Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2018

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2018 [1].

---

Bengal famine of 1943

Nominator(s):  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is no overstatement to say that the topic of article is hugely important in the academic literature regarding famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 is considered by academic consensus to be the paradigmatic case of a "man-made famine" (generally considered an inadvertent outcome of WWII; though some Indian nationalists consider it rather less inadvertent). Other scholars disagree, holding that it was a natural disaster, but its natural origins were obscured by the fact that accurate records were not kept of a decisive crop fungal infestation... In any case, it is a seminal event in world history, because of its horrendous death toll, its impact on world opinion regarding [British] colonialism, and its continued controversial nature even to this day... (special thanks to Brianboulton, Ceoil, Outriggr, Mr rnddude & others whose help is greatly appreciated). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I cried reading the article and feel that I won't be able to review it properly. I can say that you did a remarkable job on a difficult subject.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. You also said you cried reading the article... I hope this isn't too strong or impolite to say about the text that was on the page before, but quite honestly, the reason I have never given up through 2 years, many arguments, gathering over 300 sources, 2 FACs (1 failed and 1 withdrawn), 1 failed MILHIST A-review, and making well over 5,000 edits is that I felt that the original version of this article (before I ever touched it) failed disgracefully in its responsibility to honor the memory of those who died during the crisis. It did very little to preserve and present the memory of all that happened. Honestly, if not for that feeling, I certainly would have given up after 2 or perhaps 3 weeks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Godammit I gonna go through it, review and give you a pass. I can state that this article deserves it for it preserves the memory in a neutral yet absolutely implacable way.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: I really didn't want to say this, out of sensitivity for your emotional response, but I have to: May I ask you to strike through the last two sentences of your reply? They are alas POV. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I might actually better stay away from this article, it might be too close to my family history.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• You can review, and in fact that would be helpful because there may be a shortage of reviewers (?). But try to do so from a detached, academic perspective, if at all possible. If not, then.. thank you for you comments so far! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Lingzhi kindly acknowleges my contribution to the article, which was mainly the removal of about 6,000 words of text from some gross overdetailing in the Background and Pre-famine sections. These length issues were raised at the last FAC and at the PR that preceded it, and I took a somewhat bold approach to the problem. I believe that the article now has much more impact, and I think the current length is justified, given the importance of the topic. At this point I'll just mention a few minor issues:

• The i/box image caption says: "These photographs altered world opinion on colonialism." Is there a source for this statement? If there is, I would have thought this would be worthy of mention in the main text, but I don't see it there.
  • I thought that was in the article. Did someone take it out? I will look. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Brianboulton: UPDATE: I have revised the i/box photo caption and added a longish sentence with two sources in the "Media" section. [The first part of the sentence was lifted from SV's article on Ian Stephens but I verified the sources and the content personally, and agree that the sources fully and clearly support the assertion]. Moreover, a little farther below on this FAC page you can see me diligently working on another issue you raised. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• • • I'm happy with the revised caption, since the statement is now fully cited in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Although most of the difficulties in identifying the various levels of "government" have been resolved, there are still pockets of confusion. For example, the "1942–44: Refusal of imports" section begins: "From late 1942 high-ranking government officials and military officers made repeated requests for food imports..." What government were these officials of?
  • I can double-check. I think it was Governor Herbert and and even a little bit Linlithgow, but mostly Herbert. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I no longer have full access to "Churchill's Secret War" which devotes an entire chapter to discussing this question in detail (obviously, from an Indian nationalist perspective). I can try to get access to that again, and to other similar quotes. WAVELL's initial requests were turned down, even though (if i recall correctly) other high-ranking officers such as Auchinlek signed off on the requests... I'll try to find that info and add a relevant cite that backs up "military officers made"..... meanwhile, the info currently cited only says "Government of India":

  • But the shortage seemed absorbable, and the Indian government used this 'rice shortage' estimate only to supplement its request to London for shipping allocation to meet the existing 'wheat shortage', viz. shipping facilities to import 'an additional 600,000 tons of wheat'" ... Relevant footnote says: "See the Secretary of State's telegram to the Viceroy on 16 January 1943, Document no. 350 in Mansergh (1971), pp. 514—515. London continued to turn down requests by the government of India for shipping allocations throughout 1943; see Documents nos. 59, 71, 72, 74, 98, 139, 157, 207, 219 in Mansergh (1973), and also Wavell (1973), chs. 2 and 3."

  • ANOTHER, with more names:

    While Herbert was insisting that Bengal needed imports, Linlithgow was still arguing that there was enough in the province. Further reports of the rapidly deteriorating crisis forced Linlithgow to change his tune. By mid-July he was demanding food imports as a matter of extreme urgency, no matter 'how unpalatable this demand must be to H.M.G.' and realizing its 'serious potential effect on military operations'...Amery, now also convinced that disaster was looming, took Linlithgow's plea seriously and argued the case at a meeting of the war cabinet on 31st July. Relying on military rather than humanitarian rhetoric, he advised that unless help was forthcoming, India's role as a theatre of war would be seriously compromised.32 However, the war cabinet held, against all the evidence, that 'the shortage of grain in India was not the result of physical deficiency but of hoarding', and insisted that the importation of grain would not solve the problem. Amery pleaded in vain with them to reject the position of the Minister for War Transport, who offered merely 100,000 tons of Iraqi barley and 'no more than 50,000 tons as a token shipment...to be ordered to Colombo [ceylon] to await instructions there'. Ministers hoped that on the strength of this measly offer but 'without disclosing figures' the Viceroy would announce that supplies were on their way as required. Amery conceded that he 'might be compelled by events to reopen the matter within a very few weeks'.33 Just a week later, General Auchinleck, commander-in-chief of British forces in India, echoing Amery's request, pleaded with the chief of imperial general staff in London (apparently Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke: 'so far as shipping is concerned, the import of food is to my mind just as if not more important than the import of munitions'.34 To no avail: on September 24th the war cabinet decided that it would not be possible to divert ships to lifting grain for delivery in India before the next Indian harvest.

    • There is still confusion in the opening sentence. The natural chain of communication would have been provincial governors and military commanders to Viceroy, then Viceroy to Amery and then Amery to the War Cabinet, and you say that this chain was operating "by the end of 1942" and experiencing repeated rejections or waterings-down by the War Cabinet. But you then contradict yourself in saying "Early in January [1943], the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, communicated the first of many requests for food aid to Churchill's War Cabinet, initiating a cycle of requests and refusals". So some rewriting around the dates is obviously necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• In the same section you say: "Leo Amery sent the first of many requests to the UK for food aid". As Secretary of State for India, Amery was a minister of the British government, so he was based in London and would not have had to "sent to the UK" for anything.
  • I will check wording. Avery stood between the people on the ground in India and the bigwigs in London (esp. Churchill). I will try to clarify. Alas I think this whole "government of India" and "Government of bengal" bit would be lost on Americans and perhaps others as well. It confused me for a very very long time. Even the provincial government was largely run by British men appointed by other British men. Suhrawardy (after Pinnel retired) was an exception; he was a Muslim Indian appointed by British men. He screwed up too. His name isn't mentioned because he only played a role in one scew up (the Food Drives). I think it might take an entire article (wikilinked within this one at some point) to explain all this.
    • Avery would have been based in London. He was the minister in the UK government with responsibility for India. The Government of India was separate, and largely based in New Delhi. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this FAC and will be interested to read comments as they appear. I am well aware of the physical and emotional energy that has gone into producing this article, an effort deserving the full respect of the WP community. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Brianboulton: For the "who requested" I added " (including John Herbert, the governor of Bengal; Viceroy Linlithgow; Leo Amery the Secretary of State for India, and General Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India) Ó Gráda, 2009, pp 174–79). I'll clarify your other "Amery" request in a moment. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: I kinda punted, but I think it is roughly accurate. My brain is getting a bit overloaded these days, and the several sources are sometimes kinda vague-ish about the dates, and it's a little hard to lace them together. But the story is this: Amery begged London many times, often because Herbert begged Linlithgow and Linlithgow begged Amery. The general and admiral (I added one) did so muc less frequently, but they did so. And all of this...it may have started a little in December 1942 but requests started popping around like popcorn in January and thereafter. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It will take a while to work through this article, so my comments are likely to be iterative.

• As an initial question, is there now consensus among the editors involved in this article that it is of FA standard? A factor which led to the failure of the earlier nominations was concerns over the lack of consultation during its development. I can't see a discussion on the article's talk page regarding this.
  • I note that this hasn't been answered. Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#Death total indicates that the answer is 'no' (@SlimVirgin: if you have time, could you please comment on this, and how you see the article at present?). Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D, the article does not have consensus from my point of view. Three editors have complained about the rewrite independently of each other. The first was AidWorker, a subject-matter expert on food policy and famine; he was not an experienced editor, so he had difficulty explaining the issues in ways that were actionable. The second was Fowler&fowler, an experienced editor and expert on India; his main criticism was the same as Aidworker's, namely that there was original research in the form of synthesis. I have no background in either India or famine, but I started reading the sources a few months ago, and I found the same thing in several places: the text was sort of in the sources, but not quite. Also, the sources used are not always about the famine. I think what has happened is that Lingzhi has written a secondary source, almost an essay, analysing his choice of primary, secondary and tertiary sources, rather than a tertiary source that summarizes the scholarly literature on the famine, which is what this article should be.

I began identifying some of the problems on talk, and I tried to make suggestions for how to move forward, but the reception was not good. In one example, even something that was unarguably unsourced (and that, so far as I know, is false) was restored to the article after I'd removed it. One difficulty is that several of the footnotes contain bundled references without saying which source supports which point, which makes verification harder, especially when sources may need to be borrowed via inter-library loan. I would like to see the bundles broken up so that we can clearly see which source supports which part of the text, or a pointer added to the note about how the sources are used.

I'm in the process of looking for an external academic reviewer, but I'm troubled about this too, because the article is not well organized in places, and there's a lot that doesn't need to be there, and also quite a bit missing or not described clearly, so it would make more sense to wait until we have a better version before asking for an external review. I only raced ahead with that because Lingzhi kept nominating it for FAC. I see the current version as a good first draft. But now I think we need to talk about the article's structure; which scholarly sources should provide the scaffolding; how to comply with DUE; how to cite the sources so that, if there is bundling, it is not a bar to source verification; and who the article is aimed at, and how to make the text as clear as possible for that group. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• As a broad comment, there are far too many notes. I appreciate that this is a complex topic, but we're up to note G by the start of the second para of the main body of the article, and by the end of the article we're up to note BI. These notes contain references which should be presented as such, material contradicting the text of the article, estimates of fatalities which should be covered in the body of the article and excessive and sometimes irrelevant detail. This is likely to be confusing to readers. If the material isn't important enough to be in the body of the article, it should, in general, not be included at all.
  • Yes I added many notes, then stopped, then argued that other editors should not be adding more and more and more and longer ones. They were unconcerned, so i thought "Screw it" and continued adding more myself. I can look into which could be deleted. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Pretty much all of them in my view. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this. I feel footnotes are extremely helpful. Really extremely helpful. i can still try to delete one or two or maybe even three. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I cannot support the article's promotion to FA class with anywhere near as many notes as this, for the reasons noted above. Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I also cannot remove all or even most of them. I said I will try to remove a few, if possible. But I have been sick and as weak as a kitten for the past 8 or 9 days, even while traveling, and yet have completely rewritten the "Relief" section... One holdup with the notes is that I didn't add all of them, and so if there was anything I would want to keep or remove, I would have to go back and verify everything other people added. It would take a while. A second thing is that you and I disagree on the basic idea of footnotes. I think they are extremely helpful. I deal with footnotes all the time at work (read, college professor, albeit an extremely humble professor in an extremely humble college). To me, they are par for the course. So I will try to remove a few, if I can, but if you hate them so much, you can Oppose and then match your disapproval of footnotes to some part of WP:WIAFA. I of course hope you won't, but there is a gap between our positions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "while access to international sources was largely denied by Churchill's War Cabinet" - not that simple: worldwide shortages of shipping were also a problem, as the article later discusses.
  • But you can't put shipping up early in the article, because that would be a straightforward case of POV. You could say they claimed shipping was the problem, but then that begs the questions, "Why do you say 'claimed'? You mean it wasn't?' And then you'd have to launch into an explanation.. which is done farther down. In short, I don't even think you can mention shipping early on. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It is POV to omit this. The Allies were in fact suffering significant shortfalls of shipping at this stage of the war, especially in this region (which led to the cancellation of multiple plans to conduct amphibious attacks to outflank the Japanese in Burma). The article notes that this meant that a famine was probably inevitable somewhere. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • And now you see the dilemma. It's POV to mention it without saying it's highly debatable. It may be POV (I don't think so, but I see how others would) to omit mentioning it. The only answer is to move the entire "Sipping" section into the WP:LEDE. Or to omit it Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • The lead is presenting a simplistic and one sided view which does not represent the actual content of the article, and which could be easily corrected with a few words. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
          • UPDATE: I added "arguably due to a wartime shortage of shipping" plus a footnote. I know you hate footnotes. I am sorry. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(←) "Some scholars suggest this was because of a lack of shipping, but others disagree"? Butthen you'd have to add, "Churchill also repeatedly turned down offers of aid from the US, Canada and Australia. Some scholars again suggest this was because of a lack of shipping, but others again disagree." And then you'd have to explain both disagreements. And.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• The lead does not need notes explaining what's covered later in the article. This sentence still uses the incorrect "Churchill's War Ministry" formulation. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Crucially, the (debated) shortfall in rice production in 1942 occurred during the all-important aman harvest" - this sentence is unclear. If there wasn't a shortfall, it's meaningless.
  • No one actually knows if there really was a shortfall, and if there was, then by how much. The crop production statistics were meaningless gibberish at the time. Most sources agree there was a modest shortfall, but a minority (Tauger, Bowbrick, and others) think the shortfall was very large indeed.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Say this in the article then. The current sentence is very unclear. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Although imports were a small part of the total production" - how could imports be part of local production? Do you mean that imports were small compared to local production?
  • I'll look into this; at first glance it seems to be simply a poorly chosen word. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • UPDATE: changed to "Although imports were a small portion of the total available food crops," Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'm troubled by the Malthusian tone of the narrative in the 'background' section. While Bengal wasn't self-sufficient in food by the start of the war, it didn't need to be given that it could and did import it (the UK also wasn't self-sufficient in food at this time, ditto Japan). While this led to a vulnerability, it was manageable as long as transport networks worked.
  • And you have hit on perhaps half the problem: the transport networks didn't work. They were quite destroyed, first by the Denial schemes, and then by the fallout from the Denial schemes, while the trains were used for military transport. Boats are the main (almost only) means of transport, and the Denial schemes screwed them. Some key sources go into a Malthusian discussion, but then sometimes say, "Well, they it's quite possible that they might have still have been OK-ish, with considerably less loss of life, perhaps even only minor loss of life, if x hadn't happened (often saying, "if the transport hadn't been screwed," but other thing as well). This certainly was not a straightforward Malthusian famine, but it was preceded by a very obvious and oft-repeated dire vulnerability to famine. That vulnerability was to some significant degree (sources disagree on the percentage of influence) caused by Malthusian population factors and then also to some significant degree (sources disagree on the percentage... ) caused by fragmentation of holdings for debt/inheritance reasons.. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• "The refugees fell victim to dysentery, smallpox and malaria, and later to cholera.[61] According to one estimate, between 10,000 and 50,000 refugees died from various causes even before they reached India.[62]" - is this relevant to the topic of the article?
  • Perhaps the numeric detail could be deleted. But the refugees are important, as is their condition upon arrival. A key point is that Bengal was subjected to shock after shock after shock after shock. Some meaningful proportion (sources disagree, as always) was psychological. The bombing of Calcutta, forex, played a huge role. The populace nearly abandoned the city (for a very short time) because a couple poot-butt little bombs dropped. The populace panicked, then the government panicked. The bombing and ultra-brief evacuation largely inspired the Priority distribution scheme. And the bombing caused (brief) panic largely because Burma had fallen and people were expecting invasion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If you want to say that the situation before the food crisis was bad, just say this directly. Don't force readers to try to piece things together. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "After the loss of Burmese imports there was increased demand on the rice producing regions" - but note W says that Burmese imports were "small"
  • Yes. I though that point was clearly covered: the effect was not only supply to Bengal, but on 1) supply to other provinces, which began a bidding war that gravely affected Bengal, and 2) on the 'cushion that Burma provided in case of trouble, and 3) on morale/psychology. It's not a straightforward hit on Bengal's supply, but it is a huge factor nonetheless. Would you like me to add quotes from sources to this discussion? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • OK, I see this now. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Despite this, Bengal continued to export rice to Ceylon[Y] for months afterward, even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent" - who was doing the exporting? Businesses which the government wasn't stopping, or the government from stocks it was acquiring?
  • • Update: I trimmed this a little. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think (not sure) Bengal was exporting to everyone, and it was businesses and government. That is my recollection. The point of Ceylon is that 1) it was a significant proportion of the exports, and 2) government did not see it necessary to prioritize Bengal (or more specifically, the rural poor of Bengal). I would need to double-check to make sure this recollection is accurate. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Using "Bengal" in this context implies that it was some kind of official action. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh. yes. exports to Ceylon were govt, all the way, no private. Meanwhile, however, there were also exports to other provinces, which were largely (maybe solely) private. Sorry for the confusion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• "All this, together with transport problems that were to be created by the government's "boat denial" policy, were the direct causes of inter-provincial trade barriers on the movement of foodgrains,[73] and contributed to a series of failed government policies that further exacerbated the food crisis" - internal links within articles are generally discouraged, and there are three in this sentence alone.
  • You can delete the internal links if you like. I think in a large article they are useful. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It is not my job to make the article compliant with the MOS and similar. Moving this section down as I suggested elsewhere would also remove any need for such links. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Most of the para starting with "The fall of Burma had brought Bengal close to the war front; the war's impact fell more strongly on Bengal than elsewhere in India" has already been stated.
  • I have been considering moving a few sentences. That may be aa part of this; I'll look into it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• What is the purpose of the para starting with "Nearly the full productive output of India's cloth, wool, leather, and silk industries were sold directly to the military"?
  • Cloth famine, which aggravated unsanitary conditions. And more importantly, inflation, which many people think caused the whole famine (tho.. inflation was both structural and speculative...). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing the link to the topic of this article. I'd suggest deleting this and the 'Cloth famine' section, or reworking this material in a more concise way which makes the link explicit. I'd note that there were worldwide clothing shortages at this time as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'll look at tweaking it. Deleting it is a non-starter. The military buildup and the means by which it was financed are the reason for the initial inflation. Most scholars, including the Nobel-prize winning Amartya Sen, are very clear on this point. And delete the cloth famine? No way, that was a key element of the suffering and lack of sanitation. This wasn't a cloth shortage, it was near-complete cloth non-availability, at least for the rural poor. They could not afford it. Its price was skyrocketing, as discussed. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• "the United States Air Force flew" - it was the United States Army Air Forces at the time
  • OK thanks will fix.
• The '1942–45: Military build-up, inflation, and displacement' section should be moved to later in the article: it's mainly about the period after the crisis of early 1942
  • Mmm, I'll think about this. The section is about inflation, and dislocation of populace. If you move it later, it can't be moved much later. It's still about the build-up to the famine. It clearly belongs after the fall of Burma, and before the famine. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• " Rice was directed away from the starving rural districts" - this appears to be the first time the emergence of starvation is noted, yet where any why this occurred isn't described.
  • I'll check on this, thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• "it was difficult not to conclude that the Churchill war ministry and Winston Churchill himself had a visceral hostility toward India:" - the source does not go this far: it states that "it is difficult to escape the impression that the War Cabinet [note the proper title] was simply hostile to India" and then notes that Churchill greatly disliked Indians. This sentence is lightly paraphrased from the book, but exaggerates its argument - not least as the Labour Party which was somewhat more sympathetic towards India contributed several members of the War Cabinet.
  • Many sources make this point again and again specifically with respect to Churchill. Key advisors were either hostile (Cherwell) or apparently unconcerned (Leathers, perhaps seeing himself as a hard-nosed pragmatist). Yes the Labour party was considerably more benevolent, as is very briefly mentioned in the "Social discord (Quit India)" section. But Churchill was hostile.. in fact, I really toned down the arguments against him, for fear of devolving into a running vitriolic paraphrase of "Churchill's Secret War." Even his own contemporaries/countrymen essentially called him racist (I recall that General Wavell had a very sharp quote to that effect, as did... someone else... was it Avery?) . Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I am not referring to the material on Churchill. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• "as the cessation of Burmese imports continued to drive up rice prices" - if these were small, how would this have much of an impact?
  • I though that was explained in the article... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• "Girls were also sold to the military," - highly dubious. A strong source is needed to support claims that the British and British Indian Armies had sex slaves or similar. I presume what's intended is that these women were forced into prostitution where they serviced soldiers.
  • @Nick-D: The sources on prostitution of girls/women to the military are omnipresent; saying that that didn't happen wouldn't pass WP:SNIFF. [If you need more sources for rampant prostitution, dealing mainly with the military, I might be able to scrape together ten or fifteen.] As for the possibility of "chattel", however: the source currently quoted says "girls were sold to the military" but crucially, doesn't define "sold"; it could easily mean "brought into prostitution" or it could mean "sold as chattel". There was in fact at least one case where a UK officer purchased a girl outright as chattel and it caused a stir in the UK House of Commons. I don't recall whether it was Linlithgow or Herbert or Amery who had to testify in front of the House of Commons and deny everything. But I am just saying all that for the sake of completeness. To the point, I am not at this time prepared to argue that girls were sold as outright chattel. I changed "sold" to "prostituted". Is that sufficient?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • That still states that the Allied militaries were the purchaser of the prostitutes' services. These forces did not run official brothels or the like, and individual personnel (using their own money) were presumably the clients. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• "Despite a long-established and detailed Famine Code that would have triggered a sizable increase in aid, and a statement privately circulated by the government in June 1943 that a state of famine might need to be formally declared,[265] this never happened" this is already stated
• The coverage of the relief effort seems rather thin. Why did the military take over the relief effort, how did it manage to solve the problems, and how long did this take?
  • I think the coverage is thin because the coverage in sources is thin. IIRC they said, "And the heroic WAVELL stood up to London, and relief was offered, and it went well, but the real solution was the harvest. The End". But I will try to see if i overlooked something. It is very possible... Why did the military take over the relief effort? In a word, WAVELL, the "Good Viceroy". Apparently Churchill thought Wavell was a bit of a loser, and allegedly put him in charge hoping he'd continue to be ineffective. But Wavell shocked Churchill by transforming into a bold and determined lion. Wavell was not the only "good guy" here; Herbert almost kissed Wavell's boots and wept with joy (figuratively speaking) when Wavell stood up to London. And yes there were reports of soldiers helping, and.. were they ordered not to? yes that rings a bell.. I can try to find it, sounds like "Hungry Bengal" to me... and the rank-and-file soldiers were universally praised as the relief efforts took place. MMmm, I remeber a quote, "Six months into Wavell's efforts, little had been accomplished.." but that seems to contradict the praise that everyone heaps on that effort. The two key points are 1) WAVELL. 2) But even tho he was heroic and impeccably correct, even wavell wasn't the real turn-around. It was the harvest. [Just like FDR didn't really turn the US economy around, it was WWII that did that.. but I chase rabbits..] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • This kind of response is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I don't understand. Let me try to give very straightforward answers: 1) Why was the military involved? Linlithgow had been Viceroy through most of the famine, but did nothing. Then General Wavell became Viceroy, stood up to London, and soon after that the military was handing out relief. 2) Why is coverage so thin? Because, you have to understand, most books/articles do not devote words to Wavell's efforts. They praise him unreservedly, but don't describe the details of his operations very much. Except that he got rid of the interprovincial trade barriers, using precisely the same authority that Linlithgow pointedly declined to use.. [Ah, I do recall, many relevant high-ranking military officers were very keen to obey Wavell's orders. They were all for it. I'l try to find that quote.] I certainly need to add a sentence or two about his standing up to London and removing the trade barriers. But.. I don't know how many further details i can find. I will look. 3) How long did it take? It took until the harvest was brought in. That brought prices down dramatically (but still not to pre-war levels). It brought grain into the markets. Now, bear in mind, the famine in a larger sense was still raging, because of the disease phase. But the food crisis phase ended when the harvest was brought in. Is this a helpful response? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Lizzie Collingham's book has a useful summary of the relief effort. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Go to ""Good%20Viceroy"&f=false Hungry Bengal" and search for "Good Viceroy" Pages 140-145... I will try to find more. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Various sources also refer to military personnel providing aid to the starving on an ad-hoc basis (and policies being in place prohibiting this)
  • See above. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• How was the record rice harvest in December 1943 achieved? - the article describes the problems which were suppressing the harvest, and how this was turned around dramatically seems important.
  • Do you mean, " Who harvested all those mountains of rice?" I know this sounds stupid, but: As far as I know, nobody knows. There was a huge excess of population before the famine, and a huge number of redundant workers, but they were surely too weakened to do heavy lifting etc. Perhaps they came from other provinces? Greenough mentions this. I can try to find a quote.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The article does a good job of describing the complex and often entrenched societal, economic, logistical, political and climatic problems which led to the disaster. How these were overcome so quickly (thus saving vast numbers of lives) seems pretty significant. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• The various estimates of the number of fatalities should be moved into the body of the article (the 'Famine, disease, and the death toll' section does not in fact discuss what the death toll is estimated at - I can understand the mortality table, but it needs figures to provide context)
• "Overall, the table shows the dominance of malaria as the cause of death throughout the famine" - I'm not sure that it does. Malaria made up 43% of deaths in the famine year of 1943 (up by 10 percentage points), and increased after the point when the article says the famine ended (eg, over 1944). The growth of cholera seems to have been more significant in 1943.
• Also, I'm not sure why some of the percentages in the table are negative?
  • I've only had half a cup of coffee so far, so I hope I can be coherent. Percentages (%) for 1943 and 1944 are of excess deaths (that means, the percentage of the deaths that were more than usual and therefore due to the famine, not the percentage of total deaths or even of average deaths) as compared to rates from 1937–41, while those for 1937–41 are with respect to the average annual deaths of that period. For one thing, that means you cannot take the (%) column from 1937–41 and make any straightforward comparison of it to the two (%) columns for 1943 and 1944 in the same row (same cause of death), because they are percents of totally different things... But you can compare the % from the single year 1943 and the % from the single year 1944, because they do measure the same thing.... Meanwhile, you can compare the Rate columns straight across any row to each other, because all cause-specific death rates are based on a constant denominator - the enumerated population in the 1941 census. So the explanation of the weird negative percentages in the "Respiratory" and "Injury" rows goes looks like this: the death rates for both remained more or less the same and in fact slightly falling throughout the famine. That kinda makes sense. Take injuries, for example, many fatal injuries are probably caused during manual labor or whatever, and millions were too sick to work. But the negative numbers aren't really really because those rates were falling (or not mainly because they were falling). The negative numbers are mainly because the explanatory power of other causes of death for the famine was growing dramatically, while the explanatory power of injuries for famine deaths was... negative... [In super-simple terms, I suppose you could say, "Dying from Injury spared him from dying from famine"; so the rates are negative]... As for Malaria versus Cholera (which was bigger/biggest overall?), if you look at Rates, in overall numbers, Malaria was the bigger (and also the biggest overall) killer both before the famine (6.29 versus 0.73) and during the famine (11.46 versus 3.60 in 1943; 12.71 versus 0.82 in 1944). Malaria was always and everywhere the biggest killer. That makes it even more remarkable, from a numeric standpoint, that the rates in Malaria took a huge leap up. The biggest killer became a super-killer... The story of the Cholera numbers is that they took a HUGE relative jump in 1943, Rate jumped from 0.73 to 3.60, and this jump explained very nearly one-fourth of the famine-caused deaths (not the total deaths, not the average deaths) in that year. But then Rates dropped down in 1944 to almost (or slightly higher than) their previous average (0.82 as compared to previous average of 0.73). hey then explained only a tiny fraction of excess (famine-caused) deaths.
  • I have a masters degree in demography, and after reading that I can't understand this table. Your explanation of it suggests that it is fatally flawed: essentially it's presenting relatively advanced demographic concepts in an unusual way. If the 1943 and 1944 figures are for excess deaths, this isn't actually noted in the table's title or column headers, and I don't understand why the table would present different kinds of data alongside one another. The figures hidden away in note A seem much better suited to Wikipedia's audience. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you talking about the very first footnote in the whole article, the one that runs through various estimates? First, those are not broken down by cause of death, which was kinda the point that was being explored at that point in our article. Second, forgive me, but I find it slightly frustrating to keep repeating (see article's Talk Page) that that info is Just. Plain. Outdated. And. Superseded. I will try to set up a bit of a table with a narrative that is easier to digest. I need to emphasize twp points: 1) Dyson/Maharatna is academic consensus, and 2) whatever we eventually wind up with must deal with excess mortality figures (as opposed to raw mortality)... I will have time tomorrow... thank you for your patience. [By the way, that fatally flawed table is reproduced from the academic source; I didn't conjure it up myself... Also, if you have a master's in demography, then you could in fact read Dyson/Maharatna yourself. I will happily send them to you]. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D: I still promise I will replace that complicated table with certainly a simpler narrative explanation and hopefully a new, simpler table. Meanwhile, in response to you & SV and esp. because I found a very nice quote (by Devereux) that permits me to do so, I have stricken my "Just Plain Outdated remarks above, and replaced excess mortality figures with a range (2.1 to 3 million) and an explanation. More later but I have many chores at the moment. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: Sorry to keep pinging you. The table has been greatly simplified and its explanation amplified. Your input solicited.
• Finally here, the article and its notes say that the figures relating to the population of Bengal and the impact of the famine are all at least somewhat reliable, yet this isn't noted in relation to the table. How reliable is it?
  • UPDATE: I answered this question earlier at length (below this), but in brief, the answer to this question is the same as is explained in footnote "A" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No statistics are anywhere reliable in any absolute sense, period. The numbers in the table have a little fudge room because they weren't always 100% sure of the cause of death, but they are MOSTLY kinda reliable because healthcare workers were actually counting dead bodies and death rates in various hospitals, clinics etc. and comparing them to previous death rates in hospitals, clinics etc. No one knows the TOTAL death counts because countless thousands died in ditches along the roadsides. But they do have hospital records, and the death rates from those records can be assumed to also reflect rates from the larger population. Meanwhile, the crop statistics only very, very roughly reflected reality. In very many cases, unqualified, unequipped and unmotivated people just made stuff up... making extremely rough guesses.. just to satisfy the govt requests for statistics... OH PS if you're asking what Maharatna's staistical source was, looks like it was annual Bengal Public Health Reports, mentioned by Maharatna on p. 239. He says that "great confidence seems to be attached" to them (here talking specifically about malaria numbers). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The article states that "Contemporary mortality statistics are unreliable, particularly for the rural areas where methods were rudimentary even in normal times", but then presents readers with a table (referenced to the same source as this proviso) giving changes in mortality rates at a two decimal point level of detail. This is obviously contradictory. Your assertion about statistics never being reliable is wrong: official statistics produced by modern advanced economies tend to be highly reliable, especially on topics such as this (the point being that, say, modern Australia mortality data is of a vastly superior level of reliability to the figures collected in colonial-era India during a major crisis but readers wouldn't understand this from the article)Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • UPDATE: Thanks, I have changed text to "Contemporary mortality statistics were to some degree under-recorded". Thank you for the observation. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• "This greatly affected domestic and international perceptions of the famine and sparked an international media frenzy" - how did the publication of photos in an Indian newspaper have an international impact? Where they also published internationally?
  • UPDATE: Yes added. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Also, was there really a "media frenzy"? This seems rather imprecise.
  • UPDATE: Reworded. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• "The images had a profound effect and marked "for many, the beginning of the end of colonial rule"." - was this in India, or elsewhere?
  • Alas, the source doesn't say. We now have a strong link between "famine photos" and "spurred govt action; saved lives", but the link between photos and "world opinion about colonialism" is weak. I will try for a couple more days to find more, but if I don't, I will delete that bit. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Such comments are also a bit simplistic, given the general consensus among historians is that Indian independence was inevitable by this time. Focusing on the impact of the images also seems to under-sell the impact the famine had on the credibility of British rule of India locally and around the world.
  • yes perhaps the logic skips a step, but the conclusion remains the same. To wit: yes, the famine had a huge impact on world opinion. But the key point here is that no one in the world even knew the famine existed until the Statesman published those pix. And hold your breath, but even many in India did not even know there was such a massive crisis. I am not joking, even tho that sounds alien to modern ears. There was essentially a news blackout. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • "...Until The Statesman publicized it, [note from Lingzhi: several editorials (unnoticed by the world) over a number of weeks, but the really big bang was the photo spreads in Aug. 1943] the calamity in Bengal had been unknown to most of India and utterly unheard about in the rest of the world. In New Delhi, [the capital, far from Bengal, which had hitherto been oblivious] storefronts displayed the pictures of famine victims, and in Washington the state Department circulated them among policy makers." Churchill's Secret war p. 175.
    • "Thereafter, the Statesman— and Amrita Bazar Patrika—adopted a policy of reporting on the extent of starvation frequently and graphically. Its photographic images of the famine made world headlines." - Sufficiency and Sufficiency and Sufficiency p. 57 [Can still look for more quotes, if you want them] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• " transforming what should have been a local shortage into a horrific famine." - not currently covered by a citation
  • yes thank you, it's added now: Ó Gráda 2015 pp. 39–40. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• "British Field Marshal Viscount William Slim observed that "the horrible thing about Calcutta was the contrast of the blatant wealth of some of its citizens with the squalid misery, beyond mere poverty, at their very doors" - the location of this material implies that it refers to his views relating to the famine. From checking the book, it is actually his views on conditions in pre-famine Calcutta.
  • I'll put that on my list of things to double-check, but for now I'll take your word for it that I made a mistake about the time frame. Deleting. The quote is not necessary anyhow. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• The article doesn't describe who ordered the Famine Inquiry Commission and the impact of its report - which seems remarkably bluntly worded if it was an official inquiry, especially in the context in which it was written. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It was ordered by the top. UK. And it actually is not bluntly worded, at least not in a key sense: It shifts 90% of the blame onto Provincial government. And that is highly controversial to put it very mildly. It omits the fact that the Indian Government stood by and did nothing, when in fact it certainly had the power to do things that might well have cut the famine short or greatly reduced its impact (see Weigold). I'm not trying to start a political discussion but to show the nature of the inaction and then harsh (yes very blunt, but blunt toward others — businesses, the provincial govt, but never themselves) finger-pointing. The report also cheerfully elided the forcible repatriation of Calcutta destitute, forex. [they said something like, "Oh and by that December the destitute population had been greatly reduced" but did not say how or by whom]. But I can't add that bit about their elision to the article, because no sources mention. I just noticed it myself. Some sources mention repatriation, but none mention that FIC didn't mention it... So adding that would be WP:OR Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • UPDATE: The Famine Inquiry Commission which was appointed by the Government of India in 1944. there was a clamor for its creation. they dragged their feet for months before starting it. its meetings were held in private and all notes destroyed except those secretly kept/hidden by Nanavati. DETAILS ABOUT FORMATION OF COMMISSION added to article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• As an extra comment, I was poking through my copy of Srinath Raghavan's book India's War, which notes that the communists provided an effective famine relief program which contributed to them being very popular in the region as of 1946 (pages 453-534). Aside from this not being mentioned in the article, it does raise the issue of the article also not noting any other non-government relief efforts. The population of Bengal is presented as either starving powerless peasants or their oppressors, which seems rather simplistic. Even families are presented as mainly betraying their members. Surely there were civil society organisations, etc, which tried to save lives - however ineffectively - and families tried to help one another. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Contai and Tamluk are what you're talking about, I assume. In Midnapur. The "Civil Unrest" section mentioned this aeons ago, but perhaps it was deleted. Anyhow, the Communist and or/nationalist rebel relief, IIRC, was only for the cyclone, and only in Midnapore. They rebel forces (can't say that without thinking of Luke Sjywalker) actually set up an entire parallel govt in that area, which claimed to be.... a national govt, I think? But overall, the peasants were to a large extent every bit as helpless as you describe. They begged. They migrated. They died. Unless they were middle class or upper class. then the govt saved them. OH... and... Raghavan... I seem to recall... isn't that the one with many inaccuracies? I think I deleted it from my sources? Will check... I will check further on [presumably, urban, middle-class?] nationalist groups launching relief aid. But yes, the great mass of peasants died passively. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I will write a small paragraph about private relief. May take a while. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Nick-D: Many changes made as per your comments, but some still remain... "Relief efforts" section beefed up considerably to highlight vital role of Wavell and the military. That section also explains (in a footnote) why the harvest was so huge, as you mentioned. I also changed "Amery contacted UK" to "Amery contacted War Cabinet"... I have not forgotten your comments about the WP:LEDE. More later... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the new material added today

• It now uses the confusing "Churchill's War Council". Presumably the war cabinet is meant, but even here it's confusing given that Avery was also a minister (albeit not a member of the war cabinet)
• The material on the rice harvest is still unsatisfactory. This seems to have been a remarkable success in responding to the crisis, so why it's hidden away in a note and not explained is unclear to me. It goes to the point I raised earlier about the relief efforts: Presumably there was some kind of coordinated effort to get this going, with the workers then making it happen.
  • I can move it out of the footnote next week. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    • Update: I am sorry, but I really, really, really have never seen anyone mention there was any kind of centralized coordination or management of the post-famine harvest. I was mildly surprised when I stumbled on the footnote in Greenough that said the increase was due to shifting crops toward rice (presumably, away from jute). I also think I remember that a lot of the labor came from other provinces (which was not unusual, in other contexts) , but I am not certain I could find that smallphrase or clause in my sources. I will give it a try. As for moving the Greenough "they used more land" quote out of the footnotes, well, I have to say that looks like footnote material to me. It is kinda peripheral to the famine. But if you want it in body text, I can oblige. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• The para is also a bit confusing: it starts by saying that the central government didn't do much to help until September, but then notes that assistance actually commenced earlier but was delayed due to various logistical problems. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • THat wasn't aid that was delayed; it was various purchases. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Added clarifying text a few days ago. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Nick-D: I have completely re-written the Relief section, greatly expanding to meet your requests for information about the military, private aid, etc., and even throwing in a bit of communalism. I have made many other smaller changes. Please let me know if these changes are agreeable to you, then I can move on to your other concerns. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose After reviewing the above, I've decided to shift to formally opposing this nomination. As well as the various unaddressed issues above, my main concerns are:

• The extent of the footnotes is greatly excessive. As noted above, many are actually references or irrelevant details, and could be swiftly removed. Others contain excessive level of detail, and are clearly unnecessary. Some, and especially the first, include material which belongs in the body of the article.
• From reviewing the discussions on the article's talk page I'm not convinced that the article is in fact stable, or this nomination has the support of other involved editors. There have been repeated concerns over how the article has been developed, and I don't think that they've been addressed.
• The article's narrative is over-complicated, as are some details (I still don't understand the table of mortality figures, which at minimum is wrongly labelled)
• I'm not convinced that this article covers the topic in a way which appropriately reflects the balance of sources. As noted in my review above, it seems to be structured around a particular narrative (eg, that the British authorities caused the disaster, did little about it, and it lead to a near complete breakdown of society), with other views being minimised or excluded. It seems fair to say that this disaster did result primarily from the utter incompetence of the colonial authorities (which I understand is the clear consensus among historians) but the role of vindictiveness vs incompetence, the significance of the war situation, and the self-help initiatives are not covered adequately. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• thank you or your comments and your Oppose. I have not seen anyone at all making anything resembling a case that references WP:WIAFA, WP:NPOV or even WP:NOR, though SV accused me of that on article talk. Since no one references any of those, nothing that has been said is actionable. There is no way I can respond to non-actionable comments, except, well, 1) argue, or 2) Thank you. I choose the latter. Thank you for your time and trouble. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to FAC coordinator]: i actually ended up being kinda forced to refute most of Nick's objections in a later section, below. Thank you for your patience Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Commentary withdrawn [was (mechanical) "source review"]

I volunteered to check everything about the references given. [April 21 edit: "everything" is ambiguous; I am referring to what is called on FAC talk a "mechanical" source review. I think this is clear with the rest of the statement.] I checked every journal citation, via URLs, for accuracy, made numerous small corrections, and removed inconsistent formatting practices. (diff1d2) In previous interaction with the article, I found (to the limited degree I looked) that claims made in the text matched the sources. There is maybe one non-academic source (NYT). This review is going to hinge on much more substantive issues, but I want to make a note of this so that we can check off the most literal aspects of "source review". The lengthy "Works cited" section should be close to impeccable at this point. Outriggr (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC), updated 04:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing all commentary from this page based on the rhetorical sleight-of-hands occurring here, and will also strike the text posted by Lingzhi below which mentions me (not knowing at the time that it would be submitted to FAC, which added a new and not necessarily accurate context to it). I volunteered to help with some "grunt work" associated with this article. I had no partisan motivation, despite the subtle but regular implications otherwise ([2] (mentioned in the diff's diff) et al + this page). That grunt work has ended up being miscontrued in a few places, and a defense of it would be disproportionate to the very nature of my contribution. Moreover, I am not involved here, despite attempts to make me appear so. People on Wikipedia will sometimes volunteer to help; other people find this surprising, and look for motive. All I can do here is protest the situation via my "cancel" button. Outriggr (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Outriggr: I added two sources, to rectify issues pointed out by Brian (above). Sorry. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I posted a question here for Outriggr, but it was moved. Rather than move it back, I'll leave it below again because it refers to Outriggr's post above. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This page suggests that Outriggr checked four sentences against the sources. If I've understood his posts correctly, he confirmed part of the first, the second, and the third (I think, I'm not sure); and the fourth failed verification. I'd like to know what "close to impeccable" means as a description of the "works cited" section. Does that refer to the formatting? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

I have been following this page almost since Lingzhi began his userspace draft. I have added no content, but have watched it develop over the last two odd years. Like Outriggr, I think this review is going to hinge on much more substantive issues, but want to note that the article is especially well written, and I was most impressed by Brian Boulton's re-sizing and adjustments to the article's balance of focus and overall scope. As such I Support on prose. Any remaining issues I have in this regard can sort myself or on talk, but they are minor. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind support! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Spot checks

• I dunno how this got left out: Mr rnddude and Outriggr have done some spot checks, comparing our Wikipedia article text to the text of the cited source in various spots. The results are in User:Mr rnddude/Research and a few are also in User:Lingzhi/verifyBengal. Did I leave something out? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• This page suggests that Outriggr checked four sentences against the sources. If I've understood his posts correctly, he confirmed part of the first, the second, and the third (I think, I'm not sure); and the fourth failed verification. I'd like to know what "close to impeccable" means as a description of the "works cited" section. Does that refer to the formatting? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think he means the integrity of the sources rather than their use. Source reviews are usually spot checks, and Outriggr has clarified the dept of his investigation. He did say "This review is going to hinge on much more substantive issues, but I want to make a note of this so that we can check off the most literal aspects of "source review"", which I think was an honest assessment of his conclusions here. I don't read that he was trying to have a final say at all (disclosure: Outriggr is a friend of mine, as is Lingzhi, as implied in my narrowly defined support below). Speaking for myself only, I am mindful that votes in FAC's like this are carefully weighted by the delegates and not all of equal consideration. Similarly Outriggr says above his intention was "so that we can check off the most literal aspects of "source review"". I see and appreciate your concern, but given the review was very upfront in scope, don't see that anything else is to be see here. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's helpful, here's a summary of my views on sourcing, largely as noted above:

• I was concerned about the claim(s?) that the Famine Inquiry Commission's report referred to government 'propaganda' (an unusual term in government-style reports). But it did when I checked.
• The material cited to "Bayly & Harper 2005, p. 286" at the current reference 138 somewhat misrepresents the source, and the text in the article was uncomfortably close to what's in the book. The issue around misrepresentation has not been corrected: the book simply does not claim that the entire British cabinet "had a visceral hostility toward India".
• When checking some of the few other books I own which provide useful coverage of this topic (Lizzie Collingham's work on the role of food in World War II, and Srinath Raghavan's India's War) I found significant issues which the article did not cover at the time - eg, the role and extent of aid efforts. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I've changed the sect header to reflect the stated and intended scope; can you move these points to your own review area, or open a new area. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This was started by Outriggr as the 'source review' section, which is a common feature of FACs. I'd suggest that you change the heading back. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have moved SV's post above from my 'source review' section to here. (Spot checks are either an aspect of source review, or something else, depending on who you ask [3]; but since we have this section, it is easier to have the discussion here.) To answer SV's question, it is true that I could not verify the one statement to the page ("When prices rose sharply, their wages failed to follow suit; this drop in real wages left them less able to purchase food"). This may be a reading comprehension issue on my part, but Lingzhi can look at it. I've deleted the files. I did more than four spot checks, at least ten I believe. Outriggr (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr, do you regard the first sentence as verified? The text is: "To ensure that workers in the prioritised industries in Calcutta would be fed, the authorities seized rice stocks from wholesale dealers, shattering any trust the rice traders had in the government."{{sfn|Brennan|Heathcote|Lucas|1984|p=12}}

The first thing I wonder is why Brennan 1984 is used. The source is discussing Greenough 1982, so why not use Greenough directly? The source says (I copied the following from Lingzhi's subpage, rather than from the source itself):

In his analysis of the provincial government's response to the problems of the rice trade following the British defeat in Burma, Paul Greenough (1982: 98-126) points out that the initial move of imposing a maximum price of Rs 5/12 when the market price was Rs 8, drove rice from the market, encouraged a black market, and introduced into the grain trade a range of speculators who would carry the price to much greater heights in the future. More importantly this action and the appropriation of rice stocks in late December 1942 to meet the crisis in Calcutta caused by Japanese bombing, broke the confidence of the rice traders in the government and in the predictability of its actions.

It does not say: "To ensure that workers in the prioritised industries in Calcutta would be fed". The shops in Calcutta were closing and no one could be fed. I'm only skimming Greenough because it's a large page range and I don't want to spend the rest of the evening on this, so I may be missing something. How did you verify the "prioritised industries" aspect? This matters, because the implication is that the government cared only about certain workers. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not the nominator. I volunteered to transcribe passages from up to 3–4 provided sources that related to the article text that cited them, whether that was a sentence, a sentence clause, etc. I will leave claims about the degree to which any given citation supports every discernible statement of fact since the last footnote to others. That being said, a similar passage earlier in the article reads, By December 1942 the total number of prioritised individuals, with their families, was approximately 1,000,000;[126] this high number forced the government to seize rice by force from mills and warehouses in Greater Calcutta. Three citations are given: again to Brennan et al, but also to Ó Gráda 2010, who writes the authorities prioritised Calcutta and its war-related production over the rest of the province. Concern for the city's 'priority classes' accounted for the forcible requisition of rice from mills and warehouses in and around the city in late December 1942 (36). I will leave any further discussion of sources to the nominator. Outriggr (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr, I'm talking about the spot check you did on that one sentence. It didn't check out because it wasn't in the source offered. It may be in other sources, but that's not the point. This is what I've found throughout this article. Things are sort of in the sources, but not entirely; sometimes whole sentences are unsourced, sometimes sentence fragments, sometimes I was able to find the unsourced parts in other sources and sometimes not, or sometimes they were on other pages of the same source. It was prohibitively time-consuming because it was never straightforward. This is an important, complex and long history article, so we need text (source), text (source), with reasonable page ranges. We also need Greenough 1982 to be used when it's his research that's being discussed, not some other source that mentions him. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

O'Grada writes similar comments in Famine A Short History 2009: In Bengal, fears of a Japanese invasion in 1942-43 determined the priorities of those in authority, and the so-called ‘Denial Policy’, which removed stored holdings of rice, cargo boats, and even bicycles from coastal regions lest they fall into the hands of the invaders, undoubtedly compounded the crisis. Most fundamentally, military considerations left the poor of Bengal unprovided for (p. 10) and In April 1942 the Japanese sank a destroyer and several merchantmen in the Bay of Bengal, and they bombed Calcutta in December 1942. Other sporadic air-raids followed. As a result, the usual supplies of rice from Burma, albeit a small proportion of aggregate consumption, were cut off. ... Military considerations also meant giving urban workers, particularly those in war-related industries, priority over others, so that public agencies and Calcutta factory owners competed with other consumers (p.154). This is simply a case of re-iterating points from another source and forgetting to add the requisite citation. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, that's right. The source was missing, and the spot check didn't spot that. And this is what it is like throughout the article. I don't know what percentage would fail verification, but I believe it would be significant. And finding it all would be so time-consuming, no one could do it. So a conversation needs to take place on the talk page about how best to move forward with this article. It will be much faster to rewrite portions than to go sentence fragment by sentence fragment trying to verify the current version. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

We are finding minor spots that need minor buffing, which is a positive outcome of the collaborative FAC process. I thank you for finding that one... Very frankly, it would be very shocking is we did not find such. The talk of "a way to move forward" is completely illegitimate. The article's coverage is already massively complete, and minor corrections to cites are quite reasonable and expected... as for complete coverage, see response below about being chopped down from Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution. If the chopped-down version seems to be missing something, go look there. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hello Everyone. This is a huge thread for a very few cites. Let me see if I can wash away all the chaff above and identify concrete points that we want to verify. I see three or four points. Each point will take time to research This will take time. Please don't argue with me It takes time to address points!
  • for the first point, @Nick-D:

1. "the whole cabinet had a visceral dislike". It's instructive to look at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution and note that neither that sentence nor the corresponding quote were in the original version which I essentially wrote... In fact, my version was infinitely milder: The violence of the "Quit India" movement was condemned around the world and did much to harden British opinion in many sectors against India and Indians in general;[178] some sources speculate that this reduced the British War Cabinet's willingness to provide famine aid at a time when supplies were also needed for the war effort.[179]"... So ... Did I add that, or did someone else? Hmmmmmmmm. The history says it was Fowler&fowler, on 23 May 2017‎, diff here, with edit summary "August 1942: Civil unrest: Bayly and Harper are talking about a visceral hostility toward India, quite apart from the demands of war; rephrasing and partially quoting". At this point I would like to apologize humbly and to Nick-D for not spotting/catching that error, which Nick correctly says "somewhat misrepresents the source". And I would like to apologize to this entire forum as well. I will fix it ASAP.
2. Nick wrote: "I found significant issues which the article did not cover at the time - eg, the role and extent of aid efforts". I did considerably expand the relief section based on your comments, and I appreciate your input. I would suggest that the original version covered key points in summary: govt delayed aid (both provincial and govt of India, in this case), army stepped in to deliver aid, but bumper crop was the actual fix for the food problem. I innocently but alas incorrectly thought that was sufficient information. That is the virtue and benefit of our collaborative process: you pointed out that details needed expanding and exploring, and after a brief while I grasped your point. In short, the process was a success. Thank you for your help. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

   My concern is that I, with limited knowledge of this topic and only a handful of books which cover it in any significant way, was able to spot some significant omissions from some quick checking. This included checking one of the books which was already being used as a reference. This goes to my broader concern about the lack of collaborative editing in this article's development. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

   Extensive collaboration has taken place with Fowler&fowler (who added a huge amount of text, actually), Brian, Ceoil, Mr rnddude, and to a lesser degree with several others like Palindromedairy. This article has been sitting here, basically stable, for an entire year... I put it in WP:PR as well, but the only comment was "too long", hence Brian's edits.. Never a week goes by in which reviewers don't suggest adding a bit of text to one or two or three noms. This article has very, very full coverage of 99% of the topics. In fact, its coverage was massively chopped down by Brian... For example, in Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution the "prioritized distribution" topic had 5 paragraphs in its own dedicated section; now it has 1 only paragraph lumped together with other topics... if yu are able to spot anything else that could be further fleshed our, I'll give you dollars to donuts that you can find whatever you need in Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution.. But the point is, collaboration has been extensive. That "no collaboration" meme is a relic from a year ago (first FAC, April 2017) when I moved the article from user space. It has had one entire year with multiple collaborators. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

   There has been no real collaboration. Fowler&fowler seemed upset by what was happening. He was attacked a lot and referred to it as "low-level harassment" (or words to that effect). More people need to become involved now in discussing how to move forward with the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

3. Another of Nick's points: the article is biased and vengeful. Nick himself said that academic consensus holds that he famine is man-made (a point well-verified and more sources can be found), yet he also wants to say the article is biased. How can that be? if Nick was referring to the text that Fowler&fowler added, which I just deleted, well even that was in Nick's own words only a slight misrepresentation. Was it the entire paragraph that Nick wanted to delete, "Nearly the full productive output of India's cloth..."? It says that teh military used all of India's supplies, so does that make it biased ant-British? I fail to see the bias here. Very clearly, the tone of the article is 100% in line with academic sources. I'm really trying to be urbane and dispassionate and nice and calm, none of which are my natural attributes, but I must say firmly: Prove there is POV/Bias. or strike your comments. If these charges cannot be established, they need not be heeded.
4. SV wants to hang the success/failure of this FAC onn a single paragraph, quoted in full below, [and I will be adding highlighting and discussion]:

   The Famine Inquiry Commission's Report of 1945, discussing contributing factors to the famine, singled out the first Japanese air raids on Calcutta, which began on 20 December 1942. The daylight attacks, largely unchallenged by Allied defenses, continued throughout the week, triggering an exodus of thousands from the city.(Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a,p =34-37; Ó Gráda 2015 p=40) As evacuees traveled to the countryside, food-grain dealers in the city closed their shops. To ensure that workers in the prioritised industries in Calcutta would be fed, the authorities seized rice stocks from wholesale dealers, shattering any trust the rice traders had in the government.(Brennan Heathcote Lucas 1984 p=12) "From that moment," the 1945 report stated, "the ordinary trade machinery could not be relied upon to feed Calcutta. The [food security] crisis had begun."(Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a p=34, 37)

   SV's main concerns seem to be the highlighted bit. Every word of that can be verified from multiple, multiple sources, including the very last cite at the end of our article's paragraph, cited to the Famine Inquiry Commission. It says, "On the 27th December, the Government of Bengal, in order to maintain the distribution of supplies in Calcutta, were reluctantly compelled to requisition stocks from wholesale dealers and from that moment the ordinary trade machinery could not be relied upon to feed Calcutta." The first bit is clear: "in order to maintain the distribution of supplies in Calcutta" (FIC text) is precisely analogous to "To ensure that workers in the prioritised industries in Calcutta would be fed" (our text). And if that isn't clear enough, our article also cites O'Grada 2015, and I quote: "Concern for the city’s “priority classes” accounted for the forcible requisition of rice from mills and warehouses in and around the city in late December 1942". The link between the govt's rice seizure and its goal of feeding the priority classes is stated very explicitly there... The second bit might not be quite so clear: "from that moment the ordinary trade machinery could not be relied upon to feed Calcutta" (FIC text) is a polite/political euphemism for "the traders ceased to trust the government" (our text, roughly). It does appear that I somehow stuck in a cite to brennan heathecote etc when i should have been sticking in others that said precisely the same thing. So what we have here is that I made an error. In an article this size, are we shocked? As mrndude rightly says above, all is easily verified, and "This is simply a case of re-iterating points from another source and forgetting to add the requisite citation." I made a boo-boo. I do admit it. Let's kill the FAC, shall we? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

   Sarah's concerns are obviously much broader than that. It appears that you're trying to misconstrue my and Sarah's concerns as being narrowly-based, when the opposite is actually the case. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I picked out another sentence at random: "Advanced anti-malarial drugs such as mepacrine (Atabrine) were distributed almost solely to the military and to 'priority classes'; DDT (then relatively new and considered 'miraculous') and pyrethrum were sprayed only around military installations. Paris Green was used as an insecticide in some other areas.{{sfn|Bhattacharya|2002a|p=102}}

The source is: Bhattacharya, Sanjoy (2002a). "Tackling hunger, disease and 'internal security': Official medical administration in colonial eastern India during the Second World War (Part I)" (PDF). The National Medical Journal of India. 15 (1): 37–40. PMID 11855591. Retrieved 8 February 2016.

I can't find that text in the source. The citation says p. 102, but the paper consists of pp. 37–40. I've searched for the names of the drugs, and several other words, and I've quickly read the article, but I can't find them. I can see two general sentences about malaria control. Apologies if I'm missing the rest, but I've read it only quickly. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• That source has a part I and a part II. The Part II is the relevant one:

While food distribution and public health measures in the towns and villages near military encampments or battlefronts in Assam, Bihar, Orissa and United Provinces were ratified by the civilian and military officials, vast areas of rural eastern India were denied any lasting state-sponsored distributive schemes. Agood example of this is provided bythe distribution of antimalarial measures, especially the latest technologies and techniques, among civilians. The spraying of DDT (widely considered to be amiracle chemical atthe time) and pyrethrum tended to be organized in centres in and near troop encampments, while the older technique ofusing 'Paris Green' was generally continued elsewhere. Similarly, mepacrine, the new synthetic antimalarial drug was almost completely monopolized for military use and only shared with very specific civilian groups such as the labour employed in strategic projects and mines. 26 ,27Even though attempts were sometimes made by the British and Indian officials attached to local civilian administrations to redress some of these difficulties by the general distribution of released hoards of food and medicine, such efforts tended to remain spasmodic due tovarious reasons.

—  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Part II is Bhattacharya 2002b. You cited Bhattacharya 2002a. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Spot checks by Mr rnddude

(Copy pasted from his user space)

Verified material and source

Social disruption

Introductory Paragraph:

• Despite the organised and sometimes violent civil unrest immediately before the famine, there was no organised rioting when the famine took hold. cited to FIC 1945a, p. 68. – The second clause of the sentence is easily verifiable. The first clause, not so much (05/03/2018). Lingzhi: The first part was a repetition of earlier text (earlier in the article). Copy/pasted a footnote from that earlier text for verification.
• A long-standing system of rural patronage, in which peasants relied on large landowners to supply subsistence in times of crisis, collapsed as patrons exhausted their own resources and abandoned the peasants. cited to Greenough 1980, pp. 207–208, and expounded upon in "III. Collapse of rural patronage" pp. 218–225. This material can be reasonably deduced from the source – I have verified and confirmed the material (05/03/2018}.
• Families also disintegrated, with cases of abandonment, child-selling, and both voluntary and forced prostitution - cited to Greenough 1980, pp. 225–33, and O'Grada pp. 59–63.

• Family disintegration, and child selling (and abuse) are attested to on p. 226, with child selling being expounded on pp. 230–232. Confirmed (05/03/2018).
• Abandonment is most heavily expounded upon from pp. 227–229. Confirmed (05/03/2018).
• Prostitution is mentioned on p. 229, though the distinction between voluntary and involuntary prostitution is not directly made. The best I could come up with is ... with no more inducement than regular meals, women were procured. and Reports of boatloads of women and girls for sale in the ports of East Bengal .... Greater explication is made on p. 232 about the "sexual exploitation of children". That said, I'm not sure what O'Grada 2009 pp. 59–63 has to do with any of it. Perhaps p. 54 was meant. This is a generally reasonable summation of the source material, though I would replace "and both voluntary and forced prostitution" with "prostitution, and sexual exploitation". Lingzhi: replacement done Mostly confirmed (05/03/2018).

• Lines of small children begging stretched for miles outside cities; at night, children could be heard "crying bitterly and coughing terribly ... in the pouring monsoon rain ... stark naked, homeless, motherless, fatherless and friendless. Their sole possession was an empty tin" cited to Mukerjee, 2010 pp. 170, 186–187.

• I have verified and confirmed the preceding material, I'm using a different edition and so the material is in Mukerjee, 2011 p. 254 (05/03/2018).
• I have verified and confirmed the quote, Mukerjee, 2011 p. 278. (05/03/2018).

• A schoolteacher in Mahisadal witnessed "children picking and eating undigested grains out of a beggar's diarrheal discharge". cited to Mukerjee 2010, p. 248 – I have verified and confirmed the quote and preceding material in Mukerjee, 2011 p. 248 (05/03/2018).
• Author Freda Bedi wrote that it was "not just the problem of rice and the availability of rice. It was the problem of society in fragments." cited to Bedi 1944, p. 13. – I have verified and confirmed the quote (05/03/2018).

Mass migration and family dissolution

• Husbands deserted wives and wives husbands; elderly dependents were left behind in the villages; babies and young children were sometimes abandoned. According to a survey carried out in Calcutta during the latter half of 1943, some breaking up of the family had occurred in about half the destitute population which reached the city. cited to FIC 1945a, p. 68 – I have verified and confirmed the quote (05/03/2018).
• Estimates of the number of the sick who flocked to Calcutta ranged between 100,000 and 150,000. cited to FIC 1945a, p. 2; Mukerjee, 2015 p. 134 (correct to 135); and Schofield, 2010 p. 304 – FIC estimates at least 100,000, Mukerjee "estimated 150,000", Schofield not checked. It's reasonable to assume that Schofield's estimate will be within that range. – I have confirmed the material via two of the three cited sources (05/03/2018).
• Once they left their rural villages in search of food, their outlook for survival was grim: "Many died by the roadside – witness the skulls and bones which were to be seen there in the months following the famine." cited to FIC 1945a, p. 109 – I have verified and confirmed the material (05/03/2018).

Failed verification material and source

• However, the crisis overwhelmed the provision of health care, funerals, street sweeping and other social services. - Missing attribution. Greenough makes no mention of it (05/03/2018). Lingzhi: Deleted

Potentially useful material

• It kept alive a handful of babies found on the streets and in the destitute homes but it was working with regularity and there was a homely atmosphere about the place. "Look at this little fellow" said Barbara, "he's as black as a teapot, but such a darling. His mother tried to bury him alive to save him from the agonies of starvation, and we just managed to save him. She ran away, fearing punishment, but we are trying to find her". cited to Bedi 1944, p. 57.
• Destitute. It is a meagre word. It means they have no money beyond the few coins they can pick up in casual tasks during the harvest time - the paddy husking, household work. It means they are dying of slow starvation. It means that for the bowl of rice to fill their child's stomach, or their own, they will sell themselves for a few annas. It means veneral disease and painful death. cited to Bedi 1944, p. 14. In conjunction with "Here they have all run away: the men to the town, the women to beggary and destitution and the gruel kitchens." I shuddered. There was a lot behind that inadequate word, destitution. Humiliation, demoralisation, casual prostitution, disease. And behind it the face of abandoned children. cited to Bedi 1944, p. 70. Bedi talks about prostitution on multiple occasions, including prostitution of minors "between 2 and 13" years of age (p. 86) and rape on the streets (p. 87).

Comments by SarahSV

Oppose, per 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2c, 4.

1. Re: 1e (stable). I'll mention this first, because I feel that the article ought not to have been nominated. The current version has never really gained consensus. To recap: the article was rewritten in user space between February 2016 and April 2017 (Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution); the regular editors were invited to look at the rewrite but told they could not edit it. Once installed, it was nominated immediately for a MILHIST A-class review (not promoted), then went straight to FAC1. It has been contentious ever since. The difficulty is that 14,000 words (now 11,000) were added in one lump, with sources not always easy to access, and checking it is a huge job. I told Lingzhi recently that I was reading the sources and had begun the search for an external reviewer, which in my view the article needs before another FAC nomination. Despite that, he went ahead with this nomination without notifying me.
2. Re: 1a (well-written). I see this as a first draft rather than a finished product. It isn't well-organized and it's hard to read in places. The famine is lost in a maze of unnecessary detail. If we're aiming it at an intelligent older teenager with no prior knowledge, I think they'll get very little out of it. There should be a background section explaining something about British India; who ran it, for example, which would help the reader (and author) navigate what follows. Any background sections should be pared down to what is really needed to understand the rest of the article.
   Two examples of the organization problem (note: these are only examples): (1) paragraph three (216 words) of the section 2.2 "1942–45: Military build-up, inflation, and displacement" discusses the "cloth famine": "Nearly the full output of India's cloth, wool, leather and silk industries were sold to the military." But then 4.3 "Cloth famine" deals with it again. An argument could be made that the earlier section deals with it chronologically, but no, it goes right up to the end of it. Or that the second section deals more with the social aspect, but it doesn't really, or not much; much more could be said about the social aspect. So we have two split-up, half-hearted efforts to explain an important and interesting part of this. (2) Another example: media coverage comes right at the end in its own section. But the media played an important role in prompting the government to set up the relief effort, so that needs to be handled chronologically.
   There are a few minor prose issues, but nothing that can't be fixed easily, e.g. (these are just examples) "Aid increased significantly when the Indian Army took control of aid"; "These processes left social and economic groups mired in poverty" (which groups? word missing?); "troops arrived into the province", "at the feet of unavoidable fate".
3. Re: 1b (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context). There's quite a bit missing, and no space for it because of the unnecessary background detail at the top. (I think we should aim for 10,000 words.) What happened after the relief efforts? What happened to the affected communities? The section on women and children is very poor. The names of key parties are missing, barely mentioned, or misunderstood; we don't get to know them. For example, no mention of Pinnell's nervous breakdown. (By the way, first we call him Leonard G. Pinnell, then L. G. Pinnell; he should be Pinnell on second reference). Who died and who didn't die? How was food for the priority classes organized exactly? There is no mention of the lack of looting, which is one of the saddest parts of this: the victims made very little effort to save themselves. No mention of the difficulties Wavell faced. Also no mention of the long hours spent queuing for food, and the disease that took hold in those queues because of the lack of facilities and hygiene.
   It also isn't clear throughout who was doing what. For example, the article gave the impression that the British Secretary of State for India (a member of the British government) was based in India; it said: "Early in January the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery sent the first of many requests to the UK for food aid." He did not need to send a request to the UK; he was in the UK. I tagged this in February with "clarification needed" (I briefly wondered whether he had been visiting India when he made the request). Lingzhi removed the tag without fixing the mistake, and it remained there until Brian raised it during this FAC. Lingzhi's reply included that "this whole 'government of India' and 'Government of bengal' bit would be lost on Americans and perhaps others as well". It will be lost on everyone if it isn't explained clearly, so that's what needs to be done.
4. Re: 1c (well-researched, verifiable). There are several problems with the sourcing. It isn't clear that the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". There are some odd choices of sources, and a few high-quality scholarly sources barely used. For example, Yasmin Khan (2015). India at War: The Subcontinent and the Second World War, Oxford University Press, is the kind of source that the article should be built around, but it's used only once, and then only because it cites another source. I opened a talk-page section to list the key sources so that we could develop a sense of the article's scaffolding (which we need for DUE), but so far I'm the only one who has posted anything.
   Several editors who have done spot checks have found issues. Two previous editors said they had found source misrepresentation and OR/synthesis. One example that bothered me was the claim that during the famine parents had buried their children alive. That was a red flag for reasons I explain at User:SlimVirgin/Bengal. It wasn't in the source as written, so I removed it. Lingzhi restored it, and proceeded to argue about it, although it was clearly unsourced. He eventually removed it again, but continued to claim that it was in Greenough 1982, although he wouldn't give a page number. I can't find it in Greenough 1982. Another thing that bothered me, for similar reasons, was the use of File:Smallpox child.jpg, an image from the Centers for Disease Control of a young girl with smallpox, "captured in an unknown location", according to the CDC. [4] Its use and caption gave the impression that it was from that period in Bengal. When I removed it, the removal was challenged. These two examples (that children were buried alive, and the use of a misleading image and caption), and particularly their defence, seem to go beyond simple error, in my view.
   I tagged one section as OR on 3 March, but Lingzhi removed the tag on 4 March. See Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/Archive 9#Original research. Another example of OR was the use of Ghedin et al. 1997, a medical primary source about Leishmania donovani, to support "Statistics for malaria deaths are almost certainly underestimated, since the symptoms often resemble those of other fatal fevers,{{sfn|Ghedin |Zhang|Charest|Sundar|1997|p=530}} ...". The source mentions malaria once and doesn't mention the famine. It also appeared that Lingzhi had cited a source without having seen it; this was noticed only because several sources had cited it with the wrong page number and Lingzhi had copied the error (but without saying "x, cited in y"). I hope he will check that every source cited has been seen directly.
5. Re: 1d (neutral). At this point we don't know that the article complies with DUE, because it offers no indication that majority and significant-minority positions are represented as they should be.
6. Re: 2c (consistent citations). The bundled citations don't make clear which source supports which point, which makes verification even harder, so that needs to change; they should be unbundled or information should be added to the note (for this, see x; for that, see y). A more minor objection is that the article uses both short footnotes {{sfn|Smith|2018|p=1}} and Harvard referencing "according to {{harvtxt|Smith|2018|p=1}}".
7. Re: 4 (stays focused): Goes into too much detail on certain points, e.g. the death toll and the table. The earlier sections are too long, particularly "Rural credit and land-grabbing".

To keep this readable, I'd appreciate it if responses were posted below and not inside my post. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 08:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC) [edited 21:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)]

• Thank you for your opinions. The article says what all the very WP:RS sources say. It says only what the sources say, and saysit very comprehensively. It is well-researched, comprehensive, and NPOV. It very extensively uses the very, very best sources possible... All you are doing is waving your arms and saying that it is not and it does not. You have, however, not established that it is not or does not. In essence, you are saying that if someone comes onto a FAC page for whatever reason, adds am intimidating wall of text, and makes a very long ream of accusations, then you expect their unverified accusations to be taken as truth. Once again, thank you for your opinions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oh PS A top-notch expert -- cited repeatedly in the article -- enthusiastically promised a review nine days ago. I sent a polite Thank You... It would, however, be unacceptably rude for me to even begin to send yet another email wondering if it would be possible to send it soon, or some other very presumptuous thing. So I will just have to wait and hope. Thanks again for your opinions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration and stability

• • OK I'll try to write a point-by-point reply to SV's very interesting take on the article. But I have to say, it's Midterms week, and I will be hip deep in papers to grade. So my reply might be slow. Maybe I can post some numbers late tonight Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(←) So we have a huge wall of text above. It will take a very, very long time to address all these points, and I will be busy this week. Let me just discuss two before I retire for the night: first, "I am looking for sources". Well, just ask me (Lingzhi) then. I have 99% of them, and the ones I don't have are almost always visible through Google books or Amazon.... Second, there has been some arm-waving and breast-beating about "... he dropped his version in from user space... and there has been insufficient collaboration". There are several reasons why this is an invalid argument. I'm tired so I may not express them well first try, but:

1. I'm too tired to look at WIAFA, but does it give any directions about the proper way to collaborate? Does collaboration come in there anywhere? I don't recall... Oh, we're saying that means it's not "stable". Well...
2. The first FAC ended April 30 2017 almost exactly one year ago. One. Year. Ago. The article has been sitting here all that time. I'm not sure what the expiration date on the argument that "he dropped it in from user space, therefore it's not stable" is, but I'm pretty sure it's a long time before one year
3. What, the talk page conversations got testy at times? Wait, that means the FAC is invalid? Insufficient collaboration? Let's go through the FAs forcseveral long-time editors, then... including SV.. and delete them then if the talk page got testy. Even further, people seem to be suggesting that I bulldozed other editors and claimed the page as my own. I dispute that. But let's.. even though it's not true, let's do a thought experiment. As we all know, there are indeed editors who are infamous for bulldozing other Wikipedians, then WP:OWNing the relevant page. Yes, it happens. Some people, in fact, use it almost as their standard operating procedure. Should we go back and delete all the FAs or GAs those people have earned? Let's draw up a list and notify them, then... and bear in mind, I dispute the whole "bulldozing" thing anyhow.
4. What yardstick can we choose for collaboration? How about "participation"? Here are two tables. If you look at them, the editors who are accusing me of shutting others out have been very, very active (while being shut out). The numeric columns are total edits, total edits that added text, total text added, total edits that deleted text, total text deleted. Of course there were many other editors who added text to both mainspace and talk, but I am showing what seem to be the main ones:

Talk page participation

since 30 April 2017

User	Edits	+count	+bytes	-count	-bytes
Lingzhi	331	300	192245	31	15527
SlimVirgin	140	137	85409	3	4467
Fowler&fowler	127	115	104197	12	694
Mrrnddude	41	37	27025	4	689
Ceoil	28	27	2585	1	10
Brianboulton	9	9	7468	0	0
Herostratus	8	8	6273	0	0
TylerDurden	7	7	3727	0	0
SerialNumber	5	3	95805	2	281412
AidWorker	5	5	41745	0	0

Article edits

since 30 April 2017

User	Edits	+count	+bytes	-count	-bytes
Lingzhi	641	404	46502	237	39107
Fowler&fowler	225	170	32541	55	10770
Ceoil	135	10	110	125	11487
SlimVirgin	94	64	12686	30	10246
Outriggr	50	15	872	35	4144
Brianboulton	28	5	52	23	45886
Mrrnddude	9	7	567	2	3
Worldbruce	8	4	176	4	99
Palindromedairy	6	1	2	5	7230
AidWorker	3	2	9664	1	127313

(←) Alas, I am barely, barely started. I will need to spend many more hours answering the rest of the text above. I will certainly not have much free time in the next few days... but I will try to answer everything as soon as possible. I hope everyone will be a little patient. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where these figures come from, or whether they reflect a particular timeframe, but they're not what the WMF shows: article edits; talk-page edits. Of the four top editors by text—Lingzhi · 186,827 (53.4%), AidWorker · 39,848 (11.4%), Fowler&fowler · 36,150 (10.3%), SlimVirgin · 12,686 (3.6%)—only one supports the current version. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

Please note that I have on hand a very, very large percentage of all sources listed below. Most of the few sources that I do not possess are books that are viewable through online preview (Google books, Amazon.com) I would be very pleased to email sources to anyone upon request.

I'm making this a dedicated section because I have a lot of information to post. This is in reply to SV's comment: "1c (well-researched, verifiable). There are several problems with the sourcing. It isn't clear that the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". There are some odd choices of sources, and a few high-quality scholarly sources barely used." This section is presented, of course, as a convenient vehicle for SV to explain which choices she considers to be odd. If the explanation is comprises a basis for an Oppose, then it should present major, fundamental problems rather than minor blemishes that could perhaps be buffed. [PS:

Books

If we include Maharatna's PhD thesis in the "Books" analysis, since it's book-length and was later published as a book by OUP, then as far as books are concerned, the article is built largely around Oxford University Press, Princeton University Press, London School of Economics and Political Science (United Kingdom), and the FIC report. Those four account for 250 cites, or 69% of the total book cites. If you add Madhusree Mukerjee's Churchill's Secret War (111 Google Scholar cites) you account for 75%; adding Bayly & Harper's Forgotten Armies: Britain's Asian Empire and the War with Japan (65 Google Scholar cites) brings the proportion up to 77%.

SV suggests that the article should have been built around sources like Yasmin Khan (2015). India at War: The Subcontinent and the Second World War. Yes, it's an OUP source (just as 93 of this article's book cites are currently OUP). It does not have seem to attracted much academic attention yet, however, with only 3 Google Scholar cites so far. Moreover, from what I can see through online book previews, its treatment of the Bengal Famine of 1943 seems to cover mainly standard points, offering little new (as far as I can see; I could request more pages from WP:RX)... I suppose I could use it to replace some cites from other sources. I'll put that on my list of things to do.

Book publishers

Publisher name (book)	books per publisher	total cites per publisher
Oxford University Press	8	97
Routledge	5	7
Cambridge University Press	3	4
Harvard University Press	2	3
H.M.S.O.	2	3
London School of Economics and Political Science (Maharatna's PhD thesis)	1	25
Orient Longman	2	2
Princeton University Press (Ó Gráda 2009 and Ó Gráda 2015)	2	40
SAGE Publications	2	3
University of Calcutta	2	5
Agricultural Economics Society Conference	1	1
Basic Books (Churchill's Secret War)	1	22
Bengal Government Press	1	1
Cooper Square Press	1	1
Facts on File, Inc	1	1
Indian Associated Publishing Co. Ltd.	1	1
Indian History Congress	1	1
Institute of Development Studies	1	4
John Churchill	1	1
Lion Press	1	1
Manager of Publications, Government of India Press (FIC Report)	1	92
Mariner Books; Reissue edition	1	1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	1	2
New Press	1	3
Padmaja Publications	1	6
Palgrave Macmillan UK	1	7
Pen and Sword	1	3
Penguin Books Limited (Forgotten Armies)	1	9
Penguin Publishing Group	1	3
People's Publishing House	1	1
Pip International Publications	1	1
Reader's Digest Press, distributed by E.P. Dutton	1	4
Stanford University Press	1	6
The New York Times Company	1	1
The United Nations University/World Institute for Development Economics Research	1	1
University of Pennsylvania Press	1	1
Wiley-Blackwell	1	4

Journals

I must confess that I am not very knowledgeable about journal impact factors. The top two most-cited journals in the Wikipedia article, Modern Asian Studies and The Journal of Asian Studies are both peer-reviewed academic journals published by Cambridge University Press. The third most-cited, Cambridge Journal of Economics, is published by OUP, oddly enough. The fourth, Economic and Political Weekly seems prestigious regionally and at least notable globally, see Journal Rank of EPW. Those four together account for 48% of the total cites of journals in our Wikipedia article. The next few seem to be regional journals 9which is not necessarily a bad thing), until we get down to #9 Tauger's article in British Scholar and #11 Ó Gráda's article in Economic History Review.

Journals

Journal name	articles per journal	total cites per journal
Modern Asian Studies	9	56
Economic and Political Weekly	6	16
Indian Historical Review	2	2
Journal of Peasant Studies	2	5
Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics (1933–1960)	1	8
Social Scientist	2	3
South Asia Research	2	4
South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies	3	13
Studies in History	2	12
The Journal of Asian Studies	2	21
The National Medical Journal of India	2	7
Annual Review of Phytopathology	1	4
British Scholar	1	8
Cambridge Journal of Economics	1	19
Economic History Review	1	6
European Review of Economic History	1	2
Food Policy	1	3
History Ireland	1	1
India International Centre Quarterly	1	1
Indian Historical Review	2	2
Journal of Economic Literature	1	3
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies	1	6
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Hum.)	1	9
Middle East Journal	1	1
Oxford Development Studies	1	2
Oxford Review of Economic Policy	1	1
Past & Present	1	4
Population Studies	1	2
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress	1	1
Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India	1	5
The Indian Economic & Social History Review	1	5
The Quarterly Journal of Economics	1	2
Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers)	1	1

Specific sources cited (all formats)

Sources cited at least 5 times

Specific article/book cited	Cited wikipedia	Cited Google scholar
Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a	92	50 (but note that the vast majority of scholarly sources on Bengal famine '43 cite this repeatedly)
J Mukherjee 2015	43	14
Greenough 1982	42	329
Ó Gráda 2015	29	4 (but note that much here is repeated in other papers that are more widely cited)
Maharatna 1992	25	Book version cited 89 times. This is a (PhD thesis). London School of Economics and Political Science. It was later printed as a book by Oxford University press.
Mukerjee 2010	22	112
Brennan 1988	20	18
A Sen 1977	19	299
Greenough 1980	16	35
S Bose 1990	15	47
De 2006	12	8
Ó Gráda 2009	11	191
Bayly & Harper 2005	9	65
Iqbal 2011	9	0 (Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh)
Islam 2007a	8	16
Brennan, Heathcote & Lucas 1984	8	14
Mahalanobis, Mukherjea & Ghosh 1946	8	58
Tauger 2009	8	11
Iqbal 2010	7	58
A Sen 1981a	6	11,383
Knight 1954	6	95
Natarajan 1946	6	1
Ó Gráda 2008	6	40
Tinker 1975	6	31
Mahalanobis 1944	5	4 (Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India)
Mukherji 1986	5	10
S Bose 1982	5	22

Neutrality

Nick-D and SlimVirgin both Oppose based on neutrality concerns, confronting me with the task of proving the article is not biased. Interestingly enough, neither offers an evidence-based rationale for this Oppose. This is a bit like accosting someone on the street and saying, "Prove you aren't having an extramarital affair!" However, I'll do the best I can. Just offhand, I can think of two general approaches to this question:

1. Nick-D explicitly accused it of being "vindictive" and "anti-British". Well, for about two years now, I have attempted to remain hyper-vigilant about preserving a neutral tone. In fact, in the MILHIST A-Review, Fowler&fowler made the strange accusation that the article is too neutral in tone: "...it is packed with details, but yet strangely sanitized in both in prose and pictures... I perfectly understand Wikipedia NPOV, DUE guidelines, but, still, we are looking at a famine in which there were at the very least an estimated 1.5 million Indian deaths, a significant proportion from starvation. Yet not a single Briton died from starvation." [That may have some bearing on the somewhat-misworded quote which Fowler&fowler added and Nick-D graciously pointed out]. I have again and again argued against England-bashing and Churchill-bashing. I have against and again argued against the prejudicial use of Churchill quotes like "The Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion" and "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?". I have unwaveringly tried to strictly maintain a "Just the facts please, without the commentary" stance. In fact, if someone were gonna make splashy POV accusations, you should accuse me of being pro-British, as in fact my favorite talk-page visitor already has a couple times. I skipped the incendiary quotes, and stuck to the facts...
2. And speaking of facts, SlimVirgin says we haven't had time to check the facts. Maybe I was sneaky, and Nick and SV have uncovered my crafty ways. Maybe I'm adding only facts, but "cherry picking" them. Well then, I have the sources. Ask for them. Check them. To be honest, all you have to do is read a couple O Grada articles. They have easy, accessible prose. Then read Tauger for the FAD perspective. They are not difficult going either. If you had a free weekend, I bet you could easily read three or four in place of the usual novel or whatever. heck, you could even read Yasmin Khan, which SV advocates, although (as I mentioned earlier) from what very limited bits I can see online, Khan's analysis isn't particularly deep (which is not a point against her, since the Bengal famine of '43 is only one point within her considerably larger topic). After reading for a few hours, what you'll find is this: yes, there's disagreement, but FEE is consensus and FAD is a minority view (even Tauger says so, if i recall correctly). The newer voices that want to say everything is political are actually firmly in the FEE camp; they have simply widened that camp's borders (quite reasonably). What else can I say? My contention is that you can spend maybe three or four hours reading at most, and discover this for yourself. So the fact that you didn't spend a few hours reading is legitimate cause for Oppose? I beg to differ. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

1) I did not make the criticisms attributed to me in the first sentence here. Grateful if you could strike this. 2) I did just that, and found that the article was misrepresenting a source and not reflecting the content of others. Please see my comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Stricken. Not sure how I misread that. But I am still puzzled. You found one passage that Fowler&fowler misquoted, and you are Opposing? After I said I didn't catch it, apologized, and corrected? That seems a weak reason to Oppose. As for "not reflecting the content of others" do you mean you feel the article doesn't clearly state whether it was vindictiveness or incompetence, and you want the article to do so? The article can't do that, because no one really knows why (hence the debate). Let me summarize what conclusions I drew, very informally. I can say this on this forum because it's my reading of the texts, but I do not think I can put it in the aticle because no one says it clearly... or in some cases, because one group of people give one version very clearly, and the other group gives the opposing story, and neither side can actually prove their version is correct. So here are my personal impressions: a) Bengal Provincial govt = certainly half because of incompetence, and possibly half because they misguidedly believed that the Govt of India was going to send grain (but did not do so until it was much much too late). It might be slightly unfair to call it "incompetence" cut and dried, because they were way way way out of their league. They had no guidance from history, and as for guidance from Britain, it's.. debated. But everything they did was either in the UK's military interest at the expense of the rural poor (prioritized distribution) or just stupidly wrong (pretty much everything else, I think). The Provincial govt also did not have the authority to make the other provinces drop their trade restrictions, nor sset price controls for selected provinces, nor install a rationing scheme for other provinces, nor pressure other provinces to supply grain. The Govt of India had the power to do all of those things, though it is true that using that power might have been tricky and contested... b) Govt of India. They didn't do anything actively wrong, mainly because they didn't do anything at all. Didn't do jack squat for a very long time. Then they wrote the FIC report which pointed a dozen fingers at the Provincial govt of Bengal. Now the million dollar question is, why didn't they do anything? Debated. To me it seems impossible that they could have done "nothing" unless the UK either told them to do nothing or at least did not tell them what to do,. But again that is my opinion; we can't put that in the article. No one knows. c) The UK. No possibility of incompetence here. they refused aid until way way way too late. The question is, self-interest or vindictiveness? I never saw anyone mention evidence of vindictiveness for anyone at all except Churchill, but it's impossible to put that in the article because I don't recall anyone saying that only Churchill could possibly have been vindictive. I can't say "Lingzhi read the articles and no one was described as vindictive except Churchill" because that would be OR.... so why? National self-interest is what the Indian nationalists would say, but of course they represent only one polar side of the debate. The other side of the debate would say "it's the shipping". But neither side has the absolute proof they are right. d) Churchill. Churchill said many things that are outrageously and explicitly and hatefully racist. But was the decision to withhold shipping done thru vindictiveness? Absolutely No Proof. It's utterly possible that he would have made precisely the same decisions (perhaps with far more sorrow in his heart) if he loved the Indian people like his own family. He was Prime Minister, his nation was at war and its safety was not yet guaranteed. National leaders sometimes have to make terrible and difficult decisions under those kinds of conditions. Who knows? In fact, no one knows. So what exactly would you like me to put in the article, Nick? I can't put much or even most of this in the article (some of it's already there) because 1) No one knows. and 2) There are still debates, and the various sides are poles apart. What would you like me to put? Don't say "Put what the sources say". I already told you that much of what I'm writing above is me reading between the lines where the sources don't speak clearly (often because they cannot), and much else of what I have written is still very much under debate. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Coverage

Neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

Well this accusation is an easy target, because of course many many many facts must necessarily be omitted. All you have to do is point at one and say "It's important!". I will try to make a list of all facts SV says I have omitted:

1. "There should be a background section explaining something about British India; who ran it, for example, which would help the reader (and author) navigate what follows. "

   That is a huge topic in itself, considerably too large to be shoehorned into this article. Who was Amery? Linlithgow? Wavell? Herbert? Suhrawardy? Pinnell? Rutherford? O.M. Martin? A. K. Fazlul Huq? Or even Leathers? What was Churchill's War Cabinet? What was the hierarchical relationship between/among all these people? Who had more power, who had less, and what powers did they have, and when? "Who ran British India" deserves its own article. Oh wait, that article does exist on Wikipedia, it's British Raj and maybe Bengal Presidency. If you think the Raj article does a sucky job of explaining things, then please do edit that article. There are already way, away, way too many topics that need to be covered in the Bengal famine of 1943 article to spend any more than one sentence (or at the extreme most, two sentences) on this topic. If SV wants to add one sentence, then I will be glad to do so.

2. Who died and who didn't die?

   There are already two very full paragraphs on this topic: "The mortality statistics present a confused picture" covers age and gender. Another covers d "Regional differences in mortality rates". It does seem that somewhere along the line the sentence about Hindus and Muslims was deleted; can restore. Another sentence has disappeared, about occupational groups. Can restore.

3. How was food for the priority classes organized exactly?

   That bit is covered in 5 paragraphs in the version at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/attribution. See something you like? Put it back. But I must protest: It is unfair to find things that were deleted by various copy editors (a very easy searching task) and the point them out, and then claim they are important enough for an Oppose.

4. There is no mention of the lack of looting, which is one of the saddest parts of this: the victims made very little effort to save themselves.

   "Despite the organised and sometimes violent civil unrest immediately before the famine,[AI] there was no organised rioting when the famine took hold." Add the word "looting" to that sentence, cited with an sfn. BTW, I don't think it's "one of the saddest things". I'd put many other things ahead of that: Abandonment of children. Forced prostitution. Eating garbage. Being eaten by jackals, sometimes while still alive. Giving starving people rotten grain adulterated with gravel. Those rate higher in my book. Again, if you wanna add ten words about the lack of looting, I think it's not at all necessary, but I am here to serve, and so certainly can do.

5. No mention of the difficulties Wavell faced.

   That won't even take a full sentence, just a phase. Will add.

6. Also no mention of the long hours spent queuing for food, and the disease that took hold in those queues because of the lack of facilities and hygiene

   I thought "lack of facilities and hygiene" has been covered at different points in the article, but I can certainly add an additional sentence. In fact, I know exactly where one can go... I will add it soon. And if you want me to mention queues, it will take 6 or 7 words to do so, no problem.

7. What happened after the relief efforts?

   Outside the scope of this article. What happened is things got a little better for a couple years, then Direct Action Day fell like a combination of the bad parts of the Book of Revelation and Armageddon. But beyond this article's scope.

8. What happened to the affected communities?

   See above.

9. The section on women and children is very poor.

   This is crucial: On the contrary, the plight of women and children is placed in the foreground again and again and again. Children begging.["Lines of small children begging stretched for miles outside cities; at night, children could be heard "crying bitterly and coughing terribly ... in the pouring monsoon rain ... stark naked, homeless, motherless, fatherless and friendless. Their sole possession was an empty tin".[226] A schoolteacher in Mahisadal witnessed "children picking and eating undigested grains out of a beggar's diarrheal discharge"."] Women forced into prostitution. ["Very often, these girls lived in constant fear of injury or death, but the brothels were their sole means of survival.[250] Women who had been sexually exploited could not later expect any social acceptance or a return to their home or family"] Women refusing to go outside because they do not have clothes to wear. Women and children abandoned by the male head of household. The topic has an entire section, "Exploitation of women and children". SV, you are extremely famous throughout Wikipedia for trying to change every issue into a womens' issue. This is not a personal attack; do not characterize it as such. I am only mentioning your very-very-well-known and very-very-easily-verified editing area of interest. It seems rather unfair for you to claim Oppose because your personal editing habits would suggest that the coverage of women should be doubled or tripled or quadrupled... There are also very important philosophical issues regarding the nature of Wikipedia at play. I think the number of these heart-rending anecdotes should be minimized, not out of concern for tone (not at all!), but because Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that presents (and sometimes very briefly illustrates) a summary of key facts. The heart-rending anecdotes have value only to the degree and the extent (yes, only that far) that they illustrate (in summary!) key issues of the crisis. I think the coverage of women and children is sufficient to illustrate key issues of the crisis. If you disagree, we have an article Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943 you can expand. If you're more ambitious, create an article Sex and gender in famines and cover the whole topic. You can then merge "Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943" into the larger article... To be perfectly honest, Wikipedia really, really needs that particular redlink to be filled with an excellent article. Please do not try to expand coverage in an article about the Bengal famine of 1943 to make up for that lack. This article already illustrates key women/children issues of this crisis. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Not a problem

• File:Statesman j.jpg, lead image, fair use. This is one of the images published by The Statesman in August 1943, which have been the subject of extensive commentary and were pivotal in attracting aid and the recognition that this was a famine, so they satisfy WP:NFCI. I asked on Commons whether this might be free, because another image in the article, File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg, is being used as free. The reply was that the PD status depends on whether they were published within the United States within 30 days; if they were, they are not free. Otherwise, I was told, a 1943 photograph would expire in India 60 years after publication. I don't know how far we have to go to determine whether they were published in the United States within 30 days. The easiest thing would be to ask The Statesman to release them.
  • Nikkimatria said this one was kosher because of its historical value etc. I think... the same... is true for Peoples' War... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingzhi (talk • contribs)
• File:Farmers and Water Buffalo Plowing a Rice Field by Frank Bond.jpg, PD-USGov.
• File:Sundarbans.jpg, PD-USGov, but not a good image.
• File:Burmese refugees flee along the Prome Road into India, January 1942.jpg, PD-UKGov.
• File:67 Sqn Hurricanes.jpg, PD-UKGov. Unclear what these aircraft in Chittagong in May 1943 have to do with the famine. Would make sense to restore File:AmericanSoldiersCalcutta1943.jpg if the point is to illustrate the new arrivals in Calcutta.
  • If you'll read the article, one of the key connections between "military buildup" and the famine was all the large-scale construction, especially airstrips. A cheerful photo of bunch of soldiers laughing during R&r has far far less connection (more or less no connection) to the famine. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• File:Civil unrest India August 1942 Telegram.jpg, PD-UKGov, not relevant to the famine
• File:Cochliobolus miyabeanus.jpg, cc-by.
• File:Indian exodus from Burma to Manipur, Bengal, and Assam, January to July 1942.jpg, PD-USGov.
• File:Chittaprosad-Hungry-Bengal-sketch1.jpg, fair use; the image is from Chittaprosad Bhattacharya's Hungry Bengal: A Tour Through Midnapur District (1943), the book the British banned; its sketches have been the subject of commentary.
• File:Churchill V sign HU 55521.jpg, PD-UKGov.

Possibly a problem

• File:Map of British India anachronous.png, released into the public domain by its author, User:Deepak, who has old warnings on his page about unfree images.
  • Deleted, we can find better. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• File:Map of Bengal districts 1943.png, map from the Famine Inquiry Commission. PD-India, needs a US tag. Status depends on whether it was published in the US within 30 days.
• File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg, from Bengal Speaks (1944). PD-India and PD-India-URAA. Not clear who the photographer was; this might be one of The Statesman images. Again, status depends on whether it was published in the US within 30 days.
• File:MotherWithShredsOfClothingAndChildCalcutta1943.jpg, ditto.
• File:OrphansWhoSurvivedBengalFamine1943.jpg, ditto.
• File:Gandhi 1944.jpg , PD-India, needs a US tag; no author or source (the link leads to only part of the image).
  • replaced with File:Gandhi writing 1942.jpg Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• File:PeoplesWar Sept1943.jpeg, Communist Party of India newspaper front page from September 1943, fair use claimed to illustrate the "changing response of media to government suppression of info". The media response changed in August with The Statesman. It would be better to use one of their front pages; there is one here: "Calcutta sewers choked with bodies". I can't make out the date.
• Sewers choked with bodies? 99% probability that's from Direct Action Day. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV ^(talk) 07:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for this img review. I really didn't want to bother Nikkimaria until/unless the FAC was making real progress, because imgs are always easy to remove and sometimes easy to replace. As I said, it's Midterms week etc., but I will certainly start plodding along on all these imgs. Thank you again. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus

I will gradually do a spot check of 33 random citations over the next week. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have located one book which seems like it would be a very good addition to the literature section: Janam Mukherjee. 2015. Hungry Bengal: War, Famine and the End of Empire. Oxford Scholarship Online.[DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190209889.001.0001] ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Also the article, which goes specifically to one of Sarah's concerns: Rajender Kaur (2014) The vexed question of peasant passivity: nationalist discourse and the debate on peasant resistance in literary representations of the Bengal famine of 1943, Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 50:3, 269-281, DOI: 10.1080/17449855.2012.752153·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks! BTW, Mukherjee is cited 43 times already. Please be sure your edition/version is the same as that used by the article...thanks!!! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It is 2015, which appears to be the only edition. I will be using the online version, not the paper version - but the content should not differ, presumably neither will the pagination.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

Sorry, we need to call a halt to this... It's taking me longer to page through this review than the article itself -- and with the article comprising over 11,000 words of readable prose, that's really something -- and we are nowhere near consensus to promote. The actions to address reviewer concerns, including outstanding source and image checks, need to take place outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2018 [5].

---

William Matthews (priest)

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century American Catholic priest that led a really remarkable life. He was the first Catholic priest born in British America and was heavily involved in the establishment and expansion of the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. He founded and was the president of numerous religious and civil institutions, among which was Georgetown University. During his lifetime, he was a very well-known figure in both Washington society and the Catholic Church in America. I created this article in 2016 and recently expanded it significantly. I've researched the subject thoroughly online, at the Library of Congress, and at an academic library. As far as I'm able to tell, there is nothing encyclopedic about this person that is not included in the article. Ergo Sum 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Very_Rev._William_Matthews.png is missing the author's date of death, but how is the date after the publication date?

• If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• The book was published in 1891, which means the image must have been created in 1891 or before (very likely before, since Matthews died in 1854). So, even if the author of the image were 1 year old when they created the image, and even if it were created in the year the book was published, 70 years from 1891 is still 1961. Ergo Sum 19:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• 70 years ago is 1948. It would be possible for someone to be old enough to create the image in 1891 and young enough to survive past 1948. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• File:St._Matthew's_Cathedral_door_mural_cropped.jpg: in the US the photographer of a 2D work like a mural garners no new copyright, so the current tagging is incorrect
• File:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Philadelphia.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources question: There are 37 citations to Durkin's book, which, according to WorldCat, has 169 pages. There are no page references, no online links. How are these citations to be verified? Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I think I've resolved the hiccups regarding licensing for the first two images. For the third one, that image is transcluded by {{Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia}} at the bottom of the article, which I haven't worked on. Maybe Alekjds, the creator of the work, can assist? As for the book, it is not available online and it does not have an ISBN printed in the book. It is only available in academic research libraries (and perhaps the Library of Congress). My understanding of Indicating availability was that citing that book would be acceptable, as it was published by Benziger Brothers, a reliable publisher. I also don't know how to cite individual page numbers without being extremely repetitive with citations, since the citations all refer to different pages in the book, and having 37 different citations to the same book, but with different page numbers, would seem odd. Ergo Sum 05:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for the image review, but I'm sure Nikki will pick up your responses. As to Durkin's book, you've been misinformed if you understand that citing the whole book without page references is sufficient. Citing each of the 37 refeferences individually is not at all odd, it's exactly what you have to do. Look at any number of the book-dependent nominations on the FAC page, and you'll see how it's done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, overlooked @Nikkimaria:'s signature. As the for book, I didn't realize that. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of the book within the next couple days and add page numbers. Ergo Sum 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ergo, having 37 different citations to the same book, but with different page numbers, would seem odd. It serves another purpose - indicating than an article is over reliant on a single source, and thus may not reflect the full breath of available scholarship. Note this will not always be the case as some topics are better covered in the literature than others, but may explain the request. Its a lot of work for you now, but may be a good approach for you to build into your editing technique from here. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I've gotten a hold of the Durkin book and added page numbers for all inline references (except for one from a different book that I'm going to add when I get the book in the coming days). I don't think the article is over-reliant in this case, since it's a rather niche subject that is mentioned in passing frequently in contemporaneous documents and historical literature, but is only covered biographically by this one book, which goes into great detail. What do you think of how I've cleaned up the article? Ergo Sum 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, delighted to see. Will have another read through over the weekend. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

• The article is quite well written, but fragmented throughout into very short paragraphs (the lead was 6 paras on a 3996 word article) which makes reading a bit disjointed. I'd do a lot of merging, which would certainly help with flow. I would probably support after a resolution of source issues and a light c/e. More comments to follow. Ceoil (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  As I see Brian's request on page numbers has not been met, I'll have to register an oppose pending resolution. I have to say I'm a bit concerned that the nomination was made without having to hand a copy of the book used as the primary source. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's a book from an academic library that is only available to be taken out for brief periods of time. I have my hands on it again and seek to add page numbers this weekend. Haven't done it until now because I've been quite busy with real life things. Ergo Sum 22:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus

• I agree with Ceoil's point on short paragraphs. Combining them would improve the article.
• Early life: It might make sense to put the family part before the education part, since that is more in line with actual chronology.
• "St. Patrick's was the largest parish in Washington, D.C. at the time[9] and the first Catholic church constructed." The first constructed in D.C.? If so, add "there" to the end of the sentence.
• "He sought that there be no lay trustees for St. Peter's Church" I see what you mean here, but the phrasing is awkward. Maybe "He sought to avoid having lay trustees in positions of authority for St. Peter's Church"?
• "Matthews was firmly opposed to the control of church properties by lay trustees, which resulted in Matthews later being selected for an ecclesiastical mission in Philadelphia." I know what you mean here, but only because I wrote the articles on Michael Francis Egan and Henry Conwell. Maybe add something to the end of this sentence to explain it, like "where a long-running dispute over trusteeism was in progress."
• St. Peter's Church: I'm not sure what you're getting at with the second paragraph here. It seems like a minor point about something that may not have happened.
• Miraculous event: I'm curious why you didn't make use of this 2011 book, which is entirely about the miracle. Seems like a good source to me.
• Georgetown College: the parts about the Corporation of Catholic Gentlemen of Maryland and its relationship to the Society of Jesus will be confusing to most people without an explanation of the suppression of the Jesuits and their subsequent restoration. Without that, the idea that the Corporation considered itself a continuation of the Jesuits in America doesn't make much sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• These are good ideas. I'm going to work on the article this week and will try to incorporate these. Thanks for the link to the book, especially. Ergo Sum 00:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I can see that there's just been some new activity here but the nom has been open six weeks without consensus for promotion beginning to develop so I'll be archiving this shortly. I also note that not all of Nikki's image queries seem to have been acknowledged. Can I suggest that Coemgenus and Ceoil review text changes and continue discussion with Ergo Sum on the article talk page, and then after the standard two weeks have passed following the archiving (as per FAC instructions) and image questions have been addressed, it be re-nominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2018 [6].

---

Tracer (Overwatch)

Nominator(s): Soulbust (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the character Tracer, from Overwatch, a 2016 video game developed by Blizzard Entertainment and related Overwatch media. She is arguably the game's most popular character, being featured in the game's animated media, digital comic series, in its marketing, and the game's cover art. I believe the Tracer article has been edited and developed to FA standards; it has gone through a GA review, a peer review, and 2 copy-edits. While Tracer is occasionally referenced in media nowadays, and the possibility of further changes to Overwatch is open, for all intents & purposes, the Tracer article is virtually comprehensive when it comes to relevant material. This is my first attempt at a FAC nomination, so I'd just like to especially thank anyone who helps out (or has helped out) with this process in advance, and I'll definitely receptive to any feedback. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Soulbust: This isn't showing up on the main FAC page. I think you forgot to list it there. JOEBRO64 19:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Thanks for the heads up, but I really don't know what else to do though. Like I thought I had followed the 5 steps under "Nomination procedure". I see it listed here. Is it supposed to show up elsewhere? Soulbust (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, I see it now. Guess it missed my eye. JOEBRO64 19:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by TheJoebro64

I'll be posting some comments in a bit. From a glance this article looks pretty clean. JOEBRO64 21:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Round one:

• Just a general note: I'd publishers wherever I can. For example, Vox Media publishes Polygon. I don't think this is an absolute requirement for FAC, but I'd do it.
• Similarly, some references link to the websites they cite, but others do not. Keep your references consistent.
• Her design is based upon an element from Blizzard's canceled project, Titan. How so?

More to come. JOEBRO64 19:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

NB re: noting publishers in {{cite web}}—this is actually incorrect usage. WPVG does it by habit, but the |publisher= field is more for books or as a non-italicized |work= field. Otherwise |work=Polygon should be sufficient. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Oppose for now. The article is a solid foundation, but it needs a lot of love.

• The article suffers from bad sentence construction throughout. Semicolons are used haphazardly, resulting in linked clauses like Geoff Goodman, lead hero designer for Overwatch, was influential in Tracer's design; she was the first hero designed for the game and was used to test the basic gameplay which suggests that Geoff Goodman was the first hero designed, not Tracer. Later on the character biography makes it sound like Tracer is a member of Overwatch but then states that Overwatch was created concurrently with her timey-wimey background. There's unnecessary passive voice that should be reworked.
• Tracer belongs to the Overwatch universe but she was first introduced as a playable character in an April 2016 update for Blizzard's crossover multiplayer online battle arena game Heroes of the Storm. First, I'm not sure why I care what universe she "belongs" to, but more importantly, it's really confusing to split hairs about "playable character" and first appearances. Makes far more sense to say that she first appeared in the Overwatch trailer and then was a playable character in Heroes of the Storm. Otherwise on first scan it seems like the infobox and article body are disagreeing.
• There's a lot of weird contextual fluff that's unneeded at best and confusing at worst. I'm not sure why it's important that her fictional biography be appended with Outside the game... for instance. The character is fictional, so telling me there was an "in-universe" incident that caused her powers (as opposed to an out-of-universe one?) is irrelevant.
• There's an excess of quotes throughout, both in unsourced fragments (this is distracting) and long paragraphs that seem undue in weight (why does every single Kotaku panelist get sentences to talk about the character's sexual orientation?) This was noted as a problem in the PR, but it's still an issue.
• Single sentences aren't paragraphs. Non-paragraphs shouldn't have subheadings dedicated to them.
• Was Tracer's orientation not controversial or controversial? The article suggests the former but ends the section with another long quote that suggests it was divisive.
• Probably most critically, this article is designed around someone who is familiar with Overwatch, not a casual reader, let alone someone who doesn't follow video games. The actual term "Overwatch" isn't explained until after it's already been namedropped, for instance.
  • Her Blink ability, which comes with three charges, allows her to teleport a short distance in the direction she is traveling.[34] Using this ability she can "zip behind an enemy in an instant for surprise attacks, or dodge completely out of the line of fire".[43] It has a cooldown period, requiring the player to wait for each Blink to recharge.[45] Her Recall ability allows Tracer to return to her position three seconds prior, resetting her health and reloading her gun; this also has a cooldown period is an example of the article trending into gameplay minutiae that's not relevant for a Wikipedia article, as well as bogging us down with bad sentence construction. Why do we get "this has a cool down" after each mention of the ability? Does her ultimate ability *not* have a cool down, since it's not mentioned? What is a Heroic ability in Heroes of the Storm, and why is this important to spend three sentences on it versus explaining that her moveset is similar to Overwatch?
    • Do not use "nerf". And definitely don't just wiki link it to an article about NERF guns.
  • Tracer is depicted with her chronal accelerator removed; the game's Twitter account confirmed the accelerator still works if removed as long as it is charging nearby.[70] Again. Relevance to someone who's a non-fan; no one is asking where that one thing that was mentioned once before is or how it works.
• I don't see File:Tracer & Emily kissing comic panel.png or File:Animethon 23 - 2016 (28552553510).jpg having justification for the article. The former is just two people kissing, it's not the subject of critical commentary in and of itself and it's not necessary for visual identification (people know what kissing people look like.) And the cosplay shot is dubiously declared free, when Tracer's costume is elaborate enough it's not clear whether it falls under non-protection as utilitarian clothing.
  • Given that the infobox shot is a cropping of a full shot and you later have two full-body shots to illustrate the character's poses, I'm not sure the infobox image is justified for visual identification purposes when there's a better argument for non-free usage later.
• I'll do a spot-check for sourcing issues later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Just a couple for now, but:

• I've tweaked some of the minor things so far (like the semicolon usage in the Geoff Goodman sentence and the Nerf wikilinking).
• I've inserted an explict clarification of when something is in-universe as opposed to out-of-universe due to past suggestions that not clarifying when applicable would be detrimental (I believe, as per this)
• I'm currently working on some of the other issues you've mentioned.

Soulbust (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

some more comments:

• I think it's important to clarify in-universe at the beginning of the Story and character section b/c it's under the "Development and design" section, so I think it would be helpful for readers to understand her in-universe story was designed the way it was in the fashion it was (i.e. Tracer's backstory can be found through a fictional biography).
• I have tweaked the article a bit more.
• I would like some reasoning as to why not to use "nerf" & if there is an alternative phrasing for that concept.
• I'll be trying my best to retool the article to be less technical/full of minutiae when it comes to the gameplay mechanics.
• I'll have to respectfully disagree on the kissing comic panel's justification. It's not necessary for visual identification on kissing. I assume people know what kissing looks like. It's necessary for visual identification on Tracer's identification as a lesbian, which Blizzard devs seem to have tagged as something that "just felt right to make" as "an aspect of her character." It's a critical visualization of her portrayal in the comic series, as she's not just exclusively featured in the game. And it's hard to argue that this isn't the most notable panel of her in a comic portrayal, or honestly any non-video game portrayal, seeing how in-depth her kissing scene and lesbian identification overall was covered by reliable VG sources.
• I'm thinking about tweaking the Appearances section to have 2 subheadings: "Overwatch media" and "Other media", to fix the issue of that one-sentence paragraph. The only problem this causes is it separates her appearance in the HotS game from her appearance in Overwatch. The only other solution I can think of is perhaps combining Merchandising and Films into "Other media" or something like that. I'd like to have some feedback on that.
• Thank you for all the suggestions, so far. I'll be working on the article to improve it. Soulbust (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The subheadings idea sounds good. The merchandising doesn't really mesh with the film appearance, though. It'd make more sense I think to fold it into an 'other media' heading separate from the merchandise, since that's often considered more "promotion" than an "appearance" (tie-in products versus a work in and of itself.)
  • Regarding the image, WP:NFCC criteria is that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (emphasis mine.) Removing this image doesn't remove the readers' ability to comprehend she's a lesbian. One's sexual orientation is not inherently denoted by one's visual appearance, nor even apparent behavior (one can be bisexual despite never having kissed a member of the opposite sex). Her portrayal in the comics itself is a very small facet of the character, given that they are notable for the video game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I'm afraid that having been open over six weeks this nom has stalled without any consensus to promote developing, so I'll be archiving it shortly and you can if you choose renominate after two weeks have passed and outstanding review comments have been addressed. As a first-time nominator, Soulbust, you would be eligible to participate in the FAC mentoring scheme if you'd like to give it a try. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2018 [7].

---

Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about probably the least well-known President of Burkina Faso, back when it was called the Republic of Upper Volta. He began his career as an army medic, and was elevated to the presidency of this small West African country on 9 November 1982 following a coup that toppled a military dictatorship. He was shortly thereafter given charge of the Ministry of National Defence and Veterans Affairs. The country remained unstable under Ouédraogo's reign, and the latter half of his tenure was overshadowed by the popularity of his prime minister, Thomas Sankara. Concerned with his socialist sympathies, Ouédraogo fired Sankara and arrested him. This resulted in a national political dispute that culminated in another coup on 4 August 1983, bringing Sankara to power (he would go on to become something of an African legend) and confining Ouédraogo to the brig for two years. Upon his release Ouédraogo mostly kept out of politics and devoted his time to establishing a medical practice. He only returned to the public sphere in the 2010s to mediate several national political disputes. This article has passed GA and a WikiProject Military history A-class review. There's not a lot of material about this guy, but a constructive FA review could make a dent in our systemic bias problem. And I do think that if this passed FA, it would be the first WikiProject Burkina Faso article to have ever done so. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - any possibility of an image to illustrate? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: As I explained at the GA nomination, I have found no free use photos of the subject (and none of Zerbo, Sankara, and his colleagues either) and the fact that he is still alive means I'd be unable to fulfill the fair use criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Support - lack of media in a potential piece of featured content is a problem. Typically, FA candidates have several images spread throughout them, but this one has zero. The images do not have to be of Ouédraogo or the other people mentioned in the article. It could be something as simple as a map of Burkina Faso or the flag of the Republic of Upper Volta (that tiny image of it in the infobox doesn't count). I want to see at least one appropriately licensed image added to this article, and then I will support it. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 17:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Jackdude101: Better?

• That will do. Support. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "He attended Mogho Naba Kougri's funeral in December and placed a wreath at the Mossi leader's coffin, apparently convinced that in order to achieve success he would have to respect the traditional power structures valued by the public.": I think reviewers might have problems with this sentence, possibly with its length, or possibly with the lack of attribution for the opinion word "apparently".
• "He lives next to the clinic and serves between 400 and 500 patients a month.", "He is the president of the Fédération des Associations Professionnelles de la Santé Privée": WP:DATED is tricky. These two probably need a (single) "as of"; other kinds of present-tense statements might not need it.
• 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) 14:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed the opinion to a direct quote from the book and moved it to a footnote.
  • Done.
  • Thanks for the review.

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 31 is currently returning "unable to connect". Please test – the fault might be temporary.
  • Link repaired.
• Refs 34 and 35: could you clarify publisher details? As far as I know, the Weblogy group is a web facilitator and designer rather than a news publisher.
  • It would appear that you are correct, but their own website describes them as "publishers" and they are shown as the copyright holders at the bottom of each news site. The former article is attributed to aOuaga.com (presumably a web staff writer) and the AFP is credited with writing the latter report (which I've added under the author= parameter). I cannot find any more details beyond that. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Apart from these issues, the sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Reading now and making straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

and was quickly regarded by the leftist members of the CSP as "conservative" and "pro-French". - I'd dequote here. write "french sympathies/aligned with France" or something.

• Revised as "regarded by the leftist members of the CSP as conservative and sympathetic to policies of France." -Indy beetle (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise no gross prose issues and strikes me as comprehensive. However, I am a neophyte in the topic area...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by Dudley

• Support. I commented at A-Class, where my comments were dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose on 1a, 1b and 1c: I'm recusing as coordinator on this one as there are a few issues. I'm a little concerned by the sourcing and prose. Here are a few examples, but I think this needs a closer look by a few editors and more work is required.

• I looked at ref 2, which is in French, and ran it through Google translate. It looks a little similar to me. I wonder do we need a little more rephrasing to be on the safe side. I don't know if the main editor(s) used the original French or the electronically translated version, but the similarities need looking at. At the very least, I think a few more editors need to take a look at this.

• Article: "He began his education at the École Primaire Catholique de Bam, later attending the minor seminary of Pabré before completing his secondary education at the Lycée de Philippe-Zinda-Kaboré de Ouagadougou"
• Original: "Jean-Baptiste Ouedraogo began his studies at the Bam Catholic Primary School. He then attended the small seminary of Pabré before joining the high school Philippe-Zinda-Kaboré of Ouagadougou"

• Article: "He studied medicine at the University of Abidjan and the School of Naval Medicine in Bordeaux"
• Original: "He studied medicine at the University of Abidjan (Ivory Coast), then at the School of Naval Health of Bordeaux"

• Article: "He then took courses at the University of Strasbourg,[5] specializing in paediatrics"
• Original: "before specializing in pediatrics and in childcare in Strasbourg (France)"

• Article: "From 1976 to 1977 Ouédraogo managed the paediatrics department at the Hôpital Yalgado-Ouédraogo de Ouagadougou"
• Original: "From 1976 to 1977, he was in charge of the pediatric department of the Yalgado-Ouédraogo Hospital in Ouagadougou"

• I notice that the "Sub-Saharan Africa Report" which mentions his time as an intern also has a little more, including someone discussing working with him. There's also a little more about his wife.
  • @Sarastro1: I'm not sure what you mean about his wife that would be relevant for inclusion. As for his work as an intern, I believe that was the supervising doctor who was describing his qualities as a person, namely "quiet" and "pragmatic", to a press which was eager to get an idea of what the new president of Upper Volta was going to be like. I think the quote included from the Minister of Justice already encapsulates that. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not quite sure that the same reference supports "Ouédraogo was commissioned as a second lieutenant and medic into the Upper Voltan Army in October 1972" as it states "he was a medical second lieutenant in the Voltan army from October 1972"; what is a medical second lieutenant? This does make me question whether we have all the available information from the sources.
  • "Medical second lieutenant" (from the original French) seems to be a unique term found in these sources. "Médicin-commandant" is also unique though, as the Quarterly Economic Review states, it's a rank equivalent to that of major (and major and commandant are already usually equivalent ranks, simply the latter is preferred by the francophone world). This source [8] describes Ouédraogo as a major in the army medical corps. Some sources call him a "medical major" or "surgeon major". I suppose we could say "medical second lieutenant" as odd as it is. I for one didn't think it was a misinterpretation to call him a medic and second lieutenant separately. As for "whether we have all the available information from the sources", I welcome you to examine all that I have used and introduce any more you might have access too. I just added some info from a source that was republished last month, but I'm highly confident that there is little else out there to be found. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• The prose requires a little work. I think we descend into WP:PROSELINE and have repetitive sentence structures. Here's a sample from the "Military Career and Presidency" first paragraph (proseline and repetitive structures bolded):

• "Unlike Sankara, he lacked political experience and popular support, and was quickly regarded by the leftist members of the CSP as conservative and sympathetic to policies of France. Ouédraogo thought of his opponents as "hard-core Marxists" and maintained that he was a "liberal and sincere democrat".[2] On 21 November he declared that the CSP would restore a constitutional, civilian regime in two years time.[9] Five days later the CSP installed a formal government."

• • • I'll note that in the past reviewers have given more leeway to rewriting to avoid copyright problems or PROSELINE issues when the information presented is already limited in its original form and if further revision could create a gap between the substance of the text we write and the substance of the original source. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Just to note that just addressing these points here would not make me strike the oppose yet, for these are only examples. I believe the whole article needs to be looked at. Sarastro (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Any movement on addressing Sarastro's opposition? If we don't have some progress in the next few days, this will be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I responded to Sarastro1's comments here and pinged them, but they never responded as to what effect my explanations had on their consideration of the article's suitability for FA status. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been horrendously busy IRL. I'm afraid my oppose stands as the nominator, while responding to my comments, does not seem to have addressed them. "Past reviewers have given more leeway to rewriting to avoid copyright problems or PROSELINE issues" does not fill me with confidence, nor does it do anything about the actual issues, which we cannot just brush under the carpet for a FA. Sarastro (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing note

Wanted to hear Sarastro's response before taking any action. While I appreciate there was a delay there, the nom had still been open almost two months when the initial opposition was recorded, and an editor raises such points at that stage of a review then I think we have an issue. I plan to archive this and ask that the concerns be looked at outside the FAC process, and suggest pinging Sarastro on the article talk page for an informal check before re-nominating after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2018 [9].

---

Faith in Buddhism

Nominator(s): Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the nature of faith in Buddhist traditions. I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it is ready for FA. I've tried to get the article to comply with the criteria, but there is much i don't know about since this is my first nomination. The article heavily relies on tertiary sources like encyclopedia articles, due to the broad nature of the topic, but it also contains many secondary sources. It is at GA now.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I really hope this gets some reviewers with a solid grounding in Buddhism. It strikes me there are many points where things and terms mentioned need explaining quickly. I hope to read through slowly & bring some here, but it is hard going for most Western readers, & me, though I know more about Buddhism than many. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, we can work on that. Can you give me some terms or paragraphs to start with, John? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

comments by outriggr

April, 5

This is an ambitious undertaking. Excellent work. I have looked at the lead only, and have the following comments.

Thanks for your efforts, outriggr. I should have started an FA sooner, as I can see now that i have written several articles that may have to be rewritten considerably. Well, better late than never. I'm going to go through this chronologically. Here goes:

• "serene commitment in the practice"--I am not clear if "serene commitment to the practice" would be more idiomatic, or if it would change your meaning ignore this

• Not sure why this was deleted. Seems a valid comment. And fixed now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Why use "dhamma" throughout the article as a pipe to "dharma", when the latter word is much more familiar to an English-speaking audience?

• I think i fixed this now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "the community of spiritually developed followers, or the monastic community seeking enlightenment"--is the "or" separating two different things, or attempting to define the first thing (the community)? If it is defining the first thing, I would reword, such as by using a dash: "the community of spiritually developed followers—the monastic community seeking enlightenment".

• They are overlapping categories. See below in the same paragraph. Rephrased now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• is there a reason to not have an article ("a") before the noun in " A faithful devotee was called (a/n) upāsaka or upāsika"?

• No, there isn't. Fixed. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• "for which no formal declaration was required"--I don't know what this means, but I can guess.

• Rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Same with "Early Buddhism valued personal verification highest". What is personal verification?

• Rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Those are questions I have after two paragraphs, and my concern is that I could continue this list of "things I don't quite follow" throughout the article. It is undoubtedly a difficult topic to explain clearly, and I hope you will continue to clarify as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bring it on!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My feeling exactly - also I suspect my list from the first 2 paras would be as long, but mostly different. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I will start working on this this weekend.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 7

I would suggest that the article needs a thoughtful copyedit throughout, ideally by someone with knowledge of the subject, and that you take a second look at every paragraph to examine if it adheres to the topic of Faith closely enough to remain. I acknowledge the difficulty (or impossibility) of such a clean separation from other articles about Buddhism.

Alright, I'm doing this after the other comments are fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• One example: I don't believe the current third paragraph of the lead is necessary; the lead is quite long enough without it.

• I merged the second and third paragraph, cutting out parts.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Another: the beginning of the History section is not an introduction to the section, but rather mentions a couple of concepts that are never stated again.

• Clarified.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is it possible to choose between Sanskrit or Pali words, and be consistent? I can see that, depending on the word, either variant may be more familiar for someone with a passing knowledge of Buddhism, but most of the time it will be Pali. We need "dharma" and "sangha", not the other variants. And for a given word, the Pali or Sanskrit may not be used consistently, and it may be capitalized inconsistently.

• I have changed some terms for consistency, but early Buddhism used Pāli or a predecessor, and Mahāyāna Buddhism used Sankrit, Chinese and Japanese. I believe I'm following scholarly convention as in the sources cited.
• As for spelling errors, I'll print the text and copy-edit once more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• There seems to be a somewhat disproportionate mention of Sri Lankan Buddhism.

• You mean, Sri Lankan scholars?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Positive: The use of references appears to be excellent. :)

• Thanks :-)

I should mention that I am choosing some criticisms that didn't require too much engagement with the content, so there is potentially a lot more where that came from. Outriggr (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've just warmed up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The way i see it now, is that none if the paragraphs need to be completely deleted, but some sections should cut to the chase more quickly, as the introduction is too lengthy, compared to the part that actually deals with faith. To fix this, it would require some trimming. Is this what you mean?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all issues now, Outriggr.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 16

Thanks for your responses Farang Rak Tham. Just one comment up to the start of the "History" section now. Hopefully I'll get to read more later.

Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Faith in early Buddhism focused on the Triple Gem, that is, the Buddha; his teaching (the Dharma); the community of spiritually developed followers, and the monastic community seeking enlightenment (the Saṅgha)." We talked about this sentence above; now it seems to enumerate four parts of the "Triple Gem". I understand that the last group is the sangha, but it's still a windy sentence. At the least, I would expect an "and" to follow after the last semi-colon as the third thing. Outriggr (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Tried again. Let me know what you think.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• "This does not mean that Buddhism's approach of reality developed in isolation: at the time when Buddhism arose, there was a trend of critical caution in understanding reality amongst Indian religious communities." It's not clear to me how this sentence relates to the text before it.

• Rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• The phrasing is a bit awkward as well ("approach of reality", "there was a trend of caution in understanding...").

• Rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is the present tense ("Faith is") appropriate in the discussion of Early Buddhism?

• It is content based on analysis of textual sources, and thus, to keep an encyclopedic, skeptical tone, I have used the historical present.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think it mostly works, but that one paragraph beginning feels wrong.

• I have changed the tense of some sentences for consistency.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Faith then leads to many other important qualities on the path to the end of suffering..."--this doesn't sound specific, or formal, enough for an encyclopedia article. Outriggr (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Expanded, drawing from source cited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think I have addressed all problems now, Outriggr.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 22

• Thank you for all your helpful edits, Outriggr. In this edit, you have started to edit the see above and see below templates. I am not certain in what way these were malfunctioning at first, but currently, they link to an old diff. Perhaps we should fix that. Maybe we can just leave out the link?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I fixed that in the next edit.
    • Okay, great. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think I will complete a review here. (On the FAC talk page, there is currently a discussion to the effect that reviewers should not draw FACs out line by line when we find issues with the clarity of writing. :-)
    • Okay, but where should I ask someone to help improve the clarity of writing, then? Peer review nominations of religious articles do not attract many reviewers.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk)
  • As a final comment, many book references are linked to web sites which host PDFs in full. While this is at the moment useful for e.g. reviewing the use of sources, those files are almost certainly copyright violations, and we aren't supposed to link to copyright violations here. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay, I have now deleted those. If you do want to access any sources, you can always go to the previous version of the article, which still has those links.

Thanks for helping to comment, Outriggr! Too bad you can't continue the review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

This has been open almost a month without attracting sufficient commentary to determine consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. I appreciate the difficulty of bringing such an article to FAC, particularly when the Peer Review didn't garner any comments. Given the concerns with clarity that Outriggr noted, you might consider giving the FAC mentoring scheme a try to help prepare for another attempt here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2018 (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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2018 [10].

---

Sloan–Parker House

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This article details the history and architecture of a significant historic property on the National Register of Historic Places in Hampshire County, West Virginia. This article is consistent with other NRHP-related articles in Hampshire County that are Featured Articles, including Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Valley View (Romney, West Virginia). I welcome your reviews and suggestions to further improve this article so that it fulfills FA status. Thank you! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Usernameunique

I reviewed this article at GA, and have nothing more to add. It's comprehensive, thoroughly researched, and well written. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Usernameunique, thank you again for taking the time to engage in your thorough and comprehensive review, and for providing me with so much worthwhile feedback to improve its overall quality! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 22: The link goes to a completely illegible version of the source. You might consider switching the link to the pdf, where you get something marginally better, but even so I was unable to locate the source article.

• Brianboulton, first and foremost, thank you so much for engaging in this source review of this article! I apologize for this belated response. I've included a link to the original PDF and also included an archival link to this PDF. Please let me know if this will suffice. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Refs 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47: It seems that a subscription is required to obtain legible versions of these articles, so I suggest you add (subscription required) templates to these refs. Also, please check the link in ref 43, which so far as I can make out does not go to a "Ruth H. Parker" article, and also the link in ref 44 which doesn't appear to go to a "New arrivals" piece.

• A better solution would be to clip the articles (example), which makes them publicly accessible. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, I have added (subscription required) templates to each of these references per your suggestion. I have also corrected the Ruth H. Parker reference. Usernameunique, I have considered doing this in the past, but I was unsure whether a clipped article would be permissible for a Wikipedia reference due to the possibility of copyright issues. Do you happen to know whether Wikipedia has any guidance for this? For the time-being, I've added the subscription template until we can find more guidance. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Copyright shouldn't be an issue, West Virginian—As I understand it Newspapers.com/Newspaperarchive.com have agreements with the papers (otherwise they would be liable for copyright issues themselves), and even if they didn't small clippings would almost certainly be considered fair use. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Bibliography: It's unnecessary clutter to include both ISBNs and OCLCs

• Brianboulton, would this be a FAC deal-breaker if I left both serial numbers in each reference? I know that some of our readers prefer to be linked directly to OCLC WorldCat's library, while others prefer the ISBN link to Wikipedia's "Book sources" page (which does include OCLC among its listed links). If having both of these contradicts FAC and Wikipedia guidance, I have no problem limiting each reference to just one serial number. Thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Subject to the above, sources are in good order and of the approporiate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good day Brianboulton! Thank you tremendously for taking the time to engage in this FAC sources review. I will be addressing each of your comments and suggestions later today (Eastern US time). Please feel free to let me know if you have any additional suggestions for this article in the meantime. And Usernameunique, thank you for weighing in here with your recommendations, too! I look forward to addressing all the above this evening. — West Virginian (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, thank you again for your review above! I've addressed each of your comments and suggestions, so please let me know if you have any outstanding questions and I'll address them as soon as I can. I always value and appreciate your insight and expertise, so thank you for weighing in here! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Brianboulton, I just wanted to touch base with you to see if you had any other outstanding issues with the article’s sourcing. Please take another look and let me know if you have any further suggestions. As always, I appreciate your guidance and your contributions to Wikipedia. — West Virginian (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support by Coal town guy

Confirmed all ISBN ref sources, well done. Article is obviously GA and certainly should be a FA. I am just curious if its possible to get interior shots??Coal town guy (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I am no expert so all I can offer is a few comments:

• why does the lead have references [2][3]? Is this a controversial statement? If not, no need for references
• lead seems a bit long for me, in relation to the whole article. Some sentences seem not crucial (Fairfax bit for instance)
• (concurrently U.S. Route 220 and WV 28) --> maybe shorten this to (US 220 / WV 28)? and the subsequent ones as well, all these concurrently's distract a bit from the main message
• west of Mill Creek valley --> west of the Mill Creek valley
• Romney to their property in the Mill Creek valley --> this sounds like they owned it prior to moving, is that true?
• The Sloan family sold --> do we know who sold it? Were Richard and Charlotte still alive? Why did the family sell it? Did they move away?
• also indicate that the Parker family also --> repetition
• married Isabel "Belle" Parker --> was that her maiden name? In the next sentence Eleanor's maiden name is given, so that suggests it is. Same question for Kate Parker.
• She had the wooden --> Belle or Eleanor?
• caption: North and west elevations, as seen in July 2016 --> is this the original stone part or the wooden addition? That would make a better caption here. Now it's just a duplication of the earlier photo.
• and several bedrooms --> a bit odd that we have so much detail elsewhere and then no actual number here

Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ian

• Also not an expert on historic houses but the article appears well written -- my habitual copyedit was pretty light -- and seems comprehensive but succinct.
• I'll take as read Brian's source review and Nikki's image check.
• Like Coal town guy I think it'd be great to see some interior shots if available, but obviously depends on availability/licensing.
• Close to supporting but will await responses/actions to Edwin's outstanding points before finalising.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: There has been no activity here for weeks, so this will be archived shortly. @West Virginian: Please feel free to renominate when you return to editing. --Laser brain (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2018 (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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2018 [11].

---

All Money Is Legal

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about the debut studio album by American rapper Amil. It was released on August 29, 2000, through Roc-A-Fella, Columbia, and Sony Music. All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album, whose lyrics focus on wealth and personal matters related to Amil's life. Reviews of the album were mixed; critics were divided over its production and Amil's verses. Commercially, it peaked at number 45 on the US Billboard 200 chart. Two singles — "I Got That" and "4 da Fam" — were released from the album and promoted through accompanying music videos. Following the album's release, Amil was removed from Roc-A-Fella.

This is yet another rather obscure album that I am putting through the FAC process. This is my fourth FAC on an album article, with the other three being Pru (album), Ho Ho Ho, and 3 of Hearts (album). I believe that the article meets all of the requirements in the FAC criteria. I look forward to everyone's comments and suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Media review

• File:All_money_is_legal.jpg: description should include the presumed copyright holder

• Added a proper summary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• The FUR for File:IGotThatAudioSample.ogg is nonsense. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Remove oxford comma from the second sentence in the lead.

• I used the Oxford comma throughout the article (I personally choose to use the Oxford comma, though I understand it boils down to a stylistic choice/preference), so I do not think that this would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• You can provide alt text for the images.

• The images already have ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• The references are fine.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Yashthepunisher: I have addressed your comments. Thank you for your input and I hope that you are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

• The first paragraph in the ablum uses the word American a lot. I mean if everyone is an American you might not have to keep pointing that out IMO.

• Understandable; I removed the parts. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• The same for parts of the article's body as well.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Following the album's release, Amil was removed from Roc-A-Fella." - Maybe you could mention the reason of her removal; for​ instance if it was it's poor performance then you could write: "Following the album's poor performance, Amil was removed from Roc-A-Fella."

• The exact reasons were not provided. It was not tied to the performance per say, but Amil later said that she just did not feel prepared at the time for a music career. The information is in the body of the article. Since there is not a real definite reason given, I am not sure if it should be added to the lead, but I am open to your opinion.

Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read that bit later. I think there is no point in adding the reason then as that would unnecessarily complicate the lead.

• "Dazed's Kathy Iandoli wrote that the single showed Amil had promise as a rapper,[21] while on the other hand, a writer from Vibe criticized the collaboration, including "I Got That" on its list of Matches Made in Error." - You could rephrase this as: "While XYZ wrote that..." to make it less wordy.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• ""4 da Fam", the album's second single, was released on September 13, 2000,[11][26][27]" - CITEKILL, are all the refs really needed?

• I have removed one source. One source is used to confirm that this was released as a single and the other is for the release date. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Other commentators had a more mixed to negative opinion of the album" - You could just say mixed or negative depending on the nature, "mixed to negative" isn't really an improvement of may sorts.

• Makes sense. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The magazine also called "Smile 4 Me" a" - The writer, not the magazine.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That's it for now. Great work on the article Aoba47. I'll take another look once these commentate addressed. VedantTalk 04:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if anything else is needed to improve the article. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a couple more comments:

• You might want to add something from the "recording" and "composition" sections to the lead. It does not have anything (or very little) form the sections at the moment.

• The following sentences in the lead (All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album, whose lyrics focus on wealth and personal matters related to Amil's life. Rapper Jay-Z and music executive Damon Dash served as the album's executive producers with Amil. Record producer Just Blaze also contributed to the record, later identifying his work as having made him a more respected producer within Roc-A-Fella.) are from those sections. I am not sure what else should be added, but I am open for suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, things like "While Jay-Z had written Amil's verses for their past collaborations, she developed her own lyrics for a majority of the album" as who wrote the lyrics is as important, if not more than what they were; "was recorded between 1999 and 2000 at XYZ..."; "Several songs on the album contain features from Jay-Z"; "While she primarily raps on the album, Amil sings on some tracks"; ""I Got That", which features vocals by singer Beyoncé" are some significant details.

• Makes sense to me! Thank you for the suggestions. I just had a brain fart about it. I restructured the lead to include more information. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• While the images used are relevant, I believe that an image of the principal artist, Amil would be of greater value to the article.

• I am not sure about the value of the image, as Amil is visible in the album artwork. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave this to you.

The rest looks good. VedantTalk 19:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Thank you for the additional comments! I believe that I have addressed both of your new suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sure the last of my concerns would be addressed as we go on. It's relatively minor; I can support this for promotion. Good luck Aoba47. VedantTalk 20:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• "The lyrics in "I Got That" encourage women to become more independent." — A little more elaboration, like quoting a line from the song that says what you have stated.

• Unfortunately, the source does not provide any of the lyrics from the song. And I could not find a source that mentions its lyrics either. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• The word "praised" appears three times in the reception section. Try something like "appreciated" for instance, or any other synonym.

• I have changed one instance of the instances in the section. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Great work on this article, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ssven2: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed your comments. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Support this nomination's promotion. The first one was merely a suggestion though.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:All money is legal.jpg: License and use seem fine for me; I don't think more than one rationale is needed.
• File:Jay-Z 2011.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:IGotThatAudioSample.ogg: Is this song sample somehow representative of the album? The use rationale makes more sense for a song article than an album one.

• I have modified the rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• It still sounds like a rationale for a song article. On an album article it might fail WP:NFCC#8 since this is only one song among many others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• File:Beyonce - The Formation World Tour, at Wembley Stadium in London, England.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• " Record producer Just Blaze also contributed to the record, later identifying his work as having made him a more respected producer within Roc-A-Fella." - the second half of this sentence needs to be tweaked a bit; it's slightly awkward to read

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• " whose lyrics focus on wealth and personal matters related to Amil's life" - well, yeah, duh, you'll have to be more specific than "personal matters"

• This is the most that I could find about the album's content. It was not a particularly popular album so the amount of critical commentary and review is limited. I figure that it is better to put what little information is present than nothing at all, as there are plenty of albums in which the performer does not touch on any aspect of their own personal life. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Even though Jay-Z had written Amil's verses for their past collaborations, she developed her own lyrics for a majority of the album" - cut the "even"; it's not encyclopedic; also I'd specify the number of songs and how many she wrote

• Removed the "even", and according to the album liner notes, she co-wrote every song on the album. I have modified it to reflect this. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Don't think the link to music critics is super necessary

• Removed. It was something that I had been encouraged to use in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "She cites hip hop group Run-DMC as one of her early inspirations.[2]" - this comes too abruptly and doesn't flow with the sentence before or after

• Clarified that it was a group that she looked up to since childhood and her early career. I thought that it would make sense due to the previous sentence being about her start in rap. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Amil joined the group Major Coins in 1997," - any more detail about the group and what music it made?

• I could not find much information about the group. Also, since the article is about the album, adding further information on them would seem to me to take away from the focus. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "rapper Jay-Z asked one of its members to sing vocals on his third studio album Vol. 2... Hard Knock Life (1998)." - which member?

• Not specified in the source. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Prior to recording All Money Is Legal, she was featured on albums with artists Mariah Carey, Jermaine Dupri, and Funkmaster Flex," - when? the chronology here is confusing

• According to the source, she appeared as a feature on various artists' albums prior to recording her own solo album (a fairly common occurrence, particularly for rappers, but one worth noting nonetheless). How do think that this information should be made clearer? Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "she developed her own lyrics for a majority of the album.[1][3] " - same as above comment; how many?

• See above. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Jay-Z praised Amil as having "a talent for song-making". " - citation?

• The citation is in the next sentence, as this sentence and the next one are both support by a singular citation. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Jay-Z praised Amil as having "a talent for song-making". When writing the material, she chose to avoid explicit references to sexuality.[1] Amil served as one of the album's executive producers, with Jay-Z and music executive Damon Dash.[3] " - these three sentences don't flow at all

• I have tried to make the information flow better. Let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "attributed his experience with engineering the album as raising his profile within Roc-A-Fella.[5]" - this is better phrased than in the lead, but still needs a bit of tweaking to read better

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Throughout the album, she raps about the "lifestyles of the rap and famous"." - not sure a quotation is needed here, I'd just rephrase it in your own words

• Paraphrased. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• "On "Girlfriend", she worries about infidelity after taking another woman's boyfriend, and then raps about her shame for going "from Gucci sandals back to no-name brands" on "Anyday".[7]" - why just the selection of these two songs here?

• I attempted to separate the more "personal" songs and the more "fame/money-focused" songs into two paragraphs to give this section more of a structure. I have moved the third paragraph up to the second paragraph to hopefully make it clearer, but let me know what you think. Also, not every song was covered by a critic given the limited amount of discussion on it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Needs a bit more work before it's ready. Weak oppose on the prose, for now. ceranthor 01:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ceranthor: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything. I would greatly appreciate your feedback on the revisions. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ceranthor: I apologize for pinging you again. I just wanted to clarify if you would revisit the comments in the future or if you would just like to leave up your comments and weak oppose as it currently stands. I understand either way as I completely respect your opinion either way. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Aoba47, thanks for the reminder. I struck my oppose and will shoot to read through again today! ceranthor 18:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your help with this, and I will try to improve my approach to prose in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Still don't quite think it's there. I'll keep copyediting until I feel comfortable with it. ceranthor 17:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Sorry for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Getting the prose to a 1a standard takes some work. ceranthor 02:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Few More Comments before I can Support

• "When writing the material, she chose to avoid explicit references to sexuality; Jay-Z praised her for having "a talent for song-making".[1]" - this is my version; I changed it, but if you can make the Jay-Z part flow better, then it will be good to go

• I moved the "explicit references to sexuality" part to the "Composition and sound" section as that deals more with the content of the songs/album than the background. Please let me know what you think about this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The lyrics in "I Got That" encourage women to become more independent.[7]" - this sentence comes abruptly. I think it disrupts the flow a bit - I'd either add a transition or move it within the paragraph

• I have added a transition, but let me know if additional work is needed for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• "explained she took a hiatus from music as she had not felt mentally prepared at the time of the album's release.[18][19]" - mentally prepared for ...W

• Clarified. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Might help to add a sentence about mixed reviews at the very beginning of the reception section, since that's what you say in the lead

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Good work. ceranthor 02:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Ceranthor: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Hope you are having a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Support on the prose per 1a. ceranthor 18:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the help. I am sorry for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from JM

• I generally wouldn't recommend including publishers for periodicals, but, providing it's consistent, no harm done. (Do you need to add one for International Business Times? Dazed?)

• Removed publishers for periodicals. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Potts, Diana. "Artist Biography by Diana Potts". AllMusic. Archived from the original on August 24, 2017." Is that really the best title?

• It is the title of the section on the website, but I have shortened it to simply "Biography". Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• What makes Hip Hop Wired a reliable source? It's a Wordpress site.

• Here is the About page for the website, and it includes a deputy editor that suggest some sort of editorial oversight. However, if that is not enough, than I can remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Wilson, MacKenzie. "AllMusic Review by MacKenzie Wilson". AllMusic. Archived from the original on October 12, 2016." As before.

• Again, it is the title from the website itself, but I have shortened it to "AllMusic Review". Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• ""Search results". Billboard. Eldridge Industries. Retrieved December 15, 2017." Again, an odd title; Billboard is certainly a good source, but citing search results seems a little weird.

• The link leads the search database for the Billboard website/magazine, which includes all of the chart information. For some reason, I have trouble accessing Amil's chart information so this is the only way that I could support the chart performances through references if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• ""4 Da Fam (Explicit Album Version) [Explicit]". Amazon. September 13, 2000. Archived from the original on March 14, 2017." I know some people hate citing Amazon and the like; do you have a better source?

• I use the Amazon.com source to support the release date of the single "4 da Fam". Unfortunately, I cannot find a better source to support the information. I can remove the source if necessary and just say that the single was released sometime in 2000. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's OK to include Google Books links as courtesy links, but you shouldn't cite them as websites (as you do with a number of Billboard links). Instead, you should cite the magazine; so, I'd want to see volume/issue numbers, date of publication, page range for the article, etc. Template:Cite journal will help. Here's a rough rendering of your "You've Come A Long Way" source, for example, one pared down (probably how I'd cite it) and one with more information (which might suit you a bit more):

  Kenon, Marci (August 19, 2000). "You've Come A Long Way, Baby". Billboard. 112 (34): 36, 46.

  Kenon, Marci (August 19, 2000). "You've Come A Long Way, Baby". Billboard. 112 (34). Eldridge Industries: 36, 46. Archived from the original on December 11, 2017 – via Google Books.

• I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks fine. I've not yet checked for close paraphrasing, and I can't speak for comprehensiveness. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• @J Milburn: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• You don't need retrieval dates for Google Book links. You're citing the magazine; the weblink is just a courtesy.

• Removed the access-dates from the magazine citations. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• For your Allmusic sources, I'd consider specifying in the title that this is the biography (or whatever) for Amil. So, you could title the page "Amil: Biography" or whatever. You could do something similar with album pages. Not essential, but something to consider, perhaps.

• Revised the titles of the AllMusic sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am not opposed to the use of the Amazon link for the reason you described. Others might be! Would something like Worldcat not have the release date? (Not a big deal.)

• Unfortunately, WorldCat only cites the release dates as "2000". Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• You probably shouldn't capitalise the i in inlay cover.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

These are super-minor quibbles. In my view: the formatting of the citations is up to FA standard, and the sources are all appropriate for an article of this sort. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @J Milburn: Thank you for your comments! I believe that I have addressed them. I hope you are having a wonderful day/night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (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 a fair amount of comments, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Before we promote, can we just check overuse of a few words such as "writer/wrote/writes" and "peak/peaked". Also, I'd like to know if J Milburn is happy with the sourcing now. Sarastro (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Ian Rose: & @Sarastro1:. I was wondering, could you archive this nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2018 [12].

---

Ramandu's daughter

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above article is about a fictional character in The Chronicles of Narnia series of juvenile fantasy novels by the British novelist C. S. Lewis. Introduced in the author's 1952 book The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, she marries Prince Caspian and becomes the queen of Narnia. In the 1953 novel The Silver Chair, the Lady of the Green Kirtle, in the form of a snake, kills her though she later reappears in the 1956 book The Last Battle.

The character appears in several adaptations of the book series, the British television serial The Chronicles of Narnia, portrayed by the English actress Gabrielle Anwar, and The Chronicles of Narnia film series, where Australian actress Laura Brent plays the role. Ramandu's daughter was the subject of literary analysis by various scholars, with her goodness and her marriage and sexual relationship with Caspian receiving attention. The character has been associated with various Christian virtues and figures, including Eve before the fall of man.

I believe that the article meets all of the requirements for a featured article. It has passed a good article review and been copy-edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions or comments as always. I hope that everyone has a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Corbett

• I'm curious as to why you introduce Michael Ward as "British scholar", Peter J. Schakel as "British literature Professor" (should be "professor" anyway), and Colin Duriez as "British writer". What has their nationality got to do with their opinions? Also, I very much doubt whether Lewis would describe himself as a British author rather than an English one; Britain and England are not synonymous. Why is it significant that Gabrielle Anwar is an English actress (not a British one I note)? Is Devin Brown a professor of English or merely English? Why is it significant that Laura Brent is Australian?

• Removed nationalities. I went off the main Wikipedia page for Lewis' nationality, but I have changed according to your preference. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Academics believed that Lewis characterized Ramandu’s daughter through her goodness." So they no longer believe that?

• Should the tone for scholars be in past or present tense? I could not find a Wikipedia policy on this, so I just kept it consistently in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Your use of the past tense carries with it the implication that academics no longer believe that, but something else (unspecified) instead. Eric Corbett 06:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• "... the character's respect towards Aslan defines her goodness." Do you mean "respect for ..."?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• "She noted how the character's maternal care for Rilian ..." She noted how, or she noted that?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Overall I found this rather an uncomfortable read, and I think it's going to need quite a bit of polishing before it's ready for promotion. Eric Corbett 00:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Eric Corbett: Thank you for the comments, though I think that calling it "uncomfortable" is very rude and unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Rude? I think that you need to learn how to accept criticism gracefully. Admittedly though that's a rare skill here on WP, so you can't really be blamed for that. But just to add to my "rudeness", I'll tell you now that if the prose is not improved then I will be opposing this article's promotion. Take that as you will. Eric Corbett 06:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I don't think Eric was discourteous here, and gave clear rationales for his objections. Popcornduff (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1:@Ian Rose: Can you please archive this? I have no interest in pursing this further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Before this gets archived, a quick comment. Yesterday I noticed this nomination, glanced at it, then took a longer look because it's a topic area I have expertise in and have worked in (as has Eric). My take away was that the prose needs work; I had some difficulty parsing in a few areas and didn't read much of it, though it's interesting. I think what Eric means by an uncomfortable read is that our job is always keep our readers in mind and try to engage them from top to bottom. It's a big job, frankly. One I struggle with constantly. Here are a few examples:

• Lead: The first sentence is a snake, with too much info crammed in and maybe can be split and tightened. The next sentence presents plot points re the 1952 novel, followed by a sentence with plot points about the 1953 and 1956 books. Better to work from general to specific and mention that she appeared in the 1952, 1953, and 1956 novels (with their titles), then maybe some very general plot points, then that she appeared in adaptations. Personally I'd add the character's film name to the sentences about adaptations (since Lewis didn't give her a name).
• Literature: Begins by telling us she doesn't have a name, yet the lead belies this. Also, the text box needs to be moved down a para. Suggest beginning the section with "Introduced in ..." and move the first sentence down a bit. Try separating description, plot points, and analysis; as written they are mixed together and muddle the reader (or, at least, this reader).

I'll make a few edits to demonstrate and revert myself. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Victoriaearle: Thank you for the comments and for your edits. I just have never heard of an "uncomfortable read" used in this context. I would have taken no major issue with an oppose on the basis of prose, but the phrasing just struck me as very odd and dismissive. However, that is just me, and I do admit that I overreacted when calling him rude so I apologize for that. I am choosing to retire from the FAC process and Wikipedia as a whole so you will not have to worry about having to deal with me in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Aoba47 the difficulty here is that a,. it's a character, which, in my view, is the most difficult type of article to write; b., it's childrens lit; c., it's fantasy; and d., it's Lewis and rife with symbolism. Take a look at The dragon (Beowulf), which is the only character I've ever attempted and it was done quickly to avoid a deletion - it's really barely start class. My suggestion would be to choose one of the books, probably The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and begin working there to bring up to FA. You should find references to the character while working through the sources for the book, and then it would easier to tackle this. For examples of book FAs, the best I've yet seen is To Kill a Mockingbird, though the primary author, Moni3, has been gone a long time and it's not being tended. I wrote The Sun Also Rises, which you could also use as an example. Other suggestions are to go over to User:Wadewitz's page, sadly now deceased, and take a look at some of her articles - she contributed greatly to our body of childrens literature FAs, and to user:Yllosubmarine's page, also no longer editing, who has some good examples. Eric Corbett too, has a some good examples of childrens lit FAs to emulate. I'm not around much, but might be interested in copyediting or providing guidance so feel free to leave queries on my page, with the caveat that it sometimes takes me a few days to answer. We all get discouraged; it's part of the process. Anyway, good luck going forward. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • As a very quick addendum to Victoriaearle, probably the closest correlation among existing FAs is Jabba the Hutt, also an example of a tangential character who only makes a brief appearance but has become laden with subsequent interpretation. I agree wholeheartedly with VE that articles about individual fictional characters are almost impossible to write at FA level, since unless you're talking about a character like Shylock or Homer Simpson there will almost never be the analysis to sustain an article, so what one ends up doing is just repeating the opinions of the one or two academics who have written about the character in depth, regardless of how wacky and defiant of common sense their opinions are. (To take an obvious example, if Lewis really intended the relationship between Caspian and R.D. to "imply heteronormative sexuality", rather than just be an absolutely generic handsome-prince-meets-beautiful-princess happy ending, I'm a Chinese whore from Mars, but because that's from one of the few people to write at length about the character it needs to be given credence here even though it's obviously a hyper-fringe notion.) ‑ Iridescent 17:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for both of your comments. I have chosen to retire from Wikipedia so I will not be working on any articles in the future. Hope you both have a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Iridescent makes a good point. Taking a look at the source re "heteronormative sexuality" the author actually writes that "Certainly, it seems, this marriage would imply...", i.e, clearly presented at "possibly, maybe", but more importantly it's presented in a much broader context. Also to that point, there are probably better sources on Jstor and Project Muse. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
        • It is what it is at this point. I would rather just this whole incident behind me, have this archived, and disconnect from Wikipedia as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2018 [13].

---

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Final Destination 3 is the third installment of the eponymous franchise. It was released in 2006 and stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead as high-schooler and photographer Wendy Christensen. It also saw James Wong and Glen Morgan return as directors and co-writers from the first film after being absent during the second. After Wendy has a vision of Devil's Flight derailing, the roller-coaster she and her friends are on, she manages to save some of them. Unfortunately, soon afterwards, Death starts hunting them down. The film made quite a bunch of money during its run, almost five times its budget, and got mixed reviews from critics. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Serial Number 54129

• "...everyone on board dies. Wendy survives the derailment..." might want to be slightly re-worded. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Serial Number 54129: Is there anything else that I should change? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, you didn't actually address my point  :) It should say someting like "everyone on board dies in the derailment except Wendy, who..." or something. At the moment it still says everyone (100%) dies, but clearly not everyone does, since Wendy was on the train too—and doesn't!
        I guess more editors will come along at some point and advise on other aspects, prose, style, images, etc. Good luck with this! —SerialNumberParanoia/^{cheap shit room} 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • @Serial Number 54129: Thank you. I'd just like to know, is the reworked version better now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mojo0306

• Just a small thing: in some sentences, the phrase "roller coaster" is not hyphenated, but is hyphenated in other sentences: "the first two weeks of which were spent filming the roller-coaster scene" and again "Meteor Studios produced the roller-coaster and subway crashes while Digital Dimension handled the post-premonition death scenes." Could do with consistency throughout. Mojo0306 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mojo0306: Done. Anything else? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • None that I can see, so I Support. My favourite film series, and one of the better ones in the series IMO. Good luck with the nomination! Mojo0306 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh God, it's always great to see another fan of this film. :D Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

I try and help with film related articles and biographies, so I'll try and take a look soon. 04:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Some observations:

• You could avoid the repetition of Final Destination 3 in close proximity in the second paragraph of the lead.
  • Changed it.
• "This makes them inconsistent with many analyses of horror films, according to which they require a monster." - This sentence is awkwardly phrased.
  • Tried to make it more clear.
• The Development section uses a lot of "According to" statements​, which could get monotonous. You might want to try and very the sentence structure a little.
  • Changed them.
• I don't know how the prior works of some of the actors add anything relevant to the casting section, it seems a little irrelevant. I would remove them, unless of course they had something to do with them getting cast in the film.
  • Removed most of them.
• "Winstead and Merriman said the filming took three months, the first two weeks of which were spent filming the roller-coaster scene and the rest of the filming was done out of sequence." - You could easily split this.
  • Done.
• "The cast members often rehearsed with each other for better on-screen chemistry." - How is this significant? I mean a lot of people rehearse with the fellow cast members.
  • Removed.
• "The death of Ian McKinley" paragraph could use some simplification, but that might just be me.
  • It's definately not just you. I'll try making it simpler.
• "Lee stated he enjoyed "being able to put [his] own darker spin on it for the movie"." Lee enjoyed would be just fine.
  • Done.
• The Release section is really just jumping from one thought​ to another without any flow. Do we have any information on how the audience responded to the marketing strategies: the novel? and the website?
  • @Numerounovedant: I'm afraid I don't understand the first part of that sentence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately no, I haven't been able to find any article or something similar about what fans / critics had to say about either the novelization or the website. Granted, the film is more that 10 years old, so even if an article like that did exist, it's long dead. I did try to change the paragraph a little so the flow from the website to the novel is better and more connected in regard to the film's promotion. I've seen other articles like Captain America: Civil War, where the "Marketing" and "Release" sections are separate, but considering how little information exists about both, I think it's more sensible to have them combined, with a chronological order. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is better than before and I wouldn't push you to look for information that might not be there. I agree that there is no point in having separate sections. That said, the transition still may read staccato to some. It's alright though. VedantTalk 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll get to the Reception section later today. VedantTalk 07:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• A quick glance at the Reception section brought to notice the varying use of tenses: "Rotten Tomatoes reports ... CinemaScore reported". Make sure that tge tense remains consistent. VedantTalk 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

More comments:

• I don't think the quotes in "describing the third film as lacking "intricacy"" are required.
• You also might want to attribute the review to the author and not the website.
• There's no reason to have both the positive and negative reviews in the same paragraph. You can spilt them (maybe add another positive/mixed review and have an independent paragraph about the general praise) and start the second paragraph with an opening statement similar to "Other reviewers were more positive...".
• "Empire and The Guardian found the story to be enjoyable" - In cases where multiple critics say similar things you could avoid naming all of them and write "Commentators found the story...:: I do think that you should considering rephrasing this as suggested.
• Also, reviewers that have absolutely no notability do not need to be mentioned either, their claims can stay with in-line citations.
• The idea of combining the tone and the death sequences in a paragraph is a little confusing. You might want to rearrange the section; the tone could go with the general praise and you could try and expand the repsonse to the death sequences as an independent paragraph.
• Although, I understand that cast performances are not a priority in the genre, but a little more on the same could give the last paragraph more substance.

• I'll look into some of the other reviews to add.

I'll take a look again once you have gone through my comments. Let me know if you have any concerns. VedantTalk 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Regarding the section—excluding the review aggregator websites—I originally had it like this: positive reviews, then negative reviews. However, user Slightlymad suggested that I rewrite the paragraphs so that I include what critics praised in one paragraph (the tone and death scenes) and what they criticized in the other (the film's plot being formulaic). I followed the example presented here. Additionally, constantly referring to "A said B, C said D" can get kind of repetetive. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the reading of the section can obviously never make everyone happy, it's​ really subjective. That said, I do think that removing the names of the critics does not really solve the A said B, C said... problem it just transfers it from A of X publication said B, C from Y publication said... to Publication X said B, publication Y said... if that makes sense. corporating the opinions into the text is encouraged.

For instance: This "Variety compared the narrative negatively with the franchise's second installment, describing the third film as lacking intricacy.[58] The New York Times similarly described the film as lacking the "novelty of the first [or] the panache of the second"" could be: "Writers compared the narrative negatively with the franchise's earlier installments​ and felt that it lacked "intricacy".[citation] and the "novelty of the first [or] the panache of the second"[citation]".

Let me know how you feel. VedantTalk 06:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh crap. I just realized I made a mistake. The above essay stated that constantly using "A of Publication B said C" is repetetive; which is why I tried to alter the structure or remove names when the publication is more notable (like Variety). As to the example you used with Variety and The New York Times, while I do think combining it her would work, I think it's important to have the names of the publications / critics, especially when they are notable. Moreover, I feel like trying this specific example (at least the first part of the sentence), is basically repeating what the beginning of the paragraph says. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the idea was to lay it all out there. The discussion has produced varying versions for the section and I am almost okay with all of them. I'd leave it to you to chose what you see fit as you obviously know the article best. I do not think I'll support or oppose here, but this is a thorough article without any obvious deficiencies. I appreciate the work that you have put into the articles of the franchise! I am big fan (1 and 2 are my favorites!). Good luck getting this promoted, let me know if you need any further help. VedantTalk 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry for coming off as uncooperative in regard to the "Reception" section. For what it's worth, I really appreciate your help on this article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That's alright, it was a great read! VedantTalk 05:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

• What makes CinemaBlend a high-quality reliable source? Scriptologist? Moviepilot? Ain't It Cool?
  • CinemaBlend is owned by Gateaway Blend, Scriptologist is operated by Glenn Bossik who is a screenwriter, script analyst and doctor who has worked with Alan J. Pakula and Ain't It Cool has pictures. Don't know about Moviepilot, don't care much about it either, so I just removed it.
    • Unfortunately simply having pictures doesn't make a site reliable. What are the editorial policies of these sites? Have they been cited by reliable sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, the website doesn't seem to have an "About Us" page. However, the site is run by Harry Knowles who is a professional film critic and writer, and a (former) member of the Austin Film Critics Association. The Hollywood Reporter wrote an article about him and the website. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm concerned about the presence of close paraphrasing between the article and its sources. Compare for example "The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement; the roller-coaster scene is composed of 144 visual-effect shots" with "All the death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D enhancements. The roller coaster sequence alone comprised 144 vfx shots"
  • @Nikkimaria: Is that the only article where that's a problem? I can check the copyright violation tool and see which references are used too much and try to change them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • No, and I would not advise relying on automated tools to check for close paraphrasing - they are intended to catch direct copy-paste only. Unfortunately the only effective way to evaluate is direct side-by-side comparison with the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Conversely, some of the facts in the article don't line up with the sources. For example, the article claims that Winstead, Wong and Morgan went to the San Diego Comic-Con; however, the cited source states it was Winstead, Wong and Merriman.
  • Changed it.
• Prose needs work for clarity and flow - for example, "The first two weeks of which were spent filming the roller-coaster scene and the rest of the filming was done out of sequence." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Well, I looked through the references and didn't really find any sentences in the article that matched the ones in the references too much. I also looked at the overal article and changed a few things for more clarification or connect / flow better. Do you think it looks better now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To give you an example, "The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement" is too close to "All the death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D enhancements" - the difference between those two phrases is minimal. You may want to take a look through this Signpost article. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I still have no idea how else to write it. The whole section is pretty technical and I'm not an expert in the field. I tried to transfer it as best as I could. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess one can always just change the structure and voice of a sentence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You might see if anyone at a relevant WikiProject knows enough of the subject matter to be able to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Is that the only section with close paraphrasing? Cause I've checked the rest and I think they're okay. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Ian Rose: & @Sarastro1:. I was wondering, could you archive this nomination? PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2018 [14].

---

Hong Kong

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the city of dim sum, the epitome of "East meets West", and the place that brought us Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. I've put a lot of work into improving the quality of this article over the last several months, and I believe it's up to par with FA criteria. Much appreciated, -Horserice (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It's great to see this important article developed to a high standard and at FAC. I'll work through the article, but due to its size, it might take me a few goes. I have the following comments, but as as over-arching comments, I have concerns about the quality and sufficiency of some of the sourcing and the internal links should be reviewed to remove over-linking.

• The second para of the lead should briefly note the region's pre-British history given the extent of the coverage of this in the article

@Nick-D: How would you fit that into the current content? Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a bit to the start of the second para of the lead Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "and supported by its independent judiciary system" - I suspect that this now needs a qualifier

@Nick-D: Changed to "common law judiciary system" Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the judiciary is no longer seen as being totally independent of the government. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Britain resumed control of the colony shortly after the surrender of Japan, on 30 August 1945" - to be pedantic, this was actually shortly before the formal surrender of Japan on 2 September.

 Done Fixed that detail. Horserice (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The construction of the Shek Kip Mei Estate in 1953 marked the beginning of the public housing estate programme, which provided shelter for the less privileged and helped cope with the continuing influx of immigrants." - needs a reference

 Done Added government ref. Horserice (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "the government began a series of reforms to improve the quality of infrastructure and public services through the 1970s." - perhaps say why: as I understand it, this was to stop the building unrest which was threatening British rule
• There's a bit of over-linking. Chinese Civil War, Governor of Hong Kong, etc
• I'd suggest noting why the continued British rule over Hong Kong was unviable by the 1980s (as I understand it, the New Territories were vital for water supply and other reasons, and China was making barely-veiled threats of launching a military attack if the British didn't leave soon)

@Nick-D: Everything that I've read about this perception seems like a "he said, she said" thing. Yes, it seems like the British had the impression that the Chinese would have really attacked if they didn't come to terms in 1984, but I have not found a Chinese source to corroborate the possible military strike.

As for the water stuff, I will try to find more sourcing. Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

History books, journal articles, etc, cover the issue of why Britain handed all of Hong Kong back. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

As I (having peer reviewed this just before the FAC) seem to recall having read, the original negotiation was over returning the New Territories. Deng told Thatcher that, global opprobrium notwithstanding, he could still very easily order a military action over the river and just take most of it back that way. Thatcher went and looked at Boundary Street and realized that if China did reclaim the New Territories by force, the remaining portion of the territory would be extremely hard to defend, so she came back to Deng and offered him the whole thing.

So, if that's true, it doesn't look like there was a direct military threat. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do we really need a full paragraph on the Kowloon Walled City? It involves jumping back at the narrative, and seems more detailed than the rest of the history section.

@Nick-D: It's an interesting anomaly of the Second Convention of Peking, so I felt it warranted more exposition in that section. It definitely was a major point of contention in negotiations between the two parties at the time, but I definitely can see the relative non-importance in the context of this article. How would you suggest trimming it down? Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

One or two sentences seems proportional Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that the material on the history of the city from the 1980s onwards is sourced almost exclusively to newspaper reports and the like. There are a number of history books on this subject which should provide broader coverage.

@Nick-D: There wasn't much there before on the 1980s, but agreed, could probably find additional book sourcing. Don't currently have access to that material, but will try to find something good when I can. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "On 1 July 1997, sovereignty over Hong Kong was officially transferred from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China, marking the end of 156 years of British colonial rule. As Britain's last major and most populous remaining colony, the handover effectively represented the end of the British Empire. Exactly at midnight, all government organisations with royal patronage simultaneously dropped the Royal prefix from their titles and any regalia with references to the Crown were replaced with insignia bearing the Bauhinia." - the reference given supports little of this: it's about the personal experiences of a police officer.

 Done Replaced cite with conference proceeding on HK flags/insignia. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• The sole reference for the paragraph beginning with "Infrastructure post-handover has been rapidly developed" also doesn't support much of the content. It's also an opinion article, and so probably isn't a suitable reference for this kind of material.
• The 'Legal system and judiciary' section should more clearly note how the Hong Kong legal system interacts with the main Chinese legal system, especially in light of recent events.

@Nick-D: There's more detail on some of the controversy surrounding that under 'Sociopolitical issues and human rights'. Is that not enough? Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Put it in the appropriate place. The article can be duplicative at times. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "and both governments collaborate on a number of economic and bilateral agreements" - this is referenced to two examples of agreements, and so doesn't support the statement that there are a number of such agreements. A broader source is needed.

• Couldn't find a broader source, but I added more references to said agreements. Horserice (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Find a source that supports what the article is saying. I find it hard to believe that no one has ever written anything about the UK government and post-handover HK government striking a number of deals. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, did a bunch of digging and a sufficient article did not come up about this topic. If the agreements don't even come up as a topic of discussion in a parliamentary report, then I don't know where else to find something about it. Replaced this bit with stuff about BC cultural activity. Horserice (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• The para starting with 'Hong Kong consists of three geographical regions' needs a reference

@Nick-D: I don't really know what would be a good reference for this. There's scattered mentions of this throughout government sites, like [15], [16], and [17]. Horserice (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The government dropped this proposal after fierce opposition" - when did this occur?

@Nick-D: One of the sources indicates that? I can find more sourcing on it if necessary. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Updated with year and link to article about proposed bill. Horserice (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "During the colonial era, territorial defence was the responsibility of the British Forces Overseas Hong Kong, supplemented by local militia organized as the Royal Hong Kong Regiment" - the reference given for this (a transcript for a 1970 Legislative Council session) is inappropriate.

@Nick-D: May drop this sentence since it seems out of place with the rest of the content in that section. Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems pretty relevant to me (this aspect of the handover involved some significant changes, with Hong Kongers being barred from the defence of their city, leading to an even more colonial-style military force being stationed there), and would be easy to reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "In the Köppen–Geiger classification system, Hong Kong has a humid subtropical climate (Cwa), though it is situated 128 kilometres (80 mi) south of the Tropic of Cancer" - the source only covers the distance from the equator, and not the climate classification
• There's a [not in citation given] tag dated to August 2017

 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• The Architecture section could be broadened to note that pretty much all of the urban area (even the new towns and townships on the south coast of Hong Kong which in most places would be low rise) are dominated by densely packed tall buildings of similar appearance, even though they may not qualify as skyscapers. This element of the urban form is striking (especially for suburbanites like myself!) and fairly unusual.
• There's some inconsistency in how page numbers are presented in references - please settle on one style.

• Okay, will do this in one pass after addressing all other issues. Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• The 'Economy' section should discuss how China's development is putting Hong Kong's economic model under pressure and where its advantages lie - eg, as Chinese ports develop there's less need for transshipment and as the Chinese financial sector develops there's less need to go through Hong Kong. Conversely, Hong Kong's legal system still means that its an attractive place for companies doing business in China to locate their headquarters, as contracts can be enforced and corruption is rare.
• " 26.6 million visitors contributed US$32.9 billion in international tourism receipts in 2016, making Hong Kong the 14th most popular destination for international tourists. It is also the most popular city for tourists, receiving over 70 per cent more visitors than its closest competitor, Macau" - reference lacks a page number

 Done Horserice (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The city is further consistently ranked as one of the most expensive cities for expatriates" - one of the references dates to 2009

• Since the sentence says "consistently ranked", wouldn't it be good to leave that older reference in? If the other ref is good enough, then I can remove it. Horserice (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Over 90% of daily journeys are made on public transport, the highest such percentage in the world" - the reference dates this figure to 2003, which seems rather elderly

 Done Updated reference. Horserice (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Launched in 1997 on the Mass Transit Railway, it is the second contactless smart card system in the world to be used and is a ubiquitous form of payment throughout the territory." - needs a reference

 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Road traffic in the territory drives on the left, unlike that of mainland China. " - I'd suggest saying why

 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• The single reference for this para also doesn't cover most of its content

• Are maps sufficient references for that? Or do I have to find some written source? Horserice (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Added map references. Horserice (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "and are now almost exclusively used; single-decker buses remain in use for routes with lower demand or roads with lower load capacity. Public light buses serve most parts of Hong Kong" - this is a bit confusing. The double deckers aren't really 'almost exclusively used': while they do seem to be the standard bus for the main routes (and can be found driving in places I would have thought impossible to fit them!), there are vast numbers of the light buses.

• Rephrased it a bit to try to disambiguate that public light buses != single-decker buses. Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Mandatory education has contributed to an adult literacy rate of 95.7%" - this is very low by the standards of other places as rich as Hong Kong (where literacy is usually virtually universal). Can you say why? Presumably this is due to the rapid pace of Hong Kong's development and the large influxes of migrants.

 Done Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The Programme for International Student Assessment ranked Hong Kong's education system as the second best in the world." - the reference dates to 2006, and PISA is regularly conducted so much more recent figures are available. This characterisation of its results also isn't really accurate: it would be more accurate to say something like Hong Kong 15 year olds achieved the second highest results on the assessment, or to briefly note the aspect of the system which was found to be good (for instance, a small gap between the highest and lowest scores, etc) - sorry to be pedantic, but I worked with PISA in a previous job.

 Done I just omitted this line. Didn't really know what I'd use the updated stats to illustrate. Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Life expectancy in Hong Kong is 81.3 years for males and 87.3 years for females as of 2016, making it the highest in the world" - the source says it's the seventh highest.

 Done Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm also unkeen on the description of Hong Kong's culture being largely referenced to recent newspaper stories. As I understand it, there's a large literature on this topic, including books and journal articles, so this may not fully reflect the views on the issue.
• Reference 413 lacks a page number
• "Hong Kong is a recognized global centre of trade" - this has been noted several times previously
• The description of the film industry should note that it's now considered somewhat faded.
• Most of the para starting with 'Magazine and newspaper publishers in Hong Kong' needs to be referenced
• Overall, the article provides very solid coverage of the topic, and strikes a good balance when covering most topics. Given what a complex topic this is, it's impressive work. However, I'm concerned about the extent of issues with sourcing I noticed without focusing on this specifically (in regards to references not supporting material, and the over-use of news stories), and the amount of over-linking also needs to be addressed. I think it would be helpful if a specialist in referencing could look in on this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Applied for WP:JSTOR access to try to address sourcing concerns, but since there's a waitlist, I'm not sure there's much I could do about diversifying sources in the short term. Will try to use books over newspapers where possible, but it seems I won't have good access to that for some time. Horserice (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment on sources

• Not a review at this stage. But the links in what at this point are refs 271 and 390 are both dead, and there may well be others – the external link checking tool is unreliable.
• By my reckoning, around 60 books are cited, but it's a hard job finding them among the mass of citations. I would prefer to see the books listed separately, with short harvard citations; then it would be easier to assess the nature and extent of the in-depth sources, as opposed to the proliferation of newspaper and government sources.
  • I would also recommend this Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• It will be a massively time-consuming job to do a worthwhile review of the 436 references, and it makes me question, not for the first time, the wisdom of preparing articles that greatly exceed the maximum dimensions recommended in WP:SIZE. Apart from questions of readability, there's the problem of reviewability – who has the time? Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• So what do you suggest we do about that? Horserice (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  On TV Tropes when we need to review an unreasonable amount of links, we review a random sample of N links. N beingeither 20 or the square root of the number of links, whichever is larger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• If there are several problems among the 436, sampling just 20 is most unlikely to catch them all. You'd be lucky to net one. Perhaps you should ask the coordinators what they would accept as constituting a fair sample check of the sources. If you were to do as I've suggested and list the books separately, that would help – they could be checked out quite easily. But the real answer to your problem is to keep articles within the length guidelines specified in MoS – too late for that now, I suppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• I was working off the assumption that even at FAC level checking every single claim against the source is not a realistic undertaking and that a spot check does work on a representative sample. Myself I do perform an "every claim against its source" check at GAN and DYK but that only on shorter articles, passing up longer articles. Anyhow, @FAC coordinators: . Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a larger-than-typical sample here given the concerns I have with the sourcing, as noted above. Nick-D (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• A relatively small sample would be fine for checking claims against the sources. Aside from that, we need to check that the links are all working (I found two, see above, that aren't), that they go to the intended site, and that each reference is properly formatted. These checks can't really be done satisfactorily by ordinary sampling – I really think it's for the coordinators to decide what's acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I am not saying that we need to check every citation against its source. That would be impractical, and never happens at FAC; we might sometimes require a sample spotcheck. But, we do need to look at the nature of each of the sources to judge their reliability; we need to be sure that the external links are all working (at the moment there are still the two dead links that I pointed out above); we also need to check that the formats are correct and consistent throughout. Listing the 60-odd books separately would help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Alright, I did a pass at listing a lot of the sources separately. I think that should help you out. Horserice (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• March_of_the_Volunteers_instrumental.ogg: the current tag seems to apply only to "photographs and cinematographic works, and all works whose copyright holder is a juristic person"

• But the next part of that line says that it also applies to "all works whose copyright holder is a juristic person". Horserice (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with QRCDuddell_1900.jpg, 1945_liberation_of_Hong_Kong_at_Cenotaph.jpg

• Updated sources for Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg and QRCDuddell_1900.jpg. Not sure if that's enough? Library source doesn't indicate more than just that they were published by the Museum of History. I also replaced the Cenotaph image. Horserice (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ended up replacing all images except for Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg, so I think this is mostly done. Horserice (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• HKSAR_passport_cover_(biometric).svg is missing a FUR

• Daniel Case is working on retrieving a more appropriate image instead of the passports, so just noting that at least this picture will be a nonissue soon. Horserice (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Horserice and Nikkimaria: I have now added this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Horserice (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• File:HKU1912.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

•  Done Ended up replacing with a more recent image listed as an original work. Horserice (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• City_of_Victoria.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Also replaced this image. Horserice (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord note -- with no activity for about three weeks this review appears to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly; per FAC instructions it can be renominated after two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2018 [18].

---

David Meade (author)

Nominator(s): LovelyGirl7 talk 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a end times theorist who has a history of making failed predictions. He first gained attention after the solar eclipse of Augsut 21st, 2017, when he predicted the world would end on September 23rd, 2017 due to a hidden planet named Nibiru destroying the Earth. His predictions gained media attention from several sources, such as Heavy.com, Fox News, Newsweek, the UK tabloids, the Time Magazine, The Washington Post, and other articles as well. His claims have even been debunked through The Washington Post and by Christians and scientists. The article is currently a GA article nominee and I'm nominating it for FA article status. I think I've done several things to help the article, even after it's GA nomination passed. I'm ready for comments, and I even have time to address every concern before this passes hopefully. With that said, I'm proud to nominate it for FA status. LovelyGirl7 talk 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The article itself is fine (writing, etc.), but the notability of the subject is marginal, mostly because of a single article published in September of 2017 by the Washington Post that was picked up by other outlets (note the dates of nearly all of the sources). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I was looking over this article for a review. However, on a close look, this fails several aspects of WP:FACR.

• 1(a): There are several places where the prose could have been polished. For instance:
  • Meade is best known for predicting that planet Nibiru (sometimes known as Planet X) would collide with Earth on 23 September 2017, destroying our planet - First, "our planet" is pretty vague (even though it's obviously referring to Earth, you could just say "it". Second, "best known for" is a little redundant, I'd say "known for".
  • In 2018, Meade again made several predictions for that year, such as North Korea becoming a superpower in March 2018 and that Nibiru would destroy the Earth in spring - this is an inconsistent grammatical structure since "becoming" and "would destroy" are not the same tense. It would be better to say, e.g. "In 2018, Meade again made several predictions for that year, for instance, that North Korea would become a superpower in March 2018, and that Nibiru would destroy the Earth in spring".
  • After March 2018 passed, he would then move the apocalypse to April 23, 2018, - this is an inconsistent tense from the last sentence, which is in the past tense. This sentence is the future perfect tense.
  • The third paragraph of the lead is a single sentence.
  • On his Google Plus page, he also identifies himself as an investigative journalist - On the Internet, you can say anything: on my Google Plus page, I can identify myself as a high-ranking executive of some big company, when in reality I'm just a college student. "Identifies himself" should be "claims to be". Same with much of the rest of this entire paragraph, he just purports to be these things.
  • In the rest of the article, I see many informal contractions, like "doesn't" in voting that the United States doesn't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
  • In terms of tone, some of the predictions themselves are being presented as if they were actual possibilities. For example, Meade received extensive media attention following his predictions that a rogue planet, Nibiru, would destroy Earth on 23 September 2017 talks about Nibiru as if it were real. The article Nibiru cataclysm explicitly mentions that this is "a supposed disastrous encounter between the Earth and a large planetary object [...] which certain groups believe will take place in the early 21st century" - i.e. a conspiracy theory (BTW, "conspiracy theory" is also described in the Nibiru page). In general, these aren't really predictions, but rather, conspiracy theories that even this article acknowledges.
  • Another example of stating fiction-as-fact would be On 21 September,[21] an Orange County, California television station accidentally warned viewers of his prediction, in which broadcasting officials stated that the false alert was caused by a glitch from a test by the Emergency Alert System. I'd say "On 21 September,[21] an Orange County, California, television station accidentally displayed his prediction in an emergency alert, and broadcasting officials stated that the false alert was caused by a glitch from a test by the Emergency Alert System." To be fair, the sources do say that it's a fake prediction.
  • A lot of inconsistent date formats: e.g. "April 23, 2018" vs "23 September 2017".
• 1(c): A lot of self-published sources by Meade are used. While this is fine for describing the subject as part of a Good Article, I would like to see more secondary sources for featured article status. Also, other self-published sources that are not by Meade are used, as well as tabloids.
• 1(e): From the article, it seems like the predictions are ongoing, and therefore it would not be stable. Also, he came to prominence relatively recently, so I'd wait a little longer to see if, for instance, he makes any more predictions or reveals his identity. As it currently sounds, Meade is a pseudonymous author who only got covered by the media last year.

Unfortunately, at this time, I would oppose this nomination. I really appreciate the work you placed into this article, LovelyGirl7, and all of your efforts to polish this article into as good a shape as possible. However, I think you should wait a little longer and see if Meade's notability lasts enough to be published by additional more-credible sources. I hope you take this as a suggestion for an improvement, not as a criticism. epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: How about now? I'm still busy working on the article. Could you please tell me which parts of the article contains tabloids/sources that needs to be replaced? I'm willing to replace them with better sources. --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: Unfortunately, the article would still fail criterion 1(e). I know there are Featured Articles about people whose details are constantly changing (e.g. Hillary Clinton, John McCain), but the notability of these subjects is well-established. However, as Ohnoitsjamie said above, Meade's notability might not be well-established yet. Also, Meade's article is subject to frequent changes: for example, if something happens on April 23 that should elicit a response from him or from the media, that would obviously be a major change to a major aspect of this article.

However, I'll make suggestions for reference improvements, anyway. Science20.com and Meade's personal website are both self-published by the subject, as are his work on Google Books and Amazon, although these sources can be used if you are referencing what he is claiming and they are published by other sources as well. Bustle, Politician Reviews, Christianity Today, mysteriousuniverse.org (to name a few) seem to live outside the mainstream, publishing self-published commentary by other commentators. Additionally, sources like Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Fox probably should not be used when talking about such controversial topics, as they have a dubious history of being subjective on conspiracy theorists like Meade. epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: When you do look up the sources, could you please let me know or change them in the article? Also, it's unlikely anything happens April 23rd. Meade has a history of failing and this shouldn't be any different. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I know. That's why there will probably be another controversy that "Ooh, this guy was wrong again". Anyway, I will let you know if any replacements can be found for specific references. epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thank youo! Could you please let me know the replacements on my talk page whenever. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will let you know if I do find them. epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose from SarahSV

• Sorry, this is another oppose, mainly per 1a and 1c. This is really about the fringe theory Nibiru cataclysm; Meade is covered in that article in the section 2017 revival. This BLP offers too detailed an account of the various claims, and it isn't clear that there's enough biographical information to justify a separate article. In addition, it would have to be written very differently to be an FA; for example, his claims would have to be placed in context by explaining where the ideas come from. Finally, there seem to be quite a few non-RS. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Based on the considered opposition above, I'm going to archive this nom and ask that improvements based on the commentary be implemented outside the FAC process. I'd also recommend that before re-nominating (which per FAC instructions can take place after two weeks) the nominator request the above reviewers to offer an informal peer review if they have the time to see if their concerns have generally been dealt with. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 [19].

---

Presidency of George Washington

Nominator(s): Orser67, Drdpw & Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the presidency of George Washington. After going under a thorough Good Article Review by Display name 99, and a Peer Review by both Wehwalt and Ceranthor, I feel the article about the presidency that shaped America perhaps more than any other meets the Featured Article criteria. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Coat_of_Arms_of_George_Washington.svg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
• File:Washington's_Inauguration.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:WhiskeyRebellion.jpg, File:Little_Turtle.jpg, File:Treaty_of_Greenville.jpg, File:Washington's_Farewell_Address.jpg
• File:Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg needs a tag indicating why the original work is in the public domain
• File:Pinckney's_Treaty_line_1795.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I'm inexperienced in image licensing, but I believe I have addressed most of your problems. How does one source the data in a map? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Basically, include on the image description page a source that verifies that it is accurate. When/where was File:Little_Turtle.jpg first published? Same with File:Washington's_Farewell_Address.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, think I've got it all. If I made a mistake, please forgive me.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, just want to clarify - are the dates on those two images when they were created, or when they were published? Where was first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Little_turtle is from a lithograph held in the Smithsonian, It is thought to be based on a portrait by Gilbert Stuart in 1797 or 1798. Washington's Farewell Address is from a digitation by the Library of Congress. It does give a publication date, but it is almost illegible. I'll see if I can find a way to in the next week. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, yup, listed date is date of publishing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria: can I have an update on licensing? Sorry for my inexperience Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Eddie, with those publication dates this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Nice article. Sorry I can't give a full review but perhaps you could add some information on Washington's Indian Policy besides the wars. Here's a source and i can provide more for you if you like. LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

LittleJerry: I feel it's adequately covered in Presidency of George Washington#The Northwest Indian War. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

We probably could add something about Washington's attempts to co-exist with the Southwest Indians, including the Treaty of New York and the Treaty of Holston. Orser67 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Or this "civilizing" and assimilation missions. LittleJerry (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Added. I think mention of the Treaty of New York and Holston should be added as well. Aside from that, I have no major objections. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

• McDonald 1974 pp. 164-165 Hyphen in pg. range; McDonald 1974 pp.169-170 Hyphen in pg. range; Chernow 2010 pp.770-771 Hyphen in pg. range;
• Inconsistent use of Location parameter (42 with; 17 without);
• 15 files Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC.
• Howarth 1999, pp. 49–50 Harv error: link to #CITEREFHowarth1999 doesn't point to any citation.
• Bordewich 2016, pp. 108 P/PP error pp. 108; Morison 1965, pp. 325 ; Chernow 2004, pp. 341. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi got them all. I added ISBN's to the books w/out identifiers, except *Kilpatrick, James J. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government." I couldn't get it. Let me know if I should add OCLC. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If there's no ISBN, go with OCLC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Read this reference carefully. Can you spot what's wrong with it? McDonald, Forrest (1974). The Presidency of George Washington. American Presidency. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kansas.

• Fixed location. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Page Smith (1962). Missing Pub. Location; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

• done . Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is Ellis, Joseph J. (5 instances) the same person as Ellis Joseph (4 instances)?

  Yeah, fixed

• Inconsistent format: Page Smith vs. Smith, Page... other similar errors?

  Took care of this one at least

• Allen, Gardner Weld (1905). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

• Done Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Beer, Samuel H. (1987). "Chapter 6: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Boyd, Steven R. (1994). "Chapter 5: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Crew, Harvey W.; Webb, William Bensing; Wooldridge, John, eds. (1892). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

• Done. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ifft, Richard A. (1985). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Spaulding, Matthew (2001). "Chapter 2: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Bassett, John Spencer (1906). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Orser67: I'm having trouble with the chapter page #'s. Thoughts? Might Just remove them? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I got two of the three, but not Boyd. Maybe you could find another source for that one? I imagine Forrest McDonald's book probably mentions something along the lines of what is cited to Boyd. Orser67 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Orser67 Got it from Whiskey Rebellion Page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Lingzhi Got them all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck can be verbose. Reading the explanatory page will help. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link;. Archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review.

• I used your tool. I think I got all of the ref issues except for missing archive links. Orser67 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Don't worry even for a moment about the archive links. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with those myself! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  Ok cool, good to hear. Nice programming tool by the way, I hope to one day be able to program similar things myself (currently taking an intro to Javascript course). Orser67 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well I Think the Further reading section should be farmed out in its entirety to Bibliography of George Washington. That's my two red cents. But other than that... All clear here, captain! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I peer reviewed this article. I have the following additional comments. "made use of an opportunity provided by a chance encounter with Hamilton to an informal dinner meeting at which interested parties could discuss a "mutual accommodation." "encounter ... to" doesn't really work. It might be "encounter at", but if the dinner was to discuss a compromise, how did it come as a surprise?

• rephrased.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• "He also proposed redeeming the promissory notes issued by the Continental Congress during the American Revolution at full value." weren't these more land warrants than promissory notes?

• My understanding of the matter is that they were often similar to IOUs, although serving as land grants occasionally. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Oliver Miller Homestead" Why the cap on Homestead? Similarly "This was the first Special Congressional investigation under the federal Constitution.[142" "Special" should probably be lower case.

• changed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• "The embargo was later renewed for a second month, but then permitted to expire." I think you need a "was" before "permitted"

• changed.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "and a repudiation of the 1778 treaty and military support with France" The "and military support" doesn't seem correct grammatically.

• removed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "might work in consort" should the last word be "concert"? If so with whom? Britain?

• Not sure on this one. I'll look into it. Orser67: do you? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Changed it to concert; I can't imagine it was meant to be anything else. And yeah it's britain, so I added that to be clear Orser67 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Agricultural produce could now flow on flatboats down the Ohio River to the Mississippi and on to New Orleans and Europe." this sort of implies the flatboats went on to Europe which is likely not the case.

• clarified. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Some mention of Martha Washington in this article and what she was up to during her husband's presidency might be good. You refer to a "first family" Who else accompanied GW?

• I'll add this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "which upon leaving he promptly arrived in Georgetown, South Carolina, " It might be worth mentioning that he took a ship, if he did.

• He didn't. I'll look into making a map of his trips. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "After South Carolina, Washington arrived in Georgia, going to (among others) Augusta. In late May, Washington turned around, stopping at many Revolutionary War battle sites. On July 11, 1791, they arrived back at Mount Vernon.[236][237]" Who is they? You've just mostly mentioned Washington.

• clarified. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt: got most of them. I'll get back to you when I finish the others. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Wehwalt: I think I got everything. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Seems comprehensive as far as I can tell and otherwise to fulfill the FA criteria. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the peer review. Engaging, well-written, and comprehensive article as far as my non-expert self can gather. ceranthor 03:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

First I must admit that I am not American and have quite a poor idea of this part of US history (which is part of the reason why I started reading in the first place). The article reads extremely well, and is fully comprehensible, so thumbs up on the prose! I had, however, the slight impression that it is not completely neutral. Parts of it read like a eulogy to George Washington. As I am not into the topic, I can only give some examples for this matter:

• It is a bit weird to read about "Indians" fighting "Americans". The "Indians" should be named "Native Americans", consequently.

• changed for the most part. Things like sources, quotes, and names like Indian barrier state and Northwest Indian War were not changed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• The paragraph detailing St. Clair's defeat, it is mentioned three separate times that the US force was "poor" ("poorly trained", "poor defenses", "poorly prepared"). This leaves the impression that some justification is attempted here. One "poorly" would be enough.

• changed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• The only piece of criticism of Washington in the article was, as far as I remember, this bit in the Historical evaluation section: had often opposed the best measures of his subordinates, and had taken credit for his achievements that he had no share in bringing about. – I can't find any examples where he "opposed the best measures" in the article, and such information should not be left out.

• One given example is that Washington signed the Jay treaty although "Hamilton, and most of Washington's cabinet felt Washington should not sign [it]." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• OK, but the signing of the Jay treaty turned out to be a good decision later anyways, according to the article? So is this indeed what McDonald was referring to? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• I assume so. McDonald may have been referring to something else, but this would make sense. I recall in his book that his cabinet strongly opposed the measure. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Despite this more equivocal judgement of McDonald, the article closes with a prominently placed quote of Chernow, who finds Washington "simply breathtaking". This quote is essentially a song of praise, and as such does not say very much except for "Washington is great". I strongly suggest to replace or remove this quote.

• I'd keep this quote, or something similar, as it does reflect the general view of most historians. I've found McDonald to be somewhat of an outlier.

• It still feels that, regardless how great Washington really was, a historian should seek to view the topic at a distance and not getting as overenthusiastic as Chernow did. Unfortunate that there isn't a slightly more prudent quote available. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to also cite a non-American in the "Historical evaluation" section. Such historians perhaps tend to view the topic from a larger distance, and might help to generate a more differentiated view.

• I'll look into it. It is not very common that a non-American has published a comprehensive look at Washington's Presidency, and given a very quotable statement. Orser67: Thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah getting a quote/evaluation from an international source is a neat idea, but it could be quite difficult to find one, especially if it's specifically about Washington's presidency. I tried searching on Google and JStor for a little while but didn't have any luck. Orser67 (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that this is a must, and I can imagine it would be not so easy. There is a Washington biography by German historian Franz Herre, but yeah, its in German … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I furthermore have two additional points on structure:

• There seems to be no obvious reason for having the section "First presidential veto" without also describing his second veto.

• The first time Washington (or for that matter any president) vetoed a bill is viewed as being a significant point. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• The "domestic affairs" and "foreign affairs" sections treat the whole presidency from 1789 to 1797." So why is "Election of 1792" placed only at the end of the article, while the first election comes right at the front? Both elections might be better discussed together. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• moved. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Jens Lallensack I've responded to the majority of your comments. It's hard to not write an article that praises Washington, as most available scholarship does, and the McDonald quote is the only thing I've found critical of Washington. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes! I am partly convinced, but not fully so yet. Part of the reason he declined taking over a third term were criticism and attacks in the press … Here I still really would like to know what they were all about. In this aspect I just don't feel completely well-informed yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about his decision to retire; it's at the beginning of the Farewell Address section, and I think it adds new emphasis to the fact that Washington's decision to retire was as much about having accomplished his goals as it was about anything else. I think that the "rise of political parties" section, along with a few other sections, adequately covers the attacks on Washington. E.g. from the public debate subsection of the French Revolution section: "Jeffersonians denounced Hamilton, Vice President Adams, and even the president as friends of Britain, monarchists, and enemies of the republican values that all true Americans cherish." Orser67 (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack perhaps everything has been addressed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I am happy to support now. Great work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

I've looked over this article again and it seems very good. I have one suggestion. Under "Rise of political parties," maybe mention the fact that the Federalist and Democratic-Parties were not well-organized political parties in the modern sense. I'll take a more in depth look to see if there's anything else I can find. Right now, it looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99, I loosely rephrased a sentence to say that the parties were 'loosely organized'. I know it's not an optimal phrase, but I'll go from there. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I rephrased what you wrote. Please have a look and see if it's any better. Display name 99 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• "All but three senators eventually agreed upon His Highness the President of the United States and Protector of the Rights of the Same." This doesn't sound right. Adams's attempts to establish the titles were almost universally rejected. If you're saying that all but three senators agreed to something, that's making it sound as though it passed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's what's in Forrest McDonald's work. It's phrased online here. Personally I'm fine with how it is, but if you think a rephrasing is apt, feel free to do so. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• There are some issues with overlinking. If you use a main article template to direct to his Farewell Address, you shouldn't be linking to that same address in the body. Jay Treaty is linked to in a caption and then again in the body right next to it. John Jay is linked one to many times towards the end of "Election of 1796." There are a few others, but those which I noticed are probably justified with an article of this length. I think this is all. Display name 99 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I got the ones you mentioned. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Display name 99: I have responded to your comments. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support-This article appears to meet the FA criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

• I'd expect to see the second-last para of Hamiltonian economic program and the second-last para of Public Debate under The French Revolution cited -- pls check for any uncited material after that as well.
• There appear to be several duplinks, some of which may be justified in a long article but pls review -- you can use this script to highlight the dups in red.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose: I got all the duplinks that seemed unnecessary to me, and cited unsourced statements. I figured in the second-last para of Hamiltonian economic program that the taxation and spending clause was misidentified, and is in fact the Necessary and Proper Clause, but perhaps Orser67 could verify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that Jefferson et. al were also worried about the tax and spending clause, but I think the article works fine as it is now since it conveys their worries about an expansive view of the constitution. Orser67 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Tks guys -- further, I think that Lingzhi's source review concentrates on formatting but we need sign-off on source reliability as well; I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (a hoop we ask all nominators who do not yet have FAs under their belt to jump through). If any of the reviewers above would like to perform these, that's great, otherwise one of the nominators can list requests for a source reliability check and a source spotcheck at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll do a spotcheck. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Mixed results:

• 1: not ok. The source only confirms that Washington was not affiliated to a party. It does not say anything about later presidents. (I found it odd, btw, that this statement in the lead has a reference. This is by no means a controversial statement.)
• 2: ok
• 3: ok, but no need really to add 4a, that won't make it more true
• 5: not ok, as far as I can tell. All I have is Google Books, but a search for Morris does not return his quote.
• 4b: ok
• 6: not ok, source says letter is from Oct. 3
• 7a: probably not ok. All I have is Google Books, which does find vp is the runner-up + Washington being neutral, but that same page (unnumbered unfortunately on Google) does not seem to cover vp being president of the Senate, nor northern states (refers to Massachusetts only), nor other people than Washington thinking vp would be from northern state, nor ease sectional tensions.
• 8: not ok. not page 51 but page 220 lists the candidates. Nothing about Adams and Hancock being top contenders though, just a list of 5
• 7b: not ok. No mention of Henry Knox
• 9: ok

Edwininlondon (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Edwininlondon got them all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Tks Edwininlondon for the spotcheck, and Eddie for actioning. Even so, when a spotcheck comes back with questionable results I think we need another round carried out on a different set of refs. Edwin would you be prepared to do this? Obviously we want a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the sourcing, and I'm not getting that from the first round... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 results:

• 258 does not mention 21 November, nor does it mention 4 March from first sentence of the section
  • Does march 4 need to be sourced every time it is mentioned? I added a source, but it is really mentioned (and sourced in several places).
• 259 is ok PLUS it does mention 21 November for NC, so could be source for that
• 260 is just about right for RI (source says Congress voted for a bit stronger measurements, including imprisonment, but I guess that's too much detail) but it says nothing about NC
• 261 ok for the date (nothing about equal footing, but I think that's probably ok, nothing about unequal footing either)
• 262a does not mention $30,000
• 262b ok
• 262c ok
• 264 ok

Edwininlondon (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ian Rose: I got them all, and I could keep going on, fixing up, but it seems like that'll be asking too much of Edwininlondon. As such, I am prepared accept you failing the nomination. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If we find a few more volunteers we can divide and conquer. Happy to help. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks Edwin/Eddie. This nom has been a huge effort for many people (time well spent I think) but it has been open two months and if there are still improvements to make with sourcing then that should take place outside the pressure of the FAC process. I'd therefore like to archive this and recommend that Eddie, Edwin, Tim riley if he has time to check print sources as he's kindly done in the past, and anyone else who can help work through all the sourcing for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing to bulletproof it for another nom in the not-too-distant future. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2018 [20].

---

Alex Owumi

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Nigerian basketball player Alex Owumi, who is best known for being the star player of a team owned by the family of Muammar Gaddafi on the cusp of the Libyan Civil War. He was trapped in his apartment for weeks during the conflict and struggled to keep himself alive. Owumi's story reveals the very best and very worst of being a professional basketball player outside the NBA. This is a very in-depth article on a subject that would interest all readers, not just basketball fans. Since its first nomination, which did not get enough attention, the article has gone through thorough improvements and should be able to pass FAC quite easily. TempleM (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from EricEnfermero

I found this to be a very interesting article. I am relatively inexperienced at FAC, but I thought I would leave you some feedback to try and get this article to the next level. My impression is that it's not quite ready for FA, but it looks like you are making some steady improvements.

• It looks like ref #1 (FIBA) has a broken link and it's not archived. You might use the GA Toolbox on the article's talk page to check your other links.
• "Owumi currently plays..." - I know it's prevalent in sports articles, but "currently" may leave the reader wondering how current things really are. See WP:WTW.
• Per MOS:COMMA, make sure you put a comma after the state or country when you have a city/state or city/country combination. In the first instance that I noticed - Boston, Massachusetts - I think you could just go with Boston by itself because it's one of the most famous U.S. cities.
• "Immediately after college, Owumi failed to attract any attention..." - I think you could leave out "Immediately after college". Most players are attracting said attention during college. And the reader would probably assume that the next step occurred immediately after college.
• "accepted a lucrative offer with Al-Nasr joining the Libyan team..." - comma after Al-Nasr
• "British Basketball League (BBL)" - The full term and the acronym both appear twice in the league, and the article is wikilinked twice.
• In the early life section, I don't think you need the comma after wealthy because wealthy and Nigerian Catholic are different classes of adjectives.
• Why are there quotes around Prince?
• In the college career section, what is meant by "did not officially play the position"? Do you mean that he didn't appear in a regular-season game at the position?
• "began attending the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) for the next year" - I don't think you need "for"
• "the team did not bring one of its best defenders to the tournament" - This wording leaves the reader wondering. (Did they leave him behind in the airport terminal and not notice? Did they run out of plane tickets? :) )
• "A two-star recruit, and the fifth-best junior college recruit in New York according to 247Sports.com, Samuel West and Jason Cable" - This is not grammatical because "recruit" refers to Owumi, not West or Cable.
• "44–103 loss" - I think it's a little more common to list the higher score first, even referring to losses. In either case, pick one and stick to it. In the next paragraph you have a loss written with the big number first.
• You end the college section and start the pro career section with sentences describing Owumi's hopes for an NBA career. Maybe combine those into one sentence?
• "he worked out in Boston with the Celtics and in Orlando, Florida" - This is an odd word order if both workouts were for the Celtics; if not, specify the second team he worked out for.
• Did he skip a practice to attend the Cannes Film Festival, or did he attend the Cannes Film Festival during the time he was benched? The wording is not 100% clear.
• "did not have a future with the team" - Never signed with them? Signed but didn't appear in a game? Appeared a few times but didn't become a starter?
• "... convinced him to find a new team immediately" - I am a little confused on the timeline. In the lead, I think you're saying he left at the end of the year. I'm not sure how close to the end of the year the event occurred, but maybe take out immediately?
• "Owumi witnessed the deaths of about 200 people during the day" - maybe "deaths of about 200 people that day"?
• "Going against his family's wishes, Owumi chose to follow his coach..." - Did Azmy go to El-Olympi? I don't think you specified that. Or by coach, do you mean this former player of Azmy's?
• I'm confused by the sequence of events starting with the camp in Sallum. You refer to him being placed in solitary confinement, being released, sleeping outside, then escaping the camp. So he was released from solitary but still held at the camp (but outside) until he escaped? Could you clarify?
• In this section, there are at least a couple of times where you refer to Owumi as "the Nigerian" or "the Nigerian guard" and it feels unnatural to begin referring to him that way this late in the article. I know that it can be boring to alternate between "Owumi" and "he" a thousand times, but his nationality is obvious by this point.
• In the last paragraph of the Worcester Wolves section, I think Cheshire Phoenix needs to be linked unless I'm missing it earlier.
• In the Surrey section, "He was strongly encouraged to join" - Did someone encourage him to play on Raftopoulos' team? Or are you just saying that he liked Raftopoulos' coaching style and decided to play for him?
• In the personal life section, "After returning to the United States from Libya, his mother suggested" - Should be "After Owumi returned to..."; his mother did not return to the U.S. from Libya.
• Link Daniel Paisner.

Good luck to you as you continue working on this entry! EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @EricEnfermero: I have addressed all the points you brought up. TempleM (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources comment

In your use of cite templates, you tend to use the "website=" field rather indiscriminately. This leads to a degree of confusion and inconsistency. For each web-based source you need to give the publisher, not the website address, and you need to use the "publisher =" field. For example, in ref 2, you need "publisher= Team Nigeria Basketball"; ref 10, "publisher= ESPN"; ref 16, "publisher= Georgetown Hoyas", etc. You should not game the system by manually de-italicising the source, as you do in, for example, ref 10; using the publisher field will avoid the need for this. For newspaper sources you seem to be getting it right, using "newspaper=". I suggest you work through and adjust your templates as required. I'll take another look when you advise me that this has been done. At a glance, there doesn't seem much else that will need attention. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: I have addressed the issue. TempleM (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• You've addressed some of the issues. However, at a quick glance, I see The Boston Globe unitalicised in ref 1 and italicised in ref 7. Ref 2 still gives the web address as the publisher; the actual publisher is Team Nigeria Basketball, as specifically stated in my note above. Same point in ref 16 - the publisher is Georgetown Hoyas - again you've ignored my comment above. I haven't checked through the whole list, but it seems there are similar glitches needing fixes, and there's a way to go yet. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: Sorry about that. I've gone back and fixed all the issues relating to web addresses and italics. TempleM (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• You have dealt with most of my remaining format concerns satisfactorily, though I fixed two or three myself rather than hassling you again. Two remaining minor issues:

• Why, in the citations referring to Owumi's two fiction works, do you use the Amazon ASIN codes rather than normal publisher details with ISBNs?
• Your wikilinks on the London Lions go to a disambiguation page

• I have two concerns over reliability: ref 107 "Let's Go Lions" looks like a fansite, and I'm unsure about ref. 113 "Talkbasket". Why should these two be considered reliable sources per FA standards?
• A couple of questions for the coordinators: are you happy with the extensive use of the autobiography which one reviewer apparently described as "a magazine article masquerading as a book"? And, is the use of team websites to this extent acceptable? I take no particular position on these issues, but not being a basketball expert I thought I'd mention them.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have removed the information that came from the fansite. TalkBasket, on the other hand, should be a reliable source since it apparently has official ties to EuroLeague. The book codes were actually ISBN, not ASIN, and I've changed it accordingly. TempleM (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Could anyone please take another look? TempleM (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

• Sorry, but this review has been open a long time without attracting the depth of commentary necessary to determine consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly.
• Re. Brian's query on the extensive use of the autobiography, yes I think we have to be careful since it's hardly an impartial source. It could be useful for the subject's opinion on things (if clearly stated as such), or perhaps for fleshing out non-controversial points of interest only touched on in third-party sources, but generally I'd be very wary of of statements that rely on it solely (of which there are a few).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2018 [21].

---

German destroyer Z39

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer that served during World War Two. This is the second review of the article, as previously it had issues with context, which I believe have now been resolved. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Another star in Iazyges's wheel hat is in order! –Vami_IV✠ 11:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I made one copy-edit. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

Notes/References formatting is looking pretty good:

• Whitley 1988, pp. 56-57. Hyphen in pg. range;
•  Done
• Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (21 with; 4 without): Friedman, Norman (2014); Grooss, Poul (2017); Stern, Robert C. (2015); Zaloga, Steven J. (2011). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Done

• Again, as per the coin article, below – is this a sources review? Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, what happened? Several sources in the "Books" section are now not cited in the article. Did people add new sources, or remove cites? Either way, either delete them or move them into "Further reading" or whatever... Friedman, Norman (2014); Grooss, Poul (2017); Haslop, Dennis (2013); O'Brien, Phillips Payson (2015); Zaloga, Steven J. (2011).
•  Done
• Also, Stern, Robert C. (2015) needs a location. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Done

Comment An issue I noted in my informal review of this article was my concern over the statement that this class of ships had comparable equivalent to a British light cruiser. While the source given is of a high standard, it doesn't seem to be correct. I noted that the contemporary British Town-class cruiser (1936), for example, had a much heavier armament. Older classes were also better armed. I'd suggest looking into this issue. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: per review of the book; the "equal to light cruisers" is explicitly talking about Polish/French ones. How I managed to miss that I have no idea. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Sorry but this review hasn't progressed in some time and doesn't have the depth of commentary that permit consensus to promote to be determined, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2018 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2018 [22].

---

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The 18th Infantry Division was a British army formation that is best known, if not largely forgotten, for fighting in the Battle of Singapore. Prior to that infamous battle, it had been raised and formed in 1939 and spent the next few years being deployed around various parts of the UK. Due to mounting political needs for additional British fighting troops in North Africa, the division was deployed in a roundabout way to the Middle East. However, with the Japanese entry into the war, it was diverted to Malaya and Singapore. One brigade fought in Malaya, and the entire division (although mishandled and committed piecemeal) fought in the disastrous defense of Singapore and joined in the general surrender. Due to the conditions of Japanese camps, over 1/3 of the division's men never returned nor was the division reformed after the surrender. The article has been given the once over by the Guild of Copyeditors, and has passed both its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:18_inf_div_-vector.svg should include a date for the original design

  Was this in regards to the PD-UKGov tag that was in use? If so, I have updated in favor of PD-Shape. Other than that, I do not believe any work includes a date the design was actually conjured up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG is missing info on first publication. Same with File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  In regards to these two, the AWM (link and link states the copyright has expired on both works. It does not, however, provide information regarding when it was first published. So, how do we proceed from here?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  Would this tag be accurate? That would avoid the issue entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

A few minor points:

• Ref 21: Pedantically, IWM is plural ("Museums" not "Museum"). Also you should use "publisher=" rather than "website=", which will de-italicise IWM

  Quite! Also, amended per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 48: The hyphen in the p. range needs to be a ndash

  AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to differentiate in the short citations between the two "Playfair et al 2004" sources.

  Would a simple "a" and "b" tacked on the end of the year suffice?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, the sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ditto. All citations & references formatted well. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5 Here am i again the page look good let see i have some comments.

• See an American English organization or is it a name of an organisation and if it is a name of an organisation then please link it then.

  I rechecked the Gazette, and they use the "z". I have been unable to locate an article about this position, so have red-linked it per the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Link the units 135th Field Regiment, 287th Field Company and Japanese I/5th Battalion.

  British artillery and engineer units generally do not have articles, and in particular these two. Likewise, no article exists for the Japanese battalion. In all cases, however, the relevant parent organization is linked to soo after.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Switch this units.

Australian 22nd Brigade --> 22nd Australian Brigade

Japanese I/5th Battalion --> I/5th Japanese Battalion

Australian 2/29th Battalion --> 2/29th Australian Battalion

Japanese 5th Infantry Division --> 5th Japanese Infantry Division

Australian 2/30th Battalion --> 2/30th Australian Battalion

• I would feel more comfortable if additional editors could chime in on this one. My personal preference, based I guess off a British POV, would to be use the style you have suggested. The current style is one that seems to more favored on the wiki, it would seem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The official names should be used, but I don't have a strong preference if both versions were used officially.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Link this please.

Middle East in this line "on 10 November destined for the Middle East"

• I have added the link to the first mention, a few sentences before this point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nova Scotia in this line "continued to Nova Scotia"

• DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Muar–Yong Peng road in this line "troops on the Muar–Yong Peng road back under the command of Westforce"

• Linked to Muar, and added a link to Yong Peng at first mention.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Canada in this line. "American ships and left Canada bound"

• LinkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom in this line. "which led the United Kingdom to secure"

• This has already been linked to, in the first line of the background section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please change this two.

south-west --> southwest

• AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

11 weeks at sea --> eleven weeks at sea

• Per the WP:MOS, I feel like this should be left alone.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Who's Wavell? I mean i don't see his first name and rank or job.

This line is the first time i see the name in the page.

"On 20 January, Wavell visited Singapore to discuss the defence of the island"

And for the rest i don't see his first name and rank or job if it is there please tell me where and if he isn't linked then link him/she then.

• Introduced in full, in the Transfer to Middle East section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• who were the original uploaders of this two images? File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG and File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png

  User: Muffin Wizard uploaded the first, and I uploaded the latter. If you are referring to the "unknown" author, that is based off the information available at the Australian War Memorial.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Put please the category Military units and formations disestablished in 1942 in the page.

  AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Which government in this line?

"the British Government sought"

Which government the Chamberlain war ministry or the Churchill war ministry?

• I, personally, do not feel that this needs to be clarified upon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by CPA-5 So i hope this will help you i did reviewed the A-class before and i hope this page will get a FA-class goodluck further on. CPA-5 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Once more, thank you for your time and review. I have attempted to address several of your comments, and have left comments of my own for a few others.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Second line divisions/unit needs a hyphen between the first two words.
• Priority for new equipment was given to a handful of formations that would launch the riposte to any German landings.[33] Each infantry division was to have seventy-two 25-pounder field guns. On 31 May 1940, the 18th Division was only equipped with four First World War vintage 18-pounder field guns and eight 4.5-inch howitzers. The division had no anti-tank guns against a nominal establishment of 48, and only 47 instead of 307 Boys anti-tank rifles. This reads awkwardly because there are really two separate issues here, as I see it. The first is that the division was underequipped and the second is that issues of new equipment would go to units other than the 18th. So I'd delete the first sentence or rework it to state that the division was low on the priority list to get new equipment. I know that some ex-TA units had their modern equipment transferred to prewar units at various times. Did this happen to the 18th? And is there any info available as to when the division was filled out with all of its equipment?
• xt|13 January 1941 albeit without needs a comma after the date.
• In the 53rd Brigade section, you mention a causeway. The one to Singapore?
• Any chance of a map showing these battles in Malaya?
• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I'm afraid that despite being open two months and listed among the FACs urgently needing commentary, this review seems to have petered out so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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