Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2021

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 August 2021 [1].

Loss (comic) edit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a comic strip that New York Magazine declared as "the Internet's Longest-Running Miscarriage 'Joke'". A webcomic usually video game focused, Ctrl+Alt+Del made its mark onto the internet by having a storyline where the main characters wife suffers a miscarriage. And ever since the strip was posted, it has experienced a legacy as an internet meme, surpassing its original source material and being fairly recognizable in abstract ways.

The article is short but I believe it meets the criteria for it to become a Featured Article. But I am open to criticisms and ready to improve whatever. GamerPro64 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero edit

Why are these sources high quality RSes

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spicy edit

I think the prose needs work. Some examples, just from the lead:

  • "is a webcomic strip published on June 2, 2008, by Tim Buckley for his gaming-related webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del" - redundant.... you can just say "strip"
  • The second sentence reads somewhat clumsily - I would revise it to "Set during a storyline in which the main character Ethan and his fiancée Lilah are expecting their first child, the strip—presented as a four-panel comic with no dialogue—shows Ethan entering a hospital..." Hospital does not need to be linked, per WP:OVERLINK.
  • "Buckley cited personal events in his life as inspiration for the comic." - is 'personal' really necessary here?
  • "Since the publication of the strip, it has garnered negative reception from critics and webcomic creators" - is the first clause needed? Obviously it wouldn't have gotten any reception before it was published...
  • If 'fridging' is going to be mentioned in the lead, there should be a short explanation of what it is. Many people will not be familiar with the term (I am not) and they should not have to click out to another article to understand the lead.
  • Two instances of "garnered" too close together
  • "with edits to the strip being made by other creators" - see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing... might read better as something like: "... and later gained a legacy as an internet meme. Other creators made edits to the strip..."
  • "and minimalistic representations of the basic visual structure." - I know what this means because I'm familiar with the meme, but I'm unsure if it would be clear to other readers
Fixed. ObserveOwl (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

Done. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with concerns about sourcing above - I don't think we should be citing a student newspaper, at least. The sourcing feels very thin in general. I realize there's not going to be an Oxford monograph on Loss.jpg and this could very well be the best you can do but I think this is really pushing it at the FAC level. Spicy (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LEvalyn edit

On the one hand, it's a strength of this article that it is brief and factual, and avoids the problem of WP:FANCRUFT. On the other hand, it feels somehow flimsy. If this was a Featured Article on the main page, would it be edifying to every wikipedia reader?

The Feldman article does a good job of contextualizing the comic and its impact for an audience that presumably knows almost nothing about it, and might be helpful for more "framing" of the material here.

  • The reception section emphasizes the response from Penny Arcade's artists, which makes sense only for people who know what Feldman says: "If “Penny Arcade” represented the high-water mark of the genre (a more-than-debatable assertion) then “CAD” represented the dozens of lesser imitators." I think the "response" section would benefit from a more "zoomed out" view. I wouldn't quote an obvious joke from PA in the article; rather, a brief paraphrase-- and one that acknowledges their full answer to the interview Q, indicating that some of Buckley's audience liked the comic-- would be more encyclopedic.
  • Given that Feldman says "The last strip to mention Lilah’s pregnancy prior to “Loss” had been published 10 installments and nearly a month prior," it sounds like it only sort of appeared "during a storyline where Ethan and Lilah were expecting their first child" (as the article describes it).

I also wonder if you could find someone in your life who has never heard of Loss.jpg-- a very "offline" relative, maybe-- and ask them to read the article and ask you questions about it; that kind of outside perspective might help identify where the context gaps are. There's been enough retrospective coverage of this meme that I think it can be done, but the writing will take some thorough thinking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

Three weeks in and despite attracting some attention, the nomination has no supports and little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this changes over the next two or three days I am afraid this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No significant movement, so I am afraid that this has timed out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 August 2021 [2].

Aliens (film) edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1986 seminal action horror film Aliens. It defined action films that came after and elevated Cameron to top tier director who would go on to make Terminator 2, one of the other greatest sequels of all time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mgiganteus1 edit

The image of the alien queen (File:Queen Alien.jpg) is incorrectly licensed. It cannot be free use as the creature design itself is protected. If an image is to be included it would have to be fair use (we already have File:Alien (1986) - Alien queen.jpg, which used to be in this article). mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the image, though if that is the case, uploading the former as NFC seems better than retaining the latter. The latter image is really poor quality and has little detail on it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a still from the film should trump a random photo of a promotional mockup? Fair use images up to 100,000 pixels are generally permitted. File:Alien (1986) - Alien queen.jpg is 55,500 pixels, so a slightly larger version could be uploaded, but bear in mind that the low resolution is required to meet the non-free content criteria. You would not be able to use File:Queen Alien.jpg at its current resolution under fair use. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, a clear image of the puppet is going to trump anything. I'll leave the screenshot but I'm gonna look if there are any good behind-the-scenes photos that show it off in detail. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would work! mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the "well-researched" criterion I would expect this article to have a generous sprinkling of citations to J. W. Rinzler's excellent The Making of Aliens and probably also to Alien: The Archive. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access books like that without buying them, but I would be surprised if there is information in the book that is not in the article short of technical minutiae, there's 256 references in the article.
Have you checked if it's available through interlibrary loan? To meet the FA criteria I really think the article should cite what is arguably the definitive book on the subject. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not available, I can't meet that demand, but this article is sourced thoroughly. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL edit

More to come. Love that somebody gave this article some attention. ~ HAL333 19:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The gross is a range because the two major sites, Box Office Mojo and the Numbers, post wildly different international figures. It's really difficult to get proper info on films from that time period. Some don't have international figures available at all. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. ~ HAL333 01:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hola HAL333, you still around?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in an escape shuttle Subtle, but should it be "on an escape shuttle"?
  • Mention that Sulaco is from Conrad's Nostromo. (At least in a note.)
  • Similarly, is the origin of "Hadley's Hope" known?
  • At the center of the station --> "At the station's center" More concise.
  • Maybe link "infant alien" to "chestburster"
  • Maybe change intending to profit by recovering them for biological weapon research --> "intending recover them for biological weapon research" or "intending recover them for profitable biological weapon research" The chronology would be recover and then research and profit. Sorry to be nitpicky.
  • Maybe link "queen" to Alien (creature in Alien franchise)#Queen
  • In the "Cast" section, maybe switch out one use of "played" with a "portrayed" to decrease repetition.

Sorry about my tardiness. Swamped with work in real life. More comments later. ~ HAL333 01:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than two weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention by the three week mark I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Past the three week mark with no supports and despite a reasonable amount of attention on sign of a consensus to support. This needs to change in the very near future if this nomination is not to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly four weeks and no hint of a consensus to promote, so I am regretfully archiving this. The usual four-week hiatus will apply before any further FAC nominations can be made. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jarodalien edit

Comment: Another Darkwarriorblake's masterpiece, another extremely long article that I have to translate (sad face)... Generally I'm going to support, here's a little suggestion: no need to link something like "location=United States", "location=Austin, Texas", "location=London", also names for publishers, publications, locations, website etc. should link one time at most, such a lot of links make people's eye tired. --Jarodalien (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jarodalien, with references we're meant to link every time because refs get moved around a lot and so the "first" reference might not be the linked one and then you need to fix that every time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fell the "first" really matters as they all crowed in References section, so we have Empire (film magazine) for around like a dozen time, eight The New York Times', nine Entertainment Weeklys, even six Stan Winstons etc. How about "location=United States", "location=Austin, Texas", "location=London", especially the first really isn't helpful, fell like if I don't know where that publisher is maybe just "location=earth".--Jarodalien (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, it's just how the Manual of Style guidelines are written. The United States as a location is normally one I can't help because the headquarters will literally just say "United States". I've done some more google-fu and gotten more precise locations for the ones that just say United States. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon, wanted to review earlier, but forgot to. We don't want a "game over, man" situation for this one! FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hadleys Hope" should be " Hadley's Hope"?
  • "sacrifice themselves to stall the horde" This seems like interpretation. All we see is them blowing themselves up to not get caught.
  • It seems pretty important for character development in the plot that Ripley initially distrusts Bishop due to what happened with the android in the first film, only for Bishop to gain her trust later and "prove himself", but this appears to be missing from the article.
  • Character names could be linked at first mention in the article body and in image captions.
Done except for the Bishop thing. It's an important character beat within the film itself, I'm not sure it's important for understanding the plot though. You'd have to intentionally mention the dropship not initially being there to pick up Ripley for it to mean anything. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should return for a renomination, unless some more reviewers come around, my review will probably not make a difference. As for Bishop, while I don't think it's necessary to mention in the plot synopsis, there must be enough info about this for the themes section? Google scholar gives some interesting results, most of which you could get through WP:RX:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've given up on this nomination, I'm surprised it didn't generate more interest. I did find references on Bishop but given the article length, it seemed more appropriate for them to go in his article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkwarriorblake, if you renominate, I'll try hard to jump in early in the next nomination. I'm a fan of this movie, like Raiders of the Lost Ark. I held off reviewing this time due to the length of the article, but skimming it now, the prose seems very readable, which makes me optimistic I won't have so many comments on the flow of the prose itself, and hopefully reviewing this will be manageable. Being just before the start of the work week, I unfortunately don't think I could get very far in the next several days in the current nomination, so like Funk says, it might make more sense for me to throw my efforts in early in the next one. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Moisejp, I think I'm going to nominate Ghostbusters next just to try and get it done before the third film comes out, then I'll come back to Aliens. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry I wasn't more on the ball this time. I may not participate in Ghostbusters, but I will try to read through Aliens a few times, become familiar with it, and think about any possible issues in preparation for your next nomination of it. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 15 August 2021 [4].

High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider edit

Nominator(s): Betelgeuse496 (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an upgrade to the Large Hadron Collider. It covers all aspect related to the motivation of the project, its physics goals, timeline, and discusses all facts related to the upgrade technology to the machine itself and of the experiments involved Betelgeuse496 (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose out of process nom. The instruction at the top of the page state An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them., but this is the nominator's second solo nomination in less than 24 hours. The article also contains uncited text such as "The upgrades to the heavy-ion injectors are also in progress and would bring up even more opportunities to observe very rare phenomena and to search for BSM physics.", "The motivation for the construction of large underground infrastructure at HL-LHC therefore, is to have a high efficiency and highly reliable machine which can deliver the required integrated luminosity.", and several other spots. Doesn't meet WP:FACR #1c due to lack of inline citations in places. I'm also concerned about #1c's " it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", as the majority of the sources are from the group running the project (CERN), and ideally FAs should have less reliance on non-independent sources. Hog Farm Talk 05:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note -- Since I've archived the earlier nom HF refers to, the out-of-process issue is dealt with but the concerns re. sourcing remain; for now I'll leave this open for further comments or responses. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawal. In addition to the sourcing issues noted by HF, the article's overall organization needs improvement and there are significant prose issues (eg "The HL-LHC upgrade being applicable to almost all major LHC experiments has a wide of physics goals"). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at the moment. The overall structure needs more work and detector upgrades need more detail. The integrated luminosity doesn't need to be in the lead, instantaneous luminosity would fit there (it's a better measure of accelerator performance). The instantaneous luminosity shouldn't be in "introduction" and its description needs to be less confusing. In addition it's currently only discussing ATLAS and CMS values, that needs to be mentioned. Luminosity leveling can be mentioned somewhere (it's hinted at in the beam optics section with a confusing description). The whole article needs proofreading - typos, missing spaces, strange statements like "proton beams with double the original luminosity", ... but that can follow after the larger work is done. --mfb (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment -- Thanks all. Recommend trying Peer Review after addressing reviewers' comments, after which (providing a minimum of two weeks has passed, per FAC instructions) the article could be renominated here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 13 August 2021 [5].

Fixed-target experiment edit

Nominator(s): Betelgeuse496 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about fixed-target experiments. It explores the emergence of such experiments, compares them with the exixting collider experiments and gives a good overview about the experimental facilities and physics potential of such experiments. Betelgeuse496 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on grounds of WP:FACR #1b. 1,233 words is not comprehensive enough for this subject, there's just a lot more we need for this article to meet the FAC criteria. We're not given much about the history of these experiments - how they were first developed and used, notable early ones other than Rutherford, etc. The differences between older and newer experiments (which is alluded to several times) are not thoroughly discussed, either. I just don't think there's enough material here for FA right now. Hog Farm Talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I have to concur with HF, the level of detail here might achieve C- or B-Class if fully cited but would require considerably more work to approach FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13 August 2021 [6].

University of Mississippi edit

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the University of Mississippi, a public university in (you guessed it) Mississippi. This article has been through the GA process and a short peer review and I hope it's up to snuff. ~ HAL333 21:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review the only outstanding issue is that File:1861 Lyceum.jpg does not list any publication as the license tag requires. However, I did not check licensing of the images I removed, so if they are added back, this review will not be valid. (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to just remove the image gallery. I'll try to find the publication date for that image. ~ HAL333 22:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy notice: I have opened an RfC at the university's talk page regarding the "Ole Miss" nickname. For the sake of centralizing discussion, I would encourage editors to place comments about the issue there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: before a full source review is done, please go through and clean up citation formatting. I'm seeing lots of information in the wrong parameters, similar sources with different formatting, citations missing information available at the source link, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've used up my free NYT articles for the month. Could someone tell me who wrote this article? Thanks. ~ HAL333 18:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: Author is Janet Maslin. For future reference, most of the time you can disable JavaScript on a webpage, and you'll be able to see the full article. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have gone through several times and fixed up everything that I could catch. ~ HAL333 19:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - possible name change edit

Subject, of course, to being reversed by the community, I consider that a debate over an article's name does not, in and of itself, cause it to be considered unstable. Even if the discussion is at an RfA. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree with Gog but I think, another week having passed without the nom progressing, that we'll have to call it a day now. Given the dearth of in-depth commentary I wouldn't generally be averse to a new nom within the usual 2-week window, though pragmatism suggests it might be better to wait until the RFC finishes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2021 [7].

George Floyd (American football) edit

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the other George Floyd, the American football player. He holds several records at Eastern Kentucky University. The article just passed a GA review so I'm looking forward to hearing constructive comments. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Sdkb edit

The elephant in the room here is that Floyd shares a name with the other, vastly more well-known Floyd, so even given the disambiguator in the title, it's surprising not to see a hatnote. Could someone more familiar with disambiguation than me comment as to whether or not a hatnote linking to George Floyd or {{Other people}} would be warranted? Some pageview data comparing average monthly views of this page before and after May 2020 might help with the decision. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: in general we should not have such hatnotes, as in theory readers shouldn't end up here by accident when they're searching for any other George Floyd. WP:NAMB is the relevant guideline here, with the rationale that with the "American football" disambiguator in the title, people are unlikely to end up here by accident. I think there are occasional exceptions to this, for example if a lot of people thought that the other George Floyd was an American football player (or perhaps he was? I've never heard anything to that effect though). But on balance I think it's preferable not to have one here, since it's not needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've just looked at George Floyd, and it seemed he did play football in high school and even in college for a couple of years. You learn a new thing every day! So perhaps there's a weak case for a hatnote. But clearly he's not primarily notable for that, and wouldn't have an article on his football or basketball record alone...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article already has an unambiguous title. A hatnote wouldn't make sense unless there is another George Floyd that is a football player. (t · c) buidhe 09:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing edit

I don't think these images are freely licensed. The copyright notice on the publication as a whole covers all articles and images printed in it except advertisements, see US copyright office 2207.2. You would have to show that the newspaper issue did not have any copyright notice. (t · c) buidhe 09:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just adding on to that: in response to @Sdkb: I think [8] makes it clear that there is at least some confusion. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that and the fact that the other Floyd did play football, I'd lean toward including a hatnote. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As another drive-by comment, I'll echo the others and say no, a hatnote is still not needed. The other George Floyd is not notable for his high school & community college football career. For comparison, there's lot of usage of (writer) as disambiguation, but hatnotes are not required if the other articles merely cover people who wrote something ever; it is only required if they are known as writers. Same here. SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: I'm looking for that now. I don't see a copyright notice on any pages for File:George Floyd playing for Hernando High School, 1977.jpg. The only time the term "copyright" appears is on page 44 for the term "Dunkel Sports Features" and on page 41 in a story and on page 32 in a story, and for a repeat. Ditto for File:George Floyd Latches Onto the Ball.jpg and File:George Floyd for EKU, 1980.jpg. I also oppose a hatnote per Amakuru and Buidhe above. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just searching for the word "copyright" may not turn up a copyright notice. See here for an example of US newspaper copyright notice. It's usually printed small and does not legally need to use the word "copyright" to be valid. Also, because of the small size I expect OCR would often have difficulties with it. (t · c) buidhe 16:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Granted. But I don't see that either looking at the pages. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm no expert on copyright law, but wouldn't the copyright be held by the Eastern Kentucky University, rather than by the newspaper, since they've credited it as such? Therefore you'd need to check for a copyright notice in any publications issued by them which use that photo...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I've removed that image. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • EKU is a publisher, not a work.
  • FN23 is missing agency. Ditto FN35, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Went through the article & addressed, addressed each article individually, also added some authors. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

It is now more than three weeks since this article was nominated and it has yet to attract a general review. If a couple of these are not started within the next two or three days I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim edit

American football is English as a foreign language to me, but here goes

  • eight in their 1984 season, with two started. — two games started?
  • all-area football team all three varsity years — in all three?
  • sophomore, —I don't know what that means, link?
  • After the season, he made the GC —I think you need to repeat his name, there's been another subject in between
  • At Hernando, he set a school record for most interceptions in a single season, with nine, that stood for four years — clunky, perhaps At Hernando, he made nine interceptions in a single season, a record that stood for four years
  • returned an interception one hundred yards and scored a touchdown; —of one hundred yards?
  • Floyd was in the school's record book no less than eight times, —no fewer
  • he worked construction, installing windows in skyscrapers —in construction
  • at 5 feet 11 inches (180 cm) and weighed 190 pounds (86 kg).— Why have you converted to metric here and nowhere esle, not consistent?
  • I assume that he must have done a teaching qualification at some stage, but I can't see where. I appreciate that the US system might be different from the UK, but presumably you can't just walk into a class and start teaching?
  • As of 2020, —Any update?
  • More than four weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote starting to form, so I am archiving this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2021 [9].

U.S. Route 34 in Iowa edit

Nominator(s): –Fredddie™ 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is my finest highway article to date. It talks about changing highway policy over the years and how that affected the highway as it is today. It even initiated the creation of a federal law regarding handling Native American remains found during highway construction. –Fredddie™ 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment edit

Just curious, is there a reason why we use "U.S." throughout the article rather than "US"? Since the standard abbreviation for US Highways is "US #", it looks like we mix abbreviation types, which goes against MOS:US. Thrakkx (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a project-wide issue that's bigger than this one article. Personally, I prefer U.S. to US, so I could make those changes if required. If you notice, U.S. is always used as "U.S. Highway X", while US is always "US X". So at least that's consistent. –Fredddie™ 02:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After consulting with another editor on Discord, I decided to change the article to use U.S. –Fredddie™ 03:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't intend for you to make any changes; just wanted to know if the WikiProject dictated this notation. Thrakkx (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USSH is the relevant guideline here. It was created after a contentious ArbCom case about 15 years ago; a couple of the editors who argued in that case are still around. The abbreviations were added about 5 years ago as a matter of turning a de facto practice into de jure. Could it be updated? Probably, but that's another discussion. –Fredddie™ 01:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, but the standard abbreviation for a United States Numbered Highway as used by the vast majority of state departments of transportation omits the periods. (I think only one uses the periods in their press materials.) The last two editions of The Chicago Manual of Style also omit periods in the abbreviated name of such highways. We've had discussions about following CMOS to omit the periods in the full name without any consensus at revising WP:USSH to retitle the articles, and for many states, the full name follows the article title. The best sources on styling seem to dictate reversing this change. Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You and I have butted heads on this over the years and I maintain that we are not beholden to the CMOS, only our own MoS. The original comment was about consistency, which is the heart of MOS:US, and that's what I'm trying to achieve here. –Fredddie™ 09:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, I went ahead and reviewed the article for accessibility, and I see no issues. Thrakkx (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

This article has been up for two weeks and has yet to attract a general review. It could do with more interest over the next week or so or the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three weeks in and not a hint of a consensus to promote forming, so I am archiving this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
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) 9 August 2021 [10].

Turtle edit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC), Chiswick Chap[reply]

This is another article about a major group of animals with unique adaptations. Turtles are defined by a bony or cartilaginous shell, developed from their ribs, which acts as a shield. We been working on this for months and feel it is now ready. Special thanks to Vaticidalprophet and Faendalimas. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • Some quick notes for now:
  • late Jurassic, late Triassic: these need to be upper case
Fixed.
  • I suggest to avoid "et al." in the text (replace with "and colleagues") since this is a really technical term that is easy to avoid.
Fixed.
  • In both the text and the citations, there is inconsistency how you write author names: surname only, with initial, or full name.
Jonesey95, could you please? LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found and fixed a few inconsistencies, but I do not have an easy way to replace author initials with full names. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spelled out forenames. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 71% of all tortoise species are either gone or almost gone. – This is too unspecific imo, I don't know what "gone or almost gone" precisely means, and what it adds. Why not stick with terms like "critically endangered"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shapes of turtle shells vary with the adaptations of the individual species. and sometimes with gender. – dot too much
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - not passed edit

  • Asher, J. Lichtig; Spencer G., Lucas; – I think you are confusing surnames and given names here?
Gone. LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lyson et al.. (2010) – two dots
Don't see it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you already fixed it while replacing "et al." with "and colleagues". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source "Thomson_Spinks_Shaffer_2021": Link to pdf is not working for me.
Removed URL, article has DOI access. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use the em dash for page ranges (e.g., 44–45, not "44—45").
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be a pain, but there are also some ranges that use the simple hyphen-minus, e.g. "118-120". That should be consistent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man has fixed them (thanks!). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • genus and species names need to be in italics (I spot several examples in the references where they are not)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still spot at least two examples that are not. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed those. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WWF source Throughout their life-cycle, marine turtles … – I think you need to cite the report (not the webpage) and with the correct title.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red-eared slider turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans) – Where is this source published, and what makes it a reliable source?
Replaced claim and ref using Van Dijk 2002. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (no byline) (April 1, 1899). – What does this mean?
It means that the linked 1899 article listed no named author. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then the Queen left off, quite out of breath, and said to Alice, 'Have you seen the Mock Turtle yet?' 'No', said Alice. 'I don't even know what a Mock Turtle is.' 'It's the thing Mock Turtle Soup is made from', said the Queen." Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, chapter 9 — Is this the correct way to cite it? It also lacks information (pages, publisher etc.). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a quotation reference. Added a citation.
Fixed.

Spot checks:

  • The development of a shell reaches completion with the late Triassic Proganochelys. It lacked the ability to pull its head into its shell, and had a long neck and a long, spiked tail ending in a club, somewhat like an ankylosaur.[94] – can't find it in the source.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph The turtles' exact ancestry has been disputed. … – again, not really covered by the source? Isn't there a better source than this museum webpage?
Replaced source.
  • The date of separation of turtles and birds and crocodiles was estimated to be 255 million years ago. – Again, I can't find it. Is it in the source cited for the previous sentence?
Yes, repeated the ref for the sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph Turtles make use of vision to find food and mates, to avoid predators, and to orient themselves. … – The source you use for this paragraph is about sea turtles. On what basis can you apply it to turtles in general?
Added citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A freshwater turtle, the red-eared slider, has an exceptional seven types of cone cell defined by the color of their oil droplets and their photopigments.[36] – This checks, but I think the source says something different. Instead of "defined by", it states "based on", and I think this gives it quite a different meaning. I propose to just delete the part "defined by the color of their oil droplets and their photopigments", this is only the method used to come to the conclusion, not needed in this general article.
Agree, removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the laboratory, turtles (Pseudemys nelsoni) can learn novel tasks and have demonstrated a long-term memory of at least 7.5 months. – Checks.
Noted.
  • Turtles share the linked circulatory and pulmonary systems of vertebrates, – Checks.
Noted.
  • Turtles are widely distributed across the world's continents and oceans, being absent mainly from the polar regions, the northern parts of North America and Eurasia – Parts of this paragraph do not appear in the source (which is, again, a museum website). And the source also states "The migratory route of some leatherbacks may pass close to the Arctic Circle", therefore contradicting your statement that turtles are absent from the polar regions.
Replaced source, edited paragraph using Pough 2001.

I have to conclude that the spot checks did not pass. The sourcing does not yet seem to be of the high standard required for an FA. I suggest to carefully double-check the whole article content again, and then request a second spot check, preferably done by somebody else. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'm sure this'll be popular among reviewers, so marking my spot now, and will return when I've reviewed some of the more urgent, old nominations. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, looks like there's a good deal of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.

Ran the script one more time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see a resolution to the serious sourcing issue above resolved before continuing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have done another check-through and clean up and are really for another spotcheck. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femke edit

May do the second source check if I can find time somewhere (very maybe), but for now starting with a understandability/accessibility review

  • The first sentence come across as elitist to me, we have two Latin names and two scary IPA's. Is there a way compliant with MOS that prevents that? Maybe put one of the less common Latin names in a footnote? Maybe we can put the IPA in the naming section only?
  • For non-experts, provide an approximate timeframe for Middle Jurassic
  • while the underside is the flatter plastron -> Is there a way to avoid the word plastron and link it? At the very least, link so that people can hover over it.
  • Linked and glossed.
  • The carapace bones develop from ribs which grow sideways and develop broad flanges that join up to cover the body. Assume people are like me and don't know what flanges is -> "The carapace bones develop from ribs which grow sideways and join up to cover the body."?
  • Reworded.
  • It is not know how the navigate -> source in body is from 2013. Is that still reflecting current knowledge?
  • Yes.
  • "hunted for their meat, for use in traditional medicine, and for their carapaces." I don't think the latter is supported by the text (checked conservation). Bit nit-picky, but the 'As food and other uses' doesn't seem to relate it directly to hunting.
  • Edited the 'As food' section'; added and cited mention of hunting hawksbills.
  • Harvesting wild turtles is legal in some American states -> 2007 source. Still true?
  • Yes, added 2020 ref.
  • Some alts are missing for images. While purely decorative images don't need alts, there is at least one ('Crested caracara eating a turtle') where the alt should contain information about a bird being displayed, as caracara is jargon. Check through-out. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the lang template for non-English words in the 'in culture' subsection. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • The smallest living turtle is the speckled padloper tortoise of South Africa, measuring no more than 100 cm (39 in) in length -> I assume this is meant to say 10 cm? FemkeMilene (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.
It was 100 mm in the book, still a typo.
  • I would go for cm rather than mm, as it's the more common unit. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find the information about the bite force in that source (table 1). There is one entry for 432 N in there (rather than the weird unit of force now mentioned first). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks as if the conversion had the units back to front. Fixed.
    • So you are sure Phrynops nasutus and Mesoclemmys nasuta refer to the same species? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes see here LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the synonym is one of those listed at Mesoclemmys nasuta. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did look and ctrl F there, but didn't see the collapsible list. Another reason for Wikipedia:NOHIDE :). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1965 PhD thesis is quite an old source to make such a general statement about hearing (500 Hz). The source says that sensitivity dropped quickly above 500 Hz, not that hearing is completely absent as far as I can tell. Are there more modern sources available? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • About units
    • make sure there is no false precision (5 km != 3.1 m, but 3)
    • formatting (33 Celsius)
      • Done.
    • SI units have to go before regional units (f.i. at least 104 °F (40 °C) should be at least 40 °C (104 °F). It may be that the original scientific source had showed 40, if so 104 may be false precision by U.S. Department of Agriculture). Check throughout, also seeing some feet before meters.
      • Meters before feet throughout. Added a source with a temperature graph; updated text to show a range and the word "about" (the convert gadget can't round to nearest 5 °F or whatever). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • front-limbs -> why hyphen? FemkeMilene (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • crema de tortuga -> lang template. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - not passed

I'll spot-check one/two sources per section, and will only continue with formatting if spot checking passes

  • The second paragraph of naming and etymology is not fully supported by the dictionary sources. The words taxa, veterinarians, scientists, and conservationists are not mentioned
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN42 is quite old (1972). Do modern sources say more about smell / generalise it to more species?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN48 checks out
  • FN65 checks out
  • FN76: again, quite an old source. The source only supports the specific (as seen in green turtles), but does not seem to support the general statement.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN137 checks out, but may benefit from having a fuller range / uncertainty, as extinction 59 years in the future seems to be the lower end of the more 'alarming' method. The fact that turtles are getting extinct faster than other groups may warrant inclusion, maybe even in the lede
  • FN154 checks out
  • more later. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Institute for Traditional Medicine reliable? FN187 does not mention the word guilinggao.
But it means the same thing as turtle jelly. LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still does not seem like a reliable source to me; it's a website for alternative medicine, right? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes guitarbench reliable?
replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN180 does not seem to support 'In Europe, large numbers of Mediterranean tortoises were caught and traded.'.
The statement is gleaned from the the fact that several of the listed turtle pets in the UK are from the Mediterranean, that they are imported from Europe and "in 1984 a ban on importation of Mediterranean tortoises was finally n 1984 a ban on importation of Mediterranean tortoises was finally approved". LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I must conclude that the second source review has also not passed, as I've found too many statements that were not fully supported by the sourcing, including in my general review before the source review. I think a peer review is probably needed to do a more systematic check of sourcing. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: We would like to withdraw the nomination for more cleanup. LittleJerry (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 8 August 2021 [11].

Lumines: Puzzle Fusion edit

Nominator(s): Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2004 Puzzle video game developed by Q Entertainment. I'm willing to address any situation in order to get it to Featured status. I'm hoping that everything can be addressed.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments

I love video games so I am very happy to see an article on one in the FAC space. I am not particularly experienced with video game articles (and there are much more qualified editors in that field), but I want to at least try my best to help you with this FAC. My comments are below:

  • I would encourage you to add alternative text for the images. I am not sure if it is 100% required for a featured article, but I still think it would best to add regardless.
  • For this part, After listening to one of Mondo Grosso's songs, he requested songs, of the lead, I would avoid repeating "songs" twice in the same sentence. I know this is rather nitpick-y, but I think it helps to keep the prose engaging.
    • done
  • In the past, I have been told to avoid sentence structures like the following, with critics praising it for integrating gameplay and music. I have seen notes in FAC reviews to avoid structuring sentences like "with X verb-ing" so I would encourage you to revise those out of the prose. I do not have any real issues with them, but it is a note that I have seen rather often.
    • Done
  • This part, and many stated it being addicting to play, from the lead sounds a little off to me. I think stated it was addicting to play reads a little better (at least to me).
    • done, this one is connected to the prior fix.
  • For this part, becoming the first entry of a series, of the lead, I think it is a perfect opportunity to link to the Lumines article since I do not think the actual series is currently linked in the lead. I would link it in "a series". I would also make sure the main series article is linked in the body of the article. And by "the body of the article", I mean the rest of the article after the prose. I am not sure what the real term for it is to be honest.
    • done
  • I would link port in the lead and the body of the article.
    • done
  • I have a question about this part, A sequence of 2×2 blocks varying between two colors. Do you think it would be beneficial to explicitly say what these two colors are in the prose?
    • The colors change between levels.
  • This is another nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. When I first read this part, "Challenge, Time Attack, Puzzle, and Vs mode", I thought the capitalization of "Vs mode" looked off. I checked the source, which says "Versus mode" instead. I know that both mean the same thing, but I think it would be better to say "Versus mode" instead to just stay consistent with how it is represented in the citation (and how it is likely represented in the game itself).
    • done
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: The maximum score in Challenge Mode is 999,999 points. What happens if a player reaches this limit and continues to score points? I am guessing that it just would not register, but I would be curious if you knew. I do not think it needs to be specified in the prose, but it was just something I wanted to ask you.
    • Correct. it will simply stay at 999,999.
  • For this part, The game's subtitle "Puzzle Fusion" reflects that the game's music is essential to the game, I would avoid repeating "game's" twice in the same sentence.
  • I would add a citation at the end of this part, which was developed in a year by a staff of four people, to really clarify what is being used to support this. I am assuming that Citation 7 is the one used to support it, but I think it is best to make it absolutely clear to readers.
    • done, I actually found a different source that says 6. so I'll use that.
  • I would link Walkman. It might also be worth linking headphone jack (which should linked in both in the body of the article and the lead for consistency if you decide to do so). I would also link casual gamer, dance music, and techno in the "Development" section as I think these links would be helpful for readers.
    • done
  • I am not entirely sure what "Dream Machine" means. Since it follows the Walkman quote, I am not sure if it is another type of media player, or if he is just saying that it was his ideal console for the game. Some clarification here would be greatly appreciated.
    • done, I opted to be more direct and replaced it with "ideal device"
  • I was rather confused by this sentence: After choosing to develop games for the PSP, Mizuguchi was inspired to make a puzzle game with music. The previous parts led me to believe that Mizoguchi purposefully chose the PSP to develop the game because he already wanted to make a puzzle game with music and he chose the PSP because of the headphone jack. But this sentence makes it seem like the concept was developed after the console choice. Could you clarify this for me?
    • I changed it to merge with the initial comment so it doesn't cause confusion.
  • For this part, and the concept of Lumines was used instead, shouldn't Lumines be in italics or is it referring to something in the game itself?
    • I don't know how I missed that.
  • I am uncertain if the first sentence of these two are necessary: Mizuguchi recalls hearing the song "Shinin'" while looking at the stars; it inspired him to ask Yokota to use the theme of a show with music and visuals. Earlier in the paragraph, information about Mizoguchi hearing and being inspired by this song is already present. I think the "looking at the stars" part is an unnecessary detail, but I can see a rationale for including him talking to Yokota. I might just remove the first part.
    • Mizuguchi's timeline of when he heard the song during game development can get confusing based on reliable sources and his own word of mouth. But I'll adjust that soon.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments are helpful so far. I have read up to the "Release" section. I do not see any major issues. I find the prose to be very engaging and it is really great that you were able to find so much information on the development as I honestly would not have expected that much from a puzzle game like this. Let me know if you have any questions. I will read through more of the article tomorrow and add more comments then. Apologies for doing this piecemeal. I just want to make sure I do a thorough review. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the responses so far. Let me know when everything has been addressed. Also, please do not use the "done" template as its use is discouraged for FACs. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing all my comments so far. I will complete my review by the end of today or tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the "Release" section, there are three sentences in a row with "released". I would encourage you to change up one of these instances to avoid repetition.
  • I would revise this part, It's due to these updates, to avoid having a contraction as they are not allowed in a Wikipedia article.
    • done
  • There are several instances of "released" in the "Soundtracks" section and I would add some variation.
    • done
  • This sentence, Multiple reviewers praised it for its combination of music and visuals and was described the game as addicting., has an instance of citation overkill as it currently uses five citations. I would either bundle the citations or find a way to avoid having so many citations.
    • i'll find a way to break it down.
  • Tetris and tile-matching video game are both linked twice in the article when they should only be linked on the first instance. I would avoid any duplicate links in the article.
    • done
  • I am a little confused on how citations are attributed in the prose for the "Reception" section. There are instances where the author is named directly in the prose, but other instances where an author is not named in the prose. I would be consistent with either way.
    • done
  • The "Reception" section includes negative reviews for the game, but these are not discussed in the lead. I would encourage you to briefly bring up the negative critiques there.
    • done
  • I do not think the "See also" section is necessary. Mondo Grosso is already mentioned in the prose, and I am not entirely sure how Eri Nobuchika relates to this game so I would instead clarify that in the prose.
    • done.
      • I do not see Eri Nobuchika referenced in the article at all now? Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eri NObuchika is an artist, but she only performed some of MOndo Grosso's songs that were included in the article. I couldn't find a way to add her in seamlessly. If you think that is important to add, I can look into it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I do not think it is required for a featured article, I think it is always nice to have the citations in numeric order.
    • I decided to move the refs down on the reflist to make It easier to edit.
  • I have two questions about this part, an exploit was discovered that allowed for custom firmware to be installed. Was this "exploit" ever corrected? Also, wouldn't this be considered a bug more so than an "exploit"?
    • Based on the information. it doesn't sound like a bug, but a hack. But i added a second ref that clarifies.
      • Thank you for the explanation. Was this ever addressed though? Did they (if possible) find a way to stop this hack as it does seem pretty major? Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the rest of my review. I will re-read through the article once all my above comments are addressed to make sure I did not miss anything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) I think the reception section is one of my weakest points. But if you see anything that could improve it, let me know.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the citations, I would add translations for the titles in foreign languages. I am not sure if it is required or not, but I think it would be helpful.
  • done
  • Avoid having words in all caps in any of the the citations' titles unless it is an acronym. For instance, I would type out "Best Handheld Game" for citation 64.
  • done

Apologies for adding to the review. I just wanted to bring up two points about the citations. Other than that, this is my full review and once everything has been addressed above, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: I believe I addressed everything to the best of my ability. let me know if it can be better or missed something..Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the prose in the "Reception" section. It is rather repetitive in certain areas, and I think would benefit from further revision. I would encourage you to look at this essay (Wikipedia:Reception) if you are not already aware of it.
    • I've reviewed the essay before and thought I did a good job implementing the advice given last time. I'll revise it once again. One of the hardest aspects about Lumines is that the majority of the reviews can be extremely straightforward. The majority of the reviews are treating the combination of the music and gameplay as a single feature rather than separate aspects. There's no story mode, or lore aspect. I managed to find three common factors in the reviews (for the PSP): Common comparison to Tetris and tile-matching video games, using words like "addicting" or "Zen" to describe the game, and praise for the combination of Audio and visuals. If you have additional specific advice on Reception, that would be appreciated.
      • Reception sections are very hard to write. Here are some specific things to watch out for. For instance, there are two sentences in a row that have When reviewing the PS2 version and When reviewing the mobile version, so it is a little repetitive there. I would add more sentence variety as a majority of the sentences appear to be written like "X publications said Y opinion". The paragraphs themselves are well-structured around a specific theme, but I would look at the sentence structures in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will use the second paragraph of the "Reception" section as an example of this "A said B" repetition. Aside from the topic sentence, all the sentences start with the publication name and then go into their opinion about the game. This gets rather repetitive quite quickly. I know that it cannot be avoid completely, but I think vary the sentence structure would make this paragraph more engaging rather than reading like a list of critics and their opinions. For another instance, this repetition of sentence structure is present in the fourth paragraph, and is particularly noticeable when two sentences in a row start with IGN. I am not suggesting you change everything, but I think it would be beneficial to go through each paragraph in this section to see if you could add some variety to the sentence structures. Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you use "didn't" three times in the "Reception" section. The article should not have any contractions unless they are part of a quote, and none of these three "didn't" instances are part of a quote. I would look throughout the article and remove any other instance of contractions (that are not part of quote). Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have a rather nitpick-y remark, but it is something I noticed while re-reading this section. At the end of the third paragraph, you use "criticized" in two sentences in a row, and I would change out one of these instances to avoid unnecessarily repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the current changes suffices. I varied the sentence structure a bit more. If you need me to make anymore adjustments, please feel free to add to your review. I do more better when I have an idea of how to fix it. So if you have any potential suggestions, they always help me.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Below are some specific examples that could use further improvement. I appreciate that you put in more sentence variation, but unfortunately, I do not think this section reads particularly well. Here are some examples:
  • This part, stated that if they were removed, it wouldn't be half the game it currently is, still contains a contraction, which should be removed. The wording overall is rather awkward and would benefit from revision.
  • In this part, thought the audio was more superior, "more superior" is not correct. It should just be "superior". It is also not clear what Eurogamer is saying the audio is superior to. Are they saying the audio is superior to the gameplay? More superior to what? Clarification here would be helpful.
  • For the first paragraph, I would move the IGN review to the bottom so it goes from the positive reviews and ends with a mixed one. It seems a little off to transition from Eurogamer's positive review to IGN's mixed review and then flip back into the positive reviews.
  • For this part, GamePro opined it reaches the rank of Tetris and Bejeweled., "opined" does not seem like the best word choice here. I would replace it with something else.
  • I appreciate how the second paragraph ends with the negative reviews (i.e. GamePro and Pocket Gamer), but I would use some sort of transition to make it read better.
  • This part, they helped place the game among the top ranks of mobile games, is rather repetitive and I would revise the first instance of "game" to avoid this.
  • This sentence, Despite being well-received, a common criticism from reviewers was the absence of an online multiplayer feature., is not grammatically correct. The beginning phrase "Despite being well-received" is being used to describe the next part, which in this instance is "a common criticism", and that does not make sense. This part could use further revision.

Unfortunately, I think the prose in the "Reception" section falls short of FA quality, and it would benefit from a comprehensive copy-edit. The rest of the article is very well-written, but after re-reading this section in particular, I still have issues with the prose. I will not oppose this FAC, but I will stop my review here and hopefully other editors will discuss this further. This may just come down to my inexperience with video game articles. Apologies for ending my review here. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address as much as I can and go from what you provided. It's a shame you decided to end your review with the belief of it falling short of FA quality even after I address your concerns. I also want to note that this isn't necessarily a video game issue. Lumines: Puzzle Fusion (along with its sequels) is one of the hardest articles I have ever worked on. How much information can be found on a tile-matching video game? It's almost like getting Tetris into a featured article. It's a challenge for sure, but one I will try to overcome. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I made some bigger changes to help break up the Reception. After constant reading, I realized 5 paragraphs in a single section is too much. I also implementing ShooterWalker's advice. Do you believe it is in a more acceptable condition? Or do you think there are any more adjustments that can be made?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Reception" section does look better, but I still do not think the prose is on the level expected for a featured article. Below are some further issues I can see:
  • For this part, Eurogamer thought the audio was superior, it is not clear what Eurogamer is comparing the audio to. They are saying it is superior to something, but what is that something.
  • These two parts, did not consider the missing tracks a complete loss and did not find the game fun at all, seems too informal for a Wikipedia article and I would revise them.
  • This part, comparing the rumble feature to Rez's trance vibrator, does not really make sense to me. It assumes that the reader already knows about Rez, to the point of knowing what a "trance vibrator" is, and I have not played or heard of the game before so this part needs further context for unfamiliar readers like myself.
  • I appreciate your work on the article and your dedication to it, but I would prefer to wait to hear from more reviewers for now. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Aoba47:I guess it's hard to accept that it's not at FA quality if you can't define what is missing or flawed. I made the adjustments you requested. I even clarified some statements. But at this point I hope you can define FA quality is as I'm someone who is doing their first FAC, and it's discouraging. If there's an article you could even link that you find meets FA quality Reception even if its not a video game, that can help me a lot.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Check that all images include alt text
  • File:Lumines.jpg has an incomplete description - for example there is no information on source
  • File:Lumines-roundabout-screenshot.png needs a much stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cover image needs a more expansive purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: It was replaced with png version. But i believe the purpose suffices now. what do you think?
  • @Nikkimaria: I replaced the gameplay with a 15second gif that I created myself with the same fair-use information as before. I was curious if this was acceptable. If not, I can always remove it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: i did my best to update FUR on the latest image. If you believe it can't meet FUR, let me know.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose, from Shooterwalker edit

Going to give this a review, and see how far I get. Stay tuned. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The game was praised for integrating gameplay and music, noted for being addicting to play, and was nominated and awarded "Best Handheld Game of 2005" by multiple outlets." -> "The game was praised for integrating gameplay and music, and for its addictive gameplay. It also received several nominations and awards for "Best Handheld Game of 2005" by multiple outlets."
  • "The ports were not given the same amount of praise as the original; the mobile phone version was commended for introducing new features but was criticized for its poor sound quality, while the PS2 version for lacking content from the original, or lack of new content to earn the Plus in its title." -> "The ports received less praise than the original: the mobile phone version was commended for its new features but was criticized for its poor sound quality, and the PS2 version was criticized for removing content from the original."
  • This is generally well written and off to a good start.
Gameplay
  • "A square is created when a group of 2×2 blocks of the same color is created on the playing field" -> you use the word "created" twice in the same sentence
  • the "time line" might be confused with timeline, and might need be defined in the summary of the gameplay
Development
  • "which was developed in a year by a staff of six people" -> this fragment doesn't flow from the last part of the sentence. Might be easiest just to make it into two separate sentences
  • "Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a Tetris game with music but issues including licensing meant it was not possible at the time and the concept of Lumines was used instead" -> "Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a music-heavy Tetris game, but licensing issues meant this was not possible, leading him to create a new concept for Lumines."
  • "He discovered "Shinin'" by Shinichi Osawa (Mondo Grosso) during a summer camping trip in Okinawa, inspiring him to request Yokota to implement themes of a show with music and visuals and requested Osawa to include four tracks that would be sequenced with the theme of a party beginning at sunset and ending at sunrise." -> this sentence is quite long and could probably be split into two shorter, clearer sentences
Release
  • "original version and introduces Arcade mode" -> "original version. It also introduces Arcade mode"
  • "The WildTangent and Steam versions include a mission mode and skin edit mode that was introduced in Lumines Live! and the Steam version has 21 unlockable skins and a portion of Time Attack, Puzzles, and Missions" -> you should split this sentence too
Soundtracks
  • This section is well written, but appears to be entirely sourced to primary sources and WP:VENDORs. Are there any secondary sources that have covered the release of the soundtrack?
Reception
  • "if they were removed" -> not clear what they are suggesting would be removed. maybe just rephrase this whole sentence.
  • "The game and its ports were recurrently compared to other tile-matching video games by reviewers with Tetris being the most common" -> "Reviewers frequently compared the game to other tile-matching video games, particularly Tetris."
  • " GamePro opined it" -> "GamePro opined that it"
  • "The port, Lumines Mobile for cell phones was also well-received by critics" -> "The phone port Lumines Mobile was also well-received by critics"
  • "but most noted the overall quality outweighed it" -> "but most felt this was outweighed by the game's quality overall."
  • "complained the way" -> "criticized the way"
  • "Pocket Gamer, in particular, criticized both the visuals and sound, describing the on-screen visuals impair the background artwork and deduced the sound doesn't do the Lumines concept justice" -> "Pocket Gamer, in particular, criticized that the on-screen visuals impair the background artwork and concluded that the sound doesn't do the Lumines concept justice"
  • "The lack of Lumines II features was not considered a flaw according to Eurogamer due to it intending to be a port of the original, and not a sequel." -> "Eurogamer did not criticize its lack of features from Lumines II, as it was a port of the first game."
  • "but not for those who already played previous titles" -> this is sort of implied from the rest of the sentence and can be removed to keep things concise
  • "Hardcore Gamer praised the music remaining to be exquisite, with multiple being among their favorites" -> this sentence is unclear. Multiple what? Favorite among what?
  • "GameSpot noted the switch version of the game isn't the best-looking game in the series but looks better than the prior handheld releases and is compensated with cleaner animation with less slowdown" -> "GameSpot noted that the Nintendo Switch version of the game looks better than prior handheld releases due to its cleaner animation, but is still not the best looking game in the series."
  • "Nintendo Switch version was also praised by Eurogamer, describing it as euphoric, immersive, and compared the rumble feature to Rez's trance vibrator" -> "The Switch version was also praised by Eurogamer as "euphoric", comparing the rumble feature to Rez's trance vibrator."
  • "Not every song was considered a hit according to Nintendo Life" -> "Nintendo Life felt that the songs varied in quality"
  • I am wary of overuse of the word "addictive", which isn't necessarily a good thing. But I recognize that this was a buzz term 15-20 years ago, and if that's what the sources say, that's what they say.
  • "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion won several awards, including the 2005 Spike TV Video Game Awards for Best Handheld Game, GameSpot's 2005 PSP Game Of The Year, Electronic Gaming Monthly's 2005 Handheld Game Of The Year, Game Informer's "Top 50 Games of 2005" list" -> "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion won several awards, including the 2005 Spike TV Video Game Award for Best Handheld Game, GameSpot's 2005 PSP Game Of The Year, and Electronic Gaming Monthly's 2005 Handheld Game Of The Year. The game also appeared on Game Informer's "Top 50 Games of 2005" list."
  • "half a million" -> "half a million sales"
  • "including emulators" -> can remove this to improve flow
Sequels and Follow-Ups
  • "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion was followed by several sequels, becoming the first game in the Lumines series" -> "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion became the first game in a series, as it was followed by several sequels."
  • "the same new modes" -> same and new seems like a contradiction, and there's probably a clearer way to say this
  • "Lumines II specifically also offers pre-existing videos from famous music artists such as Black Eyed Peas, Gwen Stefani, and Hoobastank and a Sequencer mode" -> "Lumines II specifically offers a Sequencer mode, and also offers pre-existing videos from famous music artists such as Black Eyed Peas, Gwen Stefani, and Hoobastank."
  • Even though two titles were developed at the same time, you don't need to pack their release into the same sentence, especially since they were separate releases. It gives you an chance to write a clearer summary of each game, instead of mixing two different games into the same sentence
  • "VS" -> did you mean "versus"?
The article is in good shape and could be on its way to FA with a little more work. Let me know if you have any questions, and we can just keep working through it. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: I was able to apply 90% of what you requested. The other aspects in the reception I was wary of because of Aoba47's review. Although coming to the conclusion that it isn't FA quality. The advice was still given to avoid "X said Y" statements. I'm not sure what made it fundamentally flawed to the point that it can't be worked on. So I made an effort to made sure to mix up the sentence structure to instead "REviewer X said Statement Y" I would use "Statement Y was also made by reviewer X". If it repeats. Since Aoba47 finished their review, do you believe there's any advice I should follow that still applies?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that the reception paragraph for "Lumines Plus" is the hardest for me to revise. Not sure how to organize it concisely and cohesively. So If you have any advice on that specific paragraph. I would greatly appreciate it. I know it doesn't look amazing right now and i'm willing to revise it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly the prose could still use some work, but I'm willing to give it all one more pass to help you get it there. There are many sections of the article that are WP:FA quality, and with patience, the other sections can match it.
Second pass
  • "He described the PSP as an "interactive Walkman" and considered it the ideal device due to it being one of the few handheld video game consoles with a headphone jack at the time, allowing it to be played with high-quality sound anywhere." -> "He described the PSP as an "interactive Walkman" and considered it the ideal device for his game, due to it being one of the few handheld video game consoles with a headphone jack and high-quality sound."
  • "Mizuguchi wanted to develop a challenging, audio-visual puzzle game that was less daunting to players than his previous titles Rez and Space Channel 5 to attract casual players." -> "To attract casual players, Mizuguchi wanted to develop an audio-visual puzzle game that was less daunting to players than his previous titles, Rez and Space Channel 5."
  • "Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a music-heavy Tetris game, but licensing issues made it not possible at the time, leading him to create a new concept for Lumines." -> Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a music-heavy Tetris game, but challenges with the license led him to instead create a new concept."
  • "Yokota experimentally constructed a rhythm beat-by-beat in time with the movement of the game's timeline bar." -> "Yokota experimented with musical rhythms that matched the speed of the game's timeline bar."
  • "Yokota initially thought the game would be limited to techno and dance music, and had doubts about the project because of the lack of musical variation" -> "Yokota initially thought the game would be limited to techno and dance music, and worried that the project lacked musical variety."
  • "Nakamura demonstrated solutions to the problem because he was capable of constructing a rich variety of songs built on a deep understanding of the game design" -> "Nakamura was able to overcome this problem by constructing a rich variety of songs, based on a deep understanding of the game design."
  • "Both Nakamura and Yokota swapped ideas to make the necessary adjustments to the development." -> I'm not sure this sentence says anything that isn't obvious. I suppose what makes this interesting is that the composer had a real impact on the game's development? I'd try to rephrase.
  • "In March 2018, Enhance Games, the studio founded by Lumines: Puzzle Fusion producer Mizuguchi, announced Lumines Remastered[b] for Microsoft Windows, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 (PS4), and Xbox One for release in June 2018." -> This might be easier to read as two sentences. (e.g.: one sentence about the release, another about the studio's foundation and history)
  • "that was originally downsampled " -> "that were previously downsampled"
  • "the visual effects were remade and certain blocks were redesigned" -> "certain blocks and visual effects were redesigned"
  • "Mizuguchi felt it was appropriate to test Lumines with this haptic gameplay feature" -> "Mizuguchi felt that the haptic gameplay feature would add something new to Lumines."
  • "if they were removed, it would not be half the game it currently is" -> the way this is phrased makes it sound odd. If you removed the music and visuals, I'm not sure it would be a game at all.
  • "Eurogamer thought the audio was superior, calling it "the real star of the show" due to additional beats implemented in the gameplay" -> "Eurogamer thought the audio was superior, explaining how the player's actions build the musical elements to a crescendo, making it "the real star of the show"."
  • " GameSpot praised..." -> "GameSpot also praised..." or "Similarly, GameSpot praised"
  • The four stage analysis of IGN is a little wordy and confusing, and doesn't really summarize their opinion of the game. I would look somewhere else to find their main point.
  • "GamePro proclaimed it reaches the rank of Tetris and Bejeweled." -> "GamePro proclaimed that it reaches the rank of Tetris and Bejeweled."
  • The first paragraph of the later releases section feels out of place, and the second paragraph would be a better way to start it. In fact, I'm not sure you need to bring up Tetris again at all.
  • "The phone port Lumines Mobile was also well-received by critics Many reviewers complimented the new features introduced." -> The phone port Lumines Mobile was also well-received by critics, who noted the game's new features."
  • PS2 should maybe be the full Playstation 2
  • "However, praised the addition..." -> "However, they praised the addition..."
  • "The absence of new features was disappointing to IGN and believed the "Plus" moniker did not describe the game's content." -> "The absence of new features was disappointing to IGN, who argued the "Plus" moniker was misleading."
  • "The lack of Lumines II features was not considered a flaw according to Eurogamer due to it intending to be a port and not a sequel. Instead, they were more critical of the missing songs from the original, and the inclusion of new tracks making the game too long to play." -> "Eurogamer was more critical of the missing songs from the original, and felt that the new track selections made the game too long to play."
  • "GamePro did not find the game fun at all, claiming the music would break concentration on the gameplay." -> "GamePro did not find the game fun at all, claiming that the music distracted from the gameplay."
  • "Hardcore Gamer praised the music remaining to be exquisite, with multiple songs being among their favorites." -> on further reading, I don't think this is the best summary of what they said, and could be rephrased with something more clear and impactful
  • "totaling over half a million" -> "totaling over half a million sales"
  • "The games were followed up with Lumines Supernova," -> "The games were followed by Lumines Supernova,"
  • "Another sequel titled Lumines: Touch Fusion was made for iOS devices; this game has all of the features of the original except for the Versus modes, and players use touch controls to move and rotate blocks." -> "An iOS game called Lumines: Touch Fusion was made for touch controls, with all of the features of the original except for the Versus modes."
  • "The following sequel titled Lumines: Electronic Symphony" -> "A follow-up titled Lumines: Electronic Symphony was"
I know that's a lot, so just do your best. The article is coming along. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I address almost everything. The one I didn't do yet was the PS2 version due to it already being mentioned in full with (PS2) next to it within the "Release" section of the article. But, if you still believe it is detrimental to the FAC, I won't fight you on it and will revise it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrap-up
This looks good. Giving it one more quick look. I see a few sentences that read awkwardly:
  • "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion was the first game developed by Q Entertainment, a company founded by designer Tetsuya Mizuguchi following his departure from Sega which was developed in a year by a staff of six people" (the last part about its development time feels tacked on, and may as well be rewritten as its own sentence.)
  • "The subtitle "Puzzle Fusion" was meant to reflect the music aspect as much as the game itself" (I realize you're quoting the article, but the article is unclear about what "the game itself" means. You're better off using this to describe the variety of music styles, and the way the music is reassembled through gameplay.)
  • "Hardcore Gamer praised the music for being able to be recognizable and enjoyable, and noted multiple songs being among their favorites" -> "Hardcore Gamer praised the music as enjoyable, with multiple songs among their favorites"
I appreciate your patience and hard work. There is always room to improve the prose even further, but I think those last few issues will get this to featured quality, by my evaluation. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: I applied the changes. Let me know if any additional changes need to be made.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting in all that work. The article is significantly better on the whole. I can support based on the prose. If you have time, Accolade (company) is also well into its second try for its featured article review, and could use another set of eyes. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shooterwalker: Apologies for interrupting this review, but I just wanted to let you know that a featured article candidate and a featured article review are two very different things and are not used interchangeably. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Consider adding the English pronunciation to the lead. - hahnchen 09:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TarkusAB edit

The writing quality is just not there. In the lead alone, I found these issues:

  • As players progress through the game, it transitions between skins, affecting the colors and music. - What transitions between skins? I'm not sure what this means
  • debut work - not really a "debut" because he already was known for his work at Sega. Not the right word to use. This sentence makes it sound like he did grunt work at Sega, which is not true.
  • Mizuguchi originally wanted to create a Tetris game with music but due to licensing issues, he was unable to and instead created Lumines. Originally, Mizuguchi wanted to make a music-heavy Tetris game, but licensing issues meant this was not possible, leading him to create a new concept for Lumines. - You repeated the (almost) same sentence twice.
  • Mizuguchi was inspired by the PSP, one of the few handhelds on the market that had a headphone jack. - Inspired in what sense? Inspired to develop for it? Did he already pick out the system, and the headphone jack inspired the game design?
  • After listening to one of Mondo Grosso's songs, Mizuguchi requested multiple of them to be included in the game and sequenced into a theme of a night-long party. - When I read this, I was lead to believe that Mondo Grosso's music was a significant part of the game. But, he only contributed 4 tracks, he is only mentioned once in the article, and he is not listed as the composer. Not sure why this is in the lead.
  • Multiple ports were released including for - the phrasing released including for sounds unnatural, I don't think "including" is needed
  • The game was praised for integrating gameplay and music, and for its addictive gameplay. Repitition of the word 'gameplay'
  • The ports received less praise than the original: the mobile phone... I don't think that's a correct use of a colon
  • The remastered version was received positively The phrasing 'received positively' feels unnatural
  • The word 'criticized' is used three times in the third paragraph
  • becoming the first entry of a series. It sounds ominous to not give the name of the series, even though it's the same name as the game.

There are many other issues with the writing across the article. Just from skimming around:

  • unnatural phrasing or sentence patterns: Lumines: Puzzle Fusion became the first game in a series, as it was followed by several sequels. - So since it was followed by several sequels, only then, it became the first game in the series?
  • Grammar issues: It was released digitally on Xbox 360 via Xbox Live and began distribution - Games don't "begin distribution", publishers or distributors do. Games are the ones being distributed. A physical double LP version was made available for also for - for also for
  • lack of professional vocabulary: Due to the constraints of the PSP's sound system What is meant by "constraints" and "sound system"? Are you talking about the speakers? Are you talking about the system's drivers to process sounds through a game engine? What is constraining about it? Lack of tracks? You can definitely play MP3s on the PSP so there is no shortage of what is possible in terms of musical variety. Takayuki Nakamura composed music and Katsumi Yokota worked on music and graphics. - this reads pretty weak and is not engaging, especially since two of them worked on music and that was the best wording you could muster up here. "worked on" is vague. I don't know the specifics of what they contributed, but something like this would be better, for example: "Takayuki Nakamura composed the music with assistance from amateur musician Katsumi Yokota." This properly establishes who was in charge and Yokota's naivety. Since you don't talk about the graphics until later, mention that Yokota did the graphics at that point, perhaps. Thesauruses are your friend.
  • lack of clarity: The music was developed with the ability to be changed by the gameplay. This is just such a...empty sentence that doesn't tell me anything. Well first, music is not developed, it is written/composed. That is, unless you are talking about the programming of how the music tracks are handled? Hmmmm, not sure what you are trying to say. How does the music music change exactly? In gameplay, you just mentioned tempo changes, but in the next sentence you seem to imply that tracks can come in and out? I believe what you are trying to say around here is something like this --> "He carefully considered his composition methods, as dynamic gameplay changes would trigger tempo shifts or muting of individual audio channels."
  • words repeated unnecessarily (3x sentences starting with Yokata back-to-back)
  • Mixed issues Yokota experimented with musical rhythms that matched the speed of the game's timeline bar. We've already established that it's music and Yokota we are talking about. Is "timeline" one word or two? You are not consistent across the article. "Synchronized" is better word than "matched". --> "He experimented with rhythms that synchronized with the time line bar's movement across the screen."
  • Punctuation Puzzle mode challenges players to create pictures using blocks In Versus mode

Looking at the FA criteria the article seems to meet everything but 1.a. (well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard). It's not engaging, and doesn't feel professional. Looking at how many fixes were already implemented above, and seeing as I'm still finding silly mistakes, I'm a little concerned. Did this get a peer review before nominated for FA? Did it get a copy edit from the GOCE? I'm not seeing on the talk page that it got either. The problems I identified above are just examples; I am not asking for these fixes to be implemented now because I think there is much more work needed. I think this is pretty far off from FA. TarkusABtalk/contrib 12:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TarkusAB:. it did go through the guild of copy editors once when going through GA review, but I ended up having to edit over it as the previous one didn't do a good job. But I'll see what i can do to improve it even if it doesn't meet FA. Thank you for your review.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild edit

Sorry Blue Pumpkin Pie, I appreciate the huge amount of work you have put into this, but the prose is a long way from 1a. I think that this is best withdrawn to work on this aspect - there is, IMO, more needed in this area than should be done during a FAC. @FAC coordinators: in the view of my comments and those of other reviewers you may wish to consider archiving this anyway to be brought up to standard off-FAC with a view to a re-nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: very well. I won't feel too upset about it not meeting FA, especially since the only problem that is being mentioned is 1a. If you could just tell me some tips or advice that you think is a common mistake during the writing process? Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If only it were that simple. I am afraid that it has quite a few errors of quite a few different types. I doubt that you are going to fix it on your own. If you relist it at GoCE/R, mentioning that the prose seems to be the only thing preventing a consensus to promote, then Reidgreg or Jonesey95 may copy edit it themselves, or ensure that it is steered towards an editor who understands what is required for FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm always willing to learn and improve.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'll treat this as a withdrawal and close it so you can work on it away from the pressures of the FAC process, including GOCE and perhaps Peer Review after that, and then you could look at another nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copy-editing the article. I am not familiar with FAC, but if prose was preventing this article from reaching FA status, it should be fine now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

National Football League edit

Nominator(s): Thenearestexitmightbebehindyou (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional American football league. Thenearestexitmightbebehindyou (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose only one nomination per nominator allowed, see the FAC instructions. Also, this article could use more preparation. Currently unreliable sources are cited such as wordpress blogs and forbes contributors. (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - drive-by nomination of an article including uncited text in places. Nominator has been editing less than a week; I would encourage them to focus on other areas until they gain some more experience. Hog Farm Talk 21:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest procedural close. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the nominator has now been indefinitely blocked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: - nominator has since been checkuser-blocked, and this is their 4th nomination since the beginning of August (other three have been archived). This should be closed. Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping HF. Unfortunately an ongoing pattern of behaviour, I guess we'll get a breather now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 6 August 2021 [12].

Mohanlal edit

Nominator(s): Thenearestexitmightbebehindyou (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indian actor and producer. Thenearestexitmightbebehindyou (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose due to verifiability issues, does not meet the minimum inline citation requirement for FAC. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - previous nomination failed less than a week ago. Nominator is not a significant contributor to article and has been editing less than a week. Article contains uncited text in aa blp article such as the entire paragraph "In 1994, Mohanlal starred in the lead role as Dr. Sunny Joseph in the Fazil-directed cult classic Manichitrathazhu, as a psychiatrist. Spadikam was a 1995 work for which he won his third Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor and fifth Filmfare Award for Best Actor (Malayalam) for his portrayal of Thomas "Aadu Thoma" Chacko, a young man who becomes a thug, estranged from his father, upon failing to meet the latter's high expectations. In 1996, Mohanlal starred in Priyadarshan's Kaalapani, an epic film about the prisoners in the Cellular Jail of Port Blair and Lohithadas's Kanmadam (1998). He played the lead role in Guru, directed by Rajiv Anchal in 1997. The film was chosen as India's official entry to the Oscars to be considered for nomination in the Best Foreign Language Film category for 1997.". Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest procedural close given that the waiting period has not elapsed since @Ian Rose: closed the previous nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- same scenario as the last time(s); TNEMBBU pls read the instructions at the top of the FAC page and don't nominate articles you haven't contributed to significantly, or which are missing citations to reliable sources. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 1 August 2021 [13].

George W. Bush edit

Nominator(s): Thenearestexitmightbebehindyou (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 43rd president of the United States. Thenearestexitmightbebehindyou (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as the nominator already has a FAC open and an editor can only have one FAC open at a time. I would recommend that this is withdrawn. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- tks Aoba, the other nom is closed now partly because the nominator is not a contributor to the article and partly because of uncited text, and this one has the same issues; in any case an article on a subject like this really needs to go to Peer Review before a FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 1 August 2021 [14].

Star Alliance edit

Nominator(s): Thenearestexitmightbebehindyou (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a global airline alliance headquartered in Germany. Thenearestexitmightbebehindyou (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Citation needed tags and nominator is not a significant contributor to the article. Hog Farm Talk 22:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- per HogFarm, procedural close as no edits by nominator, and also requires further work on uncited text/data. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 1 August 2021 [15].

Mohanlal edit

Notified: Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, Pachu Kannan, WikiProject Kerala, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, Mohanlal is a very important Personality in Kerala, India Shaji issac (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a misplaced FAC. @WP:FAR coordinators: - article in question is not an FA. Hog Farm Talk 09:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose uncited text, ref formatting issues (missing the publisher), citing blogspot, are the most visible issues. (t · c) buidhe 10:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very vaguely worded oppose. We need examples of these issues, a sense of how frequent they are, and why it is clear that they cannot be fixed within the purview of FAC. I know nothing about the topic nor have any interest in it, but am perplexed by the indifferent dismissal, especially when the FAC regulars park half-baked articles that are improved over months. Why should we take your word for it? An oppose should demonstrate at least a tenth of the rigor that is being asked for in the article. Pretty shameful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawal. Hi Shaji, thanks for your interest in getting this article promoted. Featured articles are decided not based on whether they are important, but whether they meet the FA criteria. Unfortunately at this point this article does not. I would suggest if you're eager to improve the article that you seek a peer review to provide suggestions on how to approach that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another insouciant oppose, if a little more polite. Please elaborate with examples, not just with pieties. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest F&F stops badgering. It's pretty clear when you have unreferenced statements like ...:
    "Mohanlal did the lead role in the multi-starrer blockbuster"
    "where he uses standard Indian political gimmicks to win the election in the USA."
    "The film dealt with the discrimination against women."
    "The revenge thriller Kanal was his last in the year. It also received mixed reviews from critics."
    "Mohanlal was the captain of the Kerala Strikers team in the Celebrity Cricket League (CCL) held in 2012 and 2013."
    " He has often stated that the turn of events in his life, including his film career, was accidental"
    "likes to read Osho, J. Krishnamurti, Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi."
... that this needs a peer review as a minimum, and its nomination here is premature in extremis. It took two minutes to find those bare issues, a thorough review is required, including grammar and markup, before this is ready for FAC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for grammar, the adverbial phrase is more commonly "at the minimum" or "at a minimum." (abbreviated sometimes as min. OED: min, n.4, adj.2, and adv: = minimum n. and adj. Also as adv.: at the minimum. 1943 P. Larkin Let. 16 Sept. in Sel. Lett. (1992) 70 Salary £260 (The Admiralty had been £300 plus bonus)..min.
  • If you are attempting to use "as a minimum" grammatically, you better have something after it: "as a minimum requirement," "as a minimum standard," ...
  • 2819 (words)/7198 (total prose size) = two fifths. So you found your first example two-fifths of your way through the article. Do you have something a little earlier that would justify "premature In extremis" (in extremis: in the last agonies of death; at the very point of death;) which even pediatric ER doctors use with caution if they use it at all.
  • Please tell me all of you: how many uncited sentences are there in the article and what proportion do they constitute? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would take a line-by-line spotcheck to provide an exact figure, because in addition to the material visibly lacking citations (examples of which TRM has pointed out), there are also instances where a citation is provided but does not adequately support the material. For example, in the first body section we see "He had an elder brother named Pyarelal (died in 2000, during a military exercise)." (the source provided supports that he had a brother, but not their order nor the brother's death); "Mohanlal's first role was as a sixth grader for a stage play called Computer Boy, in which he played a ninety-year-old man" (source supports that he was in that play in sixth standard but not what role he played); and "During 1977 and 1978 he was the Kerala state wrestling champion" (source indicates that he was "a Kushti champion at the Veerakerala Gymkhana in the year 1978" and doesn't mention 1977). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, F&F seems adept at attempting to review the reviews, but contributes not much more here. Such a shame. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd. It's a quick-fail here at FAC yet F&F is railing against all of us who are suggesting that it needs more. In the meantime, I'm seeing nothing useful from F&F. Suggest this is closed down and F&F is given advice from those who know them...... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I do not mean to pile on this review, but I agree with the above opposition arguments. There are uncited sentences throughout the article and that is a major issue. I agree with Nikkimaria that a peer review would be the better place for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How very strange. Arrogant judgments are being delivered by people who have not bothered to suggest once to the nominator that they try to find the citations. How are they able to divine rank incompetence in this instance, but fail to do so when their familiars bring their limping permutations on tired themes? No worries, just making sure that nothing has changed in Lotusland. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Arrogant judgments" and "not bothered to suggest once to the nominator that they try to find the citations" well, there you go. And this nomination ends here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I suggest that someone has a discussion with F&F about this kind of disruptive behaviour before it gets to ANI. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work F&F on not helping but guaranteeing this nomination was sunk. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Coord note -- it isn't a requirement for reviewers to list every issue in a nomination to determine that the article is underprepared and should be improved outside the FAC process; as suggested above, Peer Review should be the next venue after that, before considering a re-nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2021&oldid=1040426759"