Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2017

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2017 [1].

---

Lead

Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk), R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the seven metals of antiquity. I've been working with R8R Gtrs to get it up to this level on and off since about last year, and the talk page reviews make me confident that it finally meets the criteria. (Naturally, I consulted R8R for the final confirmation of the go-ahead; this is my first FA nomination, after all!) Of course, I support as nominator. Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

notes by Hawkeye7

Groan. Let's start with getting it fully referenced, which should have happened back at GA. Find citations for:

References

• Fourth paragraph of "Bulk"
• First paragraph of "Isotopes"
• First paragraph of "Chemistry"
• Second, third and fourth paragraphs of "In space"
• First paragraph of "Confusion with tin and antimony"
• First, sixth and seventh paragraphs of "Elemental form"
• First paragraph of "Exposure sources"

After seeing this lengthy list, I initially thought, "oh my, do we actually have such a poorly referenced article that we have so many citationless paragraphs?" Turns out most of these (exceptions being the "In space" and "Elemental form" paragraphs) are actually referenced. If there are particular claims in these paragraphs that you want to be referenced, please add them so that I could understand what I need to get references for (or feel free to use the {{cn}} tags).

Also, I'd want to note that the first paragraph in "Elemental form" contains no new information that has not been referenced elsewhere in the article.

I will, of course, add citations for the rest of problematic paragraphs and any specified problems if they follow.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Added the source I used when writing In space. Only Elemental form left.--R8R (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sandbh resolved this some time ago (thank you!).--R8R (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing references

• Add Thornton, Radu & Brush (2001) to the Bibliography

Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Link rot

• FN 24, 34, 41 and 209 are dead

Archived links for citations 24, 34, and 209. 41 does not qualify for a dead link (it is a hyperlink to Bibliography).--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete references

• FN 1, 64, 205 access date?

Done.--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 5, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 39, 49, 52, 58, 59, 6-, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74, 77, 87, 96, 104, 109, 120, 122, 124, 132, 133, 134, 153, 168, 169, 173, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 201, 206, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214 ISSN?

This is another requirement I've never heard of. In neither {{cite book}} nor {{cite journal}} have I found these among the ones most commonly used.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 13, 22, 53, 73 page number?

Done for no. 13. I removed the claim supported by no. 53. Citation 73 contains a monograph number, which is an acceptable option instead of page numbers. Resolution pending for no. 22.--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Found a replacement for no. 22.--R8R (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 19, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 65, 71, 73, 78, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 107, 112, 115, 116, 117, 121, 125, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199 location?

During my previous FACs, this never was a requirement. I had to have them all in or all out. As I faced this choice again prior to this FAC, I decided to have them all out as they add little meaningful information to the citation, if at all.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 64, 164 publisher?

Citation 64 is a reference to a web page and {{cite web}} advises against having a publisher in this case. Done for citation 164.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 155 Fix the date format

Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 211 Journal?

Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• FN 211 Date?

Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggest moving to the Bibliography

• FN 2, 6, 8, 13, 16, 19, 22, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 65, 71, 73, 78, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 112, 115, 116, 117, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199

I'd rather not as I don't see the point. I think it's generally better to get your citation in one click rather than two.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

notes by Nergaal

Lead

• its density of 11.34 g/cm3 => too many sig figs, and/or put it in parenthesis

How come two is too many, especially when we have a reliable source to cover the claim in the body?--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I generally don't like long numbers in intro

I don't see this number as long in any way. It's four digits long.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• of all practically stable elements => this is very unencyclopedic

This one is difficult to react on. What do I do to enhance encyclopedicness?--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"practically stable" is very weak

I actually think it's fine. Nonetheless, what do you suggest?--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

not radioactive? Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

try now Sandbh (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• the heaviest truly stable nuclide or something like that should be in intro

I deliberately removed that from the lead section as this is a fact of undue importance. In any practical sense, bismuth is the champion. Even if we go into theory, then it must be noted that lead is not truly stable in the sense of how it is expected to be radioactive as well. "Heaviest element that has not been observed to decay" is not just as catchy a claim.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lead is a post-transition metal => isn't it an "other metal" ? /s

No, it is coded in the periodic table as a post-transition metal. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

/s

@Nergaal: is this one ok now? Sandbh (talk).

/s Nergaal (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean /s? Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• lead shows a tendency => use exhibits

Sure.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• intro should mention that lead is one of the most common heavy metals in the human body, although it has no role (it's due to environmental presence)

I specified that in the body of the article. As for lead, I find it difficult to fit in one paragraph the claims of a) lead being one of the most common heavy metals in the human body despite no role; and b) lead being highly toxic given that no organization like WHO signals massive lead poisoning of the humanity. I've got enough space in the body, but I'll rather sacrifice claim a) here for a short self-contained description. By the way, I don't see some particular importance of the claim anyway.

All in all, cool (and I speficied that in the appropriate section) but doesn't fit in the lead.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• intro should mention that it is one of the few elements known since ancient times

We have an even stronger claim: "Lead [...] was known to prehistoric people in Western Asia."--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

yes, but it is one of only ~8 elements known since antiquity

I considered your idea one more time. It doesn't sound right: "Lead was known to prehistoric people. It was one of the eight elements that were known in the antiquity." (Note that antiquity comes after prehistory.) Don't see the point in specifying this given lead is present in an earlier era, an even more unique thing than being a metal of antiquity.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure one of the larger uses of lead is in gigantic capacitors that help stabilize the fluctuations of voltage of electric grids inside cities. Supercapacitor. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

atomic

• should be a bit more clear that relativistic effects favor +2

We have that covered in the more relevant section of Lead#Inorganic compounds.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

the section says +4 isn't common but I think it should explicitly say prefers +2 instead of +4 cause of relativistic effects

Again, we got that covered in Inorganic compounds, which is the most relevant place to talk about oxidation states in inorganic compounds anyway: "Lead shows two main oxidation states: +4 and +2. The tetravalent state is common for group 14. The divalent state is rare for carbon and silicon, minor for germanium, important (but not prevailing) for tin, and is the more important for lead: even the strongest oxidizing agents, oxygen, and fluorine, initially oxidize lead only to lead(II).[38] This is caused by relativistic effects, specifically the inert pair effect..."--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

See my additionNergaal (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks ok now. Sandbh (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• allotrope para is confusing: half of it is about what lead is not; trim that and pls add explicitly what other allotropes are known

took 3 mins: http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4873596

Oh, I stand corrected, thank you. I missed that one. Leave it with me for a bit. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Note added to end of atomic properties section. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Something is wrong with that paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be better now. Sandbh (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit more. See if it is fine. Nergaal (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• somewhere in the intro talk about lead banning/phase-out laws (and later on mention that study correlating drop in violent crimes 20yrs after lead gasoline was banned)

The purported link between crime and lead is mentioned in the Biological section. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

bulk

• are any allotropes metalloids?

No, since lead has no allotropes. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4873596

As per previous mention of allotropes. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Unknown, as above. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• melting point of lead is low compared to most metals => are there applications for lead baths due to this low mp? how dangerous are lead vapors (in industrial settings) considering this low mp?

I found that the answer is most probably no: "Where lead containing solders are used, the risk from lead is usually very low. This may seem strange given the high percentage of the metal in the solder. However, soldering is usually carried out at a temperature of around 380 C and significant lead fume is only evolved at temperatures above 450 C. So exposure by inhalation is normally insignificant. This is recognised in the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) supporting the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 (CLAW). Table 2 in the ACoP (reproduced below) lists processes which are not liable to result in significant exposure to lead. This list includes “Low-temperature melting of lead (below 500°C)” during soldering." And a few others.--R8R (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• really nice that you put all numbers in perspective to other elements

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

isotopes

• nowhere in the entire article is explained why is lead used as an x-ray shield => this is a particular use of lead that no other element really has;

We've got a picture of that but I agree, we can explicitly explain it. This will happen.--R8R (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note added. Sandbh (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• nd is a magic number => add in nuclear physics

Don't understand this one. What do you want to be done (and is it related to this article?)--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

magic number is a general term. here it is in the context of nuclear physics

I still don't understand. If you mean correcting the wikilink from magic number to magic number (nuclear physics), as I just read it, then it already points at the right article, Magic number (physics).--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I edited this bit and added a note about lead-208 being doubly magic. Should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

the stuff in parenthesis is what I was looking for. Nergaal (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• only primordial isotope => wikilink primordial

Sure.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• very slightly radioactive => i think radioactive it a bit much here; say decays extremely slowly

Done.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• d for any of them:[24] accordingly => why ":" ?

Agree; I put a semicolon.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• ranium series, actinium series, and thorium series => wikilink

There is nothing to wikilink these to. All three search queries redirect to decay chain, which has been linked by this point.

I though those series had separate articles, nvm then

• famous uses for lead–lead and uranium–lead dating?

We have a cool picture of a meteorite that mentions one example of such a use. Overall, I think that this is a relatively minor question for an overview article like thism and it's already long enough.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant say something in text that is used in dating meteorites and old geologic formations. I guess image caption covers it

• the 4th decay chain should be presented a bit more clear: i.e. it stops at Bi

Don't see why: it's not about lead. Again, space is limited.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

fair point. could you though clarify that the 3 Pb isotopes are end points of the chains?

I think we got that covered: "lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 are the final decay products of uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232, respectively".--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think fundamentally, it should be pointed out more explicitly somewhere that any heavier elements than Pb/Bi that existed when the solar system formed have decayed into Pb/Bi, except for the relatively small amounts of U and Th. it's a bit unclear right now to non-experts.

We do the talk at the more relevant section, Origin and occurrence (specifically, the In space part).--R8R (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking something more explicit along the lines of "the stable periodic table" ends at Pb/Bi; everything beyond that will eventually decay. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• this section should talk about double magic numbers and which isotopes of Pb are

Magic_number_(physics)#Double_magic

"atomic number is ... a physical magic number.". The first time I (a half-layman) encounter this 'magic number' thing. (Today I have added 'physical'). I stumble, because as an explanation of whatever, it is not enough. In science, one cannot say: "Why so?" "By magic number!" "Oh great, that's clear then". I'd expect italics for this new concept (but cannot find the MOS for this); a wl is not enough. Then, the word magic does not return, nor is it explained in any length. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

chemistry

• maybe mention in the chemistry section if anybody argued that Pb is a metalloid

There is only one relatively recent reference that I'm aware of that refers to Pb as a metalloid and, IIRC, one plumbing journal article from the 30's that refer to lead as a metalloid. I tend to feel that these references are too few and too obscure to merit a mention in this article. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• what typical test do freshman college courses use to identify lead samples? I can't remember exactly, but there is a standard benchtop test

I have not replied up to this point as I couldn't find it to build an opinion. I still can't. This makes me think it's not a big loss. --R8R (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is qualitative inorganic analysis (add HCl to precipitate out Pb²⁺), but that's not for metallic lead. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of, ions of lead. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• —plumbites— wikilinks strangely use ()

Fixed this one.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• I might be wrong, but wasn't one of Pb salts a "prototypic" packing unit cell (maybe PbS)?

Even if so, what does it change? It's just a name.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

other ox states

• say somewhere that [Pb9]4- is one of the common zintl anions of Pb and maybe give a picture of it

I don't follow: we already have a picture? As for "say something," I'd rather not. This whole Zintl topic is quite minor to write much text about it. I'd rather focus on lead(II) and lead(IV).

I didn't see the picture; the caption is way too long. I actually think the Zintl para might be too long. But [Pb9]4- is the most common one, more so than [Pb5]-. And is [Pb]4- considered Zintl? I thought you need E-E bonds for it.

Shorthened the caption. As for which one is more common: doesn't matter much. It's already in the picture so it seems reasonable to me to highlight something else in the text. Both are pretty minor anyway.

The source from Universitaet Freiburg indeed says Ba₂Pb is Zintl.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• switch 3rd para with 2nd para

Done.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lead(II)_sulfate.jpg is a cool image

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that link got there but I meant to say Galena has really cool looking images. There is nothing cool about boring white powder. Nergaal (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The article has a few cool images indeed, but these are mostly the mineral rather than the compound. We could take the space-filling unit cell model but we already have a few similar pics (though ask for it again and I won't insist).--R8R (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of this: file:Calcite-Galena-elm56c.jpg. Since it is the main common ore, why not have a picture of it that also looks cool? Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

origin

• the table seems a bit random, why were the present entries chosen?

The idea is that all elements are even-numbered; we have mercury as the closest even-numbered element, Th and U, and a few elements of comparable occurrence with a Z of 40--60 to illustrate that lead is indeed quite common for its atomic number.

still seems incredibly random. maybe merge it with the image below it since that one needs a better caption anyways

I adjusted the set of featured elements. Looks better to me now.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I get the >=78 choices, but I don't understand why 42, 46, and 50? why not compare it to other Z magic numbers? Also, looking at Elements_abundance-bars.svg I think it would be really important to say explicitly that it is the most aboundadnt element above Z=56? This would come as a natura conclusion from the fact that all ehavier stuff produced in supernova have decayed to enrich the solar system in Pb. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• is the relative abundance in the crust much different from that in the Solar System? Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I prepared some time ago an introductory sentence for this but apparently didn't add the figure itself. Added it now.--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm missing it. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Image caption should say Pb is rightmost-red spot (image is unreadable without zoom) Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The image is supposed to be read. This is a scheme, they are meant to be read. Besides, I don't understand what you mean. Lead is the middle row (pretty clear from the image itself).--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

the problem I am having is that the image is hard to read at that zoom level, so I thought having a pointer in the caption saying where is Pb on that graph would help. Even something like more common than all the elements with Z > ? would help. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "s 0.121 ppb (parts per billion" => so what rough rank does it have among elements? same for in earth, what rough rank? Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

etym

• should discuss meaning of plumbum / plumber also
• maybe mention other languages too

I don't want any other languages in this section. Etymology of the English word lead is the top priority in the English Wikipedia. As for other notable names and words---as in your plumbing example---this is better suited for History, and we actually cover it there.--R8R (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The etymologies in other languages don't relate so well to the English one as the ones for Fe which I included there. It is also difficult to find some of them, in particular Chinese 鉛 qiān (a lot of sites will give the graphic etymology of the character, which has nothing to do with the etymology of the word). Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

history

• sugar of lead => use "" for this term and give the chemical compound name in text

Done. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• decline of Rome theories => list what effects of lead poisoning satisfy this theory; why do some researchers argue against?

As for what caused this theory: we've mentioned by this point that "writers of the time, such as the Cato the Elder, Columella, and Pliny the Elder, recommended lead (or lead-coated) vessels for the preparation of sweeteners and preservatives added to wine and food." Also see note l. As for why against: expanded a bit.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add more later. Nergaal (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• How come no discussion on alchemy and association with Saturn?

We got that covered, too: "Lead poisoning—a condition in which one becomes dark and cynical—was called "saturnine" after the ghoulish father of the gods, Saturn, and, by association, lead was considered the father of all metals.[115]"--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/alchemy/82/lead and Alchemical_symbol#Seven_planetary_metals Nergaal (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. We had this some time ago, so I thought we still do. We'll add it back when we have more alchemy material available (my point of concern is that we have European alchemy but not Arabian one. This wouldn't be a big loss in a printed book, but Wiki is a different business). Hopefully, this won't take too much time.--R8R (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alchemy content added. Sandbh (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Pls add File:Saturn_symbol.svg somewhere, since for the longest time that was practical symbol for lead. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lead is mentioned in the Old Testament

I've taken a long time to think about this one. Added.--R8R (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

footnote m is weird. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• why did the pope declare it forbidden? did they base it on toxicological reasons?

Yes. Lead often caused colics. Do you want that in the text?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise it reads incomplete. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• were lead cannonball ever used?

I googled it and the answer is yes, though apparently, lead's softness is a disadvantage. Unlike bullets, these weren't used as long.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I put a link above. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• what lead compounds were used for whitening faces?

Too many to list, I think. See here--R8R (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think at least White lead should be mentioned. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sandbh (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Where? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Outside Europe and Asia" can be merged with previous section

These subtitles were not my invention in first place. I liked the story not being torn apart by headers. Nonetheless, if we do use them, I'd want to keep this one. The reason for that would be the content of this paragraph (lead mining in the Americas, Africa, and Australia) differs from the previous one (lead usage in (mostly) medieval and Renaissance Europe).--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Technically you should mention Ancient Egypt uses of lead in cosmetics. Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Lead production in the United States dominated by 1900" you mean US became the major producer?

changed to "The United States became world's largest producer by 1900." Hopefully, it's good now.--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Into the modern era" is a bit too artistic

True. Is it bad though? If so, can you suggest an alternative?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just say "Modern Era" or "In Modern Era". Also, remove The from the previous subtitle. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "ountries in Europe and the United States started efforts to reduce the amount of lead that people came into contact with" when was the first significant program?

Depends on what you define as significant. In my view, that is the White Lead convention, which prompted many European countries to ban lead paints for some applications (Ctrl+F "1930" in the text). You may also think of the following fragment as of the answer: "In the UK, Sir Thomas Morrison Legge became the ®rst Medical Inspector of Factories in 1898. A centralized system of factory inspection had been created under the Factories and Workshop Act of 1878, and Legge did pioneering work to implement the Act". I stand by paints, and we mentioned them.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

add it pls. this could be mentioned in the restriction of lead usage section as a "landmark" towards rolling back its use. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "adding of tetraethyllead to gasoline" => because it did what?

Served as an antiknock agent. Added.--R8R (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• "From 1960 to 1990, lead output in ..." and after is a bit TMI; trim this production part since it is present in the next section

I disagree. First of all, 1990 was over 25 years ago; it is history. Second, it's natural to focus a bit more what is common to the contemporary people. Third, there is actually no overlap that I see. Production does not deal with the 1980s; it deals with the 2010s (i.e., the present as opposed to comparably recent past).--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time the text talks about increase of "31%". Up until now it's been only X had largest, Y produced over half, etc. Keep the gist and move extra % to a subarticle. Nergaal (talk)

The idea of percentages is that lead production did not decline despite all the new regulations on it. I put a colon in the end of the previous sentence to demonstrate that.--R8R (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere else you said that stuff shouldn't be in this main article. I think exact changes (besides trends) should be left out of the main para. Just trim those sentences to increase by a third in the Western Block and tripling in the eastern Block. However, starting with mid 20th century, China began industrializing and by 2004 became the largest producer. This had negative health effects like in the west. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• has coal burning in plants been a source of worry for lead poisoning? I would be very surprised it it isn't part of the "clean coal" idea

It has, but apparently mercury is the main heavy metal to worry about. Let's get back to this when we reach the section on environment.--R8R (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• nowhere here nor later in text is explained why lead-based paint has been popular? was it white lead compounds that don't lose whiteness? was it cheap prices?

The heavy metal additive also decreases the amount of time that the paint takes to dry, makes the paint more durable, and causes the paint to be more moisture resistant. This made lead-based paint ideal for use in homes, on metal exposed to the elements, and even children’s toys.

I'll integrate this into the text.--R8R (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I googled more and it turns out the main advantage was its opacity. Added.--R8R (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• in reference to the previous point: not sure where to put this, but isn't lead a relatively cheap element (because it is easily concentrated?)? I think it's because of this, lead has had many applications. Maybe mention somewhere that lead has been historically relatively accessible/cheap. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

production

• "Production and consumption of lead is increasing worldwide (due to its use in lead-acid batteries)" this is so vague

It is meant to be vague. This is the first sentence in the section. We proceed to specifics later.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the parenthesis OR or it's from an actual source? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The top lead producing countries were " when?

Here's some context:

In 2013, 4.74 million metric tons came from primary production and 5.74 million tons from secondary production. The top mining countries for lead in that year were China, Australia, Russia, India, Bolivia, Sweden, North Korea, South Africa, Poland, and Ireland. The top lead producing countries were China, United States, India, South Korea, Germany, Mexico, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and Australia.[143]

Is it really unclear?--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Missed that. But you don't need to give out top10 mining if you have a table. Why not give a production table too and trim the text to only major producers. Nergaal (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought about this. Yet there are two considerations:

• We don't have data for miners and producers from the same year. The lists mention data from the same year, 2013, to keep the data listed side-by-side, because listing them side by side implies the reader can compare the two sets, and the comparison is only correct when the data is from the same time range.
• The most up-to-date data for mining is from 2015. For production, it's only 2013. Removing the 2013 mining data suggests we run into the problem I described above or lose the option of comparing the two sets. Removing the 2015 mining data means we don't list the newest data we have.

Also, two tables side by side don't look nice. Bringing them into one table could be better, but the sets of countries don't match.

That's why it's the way it currently is.--R8R (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The second table doesn't need to be right in the same place. I suggest having it in the section before. Different year is fine. The image is nice, but might as well add a table with numbers too. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "the global per capita stock of lead in use " annual?

What do you mean, "annual stock"?--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood that. It is trying to say the total lead amount divided by the world population is 8 kg / person, but it is said in a pretty convoluted manner. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "a very low percentage of lead," is lead mined as a primary or a secondary ore?

In galena, lead is the primary metal. In basically any other mineral lead is obtained from -- secondary.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess my question here is similar to the one below: is the ore mined for lead primarily, or for a set of metals where lead is secondary? since lead is pretty cheap I have hard time imagining they mine the ore for the lead primarily. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "which has a lead content fraction of 30–80%" by what? mass? as in almost pure PbS?

Yes. 80% was referred to as an exceptional case though.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Specified the regular percentages.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• isn't sulfuric acid a major (more important) desired product of the production chain?

I have re-read Ullmann on this. Nowhere does it say so.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• the text almost implies that Pb is produced more of as a by-product of sulfuric acid and Au/Ag production chain. am I wrong? how much of the bottomline $ do these other products represent

I don't see why you think so but I'll leave this for now to think about it. I believe percentages are beyond the scope of the article.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

my thought here is there a "producer or lead" or the producer makes something and also recovers lead to increase profit? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "silica fluoride" should be linked

Nothing to link to, but I spelled out the formula.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

who cals SiF6 2- a silica fluoride? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

applications

• are uranium tank shells a direct replacement of Pb shells or W ones? in other words, does the army use/used Pb outside small bullets?

I've taken my time to look for it. As for tank armor, I think the answer is no (unless you mean big containers by "tanks"). I was unable to quickly identify a good detailed source in English, but I used my knowledge of Russian to see the Soviet/Russian army never relied on lead much, if at all (Russia has the largest standing tank army).--R8R (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant stuff like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/archaeology/9991936/Mary-Rose-reveals-armour-piercing-cannonball-secret.html Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. And very cool. Sandbh (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• lead glass is about PbO, so it shouldn't be in the elemental form section

Indeed. I removed this information as Compounds already mentions its use as a colorant.--R8R (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• there should be a bit more info about lead statues. check this out. Degas used lead armatures for some of his bronze statues [2]

Done. Sandbh (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• are certain instruments traditionally made of lead

"Instrument" is a wide term. What do you mean?--R8R (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of lead pipe, but lead means something else here. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

biological

• "The main target for lead toxicity in humans is the central nervous system." then "The primary cause of lead's toxicity is its predilection for interfering with the proper functioning of enzymes."

From what I understand, there is no contradiction here.--R8R (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

you mean the enzymes in the second sentence are in CNS or in general? if the latter it reads weird. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• what is "Chinese brass"

Antique metalware made from brass in China.--R8R (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Restriction of lead usage" should have more dates on first ban examples; also, when were lead pipes banned since even in colonial US they seem to be in use

Nobody said anything about banning lead pipes in the U.S. They were, however, subjected to closer attention and government-approved anticorrosion measures. See Lead and Copper Rule.

As for more dates: what dates are we missing?--R8R (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Like first state/place in the world that banned leaded gasoline? or leaded paint? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• are there any plans for lead cleanup? where is lead waste being dumped?

Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• there is no mention of actual amounts in the human body (average, highest recorded?) Nergaal (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see of what use could highest recorded rates be. Probably it would be one of those people who has been shot a huge number of times. Seriously, though, I genuinely don't see the point of looking at the extreme cases.

As for average ones: I have seen that many papers quote the figure "120 mg" (thus 1.7 ppm assuming a 70 kg human), but I'm staying away from it following this quote: "Lead in human bodies comes from food, drinking water, and the environment. The rates vary greatly by country.[188]" The source is a WHO report.--R8R (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"human body is exceeded only by iron and zinc. " should add an average number of mg an average adult has in their body. also, is this problematic in cremations? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm

Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• some images from lead poisoning might be worthwhile adding here

Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246629/ Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

John

Oppose on prose. Sample clunky sentence: "One of them is lead-210; although it has a half-life of 22.3 years,[26] a period too short to allow any primordial lead-210 to exist, some small non-primordial quantities of it occur in nature, because lead-210 is found in the uranium series: thus, even though it constantly decays away, it is constantly regenerated by decay of its parent, polonium-214, which, while also constantly decaying, is also supplied by decay of its parent, and so on, all the way up to original uranium-238, which has been present for billions of years on Earth." This is not the standard required. We also don't need to use the respell template on such a common word. Further comments will follow but my initial impression is that this is a long way off where it needs to be to pass. --John (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I've broken this sentence into two, and it indeed looks better this way. As for respell: I think it does not hurt in an infobox. I can, however, relate to the point that we don't need a transcription in the text if you raise that.

Eagerly waiting for your further comments. Hopefully your initial impression will change, after either you read the article in whole or we solve the problems you raise.--R8R (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

About using respell: Lead (disambiguation) told me there is a major and significant difference between this lead and (to) lead. I'd prefer to keep it respelled. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mmm. I would argue that the detailed info about the various versions of this word are better placed at the dab page than on a hypothetical future version of this page which is of FA quality. --John (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No. It was there five years ago already, and rightly so. As I said, different pronunciation for a same-spelled word is huge (unless one knows this beforehand, of course?). There is no argument in "I don't need it, so nobody does", or even worse: "you can look it up elsewhere". Also, please leave the cynicism out. The undisputed fact that your knowledge of English language is great does not allow you to look down on others. That part of 'being English' we don't need. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Further comments; image formatting is weird, extensive over-writing (count the "however"s), why is "sugar of lead" in italics? The more I look the more problems I see. A Featured Article has to be written elegantly to be clearly understood. This looks like it was written to maximise the word count. --John (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• (9X "as such")
• (3X "however")
• (1X "moreover")
• (1X "nevertheless")
• (1X "additionally")
• (11X "while")
• (5X "although")

None of these words are forbidden, but as a rule of thumb they should occur about an order of magnitude less frequently than this in a FA. This is a symptom of a general lack of attention to language throughout the article. Merely replacing or removing these words would be necessary but not sufficient. --John (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've asked Sandbh to take care of prose quality. He is able to produce beautiful prose in English, so I am confident this will be resolved; just bear with us.

Interim progress note: I've reduced the words of concern from 31 to 3. Have just noticed there are 24X "also" (another of John's favourite, rightly not) so will get started on trimming these too. Sandbh (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

''Interim progress note 2: All the "also's" have become also-rans (one managed to seek refuge in a note). Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

''Interim progress note 3: I've copy-edited all sections bar the lead and the one on Biological and environmental effects. After that I'll check for paragraph flow, and wiki-linking, and by then I hope to be done. Sandbh (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Concluding remarks. My copy-editing is done. Paragraph flow checked. Wikilinks checked and adjusted. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced italics for "sugar of lead" with quotation marks, which seem to be more appropriate. As for image formatting: what's wrong with it? I'd react somehow, but I don't yet even realize what the problem is.--R8R (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Maybe I can make some suggestions myself? The usual plural of "alkali" in English is "alkalis". --John (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I first learned about this spelling when my browser highlighted the "alkalis" that I typed as an unknown word. I then referred to my usual reference dictionary, Merriam-Webster. It says, "plural alkalies or alkalis," putting the -ies form before the -is one. I think this makes the use of "alkalies" in American English justified.--R8R (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Thanks to all for the replies. I (probably) wouldn't oppose solely over the respell template (although we certainly don't need a pronunciation guide in the lead as well!). I think I would oppose over the spelling issue. I don't deny that "alkalies" exists, but what is the benefit of using this highly unusual spelling rather than the one used most often? I certainly oppose strongly over the stodgy prose. A major copyedit is required. Images should be formatted according to WP:IMGSIZE as well. Feel free to ping me when you want me to take another look. --John (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

re "we certainly don't need a pronunciation guide in the /ˈliːd/ as well!"? Is there one, then?

re: wouldn't oppose solely over the respell template: there are arguments.

And to keep in mind: not all our Readers can pronounce the IPA alphabet. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: The fact that so many issues were raised so quickly here makes me think that this article wasn't quite ready for FAC. Aside from the already lengthy list of concerns, we also have an oppose recommending a major copy-edit. Therefore, I am archiving this nomination. I would recommend that the nominator work with the reviewers here and return to FAC after at least the two-week minimum wait when these concerns have all been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2017 [3].

---

Fragment of a Crucifixion

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Early 1950's Francis Bacon, when he was at the height of his powers. There is more than meets the eye here, it's post-war and overwhelmingly nihilist, with a grand arch of utter futility. Yet there is so much engagement and charisma; he just throws it out. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Some comments:

• In the lead, we read "A chimera holds a muscular male dog in its claws": I can't find any reason in the article for the certainty that the dog is meant to be male, and it's not at all obvious to me from looking at pictures of the work (though I have never seen it in person, so maybe it is more obvious then?).
• The description in the lead is very confusing to me. It reads as if the painting depicts a dog and two chimeras, but I am certain that there are only two creatures in the foreground of the painting.
• It seems odd to say that the lower figure is "obviously modelled on a dog" when the footnote which goes with it says that the Tate, who one would hope know what they are talking about, think it modelled on a cat.
• "Horizontal frames became an obsession major motif in his 1950s works": this doesn't seem to make sense.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the read. i'm going to withdraw this for now. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2017 [4].

---

Make Me Like You

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the second single from Gwen Stefani's third studio album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like. It recently underwent a major copyedit that has heavily improved the prose, which was likewise the main reason why it failed its previous FAC. Like I previously said, I am willing to do anything to bring this article to the FA status! Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments by Aoba47 I could be wrong, but I think that if you include a quote in the lead, then you still have to cite it even if it is in the body of the actual article. I am referring to "beachy" in the first paragraph of the lead. There is an "attribution needed" tag for the "colorful" quote so I think I am correct on this, but you can always double-check with a user experienced with working on music-related articles. Done I would suggest revising the sentence concerning the critical response to the video by removing the "colorful" quote and making it more reflective of the response as a whole (as you do cite multiple reviews and this should be touched on in the lead somewhat). If the "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows" are counted separately from the "This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour", then please make a note that she performed the single during this tour as well. Done The phrase "new ones" sounds too informal to me. I would simply say "she began recording music based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton" instead. This is my personal preference, but I think it would strengthen this part, especially since it is the first sentence of the body of the article. Done I am not sure I understand what you mean by "lyrical transition". Do you mean the transition from writing about Gavin to writing about Blake? What do you mean by it "ended? Could you make the meaning of this a little more clear. I would say "she called it her favorite self-composed song" to make it clear that you are referring to that it was one of her favorite songs that she wrote it. Done I would cut down the sentence about the Jimmy Kimmel to simply say that Stefani confirmed that the song was about Shelton. You could add that Stefani was initially resistant about answering Kimmel's question or something along those lines, but I do not find the quotes to be entirely necessary to get the point across here. I would replace "and Tranter contributed to" with "with Tranter contributing to" as I feel that it would make the sentence flow a little bit better. What do you mean by "a vibrant melody"? It can sound a little like a peacock term, in that it sounds more like praise for the song rather than an objective observation on the song's production. I would either suggest removing it or clarifying this point to avoid misinterpretation. I would recommend listing the names of her two previous albums in the Zach Gase sentence in the "Composition and Lyrics" with a wikilink and dates for both. The phrase "the pluses of a breakup" sounds a little too informal to me. I understand what you mean and I personally like it, but I am not sure it fits on Wikipedia. Maybe "the benefits of a breakup" instead? The quote "inflect[s] emotion in her voice" sounds somewhat POVish to me. Like I stated with one of my previous comments, I want to advise that the section stays as objective as possible, and this seems a little too strongly written with praise in mind. Who is the person/publication saying this? I would recommend you attribute who is saying this in the article, and use your own words to describe Stefani's vocal performance as emotional to avoid this. When looking at the source, I find the quote to be odd as the reviewer mentions Stefani showing her emotions, but the he also says the audience may ignore it completely so be careful with the use of the source in this context. You use "confront" and "confrontation" in close proximity in the "Composition and lyrics" section. Please change one of these for variety. There are a lot of quotes in the "Critical reception" section. I know that I am very guilty of doing this in my own writing on here, but I would advise cutting back to using quotes in which the word choice is very important and paraphrasing with your own words in other sections. I would add "becoming" in front of "Stefani's least-successful release in that country". You repeat "directed" twice in close proximity in the "Background and development" subsection of the "Music video" section. Please change this. Add "the" in front of "exclusive distributor". I would replace "After it was over" to "Following its broadcast" to sound a little more formal. Do you need to add a reference for the last sentence of the first and second paragraphs of the "Synopsis" subsection? This is more of a clarification question. The construction "with, near the end of the song, image of the singer" is awkward and needs revision. Add that she performed this during "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows" in the "Live performances" section. Make sure to check and see if this song appears on any year-end charts for 2016 in the future. I am not sure if it will chart or not, but keep this in mind. Done – it didn't chart on any year-end ones unfortunately Was "The Remixes" EP released only in the United States? If not, then revise this. @Aoba47: Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this. Could you clarify? Carbrera (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC) @Carbrera: In the "Release history" section, the chart currently shows that the "Remixes" EP was made available only in the United States. I would imagine that this EP would have a broader release considering Stefani is still a major star. If the EP was only released in America then this is fine, but I want to clarify if this is accurate or not. Look at how the "Radio and release history is set up in "S&M" shows how the remix package for that song was released. I just want to make sure that the chart is being as accurate as possible in terms of representing the single's release. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC) After looking through a few FAs on songs, I noticed that a few of them used a similar structure so it is fine as it currently stands. I apologize for the confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC) E! Online should be in italics in the "References" section. Done iTunes should not be in italics in the "References" section (See reference 16) Done I hate to call this out, but what makes the "Magical World of No Doubt" a reliable source? I would imagine you could find a more reliable source to support the information about Sophie Muller's previous work with Stefani. @Carbrera: Make sure to address this comment as well. This is the last comment left, and once you address this, then I will support the nomination. I would highly recommend removing the "colorful" quote from the lead or add a reference. Removing is probably the best bet. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC) @Carbrera: I have done the following two edits here and here to address these points. Let me know if this is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC) @Carbrera: You have done an excellent job with this article. I have a lot of respect for you in that you are putting a lot of work and dedication in this. Your work actually makes more interested in returning to writing and expanding articles related to music (as I was starting to move away to do articles on television and fictional characters more instead). Let me know if you have any questions about my review. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article one more time and then most likely support it for promotion. If you have time in the future, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination, and I will send some positive energy your way that it does well this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thanks so much for the review! I'll be responding to every bit very soon. I will also take a look at your FAC. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC). Thank you and let me know when you addressed my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Carbrera: Support, well done and good luck getting it passed! Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Source review—it looks like it's just a few minor points:
  • In note 2, E! is italicized, and but in note 3 it is not. I'll also note that the target of the wikilink says that the online presence is E! Online, not just E!, which is the name of the publishing TV network. If the website is cited elsewhere, the same comments would apply for the sake of consistency.
    • Done
  • In note 8, does that template support |edition=Japanese to get the "Japanese edition" text out of italics?
    • Done
  • In comparing note 8 with note 10, the latter has the artist and label wikilinked while the former does not. Normally you'd only link them on the first usage, in keeping with the concepts behind WP:OVERLINK. I'd just double check and shift links, or drop them, as appropriate.
    • Done
  • There are a few website names that are rendered in roman text as the publisher where I'd expect them to be in italics as the |work= (or |website=, they're aliases). These include Idolator, Vulture, and the like.
    • Done
  • Usually when citing newspapers that lack their locations in their names, that is unlike the Los Angeles Times, we would include that location in |location=. This goes for university student newspapers, where the university is typically the location, unless they're a purely online publication like The Huffington Post.
    • Done
  • In terms of reliability and quality, nothing is amiss here. In short, just a little polishing, and the article is good to go in terms of the sources. Imzadi 1979 → 01:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Imzadi1979: I believe I hit every thing you pointed out, please let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much for the source review! Best, Carbrera (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
      • @Carbrera: some points are not done though. You didn't address the inconsistency in why some website names are rendered through the |work= parameter (or its |website= alias) and others are. Idolator is not consistently in italics, while Bustle and E! Online are. They're all the names of websites, which are for all intents and purposes equivalent to a print newspaper or print magazine, so we should be rendering them in italics for consistency.

        Also, "ABC News" is unlinked in note 32, but linked in note 106. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but my comments above were illustrative in a few cases with a suggestion to audit the remaining footnotes for the same issues, like the linking. Imzadi 1979 → 03:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

        • @Imzadi1979: I apologize. I left out one of the Idolator references on mistake. I also fixed the "ABC News" linking error. Thanks for catching that. Carbrera (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Looks good now. Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• If this review was helpful, you may want to review the prose on other nominations, like mine to help out other nominators. Imzadi 1979 → 03:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Echoing the above comment, I would encourage you to either participate in other FACs in order to build good will and connections with FAC contributors (and may draw more attention to this nomination) or asking a few experienced FAC users for comments on this nomination (as you are still working towards getting your first featured article, they will mostly likely be more responsive to helping you I would imagine). Just want to offer some advice to help you this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Thank you for the tip. In fact, I did leave comments on both Imzadi1979's FAC and Tomica's most recent nomination yesterday. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC).

Comments by Cartoon network freak

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak

Lead The album's second single → state "record's" here for alternation Done Frediksson; the latter two were its producers → Frediksson, while production was handled by the latter two. I worded it a bit differently, because there are varying degrees of production and I don't want to confuse the reader. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) A pop and disco song → use "recording" here for alternation Done incorporates light rock, with chiming → incorporates light rock elements alongside chiming I wouldn't use 'elements' as that is not what the article below states. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reviews from music critics who praised → comma before "who" This is unnecessary. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 54 on the Billboard Hot 100 (where it remained for five non-consecutive weeks) → no brackets needed here + comma before "where" Done The single peaked lower in the charts → The song peaked at lower positions in the charts I think this makes the sentence too wordy. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) An EP with → write "EP" out here Done Infobox Gwen Stefani is shown wearing a navy top whilst her hands touch her face; Stefani's eyes are not fully open; the title of the song is shown in a red, cursive font → A photograph showing Stefani wearing a navy top whilst her hands touch her face and her eyes are not fully open. The title of the song is shown to her right in a red, cursive font. Done Unlink "Sweden" as it's a common term Done Production and release she began new pieces → she began conceiving new pieces Began and conceive are a bit too similar in meaning. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) and she called it her → calling it her Done said that the song was → state "the track" here for alternation Done The music website Idolator → Music website Idolator Done with the Swedish production duo → remove overflous "the" Done to all eighteen songs → to all 18 songs This is purely stylistic; according to MoS there is no right or wrong way to list numbers. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) than fifteen minutes → than 15 minutes Same as above. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Additional recording was by → Additional recording was handled by Done and Serban Ghenea mixed → with Serban Ghenea mixing I don't want to change the tense here. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) three remixes of "Make Me Like You" by → three remixes of "Make Me Like You" produced by Done Composition and lyrics "Make Me Like You" is a three-minute, thirty-six-second pop and disco song. → Lasting three minutes and 36 seconds, "Make Make Like You" is a pop and disco song. Same as mentioned previously. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) According to Robbie Daw of Idolator, the song "contains → use "the recording" here for alternation Done Release year in brackets for "Lovefool" This is typically only done for albums, and when mentioning "previously released, etc."; in this case, it's just a comparison and doesn't use "Stefani's previous xxxxx" Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Release year for "Too Young" in brackets Same as above. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) the music of indie pop The Bird and the Bee → the music of indie pop band The Bird and the Bee Done into its chorus: "I'm so → : to , I'm looking at other FA "4 Minutes" and it use colons ":" before lyrics and "," before quotes. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) gratitude for Shelton ("Oh God, thank God that I found you") → No brackets needed here + add comma after "Shelton" Done Stefani refers to first meeting Shelton: "I was → Furthermore, the singer refers to first meeting him, "I was Same as above. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Sample > Stefani is heard with "digi-harps" and "feathery guitar riffs" in "Make Me Like You". → A 21-second sample of "Make Me Like You", a pop and disco recording with influences of light rock. Stefani... in the track. I believe what is now there was originally suggested by a different user in the previous FAC, and I only want to put what the sources say above. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Critical reception Spencer Kornhaber of The Atlantic compared the song's production → use "the recording's" here for alternation I hope it's fine if I stay with "song" as "recording" may not appear to the reader as "Make Me Like You" in whole, but just the recording process. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) to Sheryl Crow (whom he preferred for standing out "strong[ly]") → no brackets needed here + comma before "whom" Same as below. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) and "Serious" (2004) (which shared a "spacious, twinkling liteness") → no brackets needed here + comma before "which" Same as I mentioned a few times above and below. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) and writing: "Stefani's new → : to , Done only ... song that → ... to [...] Same as stated in "Music video" below. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Carolyn Menyes of Music Times said that of the two songs which "capture ... the earliest stage[s] of a relationship" (the other was "Send Me a Picture"), "Make Me Like You" was "more exciting" → Carolyn Menyes of Music Times said that "Send Me a Picture" and "Make Me Like You" from the record "capture [...] the earliest stage[s] of a relationship", and ultimately favored the latter one for being "more exciting". I'm afraid I do not like how that is worded. It's challenging to state what should be said either way, don't you agree? Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Ryan Middleton, also of Music Times, → "of" to "from" Done "Make Me Like You" was praised by music critics → state "generally" before "praised" as it received some criticism as well Done Commercial performance Moderately successful, "Make Me Like You" debuted (and peaked) at number 54 → Upon its release, "Make Me Like You" attained moderate commercial success. In the United States, it debuted and peaked at number 54 Since there isn't a flat-out source that support the first claim, it should be left as is. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) The following week it dropped → comma before "it" Done leaving the chart the week after that → leaving the chart the subsequent week To me, it doesn't sound like that would be referring to the correct week? Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) It peaked at number 23 on the → The recording further reached number 23 on the That also may be a bit too wordy for my taste. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) In Canada the song → comma before "the song" Done on the download portion → on the download counterpart Done Stefani's first (and only) → no brackets needed Same as above and below. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) appearance on that chart. After three weeks, it dropped off after it peaked. → appearance on that chart, with it spending three total weeks on that chart. I'm afraid I don't want to repeat "chart" twice in a row. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) debuted at number 143, peaked at number 81 three weeks later and sold 9,343 copies. → debuted at number 143 and peaked at number 81 three weeks later, having sold 9,343 copies in the country. I think it should be left as is so the reader doesn't mistakenly believe that it only sold that amount during that particular week. Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC) In Australia it debuted → comma after "it" Done following week, Stefani's → following week, marking Stefani's Done In the United Kingdom it missed → comma before "it" Done debuting (and peaking) at number 140 → no need for brackets here Done Music video who had directed videos → who had previously directed videos Done broadcast she stumbled → comma before "she" Done After it was over → Following the filming sessions There was only one session. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) On February 22, 2016 Billboard → comma after the date Done with the remainder spent on → with the remainder being spent on I don't want to change the tense here. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Stefani's friend (and hairstylist) → no need for brackets here Done In the second verse Stefani, in a mirrored room, changes into a sequined blazer and enters → In the second verse, the singer changes into a sequined blazer in a mirrored room and enters Done a piano lounge (another reference to Shelton). → no brackets here + comma before "another" Same as below. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) with Stefani, on a platform → no comma here Actually this works because it is extra information separating it from the final part of the sentence. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Change "Reception" to "Release and reception" Done media impressions ... for the campaign → ... to [...] MoS states this is alright; check the "With square brackets" section. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) couple of seconds" (allowing her to change before the final scene). → no brackets + comma before "allowing" Interchangeable; purely stylistic. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) At the June 2016 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity the video → comma before "the video" Done advertisement (also sponsored by Target Corporation) in which → replace brackets with commas This is interchangeable according to MoS. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Image > The video wasn't really compared to them by one critic Done (I reworded it because I see what you mean by this!) Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Live performances song live in a number of public → "in" to "during" Done Year of release for both "Danger Zone" and ""What You Waiting For?" in brackets More below regarding this. :) Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Stefani with, near the end of the song, images of the singer → Stefani, with shots of her also being displayed near the end of the song. I'm sorry but I think this is a bit too wordy. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Stefani also sang it on the July 15, 2016 → state "also performed it" here for alternation Done "Misery", "Hollaback Girl" and "The Sweet Escape" → release year in brackets Same as I mentioned above (and "4 Minutes" doesn't use the years, neither does "S&M") Image > Stefani performed "Make Me Like You" → Stefani performing "Make Me Like You" Done Track listing Digital download (The Remixes) → Digital remixes EP (It hasn't such a special name to be displayed, so you can change it to my suggestion) Actually it is called this; iTunes lists it as this additionally in the source. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Credits and personnel Credits adapted from the liner notes of This Is What the Truth Feels Like, Interscope Records. → no need for the "Interscope Records" This is what was previously suggested in the other FAC and kept during the recent copyedit. Carbrera (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Unlink "Sweden" as it's a common term Done Unlink "Gwen Stefani" here Done Charts We need the chart date for Slovakia to make its source reliable Done Release history Done changes by myself; feel free to undo if overfluous Carbrera, here my comments; once you've addressed them, I'll give this a support. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Coordinator note: @Carbrera: do you plan to reply to these comments? This nomination is seven weeks old now and is starting to look a little stale, especially if you are not responding. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC) @Cartoon network freak: I have addressed all of your concerns in addition to some comments. Feel free to take a second glance if necessary. Thanks a bunch. I can now continue my GA review as well. Have a good day, Carbrera (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC). @Sarastro1: Thank you, I just completed everything. :) Carbrera (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support with all my comments being resolved! Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Gwen Stefani - Make Me Like You (Official Single Cover).png: Non-free cover art of the song used to illustrate the topic, which seems OK to me. All points of NFCC are adequately addressed in the rationale
• File:Make Me Like You (1).ogg: Song sample, used to illustrate a part of the song discussed in the adjacent paragraph. I see a bit maintenance tag on the file that should probably be addressed. Seems like the points of NFCC are addressed, though.
• File:Gwen Stefani Make Me Like You Music Video 1.png: Non-free screenshot of the music video. Not exactly sure how the article would suffer if it lacked that, so I wonder about whether it's NFCC#8 compliant. The other points seem to fit.
• File:Death Cab for Cutie at Manchester Academy, 4 July 2011.jpg: Free image on Commons, used to illustrate a point of comparison that is discussed in the section. Freely licensed, good EXIF. Used elsewhere in lower resolution.
• File:Gwen Stefani – This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour ("Make Me Like You").png: Free image that shows a live performance of the song, which is discussed in the adjacent section. Broken EXIF, free license, can be moved to Commons probably.

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks so much for the image review! Are there any steps you would like me to facilitate in order to improve the article? Carbrera (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Only things I'd suggest is to add inline citations for the infobox and to boost up the rationale for Gwen Stefani Make Me Like You Music Video 1.png. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks. I believe the rationale is better as of now, but may I ask you to clarify "add[ing] inline citations"? Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:INLINECITE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I did include inline citations on the "Genre" parameter as this is where they are often placed, but when looking at other 'song' featured articles like 4 Minutes and S&M (song), they do not features any at all, so I think keeping it simple is best (although I'm sure you know more that I do about this). Regards, Carbrera (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

I have removed the infobox inline citations per the policy that SnapSnap mentioned below. Carbrera (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SnapSnap

MOS:FONTSIZE discourages the use of smaller font sizes in infoboxes. Done I see the use above mentioned inline citations, but WP:INFOBOXREF states that references are not needed in infoboxes if the content is cited elsewhere in the article. Done I agree. Carbrera (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Is the location parameter really needed in the first USA Today references? None of the references use it. Done – This was suggested previously but I agree that it is unnecessary. Carbrera (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC) In reference 3, replace "Pitchfork Media" with "Pitchfork". Done In reference 18, add "(US)" after "iTunes Store" to specify which store it's from, and remove "Apple Inc". I believe "Apple" should be removed from the other iTunes references as well. Done Remove the publisher parameter from references 26 and 39, for the sake of consistency. Done Delink USA Today, Slant Magazine, Rolling Stone and Time in references 37, 38, 69, 70, 84, 89, and 92 per WP:OVERLINK, as those were already previously linked. Done In reference 98, replace "MTV" with "MTV News". Done Replace "eighteen", "fifteen" and "thirty-six" ("Composition and lyrics") with 18, 15 and 36, respectively, as all other integers greater than nine are expressed in numerals as well. Done "Light rock, upbeat pop, and funk music..." → "Elements of light rock, upbeat pop, and funk music...", for clarity purposes. Done Under "Commercial performance", stating the song was "[m]oderately successful" doesn't really sound neutral to me. Done after her 2015 "Used to Love You" → after 2015's "Used to Love You". Done Change to "Track listing" section to "Track listings", as there is more than one. Done snapsnap (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@SnapSnap: I believe I have fixed everything accordingly. Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC).

@Carbrera: No problems. Nice job. :) snapsnap ^(talk) 04:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@SnapSnap: Would it be alright with you if I placed your comments into a "Resolved comments" box like those above? Carbrera (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Carbrera: Sure, go ahead. snapsnap ^(talk) 05:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from magiciandude

The article looks great and I don't see any obvious problems with the sources. All the other issues the reviewers were already resolved. My only recommendation at this point is specify who released the song in the lead. Erick (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: THANKS! I just added the note per your suggestion! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC).

No problem. While I can't comment on the prose since I'm not an expert on grammar, I will support this article in good faith. Erick (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed it, we still need a source reliability and formatting review; the comment above on sourcing is not quite in depth enough to qualify. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Thank you! Are you referring to Imzadi1979's comments above? Regards, Carbrera (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC).

Ah, my mistake, I missed that. It's usually best not to collapse image or source reviews. My apologies. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this would be the nominator's first FA if promoted so (as above, unless I missed it) we should have a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

I wonder also if Bencherlite and/or Tony1 can quickly peruse this latest version of the article as they had prose concerns last time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Butting in with Earwig's tool - there are a couple of false positives as they all use a quote which inflates the copyvio probability. Else looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Should anything be changed regarding the quotes you mentioned? Carbrera (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC).

No, they're fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mymis

• In "Production and release" section, the only date mentioned is song's release date. Is there another earlier date or even just a year indicating when she started working on the song?

• I can't find any specific date or time period, like you mentioned. I believe it was placed on the BMI website around December 2015, but I didn't archive that so it cannot be verified. It's quite unfortunate. Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Link 107 is broken.

• Fixed. Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Link 93 is a fansite.

• Fixed. Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mymis: Thank you so, so much. I have addressed all of your comments. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

• Maybe add the year when she started dating Shelton or something? To provide approx. time frame to show that the song was composed within the same year when it was released, and not like five years ago.
• Great work on this article. You have my support. Mymis (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Leaning Oppose: I'm recusing as coordinator on this, and I think the prose still needs a little work. Just a few minutes looking threw up a few things that would be a problem; none of them are huge issues but perhaps should have been spotted at this stage. My oppose is not set in stone, and I expect to at least strike it and hopefully support once there has been a little work. I spotted these just looking randomly through the article, and I would recommend someone taking a look for similar issues throughout. These are samples only. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• "with chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody": I'm not too sure what a chiming guitar is, although I could just about live with it, but while my musical background is limited, I know enough to question what on earth a "beach-like melody" is. And quoting a critic's review does not make this make sense, either.

• Done – I agree. I removed "chiming" altogether and (since the melody is also described as uptempo by a different source) I replaced "beach-like" with "uptempo". Carbrera (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

• "and Stefani later confirmed that it was inspired by her relationship with singer Blake Shelton": I understand why we have used confirmed here, but as we do not mention that there was speculation, I think just saying that "Stefani was inspired by her relationship..." would be fine for the lead.

• Done

• "An accompanying music video, directed by Stefani's long-time collaborator Sophie Muller, was the first to be filmed and broadcast on live television.": The first out of... what?

• @Sarastro1: Thanks for your concerns. I added "only" to hopefully address your concern. If you'd prefer just "only" or "first of it kinds" (or something in that nature), please let me know. Carbrera (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

• "The video includes several costume changes and scenes, including one which pokes fun at media scrutiny of Stefani's personal life": I have yet to see any video that does NOT include scenes, so that part is a little odd.

• Done

• "received comparisons with similar concepts done by other artists": Again, this is a little odd and seems circular. "Something was compared with something like it" We need a little more about this. Positively compared? Negatively? What concepts?

• Done – I wouldn't say any of the sources positively or negatively compare it, but rather just the concepts like you pointed out. So I wrote out, "received comparisons to live videos from Imagine Dragons and Death Cab for Cutie." Carbrera (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• "After completing several songs dealing with Stefani's divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, she began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton.": This would be better as "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton." I'd even prefer "writing about her relationship"

• Done

• ""Make Me Like You" is a three-minute, 36-second pop and disco song.[18][19][10]": Ref order

• Done

• "and funk music are paired with "feathery guitar riffs" and digital harps[17] in a vibrant melody": Quotes are all very well in music articles, but are often meaningless used like this. We should either paraphrase what the critic means by "feathery" and "vibrant" or just summarise that they liked the guitar, harps and melody. Or leave it out entirely.

• Done – Since it is fairly difficult to summarize what the critic might mean, I used "uptempo" as that is pretty self-explanatory. If you'd like to remove it altogether, please let me know. Carbrera (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The single's artwork, photographed by Jamie Nelson, features Stefani "channeling" Marilyn Monroe's hairstyle.": I'm sorry, a hairstyle cannot be channeled. Why not just say "with a similar hairstyle"? If you want "channelling Marilyn Monroe, you need a little more explanation of how she is doing so.

• Done

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I addressed all of your concerns above. You may be aware but I'd like to point that the article received a major copyedit on October 29, 2016 that helped the prose greatly. If any more things regarding the prose stuck out to me, I can honestly say that I would've fixed them by now. Thank you for helping make the article better. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

Comment: Just to reiterate, these were samples only, and it may have had a major copy-edit but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't benefit from another going over. I also should point out that the last edits did not really clear up the points. We now have:

• "was the first and only to be filmed and broadcast on live television"" This still does not clear up "first and only" what? The first...? I assume song from the album, but it is far from clear.
• "and a scene which pokes fun the media scrutiny": There is an "at" missing here.

I don't particularly wish to do a line-by-line review at this stage of an FAC, so I would recommend someone taking a close look at the rest of the article to see if there are any other points, whether that is the nominator or someone else. Just addressing each point I make is unlikely to convince me to strike the leaning oppose or to support. In any case, I will take another look in a day or so. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: I appreciate it very much. I looked at your two comments and fixed them anyway. Thanks for your time, Carbrera (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Prose needs work:

• "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new pieces based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton"
• "The lyrical transition ended with Stefani centering "Make Me Like You" around Shelton, which she called her favorite self-composed song"
• "In a 2016 interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Stefani said that the track was "about that guy"; when Kimmel asked for clarification, she confirmed that "that guy" was Shelton"
• "Mattias Larsson and Robin Frediksson of Mattman & Robin recorded Stefani's vocals at Wolf Cousins Studios and Maratone Studios in Stockholm and Interscope Studios in Santa Monica, California."
• "According to Stefani, about 30 minutes before the video's live broadcast, she stumbled at the end of the piano lounge scene and received a minor head injury."
• "During the video's final rehearsal, she missed her exit to a rising platform while inline skating and her stunt double accidentally turned to face the camera. According to a Music Times review, Stefani joked that the mistakes "'knocked some sense' into her".[77] The video went off without a hitch, which Gabe McDonough of Music and Strategy called "a best-case scenario" in a Billboard article."

These are samples only. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: Thank you for your comments. I have tried my best to address your concerns. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

It needs a full copyedit. For instance the second para of the "Commercial performance" section has the word "peak" or "peaked" in all but one sentence, and it appears thirteen times in the section. I agree with Bencherlite and Tony1's comments in the first FAC. Since that time the only copyedits made were from a GOCE member. Follow Tony's advice, try some of User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises and work the prose. I realize I didn't explain what was wrong with those sentences, nor did I suggest alternatives, because I thought it would be good to for you to see the issues. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Oppose on prose. Sorry, Carbrera, since I know you asked me to review hoping I could help, but I don't think this is ready, and it's been at FAC long enough that I think it should be worked on away from FAC before being nominated again. I'd be willing to work on the article with you if you like. Some comments below; I went through the lead and first section and glanced through the rest of the article.

• Suggest making it "comparisons to live-streamed videos" in the lead, as otherwise it's not clear how this can be the first video filmed on live TV. Or you could just cut this detail -- is the comparison to those videos really worth mentioning in the lead?
• "After completing several songs dealing with her divorce from musician Gavin Rossdale, Stefani began new ones based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton. The lyrical transition ended with Stefani centering "Make Me Like You" around Shelton." I don't see anything in the given sources about Stefani writing songs that relate to Rossdale, and I also don't know what it means to say "the lyrical transition ended". Can you explain?
• Why do you list Mattman & Robin as Larsson and Frediksson in the lead, but as Mattman & Robin in the body? Then you give both names in the next paragraph, this time with an explanation.
• Why do we need the details of the report and confirmation of who the producers were?
• "In a 2016 interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Stefani said that the track was "about that guy"; when Kimmel asked for clarification, she confirmed that "that guy" was Shelton." This is just a detail about the sequence of question and answer by which we know that the song is about Shelton. Does this need to be in the article?
• I think the first paragraph of the "Production and release" section is poorly structured. Currently it's like this:
  • Stefani's songwriting, reason for writing MMLY
  • Subject of song
  • Production
  • Other info about the album MMLY is on

  Was the single made as part of the recording for the new album? If so (i.e. if it wasn't a one-off, later incorporated into a subsequent album) then I'd suggest

  • Background info about the album -- events leading up to it (e.g. divorce, relationship with Shelton), plans to record the album
  • Songwriting team, specific information about writing/producing MMLY

  Currently it jumps back and forth between subjects.

• Looking through the rest of the article, I think there's a bit of work needed to get the prose to FA quality. For example, the critical reception section is listy, and the commercial performance section looks like it might benefit from at least partly being made into a table, perhaps organized around the various charts. I also saw a couple of bits of trivia that I don't think are needed such as McDonough's comment about a "best-case scenario", which is essentially quoting someone about something that didn't happen and had no effect. And do we really need the text of her statement after the video? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Following Sarastro's and Victoria's comments, I agree with Mike that further work should take place outside FAC. Tks everyone for your input and I hope to see this re-nominated before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2017 [5].

---

2015–16 Bengaluru FC season

Nominator(s): Coderzombie (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015–16 season of association football club, Bengaluru FC. The article has been reviewed for good article and I believe it has potential to be an FA as well. Coderzombie (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this article is a hard couple of months worth of work away from genuine consideration for Featured Article status. That might be partly the fault of the Good Article review, which should have dealt with the following problems:

There are numerous spelling errors, grammatical errors and infelicities; perhaps at the rate of one in every second sentence. Take for example the section dealing with April. Sentence 1: "Bengaluru played the first game of April against Mumbai F.C.." "the" first game of April for what? The competition as a whole or just for Bengaluru? Sentence 5 is far too long and has at least one incorrectly placed comma. In Sentence 6, "title deciding" should be hyphenated. The same goes for "short lived" in Sentence 8. Sentence 12 is missing "the" before "8th minute" while "blues" should be capitalised. Sentence 13 is very problematic: "taped" should be "tapped" and there needs to be a word before "seventh straight win". And there are other less obvious issues in the section. So, as I said, roughly one in every two sentences. That is a rate of error that cannot reasonably be fixed during a Featured Article candidacy.

The month-by-month recitation of the season is very dry. There is little flavour other than goals and wins. For example, the recitation fails to draw out, either explicitly or implicitly, who the key players in the team were and why. Nor is there any discussion or even allusion to the team's style of play. I think that more is required for a Featured Article-quality review of a football season.

Syek88 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will involve more editors who can fix the copy-editing and other issues. Coderzombie (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think these issues are best dealt with away from FAC. This can be brought back once there has been a little more work on the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2017 [6].

---

Peter Prevc

Nominator(s): Tone 16:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent sportsperson. It has been recently passed as a GA and I believe it meets the FA criteria. The article is stable, apart from the fact that the current winter sport season is ongoing so there will be occasional updates. Tone 16:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The level of NPOV in this article could be improved, and the structure of the article needs some thought. Conditional support: a couple more minor issues that I will fix myself, and the article will need to be kept current for this season and future ones. As this is also my first featured article review, I would like for another editor to review this article as well.

• Second sentence, "most successful" could probably be rephrased to something less POV, even if it is supported by a track record of international success. Others may agree or disagree, but I think anyone could support changing the wording to something more objective, like stating that he has won several international awards, including...

• Removed that part, no harm to the introduction done. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• The titles of the subsections in the "Professional career" section seem a bit too... glamorous? i.e. "early successes", "runner up", "the record-breaking season". I don't think that's NPOV enough. Perhaps take those parts out and label by their objective name.

• I think they are NPOV. I changed the early successes to early seasons. The other two are factual, he was the runner-up and the fact that he broke several records is well-supported by various sources. I could remove the titles but that would make it look boring. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I will defer to the judgement of other editors on this point. Icebob99 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• 2015/16: the record-breaking season: "Prevc dominated" should be changed to less intense synonym or perhaps cut out altogether. Again, just too POV.

• Reworded. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Moving beyond NPOV issues: Some sentence positioning choices in the fourth paragraph of the 2015/16 section: By placing the fact that Prevc slid ("slided" in the article?) in the first sentence, the reader assumes that the competition on 14 February is notable solely for that fact that he slid, and not that he won (which is probably the more notable of the two). Maybe move that fact to the second sentence or further in the paragraph.

• Reworded. What is notable is that there have been only rare cases of sliding and winning. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• The statement that the family is closely connected to ski jumping is of course intuitive but constitutes original research. We the editors do not judge whether having immediate family as referees and competitors forms a close connection. Maybe that is obvious, but the sources should be the ones that come up with that, not us.

• Reworded. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is it in the scope of the article to put that Prevc's sister is training in skiing as well? I personally don't think so, other editors may have different opinions. Since the apparent purpose of that fact is to back up the (as-of-now OR) statement that his family has close connections to skiing, I think it would be best to omit the sentence.

• Removed. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Last sentence of the second paragraph of Personal life section shouldn't be there. Even if there are sources for the statement, it's really a conclusion to be left for the reader. Imagine if on the Winston Churchill article, someone put that he did everything he did for the sake of his country and that he had a charismatic, learned personality. Now, that may be true, but it's certainly not the only viewpoint with due weight, and it's not a conclusion for an encyclopedia article either way. Even though Prevc does not have the same name recognition as Churchill, the standards for biographical articles ought to be universal regardless of accomplishments or fame.

• Removed. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Last sentence of Personal life section seems like something out of a local newspaper on their international ski star. It's great that he enjoys football and supports a Slovenian club, but that seems overly detailed and/or not part of the notability of this person.

• Removed. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• In general, I don't think the layout of this article renders a comprehensive outlook on Prevc (criterion 1). The lead is good, but the article begins with his professional accomplishments (which do appear to be comprehensive) and shoves the Personal life section at the end in two and a half paragraphs, which makes that information unuseful. A common strategy in featured biography articles is to start out with the personal life (or perhaps the sequence of life events) that eventually climaxed in the notability of the subject, and then detail the subject's ski exploits. A lot of personal information often wouldn't be notable enough for an article by itself (like the Personal life section at the end) but needs to be present in order to satisfy the Comprehensive criterion, so it makes sense to use that personal life information to establish notability, if it has to be there. This article meets the GA criterion of broad coverage, but I don't think that the structure of the article is conducive to comprehensiveness. Icebob99 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• The personal life section has been renamed biography, moved to the top, trimmed from redundant details and expanded to present a brief overview (as suggested). @Icebob99:, I believe this is ready for a second look. Thanks! --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Structure looks much better. I'm renaming the Biography section to Early life, since the word "biography" implies that that section contains every important life event (which it doesn't). In addition, I'm renaming the World Cup section to Performance in the World Cup. :*Quick question: in the table in the Individual starts section, on row 2012/13 and column 5, what is the value q? Is that a typo? In addition, what do the different highlights in the table mean? There should be some kind of key explaining that.

Comment: Regarding the colours, they are suppose to show the positions (gold background = win, silver = 2nd place etc.), but the table looks kinda messy with all that colours, so I would suggest that only the gold background for wins is kept, and other colours removed. 86.58.36.145 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Icebob99: Ok, I believe all should be fixed now. I would assume that the colours are obvious for the first three places. It does not look messy to me and is a great way to show how strong the last season was. This could be discussed, of course. --Tone 18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Tone: I'm fine with the presence of colors in the table since I agree with their informative purpose, but I think there should be some information regarding colors in the Key section directly below. When the laypeople (whose numbers include me) read that table, they would appreciate a good faith color code in the Key, since it's information that is not necessarily clear at first glance. Icebob99 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Icebob99: I agree. The key was added.

• I also changed the refstyle of three refs to match the overall style of the article, that is, using the cite web or cite book templates.

• I changed my oppose !vote to conditional support. See the reasoning above, as well as some extra issues that I found. Good work! Icebob99 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• "will be eligible for Athlete of the Year, an award to be voted on at the end of the year": Was it voted on at the end of 2016? If not, this is wrong. If so, what was the vote?
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! The website says that the voting is now closed so the results will probably be out soon. --Tone 13:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88

• I'm nervous about promoting to Featured Article an article about a current athlete, knowing that a leap of faith will need to be taken that the article remains up-to-date and in acceptable shape.
• In this case I'm doubly nervous because there are key recent events which the article does not mention. The body of the article abruptly stops at the end of the 2015/16 season and does not mention in its text sections a large number of results from the 2016/17 seasons, available at [7].
• I am made triply nervous by the fact that there are active contributors to the article who are clearly far-from-fluent English speakers, and whose ungrammatical edits are not being corrected quickly or at all. See the example immediately below.
• Illustrating all three of the above points, the US Academy Athlete of the Year results are out [8] but are not yet reflected in the main body of the article, after nine days. There is a reference early in the article to "finished in the third place in Athlete of the Year category". The sentence is ungrammatical, having been added recently by a non-fluent English speaking editor. The sentencedoes not mention the critical detail of the year for which he finished in third place.
• [9] mentions that Prevc is a policeman. That sounds significant enough to mention if true, and is partially verified by [10] and [11].

At this stage I will leave those points as comments, rather than an oppose, because I would be happy to be proven misguided, but an oppose is where I am leaning. In summary: the article as of today is not up-to-date with results from recent months and is at significant risk of decay in the future. Syek88 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Let's see what I can say.

• Prevc has had a rather uneven season this year so far. He started with a podium, then had a sharp decline in results, then improved, took a break from competition, and made some good results recently. I was thinking about writing a summary of the season so far but since it is not clear where it is going, I am waiting until the season draws towards conclusion when a more balanced summary can be written. If this is an issue, I can provide a summary.
• The main body of the article (Early life and Career, up to 2016) should be stable enough. As for non-fluent English speakers, I can only say that I will be keeping an eye on the language, probably some native speakers as well. If it becomes a FA, I am sure there will be more eyes to watch it, at least.
• Fixing that awkward phrasing straight away.
• Well, he is not really a policeman. He's employed as one, as many professional sportspeople in Slovenia are (for social security purposes). It was the same with Tina Maze. Essentially, a couple of PR-related activities come with that but no police work.

I hope that eases your concers a bit. --Tone 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I can fully understand your first point. If I were writing the article, I too would prefer to do it a season at a time. It's a better way of writing. The difficulty is that for the one person who writes the article there are hundreds, thousands, or more, who read it and for whom the omission of a text section for 2016/17 will stand out. It is a difficult writer/reader conflict to resolve but I'm inclined to think that it should be resolved in favour of the reader. On the policeman point, for the reasons you give I agree it is better to avoid mentioning it. I will also place the article on my watch list to help guard against the introduction of substandard English. Syek88 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated. I'll try to get something together about the current season. Ski flying is on this weekend and Prevc is know to be superb on flying hills. After this weekend, I think it will be clear where the season is heading. --Tone 22:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Syek88: A short summary of the season up to date written. That should do for now, I suppose. Ten events left till the end of the season, as well as the World Championships. --Tone 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria

Not many articles about winter Olympians make it to FAC so I'm happy to see this here. Comments as follows:

Lead

• I realize it's chronological but his Olympic medal is the most notable event. Have you thought about moving that forward and saying straight out that he's an Olympic medal holder. The FIS events, though important, occur annually, and garnering an Olympic medal is certainly much more important than winning in Garmish (though, also important). Perhaps some rearrangment in the lead along the lines of: "Peter Prevc (Slovene: [ˈpéːtəɾ ˈpɾéːwt͡s]; born 20 September 1992) is a Slovenian ski jumper, and silver and bronze medalist at the 2014 Winter Olympics." I might also suggest moving the list of FIS (and other) wins/standings down to the bottom to avoid giving the reader a long list to start with. The second most interesting thing is the record he set; I'd suggest moving that to the first paragraph. In other words, try ordering his accomplishments by importance and presenting the larger accomplishments earlier.
• We also need at least a sentence or two in the lead about his life - since this is a biography.

Early life

• How old was he when he left Kranj? Did his family move or was it for training; it mentions he's back in Kranj for grammar school, so this needs sorting.
• Link Grammar school please. What in Europe is called elementary school is often called grammar school in the US (i.e grades 1-6).
• The second para in "Early life" is a repeat of the lead and a repeat of the paragraphs below. It would be best maybe to try to find some information about his early training, about his family's background, about his father's involvement in the sport (was he a jumper before becoming a referee? what does he do for employment?), etc, and remove the para. What you want is to tell a story of a young man who started jumping at age 9, where he lived and went to school, information about his family and then, instead of moving from training at age nine straight to 2009, move the World Cup debut to the next section.

2009 etc.

• First sentence is repetitive.
• That he went to the Olympics in Vancouver during his second season, and that he placed quite well, is worth more info, imo. Also worth mentioning in the lead imo. How was he chosen? Particularly with a rather poor showing at 2009/10 World Cup?
• Link World Cup - lots of people are clueless
• Second para, first sentence: both links go to the same article (and the prose is repetitive because 2011 is mentioned twice in one sentence). One of the links should be removed.
• Link ski flying
• I see a fair amount of overlinking, i,e some names that are linked more than once such as Robert Kranjec, or places such as Planica. Please review WP:Overlinking and also make sure each item that needs linking is only linked once in the lead and once in the article body.

I've scanned the rest of the article. My impression is that it needs some tidying, i.,e linking issues (overlinking, underlinking, easter-eggs), some issues with MOS:NUM (there are a lot of numbers!), etc., that need to be sorted and my advice would be to do it slowly, outside of FAC. The largest issue is that this the article is written as a list of Prevc accomplishments and we tend to lose him (the subject of the article) in the way it's presented. I watched the jumping at Sochi and was impressed, but there are matters of style and technique that make a good jumper, which perhaps are mentioned in the sources. There are matters of conditions that affect the outcome, that are sometimes mentioned in the sources. These are small details that add to the story of a jumper, rather than reporting his standings, if that makes sense? At this point I'm inclined to oppose because I think there's a story here, one that's worthy of FAC, but it's best to take the time to get it right. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Further comment: I've just noticed that another editor is the primary editor for this article. Is Sportomanokin aware of this nomination and should they be added as a co-nominator? Victoriaearle (tk) 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed review. Give me a couple of days to go through. I see your main issue is the absence of information not related to sports. There used to be a section "Personal life" but it got removed since a reviewer above pointed out that it contained trivial information, including about his family and his hobbies. You see my conflict? I'll see if I can add something else. @Sportomanokin: you are aware of this nomination, aren't you? --Tone 16:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not I'm not aware of the nomination, I don't know what kind of nomination are you all talking about? And I agree with the reviewer that his personal life contained trivial information. He is not a Hollywood actor, top football player or some global star and we bassicaly know nothing about his private life and I don't see the importance. Sportomanokin (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tone and Sportomanokin, no, I didn't read the earlier review that asked for personal info to be removed. On thinking about it, given Prevc's youth, I'm inclined to agree and to agree with Sportomanokin's remark above. But that leaves little of substance except the results, which are reported in the infobox, the lead, the first section and again in the other sections, and in the tables. Take a look at Louis Leblanc (in the FAC queue a bit above yours), to get a sense of how to structure the prose sections for Featured article quality. If the information about Prevc doesn't exist in the sources, or for whatever other reason, and it's not possible to supply a little more info, then I think it would be better to have as a featured list instead of a featured article. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: There are a few little issues here now. This has been open since December and we have only a prose support and a conditional support and two leaning opposes. There may be a few concerns about stability, raised by Syek88, given ongoing events in the current season which were raised above. Additionally, it appears that the primary contributor was unaware of this nomination, which is technically out of process (and thanks to Victoriaearle for spotting that). All in all, this might be better worked on outside of FAC and then brought back here when these issues have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I beg to differ, there is one conditional oppose that I was planning to address during the weekend (I think it can be sorted), the other two I saw as supports. While Sportomanokin was mostly contributing to the charts, I was the main contributor to the prose, so I don't think this is as issue per se. Can you give me some time to fix the last round of issues so that I don't have to renominate it straight away? --Tone 22:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 [12].

---

Siege of Arrah

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Siege of Arrah, an event that occurred during the Indian Mutiny. It was an eight day long siege during which 68 men, a mix of civilians and soldiers, successfully defended a two-storey, 50 by 50 ft (15 by 15 m) building against a force, under the command of Kunwar Singh, of between 2,000 and 3,000 mutinying professional soldiers combined with an estimated 8,000 irregular combatants. This article has been copy-edited by the GOCE, and it has passed a GA review and an A-Class review from the Military History Wikiproject. I make no apologies for pushing this through because it's been a pleasure to develop this article - it made an excellent procrastination project while I was meant to be doing something else (and editing this article has led to me purchasing a very fine, 110-year-old copy of one of the books that is used as a source!). I'll be available to respond to this review over the coming weeks, and as my previous engagement with this shows (in the previous reviews) I usually respond within 24 hours. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• "(now 58 (Eyre's) Battery ...": MOS recommends against nested parentheses.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this article. I know that nested parentheses are usually not OK but in this specific case, 58 (Eyre's) Battery is that unit's proper name so that's why I went with it. It probably seems like I'm being awkward but what can I say - I'm a geek! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You could perhaps replace the outer set of parentheses with dashes? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I went over this in detail at the MilHist A-class review and was very impressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've followed your suggestion and replaced the parentheses. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• A couple of footnotes use "pp." but should use "p."

Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• FN51 should use endash

Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether newspaper citations end in a period

Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• GBooks links don't need accessdates and should be trimmed to ID/page

Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Best is missing location. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Nikkimaria: - I believe I have addressed your concerns. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comments - this article looks quite good to me, only a few nitpicks:
  • Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase / plagiarism [13] (no action req'd)
  • The last paragraph of the "First relief attempt" section (starting "During the evening of 29 July the besieged") seems a little out of sequence chronologically, I wonder if it would work better if it and parts of the paragraph above it were swapped around?
  • Perhaps wikilink Lucknow?
  • Generally no need to include "access dates" for documents that don't change such as books so I'd suggest removing it where you have included it in the reference section (please see the {{cite book}} template documentation here)
  • Otherwise a made a few minor (hopefully helpful) MOS tweaks [14]. Anotherclown (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks @Anotherclown: - I believe I have rectified things. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Those changes look fine to me. Adding my support now for promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for your time! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Thanks for writing such an enjoyable article on a topic which I read many moons ago while in school. My only quibble is that the Present day section be merged with the Aftermath. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Vensatry: - I've made the change you suggested. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support: this is a very stable, well-written, and well-sourced article on an exciting historical topic, if not a rather crucial one for British and Indian history. Your narrative style is also a pleasure to read. Bravo! My only suggestion is to directly attribute the quote in the last sentence of the "aftermath" section to the author Abhay Kumar. Generally speaking quotations should always be attributed in the text of the article, to avoid any confusion as to who is being quoted. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I've made that change, thanks for your time! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Have I missed an image review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: An image review took place during the MilHist A-Class review. I am not sure if this is sufficient, however, and I've already added a note at WT:FAC. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If the images have not changed, that would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the review took place, I have removed one image and moved another from the article's body to the Infobox. No other changes to the images have taken place. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is your first FAC. In that case, I think all we are waiting for is a spot-check of sources. My only other queries:

• This article concentrates mainly on the besieged. Is there anything on the besiegers?
• Are there any modern works which give an opinion on the siege? Have views changed from the time of Trevelyan? For instance, I find it interesting that the surviving building is now a museum to Kunwar Singh, albeit in name only. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Other than the most basic details that I have already added to the article and the information about Kunwar Singh, I have been unable to find anything significant about the besiegers. Even the first-hand accounts at the time don't contain any detail such as names or precise numbers - it's an unfortunate problem I've encountered before while researching events during the Indian Mutiny, which I suspect is down to the general chaotic situation at the time. As for modern views, the latest work I could find that covered the siege in any detail was from 1910 - there are passing mentions (maybe a sentence long) in later works but many modern books I looked at, about Kunwar Singh for example, don't even mention the siege. I only found out about the siege myself by accident while I was correcting errors in the Bengal Native Infantry article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, just checking as it's always better to make sure! We just need a source spot check then. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Sarastro1: and yes, it's my first FAC. If I've made any mistakes feel free to point them out! Exemplo347 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's copyvio is clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• FN 8 - used twice, material faithful to source
• FN 20 - used once, material faithful to source
• FN 24 - used once, material faithful to source
• FN 41 - used once, material faithful to source

Spot check all in order Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on sourcing: I'm going to recuse as coordinator from this one because I have concerns over the sourcing. I see that Casliber did a spot check above but I'd already had a quick look and found a few problems with spot checks. I think they are solvable, and as Cas didn't find any problems above, it is not throughout the whole article. All the sources are books available online, which makes checking quite easy. However...

• I checked the first part of background and there is a lot of unattributed material. From a glance, this repeats in a few other places, and I get the impression that the references were added after the text was written (but I could be wrong). I think everything that is in the article can be attributed from the sources (I recognised several incidents mentioned later in the article when I checked the references), but at the moment I don't think it quite matches up.

• The first references cover a substantial number of sentences. But from these references, I cannot verify quite a few statements: "On 10 May 1857, a mutiny by the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry, a Bengal Army unit stationed in Meerut, triggered the Indian Mutiny, which quickly spread through the Bengal Presidency": Other than the month of May, the rest is not supported by the three refs given; nothing about Bengal, the date of the 10th, nothing about which units were involved, nothing about how it spread. These need attribution.
• "The town of Arrah, headquarters of Shahabad district, had a population at the time that largely consisted of Bengal Native Infantry sepoys, British and European employees of the East India Company and the East Indian Railway Company, and their respective families." I can find attribution for Arrah containing Europeans and Sepoys (although not "Bengal Native Infantry"), but not that Arrah was the headquarters, nor that anyone worked for the East India Company or the East Indian Railway Company. Arguably, the references support the Europeans having family there, but nothing more than that.
• "In addition, there was a local police force and a jail holding between 400 and 500 inmates, with 150 armed prison guards. A large number of sepoys from regiments that had been disbanded had returned to their homes in Shahabad district and the population also included many retired sepoys living on their pensions." One of the three sources gives "three of four hundred prisoners", another "two or three hundred". There is nothing about disbanded regiments returning, nor retired sepoys. It does give the number of Sepoys in Arrah before the siege, a number I would have thought was important.
• "Stationed in Dinapore, 25 miles (40.2 km) away, were three regiments of Bengal Native Infantry—the 7th, 8th and 40th Regiments. They had been recruited entirely from Shahabad district and were loyal to the local zamindar (chieftain or landlord) Kunwar Singh (also known as Koor, Coer, Koer, or Kooer Sing).": The reference given for these statements supports "three regiments of native infantry" (again, not Bengal) and where they were recruited from, and their loyalty to "Goer Sing". But the regiment numbers and the variant names for Kunwar Singh (the only name given is Goer Sing) are not supported.
• "Singh, who was around 80 years of age, had a number of grievances against the East India Company regarding deprivation of his lands and income, and was described as "the high-souled chief of a warlike tribe, who had been reduced to a nonentity by the yoke of a foreign invader" by George Trevelyan in his 1864 book The Competition Wallah.": The given reference supports his age, and that he was not too happy with "the yoke of a foreign invader" but does not support his specific grievances. The quotation is as given.
• "On 8 June, Arthur Littledale, a judge working in Arrah, received a letter from William Tayler, the commissioner of Patna district, warning him that an outbreak of mutiny from the Bengal Native Infantry units in Dinapore was to be expected": The given reference supports the sending of a letter on 8 June, but not who sent it, to Mr W Tayler. It mentions "an insurrection of natives" but not the Bengal Native Infantry.
• "The European population in Arrah spent that night at Littledale's house, and the following morning a meeting was held at the house of Herwald Wake, the magistrate of Shahabad district. During this meeting it was decided that the European women and children were to be sent by boat to Dinapore, escorted by armed members of the European male population, where they would be taken into the care of the 10th Regiment of Foot—this decision was acted upon the same day": The given reference mentions that non-officials were to make their way on boat or horseback to Dinapore, but nothing about women and children, and nothing about this meeting, or when it was acted upon.
• I also noticed, a little worryingly, that the Sieveking book is pretty much paraphrasing large chunks of the Halls book, at least for this section. I'm not sure we should be using a source which relies so heavily on another source (which we are also using).

• I stopped there. It is possible that wrong page numbers have been cited, but there was enough that matches to make me think that the pages are correct. A possible problem is that some references are used to cover several sentences, and they are not strong enough to do that. Referencing smaller chunks might help.
• It could be argued that some of the above information does not require a source as it is well-known. However, I did not know the information, and neither will the majority of readers. The standard of referencing at FA is such that all information like this must be referenced.
• I would imagine that a lot of the more general background, such as the information that the Bengal Infantry were the unit involved, is available in a general history of the "Indian Mutiny". The nominator made the point above that "the latest work I could find that covered the siege in any detail was from 1910" and that modern books do not cover it in any detail. But the more I think about this, the less comfortable I am that we are not using ANY modern general histories. For background, if nothing else, these are surely essential, and I would imagine some of them contain something about the siege as well, even if just a sentence. A google books search throws up several mentions of Arrah (I haven't checked the quality of the books, but at least one is an encyclopaedia). I think modern works are essential for context.
• Following on from this, I realise that there is nothing in the Aftermath section about later events in the Mutiny; i.e. how it ended. The general reader will very likely not know what came next, and a few sentences to tell them would be a great help.

In short, the referencing needs a considerable amount of work. Therefore, I'm afraid I have to oppose for the moment, and need convincing that the article is fully sourced before I strike this. Feel free to argue or to explain if I'm being rather stupid and have missed something. Sorry to do this so late in the nomination. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings @Sarastro1:, thanks for your time. I've now gone through the article again, moving citations to the specific statements they support where appropriate. I've also added to the Aftermath section - it did already indicate what Kunwar Singh's forces did next, so I added a little bit of further background. I must address the issue with modern sourcing, however - even in the search link you have provided, there is nothing that gives any detailed analysis. This result is an analysis of a Rudyard Kipling story; this encyclopaedia entry is only a paragraph and does not include key details and this book only contains the image that I've used in the article's infobox, without any other information. I really don't want to sound like I'm being an ass - it's just that there's no modern writing about this subject. All the in-depth results that appear, at first glance, to be new books are in fact reprints of much older works - the first result in that search you linked was a 2006 reprint of a 1912 book - and the single Google Books result from the 21st century from my search contains only a short mention, focusing instead on Kunwar Singh's wider activities. Therefore I'm not sure that the request for a modern history perspective is actionable (and I'm still aware that I sound like an ass, for which I can only say sorry - it's not intentional!). Exemplo347 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Further spot-checks: I checked the issues I had previously identified, and these seem to have been, in the main, sorted. I did some further spot-checks and found further issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• "For their actions during the siege, Wake was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath": Source does not give reasons, merely confirms that he received the award.
• "Although an attempt was made to smoke the men out of the house by making a large fire of furniture and chilli peppers, a last-minute shift in wind direction blew the smoke away from the house": In the source, we have "The rebels made an attempt later to smoke out the garrison, by bringing quantities of straw and bamboos, which they lighted, and into which they threw chillies (red peppers); but thanks to the kindly offices of the wind, which shifted at a crucial moment, the danger to the bungalow was averted." This may seem like nit-picking, but the source does not mention furniture, but says that straw and bamboo was used to light the fire, and then chillies were added. It does not explicitly say a large fire, and while I concede that "quantities" may mean a large number, technically (and particularly in "Victorian-Speak") this does not have to be so. I'm afraid this carelessness with the source material does not fill me with confidence if we can stretch such a simple issue; it also shows the dangers of interpreting older books.
• "The mutineers and rebel forces did not attempt another charge on the building, although its occupants expected an attack at any moment during the siege.": This is sourced to an issue of the London Gazette, across five pages, pp. 3418-22. The only possible mention which supports this is on p 3422. Unless I’ve missed it, although the charge is mentioned, this statement is not supported at all. Again, it could be argued that the absence of another charge in the report implies that no further one took place (although I'd be uncomfortable stretching it so far) but it does not even give the vaguest hint that another attack was expected. I would also note that this is basically a primary source as it reprints letters (I assume official reports) from commanding officers and the like (in this case, a report from Wake); these five pages are used several times and I have not attempted to verify any other statements, but the information for which they are cited looks uncontroversial and would not be a problem.
• "During the retreat from Arrah, Ross Mangles and William Fraser McDonell (civilian magistrates, and personal friends of Wake, who had volunteered to serve with Dunbar's expedition) earned the Victoria Cross—Mangles, despite being wounded, carried a wounded soldier from the 37th Regiment of Foot for several miles while under fire": The reference supports Mangles being awarded the VC, that he volunteered to serve with Dunbar's force, and that he carried a wounded soldier from the 37th "under a murderous fire" while being wounded. However, it makes no mention of his occupation, or his friendship with Wake. And McDonell is not mentioned at all in the given source, but in the one cited next (this could be sorted by moving references around a little: make sure the reference covers all the text that it comes after).
• "and McDonnell exposed himself to heavy fire to cut a rope that was preventing a boat from making its escape, saving the lives of 35 soldiers": The source is a little vague but supports this; however, it's not clear that he cut a rope preventing the boat making its escape; the source says he went "up to the rudder, and with considerable difficulty cut through the lashing which secured it to the side of the boat. On the lashing being cut, the boat obeyed the helm, and thus thirty-five European Soldiers escaped certain death." My reading of this would be that he cut away the rudder, but the problem here is that I'm interpreting; without more information, it is not clear what this means and we are in danger of having to interpret primary sources. Also, the source does not support he or Mangles being magistrates of friends of Wake.
• I'm also slightly concerned that we may have a touch of close paraphrasing. This is very borderline, and the only instance I've found, but I'd just feel a little happier if the structure and wording had fewer similarities to the source: Article: ...who had volunteered to serve with Dunbar's expedition... Mangles, despite being wounded, carried a wounded soldier from the 37th Regiment of Foot for several miles while under fire

Source: Mr. Mangles volunteered and served with the Force ... The Force fell into an Ambuscade on the night of the 29th of July, 1857, and, during the retreat on the next morning, Mr. Mangles, with signal gallantry and generous self-devotion, and notwithstanding that he had himself been previously wounded, carried for several miles, out of action, a wounded soldier of Her Majesty's 37th Regiment, after binding up his wounds under a murderous fire

• "At the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny these were the only "native" troops in Shahabad district. They had been recruited entirely from Shahabad district and were loyal to the local zamindar (chieftain or landlord) Kunwar Singh": To me, this is unsupported by the source. I imagine that the part which we are citing is "And besides all this, Koer Singh, the greatest landholder (or Zemindar) of the district, who was the most influential man in the neighbourhood among the native soldiers, was strongly suspected to be plotting against the English." There is nothing else even remotely connected, but I do not feel this supports that they were the only "native" troops in the Shahabad district, or that they were from that area. I also note the different spelling of zamindar.
• Variant names of Kunwar Singh: three are referenced to Sievking, which suggests that this was a rather ignorant lack of consistency, rather than he was known by different names.
• "Discussions had taken place between Tayler and his superiors about disarming the three regiments of Bengal Native Infantry stationed in Dinapore, and Governor-General Charles Canning delegated responsibility for the decision to Major General George Lloyd, military commander of the Dinapore division": Sorry, but the source does not support this. The outline is supported, but not the detail - a common problem in this article. The source has (unless I've missed something on the page given): "Not a British officer, except the major-general, doubted that these Europeans could have disarmed and controlled the sepoys, had the attempt been made at the proper time. The Calcutta inhabitants had petitioned the governor-general to disarm the native regiments at Dinapoor, and the officers of the Queen's regiments at that station had all along advocated a similar measure; but General Lloyd, like many other Company's officers, was proud of the sepoys, and trusted them to the last ; and Viscount Canning placed reliance on his experience, to determine whether and when to effect this disarming. This reliance ended in unfortunate results." There is no mention here of Tayler (he is mentioned earlier on the page, but not in connection with this) or of any discussions, nor of the number of regiments, nor of them being Bengal Native Infantry, nor any delegation to Lloyd.

I'm afraid my oppose stands. There are still big issues here, and the closer I look, the unhappier I am feeling with how this article has been sourced. I have no doubt that it is accurate and that all the information here is somewhere in the sources. But the citations are not doing what they are claimed to do at the moment, and this is a big problem. It needs going through almost line by line and checking that the information in the article is definitely supported by the reference given. The nominator may want to get some help in on this one, otherwise I can see this being too big a job. I am quite happy to check again, but the more problems that we are finding, the more checking will need doing to clear this for verification. There may come a point when that is no longer worth doing in this FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment -- it's been a week since Sarastro's last posting reiterating his concerns and I haven't seen any progress; regrettably, I think we'll need to archive this to allow the nominator to make a thorough check of the referencing, after which I hope to see it renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2017 [15].

---

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) and Boghog (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Notified WT:WikiProject Medicine, WT:WikiProject Pharmacology, WT:WikiProject Chemicals, and WT:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology.

This article is about a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement that is a natural product in humans and has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition.

This is the second pharmacology article that I've worked on for FA status. My first pharmacology FA was amphetamine, so this article's layout and formatting mirror that article. Like amphetamine, this article includes citations in the lead. I will not remove these because many of these statements are medical claims; however, I'm amenable to moving the citations into a note at the end of each paragraph as was done in the lead of amphetamine if reviewers of this nomination prefer this approach.

The labels in the section headers and their organization in the article follows MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. The sources used to cite medical claims in this article are required to satisfy WP:MEDRS; most, if not all, of the WP:PAYWALLED medical reviews that are currently cited in the article are and will be temprorarily available in this link for viewing/downloading to allow reviewers to conduct WP:V checks for the duration of this nomination and any subsequent FAC nominations. The file names (without the .pdf extension) of the papers listed in this link reflect the reference names (i.e., <ref name="...">) defined in the source code of the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Doc James

Moved from Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid § Follow-up from FAC

The discussion in this tab was imported from the HMB talk page

The review you are using comes to three sentences of conclusions "HMB contributed to preservation of muscle mass in older adults." which says it help keep mm mass, does not comment on those with sarcopenea. "HMB supplementation may be useful in the prevention of muscle atrophy induced by bed rest or other factors." A decrease of uncertainty "Further studies are needed to determine the precise effects of HMB on muscle strength and physical function in older adults." Means it is unclear if HMB affects str or function. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC) IMO before we should be uneqivacally recommending this stuff in WP's voice I would like to see (1) government sources supporting benefit (2) specific reviews supporting benefit (which we have some of) and (3) general reviews supporting benefit. I do not see us as having either 1 or 3. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 2017 general review on sarcopinea says "A recent meta-analysis revealed some benefit of using a combined approach of dietary supplements and exercise, but the findings were inconsistent among various populations." PMID:27886695 Based on this 2015 review [16] "The main message is that enhanced benefits of exercise training, when combined with dietary supplementation, have been shown in some trials – indicating potential for future interventions, but that existing evidence is inconsistent." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC) @Doc James: I've used more or less the exact wording from the meta-analysis' actual conclusion, as opposed to the abstract, in the lead in this edit. The body of the article already stated the part of the sentence that I added to the lead. This link will take you to the full text of the meta-analysis if you want to read the full conclusion. "Further studies are needed to determine the precise effects of HMB on muscle strength and physical function in older adults." Means it is unclear if HMB affects str or function. Yes, I agree that what you stated is what that sentence means. The article didn't contradict this assertion before and it still doesn't now. The body of the article repeated that same assertion using different language at the time that you wrote this comment. I added the statement to the lead since you mentioned it. IMO before we should be uneqivacally recommending this stuff in WP's voice I would like to see (1) government sources supporting benefit (2) specific reviews supporting benefit (which we have some of) and (3) general reviews supporting benefit. - we are not and have not been recommending anything. The article makes statements about efficacy in older adults based upon a meta-analysis. In the body of the article only, it states that the authors of two reviews have recommended it. If there are reviews that do not recommend it, we can state that too. Re (1): why can't we just state that no governmental health agencies have endorsed the use of HMB? Re (3): what is a "general review"? Based on this 2015 review [17] "The main message is that enhanced benefits of exercise training, when combined with dietary supplementation, have been shown in some trials – indicating potential for future interventions, but that existing evidence is inconsistent." - this is consistent with what the meta-analysis states about the combination of exercise+HMB: "While effects on muscle mass were consistent, outcomes for muscle strength and physical performance varied in different reports. Perhaps resistance exercise in combination with HMB treatment is a potent stimulus for muscle improvement. Further studies are needed to investigate the combination of HMB and exercise for improving muscle strength and physical performance." Both reviews appear to support the assertion that "the effects of HMB combined with exercise on muscle strength and performance require further research in older adults", so would you like to see this statement added? 2017 general review on sarcopinea says "A recent meta-analysis revealed some benefit of using a combined approach of dietary supplements and exercise, but the findings were inconsistent among various populations." PMID:27886695 - this review cites this review which did not conduct a meta-analysis (quote from methodology: The studies were not graded for quality; no attempt at a meta-analysis was made.) but cited this meta-analysis when stating "A meta-analysis of findings from randomized controlled trials has shown that protein supplementation during an exercise training program increases gains in muscle mass and strength, in younger (<50 years) and older (≥50 years) adults16 – much less is known about the combined effects of exercise training and supplementation with other dietary components that have been linked to sarcopenia." That meta-analysis doesn't mention HMB anywhere. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Just reade a few changes (diff) that i think reflect the refs and put the body and lead in harmony... calibration is very tricky here. are there outstanding issues? Jytdog (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I'm ok with the changes you made relative to medical foods. Since the efficacy for sarcopenia has been such a major point of conflict, I think we should use language which is as close to the source as possible without creating a copyvio from paraphrasing too closely. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC) @Doc James: Can you respond to my questions from above? Also, please let me know if you think Jytdog's and my changes to the first three sentences in the lead resolve the issues you had with the efficacy and the medical food statements. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Jytdog's use of "may" is much better than "can" based on my reading of the evidence. We have the concern that this stuff has not actually been studied in people with sarcopenia, we have the issue of the small number of peoples in the trials, and than we have the issue of other sources using more tentative language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Have moved the marketing claims to the 4th paragraph.[18] Likely just needs one reference rather than 4 as all supported by PR Newswire Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC) I've removed the link to sarcopenia in the lead sentence since you feel that this is an issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC) That was not my issue and this does not address my concerns[19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC) You said We have the concern that this stuff has not actually been studied in people with sarcopenia. I've removed sarcopenia from the lead and simply indicated it's people with age-related muscle loss, which is supported by the title of the meta-analysis and the demographics included in the meta-analysis. The modified sentence is almost identical to the sentence in the conclusion of the meta-analysis, with superficial wording differences. Why is that sentence still an issue? It's clearly not an overstatement of efficacy per the meta-anaylsis. Edit: the article says "HMB can inhibit the loss of lean body mass in individuals experiencing age-related muscle loss"; the meta-analysis says "Overall, this meta-analysis indicates that HMB can prevent lean body mass loss in older adults." What the meta-analysis says is stronger than what the article says because prevent means "completely avoid", whereas inhibit just means "reduce". I'm not okay with downplaying the efficacy anymore than that.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Entire conclusion from the meta-analysis From [20]: 5. Conclusion Overall, this meta-analysis indicates that HMB can prevent lean body mass loss in older adults. But the effects of HMB on muscle strength and physical function appears to vary in different populations. Additional well-designed clinical studies are necessary to confirm the effectiveness of HMB in the prevention of loss of muscle strength and physical function. @Doc James: What is your concern with that sentence, specifically, if the population samples included in the RCTs from that meta-analysis (link here) wasn't the issue? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Seppi, above you wrote: " I've removed sarcopenia from the lead and simply indicated it's people with age-related muscle loss". That is not any change in meaning, right? Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog: sarcopenia and age-related muscle loss aren't entirely synonymous. Sarcopenia is a medical diagnosis that involves the loss of lean body mass, whereas the loss of muscle mass associated with age is simply a phenomenon that typically starts to occur in the late 30s or mid-40s and accelerates with each additional decade. Before that point, the human body is on average in an anabolic state, and muscle growth tends to occur annually even without exercise. After that age range, the body is on average in a catabolic state, and muscle mass tends to decline on an annual basis. The meta-analysis included studies in which the samples contained primarily healthy older adults who did not have a diagnosis of sarcopenia. Some of the participants may have been sarcopenic, but to my knowledge none were diagnosed as such. The fact that the participants in most of the studies were not diagnosed with sarcopenia is one of the issues that Doc James correctly pointed out earlier. We shouldn't say that the meta-analysis applies to adults diagnosed with sarcopenia. Its conclusion really only applies to older adults in general, almost all of whom experience annual losses in muscle mass if they don't perform resistance exercise on a regular basis. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: I'm pinging you to let you know that I've renominated this article and moved our discussion from the HMB talk page here. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by SlimVirgin

• Comment. Seppi333, I'm not in a position to support or oppose this, but I wondered whether you'd consider moving the history to the top. It's interesting, it's short and it provides a gentle introduction. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin: Sorry for the late reply. In order to satisfy FA criterion 2b (appropriate structure), the article conforms to the section layout specified in MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices/MOS:PHARM (these guidelines have identical provisions for medications and other drugs/biologically active substances - the latter is just more detailed). Unfortunately, these guidelines specify that the history section be placed more towards the end of the article. With that said, I'm not actually opposed to the idea of repositioning "History" as one of the first sections, but I'd prefer not to deviate from the MOS since I know for certain that some medical editors will take issue with me doing that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Coordinator note: This nomination is in danger of stalling as we are without substantial comment when the review has been open for over a month. I would be tempted to archive, but I am aware that medical articles can be a little slow burning, and concerns have been raised in the past that we have archived too quickly. However, given that we have had no review yet, I think we need to see something happening in the next week if this review is to be kept open. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: This nomination reminds me so much of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive3. I have a feeling that this is going to require 5 FAC nominations before there's enough constructive reviewer feedback for this article to be promoted as well... In any event, please archive this nomination. I don't have the time to badger past/potential reviewers to comment on this nomination at the moment and Doc James is currently on vacation; consequently, I don't think it's particularly likely that there would be much activity in this nomination over the next 2 weeks if the nomination were kept open. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 [21].

---

Henry Morgan

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Henry Morgan is one of the more interesting historical figures around. A privateer who was the scourge of the Spanish in the Caribbean who later became a Governor of Jamaica. He secured Jamaica as one of the jewels of the British Empire – and made himself extremely wealthy in the process. He is possibly better known to modern eyes through the books and films in which he is fictionalised, or perhaps the brand of rum which bears his name. This has recently been through the PR process to take some of the edges off, and I look forward to hearing further comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the Port Royal map
• File:Puerto_del_Príncipe_-_being_sacked_in_1668_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_19396.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
• Non-US images on Commons should include info on copyright status in country of origin as well as the US
• What is the source of the data presented in File:Lake_Maracaibo_map.png? Same with File:PortRoyalEarthquakeMap.jpg
• File:Voorpagina_Americaensche_Zee-Roovers.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I've added, removed and altered those mentioned. Thanks again. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but in some cases problems persist.

• File:Henry_Morgan_in_colour.jpg has a tag stating the author is unknown, but the description identifies a named author. Same with File:Captain_Henry_Morgan_attacking_Panama.jpg, File:King_Charles_II_(Lely).jpg

• For the two Morgan ones we know the author of the books from which the images came, but not the illustrator, which is why I went with the 'unknown' tag. If they are incorrect, which tag should it be? Many thanks – The Bounder (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Is there an illustrator identified in the book (or, conversely, are they stated to be anonymous)? Is there a copyright statement in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• No illustrator is named, and neither carry a copyright notice The Morgan in colour was published in 1684 (which pre-dates any copyright statutes); it çan be seen here. This is for the Panama image (first published in 1742). The Bounder (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Okay. If Exquemelin did not create those illustrations, he shouldn't be listed as author in the image description. The 'unknown' tag also requires that you detail what steps you've taken to try to identify the author - the information you've provided here should work for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Nikkimaria. I've added that information now, and tidied up the information in the Morgan colour description too. I think I have all the images now sorted out, but if I have overlooked something, could you let me know? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like you've changed one of the Morgan images and not the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I thought I'd got them both (This edit for the colour image and this one for the Panama image). Have I missed one of the other images that needs working on? Thanks (and sorry if I'm making a mess of this). The Bounder (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• No worries. The Panama image listed above was File:Captain_Henry_Morgan_attacking_Panama.jpg, looks like you changed a different one. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• OK - my mistake! I've now addressed that one with this edit. I think that should clear it up, but please let mw know if there are any other steps I should take. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• File:Puerto_del_Príncipe_-_being_sacked_in_1668_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_19396.jpg needs a tag for the country of original publication. Same with File:Henry_Morgan's_attack_on_the_Castillo_de_San_Jeronimo,_Porto_Bello,_1669.jpg, File:Pyle_pirate_prisoner.jpg, File:Henry_Morgan_libel_news.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Should now be OK, but please let me know if I've erred. I haven't edited the Pyle image, as this was a US publication and he's a US author. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto

Some comments, mostly on prose:

• Very nitpicky, but "Much of Morgan's early life is unknown, although he was born in south Wales; it is not known how he made his way to the West Indies, or how he began his career as a privateer" reads awkwardly. Perhaps "Much of Morgan's early life is unknown. He was born in south Wales, but it is not known how he made his way to the West Indies, or how he began his career as a privateer"?
• "Morgan was probably a member of a group of privateers led by Sir Christopher Myngs attacking cities and settlements on the Spanish Main. By 1663 he captained a ship within Myngs' fleet". If Morgan captained one of Myngs' ships, why is it only probable that he was a member of the group?
• "Several sources state Morgan's father was Robert Morgan, a farmer." this suggests that this is uncertain, but doesn't say so explicitly, and no sources which contradict this are mentioned. What is the consensus about this identification? I note that the sources given which identify Morgan's father all significantly postdate the DWB's claim that attempts to identify Morgan's antecedents have all proved unsatisfactory.
  • Most indicate Robert as the father, but not all, and I don't think we can judge either way. We represent the uncertainty of the sources with the wording we have. - The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• In the section on "early career", we once again switch between the probabilistic "it is probable that Morgan served" and the certain "By 1663, Morgan captained". This is confusing.
• How meaningful is it to say that £70,000 in 1668 was equivalent to £10m in 2016? Did they have equivalent purchasing power? Is that even meaningful when so many consumer goods today wouldn't have been available in 1668? I'm generally sceptical of this kind of equivalence...
• "Morgan admitted he had met the French officials, but pointed out that this was diplomatic relations, rather than anything duplicitous." Pointed out? It certainly sounds like there's a case to be made that Morgan was doing exactly what he was accused of; "pointed out" seems a bit PoV to me...

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Tweaked, although I'd doubt this is a POV thing! - The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Caeciliusinhorto, thank you very much for your comments; I have adopted all your suggestions, aside from the one on his father. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Caeciliusinhorto, I just thought I'd check to see if you were happy with the changes I had made? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @The Bounder: The article is looking better. A few more thoughts:

1. There are still a number of instances in the article where we read that such and such an amount of money was equivalent to howevermuch in 2016; I continue to be dubious about this.

I know there are two schools of thought on the use of the conversion, but I think it's useful for readers to give them a frame of reference. - The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

1. For a lot of Morgan's life, we don't really know anything, and so the article says, for instance "It is unknown how Morgan made his way to the Caribbean", before giving four separate possibilities. However, in (almost?) all of these cases, no information is given to the reader as to e.g. what scholars think of these various suggestions. In the case of Morgan's travel to the Carribean, each of the four separate possibilities has a different source, three from the 2000s and one from the 1950s. Which is fine as far as it goes. But would it be possible, without straying too far into WP:SYNTH, to say that scholars have generally sided with x or y when answering this question? (And similarly for other points of uncertainty: are the four examples of people who identify Morgan's father as farmer Robert the only four examples, or are they four of hundreds?)

I think it may cross over to SYNTH to try and put weight onto one over the others. I've scanned over four of the sources and they give their preferred path, but without questioning it. I've tweaked the opening para of the early life section to show the DNB stresses that the early life is lacking in reliable information. – The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

1. On the question of sources, WP:WIAFA specifies that we should look for "high-quality reliable sources" in featured articles. Are sources from 1911 (Barbour), 1932 (Gosse) and 1936 (Cundall) still considered to be "high-quality reliable sources"?

Yes, they are still used as sources by more recent historians (Cundall was a source for the DNB, for example). – The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Dank for reminding me of this: I'm still not keen on the conversions, but unless anyone else objects I'm not going to push you on that. Happy to support this one for now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on this. If others object to the conversion I'll remove it, but I still think it provides more contextual help than acts as a hinderance. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell

Ooh, interesting article. I'm rather partial to a Morgan's Spiced and Coke (although it rarely ends at one!). This is very nice work; just a few comments:

• We generally bold honorifics like "sir"; most publications treat it as part of the name (see MOS:HONORIFIC).
• I don't know if there's much that can be done about it, but the opening "was a Welsh privateer" and the allegiance to the Kingdom of England in the infobox struck me as a juxtaposition.
  • The only thing I can think of is a footnote to explain that Wales was part of the Kingdom of England at the time, but I'm not sure where it would be best placed. Any thoughts? - The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• "and was involved in the Sack of Campeche" Morgan was or the ship was? Presumably Morgan but it feels like the ship is the subject at this point of the sentence.
• "in the Caribbean and what is now central America" Was it not always? Also, isn't it one proper noun (ie Central America, with a capital C)?
• "was given the rank of Admiral" we don't treat ranks as proper nouns unless they're attached to a name (took me a moment to track down the relevant part of the MoS but it's MOS:MILTERMS)
• Suggest linking the ODNB on the one occasion it's mentioned in the prose
• "destroyed the ship and over 200 of its complement" seems a rather blazé way to report the deaths of 200 sailors
• "£50,000 (£7,067,848 in 2016 pounds[37])" Do we need to be so precise (I doubt it's possible to calculate precisely anyway); wouldn't it do to round it down to 7 million, or perhaps up to 7.1 million? Likewise with "£853,521 in 2016 pounds"
• "and increased his intake of alcohol" Do we know what he drank? From his presence in Jamaica and his legacy I presume rum?
  • Anything he could get his hands on, I think! Although rum is the obvious possibility, madeira, brandy and wine were also being shipped over to the Carribbean at the time, and none of the biographies identify what Morgan's choice was. - The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from those minor quibbles, this is an excellent article on a fascinating subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks HJ Mitchell, and I am extremely grateful for your comments. I have addressed them as best I can, which I hope is suitable. If you have any thoughts as to the Kingdom of England footnote, I would enjoy reading them too. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me. Happy to support. Merry Christmas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you: thank you very much; a very happy new year to you! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments on it, of which only the first two are substantive:

• Per WP:LEAD (especially WP:LEADPARAGRAPH) I'd suggest restructuring the first paragraph of the lead so that it summarises who Morgan was, without getting into the nuts and bolts of his early life.
• More generally, I think that the lead is a bit too detailed - there's no need for details here (eg, "Under the authority of the commission, Morgan attacked Puerto Principe (now Camagüey) and Porto Bello (in modern Panama). The raids brought the privateers between £70,000 and £100,000 of money and valuables" could be replaced with something like "In X and Y Morgan conducted successful and personally highly lucrative raids on Puerto Principe (now Camagüey) and Porto Bello (in modern Panama)".
  • I'll work on these and ping you when they are done. - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• "the authorisation to colonial governors that they could issue letters of marque against the Dutch" - this is a bit awkward
  • Now copyedited - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• The first three sentences in the para starting with "Morgan and his men arrived at Old Panama City" all start with "Morgan": this could be diversified a bit
  • Now copyedited - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• " it included a call to revoke all letters of marque and similar commissions" - wouldn't a treaty have been more specific than calling for things? Did the countries "agree", "commit" or similar to get rid of privateers?
  • Yes - now done - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• "In 1684 an account of Morgan's exploits was published by Exquemelin, in a Dutch volume entitled De Americaensche Zee-Roovers (trans: About the Buccaneers of America)" - can a brief summary of the book's claims against Morgan be provided?
  • Only in a few places that we identify within the text. It was more a case of a few exaggerations here and there to create the wrong impression, then a few big lies (like the use of nuns as a human shield at Porto Bello. - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • OK fair enough Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I think that the "Map of Port Royal showing shorelines before and after the earthquake" should be omitted: it doesn't really show anything terribly relevant to Morgan as the text in the article notes only that his grave vanished when the town was devastated Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • OK - I thought it may be useful to show just how much the shores had moved, but now deleted. - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thank you very much for your insightful comments. I am still working on the first two, but the others were covered (where appropriate) by this series of edits. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Nick-D, I've attacked the lead (in this edit) as you suggested: was this what you thought, or did you have something else in mind? Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've run out of time to look at this today: I'll follow up tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • No problem - no rush at all. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your input and comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE TO REVIEWERS. If I could ask reviewers to have a brief look at Talk:Henry Morgan‎#‎Sub sections this talk page thread to discuss whether this sub division of the article is necessary. All comments and views are welcome. Many thanks - The Bounder (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• I'm not sure some of what's in the lead is entirely supported by the article text. For example, the lead says he died "largely as a result of excessive drinking"; the text confirms he drank excessively but does not so definitively link it to his death. Cites in the lead may be needed.
  • Having gone over the sources again, they all discuss his heavy drinking immediately before writing about his death (often in same paragraph), but none specifically put the cause down to the death, so I've removed in information from the lead. (We don't make the connection in the body, so I've left it as is. - The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• The ISBN for the Curtis book leads to a 2007 edition, and I can't find a 2009 one
  • Mea culpa: changed. - The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Scientific American should be italicized, as should Britannica
  • Done - The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm a little confused by your Online/Journals split - for example, you've got DWB and Scientific American in online, but then ODNB in journals - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The DWB isn't available in book format (as far as I am aware), and the Scientific American article looks like online only, rather than copied from a hard copy publication. ONDB is a hard copy. I can see how this may cause confusion, however, so I'll move the DNB into online. - The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thank you so much for your input here yet again: I hope my changes are all satisfactory. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Iridescent

Version reviewed is this one; as usual, I've intentionally not read anyone else's comments or the talkpage so there may be some duplication.

• I know the weird mix of spaced and unspaced dashes in the section headings is complying with the MOS prescription that if there's a "c." the dash is spaced and if there isn't, it isn't, but it makes the TOC look horrible. Is there any way around it, even if it means quietly dropping the circas, or even losing the dates from the headings altogether? (Or, of course, ignoring the MOS and not spacing the dashes in either case—if "Early years in the Caribbean, c.1658–1667" is good enough for the OUP, the world will not come to an end if we do the same.)
  • I've removed the circas to stop the MoS circus! - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Per the comments on my talkpage, He was born in south Wales needs an explanatory footnote regarding the status of Monmouth (I'd say put in a second link to the existing footnote 1).
  • I'd already added one (footnote 2). Better where it is, or as a note to a note? - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Does that work? Revert if you disagree. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Excellent - even better. Thanks for that; I never knew you could duplicate notes like this - very useful. - The Bounder (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Richard Browne, who served as surgeon under Morgan in 1670 stated that Morgan had travelled as a "private gentleman" soon after the 1655 capture of Jamaica by the English, or he may have been kidnapped in Bristol and transported to Barbados, where he was sold as a servant. is unclear—does this mean "Browne said he either travelled as a private gentleman or was kidnapped" or "Browne said he travelled as a private gentleman but he may actually have been kidnapped"?
  • I've added a minor tweak of "either" to clarify the choice of two. - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• This is possibly a really stupid question, but if privateers were commissioned by government to attack the country's enemies, was Spain actually an enemy at the time? Looking at Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660), the war between England and Spain ended at the Restoration in 1660 and Myngs's raids were undertaken without the consent of the government.
  • I'll add a footnote on this. Although the wars ended, that was a European affair: the situation in the Caribbean, with the Spanish dominance there meant a whole different situation. - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Now added. - The Bounder (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• While it's reasonable to assume readers will know (at least vaguely) where Havana is, it's not reasonable to assume they know where Tortuga or Camagüey are (I've never heard of either before). Yes, readers can click the links, but we shouldn't be sending people on treasure hunts for such basic information.
  • Now clarified (I think most watchers of the Pirates of the Carribbean films will have heard of Tortuga, but have no idea of where it is!) - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Do we have any idea why the target of the raid was changed to Camagüey, which looking at the map appears to be the one point in Cuba least suited to an invasion by sea?
  • Too heavily defended - now clarified - The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Did he ever hang the murderer in the end, or was he just saying this to shut the French up?
  • Hanged him: now added. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• The 200 French privateers, unhappy with the division of the treasure and the murder of their countryman, left Morgan's service.—what happened to them? At this point in the narrative Morgan is still 50 miles behind enemy lines—did he just dump them in Cuba and leave them to swim home?
  • They came - and returned - in their own ships. I've added this. - The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• The story of the castles and the giant ladders raises more questions than answers. Did he bring the ladders wide enough for three men to climb abreast with him in the 23 canoes, or did he build them on his arrival?
  • Clarified. - The Bounder (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• The {{inflation}} template measures the varying costs of low-value activities of daily life. It's fine for the changing price of bread or train tickets, but you can't use it for capital costs, let alone the value of the gold stripped from a looted city. (See the big warning box on the template itself.) For post-1830 dates you can get away with using the UKNGDPPC index, but pre-Industrial Revolution this is also meaningless. Personally, I'd leave the conversion out altogether and just point out that the entire English government at the time had an annual budget of £1.2–2 million. If you are going to attempt currency conversions, you won't be able to get anything more accurate than "within an order of magnitude", and certainly don't want to make precise claims like £5,263 (£853,521 in 2017 pounds).
  • Removed, and I'll add the English budget figures shortly. Caeciliusinhorto also raised a question on the use of these, and I promised to remove them if a second reviewer asked for it. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Rather than the English budget figure, I've gone for the equivalent levels the DNB gives instead - measured against the exports of Jamaica and Barbados. - The Bounder (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Re a huge quantity of merchandise and slaves—were these existing slaves of the locals which Morgan had taken for himself, or was he actually enslaving the Spaniards?
  • Existing ones - I've clarified. - The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Is "Attack of Panama" what it's actually called, or is this a typo?
  • Typo - now changed - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• The loss of Panama so soon after the signing of the treaty—by "loss of", are we just talking about destruction, or had Morgan actually annexed it? I would read "loss of" as the latter, and I suspect most present-day readers would as well.
  • Changed for "destruction". - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Morgan had been a heavy drinker for several years, but he received the news of the revocation of his positions badly is a non sequitur.
  • Tweaked - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• The piece on the libel action talks about a single book published by Crooke and Malthus, but the accompanying press cutting talks about the libel action being about two different books, one by each. Which is correct?
  • It referred to the same book by Exquemelin, which was issued in Britain by two different booksellers. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Does the bit about the finding of the Encarnación really need to be here? "Archaeologists found a ship which didn't belong to him" isn't of much interest, and having it here at the end means that a very dramatic narrative ends on something of a wet fart.
  • PMSL - now removed. - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• In 2008 the Captain Morgan brand was sold to Diageo isn't in the source provided, and doesn't tally with the 2001 date in Captain Morgan. The history section on the Diageo website isn't great, but would appear to confirm the 2001 date.
  • No idea why I put 2008 - I know it was 2001! - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Jamaica as the centerpiece of the British Empire in America—I appreciate this is a quote, but WTF? The American Revolution hadn't yet happened; I'm sure Virginia, New York, Boston and Montreal would all dispute that statement fairly strongly.
  • I'll look into this shortly and how better to put this across, but Blalock is an American academic writing for the American Dictionary of National Biography! I suspect he's talking about the modern, or at least post-1776, British Empire. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've re-worked it out of a quote to give the same impression, but not as the "centerpiece". - The Bounder (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• I know this isn't your fault, but that "Pirates of the Modern Age" navbox really grates on me. I don't care what the historiographical terminology is—I guarantee that if I go outside and ask 100 people "when did the modern age begin", not a single one of them will give me a year as early as the 1660s.
  • I've boldly tweaked it to "Pirates since the 1660s". We shall see if it lasts that way. - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a daunting list but they're all relatively minor quibbles. ‑ Iridescent 23:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Iridescent - your thoughts are much appreciated. I've made a start and will ping when I've sorted them all. Only a couple need me to go back to the sources for extra input, so this should be done quite soon. Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Iridescent, All your suggestions done - I hope to your satisfaction. Please let me know if there is anything else you want to to revisit, or work on further. Many, many thanks for your input: it has been most valuable. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• That all looks fine—happy to support. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments and support: they are very welcome. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Very interesting so far. The usual nitpicks:

• "privateer. He was probably a member of a group of privateers" repetition. I would substitute a synonym or else change one "privateer" into an adjective.
• "When diplomatic relations between the Kingdom of England and Spain were worsening in 1667," "when" does not relate well to a period of time. Possibly change "were worsening" to "worsened".
• "Morgan subsequently conducted successful and personally highly lucrative raids " I would cut "personally" as unneeded, considering you've already made it clear he profited from the raids.
• " Shortly afterwards" this follows a "subsequently" and so is a bit remote from the last dating.
• " destroying a large Spanish defence squadron as he escaped." I would cut "defence" as not really needed and probably raising more questions than answered (little late for defence)
• "In 1671 Morgan attacked Old Panama City, landing on the Caribbean coast of Panama and traversing the Isthmus before he attacked the city, which was on the Pacific coast. " I would cut "of Panama" and possibly "Old". I might also make Isthmus lower case.
• "although the privateers gathered less spoils than in other raids." While "less spoils" is, I suppose, correct, it reads a bit oddly. Consider "profited less" for "gathered less spoils"
• "leading figures of government, including Charles II. Charles" close repetition. Not 100 percent positive the king was a figure of government, technically.
• The Jamaica offices should probably get links.
• "although a significant investment was needed to obtain the high returns" I would cut "a" and "the"
• " and took part in the attacks on Santiago, Cuba and the Sack of Campeche on the Yucatán Peninsula" not clear if there were multiple attacks on Santiago or if Campeche makes it plural.
• " and brought in significant revenue to the island." I might cut "in"
• "As the planting community of 5,000 was still in a nascent form," nascent form reads oddly.
• "A privateer was granted a letter of marque which gave them a licence to attack and seize vessels, normally against a specific country," there is a mismatch between "a privateer" and "them". I might also change "against" to "of"
• "A proportion" I might say "A portion"
• "In August 1665 Morgan, along with his fellow captains John Morris and Jacob Fackman, " I might cut "his"
• "Curaçao, although he did not attack the city, " Willemstad?

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. All your points addressed in these edits. Thank you so much for taking the time to look over this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Santiago, Cuba" maybe just "Santiago de Cuba".
• "Before a riot between the French and English sailors began" I would change "began" to "could begin".
• "Morgan announced the plan of attacking Porto Bello" I might say "Morgan announced a plan to attack Porto Bello"
• "and the murder of their countryman" it was not clear earlier that the man died.
• "returned to Tortuga.[32] Morgan and his ships returned briefly" returned/returned.
• "On 11 July 1668 Morgan anchored short of his target and transferred his men to 23 canoes, where they paddled to within three miles (4.8 km) of the target." multiple points. First, target/target. Second, I would say "which" rather than "where"
• "approached the castle" which?
• I would separate out the material about the religious people being used as human shields and place it after the account of the taking of the castle, in a separate paragraph, or it may colour the reader's perception of how the castle was taken. Thus, I would move up the final sentence to after the word "quickly", and then separate out the controversial account.
• "President of Panama" is this an accurate title?
• "the average salary" I might say "the average annual earnings"
• "which was the price of Morgan's commission" As you use "commission" shortly thereafter, I would make this "letter of marque". And doesn't this contradict what you earlier said about the privateers being able to keep all booty from land attacks?

• I'll check that in the morning. Cheers – The Bounder (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• There is the caveat we mention (one that Morgan used up to the hilt and further): "if Morgan was able to provide evidence of a potential Spanish attack, the attacks on cities were justifiable under the terms of his commission". Regardless of evidence (always obtainable if you torture someone), Morgan was going to attck the cities. - The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Morgan and the captains seated on one side of the table were blown into the water and survived; the flotilla's four captains on the other side of the table were all killed." I would cut "flotilla's"
• "The French captain knew the approaches for the ships to take, which was through a narrow and shallow channel." "approaches" goes to "was", but "were" doesn't really improve things. Possibly, "The French captain knew the approaches to the lake, through a narrow and shallow channel"
• "outside the city" Maracaibo or Gibraltar?

• Done to here for now with these edits; more to follow in the morning. Many thanks for these comments. – The Bounder (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "ten ships and 800 men" ... "fire the fortress's 11 guns" "20 miles" I'm not sure I understand your practice for rendering numbers as words.

• I thought this was the MoS prescribed manner - one to ten as words, 11 and up as numerals. Have I got that wrong? - The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• "at the narrow passage to Lake Maracaibo, where the San Carlos de la Barra Fortress was sited." since they were already on the lake, this should probably be phrased in terms of passage to the Caribbean.
• It's not clear what was contained in the Spanish offers that Morgan put to his men.
• "to catch the ropes and sails of Magdalen and ensure the vessels would become entangled when the fire or explosion took place." I would cut the final seven words.
• "flag ship" you use "flagship" elsewhere
• A boat is not synonymous with a ship.
• "Morgan still needed to pass the San Carlos de la Barra Fortress, but was still out-gunned by the stronghold, which had the ability to destroy the privateer fleet if it tried to pass." when last we encountered the fortress, Morgan had spiked and buried its guns. This should be explained.
• "and raised 15,000 pesos." "raised" may be understood to "successfully solicited". I might say "secured" and add "from the wreck"
• " and a huge quantity of merchandise and local slaves." I'm uncomfortable using "quantity" to describe human beings.
• "The privateers faked a landing of their forces in preparation of a landward attack on the fort." I might strike "in preparation of a landward attack on the fort".
• "That night, while the Spanish were facing toward where they thought the privateers were," maybe "That evening, with Spanish forces deployed to repel a landing,
• "before Morgan and his men made their way back to Port Royal unscathed" I might change "before" to "and"
• "a pro-Spanish faction had the ear of King Charles II" I might add a "gained" before "the ear"
• "Modyford reproved Morgan for his action," You use "reproved", in quotes, earlier on to indicate Morgan getting a slap on the wrist from Modyford; this seems a little more serious so I would use another word. --Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. All these addressed in these edits. Please let me know if there are any that need re-addressing. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A few more:

• "army of privateers was the largest that gathered in the Caribbean" a bit awkward. I'd make it clearer that this was at this time.
• "They were faced by" opposed by
• "down a ravine to a small hill on the Spanish right flank." the ravine was higher than the hill?
• " if his troops lost to the privateers ... after the privateer's victory;" while the second reference can be taken to be referring to Morgan, it still could be mistaken for a typographical error.
• "a warm and positive welcome" I'm afraid I'm not clear on what that might be in 1591.
• "The historian Violet Barbour considers it probable that one of the Spanish conditions was the removal of Modyford from the Governorship. Before the attack on Panama, Sir Thomas Lynch was given a commission to replace Modyford. Following diplomatic pressure from Spain, Lynch was instructed to arrest Modyford and return him to England." The sequence of events is not clear. I imagine that the Spanish were originally content to see Modyford replaced, but the sack of Panama City, which is not even on the same ocean as Jamaica, got them hopping mad and they insisted on his arrest. In any event, this should be more clearly stated.
• "Morgan was temporarily stranded on the island until picked up by a passing merchant ship" and the others?
• "Bindloss and Morgan received recompense for those who signed." maybe "Bindloss and Morgan received a commission for each one signed."
• "criticism of their action in London was fermented" possibly "fomented" for the last word?
• "Morgan still retained his position on the Assembly of Jamaica." I'm not sure you've mentioned this.
• " Howard Pyle's 1921 work, Howard Pyle's Book of Pirates." It's not precisely a 1921 work as Pyle died in 1911 and his publisher assembled some of his pirate tales and illustrations. Suggest a slight rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Wehwalt. These all addressed in these edits. Thanks again, The Bounder (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Excellently done. Yo ho ho and a bottle of ... well, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• That is excellent news: thank you very much for your time and patience on this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

• Citations #141 and 142 say "AFI:Captain Blood" and "AFI:BlackSwan" but I don't see an "AFI" listed as author in the source section?
• Breaking the sources into "books", "online resources" and "journals and magazines" makes it more difficult to find sources based on the short footnotes (i.e. I have to search three different lists to figure out what "Thomas 2014" is.
• Footnote #1 is "Britannica: Monmouthshire" but there is no author listed in the sources as "Britannica" ...
• Footnote #127 is "US Geological Survey" but there is no author listed in the sources as "US Geological Survey"...
• Footnote #145 is "Diageo history" but the nearest match in sources is "Diageo Company History" - I assume they are the same?

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your review, and congratulations on your recent successful RfA – a good decision reached. For all these sources there is no listed author, so I have tried to provide what I hope is a logical description of the sources below, so AFI is the American Film Institute, Britannica is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc. There is no real need to searching through the lists to find the sources: the hyperlinks for the reference "Britannica: Monmouthshire" will drop down straight onto the relevant source. The division of sources by type is one I have seen in numerous academic works, but in this instance I copied it from a couple of articles I had read on Wiki before, Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)#Sources and S. O. Davies#Sources, both of which are FAs from Brian Boulton. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Actually - there is a need. If someone prints out the book form or reads in some other form than through the computer - they will have to look through the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ah - I didn't realise that we had to format things for all media viewing. Thank you, I shall remember that for next time. Do you have any suggestions for renaming while retaining the three sections, which I think should be retained? Many thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd suggest just standardizing - either use the name of the article in the short footnote or put the AFI/Britannica/US Geo as the author in the long citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's great. I'll address that later this evening and ping when it's done. Thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Ealdgyth, All now done and thanks very much. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note

The Bounder, I think this'd be your first FA if promoted? In that case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use while avoiding close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all newbs to jump through. One of the above reviewers may be able to do it, or else you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Ian Rose, Yes it is. I'll ping Ealdgyth as the source reviewer and Nikkimaria as someone I've seen doing source reviews to see if they are able to help out (or anyone else, if they see this!). If neither of them as able to, I'll place a note on the FAC talk. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi one and all (pinging all those who have commented and reviewed so far: Nikkimaria, Caeciliusinhorto, HJ Mitchell, Nick-D, Iridescent, Wehwalt and Ealdgyth). As Ian Rose has requested a spot check on the sources, are any of you able to pick up on this? I'm not sure if any of you wil have access to the sources, so I would be happy to email you scans of specific pages (or downloads of DNB pages) to make the process easier - just let me know the page/source and email me so I have your email address, and I'll ping them over. Many thanks if anyone is able to take this extra step on. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the weekend if nobody else has got to it by then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell, there have been no takers so far, so if you get the chance I'd be very grateful. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Source spot check by Laser brain

• Fn 6 - You present the story of his being sold as a servant as something that "may" have happened, but the source cited says it's "probably untrue", and says Morgan won a libel suit over it. So I don't think you are representing the source correctly.
  • Probably untrue means possibly true. The story of him being sold as a servant is something that is stated as an unquestioned fact in other sources, thus the phrasing here.
• Fn 6 - I also have a concern about close paraphrasing:

• Our text: "kidnapped in Bristol and transported to Barbados, where he was sold as a servant."
• Source text: "kidnapped in Bristol and sold as a servant in Barbados"

• Personally I don't see that as too close, but I'll swap out 'kidnapped' with 'abducted': anything more would be a little too much like linguistic gymnastics to avoid the most efficient way of putting this. – The Bounder (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fn 34 - Citation supports the text, but I think you ought to give pp. 45–46 as the citation. The narrative runs over those two pages and it isn't until p. 46 where we see the town and castles captured.
  • Covered in the first citation, but added the extra page to this. - The Bounder (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fn 90 - The citations support the text, but I have another concern about close paraphrasing:

• Our text: "slipped away with the majority of the plunder."
• Source text: "slipped away ... with the greater part of the plunder"

• Swapped 'slipped away' for 'left - The Bounder (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• I started checking some citations to Breverton and I have concerns about the reliability of this publication. His works seem scarcely reviewed or not well-reviewed, and the publisher is a small Welsh publisher that focuses on nationalist topics. I don't see much on their web site that instills me with confidence in their editorial or submission standards. Breverton himself has a marketing background and is not an academic or trained historian. What makes this meet WP:RS in your opinion?

• Addendum: I see now that Breverton actually operates that publisher. In my mind that makes this book self-published and further reduces the likelihood that there was any editorial oversight. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• He is listed as a source in other works, including:

• Latimer, Jon (2009). Buccaneers of the Caribbean: How Piracy Forged an Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Thomas, Graham (2014). The Buccaneer King: the Story of Captain Henry Morgan. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Maritime.
• Winchester, Simon (2011). Atlantic: A Vast Ocean of a Million Stories. London: HarperPress - The Bounder (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm out of time for right now, but based on my spot checks I think further review is needed for faithfulness to sources, close paraphrasing, and possibly reliability of sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Laser brain. I've dealt with these (hopefully suitably), and should you have any further comments I'd be happy to deal with them. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional checks:

• I was unable to locate the Thomas book using the ISBN cited on either Google Books or Amazon—please check? When I finally found it on amazon.uk, it's listed with a different ISBN and it seems that the 2015 re-publication under a different title is more popular.
  • It's the Kindle ISBN, according to the Kindle copy I have (if you send me your email and I can send a screenshot of the relevant page). It shows up in Google if you search for "9781473835221". – The Bounder (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fn 8 - Citation supports text, no issues with close paraphrasing
• Fn 17 - Citation supports text, no issues with close paraphrasing
• Fn 69 - Citation supports text, no issues with close paraphrasing
• Fn 93 - I found the text in this book, but on p. 663. P. 251 seems to be about coffee and nothing about this time period. Please check your page number.
  • Weird...no idea how that happened, but now altered. – The Bounder (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Fn 94 - Citation supports text, no issues with close paraphrasing --Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for these additional checks: all now dealt with. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by SarahSV

Hi The Bounder, I have a question about how you've chosen the sources. The only contemporaneous primary source I can see is Alexandre Exquemelin's The Buccaneers of America (1684). There are other primary sources, but you've cited the secondary sources, rather than citing them directly.

Regarding the secondary sources, which of the book sources are scholarly sources?

Looking at Talty, just as one example—he tells a good story, but he doesn't seem to cite his sources. For example, the article says: "Historians disagree on the value of treasure Morgan collected during his expedition. Talty writes that the figures range from 140,000 to 400,000 pesos, and that owing to the large army Morgan assembled, the prize-per-man was relatively low, causing discontent." Does Talty cite a source for that? Also, he isn't an historian, as the sentence implies, and you don't say who he is on first reference.

Another example: a primary source would be better where you quote Morgan: "we found seventy men had been pressed to go against Jamaica". You use Pope 1978, but it's on Google as originating from a report by Morgan to Thomas Modyford, Jamaica's governor, so that's the source you should try to track down, assuming that's correct. It isn't always possible to find the primary sources, but it's always better to use them if you can, so long as you make sure you're using them as the scholarly sources do. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• The applicable policy, WP:PRIMARY, suggests using secondary sources in place of primary ones, which is what I've gone with. I've not used Exquemelin directly as he isn't reliable. Talty is a journalist, which is an acceptable source of reliable information. The Bounder (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY cautions against using them badly—don't use them to come up with your own interpretation, for example—but they're often the best sources to use. You have to make sure you're familiar with how the secondary sources use them; the article should be framed by high-quality secondary sources, preferably scholarly sources in an article like this. But there's no point in citing Pope 1978 for a quote from Morgan if you can cite Morgan directly. You'd be surprised at how often the secondary sources get the primary sources wrong.

Talty is a freelance writer, but you've introduced him as an historian. I don't know whether his book is a good source for this. If he doesn't cite his sources, I'd say it isn't, because without sources how do you know that what he's saying is correct? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this article sits happily on the right side of the PRIMARY policy. I'd disagree that a lack of citations means it isn't a good source; Pope doesn't use then either, nor do most works aimed at a non-academic readership.

I haven't introduced Talty as a historian, I introduced him further up the page as someone who has written a history of Morgan. In the section in question, I have said historian disagree, which they do. I will tweak the wording to remove the possible implication. – The Bounder (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a history article, and you would like it to be an FA, which means it needs a high degree of precision and must use the best sources, preferably scholarly sources. Otherwise the article will repeat mistakes and myths that have crept into the non-academic literature about this person. If Talty tells you: "the figures range from 140,000 to 400,000 pesos", you have to know how Talty knows that. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Talty contains an extensive bibliography from which the information will have come. The other sources also contain ranges of figures, (and equally long bibliographies); very few of the sources use citations, including the established historians, like Jon Latimer (published by Harvard U Press), Andrew Lycett, etc use inline citations. The best sources have been used, in other words. Let me spin this around: which "scholarly sources" about Morgan are out there that have not been used in this article? - The Bounder (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I asked above which of the books are scholarly sources. Latimer is one, and he does cite his sources. Are there any others? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I will ask again: which "scholarly sources" about Morgan are out there that have not been used in this article? - The Bounder (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. You wrote the article, and you've nominated it for review, so I'm asking which of your sources are the academic ones. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The bibliography section is here. I've laid it out as clearly as I can to help readers, so it should be easy for you to make the judgement yourself. I await any further thoughts you may have about any scholarly sources you think may have been missed. - The Bounder (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I think SlimVirgin has stated valid concerns here and I've shared my concern above (regarding Breverton) that some of the heavily cited works used here are not scholarly works by historians. I would need more information about how Breverton is cited and whether he is considered by historians to be authoritative before I'm prepared to accept his self-published book as a reliable source. I am also wary of retellings of primary sources especially when they vary and may not have gotten the source material correct. In terms of potentially missing scholarly works, I've done a cursory library search and found some promising writings from the database Welsh Journals Online. Was that database searched while researching the article? --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was searched. The information from the English language sources does not diverge from the other sources used here. Some of those sources are also rather questionable in the historiography used (stating as fact information that has either been dismissed or heavily questioned in other sources).
  • If she has concerns, then she is free to highlight the sources she finds questionable and adds details of any scholarly sources she thinks may have been missed that would add something different to the information in the article. - The Bounder (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• For example: "In response Modyford commissioned Morgan 'to do and perform all manner of exploits, which may tend to the preservation and quiet of this island'." This is sourced to Jeremy Paxman, a television presenter, in his book, Empire: What Ruling the World Did to the British, which doesn't cite the source. That isn't an RS for an FA. If you google the quote, you'll find it in Richard Frohock, Buccaneers and Privateers, University of Delaware Press, 2012, p. 30, which gives the context, more of the quotation, and discusses the primary source at length.
  I'm sorry, but it seems as though the article has gathered together sources of different quality, rather than focusing on the most appropriate for each point. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the quote correct? Right words, right order, no misinterpretation? - The Bounder (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • That's definitely not the point. The quotation seems to come from The present state of Jamaica (1683), which discusses Morgan. I can't see that mentioned in the article. Is that a primary source you ruled out because it's unreliable? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Don't get bloody snarky - there's no need, and it'll do nothing but piss me off to no good effect. I have also not said that primary sources are unreliable, so please don't misrepresent what I have said: I said one primary source (Exquemelin) was unreliable. He lost a bloody libel case for crying out loud, so yes, in my book that makes him an unreliable source.

I've used one quote from Paxman, nothing else. It is, as you have seen and acknowledged, a correct quote used in the right way. If it's that important to you, I'll swap out Paxman for the other source with no other changes needed to the text, meaning or anything else needed. - Jesus, I've not seen anything like this at FAC before, and running through several of the other articles on review, many of then have weaker sources than this without question. These are reliable sources, being used in an appropriate manner, but if you want me to jump through hoops by swapping one source for a different source with no changes to the texts, I'll do that's for the sake of the article, but you can cut the snark for a start. – The Bounder (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't snark. Frohock is a subject-matter expert. He discusses a key primary source that isn't mentioned in your article. My question is why you left it out. You mentioned some primary sources not being reliable, so that was my question.

There are people who've devoted years of their lives to studying this topic and period. To get this article to FA, you need to find those people, and tell us what they say. And also make yourself familiar with the primary sources, so that you can tell us what the scholarly sources say about them too, as Frohock does. For example, when discussing The present state of Jamaica, he talks about the "authority of multiple witnesses, a standard measure of credibility in seventeenth-century evaluations of testimony". That's the kind of discussion that would make this article more interesting and authoritative. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it was a snarky comment, and unnecessary. You misrepresented what I have said previously, and have repeated the same misrepresentation, despite my clarification. Let me repeat it once again to make sure it gets through: I DID NOT SAY PRIMARY SOURCES ARE UNRELIABLE: I said that ONE source was unreliable (the one that was on the losing end of a libel action. Don't misrepresent me again please. - The Bounder (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Bounder, I don't see anything in SV's remarks that I would remotely consider snark. There's no call for responding that way. Many topics that pass through FAC have straightforward coverage and the scholarly/reliable sources are easy to identify. This is a larger topic that's been the subject of many works, and so we have to endeavor to use the best and most rigorous sources. The goal is the best material for our readers. --Laser brain (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Is that a primary source you ruled out because it's unreliable? " is snarky and unnecessary. No need to try and defend it, im I'm unwatchlisting this. Good work everyone. - The Bounder (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose, Can you withdraw this please. I think this is being blown out of proportion, and good secondary sources have been used throughout. Getting this to FA isn't worth having to put up with misrepresentation or unnecessary snark. I will stand by what I have said earlier: running through several of the other articles at FAC, I see that many of then have weaker sources than this without question. - The Bounder (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I would encourage the nominator to stick with this if possible, having come so far. I'm sure these issues can be sorted out without too much difficulty. Having said that, if you really wish to withdraw this article, it is your decision. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: FYI I attempted to engage the nominator here about this since they said they were unwatching the page but didn't get much traction. I had hoped they would return after cooling off a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. @The Bounder: just in case you didn't see that message, I'll try a ping! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, FTR, I did see The Bounder's ping to me but preferred to let it ride for a day to see if anything changed. I would still like to give him a chance to respond to Sarastro's ping above before actioning the withdrawal request. Cheers, 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I had started to write this comment just after my last post, but when I saw the withdrawal request I didn't post it. Having seen Ian Rose's comment on The Bounder's page (and please see my response to Ian), I'm posting it for future reference.

It seems that significant parts of the article are based on tertiary sources, rather than scholarly sources and the published primary sources. For example, Frohock 2012, pp. 28–32, explains the importance of The Present State of Jamaica (1683). It was the first published account in England of Morgan's expedition, and contains his commission, a letter to him from Governor Modyford, and various depositions, including from Morgan's secretary. But that source is nowhere mentioned in the article.

The Present State of Jamaica, which presents Morgan as part of a process of enlightened imperialism, was contradicted by another key primary source, Alexandre Exquemelin's The Buccaneers of America (1678 in Dutch; 1684 in English), which is cited in the article, but only three times. The Bounder wrote that he regards Exquemelin as unreliable because he lost a libel case, but Frohock, a subject-matter expert, describes Exquemelin "as an independent eyewitness writing critical history", even if some parts are unreliable, and writes that Exquemelin "can prevent a history of violence from being subsumed into larger fictions about civilizing the New World wilderness", an issue this article doesn't mention. Frohock also isn't used as a source. The article needs to mine these sources and say more about the differing accounts.

Anyway, I'm sorry that this input has been so unwelcome. I understand that the FAC process is fraught, but I think the article would be hugely improved with better sourcing. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, the FA process is not "fraught", and I have dealt with the comments of eight other reviewers the constructive good faith they have shown me. All I have to say about the Frohock source is that he states that "Morgan [was] arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London": he was never imprisoned in the Tower, as our article makes clear.

Ian, any interest I have in the subject has waned to the point that I no longer wish to take this forward; thanks for holding off for a while, but I think this can now be closed. - The Bounder (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2017 [22].

---

True Detective (season 1)

Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A new year, a new nomination! This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. In 2015 this article became a GA, but has unfortunately failed each FA candidacy. But fortunately, unlike its other four nominations, the article received great attention in its most recent nomination and improved even further in quality. I've been working on this article on and off for well over a year, and at this point, I am more than confident that it satisfy the FA criteria. Will the sixth time be the charm? I sure as hell hope so! Cheers. DAP 💅 14:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• @DAP388: I believe that this article has benefited greatly from the past peer reviews and FACs. I will have to echo some of Mike Christie's points from the previous FAC. I do not have an issue with the use of Metacritic's terminology "universal acclaim" as I personally do not have find it to be misleading. I do agree with Mike Christie's point (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that the "Reviews" subsection comes across a little like a list of reviews and quotes. There is a lot of the same sentence structure: X says Y. Maybe varying up the sentence structures to make transitions and tie everything together into a compact narrative on the show's reception (I am always terrible at this part and you have done a much better job already than I could have ever done). You could look at Mike Christie's resource on copyediting reception sections here for a better idea of what I mean. I honestly think that this is the only thing standing in the way of this article reaching the level of an FA as everything else is very well done. Once, this specific subsection is revised, then I would gladly support this FAC. Good luck getting this promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: I'm afraid this FAC has rather stalled, and there has been little comment in over a month. The kindest thing is probably to archive this now and renominate when two weeks have passed. I would recommend trying to drum up some reviews, either at PR or on the article talk page, by approaching a few editors directly before nominating again. Having had recent reviews with an eye to FA criteria often speeds up the review process. It would also be worth approaching editors who have commented at previous FACs and (neutrally) asking them for comments before you nominate again; reviewers tend to appreciate it when you can demonstrate what steps have been taken to improve the article since previous FACs. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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