is someone to check any of these, short of scouring the whole book?

when the page number isn’t specified in the refs, I just put {{rp}} directly after each mention of the ref to specify page numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(This is now ref 14) I understand the system now you've explained it, but I wonder if the general reader will. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been using it for a while, seems okay to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 17: Same problem – this time 31 citations without page references, in a book with at least 517 pages.

Same’s above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 23 and 40: what makes fossilguy.com a high quality reliable source

it’s written by palaeontologists    User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, the "about the author" link says: "I am not a professional in Geology or Paleontology... I am just a very interested amateur..." etc, so I wonder. When the site is assembled by an enthusiastic amateur, how can we be sure that it meets the required standards of reliability? For example, is there any evidence that the site's content is mentored by, has been approved by or recommended by universities or other learned bodies? Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well on that About the Author page it also lists him doing something with the Paleontological Society, it says he did an interview which starts out with, "We’re pleased to announce this one is with avocational paleontologist and expert fossil-finder, Jason Kowinsky. Jayson is the creator of the popular website FossilGuy.com and a long-time contributor to paleontological discoveries and education," so it checks out for me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Mr Kowinsky is knowledgeable – this is, after all, his hobby. That doesn't alter the fact that this site is the work of an amateur, and thus in my view fails the required FA standards of quality and reliability, but I'll leave the coordinators to make a judgement here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If a coordinator does find it unreliable, it's a secondary ref so I can easily just remove it and there's still gonna be another ref around citing the text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 29: as per 12 and 17 – 7 citations, no p. refs, book 389 pp.

chapter name is specified in this ref so the page numbers don’t have to be   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(It's 32 now) That may be your view, but the chapter is paginated and there is no reason at all for not providing the page refs. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 37: what makes theworldslargestsharksjaw.com a high quality reliable source?

it’s written by Joseph Bertucci, brother of Vito Bertucci, and the discussion on the Bertucci reconstruction is what it’s citing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(now 40): Being the brother of an expert does not of itself confer expertise – this is a tribute site. It's also unnecessary to include it, as the point in the text is covered by another reference. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 57: lacks publisher details

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Added the website and publisher (from here) – Rhinopias (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 71: there's a stray > sign, also publisher location missing, and no page refs

I just specified the chapter   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed, added, but for page refs: it seems as if this is referencing the entire work (unlike ref #70)? Unless the chapter "Megalodon: The Fisherman's Nightmare" should be cited to support the text more explicitly. – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(77 now) Why not simply put the page numbers that verify the information given in the text? Chapter headings are not an acceptable alternative in paginated sources. The specified chapter "Final report" is not available in the Google extract, so the link is presently valueless. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

added

• Ref 75: publisher location missing and no page ref

Assuming it's been pushed over to ref no. 78, it has a location and the chapter's specified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Added – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It's actually 81 now, and the necessary details have been added. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 76: publisher location missing

Assuming it's now ref no. 79, it's already specified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Added – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 80: New York Times should be italicised

It is?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed to newspaper parameter – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality and reliabiliuty. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ll try to fix the rest later, life got really busy really quickly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that happened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

I am wondering if you could include more information on the tooth anatomy:

• A bit more on the general shape might be helpful … They are concave on one side, right?
• How do the teeth differ in shape according to their location in the jaw?
• How are the teeth oriented? Is the concave side facing to the inside or outside? I think this is very important, because it is counter-intuitive: I saw museum mounts that got this wrong. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I will do this on Saturday   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

most likely on Saturday   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay I added a paragraph to the Teeth and bite force section going over all the points you raised. It does seem kinda weird how the labial side's not convex but no one seems to be questioning it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

I've had this on my watchlist for weeks, so about time I reviewed it. As usual with my reviews on science articles, I am coming from the perspective of a non-expert layperson who likes to read about ancient animals. I've only read part of the article so far. My initial concerns are about the Taxonomy section, which as currently written seems unnecessarily confusing. Specifically:

• The history of Agassiz's naming is inverted, describing his 1843 work, then an 1837 attribution to him, then 1835 articles. Why not describe the history in forward chronological order?
• "The teeth of megalodon are morphologically similar to those of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), and on the basis of this observation, Agassiz assigned megalodon to the genus Carcharodon." This could be a more straightforward sentence, such as, "Agassiz assigned megalodon to the genus Carcharodon because its teeth are morphologically similar to those of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)."
• "The great white shark was previously considered to be a close relative to megalodon, and the two were placed in the same genus, due to dental similarity ..." The aside about genus could be omitted since it was discussed in the section immediately previous. This would again have the effect of creating a simpler sentence.
• "In this model, the great white shark is more closely related to the shark Isurus hastalis than to megalodon, as evidenced by more similar dentition in those two sharks; megalodon teeth have much finer serrations than great white shark teeth. In this model, the great white shark is more closely related to the mako shark (Isurus spp.), with a common ancestor around 4 mya." Is that one model? If so, it seems like a lot of repetition in the phrasing. If it's two models, then the difference between them should be made more clear.
• "Megalodon was previously considered to be a member of the family Lamnidae, ..." This appears at the beginning of a paragraph that talks about the current preferred classification. It would seem to make more sense to mention this when the older model is discussed, both to consolidate the description of the older model and to make this paragraph more immediately about the current model.
• The rest of the many different classification models are discussed in what seems like a hodgepodge order -- at least it isn't chronological.

That's where I've paused; more to come. --RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I ordered everything in order of importance, so what's important about the Agassiz thing is that it was officially described in 1843, and then it shoots off to less important (though still notable) information about some inconsistencies with the dating. I think I fixed that second paragraph in Taxonomy by merging it with the third, and then merging the fourth with the third. The most important thing about it is its classification into Carcharodon and into Carcharocles, and I'm trying to keep the Casier theories close together.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Day 10: you've either run out of comments to give (which is fine), have chosen not to continue with the review (which is also fine), have gotten too busy to go on (which is alright), or you forgot to watch the page. Just let me know which one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I did let myself get distracted. Will take back up with more comments tomorrow. --RL0919 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Day 20: You know you don't have to do a review right?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Since there is plenty of feedback from other editors and I continue to have other distractions, I'll stop where I was and the coordinator can treat my comments as "drive by". --RL0919 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Chiswick Chap

• Just a driveby really, and I don't wish to spoil the party, but there are 5 images showing the complete wide-open jaws of the species. They are remarkable, but perhaps this is slightly too many, too similar? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Very good!

@Dunkleosteus77: Hi, I write quality articles on Czech version (cs:Mantela zlatá, cs:Létavec stěhovavý), and this is very good article. :) Great! Goodl luck with FAC. --OJJ (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2017 (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) 12:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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