Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2017

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2017 [1].

Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) edit

Nominator(s): TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last FAC for this article was stalled, so it unfortunately had to be archived. However, out of the two comments posted, it did have one "support" and other comments which were addressed. I would like to thank those users, Aoba47 and Czar, for their comments. Now, two weeks later, I believe this article is ready for another FAC. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tom Morris edit

  • Numerous sources don't include a publication date, including #1, #10, #20, #71, #72, #73, #74, #77, #80 and #81.
  • In the Plot section, it might be sensible to include a reminder of what Soleanna is. The fact that it is the name of the world is mentioned in the lead but it's probably sensible to repeat it here. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tom Morris: Fixed; clarified Soleanna and added dates for the refs you pointed out. I'll start looking for more sources that need the publication dates. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs edit

At present, I would oppose promotion. There are a bunch of issues throughout the article:

  • Prose (1a) is sub-par; there's awkward or necessarily convoluted wording, run-on sentences, repetitious phrasing, weasel words, and the like. I got reverted starting to make these changes, so I suggest the copyeditor find someone else who is willing to work on this.
  • References should include publisher info, not just work. Some references are missing archive urls.
  • What makes WWG, DidYouKnowGaming, and DSOG high-quality reliable sources?
    • Why is there a citation to the game at the end of the plot, but nowhere else in that section?
    • Spotchecks revealed there are accuracy issues with regards to citations throughout the article. Ex. Shadow's sections are similarly speedy albeit more combat oriented, though some segments see him riding vehicles, such as a motorcycle. is cited to [2] but no mention of a motorcycle is made. Likewise, the following bit of the paragraph specifically ties secondary characters to each of the hedgehogs, when that assignment is not made in any of the cited links. {[xt|as well as give the series a more realistic setting. For this reason, human characters are given a photorealistic design, while Sonic, Doctor Eggman, and the series' robot antagonists were redesigned to better suit the game's environment.}} is cited to [3], where no specific mention is made of human characters and the robots. There's also WP:SYNTH issues regarding cut features (saying features were cut without having a source for them.) The entire article needs to be run through and these issues need to be addressed.
  • File:EggmanRedesign06.png has a very weak fair use rationale, as the character's design covers only a few sentences and there's no major critical commentary about it in the reception section. Either more needs to be added to justify it, or it should be cut.

--11:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Fixed most of your concerns. However, all the cut features were sourced, and the sources you're questioning weren't challenged during the GA review or the last FAC. DidYouKnowGaming was actually suggested during the last FAC, and WWG is a companion to ComicBook.com, which is considered reliable. Some of the URLs don't have archived versions, though. I'll start adding publishers to the refs. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm questioning the sources now. That they weren't before doesn't mean they are immune from being critiqued. The onus is on the nominator to defend how the article meets criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've removed the DSOG source. DidYouKnowGaming has actually been cited by multiple third-party, reliable sources such as HuffPost and Nintendo Life, and they also have their own article. The sources lacking archives have also been remedied. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I'm going to be stuck on mobile for around a week, so I'm not going to be able to add the publishers. Can I follow up on this by then? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I've added publishers to the references. I'm still on mobile so I might have missed a few, can you go over the article to see if I did? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: David Fuchs has raised quite a few points here, all valid and based on the FA criteria. I'm afraid that "Fixed most of your concerns" doesn't quite work as he gave examples, not an exhaustive list. It really needs someone else to go through this closely to check the issues and possible fix them. I can't realistically see this being accomplished in the time frame of a FAC, and my inclination at the moment is to archive this. I'm prepared to give it a few more days to see if any (rapid) progress can be made, but if not, then we will have to close this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I think you can go ahead and close this. I now realize the article wasn't prepared for FAC. I had really worked hard on the page and was really anxious to see it promoted, but I think it'll need a few more weeks before it would fit the FA criteria. Thanks to everyone for their comments; I'll work hard to apply them to the article. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alucard 16 edit

In regards to the sources WWG is a reliable source as it is part of Comicbooks.com which is used on various articles including other GA articles and even some BLPs. For DidYouKnowGaming? which has useful information about the subject I would recommend the following:

  • When possible replace references to the video with articles that reference it from HuffPost and Nintendo Life.
  • Open this particular source up for discussion with the wider WP:VG so experienced editors more familiar with policies and guidelines can discuss its potential use in areas where there is no other alternative reliable source. This would prevent any issues later on down the road and help the article retain FA status when someone not familiar with YouTube sources either tries to remove it or contest its FA status due to this source.

I can't make no guarantee but I will try this week to help with the FA process and ensure some issues are fixed as there are still some sources that lack an archive link. @TheJoebro64: I think the article is very good and you have done great work in helping improve it. I would recommend using ProveIt as a handy tool to use for references. This tool has helped me a lot with sourcing articles and it also can let you easily flip through all the references to see which lacks an archive link and other important fields like publisher. It can also auto populate the fields for new sources as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2017 [4].

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) edit

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second studio album by Romanian singer Alexandra Stan. It was released following an alleged physical altercation with her former manager Marcel Prodan, thus lyrically delving on themes such as freedom, liberation and rediscovery. Commercially, Unlocked experienced success on Japanese charts.

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Resolved comments from Aoba47
  • I would suggest splitting the second paragraph of the "Promotion and commercial performance" section as it is rather long. Maybe doing a new paragraph starting with the information on the fourth single?
  • I would suggest renaming the "Reception and composition" section to the "Composition and reception" section as the information on the album's composition comes before the information on the album's critical reception.
  • Do you think an audio sample in the "Composition and reception" section would be beneficial for the reader?

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I done all your suggestions. Thank you VERY much for your time. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. You have done wonderful work with this, and I am happy that you kept working on this article and put it back up for FAC. I will support this nomination. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Sorry but after a month with no activity, this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the lack of commentary (thanks Aoba47 for being the exception), I have no issue with you re-nominating before the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2017 [5].

Appian Way Productions edit

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Appian Way Productions founded by the actor-producer Leonardo DiCaprio in ca 2004. The company has produced a diverse slate of films. I tried hard to find about how the company was founded but did not find much to add, but other than that I believe the article is as comprehensive as it gets. Enjoy. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant
  • Is 2016 as recent as the activities of the production house get?
Added a 2017 telefilm.
  • You could say "screened at the 57th Cannes Film Festival", to avoid the repetition of 2004.
  • I believe that Public Enemies, Orphan and Shutter Island will need to be followed by their respective release years.
  • "The company had three releases in 2013, including the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) that was a critical and commercial success." to "The company had three releases in 2013, including the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), which was a critical and commercial success."
  • "Another highly successful film production followed, the western thriller The Revenant (2015)" - I don't believe this to be the best transition.
  • "assassinate president Richard Nixon in 1974." - US President.
  • Not sure how the mention of Kate Beckinsale being planned adds anything to the article, as she is never really mentioned otherwise.
  • Maybe rephrase the "lacks" bit from the Frank Scheck review to avoid the change of tense.
  • "A few months later, it released The 11th Hour," - "it" might not be the best choice here.
  • "a mob drama from Michael Mann" - from?
I suppose it would have been more clear with "from director Michael" but rephrased anyway.
  • You may want to use "Appian Way Productions" at place of "the company" at a few instances Some paragraph overuse the latter, and this could help.

The rest reads fine, good job. NumerounovedantTalk 18:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vedant, thanks for the comments - resolved/replied to where necessary. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small yet comprehensive article, well done. i can Support this. NumerounovedantTalk 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "it performed modestly at the box-office": I don't know what that means. You could probably just say that it had a domestic box-office of $38 million.
  • "The film received positive reviews; one from Empire, wrote, "Entertaining while you're watching it but, as deceptive as a party's election promises, there's less to it than meets the eye".": That's not a positive review.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I'm not weighing in on comprehensiveness. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dank - addressed both your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • I believe that you should have ALT text for the infobox image. The Martin Scorsese image should also have ALT text.
  • In the phrase “box-office hits”, I would suggest using a different word than “hits” as it is a little too informal.
  • I am not sure what is meant by the phrase “none of which were particularly notable”. What makes them unnotable? Did they get negative/medicore reviews? Did they perform poorly or modestly in the box office? I think the meaning is unclear, and could use more context.
  • I think you should include a sentence about Greensburg and Under the Bed in the lead, as there are not any mentions to the television shows in the lead outside of the first sentence.
  • I would link Leonardo DiCaprio in the first mention in the body of the article as the lead and article should be treated separately.
  • In this part of the caption (Alongside producing many of the company's films he also played roles in a few of them), I believe that there should be a comma between “films” and “he”.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but is there any information on the reason behind naming the company “Appian Way Producions”? If not, then it is okay, but I was just wondering.
As I said in my opening statement, I did not find much about how the company came into being and such.

Wonderful work with the article as a whole. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. I hope you are having a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aoba47. Thanks for responding so quickly to my request on your talk page. I hope I have done justice to your concerns. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me; I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lookover of images by Jo-Jo Eumerus
  • Again, on holiday so I won't do a point-by-point review. It seems like all licenses and uses are appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jo-Jo. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Appian way... (sounds like Happier way) is indeed a weird naming choice. Well, going into the comments.

  • "The Revenant (2015) followed, a highly successful western thriller about frontiersman Hugh Glass's experiences in 1823." -- experiences with whom/what? experiences at which place? please be clear about this.
Describing the whole thing would be a little too much. Simply tweaked to "the life of Hugh Glass".
  • Why is the History section a big, long paragraph? Can't it be broke into pre-2010, 2010-2014 and 2015-present? That would make it easy for the readers to go through.
  • The only existing note of the article needs to be sourced. Because, the claim is of such nature that it needs support.

Well, nothing beyond this. A short, simple and rather different choice which has the potential to be a FA. Let me know once you are done with these. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed different from my previous FAs, a part of my FT, all of whose articles I wish to make of great quality. Thanks for your comments, Pavan. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. I appreciate your diversity for sure. But, on a lighter note, i would like to maintain that Appian Way is indeed a very weird naming choice. Good luck with the nomination. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on 1b and 1c: I'm recusing as coordinator on this one as I have a few worries. The entire article, apart from the lists at the end, is about the history of the company, not the company itself. The actual content is almost entirely about the films, with little about Appian Way's role in the production of the film. I'm afraid simply discussing the plot, cast and reception of the films is not enough when the article should be about the production company. If we cut out everything that is not about the company, we would have a very short article at the moment. I'm afraid "the information is not out there" is not enough here; we would not have a stub of a few lines as a FA, and I would argue that if so little information is available, this cannot be a FA. On a similar point, we have nothing about how, when, where or with whom the company was founded. We have nothing about its structure or staffing, whether it is profitable, its reputation. Again, "I couldn't find anything" isn't enough for this to be FA. Not-too-strenuous research on my part found a little about some of these issues here; although I haven't read too deeply, there looks to be a bit that could be added . If I could find this so quickly, what else is out there? Have we consulted biographies with DiCaprio? There are several. What about newspapers from when the company was created? What about business news, or reports? I find it almost impossible to believe that the information does not exist somewhere, which makes me suspect we are also struggling on 1c: just because it doesn't show up immediately on Google does not mean that the information is not available. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sarastro. Thanks for the comments - that's a fairly valid point you have raised. As an editor with no experience with this kind of article (based it on FA/GAs of its kind), I did do some research (maybe not good enough) and consult some Google books about DiCaprio but unfortunately most of them were trivial info about the company and some were not accessible. Anyways, I will do some more in-depth research in a day or two and see if I find anything worth adding. If not, I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator I was under the impression that a film production company is expected to be written this way (including, of course, its early history i.e. how, when and by whom it was founded). I reckon, to add all of what Sarastro1 has asked about, the article will have to go through something of a revamp with all that expansion. At the moment, I have another article prepared for FAC (it is currently at PR; hopefully I will receive some more feedback there). What I might do is order a good book on DiCaprio's biography (which will also help me with expanding DiCaprio's article) in a not-so distant future, but that is something that will take some time and is better done away from the pressure of FAC. @Ian Rose: I wish to withdraw this nomination. Having said that, I am most grateful to everyone for their kind reviews, which improved the article in leaps and bounds. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting to this sooner FrB, I'll organise the withdrawal. I think best observe the usual two-week wait after a withdrawal/archive before starting the next one (as you say, there's a PR in any case) but happy for that two weeks to start from 28 July, when you requested the withdrawal, if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2017 [6].

Loev (film) edit

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indian film that was released on Netflix. I am looking for construvtive comments to improve the article. It recently went through a GAR conducted by Aoba47. I would also like to thank Kailash29792 and Ssven2 for their help with the article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Can you tell me (here, not by editing the article) a little bit about the tuberculosis? Although it's probably the leading cause of death in the world among respiratory diseases, it still strikes me as unusual in this case ... depending on what happened, it might need some explaining. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look Dank. Well, there aren't many details on it, this is the most detailed discussion oh Ganesh's death. I hope this helps. NumerounovedantTalk 17:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks ... I've read all the links I can find and they don't talk about it, so I guess we can't in the article. Other than that, I don't have any comments to offer yet. Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looking forward to further comments. NumerounovedantTalk 17:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • Not to be too nitpicky, but the ALT text for the infobox image (Pandit and Ganesh embracing in a bed on the film's poster.) reads a little awkwardly, specifically the "on the film's poster" part as it can read like the bed is literally on the poster. I would just remove that part and maybe add in the front of the text something along the lines of "An image of..." to get the same point across.
  • I would clarify in this part from the lead "who share a complicated relationship that takes center stage during a weekend getaway to" what you mean by "a complicated relationship" as that sounds a little too vague for my liking.
  • I still support this, but I am not certain that "complex" is needed in the description as it sounds a little off to me. I will leave this for other reviewers to discuss, but I just wanted to leave a note about this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: One last thing, I have rephrased the sentence, do you like this version better? NumerounovedantTalk 18:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that works better. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any information on how exactly Saria drew from his personal experiences for this film? It is fine if there is not anything out there, but it just seems like a really broad claim without any specific example with it.
Not really.
  • That is what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure with you. It is fine as it stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again this is very nitpicky but in the following phrase from the lead (Upon initial release), I would say (Upon its initial release) would be more appropriate.
  • I would break up the following sentence into two (The major praise was directed towards the script and the performances of Pandit and Ganesh, and the unconventional and fresh treatment of a taboo subject matter in India.), with a separate sentence for the treatment of the taboo subject matter. Also, this sentence is a little confusing as it never made clear what "taboo subject matter" you are discussing as it is not spelled out in the lead clearly (it can be clearly seen in the infobox image, but the lead skirts around the topic; this goes back to my point about the "complicated relationship" statement).
  • The part about the rape in the "Plot" section still reads very awkwardly to me, and I would suggest looking at that further and revise it more. This part in particular (He violently pressed him beside a wall and starts kissing him, to which Sahil responds initially, but later asks him to stop by saying that "this isn't what he (Jai) wants".) needs work.
  • In this sentence (who brings along his friend (Rishabh Chaddha) to the hotel), does the friend have a name?
I am not sure, I'll have to check, but he was never a significant character.
  • Makes sense, I just wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question for the following sentence (As he is walking away into the airport, Jai sends a text message to Sahil saying that he loves him.). How does Sahil respond to the text? Following this sentence, it appears that this is the final mention/part featuring Sahil in the film so I was a little confused by the jump.
Actually, I think he's never really shown reading his text. It's more for closure sake (more for the audience I believe).
  • Makes sense, I just wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be beneficial to add a date/year to the following sentence rather than "eventually" for clarity (The worldwide rights of the film were eventually acquired by Netflix).
  • There is a citation error for Reference 26.
  • Just wanted to point out that "Scroll.in." was a red link in the References section. It is more than okay to have a red link, but I just wanted to let you know that it was there.

Wonderful job with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything/left comments. Thanks, so really appreciate you going through this again. Also, thank you for all the previous help with the article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this; good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Wonderful work with this article. This passes all of the requirements for the image review. The minor issue with the infobox image's ALT text should be covered in my above review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this too. NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose after these changes (pls review it and see if I have messed anything up or altered meaning). Sorry for taking so long to get to this (I caught a terrible cold, which lasted about two weeks). This looks well written, although I feel the article could do better without some quotes present in production. But other than that I believe it is a nice piece of work. Well done. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FrB.TG, I'll see what i can do about the quotes. I'll try and incorporate them into the text more naturally. Also, I hope you are doing better now? NumerounovedantTalk 15:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IndianBio

  • I find it a bit strange that we have a picture of Pandit in two sections of the article but no picture of Dhruv Ganesh? Surely Bollywood Hungama has a free image we can use? They are the principal cast so if we include Pandit's image, I believe Ganesh's image is also equally indicative. Please mind that the poster does not give a clear impression of who is who, being a painted imagery.
  • Can you please replace the normal dashses in the reference titles and in the article with the en-dash?
  • I have removed the track list from the Soundtrack section. I am even not sure that the section can be named as soundtrack when no album per definition was released. It was just a single with video.
  • I have made a left-right arrangement of the images as that breaks the monotony of the flow and is recommended.
  • File:Shiv Pandit at the special screening of Loev (cropped).jpg, who is Danish Aslam in relation to this film? I find this image to be completely unnecessary. What does it portray? He's not even mentioned anywhere in the text among the Bollywood personalities attending the premiere.

That's all for now currently. I would very much like to see a spotcheck review for this. —IB [ Poke ] 06:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything IndianBio, hopefully. NumerounovedantTalk 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash
  • Actors need not be linked in the plot as it will border on WP:OVERLINK.
  • Make sure there are sources for all actors in the film so that it complies with WP:FILMCAST.
  • Link UNESCO World Heritage in production section.
  • "In an interview with Manoj Sharma of Pandolin" - what is Pandolin? Anything without a Wiki article must be defined when first mentioned.
  • You could link "road trip film" to "road movie" (I wonder why the article on the genre uses "movie", not "film").
  • "The film's final cut ran for a total of 92 minutes" - you already mentioned early in the article, "With a total runtime of 92 minutes, the film was pitched under the labels of Bombay Berlin Film Productions, and Four Line Films". Omit at least one mention.
  • "another editorial in Rediff.com called it the least bit political" - the author of the article is Aseem Chhabra. Try avoiding cryptic mentions.
  • "While working in the US" - spell it out: United States.
  • "Film critic Subhash K. Jha gave the film four stars" - he has already been introduced and linked in "Themes", so you may de-link him here.
  • "DeepalI Singh of Daily News and Analysis also praised the movie" - say film.

That'll be all from me. Proof-reading and examining the reliability of sources may be done by any other editors. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything Kailash, hopefully. NumerounovedantTalk 06:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vedant. Upon a second examination, I decided to say a few more things:

  • I think the film is better described in the lead as a romantic drama (that is the genre listed at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes). Even Brokeback Mountain is described as such.
  • There is a sentence, "only a core group were aware of the details of the plot, and to the rest of the crew it was a road trip film". It was here that I suggested linking "road trip film" to "road movie".
  • "it stars Shiv Pandit and Dhruv Ganesh". I believe Ganesh comes first in the credits, right? Then his name must come first here too.
  • Is Jasleen Marwah a producer on the film? I don't find that name mentioned anywhere apart from the infobox.
  • Scroll.in's Wiki article has (unfortunately) been deleted, so it may be de-linked. I don't know if it yet passes WP:RS completely, but on the basis of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it does. Since Nandini Ramnath (a veteran journalist) has previously written for reliable sources like Livemint and Indian Express, I think this Scroll source should pass RS.
  • I tried accessing the official website, but it redirects to this where it says "This Account Has Been Suspended". Is it the same way for you? If the link really doesn't work, best remove it from the "external links" section.
  • Regarding the addition of "English" in the infobox, Template:Infobox film says, "Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with {{unbulleted list}}". I think you can mention in the body of the article that the film, while primarily Hindi, features abundant English dialogue. Nandini Ramnath says the film has "Hindi-infused English dialogue", while IFFK lists its' language as "Hindi-English". In this source (which you have already added), he mentions something about the film's language(s), which you could write about here.
  • Add more categories, including "Indian independent films" (unless you feel it isn't exactly an indie).

That's all for now. If there's anything else, you'll know. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all your comments Kailash. Let me know if there any more concerns. Also, does romantic drama Road from sound too weird? Thanks for your comments, they have helped improve the article a great deal. NumerounovedantTalk 09:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my final comments. Once they are solved, I will support this FAC:

  • Please consult any admin regarding the usage of "Hinglish" in the infobox. That's not the only language spoken in the film though, right? The characters speak both English and Hindi, don't they? Then the film should have the category "English-language Indian films".
  • There is no article on "overhanging cliff". Please delink or find what you mean to link to.
  • "Rajeev Masand hosted Saria on his talk show" - what is the show's name?
  • Did the film win only one award? Then not only is a table unnecessary, but the "awards and nominations" section could be merged with the "release" section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything, as for the language Kailash, I believe it was mostly hinglish as the characters never truly spoke either of the two. NumerounovedantTalk 17:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since my comments have been addressed. Although I was surprised by the number of comments made by Ceranthor, I hope they are addressed in some way that will allow this article to pass FAC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kaliash, appreciate the help with the article. NumerounovedantTalk 09:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by 1989
  • There was an error I found that I fixed myself. I couldn't find many errors in the article, so I support its promotion. – 1989 20:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 1989, I appreciate the help. NumerounovedantTalk 07:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prose Comments from Cerantho
  • Produced by Saria under the label Four Line Films, Arfi Lamba, Katharina Suckale, and Jasleen Marwah, under their company Bombay Berlin Film Productions, - This sentence is very clunky.
  • The programme coincides with the latter's business trip to Mumbai - Not sure program is the word I'd use here
  • The latter resists half–heartedly - I'd just keep out the half-heartedly per WP:EDITORIAL
  • Sahil decides to stay and sits back in the bed unamusingly. - same as above
  • They head back to the hotel room to collect Sahil's belongings - Who is they?
  • Sahil leans on to Jai, but the two do not talk about anything that had happened. - Do you mean leans on? I've never heard of leaning on to someone.
  • Saria said that the screenplay was written out of "deep shame and fear", and on completion was not pitched to any investors, but instead put away into a drawer. - There should be a citation after a direct quote
  • The film stars Shiv Pandit and Dhruv Ganesh; the former came across the film's idea during a casual meeting with Saria, and on much persuasion from Pandit, the latter revealed the script. - Very clunky
  • . However, Ganesh was apprehensive about playing the character, but after initial scepticism he agreed to play the role.[5] Ganesh died of tuberculosis in January 2015, while the film was in post-production.[4] The opening credits in the film's final cut honour his memory.[12] Siddharth Menon and Rishabh J. Chaddha play supporting roles in the film.[13] - The transition from his skepticism to his death to the supporting roles is very, very abrupt and doesn't read smoothly
The prose is quite clunky at times, and I think it could use a good copyedit to improve its flow and organization. I will continue to provide some suggestions and copyedits here and there in the meantime, but it may help to make some of the paragraphs have more flow, particularly in the production and plot sections. ceranthor 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything, as a matter for fact, it took me less than 5 minutes to fix all of these concerns. Let me know how you feel, and I'd appreciate if you pinpoint what your exact concerns​ are (if you have any more regarding the "clunky" text or flow.) Honestly, they seem very easy to fix and I can assure you there won't be many (there aren't as many paragraph many as suggested). Thanks for that, but again it's not as bulky as you make it sound.
Also, do yourself and the world a favour and if you have such great concerns about an article, please don't wait as long as more than fourty odd days to comment. The article (at any FAC) undergoes a lot of traffic in that long a period. (One might have to things over and over again just because A wants it one way and B the other.) I really think that the editors around at FAC would appreciate timer comments a lot more. NumerounovedantTalk 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, numerounovedant, I don't think it's particularly polite to criticize me for taking time out of my day to offer you comments on an article that hasn't gotten a ton of feedback in the past week. Provided that I nearly opposed the article on the basis of prose, I think there is a clear issue with some of the writing, though I didn't provide every single instance. ceranthor 23:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments from Ceranthor edit

  • Produced by Saria and the Bombay Berlin Film Productions, it stars Dhruv Ganesh and Shiv Pandit. The film focuses on the homosexual relationship between two friends (played by Ganesh and Pandit) - The repetition of Ganesh and Pandit is redundant; this should be combined into one sentence
  • The film focuses on the homosexual relationship between two friends (played by Ganesh and Pandit) that takes center stage - Colloquial; should replace takes center stage per WP:IDIOM
  • Saria conceived Loev's script while he was working on another project, - should explicitly mention who
  • The script and the performances of Pandit and Ganesh were particularly praised. Commentators were also appreciative of the unconventional and fresh treatment of the taboo subject matter of same-sex relationships in India. The film won the Audience Award for Best Feature Film at the 2016 Tel Aviv International Film Festival. The distribution rights for Loev were acquired by Netflix and it was released on the platform on May 1, 2017. - Three consecutive sentences start with "The..."
  • Jai (Pandit), a successful New York based businessman - New York-based should be hyphenated
  • The trip coincides with the latter's business meeting Mumbai. - Grammar
  • Sahil plans a weekend getaway to the Western Ghats, - repeating what was said in a previous sentence
  • arrives at the airport to receive Jai - You can't receive a person
  • Sahil in turn derives that Jai is struggling with his mother adjusting to a foreign environment. - this is vague; is she adjusting to the US? Should be more specifically described
  • Jai is amazed by Sahil's skill as a guitarist and suggests that he pursue a career as a full–time musician - This is the sort of abrupt thing I noted... there's no mention of him playing a guitar, you just write that he's amazed by Sahil's skill as a guitarist
  • Later, he gifts him a guitar during lunch - I think gift is usually too colloquial to be used in an encyclopedia article
  • The two engage in several arguments and bicker about their plans throughout the trip, while enjoying each other's company nonetheless. - arguments about what?
  • Sahil is irked by Jai's indifferent behaviour - what indifferent behavior? Be concrete; the earlier sentence suggested that Jai was showing appreciation for Sahil's guitar skills
  • One night, the two get into a heated argument over their differences. - Is it more heated than their previous arguments? There's not much to specifically suggest that
  • Sahil interrupts Jai and his clients and embarrasses the latter with a romantic gesture in front of everyone - Abrupt transition again; you don't say that Sahil goes to the meeting so he's just suddenly there according to this summary
  • On the contrary, Jai blames him for not reciprocating his affection from the beginning - On the contrary seems like editorializing
  • The two go ahead with their plans to meet Alex - Were these previously mentioned?
  • Alex dances with Jai, who looks even more impressed with Sahil's artistry - more impressed than Alex? Or more impressed than he was before?
  • The script was picked up by Suckale and Lamba; the duo agreed to co–produce Saria's directorial debut under the working title of Loev, a take on the word "love" itself.[4] - picked up by... who agreed to co-produce - no need for the semicolon
  • The film was set in the director's hometown Mumbai, Maharashtra.[2] Saria said that the film's production team "needed local cooperation" and as the director he "needed locations [...] to be able to use their streets".[5] - The first sentence here doesn't fit well into the paragraph as is; these two should be combined for flow purposes
  • Major parts of the script were written during the Supreme Court of India's ongoing hearing of the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, criminalising same–sex relationships in India.[7] - Grammar; criminalising doesn't make sense; you should also mention when this was time-wise
  • With a total runtime of 92 minutes, the film was pitched under the labels of Bombay Berlin Film Productions, and Four Line Films.[1][10] - what does this have to do with the rest of the paragraph?
  • The film stars Shiv Pandit and Dhruv Ganesh; - You shouldn't keep re-linking Pandit or Mumbai or any other articles throughout the body of the text excluding the lead; see WP:REPEATLINK
  • The dialogue was written in Hinglish, as described by Saria to be "the language I hear around me [in Mumbai]". - This quotation doesn't make sense in the context of the article to me, since you mention that he wrote it while in the US. Might be best to remove the quotation part
  • However, Ganesh was apprehensive about playing the character, but after initial scepticism he agreed to play the role. - I'd remove however here
  • Siddharth Menon and Rishabh J. Chaddha play supporting roles in the film.[12] - abrupt sentence that breaks up the flow of the rest of the paragraph
  • in the peninsular India.[2][4][14] - Grammar; "the" shouldn't be there
  • A crowdfunding campaign was started at the funding portal Indiegogo - This should read "on" the portal Indiegogo
  • Among the crew members, only a core group were aware of the details of the plot, and to the rest of the crew it was a road trip film, one identical to Dil Chahta Hai (2001). - This should probably be directly cited
  • The filming was done rather discreetly, fearing opposition against the film's underlying subject matter of homosexuality.[18] - From whom? The community? The crew?
  • and as noted by such commentators as Aseem Chhabra, Zack Ford, and Subhash K. Jha the theme of sexuality takes a backseat to the aforementioned subjects. - Very verbose; this could be copyedited to avoid the necessity of using aforementioned
  • Also, as expressed by Saria himself, the film was intended as a "universal story about attraction". - Direct citation for quote?
  • While Vox's Siddharth Naidu thought of the film as politically radical and emotionally raw, Aseem Chhabra - why are you reintroducing Chhabra's first name a second time?
  • Freelance journalist Steven Borowiec agreed with the latter idea, - Why the use of latter idea? That's such a clunky way of saying he agreed with Chhabra
  • Writing for ThinkProgress Ford made note of the fact that although the socio-political backdrop, "is never explicitly mentioned, it’s alluded to throughout".[27] - Why made note of the fact instead of observed or noted?
  • Saria familiarised himself with the independent American cinema, - no "the" necessary here
  • Critics and commentators drew similarities between Loev and Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (2005), as explained by Jha that the similarity "in the way the rocky terrain is used to define the theme of forbidden love is palpable".[28] - Grammar errors
  • The film was thought to be visually and structurally similar to Andrew Haigh’s Weekend (2011), and Wong Kar Wai’s Happy Together (1997), - By whom?
  • Loev initially premiered at the Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival, Estonia on 19 November 2015.[1] - Isn't it redundant to say it initially premiered?
  • The film then travelled to various other film festivals all across Europe and Asia - Did the film "travel"? That doesn't seem an appropriate verb choice here
  • Transilvania International Film Festival, Italy. - Is it in Romania or Italy?
  • Loev premiered at the LGBTQ film festivals across the world including the Tel Aviv International LGBT Film Festival, the BFI Flare: London LGBT Film Festival, and the Frameline Film Festival.[32] - Was it really premiering if it had already had its premiere elsewhere?
  • The film won the Audience Award for Best Feature Film at the 2016 Tel Aviv International Film Festival.[34] - Doesn't really flow with the rest of the paragraph
  • The release section overrelies on the verb was; introduce a lot more active voice to keep the text engaging.
  • Shortly after the film's release, Rajeev Masand hosted Saria on CNN-News18, - Which is?
  • organised a roundtable discussion for the lead actors, Saria and the film's producers.[37] - If you're using the serial comma elsewhere, you must stay consistent throughout the article
  • The Hindu critic Namrata Joshi, remarked, - grammar
  • adding that the endeavour was, "a deceptively simple yet nuanced and heartfelt take on the eternal relationship conundrum".[6] - no need for the comma before the quote
  • A reviewer at the International Film Festival of Kerala, writing for The New Indian Express - no need for the comma
  • Film critic Subhash K. Jha gave the film four stars, - out of four? out of five?
  • Highlighting the cinematography, direction and the performances from Ganesh and Pandit, - as good? What did he highlight them as?
  • She thought that there were several scenes in the film that the viewers will "think about long after the movie is over". - citation for this direct quote?
  • Loev garnered praise from critics at film festivals all across the world - such as?
  • In a 4/5 star review - previously you spelled out four stars; this should stay consistent
  • with Brooke Corso of The Macguffin stating that the beautiful and heartbreaking film shines when, "it focuses on what is said when the characters aren't speaking, and what is avoided when they do".[45] - no comma needed before the quote
  • Matt Shiverdecker of Austin American-Statesman was largely laudatory of the film at the same event as well, dubbing it as a "small miracle". - direct quote citation?
  • He praised the added realism, unlike the clichéd storybook romance - grammar... this sentence doesn't make sense as is

Sorry, but I don't feel the prose is up to FA standards, and therefore I have to oppose at this time. I think a thorough copyedit could improve the article to where it needs to be, but as it stands, I think there are too many issues with the writing quality. ceranthor 00:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I don't wish to continue the review. I have been really caught up in RL, and it took me long enough to go through the comments, considering I took atleast four comfort naps while doing so because of the snore fest that is the idea of putting 10 different comments for commas. I've already had to change 50% of the text to make it sound less vague and it just doesn't read as it should anymore. I am not going to do it again. Let's just make better use of our time, you can bury this review. I'd like to thank everyone for their time here. I am sure that the article has improved a great deal already from the cubes received, a bronze star isn't always the ultimate goal I believe. NumerounovedantTalk 06:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Can I just clarify, Numerounovedant, that you wish to withdraw this nomination? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sarastro1. NumerounovedantTalk 03:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2017 [7].

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry edit

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses a military unit, part of the East India Company's Bengal Army, that played an instrumental role in the early stages of the Indian Mutiny. An A-Class review was successful, so this is the next logical stage. I'll respond to comments within 24 hours (usually) and I'll make sure that any actionable changes are carried out. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Information_Plaque_at_Shaheed_Smarak_Meerut.jpg: what is the copyright status of the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It's part of a large memorial, and I believe it's covered under India's Freedom of Panorama. If that's not the case it's no big issue, it'll take me seconds to remove it from the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding based on this is that engravings are not covered by FOP in India. Is there another reason for this to be PD - age, for example? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the age of the plaque or the memorial that it's part of. I've removed the image from the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments

  • minor quibbles: British India in lead should be linked, as it is in the box. And There was a struggle, leading to the death of a cavalry trooper and a civilian weak construction. Perhaps "A minor struggle lead to the death of a cavalry trooper and a civilian....?" auntieruth (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: I've made the changes you suggested, let me know if you have any other ideas! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • my comments are dealt with. FunkMonk has good comments, and I'd like to see them addressed too. auntieruth (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • Hi, I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " instructed the Governor-General to" Name?
  • "forces of Daulat Rao Sindhia" Which was who?
  • It would seem a good idea to give some introduction/background to the East India Company.
  • The intro seems on the short side, it should be a summary of the entire article.
  • Everything that is linked in the lead should also have a link at first occurrence in the article body.
  • "The actions of the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry themselves were described by Major Agha Amin" When?
  • You there, Exemplo347? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

  • What makes http://www.defencejournal.com/2017-6/a-dj.asp a high quality reliable source?
  • What makes http://www.britishempire.co.uk/index.htm a high quality reliable source?
  • "These rumours reached Lieutenant Colonel George M. Carmichael-Smyth, in temporary command of the regiment," is sourced to Clark p. 92, but page 92 on google books does not support this information at all. In fact, it doesn't mention Carmichael-Smyth at all. Nor does it mention rumors - it's just a list of commanders. There are also problems with all the other information sourced to Clark p. 92, because much of it is listings of battles and battle honors, which is not supported on page 92. An example: "The regiment earned the "Delhi 1803", "Leswarree" and "Deig" battle honours during this campaign." ... p. 92 lists "Delhi" "Laswaree" and "Deig" at the top, but does not connect these honors to the specific campaign referred to in the article text.
  • What makes the Mutiny Memoirs (a primary source) a high quality reliable source?
  • Same for Fifty-two Stories of The Indian Mutiny?
  • Same for Narrative of the Siege and Capture of Bhurtpore?
  • Same for Forty-one years in India?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Exemplo347, are you planning to respond to outstanding comments? We'll need to archive otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: The nominator hasn't edited any Wikipedia pages for a week now. You may proceed to archive. Parcly Taxel 09:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2017 [8].

E.T. (song) edit

Nominator(s): MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

This article is about Katy Perry and Kanye West's alien-themed smash hit "E.T." MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • Just say “from” instead of “taken from”
  • I do not believe that the phrase “studio album” needs to be linked.
  • In the infobox, you have two links for Ammo (under his real name and stage name). Be consistent with one and do not link the same person twice in the infobox. Same applies to Dr. Luke.
  • Instead of “one version” in the lead’s first paragraph, I would say something along the lines of the “official remix” or something to be more specific.
  • I would remove the quote from the end of the lead’s first paragraph and paraphrase; the quote should already be in the body of the article, and it is odd to just have one quote/reference in the lead so I would avoid it.
  • Please link Billboard in the last sentence of the lead’s second paragraph. Make sure it is linked in the first mention in the body of the article as well.
  • Please specify in the lead that the music video was for the remix of the song rather than the original album version.
  • Include information on the critical reception of the song in the lead.
  • Link music critic to music criticism
  • Please use Katy Perry’s full name on the first mention in the body of the article, as it is treated separately from the lead.
  • The following sentence could be strengthed (However, after hearing it, Perry chose to work with the track.) as the phrase “work with the track” seems a little odd to me.
  • The quote at the end of the first paragraph of the “Background and release” section is rather long. I would suggest paraphrasing some of it and only using part of the quote, or just turning it into a block quote.
  • In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the same section, I am not certain about the phrasing “the solo version of the song”. I would just say the song was released as this phrasing suggests that the solo version was an alternative version to something else when it is in fact the original. Also, at this point in the body of the article, the remix/single version has not been brought up so it can be a little confusing.
  • Link Teenage Dream and add the release date on its first mention in the body of the article.
  • ”Los Angeles Times” should be “The Los Angeles Times”.
  • I would add clear topic sentences for the paragraphs in the “Critical reception” section.
  • I would break up the second paragraph of the “Critical reception” section into two, with one focusing on criticism of the song, and the other on criticism of West’s verse.
  • I think you need a stronger source to support that this is Perry’s fifth number one single other than pointing to the chart where E.T. is number one. Same goes for saying that this is West’s fourth number one single. You could cite information from the artist’s profile page on the Billboard website for this.
  • The following links are dead according to this: 52, 37, 15, 51, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120, 119, 124, 117, 60, 64, and 19.
  • According to this, you are not a major editor of the page. Have you checked with any of the other more involved contributors about putting this up for FAC? This is directly from the instructions for the FAC process: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. 
  • In the “Chart performance” section, there seems to a lot of attention of the Billboard charts (the first, third, and fourth paragraphs). Is that too much? It seems like it is giving that chart undue weight to me.
  • I am not certain if the music video image is necessary. If you want to support its inclusion, tie it into critical commentary more clearly. Otherwise, the image just appears to be there for decoration and can be eliminated without losing anything from the actual article.
  • In the first sentence of the “Reception” subsection in the “Music video” section, I would say that this “received mostly positive reviews” as there were some negative critiques.
  • The “Live performances and cover versions” does not mention the performances on the Prismatic World Tour.
  • Were there any reviews of the covers of E.T. by Yellowcard or VersaEmerge?
  • In the “Credits and personnel” section, please include info on the management and recording locations
  • Put the Certifications table into its own section titled “Certifications”.
  • Please fix the Metrolyrics links in the “External links” section as they do not lead to the lyrics for the song.

While there has been a lot of great work put into this article, I feel that this is a premature nomination as I have noticed all of these points during a relatively quick run-through of the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will go through it again more in-depth. Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This drive-by nomination is inappropriate when nominator didn't even consult the major contributors (namely myself and (CA)Giacobbe) in advance. It's definitely not ready for FA at the moment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment. I agree that it is not ready for FAC at the moment, and I would recommend that this FAC be withdrawn. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2017 [9].

Crusades edit

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Papal sanctioned military campaigns in the middle ages. I am nominating with trepidation as this is an enormous and contentious subject. That said it has been through a GOCE copy edit, Good Article Review and a Milhist A-Class review so it should be well placed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009 edit

Some initial comments while I read through in depth...

  • In the bibliography, I'd be looking for consistency in page numbering - e.g. we have page numbers given in "Constable, Giles (2001). "The Historiography of the Crusades". In Laiou, Angeliki E.; Mottahedeh, Roy P. The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Dumbarton Oaks. pp. 1–22. ISBN 978-0-88402-277-0. Retrieved 2016-10-04.", but not "Bull, Marcus (1999). "Origins". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280312-3."
  • All the pages are Harvard in the Ref section so I have removed from Bibliography Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, "Rose, Karen (2009). The Order of the Knights Templar. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4486-5190-0." looks self-published. Is there a strong case for it being a reliable source?
  • Bacon died in 1292, so I don't the point this citation was supporting makes sense (i.e. support for the Crusades post-1292) so I have removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strack, Georg (2012). "The Sermon of Urban II in Clermont and the Tradition of Papal Oratory" (PDF). Medieval Sermon Studies. 56 (30#1): 30–45. doi:10.1179/1366069112Z.0000000002." - I wasn't sure what the "30#1" meant.
  • That has come from the issue number, should I remove to avoid confusion?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you'd be safe with just the volume number - it's all the publishers seem to use on their website. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth checking all capitalisation of titles in the bibliography and further reading - some fall into lower case.
  • Can you give an example so I know what you mean, I don't want to assume? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • e.g. "The art and architecture of the Crusader states" would be " The Art and Architecture of the Crusader states" under the MOS. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images look like they are missing a source (and licensing) for the underlying mapping - e.g. :File:Map Crusader states 1135-en.svg, :File:Seljuk Empire locator map.svg, :File:Deutscher Orden in Europa 1300.png. The coastline, rivers etc. look very detailed, and that they've come from somewhere other than the author who did the overlay etc., but I can't see where this is detailed.
  • Struggling to find appropriately source maps so might be tempted to remove them all. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth asking on the map project on Wikimedia - someone might know which underlying map was used? Be a shame to lose them if we can identify where they came from. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I have left a request for them to have a look at these Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • :File:Schlacht bei Askalon 1099.jpg needs a date of death to justify the life+70 claim. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still can't see the date of death of the artist (the artist who did the drawing, not the earlier glass painting). In order to justify the claim that they died more than 70 years ago, the file needs to list when they died - at the moment the file just gives the publication date, which isn't the same thing. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smurrayinchester edit

This isn't a topic I know much about, so these comments are only really about structure:

  • There's nothing in the intro about when the Crusades took place - there's quite a bit about how the First Crusade started, but nothing about how they ended - it doesn't mention how much success the Crusades they had, nor how they failed.
  • You could probably trim some of the detail and focus more on the big picture - for the intro, you don't need say exactly which Germanic states were created, for instance, but rather talk about how the crusades strengthened Christian states in Northern Europe - but it's the right direction, yeah. Smurrayinchester 14:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology of Crusade is probably too detailed for the intro.
  • There should be a year attached to "The Islamic prophet Muhammad founded Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. The resulting polity in the 7th and 8th centuries..." - I'd reword it to something like "The Islamic prophet Muhammad founded Islam and by his death in 632 had united much of Arabia into a single polity. Arab power expanded rapidly in the 7th and 8th centuries...", but maybe there's a tidier way of writing it.
  • The Background section talks about lower-case crusades a couple of times ("In northern Europe, the Germans used crusading as a method to expand Christianity" and "Participation in a crusade was seen as a form of penance") before the First Crusade has happened. This seems to be jumping the gun a bit.
  • The word "Frank" appears quite a lot, but it's never explained what it means. My understanding is it's basically a synonym for Crusader, but this isn't clear.
  • I've restored a definition for Frank to the terminolgy section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • without actually explaining what it means - basically "French". Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation is there, as per OED as western European not French as many if not most of the Crusaders were not French even if they might have been French speaking Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Political events in the 20th century such as the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine, and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel led to the growth of historical parallelism between modern politics and the Crusades." This is a bit convoluted for a final sentence, and "historical parallelism" is an obscure phrase. "Historians have drawn parallels between the Crusades and modern political developments such as the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine, and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel."? Smurrayinchester 12:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod edit

  • I have to say I'm rather disappointed on a first look over. The big picture seems missing.
  • Only 3 paras worth of things to say in the lead? Including half a para on the terminology - that is almost immediately repeated.
  • Loads of paras are very long & should be split.
  • In general the infuence of the papacy, which was well out of touch once campaigns were underway, seems over-stressed. The situation in the Crusader kingdoms receives hardly any attention. Maintaining them was really what it was all about, after the 1st. The Italian contribution in shipping the Crusaders out, then hanging round as virtual bandits, breaking every truce, is not mentioned at all.
  • Various universally or very widely-held views are randomly attributed to current historians:
"David Nicolle called the Fourth Crusade controversial in its "betrayal" of Byzantium." - "controversial" is bathetic, and Runciman goes far further. Does anyone have a good word to say about the 4th?
"Similarly, Norman Housley viewed the persecution of Jews in the First Crusade – a pogrom in the Rhineland and the massacre of thousands of Jews in Central Europe – as part of the long history of anti-Semitism in Europe." - does anyone not?
"The historian Paul Everett Pierson, asserts that Urban also hoped that aiding the Eastern Church would lead to its reunion with the Western under his leadership." - in the lead confidently stated as fact. Of course all historians can do is guess, but don't most guess this?
"The scholar Norman Cohn identified a "messianism of the poor" inspired by an expected mass ascension into heaven at Jerusalem.[36]"
"According to historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, these states were the first examples of "Europe overseas"."
  • AS before reviewers who know the subject less well asked for attribution. I agree with you and have removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much of a list o'facts approach, and too little overall analysis. The developing pressures in the Islamic world don't come across very well.
  • "The 1071 victory over the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert, once considered a pivotal event by historians, is now regarded as one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia." - strikes me as a false contrast. As a look at the map shows, it was always "one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia".
  • The old thinking on Manzikert was that it was a pivotal moment that led directly to the conquest of Anatolia, this is largely discounted now. It is worth mentioning for histiographical reasons and also to prevent editors using old sources to put the obsolete interpretation back. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on the economic motivations of crusaders, and potential settlers in the kingdoms.
From the start:
  • "The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period, especially the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule." - "especially" is the wrong hinge, no? Ungrammatical, for one thing.
  • "other church-sanctioned campaigns fought to .... resolve conflict among rival Roman Catholic groups" - hmm. See if this justified later.
  • I think all the 1st para terminology stuff should be merged to that section, or at least brutally shortened in a later lead para.
  • "The First Crusade arose after a call to arms in a 1095 sermon by Pope Urban II," too many prepositions? Date false title. "In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon in France..." maybe.
  • "Others participated to ... seek opportunities for economic and political gain." Indeed, but is this expanded on later.
  • "Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the Crusaders." Rather debatable - is there a modern "pro-crusade" historian? All the ones I've seen take pretty much the same dim view, with of course shades of emphasis.
  • Ok, so the lead is currently missing:
any sense of the time dimension after 1095
any mention of the C kingdoms
mention of WHO WON! Levant and elsewhere.
I know that this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd say pretty awful. First of all, you don't seem to grasp the concept that you should link any significant person or thing the first time that it is mentioned in an article. "failed to retake Jerusalem in 1189 to 1192" is almost grammatically incoherent, you went from giving us no perspective of time to inundating us with years. You also spend several sentences discussing things that happened after the Crusades were finished, and weren't technically part of them. All this could be summed up in one or two sentences, especially because you said that after 1291 "there was no further coherent response." By the way, that phrase both makes no sense and is later contradicted by the sentence beginning "The rise of the Ottoman Empire." Also, I recommend creating a separate section known as "14th century" and include the information on the 15th and 16th centuries in one known as "Aftermath," because technically the Crusades were over by that time. Display name 99 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical scholars and modern research have no problem with the concept that the Crusades continued as an ideology long after 1291 and the Papacy considered many of the events mentioned as Crusades. Indeed Riley-Smith considered Crusading still active to the end of the 19th century. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now I guess I'll take your word on that. But that paragraph still has lots of problems. How about all the other stuff I mentioned? Display name 99 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without getting into detail, and while it gives more sense of the overall timescale and "result" etc, as requested, I think it has problems that affect the whole article in terms of the level of "magnification" used to examine extremely complex events over huge ranges of time and place. I'll mention the general question below. As it is, I think it has too much compacted detail, and will confuse. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth I tend to agree with you @Johnbod:—it has been a struggle to hit the right level of detail. When there was less other editors/reviewers wanted more and now your view, I think, is to have this at a higher level. I can simplify in the lead if you think that will help but if you pick up the points as you work through perhaps we can come to a happt medium? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, the meaning of "Franks" as French needs explaining.
  • OED matches this to the detail in the article i.e. "Western Europeans" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In northern Europe, the Germans used crusading as a method to expand Christianity and their territories at the expense of the non-Christian Slavs,[25]" Placing implies this was before 1095. Was it? Do we have a link?
  • No, removed this line. Links and detail are in the later section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1054 centuries of attempts by the Latin Church to assert supremacy over the Patriarchs of the Eastern Empire led to a permanent division in the Christian church called the East–West Schism.[26]" A pretty POV summary. The Latin church had for centuries merely asserted, without anything much in the way of attempting. There were plenty of other issues.
  • "... control of Palestine from the Fatimids.[31]" - better explain who they were - Shite dynasty, based in Cairo.
  • "the first major outbreak of European antisemitism" - bit dubious? Of violent popular European antisemitism maybe.
  • "In Speyer, Worms, Mainz, and Cologne the range of anti-Jewish activity was broad, extending from limited, spontaneous violence to full-scale military attacks.[38] Despite Alexios' advice to await the nobles, the People's Crusade advanced to Nicaea and fell to a Turkish ambush at the Battle of Civetot, from which only about 3,000 Crusaders escaped.[39] Both Philip I of France and Emperor Henry IV were in conflict with Urban and declined to participate." Whaaaaah! Not even a para break. This para is currently 418 words.
  • "These five Princes" - they weren't all princes, arguably only one was (at this point).
  • The source (Asbridge) calls them princes and they meet the OED definition of prince so I have left but removed the capitalisation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antioch "massacring the inhabitants" - the Turkish garrison certainly, but was there a wholesale massacre of the inhabitants like Jerusalem? It was mainly a Christian city, held by the Byzantines 969-1084. Mayer, 52 makes no mention, Runciman I, 234-235 gives a more detailed account of a general massacre of Turks, in which local Greeks and Armenians joined, adding "Many Christians perished in the confusion" and all houses were pillaged.
  • "Sunni Islam now recognised the threat, and the sultan of Baghdad sent a force, to recapture the city, led by the Iraqi general Kerbogha." "Now" is rather misleading - Kerbogha was only 2 days away when the city fell, and there had already been two attempts to relieve the city. Kerbogha was a Turkish warlord with territories in Iraq (Emir of Mosul), who (Runciman says 215) wanted Antioch for himself. He was supported by Baghdad, Persia etc with troops, but any control over him by the caliph & sultan was probably just theoretical, and the phrasing is misleading.
  • "Under the papacies of Calixtus II, Honorius II, Eugenius III and Innocent II smaller groups of Crusaders continued to travel to the Eastern Mediterranean to fight the Muslims and aid the Crusader States in the early 12th century." - I can't see why the first 2 are mentioned, and really only Eugenius III is important for the Crusades. The phrasing is misleading for him, and his dates (Innocent II was actually 3 popes before him).
  • Before continuing with a systematic nit-picking process, some general thoughts. As I've said, the article lacks analytical overview, and tends to be just a condensed version of the various milhist individual articles, which concentrate on a basic narrative (however convoluted it gets). I don't think this approach can take it beyond GA standard. Combining the Levant with north Europe, Iberia, and various heretics adds to the lack of focus. I'd like to see better thematic sections on the aims of the wars, ie the various types of societies the crusaders were trying to establish (which varied greatly), and how that worked in different places. Also the economics, and more consistent explanations of who the opponents were. In the Levant there is stuff on this, but the wood tends to vanish under the trees, and in Europe there is less - "who were the Wends?" has been asked already. Really I'd suggest adding these components first, then seeing how much room is left for narrative, and getting a consistent level of detail across that. It's asking a lot, I know, but I don't think just sorting out details on the current text is enough.
  • Other editors and reviewers have been keen on the narative structure and where there wasn't detail looked for it to be added. However, if you can be more precise about what you feel needs adding I'll see what I can do Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at the history and the Milhist "A" class review. In most respects the balance was better, and the article less overwhelmed by detail, after DaB's edits around the beginning of the year (though the women section was undue). Frankly, listening to and acting on Hawkeye7's comments (which he admitted were parti pris) was a mistake, and though the 1st Crusade does have the clearest narrative structure & is in many ways the most interesting, it now has too much space. You absolutely need a section on the Crusader kingdoms, how they worked and how long they lasted. A longer one than was there before. I notice at the A-class review, but sadly am not surprised by, the lack of comments (other than Hawkeye7's) on the structure, content, and indeed anything much above the sentence by sentence level. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a look at a Crusader kingdom section, starting with restoring the one that was there and expanding out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musings by Dank edit

Thanks much, Smurrayinchester, Johnbod and Hchc2009, now I'm thinking this one is going to succeed (eventually). These musings will eventually turn into copyediting, and support, I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much appreciated Dank—there is clearly work to be done to build on the ACR, but with the guys help it looks achievable. I'll start with Johnbod's comments in a day or two. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I'd appreciate a ping when you're satisfied with the result. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99 edit

This happens to be a topic that I know a little bit about, which provides an advantage when reviewing.

Lead

  • I agree with what others have said regarding the terminology and coverage of events after 1095, as well as with some other points that they have made.

Background

  • This section mentions that Islam spread rapidly through the Middle East and around the Mediterranean, but it does not say how. The fact is that most of its spreading came through military conquest. I believe that the Siege of Jerusalem (636-637) should be specifically mentioned because that city was the primary goal of all the crusades except for the Second.

First Crusade (1096–1099) and aftermath

  • Far more than one historian has cited reunification of East and West as a major factor in the First Crusade. Do we really need to single one of them out? Why not just say "historians?"
  • What was Pope Urban II's role in the crusade after the Council? (That's all for right now. I made some relatively minor edits. Feel free to look them over.) Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the distance, very little, although his authority was delegated to Papal Legates in the Levant Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12th century

  • Is there an article on the fall of Aleppo? If so, please link it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion. I have an FAC and a GAN both up right now. Once that's over I might consider it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bernard of Clairvaux, who had encouraged the Second Crusade in his preaching, was upset with the violence and slaughter directed towards the Jewish population of the Rhineland."-Wait, so there was widespread violence against Jews before the Second Crusade too? This needs to be explained more than just in passing in a single sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the feeling that the events in the first paragraph are more notable than those of the second, as they formed the central part of the Second Crusade. So why is such great attention given to the events of the second paragraph, while those in the first are hardly mentioned at all?
  • There was criticism before that the article didn't reflect the Islamic response to the Crusades. This paragraph gives context on the Muslim world in the 12th century Levant. Without this we are left with a very Occidental Pov Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saladin "seized Damascus?" I thought the Muslims already had Damascus. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muslims did hold Damascus, but weren't a unifilied polity. Damascus was held by the Zengid dynasty. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, please do not strike my comments. I'll strike them if and when I think they have been resolved. Anyhow, I'll take a look at the article later today and also finish my review during that time. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK Display name 99—won't do it again Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13th century

  • Get rid of that whole first paragraph. 1) The Children's Crusade is said to have happened in 1212, after the Fourth Crusade, so it shouldn't be mentioned before the Fourth Crusade. 2) It may not have happened, so why is the article citing it as evidence of something as if we know for certain that it did? I recommend reading an altered version of the paragraph after the section on the Fourth Crusade. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Childrens Crusade is mentioned because it forms part of the historiography of the Crusades. Whether is actually happened or not, it is widely reported. This paragraph forms an introduction to the entire century and discusses the rise of Crusading sentiment. The CC is used as an example Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just struggle with the article drawing a historical conclusion from a story for which it admits "little reliable evidence survives." It would also probably be a good idea to make known earlier in the paragraph that evidence for the events is scant. I need a third opinion. Johnbod, would you mind providing your perspective on this? Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not striking yet. I won't oppose on the basis of this though if everything else is dealt with properly. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it disappointing that I have to tell you this in an FA review, but the paragraph on the Fourth Crusade needs many more links. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an army advancing into Egypt was compelled to surrender."-You need to provide the name of the military action and a link. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a strip of territory from Acre"-The Crusaders already retook Acre. Why do they need to negotiate for it now? Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded— a strip of territory linking Jerusalem to Acre through Muslim territory was negotaited Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest switching the placement of the Frederick II and Constantinople pictures based on the order in which the associated events took place. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Asbridge's full name.
Norfolkbigfish, I've reviewed the changes you have made up until here. Anything that I've struck you can regard as having been answered satisfactorily. Those things that I haven't struck are parts that I do not yet know have been resolved. Below you'll find more of the review.Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military orders

  • "In 1312, Pope Clement V issued a series of papal bulls, including Vox in excelso and Ad providam, dissolving the Knights Templar on the grounds of false allegations from the king of France of sodomy, magic, and heresy, but probably for financial and political reasons."-The article alludes to Philip IV, but, without even mentioning his name, makes it seem as though the dissolution occurred largely because of Clement V. That isn't the case. Philip IV was deeply indebted to the Knights Templar and, being in the midst of conflict with the papacy, probably saw this group as a threat to his power. He persecuted its members quite severely. It was probably only because of the stranglehold that he had over the papacy that he managed to get Clement to bend to his will and dissolve the order. Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This looks better, but it's still not entirely clear if the "financial and political reasons" were the behind Philip IV's opposition to the Knights or Clement's bull. To me it looks more like the former. Maybe you could say that "in reality, Philip's opposition to the order was primarily for financial and political reasons." "and" works better than "or" in my opinion because it seems like both. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albigensian Crusade

  • "and the County of Toulouse passed under the direct control of Capetian France with the Treaty of Paris of 1229." Could you add one or two more sentences about the meaning of this? Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14th, 15th and 16th centuries

  • Fix "Siege of Constantinople" link in the second paragraph. Shouldn't you also explicitly mention that they succeeded in capturing the city and thus finally crushing the Byzantine Empire? Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed link completely, doesn't seem like it was a formal seige, so much as a gradual encirclement over a number of years/engagements. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's to a list of sieges, rather than to a specific siege. I'm guessing you want the one from 1453. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "manifesting itself in the habituation of the clergy to violence"-What? Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including Helen Nicholson"-Again, do we need to single out one historian? If you're referencing whatever the consensus is, you probably don't need to single out a single person unless you're quoting him or her. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography

  • "The Muslim world exhibited no interest in European culture until the 16th century and no interest in the Crusades until the mid-19th century." I find this sentence, especially the second part of it, very hard to believe. I'm sure there was less interest in European culture amongst Muslims than the reverse, and there may have been less interest in the Crusades. But none whatsoever? I don't think so. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • This section is arranged a bit oddly. Usually there is an individual section containing footnotes. I also think it makes sense not to

have "Further reading" in between the secondary and primary sources. Wouldn't it be better to keep all the things that the article uses as a source together, and to put whatever else after that? Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have matched the formatting to other Medieval Feature articles and removed the further reading as this seems a bit unusual. What do you think @Display name 99: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, I like what you have done, except it is normal and perfectly acceptable to include a "Further reading" section. The purpose of that is to give reference to reputable material on the subject of the article which, for whatever reason, is not officially cited. Plenty of articles have such sections. I recommend re-adding this one to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the FR section should be restored - or at least much of it. It is entirely normal to have one, especially for such a vast and well-covered topic (many FACs are such micro-topics it may not be needed). At the least have major and very detailed treatments like Runciman (v. cheap 2nd hand - 3 x £0.01 + p&p!) and Setton, which I see is fully free online - well done U Wisc! Probably this is a somewhat random selection, though, & could be refined. Joshua Prawer was top man on the C kingdoms, and The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. 1972. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (later edns The Crusader's Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages) a massive doorstop on that subject, which should be included. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading restored—or at least the visible portion. Thanks Guys. I will add Johnbod's suggestions later. What do you think now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better. However, the "Further reading" section usually comes last, after the notations and the bibliography section. While "Further reading" is useful, we give greater importance to what's actually cited in the article. I ask you to fix that, and to respond to the other points that I mentioned above. I'll check back later. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, we're getting close, but I need you to follow up on a couple more things that I mentioned above. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-All my concerns have been responded to. The article is apparently accurate and seems just about detailed enough for such a broad topic. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Great Seljuk map caption should explain the symbols used
  • Suggest scaling up 13th century map, conquest of Constantinople, Northern Crusades map
  • File:Vexillum_Regni_Hierosolymae.svg should include an explicit tag for the original design
  • Per Hc above, File:Schlacht_bei_Askalon_1099.jpg needs an author date of death
  • File:Battle-of-Ager-Sanguinis.jpg should include details of original source, not just the upload
  • File:ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg is tagged as lacking author details
  • File:Dirham_struck_in_Acre_by_Christians_1216-1241.jpg: should include an explicit tag for the original coin
  • File:Saladin_and_Guy.jpg: the given tag suggests that if this was first published in 1954 it would not be PD in Syria. This would also need a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seraphim System edit

  • "At the time of the early Crusades the word did not exist, only becoming the leading descriptive term around 1760." - this seems redundant, wouldn't it be enough to simply say the term Crusades was not widely used until around 1760?
  • "Not until the word crucesignatus, for one who was signed with the cross, was adopted at the close of the 12th century was specific terminology developed." - the double use of was here could be avoid "Specific terminology was not developed until ..."

Background:

  • "and by his death in 632 had united much of Arabia into a single polity." - could be revised to avoid ambiguity that it was his death which had united Arabia
  • "his influence spread to the northwest Indian subcontinent, across Central Asia, the Middle East including the capture of Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire after a siege in 637, North Africa, southern Italy, the Iberian peninsula, and the Pyrenee" - probably at least a parentheses missing here
  • "for example, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, but his successor allowed the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it" - do we have a link for his successor? the sentence following this one should start with a capital letter.
  • "with Basil II spending most of his half-century reign in conquest." - I've seen "conques of" and "War of conquest" and even "Byzantine conquest" but can not find any examples of "spending...in conquest"
  • "Pilgrimages by Catholics to sacred sites were permitted, Christian residents in Muslim territories were given Dhimmi status, legal rights, and legal protection" — this is where I start to lose track of the narrative...
  • So the Byzantines regained territory where? They were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulchre—is the rest of the paragraph talking about Christians in Jerusalem? A new paragraph should probably start at "Tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Arabs and the Christian states of Europe waxed and waned." If the Byzantine conquest has nothing to do with this paragraph, which seems to be about Christians living in Muslim territories, then it should be removed.

I see Johnbod has already gone through this in some detail, and I don't want to duplicate those points sufficed to say there are significant issues with structure and "analytical overview" — I see it was a long process to GA, but right now I am leaning towards oppose. Seraphim System (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query edit

Can I check how we are progressing working through Johnbod's concerns? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been concentrating on Display name 99. Now I have his support will pick up on the detail JohnBod concerns which should be straightforward, The more general will require a bit of research and I am tied up a bit IRL. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: My detailed run-through has only got about halfway through the article. I agree the more general concerns will require research. I'm in no hurry myself. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fine with me, there's no particular rush. It's worth getting this one right. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this has rather stalled now. Nothing has happened for some time, and we seem no closer to resolving any issues. I would recommend taking this to Peer Review before renominating, and working with the reviewers who have commented here, so that the heavy lifting is done away from FAC. As I said before, this one is worth getting right. I'm going to archive this now, and it can be renominated after the usual 2-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2017 [10].

Alfred North Whitehead edit

Nominator(s): Joseph Petek (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, all. I have to say that I am all bemused to be back here nominating this article for FA status. I completed a near-total re-write of it back in 2013, and got it to GA status pretty quickly. Although I believed then that it met all the featured article criteria, it was not promoted, seemingly due to a lack of input (admittedly, I picked a bad time, right before the holiday season in mid-December 2013). It has not seen a lot of substantive changes in the four or so years since then.

Why am I nominating it again now? Well, a funny thing happened. In the past year, this English entry has been translated for the French and Portugese Wikipedia articles on Whitehead (along with a little from the German version)... and both were promoted to FA status (the French entry in October 2016, the Portugese article just this month). I should hope this would count in the article's favor, although for all I know the English FA nomination process may tend to be more difficult. Regardless, now that two other articles have been promoted that substantially copied this one, I figured, what the heck? May as well put it up again, see if I can garner more interest this time. Hopefully it won't be closed again simply for lack of people looking at it.

About the article itself: I noted in my original FA nomination in 2013 that the number of FAs in Philosophy was "depressingly small"; it still is, which makes it more difficult to evaluate its worthiness for the FA distinction, though I do think it compares pretty favorably with the few existing philosophy FAs. I believed four year ago, and I believe now, that the article meets all of the criteria for FA status. I believe it is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched; while there were a few questions about its neutrality in the GA review, I addressed these concerns to the reviewer's satisfaction; it is certainly stable, follows the style guidelines, includes media, and is of sufficient length.

The article's subject--Alfred North Whitehead--is one of the 20th century's most important philosophers (and for what it's worth, the article has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People, specifically under "Philosophers: Modern"). His influence is widespread (though fairly diffuse); he is most famous for originating what is now known as "process philosophy," which itself begat "process theology," a popular strain of progressive Christian theology.

I will of course be happy to address comments as they arise. Joseph Petek (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Recusing from coord duties, thank you for your work on this article but it appears underprepared for FAC: several sentences at the end of paragraphs are unreferenced, and there is at least one citation needed tag; I also noticed at least one missing full stop, so I daresay some copyediting is required (I haven't had time to go through the prose properly). It's quite a leap from GAN to FAC, particularly for an article of this sort -- at this stage I'd consider withdrawing the nom and putting up for Peer Review, then having another try at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I withdraw the article from consideration, then; I guess standards for English Wikipedia are indeed a lot more tight. My understanding is that I cannot withdraw/close it myself, that one of the coordinators needs to fail the nomination and then close the review. Please proceed.
For whatever it's worth, I honestly did not think the article was so far away from the FAC standard that little things could not simply be corrected as part of the review. Apologies. Joseph Petek (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Fails on a matter of process (which is perhaps ironic for a process philosopher): Ian's closing comments in the first FAC have been completely ignored, from a quick read. There's a risk of wasting time here working on a new review, since one of the previous reviews hasn't been responded to in some way. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2017 [11].

Dan Bain edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated back in 2013 by me, and failed then for a variety of reasons. Well after some delay I've brought it back, ostensibly as part of my goal to get the 1945 Hockey Hall of Fame class to FA (though since that project began its been shown there aren't actually 12 players, but that's not relevant). I addressed everything from the previous FAC, and added information from a recently published journal article on the life of Bain, which gives it a little more detail (though its still short at 1400 words). Kaiser matias (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I like the goal to "get the 1945 Hockey Hall of Fame class to FA". I understand that to achieve a goal like that, you'll have to bring us some articles that are on the short side. It seems to me that people respond enthusiastically to your articles, and for as long as they do that, I don't want to hold you back. But in several respects, this just doesn't read like a Featured Article to me. One option I have as a reviewer is to say: okay, enough, this isn't working, please find a co-nom or an interested person to help you with these articles before they hit FAC. I don't think that would be an unreasonable request, in this case. I think on balance I want to wait and see what happens with this one before I take a position. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything constructive you'd like to add here, other than seemingly imply I'm incapable of writing/producing a FA-class article? If I'm reading that wrong I apologise, but it seems needlessly hostile and doesn't provide much, so I'd just like some clarification. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no insult intended here. I'm trying to avoid an oppose if it can be avoided. But I've hurt my wrist, so I'll leave it there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just external issues coming and clouding my wording and judgement, which is inappropriate on my behalf. Terrible to hear about the wrist, as you're efforts are appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. File:DanBain1900.jpg: source link is dead; when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the link to the original image on the Library and Archives Canada site, which notes the copyright as expired. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- With no activity for three weeks, I'm afraid this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. I realise there was a PR in January that had no takers but I wonder if it might be worth another shot there, perhaps inviting related projects or individual editors to contribute, before a re-nom at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2017 [12].


Lazarus (comics) edit

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the comic book series Lazarus created by Greg Rucka and Michael Lark. The series is still ongoing and will probably continue for another 7-9 years. The article is up-to-date with recent plot developments and series announcements. I believe it is as thorough and complete as it can be.

The article has been stable with few editors. The only edit dispute (if you can call it that) occurred in March 2017 with the introduction of a table by User:Hellboybookeeper. It was discussed here and here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm afraid this review has been a bit of a non-starter, so I'm going to archive it but feel free to re-nominate without waiting the usual two weeks mentioned in the FAC instructions (alternatively you could put it up for Peer Review and see if there's any feedback there before trying FAC again). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2017 [13].

Fightstar edit

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the Busted singer Charlie Simpson. I developed an addiction to this band over the summer and fall, and shaped up all the already decent information into a readable, reliable article. Never before had I made such expansion to an article; I took it from about 30k to now approximately 55k. It has already been copyedited for the convenience of the reviewers here. This is my first FAC, though I have had one FLC pass (Evanescence discography). I look forward to feedback! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support since my comments have already been addressed in the previous FAC. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. Hopefully, it gets more feedback/commentary this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This FAC is strictly speaking out of process as two weeks have not passed since the last nomination was archived. The FAC instructions make it clear that there should be a two-week wait unless permission is given by the coordinators. I'm prepared to let this one go, given the limited feedback on the last nomination, but I really don't want to make a habit of this and wouldn't do so again unless permission was sought. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo edit

So I was looking through my talk page, and I just noticed that you asked me to review this article. My apologies for not responding, it must have just slipped by my radar. Anyway, I know how awful it can be when you;re waiting for FAC reviews, so I'll pitch in to help. Here's just a few short ones to get you started.

  • Simpson, increasingly frustrated with Busted's music, could not explore his own creative desires because the music he wrote could not be played with Busted. This sentence is in need of a good copyedit. I had to reread this sentence three times before I understood what it was saying. I noticed this sentence wasn't in the article when the Guild of Copyeditors came through.
  • The EP was inspired by novelist David Fincher's film, Fight Club (1999). David Fincher directed Fight Club. Chuck Palahniuk wrote the novel the film was based off of. Besides, I think you can just say "the EP was inspired by the 1999 film Fight Club". BTW, any particular reason why they decided to take inspiration from that film? Fight Club is rather unique, in that it deals with heavy themes of consumerism and masculinity (see Interpretations of Fight Club), so it'd be interesting to see what Fightstar took out of that film. Also, trying not to make this one comment go on for too long, but you don't need link Fight Club (film), just Fight Club is fine.
Oops. That indeed is false. I meant to fix this up in the second FAC, but I may have done goofed when trying to do that. But why should I change the link? Shouldn't I do both? Surely the phenomenon of difference between book and movie is present; and I think the cited article said they took influence from the movie. Check it out now, tell me what you think. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release was praised by critics, despite initial scepticism due to Simpson's former pop career with Busted. There's only one review sourced here. Try not to generalize critical praise with just one review. Looking at the EP article, there are a few other reviews you could include to support your statement. As a side note, always try to take an unbiased approach to generalizing reviews, as I noticed that the PunkNews review was negative. It appears to be the only negative review, but keep that in mind.

Alright, there's a few comments to get you started. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lewismaster edit

I'm sorry for the delay, but my commitments outside WP are becoming very pressing. I am not an expert about band biographies and I have never listened to this band in particular, so the article is quite informative. However, there are some problems regarding mainly sources and references. Nothing insurmountable, but a few sentences look menacingly like original research to me.

Structure

The article is missing a Background section, which, in this case, should focus on Simpson and Busted. Busted are often cited in the article, but no info is provided about them, except that they are a pop-punk band. At least you should write that they were very successful, won awards, had an audience composed of teen-agers. And Simpson hated that, because he had a different musical background, which should be described. In one interview he described his time in Busted as "a mistake" and in another as "torture". In the same interviews he is very specific about his musical tastes and about the influences that he wanted to express in Fightstar. The part about his frustration and why he left Busted should be put here, too. He is the star of the band and a few sentences about his background is necessary, IMO. If you have some background info about the other musicians before they formed the band this is the place to put them.

I've never seen a section named Background in a band FA. It usually comes in the beginning of the history section, something like "Early years", etc. I will put some of this information in there
Lead

The lead should summarise the content of the article, so no references should be placed here. You write that "they were viewed sceptically by critics", but this fact does not emerge from the article, where everybody is apparently enthusiastic of the new band.

Origins

Source no. 4 is a short review of a show in Liverpool, but it is used as reference for a lot of things that have nothing to do with it, such as the origin of the band, the occupation of its members, the first song they wrote... Find a real source, please.

"Simpson's time with Fightstar reportedly caused tension in Busted" - source no.5 doesn't report any tension, but maybe sadness for the end of Busted. Find a source for this sentence.

They Liked You Better When You Were Dead (2004–2005)

"After Simpson's decision to focus on Fightstar, the band entered Criterion Studios in London with producer Mark Williams to begin work on their first EP, They Liked You Better When You Were Dead." - No reference.

"With nine tracks on its extended mini-album version, it was written in six months while Westaway and Simpson lived together." - I think that this sentence should be rewritten like maybe: "It was released as a mini-album, containing nine tracks written during the six months of Simpson and Westaway's cohabitation".

""Mono", named after the Japanese band, was recorded during a thunderstorm; shortly before the track's finale, Simpson may be heard screaming in the rain after he ran outside (unaware that the studio mics were picking up his voice)." - This is the biography of Fightstar and should focus on the main aspects of their work. Is the song "Mono" so important to go in such detail? I would cut this part.

"They Liked You Better When You Were Dead, released on 28 February 2005 after a brief UK promotional tour" - no reference for the tour.

"It was mostly a critical success,[1][11][12] even though Punknews.org reviewed it negatively." - Cut "mostly". There is one puzzling fact in your article: apparently Kerrang! promoted Fightstar in every possible way, but the magazine is barely cited and rarely used as reference. Here you can find some issues: [14]

Lol, I never found the link you just provided, that'd have been useful. I knew Kerrang loved them, but I thought most of them were magazine issues. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the EP was inspired by novelist Chuck Palahniuk's film, Fight Club." - Source no. 4 doesn't say that.

"The band's debut single, "Palahniuk's Laughter", received heavy rotation on music-video channels and spent many weeks on charts based on video and radio requests." - I don't think that source no.15 is valid. It is a "User-contributed text", probably copied from Last.fm, a website made up with user content.

"The EP's UK version contained five tracks (including a sixth hidden track), and was ineligible for the UK Singles Chart." - Why? There is no explanation or reference for this.

I wasn't able to find this. I found chart rules for singles and albums, but not for EPs... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It was released the following year in North America as an extended mini-album by Deep Elm Records." - No reference.

"The release was praised by critics, despite initial scepticism due to Simpson's former pop career with Busted." - Critics' praise? Source no. 17 is the review of a Sputnikmusic staffer. You should provide more than one favourable reviews to write something like that. And again, who is sceptical here? There is no source expressing anything but good vibes.

Grand unification

"They requested Colin Richardson; initially sceptical about their chances, Richardson agreed to collaborate after he listened to their demos." - No reference for this sentence. Scepticism is an unreferenced lietmotiv.

" Grand Unification is a loose concept album, influenced by and based on the Neon Genesis Evangelion anime series. With lyrics loosely based on the personal experiences of Charlie Simpson and Alex Westaway, its underlying concept revolves around two people who experience the last few days of their lives before the end of the world." - This period is very confusing and I think that it should be rewritten and/or expanded. What is a loose concept album? Which parts of the anime are touched in the songs? The personal experiences of the musicians are about the anime or something else? The two people mentioned are from the anime or are they the musicians? Or someone else entirely? The period gives me more questions than answers.

A loose concept album doesn't follow an exact story line, it just has stuff with the same theme. A true concept album would have an established story. As for the anime, the media seems to have no interest going into depth with it. I saw some unreliable forums but that's all I found when initially editing the article. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a concept album doesn't need a story line, just an idea that connects all the songs. Rock operas are concept albums with characters and stories. Thick as a Brick, known as the ultimate concept album, doesn't have any of those. I would cut the "loose". Lewismaster (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Grand Unification was released in the UK on 13 March 2006 by Island Records, preceded by the single releases of "Paint Your Target", "Grand Unification Pt. I" and "Waste a Moment"." - No reference

"The band played at the Download Festival at Donington Park, and followed Biffy Clyro and Funeral for a Friend at the Full Ponty festival in Wales." - There is no reference for Download festival.

"Fightstar toured several countries, including Australia, Japan and the UK, with Funeral for a Friend for three months in 2006." - Source no. 23 is for the UK tour, but there is no reference for the international tours.

One Day Son, This Will All Be Yours

"Fightstar signed with the independent label Institute Records (a division of Gut Records) for their second album." - Source no. 26 redirects to a generic index page. Is this a dead link?

Not one that was picked up when I last checked the dead links. I ran IAbot on here, so I'll have to double check some of them. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The song, inspired by a harrowing documentary about Chinese execution vans[29] and the end of Simpson's romantic relationship, produced a low-fi music video which cost £500 to make." - This sentence should be rewritten. Something like: "The song was inspired by a harrowing documentary about Chinese execution vans and the end of Simpson's romantic relationship, contents present in the £500-low-fi music video the band produced".

"The band went on a 10-date UK tour in May 2008, supported by the London four-piece Brigade and the yet-unsigned Essex band We Are The Ocean." - No reference

I can find some evidence that We Are the Ocean was with them, but nothing technically considered reliable; seems the media ignored them at the time and only mentioned the first two bands. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Endings and Be Human

"the band decided to release their next album, Be Human, in a joint venture with their management company (Raw Power) on the Search and Destroy label. The album was distributed by PIAS Records." - Source no.39 is a dead link.

"Fightstar released their first single from Be Human, "The English Way", on 3 November 2008 and it topped the UK rock chart. Its video was played on Kerrang! and Scuzz T.V., and topped the MTV2 top 10." - No reference

I remember reading this and thought I had fixed it. I wonder if I forgot to save it and closed it by accident. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The album was co-produced by the band and Carl Bown at Treehouse Studios, Bown's Chesterfield studio." - No reference

"The band supported Feeder for the first part of their UK tour, which began on 21 October 2008." - No reference

"Drummer Jason Bowld of the British metal band Pitchshifter filled in for Omar Abidi on their UK tour while Abidi recovered from a broken wrist; Abidi returned to touring with the band in early 2009." - Source no. 41 is a music video of a live performance. There is no indication of anything written in this sentence.

It's all I could find; I had evidence they were still touring and that Abidi broke his wrist but nothing else. I will add said info about the injury. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to the drummer's injury, Simpson played drums on six tracks of the new album while Abidi wrote the drum parts and oversaw Simpson's playing." - In the source provided there is no trace of what you wrote.

"the band was featured on the BBC2 music show, Sound. "Mercury Summer" was added to the daytime playlist at XFM Radio and picked as Ian Camfield's Record of the Week. Emma Scott and Kerrang Radio also made "Mercury Summer" her Record of the Week." - No references

Hiatus and side projects

"In 2010, Fightstar announced that they were going on hiatus to focus on separate projects." - No reference

"and completed production of a project with Philip Koch of Lucas Film." - No reference

Reference 54 was what I intended to source that claim with. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you meant reference 58. So the project with Bastiaan Koch and the movie The 3rd Letter are one and the same. There's no need for a repetition so it should be rewritten properly. Lewismaster (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Simpson's solo work differed from his previous efforts, featuring a sound described as closer to folk music than to rock or pop." - Actually the review provided doesn't say this and classify the album as indie rock. You should find another reference for this sentence.

I indeed wrote that poorly. It does have some notable recognition of its folk direction though. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following sections look better referenced, but I will review them tomorrow anyway. Lewismaster (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical style and influences

Reference no. 82 is an online shop site and completely unacceptable as source. Customer reviews are not valid.

I'm struggling to see what you mean, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anywhere to buy anything on 411mania.com. It doesn't appear invalid to me. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The reference [15]] switched to 83. Lewismaster (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

"Lyrically, the band have tried to avoid writing in an "emo" fashion." - Can you elaborate this concept a little more? Were Fightstar associated with emos?

No, but I bet Busted were in the same fashion as 5SOS is with today's so-called emo teenagers, but thus far I've found nothing. The source itself suggests that was what they did on They Liked You Better... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. I found with a simple Goggle search these links to Fightstar and emo, where they are called "emo superstars" [16][17][18][19][20]. I think that in the UK they were associated with, and maybe thrived in, the emo fashion. Lewismaster (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finally got to this, and actually, I think the one saying they were "emo superstars" was referring to Moose Blood, the other band in the RockSound ref. Although "superstars" even sounds like a stretch to me for that band, they're lower than Fightstar even was at any time. The other refs, except Lambgoat (I'd question its reliability), look good. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can find a few more here: [21][22][23][24]. I think that Emo as a genre performed by Fightstar should definitely be mentioned in the article. Lewismaster (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two of these references work, as they are talking baout their sound as a whole, rather than a single album or small influence. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now it makes more sense and works better. Lewismaster (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Behind the Devil's Back (2015) was noted for a heavier use of electronics than past, said by some to be reminiscent of Gunship" – in the past. Some who? Critics maybe.

Behind the Devil's Back reviews say the same thing. It would be better to summarize that content instead of citing each reviewer.

Rationale for "Sleep Well Tonight"

A proper rationale for the sound sample should be written, because fair use imply that those samples can be used only for commentary of the songs itself. This is not an article about that song, so an explanation in the rationale about the reason why it is used in the Fightstar article is mandatory. Lewismaster (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that fair use also applies to describing something in an article which can only be demonstrated by sound rather than text. I did this with Fall Out Boy's sample in its GA review. If they aren't the same, I will update "Sleep Well Tonight" accordingly. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, but fair use of music samples is under scrutiny lately (see WP:Fair use#Fair use and music sampling, WP:Non-free content#Audio clips, WP:Manual of Style/Music samples) and every editor that worked on my articles was very strict on the correct use of rationales. Music samples outside the article about the song itself should be used only when text cannot describe something, and that something should be included in the rationale. Lewismaster (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made corrections for a few references, I hope you don't mind. Lewismaster (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status as of 2 July 2017 edit

I will be on Wikibreak starting tomorrow until 15 July for a family vacation to California (I live in Pennsylvania), so I will not have time to edit Wikipedia at all for thirteen days. I also note I still have a reasonable amount of work to finish here. So, this is just a note to any FAC coordinators that I would be totally okay with this being archived over my WB as I now have a list of things to fix and a reasonable amount of commentary. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given that this review has stalled slightly, and the nominator is mid-way through a break, I think it is best to archive this now. The nominator has some feedback to work on. This can be renominated after the usual two-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2017 [25].

Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) edit

Nominator(s): TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2006 video game developed by Sonic Team and published by Sega, best known for its horrible reception (many people will shiver these days when they hear the name Sonic '06). It is arguably the most complete resource on Sonic the Hedgehog available on the internet, going into great detail on the game's troubled development cycle, high anticipation, the intensely negative critical reviews, and the heavy impact it had on Sega and the Sonic series. Along with digging up some of the oldest articles about the game, I also found some print resources that were extremely useful, such as an old Nintendo Power article and the game's manual (to see what the page looked like before I worked on it, get a load of this).

I have been editing this article heavily for the past several months, fine-tuning it. It is reliably sourced, well-written and covers the game immensely. Indeed, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
Resolved
  • The first sentence in the "Development" section requires a citation. I would also integrate the sentence into the following paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph.
  • Please add ALT text for all of the images used in the article, including the one in the infobox.
  • Portions of the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" need to be completed in the screenshot image. I would also recommend expanding the "Purpose of use in article" portion to better explain how this image illustrates more than the text gives to the reader. The same two comments apply to the image of Eggman in the "Development" section.
  • I am honestly not sure of the value of the Eggman image as it does not appear to add much to the overall article. Maybe, if it was used in conjunction with a quote or section on the more realistic take on the characters in the game, but right now, it seems to be there more for decorative purposes than informational ones.
  • Link Sonic the Hedgehog on its first use in the body of the article.
  • Why do you use Shadow the Hedgehog in full on his first mention, but not the same for Sonic or Silver?
  • I am not sure of this sentence (The game follows Sonic, Shadow, and Silver in a story intertwined in their respective gameplay modes.). I am usually against a one-sentence paragraph, and this may be more appropriate actually for the "Gameplay" section to show they the story is broken up into each of these three gameplay modes.
  • You link Shadow the Hedgehog twice in the body of the article. Same goes for Tails, Amy Rose (whose full name should be used in the first instance of use), Blaze the Cat (whose full name should also be used in the first instance of use), Rogue, and others. Check the "Plot" and "Gameplay" sections to avoid having characters linked more than once in the body of the article to avoid overlinking.
  • The second sentence of the "Music" section is too long and covers too much content. I would break this up into separate sentences.
  • I do not see the reason/value for separating the "Reception" section into two subsections when one subsection is a rather short paragraph.
  • I will avoid making comments on the "Post-release" portion due to the tag, though this should have been resolved prior to putting it up for FAC.
  • Please avoid putting words in all caps in the reference titles (i.e. References 42 and 47). Please go through all of the references to correct this.

Good work with the article. These are the things that I noticed from my brief read-through of the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will go through a second time, and add more to my commentary/review. Hopefully, this helps at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Resolved. The reason the all-caps references were there was because the pages I sourced used it in all-caps (to differentiate it from the original, I'm pretty sure). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I have some additional ones below. Once my final comments are addressed, I will support this. It is good to see this incredibly infamous game get a lot of attention on here:
  • The rationale for the two primary non-free images in the body of the article still needs to be filled out. See here and here.
  • I would use more descriptive ALT text for the screenshot. Someone unfamiliar with Sonic would have no idea what that text means. Describe what is in the image itself. Same goes for the Eggman image.
  • ALT text is still need for the image in the infobox.
  • The final sentence in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section needs a citation.
  • In the beginning of the second paragraph of the same section, the "Here" transition is weak and vague. It is rather unclear what it is meant by "here" so please clarify this point.
  • I have heard a reports/rumors that the game was originally developed as a separate IP, and then was shifted into the Sonic franchise (i.e. this game was not originally developed as a Sonic game). Do you have any information on this?
  • Would this source 1 be helpful for the article? While it is a blog, it has been featured on other more reliable sites. You may want to ask more experienced users in the video game project, such as @Czar:, on this.
  • In some sentences in the "Reception" section, you attribute the website/publisher as saying something (i.e. "1UP, however, felt" and "In 2015, GamesRadar declared"). This should either be attributed to the writer (if the name is known) or the more generic writer/review/etc.
  • Hope this is helpful. These are all of the comments that I noticed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I've fixed the issues you observed. Thanks for the source you suggested - it was incredibly useful. The game actually was developed as a separate IP first, then merged with Sonic to create a next-gen game. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. You have done a lot of wonderful work with this article (and you have inspired me to do more with video game articles in the future). This has definitely piqued my interest to play this game one day (maybe I am a masochist lol). I support this for promotion. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. It was a fun and interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments edit

Speedrun is a self-published (unreliable) book and the Reception section still needs heavy paraphrasing and re-writing to be FA-quality prose. It reads like a series of quotes right now. Also the Gameplay should be sourced to secondary sources instead of the manual (secondary sources determine what parts of the gameplay are worth mentioning). I'll leave the prose comments to someone else, but I see a lot of room for tightening. czar 20:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I have to disagree on the manual being sourced, though. Most of the gameplay section is sourced to secondary sources (I only used the manual to source Shadow's combat and Sonic's "princess stages") ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
A reliable, secondary source's reporting always trumps a primary source, such as a manual. It also helps us as editors determine what is important to cover about a game. If the article relied on secondary sourcing for its gameplay and plot, both sections would be a lot shorter and easier to verify. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 17:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Switched to better sourcing for the gameplay section. Added some better sources to the plot, but I don't think the plot section is much of an issue for references. I mean, The Last Of Us's plot is almost completely unsourced even though it's a FA. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is only one prose point, but yes, plots don't need references on WP (sourced to the media itself, which doesn't mean refs aren't better for WP:V in a FA). More importantly, The Last of Us is plot-driven and Sonic '06 is not—hence why this plot should be greatly reduced. Secondary sources give an indication of how what weight the plot deserves in the overall coverage. The Reception too puts undue weight on the plot. It's the largest paragraph in the section but barely mentioned (as minor points) in each of the refs used. And that paragraph dedicates nearly as much space to a fringe erotica/bestiality plot theory as the article dedicates to the retrospective coverage of the whole game... czar 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Fixed. Split the plot paragraph into two separate paragraphs. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It worked better as one paragraph, though. The issue is the weight of that paragraph (length within the section). The entire bestiality discussion reads like trivia shoehorned into the paragraph and the rest can easily be condensed to two sentences. czar 03:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Trimmed the bestality info back a bit to remove unnecessary bloat. It now only includes the GamesTM and Lacey Chabert interview; I added the Kotaku opinion to retrospect since it was published in 2015. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm rather afraid this has stalled, with no comments for nearly a month and only one support. I think we are unlikely to get a consensus to promote any time soon, so I think the best course of action would be to archive this now. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2017 [26].

Sylvia Plath edit

Nominator(s): Matt723star (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Sylvia Plath, an American poet from Boston, Massachusetts who helped popularize the confessional poetry movement. She is best remembered for her grim poetry that took ordinary housewife subjects and situations and twisted them coldly; this writing style is due to her being a sufferer of depression, which she had suffered from since an early age shortly after her father died. In the 1950's she met Ted Hughes, a renowned British poet, and they married and moved to England, where Plath would spend the remainder of her life. After Plath discovered Hughes had been having extramarital affairs, the couple divorced. In 1963, Plath committed suicide by placing her head in her oven; she was 30 years old. Her life, body of work, and death have been adopted by modern feminism as an example of womanhood under the throws of mental illness and unfair spousal treatment, and her work is still praised and criticized today. Matt723star (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first thing I notice is that the referencing is a mess. It's not consistent (some books have ISBN numbers, some don't; the formatting of the page ranges varies); two of the links given in the references are marked as dead; hyphens are used to mark page ranges (should be en-dashes instead); some of the links which should have accessdates don't (e.g. one to londonremembers.com, which is currently ref#23).
  • Secondly, the lead is very short; only two paragraphs, one very brief. For an article of this length (30kB prose, 5000+ words) I'd expect 3 or 4 paragraphs of lead. Her writing is barely discussed in the lead!
  • The lead says that Plath is "best known for her two published collections", which wrongly implies that only two collections of Plath's poetry were published; Winter Trees and Crossing the Water also exist, however.

At this rate, I'm beginning to get concerned about how ready the article is for FAC. Consistent referencing is really the sort of thing that should be sorted out before nomination... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well all of this can be easily sorted. You have to remember that it says "best remembered", it doesn't say "she published only two collections". If anything it implies that while she has numerous books published in her name there are certain ones that stuck out of the whole. But like I said, with that little nonce, the article might need some work to establish it as a Feature, as it presents itself right now it is good. Matt723star (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as the above suggests, the nominator doesn't seem ever to have edited the article, nor consulted the main editors. That's not how this works. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and possible GA reassessment. This was passed by its reviewer despite a number of concerns raised above, which I bet the nominator wouldn't have addressed in a timely manner. Also, as per above, the nominator should consider consulting the major contributor/s to an article he plan to nominate in future GACs. It appears that drive-by noms is a regular occurrence with this user, based on his user talk page; he's had some GA noms that were failed due to failure in meeting this criteria. Bluesphere 03:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal for essentially the same reasons as Bluesphere above. Parcly Taxel 07:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2017 [27].

Revival (Selena Gomez album) edit

Nominator(s): LikeGaga (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a 2016 album released by American singer Selena Gomez. The album called attention from music critics, who considered "Revival" as a evolution and growth in Gomez' music. The article is well-written, containing information about its musicality and reception using reliable sources. I think this makes for a very good FAC. Please provide the issues you've found so I can fix them, I would appreciate any comments. Thank! :) LikeGaga (talk) 18:57 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I believe that ALT text is required for both images in the infobox. Make sure that each image in this article has appropriate ALT text.
  • I do not believe Mexico needs a link.
  • Reference 63 is a redirect to the website's main page and either needs to be replaced with a new site or an archived version of the old site.
  • Reference 80 is dead and requires attention and revision.
  • In the sentence "However, for health reasons, it was canceled in August 2016", please be more specific on what you mean by "health reasons".
  • It may be beneficial to the article to add an audio sample, specifically in the "Composition" section or the "Singles" section. Multiple audio samples be helpful, but I think at least one would be useful (as long as it supported by critical commentary on something dealing with the sound and/or lyrics).
  • For the phrase (After promoting the song during the 2014 American Music Awards), it sounds better to say "After performing the song" as "promoting" sounds a little strange in this context.
  • For the caption (Gomez specified Christina Aguilera (pictured) as a source of inspiration while recording Revival.), I would specify that she is referencing a very particular album/type of music in Aguilera's career.
  • The image of Aguilera is not necessary. When looking at the source, I can see that Gomez is citing Aguilea's album and not Aguilera as an artist on her own. The addition of the picture leads to potential confusion between the two ideas and I would advise you to remove it. Even if you decide against this, the caption still needs work (as I have suggested in the above comment).
  • Add the release year for the complication album For You and its lead single. I would advise that you make sure that whenever you mention a song or an album that you always include somewhere the year in which it was released.
  • This is more of a stylistic choice, but I have seen the "Songs and lyrical content" section more frequently titled as the "Composition" section.
  • You frequently overlink songs to their respective articles. Something should only be linked upon its first mention in the body of the article (i.e. "Same Old Love" being linked multiple times in the "Release and artwork" section). Go through the entire article and make sure to correct this. You also do the same for terms such as "electropop" and "dance-pop". Remember things should only be linked on their first mention.
  • Here is another example of my above comment in this phrase "visuals for Stripped by Christina Aguilera (2002)". You have already linked both Stripped and Aguilera in a previous section so you need to unlink both and remove the year (which should be after the album and not the singer anyway) as this was already raised in an above section as well.
  • This bit ", where she also gave an interview." is irrelevant to the actual article and can be removed.
  • This sentence (as well as the full television debut of "Hands to Myself") is a bit confusing as it was not made immediately clear that the previous mentions of her performances of the song were in a shortened form.
  • Add more information to the "Kill Em with Kindness" portion of the "Singles" subsection regarding its commercial performance and release (i.e. music video, etc.).
  • The placement of the information on her desire to release "Sober" as a single and the promotional single "Me & the Rhythm" is a little awkwardly placed in the subsection. I would move this information prior to the second single as the promotional single was released prior to "Same Old Love". I would also think more critically about where to put the sentence for "Sober" so it flows the best with the information around it.
  • If you are going to mention information about the tour's cancellation in the lead, it should also be found somewhere in the body of the article as well.
  • When looking at the "Critical reception" section, I would advise that you use this resource to "[d]ecide on an organizational approach, and assemble the quotes into paragraphs on that basis". The section right now seems more like a random arrangement of the critics' reviews and organizing this by theme/topic or going from positive to negative would be extremely helpful to having the reader make sense of this as a cohesive narrative.
  • There are citation needed tags for the Japanese tour edition track listing and the Japanese tour edition DVD track listing
  • Avoid shouting in the reference titles (putting titles in all caps). One example is Reference 6.
  • The chart in the "Release history" section appears incomplete as I would imagine that this received a larger release than that.
  • While looking through the revision history statistics, I became a little concerned when I noticed that you are not listed as one of the top editor's of this article. This appears like a premature FAC so I was wondering if you checked in with any of the article's major editors before putting this up? @(CA)Giacobbe: had previously contacted me about wanting to put this up for GAN so I would like to get his feedback on this nomination if possible.

There has been good work done with this article. These are the comments that I have noticed from my first pass through the article. Once they are addressed, I will read through the article one more time and either add another round of comments (if I find anything else that needs attention). I hope you find my comments to be helpful. I am a bit surprised to see this go directly into the FAC process rather than going through the GAN process first, but I admire your confidence. Since there are still a lot of edits being made to this article, I would suggest withdrawing this until you have the finalized version ready for review. By the point of the FAC, all of revisions and edits should already be completed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2017 [28].

Astronomica (Manilius) edit

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses on the titular work, a Latin hexameter didactic poem probably written by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius during the reign of Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. The five-book work describes celestial phenomena, explaining the zodiac and astrology. The poem—which seems to have been inspired by Lucretius's Epicurean poem, De rerum natura—espouses a Stoic, deterministic understanding of a universe overseen by a god and governed by reason. The work is of note for a number of reasons. First, it is seen as an answer to Lucretius's aforementioned poem. Second, it is an important window into Roman views on astrology and Stoicism. Third, it very barely made it to the present day, as only one manuscript transmitted the poem through the Middle Ages. Finally, it's style is rather heady and peculiar—it has been described (rather hilariously, might I add) as "like a trigonometry texbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." Currently, it is a good article (the very thorough review can be accessed here). It has also undergone two extensive peer-reviews: one in June of 2016, and the other in January of 2017. Finally, it has been copy-edit not just once but also twice by two extremely competent editors. Due to the rigor of its sources, the quality of the text, and its layout, I believe that it is ready for the next stage.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by edwininlondon edit

At glance this looks good. I'm looking forward to reviewing it thoroughly. But already I can see excessive use of parentheses. More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and collapsed many of the parenthetical line citations down into reference tags. Hopefully that clears up some of the parentheses clutter.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead first sentence: I would prefer it if had an actual date indication as well, not just Caesar Augustus or Tiberius
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not quoted by any extant Latin author (a Latin author whose works exist today) -> why not simply "not quoted by any Latin author whose works exist today"?
    That was weird. Simplified.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if something about the manuscripts should be in the lead. Is the one Bracciolini found still around? Where are the oldest? Etc.
    Honestly, the manuscript section is really confusing as it is (I boiled that down from something like 20 pages in Housman's book). I worry that condensing it any more will just make it more esoteric for a novice. With that said, I did add "who had a copy made upon which the modern text derives."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Katharina Volk writes that Manilius -> I think Katharina needs some sort of introduction. Few will know who she is.
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • historian Paul Monceaux -> which century is he?
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops:"which he argues resembles" -> they?
Oops indeed! Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (which resembles that of other African authors) -> I think you can rewrite this without parentheses
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • completed under Augustus -> link? I think the rule is you link in first mention of the body, ignoring the captions, but I could be wrong
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19th and nineteenth-century -> would be nicer if it was consistent
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. E. Housman -> intro
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • middle (or third) -> not really necessary to have this modifier
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second decade of the first century -> easier to understand if you put somewhere in this section the year for when Augustus' reign ended and Tiberius' began
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be dated roughly to the second decade of the first century AD" -> does this really need to be a quotation?
    Good point. Rewritten.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • depends on three manuscripts -> with the caveat that I'm not a native speaker, I must admit I find the word depend a bit odd here
    Changed to "is derived from"--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manuscripts G and L are descendants .. is named) -> this sentence has 3 sets of parentheses, seems excessive
    I rewrote this whole section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ms. M -> I think ms. is a bit too technical an abbreviation to use
    Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink to Gembloux Abbey
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Brabant. -> maybe add "in modern day Belgium". Plus why does Brabant link to Brussels?
    Strange! I linked it to Duchy of Brabant.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (which he attended) -> I don't think we need this
    Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • a direct copy of the original Astronomica -> sorry, but now I'm confused. Are you simply saying beta is better than alpha? Or that alpha is a copy of a copy of the original, whereas beta is a copy of the original?
    I rework this whole section, so hopefully it's clearer now. It goes: Original -> β -> M, α; α -> G, L --Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first edition -> I think a gentle introduction into the world of printing is needed, referring to the printing press invention
    I added a blurb about the press and included a link to editio princeps.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • from highly corrupted manuscripts -> which one of the many mentioned in previous section?
    Consulting the source listed, I realize that I had neglected to add a footnote! This has been rectified; it now reads that "Regiomontanus [made his] from an error-riddled Italian copy" (the Housman sources states: "Regionmontanus['s copy] seems to be a simple copy of an Italian MS; for if Regiomontanus had himself revised the text he must have discovered and removed the grosser faults [...] in Latin").--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else say something about this? Would be good for the coherence of article if we could say it's from family alpha or beta,
Unfortunately, I cannot find that info anywhere. I speculate it's from family beta, but that's just it—speculation.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • better manuscripts -> again, from which ones?
    Added; they were from G.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • greatly-improved -> not sure if this can be stated matter-of-fact, seems subjective
    Changed to "a second and improved edition". I feel it is the consensus of scholars the this edition was better, but I agree that "greatly" is a bit much.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just changed to 'updated'.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goold's version was also the first time -> could this be combined with the "In 1977, G. P. Goold published.." sentence? A bit odd to have its review be in the middle of these 2 sentences.
    Good point. Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a few points I need to get to, so I'll be back. @Edwininlondon: I have responded to and/or rectified all the points you bring up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Statue-Augustus.jpg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work
    I'm not sure how to do that, or what tag I'd need to add. {{PD-Art}} doesn't apply since it's not a reproduction of a photograph. Do you have a suggestion?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can simply add an applicable tag (eg. {{PD-1923}}) above the existing tag, and label each "Sculpture"/"Photo" as applicable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:TiberiusLouvre.jpg needs a US PD tag and an author date of death
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gianfrancesco_Poggio_Bracciolini_-_Imagines_philologorum.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag
    Done and done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Zodiac_woodcut.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced it with a new one that I whipped up. I know the source and year of this (1533), and I have added this info to the Commons page.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this closer as from a glance and your nom statement it seems very interesting, but you are using ibid in the sources section - not practical on a wiki where things can be moved about quite frequently. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to the very end section? If so, I have removed the author masks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Comments from JM

I am excited to see this here.

  • I think listing the affiliations of the scholars you are mentioning is a bad idea; they have a tendency to go out-of-date, as academics move around. I note that you listed Victoria Moul as a "lecturer" (roughly: assistant professor) when she's actually a senior lecturer (roughly: associate professor)- this is perhaps an example!
    • Here are the particular examples I noticed: "University of Toronto Classics professor Alison Keith", "King's College London classicist Victoria Moul", and "G. Goold, a Classics professor at University College" (note also the dablink).
  • To parrot something I learnt at a previous FAC and have now internalised... False titles are sometimes considered non-standard, so you may want to consider changing them.
    • Here are the examples I noticed: "University of Toronto Classics professor Alison Keith", "King's College London classicist Victoria Moul", "classicist Katharina Volk", "Nineteenth-century classicist Fridericus Jacobs and historian Paul Monceaux", "classicist Steven Green", "classicist G. P. Goold" and "Italian humanist Lorenzo Bonincontri".
I have either removed the titles (for most of the scholars, since the refs will lead a potential reader to their books, wherein it can be discovered that they are indeed classicists etc.) and added "the" in front of other 'titles' to imply that they are not titles, just adjectival phrases.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first footnote, you refer to Volk by surname only before she has been introduced. I think the best move would be to introduce her in both the footnote and the prose.
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "didactic poems [e.g. De natura rerum and Astronomica) ... were often regarded as (some kind of) epic poetry" Could you check the brackets?
Whoops! Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article will use the term "didactic poem" where necessary, following Volk's assertion that "in histories of Latin literature, Manilius is typically treated under the rubric of didactic poetry"." Two things: this is a self reference, I'm not sure I like "assertion" (it strikes me as a little judgemental). Perhaps this could be moved to the start of the footnote? "Though, as explained by [intro] Volk, "in histories of Latin literature, Manilius is typically treated under the rubric of didactic poetry",[ref] there has been much debates as to whether the Astronomica should be categorized as an "epic poem" or as a "didactic poem".[ref]" Just a thought.
Good points all around. How does this look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(implying an Augustinian date), the second claims that Capricorn is the Emperor’s natal sign (implying this book was written under Augustus), and the fourth describes Libra as the natal sign of the leader (implying that this book was written under Tiberius)" This is perhaps my problem rather than yours, but these don't strictly imply those things, they suggest, indicate or perhaps implicate them.
I changed all instances of "imply" to other things; this also varies the prose so there isn't the same word repeated three times.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manilius digresses about the" Can one digress about something?
I think so? I did a quick Google Book search and it looks like it's a common enough phrase in published media.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are G. Goold and G. P. Goold the same person? You spell out his name several times.
They indeed are. I have tried to standardize the name and cut out redundant instances of it appearing in full.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong. Please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thank you for your constructive feedback. I have fixed/responded to all your points. Please check and see if these edits are suitable?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • The citation for the Bryn Mawr Classical Review does work, but I think it could perhaps be a little neater if you cite it as a journal, rather than as a webpage. For example: It has an ISSN, it has an issue number...
    Good idea. I have done as you suggested (although the review doesn't have issue numbers, since it's open-access and only posts reviews).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volk, K.; Schindler, C." Spell out?
    I added Katharina Volk's full name, but I can't find C. Schindler's full name.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it not be usual to cite the particular article in Britannica, rather than the whole encyclopedia?
    I added that ref before I knew the cite:encyclopedia template was a thing. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent on whether you provide publication locations for books. I would advise in favour. I'm also not sure I understand why you provide City, Country: in some cases and City: in others.
    An overlook on my part. I have added locations for all books, and tried to standardize the rest.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Lorenzo Bonincontri’s Reception of Manilius’ Chapter on Comets (‘’Astr.’’ 1.809–926"" Could you check that title?
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goold, G" You provide fuller initials elsewhere.
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what jumps out on a first look. All sources are appropriately scholarly. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thank you for the source review. I have responded to your points.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An excellent article. I see no reason to hold up its promotion, but will watch this page in case I have missed anything. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the thorough review, and thanks for the support!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber edit

Comments from Cas Liber

Looking now....

  • There are 3 "poem" s in the last 2 sentences of the lead. Recommend trimming or reworking so there are fewer..
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain who Poggio Bracciolini is ("Italian scholar" or whatever as prefix)
    I added "scholar" to the intro, and then added "humanist and scholar" to the body.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, looking again, nothing really jumped out at me prose-wise and it looks well-rounded and comprehensive, so support (though acknowledging I am a novice in the area) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for looking over this and lending your support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:31, 27 June 2017 (=UTC)

Ceoil edit

Oppose. Dull and uninspiring language for a nominally literary article. I shaved a few but, there is huge repetition here, for eg 37 instances of the word "poem" throughout, and which in places it appears 3 times in the same construct. Further the language is overwrought, academic; "espouses", "a copy made upon", "it was neglected by scholars for centuries. However, 21st-century scholars" (two instances of repetition in 10 words), classicist x 5, "of the Astronomica, the text of the Astronomica", "named after a now-lost source manuscript), and includes manuscripts", "the aforementioned", "whereas G and L are derived from a different copy (α) of the archetype...The second family is known as "β", taking its name from the now-lost archetype; it includes manuscript M", "critically edited" (what?). I stopped there. To much fact fact fact latterly, you would need a compass to navigate. I'm familiar with hands and supposition from bare fact, but this is unnecessarily technical and dry; it could be better explained with eg, linking back to specific text to guide the reader. Far from FA standard. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate to know what is "dull and uninspiring" about this? Also, this is an article of about 4,000 words about a poem. So the use of the word "poem" more than few times seems OK to me (and, what is more, 37 instances of the word only make up 0.9% of the entire article). Your point about the word appearing three times in the same construct is duly noted, and I have tried to improve this issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Honest question here... Did I offend you with that revert? I thought that you had changed "poem" to "lines" by mistake. I wanted to make the section a bit clearer, and I think (thanks to your work!) it looks better now. Anyway, I feel like some of your comments ([29] [30]) read as if you have an axe to grind, so if I did something to make you angry, I truly apologize.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are all of substance, can you address please rather than second guess. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many of them are. But at the same time many of them seem a bit odd. For instance, what's wrong with the use of the term "classicist"? Or the use of the term "critically edited" in an article that deals with textual criticism?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(To lighten the mood: I do find it kind of funny that this article is accused of being too dry and too technical. It fits Manilius rather well!)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To restate, its often not the word choice in isolation thats the problem, though it is often that, its the overuse of certain words, "classicist" among them. I have demonstrated that the same terms are appearing over and over, often in the same sentence ("of the Astronomica, the text of the Astronomica"), and that's not really good enough for FA standard. The dry and technical thing is a separate matter, and quite odd. Are you paraphrasing from old sources? (source check needed here). Re "critically edited", as opposed to hagiographic editing? Either editing stands back and improves or, I dunno what you mean. My opposition stands, and I wont respond further, until you take this seriously, with actual, substantive replies. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Nominator has requested withdrawal -- will action shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2017&oldid=793240516"