Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2018

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2018 [1].

---

Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine

Nominator(s): Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an indie video game in which players solve heists using a range of different characters, all with different specialties. I've only ever nominated one other article for FA (Fallout 4: Far Harbor), so if you think I've missed anything in the article, please leave suggestions. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias and Alexandra IDV: Pinging those who left comments on the PR. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Add ALT text to the infobox image. Please add ALT text for all of the images.
• The caption for the infobox image should not have a period at the end as it is not a complete sentence.
• For this part (his, the Pickpocket, the Cleaner, and Lookout's recent actions), I would rephrase it to (his recent actions with the Pickpocket, the Cleaner, and Lookout) to avoid having “his” awkwardly cut off.
• Please be consistent with your use of the the Oxford comma. You use it in a majority of places, but there are spots without it (i.e. for the Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux).

Fixed the one you mentioned.

• ”Playstation 3” is linked multiple times in the body of the article. The same comment applies for “Eurogamer”.

Great work with the article; once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? Either way, have a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Aoba47. I believe I've addressed them all. I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment, but I'll try to take a look. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Don't worry if you cannot get to my FAC. I very much enjoyed reading through this article, and my FAC is still very new and hopefully will attract more attention/commentary over time. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "The PC versions of Monaco were developed and published by Pocketwatch Games while the Xbox 360 version was published by Majesco Entertainment." - should be a comma before while
• "Development of Monaco began while Andy Schatz, the lead developer, was working for TKO Software, before he founded his own independent company Pocketwatch Games." - too clunky with arrangement. "Development ... while lead developer Andy Schatz was working ... and before he founded..." is better

Changed to: Development of Monaco began while lead developer Andy Schatz was working for TKO Software and before he had founded his own independent company, Pocketwatch Games.

• "After discussions with Schatz, the soundtrack was composed by American composer Austin Wintory." - no need for the "discussions with Schatz" bit
• "Andy Nguyen, whom Schatz met while he was looking for playtesters, helped with the development of Monaco as a level designer and producer, as well as working in booths." - what does working in booths mean?

Festival booths. Changed in lead (already said that in the development section).

• "Majesco Entertainment handled the release of the Xbox 360 version after Microsoft Game Studios had turned down the game twice." - why did they turn it down twice? Also don't need the "had" before turned

Changed to: Majesco Entertainment handled the release of the Xbox 360 version after Microsoft Game Studios rejected it twice due to marketability issues.

• "The game was positively received by reviewers and won two awards at the 2010 Independent Games Festival. Reviewers praised the cooperative gameplay highly but said that the single-player was less fun because there was less to do" - don't repeat reviewers in such close proximity, and it's not encyclopedic to say the single-player was "less fun"

Changed to: The game was positively received by reviewers and won two awards at the 2010 Independent Games Festival. Critics praised the cooperative modes highly but said that the single-player was inferior because there was less gameplay.

• "Reviewers liked the art style and said that its minimalistic design suited its gameplay." - for clarity's sake, I'd say "the game's art style"

How about: Reviewers liked the art style and said the minimalistic design suited the game.?

• "Monaco is a stealth–action game" - in the lead you said stealth and action, now it's stealth–action?
• "played in a top-down perspective" - not sure "in" is the right word here
• "heists and robberies in locations including nightclubs, mansions, and yachts.[1]" - I'd take out "locations including"

I removed in locations including nightclubs, mansions, and yachts.

• "Gentleman, who says he is under house arrest but leave" - leave?

Should have been: but manages to leave

• "They steal various valuables, including diamonds and artwork, and hire the Hacker." - "They steal valuables including diamonds and artwork and hire the Hacker"
• "The Pickpocket reveals that, while smuggling, they purposefully blew up the boat to distract Interpol." - not sure this sentence properly communicates what you want it to, what does it mean that they blew up the boat "while smuggling"?

I've removed it. It was meant to say the boat (which in the previous alibi was blown up by Davide) was actually blown up by the protagonists as a cover-up. It's easier to just remove it and say it got blown up to distract Interpol, though.

• "His alibi ends by saying the Gentleman has assumed Davide's identity and that if Inspector Voltaire attempts to confirm the story," - not sure an alibi can "end"
• "is the Mole, who she says" - whom
• "When discussing the Pickpocket, she informs Inspector Voltaire that he used to be rich before he got arrested. She informs him that the Hacker had also been in trouble before, specifically when he was caught trespassing in Interpol's headquarters. She says the Gentleman garnered the nickname "The Rat" because he was responsible for calling the police and getting everyone put back in jail.[12]" - you should re-establish that you're talking about the mole as "she"

"She" is The Lookout. Guess that reaffirms the need to reestablish it .

• "Schatz responded, saying "they were crazy", and asked if he could repitch the game; they agreed to let him do s" - should cite the direct quote from Schatz
• "as he felt the platform's ease of working with and strong marketplace," - did you mean to say "he felt the platform was easy to work with"?

Changed to: as he felt the platform was easy to work with and the marketplace, as well as the prevalence of headsets for it, would have made the Xbox 360 the ideal platform the game.

• "regarded it as being one of the best co-op experiences he'd had in a while" - no contractions
• "Scott Nichols (Digital Spy) wrote similar, though less explicit statements," - what does this mean? reword or cut it
• "he called single-player surprisingly compelling" - grammar

Is this correct: he called the single-player "surprisingly compelling".

Oppose - The prose doesn't meet 1a of the FA criteria yet. I think, given that this has been here for some time now, it would benefit from a copyedit from the GOCE and a potential peer review. ceranthor 00:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks for the comments. I've attempted to address them above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Anarchyte I'll strike my oppose, but I'm still not totally happy with the prose yet. Any chance you could contact a copyeditor to look through and make changes? ceranthor 18:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I don't know of any, so I'll add a request to WP:GOCE/R. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Baffle gab1978 has kindly copyedited the article. Would you be willing to re-read it and make additional suggestions? Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sorry for the delay - was out of the country. ceranthor 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic. I look forward to it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: I appreciate that we have a support here, and a recently struck oppose, but I'm afraid this FAC has been open for two months without achieving consensus to promote. Therefore I will archive shortly. The article can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2018 [2].

---

Alan Wiggins

Nominator(s): EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Early in his professional baseball career, Alan Wiggins stood out because of his blazing speed; he looked like he might even become one of the game's great base stealers. In 1980, at the age of 22, he broke the professional baseball stolen bases record, and he was playing in the major leagues by the following season. Before long, however, Wiggins was wrapped up in a cocaine addiction. Though he enjoyed his best season in 1984, he was out of baseball by 1987. Less than four years later, he became the first major league baseball player known to have died of AIDS.

I started contributing to this entry in 2015, and I received a very helpful GA review that year. I returned to the article several weeks ago and decided to prepare it for my first FAC nomination. I secured a peer review and a GOCE copyedit, and I put a lot of work into establishing strong sourcing. While much of the available coverage of Wiggins has detailed his tragic death, this entry is comprehensive, discussing his early life and the impact of his baseball playing career. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Mainly minor formatting points:

• ISBNs should be consistently fomratted – compare e.g. 1 with 6, 30, 40. Also the 10-digit isbns in 32 and 61 would be best converted to 13-digit form. The respective numbers are 978-0-06-199981-9 and 978-1-62368-734-2
• Another inconsistency is in your use of archive links. For most dated newspaper/journal sources you don't archive, but in a few cases – 3, 10, 23, possibly more – you do. Is there a particular reason for these exceptions?
• Ref 8: requires access date
• Ref 13: the main link goes to a GoDaddy logon page. The archive link is working – suggest you use the archive url in the main link
• Ref 41: newspaper title should be italicised
• Ref 47: Paywall, therefore add (subscription required) template
• Ref 62: requires access date
• Ref 63: If "Real Health" is an online source, it shouldn't be in italics

Other than as noted, all links are working, the sources are well ordered and are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this review, Brian. I think I addressed most of your concerns. I did find a few more dated periodical/website sources that were archived and I removed the archiving to be consistent. I left the archiving on Baseball-Reference.com pages (like ref 10) and similar sites, because those are websites that don't have publication dates (as far as I can tell - but if I'm incorrect or if there's another way to handle this, let me know). It turns out that Real Health is a print magazine with some of its content also published online, so I changed that reference to Template:Cite magazine. If I mishandled any of this, just let me know. There's one reference to the UPI.com site (ref 20); it does have a date but I can't figure out where it was published in print, so I left it archived - let me know if this is okay. Thanks again for your time! EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's counterproductive to remove a few archive links for the mere sake of consistency. Per WP:DEADREF: "consider archiving the referenced document when writing the article". Preventing link rot inasmuch as possible is a good thing. It's a step backwards to remove these links, and would be torturous and artificial to mandate that an FA archive all of them.—Bagumba (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a discussion about this stuff at WT:FAC last week and started to remove much of the archiving from the article based on a post in that discussion. Then more people responded and it seemed like I should restore many of them. I'm happy to go either way on this, but I'd just like to be reasonably sure that there's some agreement before I make widespread formatting changes again. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion to which you refer was precicely that – a discussion, an exchange of views, not an explanation of policy. There's not likely to be any general agreement on this issue, beyond that a consistent practice should be adopted within an article. It is acceptable, for example, to argue that archive links should be added to all website sources, but that links to dated print media or to Google books don't require archiving. On the other hand, some editors choose to cover their bases by archiving everything. I'm neutral about this, but whatever practice is followed, FAC criterion 2c ("consistently formatted inline citations") needs to be observed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian - I appreciate your feedback. I went ahead and archived everything that I could see, except for Google Books, Google News Archive and Newspapers.com sources (because I had trouble getting those pages to display correctly when I tried to archive them). I think I've caught all of them, but let me know if not. Thanks for your work.

Comments – Interesting story on a player I didn't know anything about (he was active before my time). Here are a couple brief comments from a quick reading:

• For the sake of non-baseball fans, I suggest linking to pennant in the lead, as that might be confusing to them. This looks like a good one to use there.
• Personal life: "Alan Jr. played at the University of San Francisco and played professionally in several countries." The second "played" could just be removed from the sentence, as the sentence would read just fine without it and removal would make it a little tighter. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Giants2008. I didn't see this for a few days, but I've incorporated your suggestions now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

taking a look now....

Actually reads fine. Will take another look tomorrow as I gotta sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Guys, even if Cas were to take a look (and then support) we'd still be a long way from consensus to promote, and this has been open six weeks already. I'm not sure why this hasn't attracted more commentary but I think we need to put it to bed and have another try after the regulation two weeks has passed per FAC instructions. Eric, as you're new to FAC, you'd be eligible to try the mentioning scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2018 [3].

---

Regine Velasquez

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a Filipino singer and actress who had achieved success in other Asian countries. I've been working on the article and expanded it, with most of the heavy work done between November to December of last year, at which time it received a peer review. I feel ready to give this a shot at FAC. All suggestions for improvement are welcome. Pseud 14 (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Intramurosjf0305_17.JPG: since the Philippines does not have freedom of panorama, this needs to include an explicit licensing tag for the architectural work

Agreed. Removed image from the article. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Regine_Velasquez_-_Sana_Maulit_Muli.ogg: what is the length of the original song? Same with File:Written_In_The_Sand_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:In_Love_With_You_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:Fly_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:Emotion_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg

Done. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the length of File:In_Love_With_You_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, the sample is longer than 10%. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, My bad, the song length is in fact 4:23 as sourced. Do let me know if this meets criteria. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately it would still be longer than 10%. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, In that case, I have removed the sample. Thanks for confirming. The fewer the better. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• This article has quite a few non-free samples - need to consider whether it would be possible to convey adequate information with fewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Fair point. Got rid of the 3, I kept "File:Regine_Velasquez_-_Sana_Maulit_Muli.ogg" for the music career subsection where the song is tackled and "File:Fly_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg" under Musical style just to illustrate variety in genre under this context. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Support per my detailed review at PR here. I have made some copy-edits here and there. These are my edits. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

FrB.TG, thank you for your thorough review and input at PR. Much appreciate your support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the peer review, here. Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Thanks for your valuable input at PR and for your support --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• "music licensing" I might say "licensing writes".

• Done, you might probably be referring to licensing rights.

• "One month before the album's release, "Forevermore", the record's lead single, debuted in August 2004." I would put the parts of this sentence in some other order, possibly, "Forevermore", the record's lead single, debuted in August 2004, one month before the album's release."

• Done

• "In 2005, Velasquez continued her television work as presenter for three seasons on another talent show," if it's three seasons, wouldn't it be more than just 2005?

• Fixed, since the original season premiered in 2005 anyway, I took out "three seasons" to avoid confusion.

• "The album, partly mixed with 1980s and 1990s influence," I don't know what you mean by "partly mixed". Is this a reference to sound mixing or something else?

• Reworded. Was referring to "influenced by 1980s and 1990s sound"

• "She appeared in Songbird, a weekly late night musical television program that aired on GMA Network Inc, where she was the main act and featured performances by a musical guest.[108]" probably needs "which" before "featured".

• Done

• "Velasquez did not fail to make up for the initial staging of the show." I might sub "cancellation" for "staging".

• Done

• "She was featured on Gloc-9's single "Takip Salim"[145] and in Vice Ganda's "Push Mo Yan Teh".[146]" I might say "as backup vocalist" or whatever she was.

• Clarified as "featured artist"

• " the performance earned Velasquez a FAMAS[198] and FAP[199] Award nomination for Best Actress."I think you'll need to ditch the "a" and pluralise " Award".

• Done

• "the comedy series Ako Si Kim Sam Soon, an adaption of the South Korean television series." series ... series. I'd find a synonym for one of them.

• Went with "television show" instead to avoid "series" being overused.

• "She dropped out after the 45th episode following her pregnancy and was replaced by Iza Calzado.[206]" I would enclose "following her pregnancy" because it is ambiguous otherwise.

• Done

• "One of Velasquez's earliest musical memories was listening to her father, Gerardo Velasquez, sing lullabies to put her to sleep.[9] As a child she enjoyed hearing classic songs. She would wait for her father's return from work and ask him to sing her the "old songs" he knew until she fell asleep.[13] She was drawn to traditional songs instead of nursery rhymes because of this routine." Since you mention a good part of this early in the biographical section, I would consider shortening it a bit, especially where there is duplication.

• Trimmed. Removed duplicate sentences covered in the 'Early life' section.

Will finish within the next couple of days. Sorry about the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you. I have done these things as per my comments. --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a few more.

• "Velasquez is often regarded as one of Filipino music's most influential voices.[223][224]" wouldn't this be better under "Legacy"? I would suggest calling that section "Influence" btw. She's a bit young for a legacy.

• Done for both. Changed to "Influence"

• "On August 8, 2010, the couple announced their engagement,[267][268] and in December 2010 the couple married in Nasugbu, Batangas.[269] " I might cut the year repeat.

• Done

• The two sentences in the first paragraph of "Honors" seem inconsistent in whether the serial comma is used.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Did not use serial comma(s) in this article. This should be consistent now.

Wehwalt, thank you for your additional comments. They have all been addressed. --Pseud 14 (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

As promised, I'll do my best to post some comments within the next few days. ceranthor 23:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• "She attended pre-school and elementary at the Central School of Hinundayan.[10] " - think this should be elementary school; think you're missing a word

Fixed

• "Despite the attempt to launch her music career, the single was commercially unsuccessful." - why despite? I'd just nix the first half of the sentence here

Done

• "While she was rehearsing for the live show, the producer and talent manager, Ronnie Henares showed interest and signed her." - No comma needed after manager

Done

• Careful with the serial comma; it looks like you mostly avoid using it, so stay consistent throughout

Fixed for consistency in the article

• "marketing her as representing East Asian popular music because of its financial success." - this is clunky; reword

Reworded

• " Velasquez appeared as host with Ogie Alcasid on the television program " - needs a "the"; also wouldn't this make her a co-host rather than just a host?

You're right, she is a co-host. Fixed

• "To coincide with the film's theatrical run, "You Are My Song", was released as the soundtrack's lead single.[176]" - don't think the commas are necessary

Done

• "Velasquez continued to play the lead in 1998, the comedy fantasy film Honey Nasa Langit Na Ba Ako as Janno Gibbs' fiancé,[172] and the romantic comedy Dahil May Isang Ikaw with Aga Muhlach.[178]" - missing a word after 1998... maybe appearing?

Added

• "Her first television lead role came in 2000 in an episode of the IBC-13's weekly drama series Habang May Buhay, playing Piolo Pascual's cancer-stricken love interest.[172]" - this seems disjointed as its own paragraph

Fixed. Included as part of the second paragraph

• "Velasquez also voiced the animated film Urduja (2008)" - voiced the entire film, or voiced a character?

Voiced the 'eponymous character'. Fixed

• "Velasquez is often regarded as one of Filipino music's most influential voices and for her use of vocal belting." - Think this should be reworded so that there's not a split between "regarded as one of..." and regarded "for her..."

Reworded, moved the latter (vocal belting) to the second sentence for flow.

• "described her "legitimacy" as "enough to secure a space in pop culture," and her musical career that "continues to influence generations of OPM patrons and songbird wannabes up to this day,"[219]" - Think you're missing words before "and her musical career"

Reworded

• WP:NBSPs need a bit of cleanup in the article.

Done as per these series of edits

Overall, this is very well-written and engaging. Excellent work. Support, once my comments are addressed. ceranthor 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ceranthor, thank you for your comments and edits. I have addressed those accordingly. --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

• 'Regine' should be as "Regine'"
  • Done
• 'AllMusic's David Gonzales praised it as "an even better album", but criticized the record for being very similar to the formula used on Listen Without Prejudice." ' There's an extra " at the end from somewhere
  • Fixed
• There are a lot of breaches in WP:LQ: I fixed some, but it's best to go through and check the rest
  • Done as per these edits
• "The album sold more than 120,000 copies": the subject of the previous sentence is Survivor, so best put "Drawn sold more than..."
  • Done
• New Strait Times should be New Straits Times
  • Fixed
• You use a mix of emdashes and endashes, which should be made consistent
  • Fixed for consistency. I used the html code just to be certain.

Done to the start of "2013–present": more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, thank you for your comments and edits. I have done those things. Look forward to rest of your review. --Pseud 14 (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, no more to follow: I made a couple of tweaks to some WP:LQ slips you'd missed, but the rest is all good.

• Support on prose: I have never heard of the subject before, so can't comment on completeness of coverage, etc, but as far as I can judge, this fits the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, thank you for your edits. Much appreciate your support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

• Unless I missed it we'll need someone to perform a source review for formatting and reliability.
• Also, Pseud 14, if I'm right in gathering that this will be your first FA if successful, we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing (a hoop through which we ask all first-timers to jump).

Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the current reviewers would like to undertake. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose, thank you for your note. Would very much look forward to a review of the sources. I did put it up at the WT:FAC for a source review request. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that -- tks, I've added the spotcheck request myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose, much appreciated. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part “In the first of these she”, please add a comma between “these” and “she”.

• Done

• A clarification question for this part (In the first of these she appeared in a featured episode portraying a mentally challenged woman). Does she play the mentally challenged woman in the episode? If so I would rephrase it to the following “she appeared as a mentally challenged woman in a featured episode”, as I originally read the current wording as the episode portraying (i.e. featuring) this type of character.

• You're right she does. I reworded as suggested. Thanks!

• For this part (At age four Velasquez), I believe a comma is necessary between “four” and “Velasquez”.

• Done

• For this part (particularly in music), I do not think the “in” is necessary.

• Done

• For this part (Under Henares' management Velasquez), I believe a comma is necessary after “management”.

• Done

• For this part (AllMusic called the album), I would cite the reviewer in the prose.

• Done

• For this part (Critical reception of the show was generally enthusiastic with music critics complimenting), I would revise it to avoid the “with” + “-ing” verb construction as I think that is discouraged for FAs.

• Reworded

• For this part (Allmusic's David Gonzales heralded), it should be “AllMusic”.

• Fixed

• For this part (and performed alongside Mandy Moore to promote the theatrical release of the latter's film), could you identify what song they performed together?

• Song title added ("Cry")

• Is divadevotee.com really a reliable source? I do not think so, but I would be more than happy to hear your opinion and be convinced otherwise.

• I believe you're right so I removed any usage of that source and reworded the structure of the lead sentence.

• For this (Allmusic described her timbre), it should be “AllMusic”.

• Done

• Philippine Daily Inquirer is linked a few times in the article.

• Unlinked.

• For this part (Referred to as Asia's songbird,), please clarify who refers to her as this. Is it critics, fans, the singer herself?

• Clarified (by critics)

Wonderful work with this article. It was very informative as I have never heard of this individual prior to reading it. I will definitely have to check out her music, as her style seems to perfectly fit with my personal taste in music. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Hats off to you for handling all of this work! I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments on my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1) if possible. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for your time in reviewing. I have addressed the above as mentioned in my comments. I'm delighted that you found interest in her music, I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy it. I'd be more than happy to have a look at your FAC too. You have a wonderful week likewise. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47 much appreciate your support. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Source review Lingzhi

• I'm running the links checker... all links look good.
• since you are presumably familiar with all these links, you can help out proactively by finding those that point to sources written in Tagalog (for example, this one)and adding |language=. If you translated any of the titles into English, the title should be left as the original Tagalog, and you should add the English translation as |trans-title=.

• Fixed

• What makes oocities reliable? and tripod ?

the tripod links to an archive article indicating the newspaper it was taken from (PDI = Philippine Daily Inqquirer). Nevetheless, I have removed both of the links.

• "Video clip > Velasquez on pursuing an international career" is translated very sparsely; therefore, How reliable is this source for information? Where is she speaking, and when? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This was from a bloggers/moderators conference for her website in December 2009 in Quezon City, but I've removed this and replaced with a much reliable source.

• Results from copyvio tool are giving me pause. I'm trying to determine whether the flagged results are a copy of a previous wp version or vice versa.... so forex the Apple Itunes page for Love Was Born On Christmas Day Regine Velasquez, apparently written by Thom Jurek, has:

While establishing her career in music, Velasquez ventured into film with a lead role in Wanted Perfect Mother in 1996. Given its positive public reception, she continued to garner female leads in romantic comedies such as Kailangan Ko'y Ikaw (2000) and Pangako Ikaw Lang (2001) -- the latter was the highest-grossing film of 2001. She also had success in television with the shows Maalaala Mo Kaya (2002), Forever in My Heart (2004), Diva (2010), and Poor Señorita (2016).

This wp article has:

Velasquez ventured into film with a lead role in Wanted Perfect Mother (1996). She continued to play female lead roles in romantic comedy films — including Kailangan Ko'y Ikaw (2000) and Pangako Ikaw Lang (2001), with the latter being the highest-grossing Filipino film in 2001. She has also been successful in television with the shows Maalaala Mo Kaya (2002), Forever In My Heart (2004), Diva (2010) and Poor Señorita (2016).

Apple Itunes has:

In 2002, Reigne earned Velasquez an MTV Asia Award nomination. She eventually won its inaugural award for Favorite Artist: Philippines. That same year, she hosted the first season of the Philippines' own version of the British talent show Star for a Night. Velasquez's own TV special, One Night with Regine, was a fund-raiser for social welfare organization and won Best Musical Program at the seventh Asian Television Awards. In 2004 and 2006, she reverted to her earlier style of delivering her own versions of songs by other artists on Covers, Vol. 1 and Covers, Vol. 2. In 2008, Velasquez signed a recording contract with Universal. Low Key, her label debut, was released in November.

...compare with wp:

In 2002, Reigne earned Velasquez a MTV Asia Award nomination.[82] She won the inaugural award for Favorite Artist Philippines and performed "Cry" alongside Mandy Moore to promote the theatrical release of the latter's film, A Walk to Remember (2002).[83][84] In that same year, Velasquez hosted the first season of Star for a Night, a format based on the British talent show of the same name.[85] ... On April 26, 2002, Velasquez headlined One Night with Regine at the National Museum of the Philippines.[87] The show was a fundraiser in partnership with the Bantay Bata Foundation, a social welfare organization of media conglomerate ABS-CBN.[88] ... Later that year, One Night with Regine won Best Musical Program at the 7th Asian Television Awards.[89]

 Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Lingzhi, just another additional comment. This was the first version of this section back in 11 November 2017 while I was working on the article. At that point, part of the process of improving the article was the inclusion of album reviews from AllMusic. During which time, the subject's AllMusic biography section never existed (didn't have content), as opposed to how it currently stands. There definitely is no edit history that could vouch for that in AllMusic, but I was constantly visiting the site while the article was being expanded whenever an album review needs to be cited and Thom Jurek has not reviewed a single album of the subject, which makes his familiarity of the subject questionable (in my opinion). I am not in any way discrediting Thom Jurek and his work for AllMusic, however, I am certain (based on what I have checked in AllMusic) that the author may not even be aware of the subject to the extent that was written, which would make it highly impossible that the WP version was ripped from it, as I know for a fact that there have been blatant use of WP entries being written into websites online. Do let me know if these have addressed your concerns. --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Just a point a wanted to highlight: as an editor who knows the subject and has an aim of putting an article to FAC, the very last thing I would do is rip off a big chunk of work from something that already exists. The article has undergone work for several months late last year and has been extensively elaborated, which makes no sense (in my humble opinion) for me to copy work from someone. I understand the burden of proof is on the nominator/editor (me). --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, on close paraphrase, with red flags also going up with respect to unreliability of Internet resources. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, thank you for your review. As per results of your copyvio tool, these aren't paraphrases and were written during the time that I was working on the article late November-December 2017. I was also surprised that these appeared in both Itunes and AllMusic. So on the above mentioned, I am confident that the wp version came before what appeared in Allmusic and Itunes. Other than mentioned I only have a copy kept in my drive on the structure while I was doing it. For certainty, that's my only means of proof that the WP version came before the AllMusic and Itunes article and was not paraphrased into the WP version. This was how the lead section looked at the time when I revised it and changes were made during the time when the article was peer reviewed. Do let me know if there's anything needed to clarify. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note to FAC coordinator: I looked for a date of any kind on the iTunes page in question (looked at page source too) but found nothing. I also looked at the Wayback page for the iTunes article, and the earliest archive date was very recent (JAN. this year IIRC). I don't know if that's conclusive proof that the page is new, but at least it doesn't disprove the nominator's assertions. I dunno if a staff writer for AllMusic (Thom Jurek) would risk his job by ripping off Wikipedia, but maybe he would. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking into it Lingzhi, appreciate your time. I did some cross-checking too and looked at an archive at the Wayback page for one of her albums in iTunes. This archive is dated November 27, 2017. If you compare it to this current page of the same album in iTunes, you'll find a difference since the November archive did not contain an 'About' section with the article by Thom Jurek. You'll only see a section called 'More by Regine Velasquez' that only detailed her country of origin and date of birth on the archive as opposed to the current page. If you review the article history with the WP version dated November 27, 2017, you'll find it already had that structure written into it. I hope this too provides additional clarity. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I've been carrying out a more general sources review, focussing on formatting and quality/reliability issues. I'm only about a quarter of the way through, so there's a way to go yet. Some of my points might overlap with issues raised by Lingzhi.

• There seems to be an inconsistency in the inclusion or otherwise of retrieval dates, particularly in the early citations Can you say what principles you have applied?

• Thanks for the note Brianboulton. Fixed to include retrieval dates for consistency. --Pseud 14 (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 2: Can you give further information on "SoundClick", to help establish its quality and reliability?

• While it is an article sourced from different website, it was used to as a source for non-contentious claims (i.e. siblings). Nevertheless, I have replaced it with a much more reliable source.

• Ref 9: What makes this (Regine Multimedia Vol. 3) a high quality, reliable source? It describes itself as "an unofficial Regine fansite".

• It is an unofficial fansite, that is moderated by a team that has oversight from her production, since the subject doesn't have an OFFICIAL website. I utilized the source for portions of the biography page written. Nevertheless, these have been replaced with more reliable source.

• Ref 20: Likewise, this source (Regine Velasquez Biography Page) says: "Please take note that this is a fansite and NOT an official site"

• Same as above, replaced with a much reliable article.

• Ref 32: What's the relationship between "InqPop" and Philippine Daily Inquirer?

• InqPop is the Entertainment/Pop Culture section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, I cited the actual newspaper instead of InqPOP.

• Ref 33: why isn't Asia Pacific Quarterly given as publisher rather than Billboard?

• From my understanding Asia Pacific Quarterly is a section of this Billboard issue.

• Refs 34 and 35 appear to be the same, although formatted differently

• Fixed

• Ref 39: Your text says: "The album sold more than 120,000 copies and was certified double platinum" The source says: "Double platinum in Taiwan, 150,000 units sold in China and the figures are still climbing" – which is somewhat different.

• The 150,000 figures referred to the Listen Without Prejudice album, whereas the double platinum certification was for Reason Enough. I removed 120,000 and left it at double platinum to avoid confusion. I know the clipping is a tad too blurry and required zooming in.

• Ref 40: author missing

• Added

• Ref 48: Why is this source (The official blog of Trina Belamide) reliable?

• Replaced with the songwriter's official website linked through her work/music history.

• Ref 52: The main link isn't working. Suggest replace url with that in the archived link

• Fixed

• Ref 64: Publisher missing

• Added

• Ref 65: Not worth keeping. It's dated four weeks before the event described in the text, and doesn't really support it byond naming the venue.

• Removed

• Ref 68: The paper is New Straits Times ("Straits" plural) and should be italicised

• Fixed

• Ref 70: author missing

• Added

Buzz me when you've attended to these. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thanks for your review. Let me know if I have addressed the above to your satisfaction and I look forward to the remainder of your review. Appreciate your time in starting to go through it. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay, I've been away from home with very limited online access. I've now resumed my checks and will post again shortly. Happy with your responses so far. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a further batch, which completes the first column. How long it will take me to slog through the second column is anyone's guess, and you may have to be rather patient.

• Ref 61: Give language

• Done

• Ref 62: Where does the source state which programme is being described?

• I've added a new source that states the BBC programme as 2000 Today.
• I did keep the ABC Australia source (although it's titled broadcast is 2000) because the page detailed the countries.

• Ref 65: goes to an article entitled "Hipnotic Michelle"

• I've removed this source (including the statement cited) as I couldn't find any archive of it.

• Ref 69: What makes Astyle.com a reliable source?

• Removed, since it redirects to a different page now. No archive available.

• Refs 72, 74: "Reigne — Regine Velasquez" is not the title shown in the source - it's given as "Regine — Regine Velasquez". And what is the difference between these two, even though the ref details are given differently?

• Apparently it's a mistake from AllMusic. The discography page puts it as "Regine — Regine Velasquez" from her 1987 album, but the content/review is about "Reigne — Regine Velasquez" the 2001 album. So the ref details I used was for the 2001 album (Reigne). Confusing album titles, I know. I hope this clarifies.

• Ref 82: (Vive Entertainment) Link goes to a blank page.

• Replaced with a new source

• Ref 90: Clarify publisher - not apparent from the link

• Wayback has an archive link of the actual article from Manila Bulletin as the original link is not working. I've replaced the source and put the archive url.

• Ref 95: publisher details missing – who is it? Looks similar to 90.

• No working link or archive available so I replaced with a source from Manila Bulletin

• Ref 96: returns page not found

• Removed. No working link or archive available.

• Ref 97: returns error message

• Removed. No working link or archive available.

• Ref 99: returns page not found

• Removed. No working link or archive available.

• Ref 101: Give language

• Added

• Ref 126: Unsure about publisher and if reliable

• I replaced the source and used the archive url from Manila Bulletin (from Wayback) as it is accessible.

• Ref 132: The main link goes to wrong page. Replace with archived url

• Done

• Ref 147: Give language

• Added

Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton, have done all those things above as per my comments. Let me know if I have addressed them. I would definitely (and patiently) await for the remainder of your review. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Given that copyvio concerns were expressed, I think we need further eyes on this. I think the nominator's timeline of what happened looks convincing, but it certainly requires further investigation before we go further. I wonder if Laser brain could take a look at this, if he is around? Sarastro (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I can take a look this weekend! --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I intend to wait for the outcome of the copyvio investigation before completing the routine source checks. Someone please ping me when this issue is resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional source spot-check by Laser brain

• Fn 33: Fails verification. I can't find mention of Velasquez in the section or on the pages cited.
• Fn 35: Fails verification. The song title provided doesn't match, and the source does not support the phrase "marking her first musical collaboration with an international artist".
• Fn 42: Fails verification. The source does not support the phrase "became a career defining song for Velasquez", it simply provides sales numbers in the Chinese market.

I'm going to stop there and oppose as it's clear that sources have been misinterpreted or misrepresented in the writing of this article. --Laser brain (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: Given the concerns over sourcing and copyvio, I am archiving this FAC shortly. I would recommend that, if the nominator wishes to continue working on the article, it is worth bringing in some eyes to look more carefully at the sourcing. Before this is renominated, the sourcing must be looked at. Sarastro (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2018 [4].

---

Sasuke Uchiha

Nominator(s): Flowerpiep (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC) & Tintor2 (talk)

This article is about Sasuke Uchiha, one of the main characters from Masashi Kishimoto's manga and anime series Naruto. I am of the belief that it should be featured since it was copy-edited and received a peer review from which every comment was addressed. Right now, the article is a GA. I have done plenty of edits to this article, trying to revise the prose and organise the article better. Also, @Tintor2: has been greatly improving the article with a lot of important edits, so this nomination is made on behalf of both of us. Thank you. Flowerpiep (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Pinging some users who have previously commented on the article @DragonZero:, @SubZeroSilver:, @PresN:, @Aoba47:, @AngusWOOF: and @Sjones23:.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Great coverage and references. I think there are some parts that could be rewritten for more clarity, but overall is understandable. I'd remove the description section, but that shouldn't affect the FA. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Any/all books need locations of publishers Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried to fix that. Flowerpiep (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

@Lingzhi: Thanks for the comment. Flowerpiep and me already added location to every cite book. Feel to express any other concern.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Location means "city and state or, outside the United States, city and country", so for example "Tokyo, Japan". Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Understood. I gave it a revision.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I'm a bit confused. Should English releases be like "California, United States" or "San Francisco, California"?Tintor2 (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) US = "San Francisco, California"; Japan = "Tokyo, Japan". Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Done. Thanks for the aclarations.Tintor2 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User comment: The issue was solved. See [[User talk:Flowerpiep

1. Your FAC and location of publisher|here]].Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SarutobiSasuke.jpg does not have a strong enough rationale for inclusion. Same with File:SasukeUchihapartIIbeta.jpg
• File:Boushuu_uchiwa.jpg: what is the copyright status of the object pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Removed the Sarutobi image since it's not further elaborated in the prose and improved the rationale of IIbeta since there is an entire paragraph about it.
• Changed the Uchiwa image to Own work also available in commons.Tintor2 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Forgot to mention but in wikicommons there is also an "Uchiha" image here. Would you find it worthy to reception?Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Don't think so - what benefit do you think the reader would derive from including that image? That would be a good question to consider when improving FURs as well - to justify a non-free image, we need to explain why removing it would be detrimental to reader understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• • @Nikkimaria: What image do you mean? I once again expanded the rationale of betaII. Should I remove it alongside the Uchiwa? I'm not good when it comes with free images.Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • My question was regarding the Uchiha logo. For the betaII image, which of the features described in the article does it depict? This should be elaborated on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Revised further more and elborated on the captain image with citations. I won't add the Uchiha logo following your suggestions, but should I remove the eastern fan image?Tintor2 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The fan is simple enough in design that it's not a copyright concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: Should I remove the IIbeta image or it now has a good rationale?Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's workable. I would encourage you to add some of the content from the article to the image description, to point out what traits exactly the sketches illustrate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: Expanded the rationale further more. I think I can't add anything more. If not, then I'll remove it. Thanks for the image review.Tintor2 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (but he later tries to be empathetic toward his teammates), I would say “more empathetic”.
• I think that this part (a quest of gaining more strength regardless the cost.) would read better as (a quest to gain more strength regardless the cost.)
• This sentence (Although Sasuke's design challenged Kishimoto as he drew the manga due to initially finding it difficult to write him as a teenager as well as giving him too many details, he has grown to enjoy drawing him.) is rather long and awkwardly worded in my opinion. I would revise this a little to have the information flow more cohesively.
• In the lead, you mention that the characrer received “mixed responses”, but you only include aspects of the character that were praised. I would identify points that received criticism for balance.
• For this part (Sanpei Shirato's Sasuke), I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of Sasuke to identify what it is for an unfamiliar reader.
• I do not believe that “sequel” needs a link.

Great work with the article; once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? Either way, have a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments. I tried addressing him. Will check your nomination tomorrow. It's a bit late here.Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• No worries; I greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to do so sometime in the future. Great work with this, and I support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy

Some prose issues:

• "strength regardless the cost" -> "strength regardless of the cost"
• "responses from publications for anime and manga" - this could be shortened to "responses from anime and manga publications"
• "Many reviewers his impressive abilities shown across his fights" - missing a verb here. "Many reviewers noted his..."?
• "originally had a different name which the author forgot" - this is unclear. Who forgot the name, Kishimoto?
• "was honored to be chosen" - this should not be written in Wikipedia's voice - it should be changed to "said he was honored to be chosen"

Down to the Description section so far. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Done. Thanks for the comments.Tintor2 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from AmericanAir88

Thank you for giving input on my FAC, I will post my comments soon. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues:

• "Sasuke's design challenged Kishimoto as he drew the manga due to initially finding it difficult to write him based on what his suitable look would be. However, the author has grown to enjoy drawing him."

Confusing Sentences

• "Nevertheless, asked if Sasuke was good or evil, he called him a "very pure person"; although some of his actions such as following his clan's ideals are positive, his self-centeredness tends to cause problems with others."

Confusing Sentence and Grammar

• Do a grammar sweep making sure the format is correct.
• "Manga, anime, and video-game publications and related media have praised and criticized the character"

Confusing as it contradicts itself

This is a fantastic article, once these issues are addressed, I will totally give this a support. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Done. Tried fixing every statement.Tintor2 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Looks Good - Support. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll give my thoughts tomorrow, but I took a quick look at the article, and so far so good. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I'm sorry for the delay (real-life stuff happened), but I just did a quick source review. All of the sources meet our guidelines (i.e. no self-published sources and the like), and are either live or are archived. No problems were detected, and the article is adequately sourced. This is a pass for the source review. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The only one I feared the one from Larp Editores, but they are the official translators of the manga in Argentina.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Review/comments from Alexandra

Extended content

Write out "original video animation" or otherwise explain what an OVA is, this is not clear for people who aren't anime fans Whereas shōnen should be italicized as an uncommon foreign language term, manga does not need to be and Sarutobi Sasuke, a fictional ninja in Japanese children's stories. - you're linking "Japanese" to "Japanese language", but in this context "Japanese" refers to Japanese culture or literature. For the spin-off Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring, - you have already mentioned that Sasuke appears in multiple different media, so it might be good to specify that The Seventh Hokage is a spin-off manga. Kenjutsu is not a word you can expect the average English-speaker to understand. Either replace it or add an explanation It is hard to follow along the plot summaries under "Appearances" for someone not familiar with Naruto. I would suggest going into less detail, doing a more general overview of his role in Part I and II. Comment: I actually disagree with this as I am not familiar with Naruto and I was able to follow it. That's not to say that your suggestion is not valid here. --JDC808 ♫ 12:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Sure. I still think that a more generalized and concise overview would be good.--Alexandra IDVtalk 12:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I have been messaged on my talk page to provide my opinion. I agree with JDC808 on this matter, and I think the prose works in the section. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I think the current revision works better, as it explains new terms ("During a ninja examination meant to improve their ranks" rather than "During the Chunin exams") You're first linking original video animations, and then OVA, under "In other media". Just link it the first time and introduce the acronym, ie original video animations (OVA) From what I can tell, it is not titled Japanese Charapedia - just Charapedia. I would suggest rewriting this as a popularity poll on the Japanese website Charapedia. The "best guy" poll seems to be specifically about crushes on fictional characters and not just "best male character" in general, so it should be described as such. I looked closer at this and I wonder if it really should be included at all since it's a user poll not reported on by other RSs. You first introduce Anime News Network as Anime News Network (ANN), and then keep referring to them by their full name for a while before starting to use the acronym. Either use the full name all the time, or use "ANN" after the first mention. Revised. Are there any sources for the merchandise you can use other than storefronts? If so, that would be preferable. @Alexandra IDV: Removed the amazon links. The Viz Media are primary sources so I guess they are okay. Any other type of merchadise is necessary?Tintor2 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV: @Flowepiep: I tried adding more varied merchandising. Don't know what exactly do you want.Tintor2 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not saying I "want" particular merchandise represented, just saying that if you have an RS reporting on or reviewing a piece of merch, that's a way better source than an amazon.com link.--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV: I tried revising everything you mentioned. Thanks for the comments. I'll see if I can trim it the appearances a bit more. I mean, the series lasted for 72 volumes so I already trimmed a lot of what originally it was. Will give it a try.Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV: @JDC808: I tried trimming the part II section furthermore since that's where there is more text. Hope this helps.Tintor2 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) @Flowerpiep: calling the other nominator too.Tintor2 (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV: @JDC808: Decided to revise some parts from "In Naruto" to start with his first introduction.Tintor2 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV: @JDC808: Flowerpiep gave the prose some copyedit. Is still enough? The two of us are wondering if the subheadings "In Part I" and "In Part II" are necessary.Tintor2 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I am fine with either just one "In Naruto" heading or two "In Part I/II" subheadings.--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I haven't had a lot of WP time the last few days. I will look at your edits and resume the review shortly.--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV: Added two action figures represented in the news, with one of them promoting a video game.Tintor2 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV: Removed all Amazon links, kept the Viz (primary sources) and added some notable figures covered by reliable sources most notably one specifically made to promote a video game. Hope this helpsTintor2 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @Alexandra IDV: @Flowerpiep: Added another figure that felt quite notable since it appealed to a writer from Aint It Cool News.Tintor2 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am happy to support the article now, and apologize for taking long to respond.--Alexandra IDV^talk 11:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808

I read through the entire article, and here are the issues that I had.

Development

• Third paragraph, this sentence: "Kishimoto stated that Sasuke was neither of these two and called him a "very pure person"." ---> Whenever there's a direct quote, always put the source at the end of that sentence.
• Last paragraph, this sentence: "For the spin-off Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring focusing on Sasuke and Sakura's daughter, Sarada Uchiha, Kishimoto wanted to explain the couple's connection." ---> This is oddly constructed. Some punctuation could fix this though here's my suggested rewrite: "For the spin-off, Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring, which focuses on Sasuke and Sakura's daughter, Sarada Uchiha, Kishimoto wanted to explain the couple's connection."

Design

• In the first and second paragraph, you're basically repeating information (more specifically, about how Sasuke was challenging/difficult to design/draw and how Sasuke originally looked too old). As I read the first two sentences of the second paragraph, I realized that I literally just read this same information in the preceding paragraph. I almost thought it was word-for-word. I would move "Kishimoto also considered Sasuke his most challenging character to design. He lacked a clear idea of how his face should appear, and in his initial drawings, Sasuke looked too old for someone who was the same age as Naruto." out of the first paragraph and make it the beginning of the second paragraph and revise where necessary.
• "midway through the series' first part (Part I)" ---> Kinda redundant. I understand what you were trying to do here, but it looks odd. This could be fixed by saying "midway through Part I of the series"
• Same thing here: "Kishimoto's design focus in the second part of the plot (Part II)" ---> "Kishimoto's design focus for Part II"

Personality and voice actors

• "At the beginning of the Part I anime," ---> Oddly structured. Suggest: "At the beginning of Part I of the anime,"

--JDC808 ♫ 05:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: Thank you for the comments. I tried to fix each one of the issues. Flowerpiep (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Great! All of my issues have been resolved. I Support this nomination. --JDC808 ♫ 07:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This has had quite a bit of review, but I'd feel a little happier with a little more review of Criterion 1a. It has been addressed above, but I think we could look a little closer to see if it meets 1a. I think we also need a little more source review. As far as I can tell, the source review above did not look at the formatting of sources, or consider their reliability in any depth. Finally, I notice that we are using "however" rather a lot (see WP:HOWEVER) and could look at reducing its usage. I wonder if Mike Christie (sorry to keep pinging you), Laser brain or HJ Mitchell are available to have a look (sorry, you are in demand today!) Sarastro (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Is there any source that bugs you? I tried to make sure all of them were written by known writers as well as reliable. For example, Anime Now was a site related to Anime News Network, LarpEditores is an Argentinian publisher of the Naruto manga whose translator used to work at Editorial Ivrea. I'm not sure if Crunchyroll is allowed but the writer of that article also works at Ain't it Cool News. All the creation information is from guidebooks, magazines, artbooks among others.Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing as such, I'm just not sure we covered this enough in the review. Sarastro (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Oppose. I looked at the lead and reception sections, rather than reading the whole article. The lead is not in bad shape; just one comment there:

• Sasuke's design challenged Kishimoto as he drew the manga since he found it demanding to create suitable looks for him. On the other hand, the author has grown to enjoy drawing him despite the difficulty of this task. Wordy and not very fluent; these sentences could be shortened and joined, though I'm not sure the second point is really worth including in the lead.

  The revised wording is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The reception section, however, needs substantial work. See WP:RECEPTION for some suggestions; I can see some thematic organization here, but the "A said B" problem remains in many places, and there is little to maintain a reader's interest in each paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a a brief rewrite. Is this what you meant?Tintor2 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: @Flowerpiep: I did a major rewrite similar to the ones I often see in video games. What do you think?Tintor2 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Flowerpiep did a copyedit of my rewrite. Is it better this way? I tried to use Naruto Uzumaki as a base but Sasuke was not analyzed by that many scholars.Tintor2 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That's definitely improved; the paragraphs now have a more natural internal structure. The quality of the writing is still not at FA-level, I feel, so I'm afraid my oppose stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the prose in general what's the problem or just the critical response? I asked Subzero Silver to check considering his experience and he gave it a second hand.Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Hi! Right now, I don't exactly understand the issue. We tried to solve the "A said B" problem in most places, as you had advised us. Also, each paragraph from the reception section covers mainly one aspect regarding Sasuke (the first paragraph is mainly about Sasuke's relationship with both Naruto and Sakura, the second paragraph is about Sasuke in Part II (in general), the third paragraph is about Sasuke during the very end of the original story (this part is seen as really important for Sasuke's character since it depicts how he finally chooses the right path after so many years; this is why this is a separate paragraph from the one with Part II in general), the fourth paragraph is about Sasuke in Boruto, and the fifth paragraph is about the fact that Sasuke and Naruto are complementary). So, I don't know what else to improve. Could you give us some suggestions? Or could you elaborate on why consider that the quality of writing is not at FA-level so that we can fix those exact problems? Flowerpiep (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Yes, the A said B problem is mostly fixed; it's just prose issues. I've still only looked the critical reception section, so I can't comment on the prose elsewhere.

The problem with providing a list of issues that you can then fix is that it's very time consuming for both of us, and it's not what FAC is supposed to be for. I can give you some examples, but before I do that I'd like to get another opinion. Popcornduff, would you mind taking a look at the "Critical response" section and commenting on the prose quality? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to give us a bit of time before failing this? I asked two copyeditors to check the critical response section.Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike, I already got an approval from JDC808 who said he will try to copyedit the section. I also made a minor request in the league copyeditors.Tintor2 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are a couple of specifics, again just from the critical response section, where the prose could be improved.

• remarked to resemble: stilted.
• was also a subject of praise, being highly popular among fans: implies causation; this is critical response, so you might just cut the last five words, but if not it should be "and was", not "being".
• We still have some "A said B" in paragraph 2.
• Following the post-Naruto media: what does "following" mean here? If it just means "since", and this paragraph is about the critical reception of the character in later media, the sentence should be rephrased to active voice.
• Reviewing Boruto: Naruto the Movie, writers enjoyed Sasuke's fight scenes against the antagonists, most notably his team-up with Naruto, considering them the best parts of the film -> "Writers considered Sasuke's fight scenes in Boruto: Naruto the Movie, and in particular his team-up with Naruto, to be the best parts of the film". A little shorter, and a more direct sentence structure.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I tried to fix everything that you had listed above, with two mentions: Firstly, in the second paragraph, I let one example of "A said B" remain there since that particular writer has his own Wikipedia page, and I wanted to highlight this aspect. Also, while looking over the information from the link that you had offered us, I read that the "A said B" sentences cannot be avoided completely. Secondly, I rewrote this part "Following the post-Naruto media", but I didn't understand what you meant when mentioning the active voice. Isn't the sentence "Sasuke has received a positive response" in active voice already? Wouldn't have a sentence in passive voice theoretically sounded like this: "a positive response has been received by Sasuke"? Additionally, I revised the reception section (and other parts of the article) even further, following every piece of advice offered by user Popcornduff. Flowerpiep (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Comments from Popcornduff

Mike Christie asked me to take a look at the Reception section.

Sorry, but I have to Oppose this nomination based on this section. It's very dense and covers lots of stuff I struggle to see the relevance of. Examples:

• Nippon Telegraph and Telephone customers voted him their fifth-favorite black-haired male anime character in 2014" Fifth favourite black-haired male character? Is that notable? It sounds incredibly arbitrary.
• seventh-best Naruto character "Seventh best" isn't impressive.
• In developing the fighting game Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2, CyberConnect2 CEO Hiroshi Matsuyama said that his favorite fight was the one between Sasuke and Itachi. Is this CEO's opinion on the best fight in one video game notable?
• In a Mezamashi TV interview, Kishimoto was questioned by Nogizaka46 member Rina Ikoma while she was cosplaying as Sasuke; Kishimoto complimented Ikoma's cosplay. This is mystifying.
• Another Bandai figure is a limited adult version of Sasuke from the Naruto finale and the Boruto franchise, which impressed Scott Green, a writer of Ain't It Cool News and Crunchyroll, due to its detailed and carefully defined facial features Again, this sounds like an incredible reach.

I could go on. Hopefully you get the picture: it's a torrent of banal information and not much fun to read. You can strip most of these out and that will make other problems, such as repetition or whatever, much easier to fix.

The prose itself isn't awful but there are still opportunities to simplify, and there's stuff that makes no sense to the reader unfamiliar with the subject matter:

• Charapedia ranked Sasuke and Naruto's rivalry as the best one from anime media - > "... as the best in anime"
• Sasuke-related merchandise has been released, including... -> "Sasuke merchandise includes..."
• he wondered if readers considered Sasuke a more relatable character after the defeat of his worldview by Naruto's no idea what "the defeat of his worldview" means.
• The Eastern fan, uchiwa, is said to be related to Sasuke's origins and his relationship with Naruto. This is totally uninformative. Related how? How do you relate a fan to a character's origins and relationship?

Sorry for the critical response, but... I think you probably need to remove at least half of the Reception section. Take a step back, ask yourself what's actually valuable for the reader (especially one unfamiliar with the subject), and get cutting. Popcornduff (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: As I said above to another reviewer, I am not familiar with Naruto and I was able to make sense of what was said. I don't know if you read the whole article (or just decided to oppose on this one section as Mike Christie did), but a couple of your issues are answered earlier in the article (articles are read from top to bottom). As another reviewer, I don't agree with your oppose, but I commend you on citing precise examples and your reasoning for them. --JDC808 ♫ 07:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Initially I only read the Reception section, but now I've read the entire article and I don't see how it clarifies the points of confusion I raised. It's possible I missed something, of course, in which case by all means tell me. The only thing I saw was the explanation for the fan, but that's not a fix - captions should make sense independently of the rest of the article, and it should be possible to summarise it in the caption concisely.

I'm not going to make an exhaustive list, but some general further points about the prose:

• The article begins abruptly. Sasuke Uchiha was not included in Masashi Kishimoto's original concept of the Naruto manga. Who's Masahi Kishimoto? What's this Naruto manga? We should begin with a brief summary (one or two sentences only) that better sets the out concepts involved in the article - what Naruto is and who made it.
• The "Description" section should be renamed "Character". The whole article is description. This bit describes his character.
• The section also seems short.
• There are several nasty uses of passive voice. Like the first sentence I quoted above, for example. More examples are Kishimoto wanted Sasuke's role in the series to be further explored. and Sasuke was going to be drawn as a more attractive person, but the idea was scrapped.
• There's a bit of elegant variation. Instead of writing "the author", either write "he" when the subject is clear or name the author when it's not. Same goes with "the latter" - there is, in my experience, always a clearer (and shorter) way of putting a sentence together than having to use "the former" or "the latter".
• Be careful with words like "ultimately", "eventually" etc. They usually don't add meaningful information and they don't in this article.
• Be careful with the verb "to note". Facts are noted, not opinions. "He noted it was raining" is OK. Kishimoto's references to Japanese mythology in Naruto were noted to add layers to the story isn't.
• Still quite a few words that don't add information - eg "one of the series' antagonists" - we don't need "the series" here, we know you're not talking about James Bond antagonists. Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I revised the article (especially the reception section) based on every single one of your comments. Flowerpiep (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

@Popcornduff:@Flowerpiep: The critical response section has been further touched.Tintor2 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's much improved, but in my view still not perfect. For example: In a Mezamashi TV interview, Kishimoto was questioned by Nogizaka46 member Rina Ikoma while she was cosplaying as Sasuke. It's not clear what information this sentence is trying to convey. Is it that Kishimoto questioned her? (Is "question" the right verb here? It implies something more like interrogation - wouldn't "interview" be better?) Is the point that a famous person cosplayed as Sasuke? (I assume the person is famous - it isn't explained who Rina Ikoma is or what Nogizaka46 is.) Something like Rina Ikoma, a member of the idol group Nogizaka46, cosplayed as Sasuke while interviewing Kishimoto about the series would be much easier to understand - but I still don't see what this says about the character's popularity. Do you see what I'm saying?

But look, this is just my view, and we could go on for weeks like this. If other editors support the article then I won't intervene. Popcornduff (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I changed that sentence to the one you had suggested. This part was kept since it shows that Rina Ikoma (who, as you assumed, is indeed well-known) chose to cosplay as Sasuke out of all other possible choices. She could have cosplayed as Naruto, since he is the protagonist of the series, but she still chose Sasuke. And this cosplay is especially important since it was presented in Masashi Kishimoto's presence. Flowerpiep (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

... None of which is apparent to the reader. Popcornduff (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I see. I removed that part. Flowerpiep (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Comments from Vedant

• You might want to add the release years of both the movies in the lead.
• "Masashi Kishimoto conceived Sasuke as a rival of the series' title character" - just Kishimoto should do. The first name is simply repetitive.
• Also the second paragraph overuses the word "Kishimoto". You might want to replace some instances with "he".
• Well, there's a similar issue with the word "Sasuke" in the opening paragraph of the Development section.
• Although it's the same issue, I'd put them separately. The second paragraph of the Design section also overuses "Kishimoto".
• " In a Mezamashi TV interview, Kishimoto was questioned by Nogizaka46 member Rina Ikoma while she was cosplaying as Sasuke." - Is that really worthy of being in the article?
• "their teamwork and development throughout the series made the characters complex and mature, despite their youth." - by whom?
• "Sasuke's appearances in Part II of the Naruto series have also been praised." - This is a little strange because the previous paragraph never talks about all out positive response. You might want to rephrase. Maybe write "Reviewers were more enthusiastic about Sasuke's character in the second series" or so.
• "His weaponry and techniques, such as his Kusanagi sword and his Susanoo technique, were based on Japanese mythology. Critics asserted that Kishimoto expects his readers to understand his references, avoiding the need for explanations." - This entire bit might not really fit in the reception section; it really does not have any critique on anything as such.
• "Sasuke's more-emotional demeanor made his scenes in Naruto: Shippuden interesting, as did his conversation with the Nine-Tailed Fox (a creature sealed within Naruto)" - Again, according to who? This reads like Wikipedia's own observation rather than that of a critic. You do not have to go into A said B, but the response must be attributed to someone.
• "In the final part of the story, " - This entire paragraph reads like original research. You have to attribute the claims to the sources. The last sentence is the quintessential of the problem.

Although​ I do believe that the Reception section is not in thr best shape (I haven't read the character storylines because of my unfamiliarity with the subject), I think it can get there without this having to be archived. Let me know if you have any concerns about my comments. VedantTalk 10:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Hi! Thank you for the comments. I tried to fix everything that you had listed above. Flowerpiep (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Well, I can support this for promotion. I do not think that a couple of ambiguous claims here and there should hold this from getting promoted. It's very thorough and well written overall, I think if the comments are limited to the Reception section, they can be addressed easily within the timeframe of the review, if that makes any sense. Good luck, you guys. VedantTalk 14:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

John

Agree that the reception section needs to be completely rewritten. What does a sentence like "Manga, anime, and video game publications and related media have praised and criticized Sasuke." even mean? "A number of writers enjoyed the character's fights but criticized his dark personality". A number? What was the number? Zero is a number. We hear again about the dark personality further down. Four howevers? As it stands I also oppose. --John (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@John: I fixed each one of the issues you had pointed out above and made further edits in order to organise the reception section in a better way. Flowerpiep (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

I read the whole article again. Honestly, I still think the prose needs a lot of work across the board. You're holding this up as an example of best practice; do you think "Critics compared the way Sasuke discovered late in the series that he had the ability to "blow away" the Nine-Tailed Fox's influence on Naruto to how the fan is used in Japanese mythology to exorcise evil by blowing it away." is a good last sentence? I don't. --John (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@John: I removed the last sentence, since it was not that important. The article was copy edited on several occasions, and I honestly cannot see where the problems related to the prose are. Flowerpiep (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

I liked that point, though - that Sasuke was born with a skill that his friend, Naruto, needs him to perform, like theirs is a fated friendship (within the text). Without having read Plumb's original paper, I can't really make a proper go of rewording it, but something like "A critic noted that Sasuke had the ability to 'blow away' the Nine-Tailed Fox's influence on Naruto, similar to how the fan is used in Japanese mythology to dispel evil". --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I see what you mean. I added the revised sentence. Flowerpiep (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Closing comment: We have support for this article but there are three reasoned opposes as well. Therefore, as there is no consensus to promote, I think it is better to archive this FAC now. I would recommend that the nominator works with those who have opposed to address the issues away from FAC and renominate it when this has been worked on, and after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2018 [5].

---

Kwakiutl (statue)

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a public artwork in Ontario, carved by a Order of Canada-winning Aborigibal artist. The statue has caused controversy over the years for the fact it has a very noticeable penis, and has currently been hidden in a greenhouse. The article, currently a GA, was submitted for peer review, but didn't get feedback, so I'm nominating on the chance an FA is viable. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 3: I am unclear as to how this source verifies the text attributed to it.
• Ref 4: Lacks publisher information – but the link isn't working anyway.
• Ref 11: Returning "page not found"
• Ref 16: The link appears to be ti a different Brompton Guardian page.
• Ref 17: Unformatted.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by Maunus

What is a "totem sculpture"? Why can't we see an actual picture of the sculpture? I think the lack of an image that serves as actual visual identification is problematic enough that I cannot support this article on FA criteria 3. I am really conflicted about this article, I think it is great to have articles on first nations art - but this article barely convinces me that the sculpture is notable. The article text is not coherent or flowing or even really organized, it is just a laundry list of mentions in media. Why has it only been described in local news media, and not in any scholarly works on first nations art? I am not convinced that an FA quality article can be written about this topic. In contrast Simon Charlie is a redlink (now blue), even though there are lots of relevant sources about him. I would suggest writing an article about Simon Charlie and merge this article into it as a section about one of his works that attracted particular attention - that would be better FA material. Otherwise I think better description of Coast Salish carving arts and of Simon Charlie should be added to the article to åput it into context, and preferably some artistic evaluations of the piece.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for six weeks without achieving a consensus that it meets the FA criteria. Additionally we have a reasoned oppose. Therefore it will be archived shortly and can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2018 [6].

---

V. Gordon Childe

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent archaeologists to ever live. He may have been a man of short stature, but he was a giant in the study of European prehistory. The article has been GA for some time, and since the successful promotion of other archaeology-themed biographies like Margaret Murray, O. G. S. Crawford, and Mortimer Wheeler, I believe that it is time that the Gordon Childe article join them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Strongly suggest you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js and .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */ to Special:MyPage/common.css, then look at your notes, references etc. for various errors. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, that really works! Thanks for the tip, Lingzhi. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I see 10 spots where p and pp are incorrectly used for page numbers , e.g. "P/PP error: Trigger 1980, p. 9, 32;" and "P/PP error: Green 1981, pp. 154." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that I have now fixed all of these instances. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

• I have removed all extraneous periods. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed pixel size for images, per WP:IMGSIZE

• I have removed the fixed pixel sizes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Gordon_Childe.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• According to the National Library of Australia page, it was never published (at least, not before they uploaded an image of it onto their website). Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Noswall59

You don't need to add this if you don't want to, but Eric Hobsbawm called Childe "probably the most original English Marxist writer from the days of my youth." [7] —Noswall59 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

I think that that's a good idea. I will add it in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Just a few presentation points:

• There's a plethora of hyphens in page ranges – 12, 14, 15, 16 and many others. All need to be changed to ndashes

• I've gone through and corrected every instance of this error. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Various "p."s need to be changed to "pp." – 29, 45, 46 & possibly more

• I've gone through and fixed these. Mostly a leftover remnant from when (circa 2011) I used "p." for everything rather than the correct "pp." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 86 lacks a page number

• Fixed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• In the bibliography, the Harris entry is unduly cumbersome – I don't see the purpose in the secondary entries.

• It's an edited volume, so I don't wish to give the impression that Harris wrote the whole book when he only produced certain chapters. The present situation makes that clear; changing it might, in my view, result in some confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2

The article is well written and the images seem well placed. The only thing that bothers me is that his bibiliography section is completely unsourced. Is it possible to add citations? Ping me once you think it's okay and I'll support it. Regards. Also, if possible a fellow user and I made this FAC and would appreciate feedback if possible.Tintor2 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Maunus

A very pleasant and interesting read. The article is clearly well-researched and thorough - I see no POV problems or major omissions. I tweaked some wordings that I found a little too quaint, and made other minor copyedits. The only issue sthat I thought I would want to change is that I think it could be a little clearer in explaining earlier on the difference between culture historical theory (which is diffusionist and particularist in Childe's version) and Marxist theory (which is evolutionist). I think these perspectives ought to be explained in simple language when they are first mentioned. I also think that the article does not allow the reader a clear understanding of how archeology can be Marxist - and what that means. Many might think of Marxism as primarily a political commitment, but Marxism is of course different from most political ideologies in that it also includes scientific theory of history: namely Historical materialism (which probably should be mentioned and linked somewhere in the article). So a descrption of how Marxism and archeology fits together would make the article more helpful for the reader who does not immediately see the connection (namely that Marxism explains historical processes as material and technological evolution that prompts social evolution, and that archeology studies material and technological developments, and therefore can use Marxism to infer social developments from the material developments they observe). This would be my only query: to be more explicit in describing his theoretical views and contributions in plain language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for six weeks without achieving a consensus that it meets the FA criteria. Therefore it will be archived shortly and can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2018 [8].

---

William Pūnohu White

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review and Image review done in previous reviews.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Iry-Hor

KAVEBEAR I am here to uphold a promise I made to you a long time ago. I read this article, which I found to be a fine addition to Wikipedia. There is very little to say here as the article is already in a remarquably well-polished state. Here are th few nitpicks I could find:

• Pūnohuʻāweoweoʻulaokalani : would it be possible to add the pronunciation of this to the article (this is standard in article on foreign language subjects) ?

• I'm not sure how. I know how it is pronounced but don't know how to write it out.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This would need to be written out with the phonetic alphabet (see the article on Hawaii with an example on the first line), however this requires you to know the phonetic alphabet. Alternatively, you could use the English pronunciation respelling which is much simpler to use. Again see the article on Hawaii for an example.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• " has been largely forgotten or portrayed in a negative light, largely because of a reliance " change one of the two "largely" with something else to avoid repetition.

• Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Add alt-text to all the pictures.
• Native Hawaiian is linked twice in the lead. Remove the second link.

• Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Prose-wise the article is featured quality, and the coverage of the subject is thorough. Sources seem impecable.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Once you have addressed all the points above, I will re-read the article and should support then. Obviously, I can see that the article is high-quality.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR I have just realised that you have now addressed all the points I raised. I am happy to support this remarquable article shedding light on a side of history about which I did not know anything prior to reading your works. I really hope this article gets through!Iry-Hor (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for nearly two months without achieving a consensus that it meets the FA criteria. Therefore it will be archived shortly and can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2018 [9].

---

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

An article on a long and complex blockade of Thessalonica, involving Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottomans, which finally ended with the Ottoman capture of the city. As an event, it was rather seminal, heralding the fall of Constantinople, and showing the limitations of Venice's mercantile maritime empire when faced with a large land power. The article has passed MILHIST's ACR and has had a GOCE review recently, so that I feel it is ready for nomination here. Any suggestions for further improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Since Greece has limited freedom of panorama, images of 3D things should include explicit copyright tags for the original works
• File:II._Murat.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
• File:Symeon_of_Thessaloniki.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria! By "explicit copyright tags for the original works" I guess you mean THES-Heptapyrgion inscription.jpg? How is this to be done? Constantine ✍ 13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

See for example this image - you split out the copyright of the photo and the object, adding an appropriate tag for the latter. (Given the presumed age the copyright is almost certainly expired). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

You could add OCLC 220583971 to the Apostolos E Vakalopoulos book entry. Otherwise the sources are in immaculate order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done and thanks! Constantine ✍ 13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Looking now and copyediting as I go...

• I tweaked the lead thus, are you ok with it?

• a tendency of independence from the imperial capital had been evident - sounds awkward, why not "a degree of independence from the imperial capital had been evident" or even just "(relative) independence from the imperial capital had been evident" or somesuch

• Once the Ottoman civil war ended, the Turkish pressure on the city began to increase again - can just say "Once the Ottoman civil war ended, the Turkish pressure on the city increased/built up again"

• and rioted in favour of an accommodation with the Ottomans, when the news spread that they had offered a peaceful settlement, provided that the Despot Andronikos left the city - I am having trouble following this sentence.

• with the Despot of Serbia, Stefan Lazarević (r. 1389–1427) in 1420–1423 - should be "between 1420 and 1423" or from 1420 to 1423"

• which the Venetians loaded onto their ships. - unnecessary and repetitive, can be " which they loaded onto their ships"

Otherwise reads well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges

• Thessalonica remained in Ottoman hands suggest change fromhands to possession.
• capture of the city (In the infobox) suggest change to city captured.
• Sultan Murad II to the Venetian envoys, Doukas, Historia Turco-Byzantina XXIX.5[21] suggest linking Historia Turco-Byzantina.
• Venice did not wish for a war, suggest changing did not wish for to did not desire
• broad anti-Ottoman alliance including the Karamanids of central Anatolia, suggest changing including to which included since only one example is given, and/or adding the names of other members.
• to bring Serbia and Bosnia back into vassalage suggest adding a state between back into and vassalage.
• Article is in good shape, support promotion to FA. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gog the Mild

I did some copy editing on this and have been having another look at it. I missed a few things:

• its former self—from c. 25,000–40,000 inhabitants to c. 2,000—and More than two dashes in a sentence can be difficult to figure out. I think I'd replace what's inside the em-dashes with "from as many as 40,000 inhabitants to around 2,000". It's a bit longer but it looks clearer to me.
• Efforts at a Crusade - use of the indefinite article suggests that this is a generic use of crusade and should be lower case.
• There are 8 instances of "as well as" and 14 of "also" which could probably be pruned (in a couple cases there's three in one paragraph).
• four-hour long battle perhaps an additional hyphen between hour and long.
• Even now, however, Venice would not commit Maybe a "then" instead of the "now", and possibly cut the "however."

I didn't want to just copy edit in the middle of the review, but am happy to do so if it is not going to confuse things.. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Can I just check that Constantine is still actively working on this? I don't see replies to some old comments here. Sarastro (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro, I am still active on this, but am very busy in RL so that I could not devote to it the time it needed. I will do so this weekend, though. Apologies for any inconvenience. Constantine ✍ 12:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If time is still an issue, would it be easier to close this for now? The queue is quite long at the moment. I would be quite happy to archive it and dispense with the usual two-week waiting period to allow an immediate renomination if you become more available before that time. In any case, I think we need to see something happening in the next few days. Sarastro (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: As the nominator has not returned, and this FAC has been open for nearly two months without achieving a consensus to promote, I'm afraid I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2018 [10].

---

Sam Manekshaw

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw was the Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and was subsequently the first Indian Army officer to be promoted to the rank of field marshal. His military career spanned four decades and five wars, beginning with service in the British Indian Army in World War II, and he is widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in independent India’s history. The article has passed a through A-class review at WikiProject Military History. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support; I was a part of the A-Class review before this, can find no further fault with article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 2: What makes "Scoop/Whoop" a high quality, reliable source?

• Replaced with another source. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 6; the link goes to the News18 home page – no sign of the source article. The same applies to ref 42.

• Removed these sources, already covered by other sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 12: Date missing. (Also, consistency is required as to whether you use Times of India or The Times of India)

• Date added, and consistency issues fixed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 19: appears to be identical to 12.

• Merged them. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 22: The link seems to be dead

• Added archive link. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 32: You should give the title in full

• Mentioned in full. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 40: As this is behind a paywall you should add (subscription required)

• Added. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 50: "NDTV" should not be italicised

• Fixed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 51: The link does not go to the stated article.

• Corrected. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I have worked on the most of them, except the dead links. I unable to retrieve them as Internet Archive has been facing some issues for the past few days, I'll get back to you once done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Addressed the issues, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Rather than a blanket "addressed the issues", can you please specify briefly what you have done in each case? Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

OK Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2

I am almost giving you my support but there are few things that could be improved.

• I wouldn't suggest posting redlinks unless you could provide a link to another Wikipedia which has the article.
• Personal life looks like a really small section especially when compared with the others. I would consider merging it with death or expanding it.
• I used the archive bot and it looks good so I guess it will pass its source review.
• If possible I would trim the lead a bit considering it's meant to be an introduction

Other than that, ping me or mention me once you checked these stuff and I'll give you my support. Also, if possible, could give a look at this FA which has been a bit inactive? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Addressed all the points, except the first one. Because I put the red-links in the places where the article is notable but there isn't any article. If in future some editor creates the article, it'll get linked. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992

• "On completion of the higher command course at the Imperial Defence College, and he was appointed the General Officer Commanding of the 26th Infantry Division." -- this sentence is ungrammatical.

• Changed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Defence Services Staff College, Wellington" -- I think the second wikilink must be incorrect, and instead needs to point at a different article?

• The first link is placed from the lead, the second from the later body. As the second link is the "first occurrence after the lead". It is acceptable, per MOS:REPEATLINK. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: So you are saying that the second link is correct? In that case the article would require a citation to a reliable mainstream source for the extraordinary claim, as according to WP:EXTRAORDINARY. MPS1992 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• @MPS1992: If you are considering "Mankekshaw as the commandant of Defence Services Staff College", I don't think it is extra ordinary. Please explain me what makes the claim extra-ordinary. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• The extraordinary claim is that "an inter-service institution of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of India" is locationed in "the capital city and second most populous urban area of New Zealand", many thousands of miles away from India. This is why I suggested above that the second wikilink must be incorrect, and instead needs to point at a different article. MPS1992 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• @MPS1992: I think you're mistaken. All the links in the article, link to the college in Wellington, Tamil Nadu, India. Please check again. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• G'day, Krishna, I have fixed this for you now with this edit: [11]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• @AustralianRupert and MPS1992: Hi Rupert, thanks for the help. There is some miscommunication. I was checking the link of college. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: This has been open for 2 months with only 2 supports. We haven't been able to get a consensus to promote, so I will be archiving this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual 2-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2018 [12].

---

Amarte Es un Placer (album)

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

After my successful FA nomination for Segundo Romance, I am now nominating this FA. This is a pop album by Luis Miguel like Aries (which I also got FA). Regrettably, it's also his last good album before they started to go downhill (except for México en la Piel which is also good). I look forward to your comments. Thanks! Erick (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• A few general issues:

• In a number of cases you provide (subscription required) templates when there is no link to the source – 6, 16, 17 and lots more. There's no point in showing the template in such cases.
• Page numbers are required for newspapers and journals where there is no online link. You provide these in some cases but not others, e.g. 15, 16, 17, 19 and more.
• Who publishes Billboard? In some cases you show Prometheus Global Media, in others Nielsen Business Media. In refs 85, 86 and 87 neither is shown.

• Other points:

• Ref 2: link goes to "404 error"
• Refs 56 and 58: should "tronc" be all lower case as in 56, or "Tronc" as in 58?
• Ref 61: the source has a different headline
• Ref 65: main link and archive link both go to blank pages
• Ref 71: main link times out. Archive gives "page not found"

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I've added urls to search on Newsbank which is where I found these articles. Billboard articles prior to 2009 are published Nielsen Business Media while Prometheus Global Media is the current publisher. The albumschart doesn't have a publisher parameter and doesn't work for refs 85-87. Ref 65 requires a download now for whatever reason, but it still verifies the list of winners. Ref 71 works fine on my end. Erick (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Freikorp

• "which lasted from 1999 into 2000" - I'm really not a fan of this choice of words. I mean, running from 1999 till 2000 could just mean going from December 1999 till January 2000. I'd try and be more specific, say mention when the tour started and then how many months it went for.
• "Miguel did not show up at the award ceremony and declined an invitation to perform" - this is interesting - is there any indication as to why he declined?
• I'd at least reduce the amount of times you use the term 'noted' as per WP:SAY, if not get rid of them entirely.
• 'the production sounds "dated"' - should this past tense? I.e "sounded dated"?

Despite these minor points I'm happy to support this nomination now. Well done on the article. No pressure but I'm looking for comments on my nomination here. Freikorp (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Thanks for your comments and support. I have addressed everything you brought up. I searched everywhere but couldn't find the reason why Miguel refused to perform for the Latin Grammys. He's not known to be a public guy except when promoting his albums. I'll comment on your FAC when I get the chance as I have work today. Erick (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (Despite the popularity of crossover his comntempraries Latin artists), I am assuming you mean “his contemporaries”. Also the word “contemporaries” is misspelled here.
• For this sentence (Amarte Es un Placer debuted at number one in Spain, and on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart in the United States.), I would remove the comma after “Spain” as the verb phrase “debuted at number one” is also carried over to apply to the Billboard charts part of the sentence.
• Would it be possible to move the image of Mariah Carey to the top of the “Background” section to avoid having it clip outside of the section and interfere with the audio samples in the next section? Feel free to say no as this is more of a stylistic preference.
• For the Mariah Carey image, I would specify in the caption the year in which it was taken.
• For this part “series on which he covers classic”, I would revise “on which” to “in which”.
• For this part “absence of two years on the music scene”, I would revise “on the music scene” to “from the music scene”.
• For this part “The album's final title, Amarte Es un Placer was announced on 17 August 1999.”, I am not sure what is meant by the phrase “final title” as you have not mentioned any tentative titles or working titles prior to this. It may be better just to say “The album’s title” instead, unless there were other titles in consideration prior to the announcement.
• I would suggest a link to rock ballad when you are describing the track “Tu Mirada” in the “Composition” section.
• For this part (performed live covers of "Y" and "La Bikina”), I would include the names of the original artists for both songs if known and possibly the years in which they were first released.
• The link for “AllMusic” needs to be moved up to its first reference in the body of the article. It is currently linked in the “Critical reception” section, but the publication was reference in the previous section on the album’s promotion.
• I am pretty terrible at writing reception sections so I will leave that section to more experienced reviewers.
• Ricky Martin is linked twice in the body of the article. Please unlink him in the “Accolades” section.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, which is also about an album. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments and a Happy New Year to you too! I believe I have addressed your comments. I will look at your FAC when I get the chance as I have work today. Erick (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "Despite the popularity of crossover his contemporaries such as Ricky Martin and Enrique Iglesias," - missing a word or two here
• "including a Grammy nomination for Best Latin Pop Performance and the Latin Grammy Awards for Album of the Year and Best Pop Vocal Album." - I'd invert this, so the awards came first and then the nomination
• "In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances, the third record in his Romance series in which he covers classic Latin American boleros.[2]" - needs a comma before in which
• "After an absence of two years from the music scene" - "music scene" may be too informal
• "He expressed the upcoming album would be a return to pop recordings" - expressed isn't the right word; I think you could pick a more precise verb
• "The album's title, Amarte Es un Placer " - needs an WP:NBSP
• Juan Carlos Calderón and Record Plant also both need WP:NBSPs
• "orchestrated romantic ballads" - this needs an WP:NBSP; same with brass instruments and "No Me Fío"
• "The opening track, "Tu Mirada"" - need a comma after Tu Mirada
• " A concert was planned for the San Jose Arena in California on New Year's Eve, but was canceled because the gross income would not meet Miguel's requirements.[32]" - can you elaborate on his requirements, briefly, here?
• "He later did five shows" - I'd prefer a different verb than did
• 6 May 2000 needs an WP:NBSP
• "Miguel was accompanied by a 13-piece band during his tour which included horns, keyboards, guitars and three female backup singers" - keep serial comma consistent
• 'On 24 October 2000, WEA released the Vivo live album and video, from Miguel's concerts in Monterrey' - no comma after video
• "two-out-of-five stars" - needs an NBSP (and again in critical reception)
• number of song titles in the critical reception section need NBSPs
• "Miguel did not show up at the award ceremony" - show up is too informal

These are some initial nitpicks. More comments pending. ceranthor 22:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks for the comments. I think I did the nbsp, feel free to correct them if they're as I'm not too knowledgeable about utilizing it. The source does not specify the requirements on the box office gross he wanted. Erick (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Did quite a bit of NBSP cleanup and a little bit more copyediting, which you can see here. I think you were confused by the placement of the nbsp formatting; it's supposed to go between the words you want to keep together (see my edits for what I mean). That being said, I now support based on the prose. ceranthor 05:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I didn't see a media review -- you can post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Amarteesunplacer.jpg: License and use are OK.
• File:Mariah Carey11 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg: Use seems fine for me, image fairly blurry and source is broken.
• File:Luis Miguel - O Tu O Ninguna.ogg and File:Luis Miguel - Te Propongo Esta Noche.ogg: License seems OK, use however seems a mite questionable since this is an album article, not about a specific song.

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• [[:]]:

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the media review. The two samples is meant to represent what the ballads and uptempo tracks sound like to the read as they are mentioned several times in the composition section. Erick (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus and Erick, I'm inclined to be cautious on this. Before we promote, we need these samples sorting. Unless you want a second opinion, I'm inclined to regard them as questionable. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Both samples have a critical commentary by a reliable source and they both represent the two types of music that is represented in the album that are mentioned several times by sources.On top of that, it's not uncommon for FA-class albums to have samples, (see FA-Class Album articles). I'm not sure what the problem here is. Erick (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In this case I'd ask for second opinions. "Has sourced discussion in the article text" is not a NFCC criterium, if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding is, and that might be a problem here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As it stands, this review has not passed criteria 3 of WP:WIAFA and so cannot be promoted. I wonder if Nikkimaria could chip in here? Sarastro (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is that the more non-free media in an article, the harder each becomes to justify. One representative sample gives readers an idea of what sort of music is heard on the album; at the moment I'm not seeing a strong enough FUR on the files' description pages to include both. That's not to say it wouldn't be possible to justify, just at the moment it isn't there. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Have we made any progress addressing this? We cannot promote until the image issue is addressed. Sarastro (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I am not convinced that it meets NFCC#8. If the song samples were representative of the album & discussed as such it'd pass, but as is that does not appear to be the case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Erick, I'd like to see some response here. This cannot become a FA until the image review is passed. Sarastro (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Sorry for the lack of response, I've been busy in real life. I will respond to this either this Friday or the weekend. Erick (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro: Okay, I have updated the rationale for both samples on the file descriptions for their justifications on the article. Erick (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment by SN54129

In light of there seeming to be a bit of an impasse here—and also in light of the fact that this review is months old—can I ask @Magiciandude, Sarastro1, Nikkimaria, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: to have a look at this version—and would it be acceptable to both reviewers and curator? I'm in no way attempting to address the actual issue, I know, nor the seeming contradiction between this and other album articles. But may I suggest, Erick, that the optimum strategy here would be to let this version be passed, but at the same time take the broader question to either the wikiproject or the copyright noticeboard for further evaluation. And if the files are subsequently green-lighted, then they can be reintroduced, per this discussion. What say you? ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

• I support this FAC nomination, a great read cannot find any plausible cause for opposition right now. Once @Magiciandude: resolves previous concerns over the media sample, I see no reason why this nomination cannot pass. Best – jona ✉ 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal

It is difficult to understand why this article has been at FAC for over two months, when basics of reliable sourcing are missing. From this version, samples only:

• Reference number 5, cited 4 times, goes here; what is that? How is it reliable?
• I can locate no indication that elsalvador.com (ref number 7) is reliable. Please provide if available.
  • struck two, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Ref 38 says it is La Nacion, but the link goes to Viva, a supplemental magazine of La Nation. Should that link go dead, no one will know where to find the article.
  • Additionally, the text cited to ref 38 is not verified by ref 38-- in fact, it says something entirely different about who holds what record.
• Ref 53 goes nowhere.
• Ref 81, what makes lacuarta.com a reliable source?

Prose samples:

• Following his concerts at Radio City Music, Miguel performed 21 consecutive shows at the National Auditorium in Mexico City beginning on 24 February; beating the previous record of 20 set by Mexican group Timbiriche, and set the record for most attendees with an overall count of 255,000 patrons.[38] The concerts drew more than 255,000 attendees, another record for the artist. (grammatical errors, redundancy on the 255,000 and presumably Radio City Music Hall? Also, not verified by source given.)
• Promotion section, three consecutive paragraph begin with "Miguel ... "; please try to vary the prose.
• Miguel returned to touring in the United States on 24 March 2000, performed in several cities including Miami, Chicago, Atlantic City, and Houston.

• ... Miguel received two nominations at the 2000 El Premio de la Gente ... what is El Premio de la Gente?

It is regrettable for the nominator that for two months, no one has pointed out the prose and sourcing problems. I suggest withdrawal, thorough source checking, and an independent copyedit. I did not look deeply or comprehensively at every source, but for the few in Spanish that I did check, I did not find examples of direct translation (copyvio). I think this article could make it through FAC after these suggestions are addressed. There is a real need to vary the prose to tell a compelling story-- without that, it will be hard to get reviewers to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Ref 5 is dead and I've fixed it with the archive link to the actual Terra Networks article. Ref 7 is El Diario de Hoy (which I just out found today). I already have an archiveurl for Ref 38 ready should it be dead (I always have an article archived either at WayBack Machine and/or WebCitation to prevent LINKROT). Are you referring to the patron count or the number of the consecutive show? For the former, I previously had a reference that may have been removed by accident during a copyedit. In any case, I restored the proper reference with the correct patron count. La Cuarta (along with the aforementioned El Diario de Hoy) is part of the Latin American Newspaper Association network. I can't directly link to articles Newsbank summary articles, I'm going to need suggestions on this one. I'll get to the prose section next. Erick (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: I suspect whatever I decide here will be unpopular with someone. We have four supports, two of which seem to come from detailed reviews. And we have a reasoned oppose which suggests withdrawal - and as the FAC instructions state, a FAC will be archived "after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn". Additionally, this FAC is over two months old, otherwise I may have left it a little longer. But given how long it has been here, and the unlikelihood of attracting more reviews after such a long time, I think the best option is to archive. I would recommend working with SandyGeorgia (if she's available) or another experienced hand at FAC and bringing it back after this, and after the usual two week waiting period. I'm sorry this has come so late in the day, but as Sandy said, "It is regrettable for the nominator that for two months, no one has pointed out the prose and sourcing problems". Sarastro (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2018 [13].

---

Fenerbahçe S.K. (football)

Nominator(s): Akocsg (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the football department of Fenerbahçe SK, a major Turkish multi-sport club. I have put much effort into the improvement and development of the article and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Akocsg (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article simply isn't ready. It has never been through any formal review process that I can see, and FAC is no place for underprepared articles. At a glance I can see a great deal of uncited information, some whole paragraphs lacking any citation and many paragraphs ending without one. Some of the prose looks decidedly sub-par for a featured article: "It got its name due to the fact that..."; "Kadıköy was in desperate need of its own football club, where locals would get a chance to practise the game of football"; "The most known match..." ("the best-known match" might do); far too many paragraphs and sentences beginning with "Fenerbahçe..." – all three lead paragraphs begin this way.

I have no doubt that you have put time and effort into this article, although I notice that you are not in the top half-dozen contributors by edit count. Have you discussed this nomination with other major contributors? Anyhow, if this is your first FAC nomination this may be a case where you should work with a mentor – see the main FAC page for what this entails. That would be my best advice: withdraw this nomination and seek a mentor. If you don't care for that route, you should still withdraw and ask for a peer review and a full copyedit before renominating here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will fix those points when I have time and withdraw it for now. How do I do that btw? After fixing those points, I guess it coud be nominated as a GA? Akocsg (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The FAC co-ordinators will withdraw it at your request. When you've done a bit of fixing, please feel free to contact me and I'll take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I will do that, thank you. Btw, since you seem to be willing to help me, would you be so kind and review this one? I would like it to be a FL. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Not at the moment, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2018 [14].

---

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) & Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment The nominator (who joined Wikipedia earlier this month) has never edited the article as part of their small number of edits to date, and there have been no discussions of a FAC on the talk page. Unless editors with experience with this article believe that it's up to scratch and are willing to take on responding to FAC comments, I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn or closed. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I nominated the article last time, and I believe that it is up to FAC standard. Comments made in the previous FAC candidacy went to improving the coverage of what occurred on the ground. This has been improved since. I made a pass through the article correcting dates and references. I would be willing willing to take on responding to FAC comments, but I would need a fiat from the coordinator to do so. The article may be too controversial in the current climate for the front page. @Binksternet: requesting an opinion on whether the article is in good enough shape or not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's in good shape. Of course the nominator is too new to have any input in the process, and I agree that in the political climate of today, with the unbalanced US president posturing aggressively about his nuclear capability, the article should not be placed on the Main Page. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether an article is suitable for WP:TFA is not a criterion, as far as I know, in its acceptance as a WP:FA. It may also be appropriate to remind editors of not censored. TFA is not chosen on the basis of whether it will upset inhabitants of a particular nation (and I think Japan would have more cause for concern than the US...). If Hawkeye7 wants it to run, fine with me, although the coordinators (or Hawkeye) might wish to change the nominator above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The objective of the review process is to improve the article, and given the current state of the article, I don't think that the reviewers' time would be wasted. If you could switch the nominators to Binksternet and myself, that would be appreciated. We can defer discussion of TFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Re sources: There are almost 300 citations based on nearly 100 sources. A quick glance indicates a number of issues, but before I undertake the sources review I'd like to be assured that the FAC is in the hands of editors ready and capable of addressing these issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  I will resolve any errors found. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm in. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Ian Rose Sarastro1, probably more appropriate for one of you to change the nominators Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's done -- as this is a co-nom, there's no issue with Hawkeye being a party even though he has another nom open (given the progress that nom we might we well have granted dispensation anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Because citation numbers may change during this FAC, please note that my numbers quoted below are from this version of the article.

• Ref 34: you should add the work ("Wired")

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 55: I don't think that Roosevelt and Churchill should really be cited as "authors" of this document, although they signed it – they employed drafters for such purposes. Recommend delete author details

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Refs 63 and 69: be consistent in how you format the publisher detais (AFHRA in one case, "Air Force Historical Research Agency" in the other. also, we don't normally include location in cite web particulars; "Tinian" is of no value and may cause confusion.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 115: You should name the publisher, which in this case is "Nuclear Age Peace Foundation" rather than nuclearfiles.org, whci is the "work=". There are other instances in the reflist of work being treated as publisher.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 116: Hyphen in p. range should be ndash

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 137: I'm not sure why this citation needs the lengthy note. If this material is covered by what's in the source, it's unnecessary; if it comes from elsewhere it needs to be separately cited.

  It's from the source. Basically, it is there because different altitudes are cited in different sources. Like you, I was going to just leave the one that is most accepted, but other editors felt that we should explain why we have passed over other sources that are otherwise reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• OK, but just a couple of things. At present the note doesn't have a proper beginning – it starts "...describes how varios values...". And I imagine that the ascription to Kerr et al. (2005) at the end needs to be cited. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 141: Lacks publisher information

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 143: Per 115 above, publisher= Hiroshima Day Committee, work= hiroshimacommittee.org

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 153: What makes this a high quality reliable source per FA criteria?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 154: The publisher appears to be "The Asia-Pacific Journal"

  Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 155: The provenance is not clear from the details you provide. This is a transcript from a 1986 video: "HIROSHIMA WITNESS", produced by Hiroshima Peace Cultural Center and "NHK" whoever they may be

  NHK is Japan's national public broadcasting organization. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7](discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 157: Paywall, therefore (subscription required) template should be added

  The whole article comes up for me. Are you sure? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• (it's now 156) I can't access the article – I'm getting invitations to subscribe, on various bases. Perhaps it's not free in the UK?

• Ref 158: Lacks publisher information

  Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 165: Hyphen in p. range should be ndash

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 169: Link returns "page not found"

  Archive link added via Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 172: "The Manhattan Engineer District" produced the report, but the publisher appears to be "Trinity Atomic"

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 175: S/M Herbert Friedman is the author – is he also the publisher? If so, how does the source fulfil the quality/reliability criteria?

  He is an expert on the subject, and the site is used for the images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 176: Publisher not given. I'd say "Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum" is the publisher; the title insofar as I can make it out, appears to be "The Atomic Bomb dropped on Nagasaki"

  The City of Nagasaki is the publisher. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 177: Not sure where this website comes from. There was a documentary series called "A Century of Flight" – is this related to that?

  Don't know. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 178: Use caps in publisher name (see 194)

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 189: self-published – why reliable?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 191: The page range format should be standardised

  Typo. Should have been "234" Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 205: Publisher needed, also a note that the language is Japanese

  It's in English. Archive link added via Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 208: Publisher is PBS (capitalised)

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 212: Publisher is Atomic Archive, not National Science Digital Library

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 229: Publisher details missing

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 233: The proper form of the publisher's name is "Voices of the Manhattan Project"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 234: "Restricted Data" is not the publisher of this blog. You need to show why this is acceptable as a high quality, reliable source.

  Alex Wellerstein is a historian of science and nuclear weapons and a professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology. He is one of the bworld's premier experts on the history nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 238: who or what is "Yosha Research"?

  The website of William Wetherall, the translator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• (now 231) What are his credential as a RS? Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 241: why add the quote from the source? That is the purpose of the citation

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 246: link returns 404 error message

  Restored from archive.is Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• (now 235) The main link is now OK, but the archive is returning an error message. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 264: Give the publisher's proper name (as you do in 269 & 273)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 274: Note language

  It's in English. Archive link added via Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 277: Link returns "page not found"

  Works for me - double check. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• (now 266) Still giving me page not found message

• Ref 278: Italicise the newspaper title, per 275

  Unbelievable. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 279: The explanatory detail, and the wikilink, should be included in the first citation to this source

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 281: The publisher is Sky News

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 282: The name "CNN" should not be in italics as it is not a print source.

  But it's a news source, so the {{cite news}} template seems most appropriate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  • (now 272) It may be a news source, but it's a TV station, not a newspaper, and shouldn't be in the template's "newspaper=" field. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

    Switched to {{cite web}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've not yet finished looking at the sources ("references") list, but the above should be enough to be getting on with. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No further issues arising from the list of sources. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

The manner in which this article was nominated was unfortunate, not least as the usual pre-FAC polishing hasn't occurred and the article is somewhat under-prepared for FAC. However, I'm pleased to see it here. I disagree with the views above that this article couldn't appear on the front page - it is eminently suitable for this, though it would be a vandal magnet. I have the following comments. The FA coordinators should note that I've made various minor edits to the article over the years, mainly to remove vandalism, and taken part in lots of discussions on the talk page.

• "The United States had dropped the bombs with the consent of the United Kingdom as outlined in the Quebec Agreement" - tense seems wrong, and this is a bit vague: how about "The United States dropped the bombs after obtaining the consent of the United Kingdom as required in the Quebec Agreement"?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The Japanese ignored the ultimatum" - "Ignored" seems a bit strong: there were rumblings inside the Japanese government to end the war. They just didn't do so: the article later states that the Japanese Government explicitly rejected the declaration.

  The Japanese didn't explicitly reject the Potsdam Declaration. Behind the word is a whole article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The 1.25 million battle casualties incurred in total by the United States in World War II included both military personnel killed in action and wounded in action. Nearly one million of the casualties occurred during the last year of the war, from June 1944 to June 1945. In December 1944, American battle casualties hit an all-time monthly high of 88,000 as a result of the German Ardennes Offensive." - not clearly linked to the subject of this article - I'd suggest noting that this was leading to increasing desire in the US to bring the war to an end.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Along the way, the ratio of Japanese to American casualties dropped from 5:1 in the Philippines to 2:1 on Okinawa" - this implies a linear progression, which wasn't the case. The Allied forces in Burma and Borneo incurred much lighter casualties in defeating significant Japanese units, not least as the Japanese armies there were able to retreat which generally wasn't an option on the small Pacific islands. The Soviets were also able to destroy the Japanese forces in Manchuria with ease.

  True, but the JCS planners believed that the fighting would more closely resemble Saipan and Okinawa. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Although some Japanese soldiers were taken prisoner" - the number and proportion of Japanese soldiers surrendering was increasing rapidly at this time: many soldiers recognised that the war was lost, and the Allied troops had at last been persuaded to take prisoners. The home guard forces on Okinawa were particularly keen to get out of the war, though most were unable to do so.

  The article notes that, but I've added a bit more to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "By July 1945, the Japanese had stockpiled 1,156,000 US barrels (137,800,000 l; 36,400,000 US gal; 30,300,000 imp gal) of avgas for the invasion of Japan." - sits a bit awkwardly here. The use of "by" also suggests that the stockpile was increasing, when really it was a wasting resource.

  Re-phrased this slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of Kyoto." - as the rationale for the selection of the other target cities is described, I'd suggest doing the same for Nagasaki

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

• "The leaflets caused such concern amongst the Empire of Japan" - non-professional wording ("Japanese Government" perhaps?)

  That is awkward. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Hiroshima was not listed.[91][92][93][94]" - are four references really needed for this fact?

  Removed two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do all the attendees at the Combined Policy Committee meeting really need to be listed?

  No; trimmed this. But added the text of the order, as not everyone can read the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm a bit wary of the use of Truman's diary on the contentious issue of the bomb targets without discussion. Do secondary sources confirm that he really thought that they would be used only on purely military targets? - if so, was he mislead?

  No, he was, until very recently, the stupidest person to hold the office, and he actually believed that Hiroshima was a military base. For a full discussion of this, see here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Having been fully briefed under the terms of Operations Order No. 35, the 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field, Tinian, about six hours' flight time from Japan. " - please tweak to clarify who was briefed (presumably the crew of the Enola Gay, and the other aircraft involved in the mission)

  Forget it. Deleted that phrase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'd suggest noting what was going on in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. From memory, the museum there notes that one of the reasons casualties were so high was that lots of people were out in the open on a sunny summer morning, including significant numbers clearing fire breaks and seeing off a troop train at the main station.

• The 'Events on the ground' section for Hiroshima is unsatisfactory, as it presents what seems like a semi-random collection of facts rather than a narrative of what occurred. For instance, it's odd that it starts with a paragraph on the fate of a handful of of concrete buildings, and not the experiences of the people caught up in the bombing, and then name-checks various people. I'd suggest re-working this section to describe the destruction caused and affects on people on the ground (various sources describe columns of terribly wounded civilians), and then how the recovery efforts progressed over the day of the bombing and subsequent days.

• "Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council considered four conditions for surrender" - these have already been described

  Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "they headed" - please clarify who "they" is here

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "inside the fireball estimated at 3,900 °C (7,050 °F)[when?] and winds that were estimated at over 1,000 km/h (620 mph).[207][208][where?]" - I'd suggest addressing these requests

  The source says "The initial fireball expanded to 110 yards in diameter, generating heat in excess of 300,000 degrees Centigrade, with core temperatures over 50 million degrees Centigrade." Deleted the whole sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• " Because of the delays in the mission and the inoperative fuel transfer pump, Bockscar did not have sufficient fuel to reach the emergency landing field at Iwo Jima" - already stated

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is the para which begins with "Following the mission, there was confusion over the identification of the plane" really needed? It seems like trivia.

  For some years sources credited the wrong plane. After a bit of debate on the Bockcar page, we decided it belonged here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• The 'Events on the ground' section for Nagasaki seems rather brief, especially in comparison to the blow by blow description of the strike mission. Unlike the section on Hiroshima, it doesn't cover the recovery efforts at all. I also don't understand why the experiences of a couple of the Allied POWs are privileged. I'd suggest restructuring this section along the lines of my comments on the Hiroshima section.

• On that note, I'd suggest trimming the material on the adventures of Bockcar - the blow by blow coverage tends to obscure the broader point of this not being a well conducted mission, and most of these details aren't significant in their own right (especially in comparison to the destruction of much of a city)

  But article is supposed to be about the bombing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, but the misadventures of the plane and its crew aren't very significant, except for how they affected the choice of city to be attacked, and where the bomb exploded. The balance seems a bit off at present. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• "At least 35,000–40,000 people were killed and 60,000 others injured.[216][217][218][219]" - why is this referenced to four sources? Is this because estimates vary considerably? - if so, I'd suggest stating this.

  Also says that; I have reduced the sources cited to just two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Truman had secretly requested this on August 10" - why did Truman do this in secret, and what does this mean? (did he issue the order informally?)

  No, he gave instructions to the SecWar (Stimson), who told the CoS (Marshal). I presume it was secret because they didn't want the Japanese to know. What some people might find surprising is that Truman didn't order the atomic bombing; he was the man who ordered it to stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'd suggest replacing the para starting with "There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs then in production for Operation Downfall" which largely comprises a quote from a primary source with a discussion of the evolving plans at this time. From memory, Giangreco states that it was eventually decided to stockpile the bombs to support the invasion (including through use against tactical military targets)

  Trimmed this back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• The 'Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation' section is unsatisfactory: it is unduly focused on the Emperor, the content of his speech and his self-serving discussion with MacArthur when the cabinet also played a key role in these decisions, with cabinet ministers' motivations also being important.

  There is a whole article on the subject, so I only wanted a summary, one with an emphasis on the bombing. Re-written to add more about the political machinations behind the surrender. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "During the war, caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common.[240] A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese people.[241][242]" - what's the purpose of this para? If it's to argue that the bombing was motivated by racism, this needs to be set out. The opinion poll result hardly seems to support such a notion though. More broadly, various sources argue that the atomic bombings were part of the evolution of Allied bombing tactics during the war and weren't motivated by anti-Japanese sentiment (Germans were fire bombed in almost exactly the same way as Japanese were, with the difference being that Japanese cities were far more vulnerable to this tactic)

  Deleted the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• The material on filming and reporting of the effects of the bombs seems overly detailed. It would be much clearer and more effective if it was stripped back to a discussion of how news of the effects of the bomb on civilians was presented to the wider world.

• "Similarly, there was no censorship of the factually written witness accounts," - this was well after wartime censorship had ended. This section also seems to be debating itself over what was or wasn't 'censorship' versus editors choosing to not show things, which is rather confusing and largely irrelevant.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "a poll in Fortune magazine in late 1945 showed a significant minority of Americans (22.7%) wishing that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan" - seems very low actually, especially given the timing. The survey finding that 77% of Americans didn't support this notion seems rather more remarkable.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• The 'Post-attack casualties' section is unsatisfactory: it's focused on various assessments of the effects of the bombs on birth defects, and barely mentions the fate of the bomb survivors. It's odd that only US studies are highlighted, when there has also been significant research on the topic in Japan, including some early assessments by the Japanese Government.

• "Neel also studied the longevity of the children who survived the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reporting that between 90 and 95 percent were still living 50 years later" - was this a later study? It couldn't have been determined at the time.

• Was there only one 'double survivor'? The article mentions only one person, but then discusses these people in plural.

  It seems to have something to do with being a card-carrying hibakusha; it's not enough to have merely been in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• " which resulted in the denial of the free health benefits to them" - who was denying this? The Japanese or (South?) Korean governments?

  Japan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• "One figure of speech, "One hundred million [subjects of the Japanese Empire] will die for the Emperor and Nation",[287] served as a unifying slogan, although that phrase was intended as a figure of speech along the lines of the "ten thousand years" phrase" - out of place here

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is it really accurate to refer to 'supporters' of the use of the bombs? My impression has been that various historians believe that the use of the bombs was a regrettable necessity, and this term makes it sound like they're enthusiastic. The notion that supporters "generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender" also seems over-stated: my impression has been that such historians typically see the bombs as having a vital influence on the Japanese decision to surrender, but not being the only cause of this (virtually all the key Japanese decision makers knew the war was lost by 1944). Overall, this para doesn't really capture the views of historians who regard the use of bombs as being justified.

  Revised this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordering the execution of Allied prisoners of war when the POW camp was in the combat zone" - this is referenced to a primary source, so does not directly support the claim here

  I'm not certain of its relevance - removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Counter Punch is being used to reference a topic which has been the subject of scholarly sources (and is debated by scholars)

  All it is being used for is enumerating different arguments; the debate has not been restricted to scholars. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The bombings were part of an already fierce conventional bombing campaign. This, together with the naval blockade, could also have eventually starved the Japanese into surrender. At the time the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army" - already stated, and the point being made here could be condensed and put more clearly.

  Rewritten this part. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the situation map and explaining the colours in the caption

  How about letting me know how big you think it should be? Expanded to 1.4. Let me know if you think it should be larger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Several captions need editing for grammar - please review
• File:Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg: source links are dead. Which of the rationales from that tag are believed to apply?

  Added references to the Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Three_Tinian_Joint_Chiefs.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Atomic_bomb_1945_mission_map.svg

  Added references to the Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Hirgrnd1.jpg: this would need an expanded FUR and different tag to warrant inclusion

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Hiroshima_Street_Scene_with_injured_Civilians.jpg: when/where was this first published?

  It was published in Japan in 1945, but not in the United States until 1952. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Images using PD-Japan-oldphoto need to include info on original publication
• File:Bocks-Car-enlisted-flight-crew.png is tagged as lacking source and author info

  Grrr. Replaced image with a better one from the USAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Sumiteru_Taniguchi_back.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Nagasaki_temple_destroyed.jpg.

  Added references to the Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I don't normally do milhist, and i claim no expertise, but having entered the fray above, I thought I'd better take a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• very costly invasion of the Japanese mainland.— the text implies that this is primarily in terms of lives rather than cash, should this be made explicit?

  Why not? Military historians always use "costly" in the sense of casualties, but no reason not to make it explicit for others. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Probably obvious to Americans, but as an ignorant Brit, it would help if it was made clear that Okinawa and Iwo Jima are Japanese islands

  Well, they are Japanese-controlled territories, but not geographically considered part of Japan. Iwo Jima is an uninhabited island in the Volcano Islands group. The US returned it to Japanese control in 1968. Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, and was returned to Japanese control in 1972. Unfortunately, Iwo is not marked on the big map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• combatants in the legal sense— I think that's a little misleading; the Geneva Convention sense is members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered, perhaps clarify that this is the US interpretation.

  Agreed. Removed this sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• target insert —means??

  It's about the configuration of a Little Boy bomb. There was a hollow cylindrical projectile and a cylindrical target.Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• enormous casualties that an invasion of Japan might have involved.[279][6]—just happened to notice that refs are in wrong order (proves I did read it all too)

  More importantly, that you looked at the last part of a long article. A common problem is reviewers only looking at the first half. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the replies above, and I can't see anything terminal in the comments of more knowledgeable editors above, so I'm happy to change to support above. Great stuff. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Frank 1999, p. 286–87. P/PP error.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Six books (reprints, presumably) published too early to have ISBNs, fix with |orig-year=. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think there's any reprints. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm assuming they are all reprints, since ISBNs weren't available 'til 1970...should I search for the info? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

    Which books are you talking about? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Gowing 1964, pp. 40-43, 76-79. Hyphen in pg. range;
• Jones 1985, pp. 82-84. Hyphen in pg. range;
• Jones 1985, pp. 82-84. Hyphen in pg. range;
• Allen, Louis (1969). Missing OCLC;
• Appleman, Roy E.; Burns, James M.; Gugeler, Russell A.; Stevens, John (1948). Missing OCLC;
• Asada, Sadao (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Bix, Herbert (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Coox, Alvin D. (1969). Missing OCLC;
• Coox, Alvin D. (1994). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Dower, John W. (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Groves, Leslie (1962). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;
• Hewlett, Richard G.; Anderson, Oscar E. (1962). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;
• Kerr, George D.; Young, Robert W.; Cullings, Harry M.; Christy, Robert F. (2005). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Kido, Kōichi; Yoshitake, Oka (1966). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;
• Knebel, Fletcher; Bailey, Charles W. (1960). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;
• McCormack, Mary (2008). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• McNelly, Theodore H. (2000). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Scoenberger, Walter (1969). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;
• United States Department of State (1960). Missing OCLC;
• Walker, J. Samuel (January 1990). Sort error, expected: Walker, J. Samuel (April 2005);
• Walker, J. Samuel (April 2005). Sort error, expected: Walker, J. Samuel (January 1990);

  What's the problem here? Looks like your script cannot sort dates correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Kanabun (2012). Kyoko; Tam, Young, eds.Inconsistent Location (84 with; 1 without); Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
• Ogura, Toyofumi (1948). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;
• Warren, Stafford L. (1966). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  All should be okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by EddieHugh

I'll explain what I see as being the main problem with the article in its current form, then give some illustrative examples and end by stating the two options that could lead to improvement.

This is the main Wikipedia article on one of the pivotal (set of) events in recorded human history. There are other more specific articles on the same topic, but this is the central one. It is also the main Wikipedia article on the military aspects of the bombings. If the article is to cover both of these things (being a general article about the only use of atomic weapons; being specifically about the US military bombings) successfully, then a huge amount needs to be covered.

I'm a big admirer of the Military History WikiProject; it's the best one that I've come across. Inevitably, however, editors who are heavily involved in one project tend to see articles from the perspective of that project, and such is the case with this article. A huge amount needs to be covered in this article, and a huge amount of the military history is covered, but a lot of the essential non-military history facets are entirely or largely absent.

Some examples... the lead states "The atomic bombings' immediate and long-term consequences for military strategy [...] human health, and international relations, as well as their impact on the social and political character of subsequent world history and popular culture, have been extensively studied." This is a good summary, but it's a summary of the real world, not this article. I see almost nothing on international relations or subsequent world history, nothing on popular culture. I add: almost nothing on rebuilding; almost nothing on memorials; nothing on Japan's domestic and foreign policy; nothing on other countries' policies; nothing on attitudes to atomic weapons in Japan or elsewhere.

Continuing, the focus on the US military bombings infuses the article with a strong US bias. The lead states "Over the next two to four months, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 people in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day". I read through "Events on the ground" and see some images of victims and a paragraph on 20 American military personnel, but nothing on tens of thousands who died of acute effects over the next 2–4 months... I read on, maybe it's in "Events of August 7–9", but that's more military stuff. Then it's Nagasaki... "Events on the ground" gives the post-bombing civilian dead one sentence. Eventually, I reach "Post-attack casualties"... this must be the section, but no, it's on a different subject. So, tens of thousands died after the bombings, and this merits one sentence. (Maybe I missed more, but not much, I'd guess.) In reading through, I note a 10-sentence paragraph on a US plane landing and a 6-sentence paragraph on a US journalist having trouble finding out what number had been assigned to a plane. This contrast in level of detail is grotesque.

In short, in its current state, this is a richly detailed military history article that is trapped inside a more general article. I see two options: a) split off the military history parts into a new article and leave a summary of them in this article, in the normal way, then nominate that new article; or b) add a lot of information about the non-military aspects of this very important topic, while toning down the US-centric presentation. It can't pass as it is. Referring to the formal criteria, the article fails 1b ("comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context") and 1d ("neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias") by very wide margins. EddieHugh (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We've already implemented solution (a). This article is purely about the bombing. International relations and subsequent world history, and popular culture are all out of scope. They have their own articles: Nuclear warfare, Nuclear disarmament, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Nuclear weapons in popular culture. I have removed the offending sentence from the lead. The thousands that died after the first day died from trauma and burns. I will add some material on rebuilding and memorials. I was intending to do this when the article was prematurely nominated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is almost purely about the bombings, but shouldn't be. Option a) has not been implemented: this article, as mentioned, is the main one on everything to do with what happened. It also being the main one on the military aspects is a problem (unless option b is implemented, which would mean a lot of work). The bit you cut from the lead is/was a summary of what the article should contain, not an "offending sentence". None of this is new: the things I mentioned above were largely encompassed by the three opposers (including me) last time (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive1) and appear periodically on the talk page too. The content and balance might, I agree, look fine to the eyes of the military history WikiProject, but that's not the target audience for this, the broadest article we have on such key events in human history. EddieHugh (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is purely about the bombing. The other articles handle post-World War II aspects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Where's the broad article that covers the whole topic? If there isn't one, then this must be it (based on the title), which falsifies "The article is purely about the bombing" assertion. EddieHugh (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not the case. Just because we don't have an article on a subject doesn't mean that material has to be incorporated into another article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So is your belief that Wikipedia does not have a general article on the atomic bombings? EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the article on the bombings. We carefully limited its scope to make it manageable. The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the "general article" you have in mind was never written because it was not possible to define its scope. Nuclear warfare, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Nuclear weapons in popular culture have aspects of it, but they too are limited in scope to make them manageable, and they are all about post-1945 events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We have Death, God, War... and Sea, Middle Ages and Germany are FAs: we can find a way to define the scope of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that it is as broad in coverage as its title implies and as its nature demands. EddieHugh (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We tried to give it the narrowest title we could. The article you're describing would be a WP:COATRACK for things like the nuclear weapons policies of Australia. I'm willing to add another section (eg Legacay) , but I'm not willing to WP:TNT the article. So that leaves us with option (a). I create a stub called Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in history and memory, which becomes the "general" article, and we proceed with this article as the article on the bombing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of a more general title, to encompass all facets of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". If the military facets are to be the focus of an article, then it could be given a more specific title, such as "Military missions to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki", leaving "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as the general one, to which the necessary other aspects would be added. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Before we wind up the review, I would still like to know what facets of the bombing are not covered by the article. Remember that military history is the study of armies and wars, so most are likely to fall within the scope of WP:MILHIST. I know a lot about Nuclear warfare, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't have a lot to do with it, as they were soon overtaken by subsequent events. If there is anything that can be done to improve the article, it can be worked on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I included a list of some things in the fourth para of my initial comment, above. I have to stress, though, that if the military aspects are not to be split off into their own article (and I haven't seen an argument against this), then the level of military detail and US-bias in the article as it stands would have to be greatly reduced: just adding more facets wouldn't be enough. EddieHugh (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The argument against forking is that the entire article as it stands is about the actual bombing, so it is our article on military historical aspects. You're welcome to create a new article on ahistorical aspects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps there could at least be a NavBox added that encompasses the topic of atomic weapon uses against Japan? There's a NavBox for the Manhattan Project, but it has a different focus. Praemonitus (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Please close this review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2018 [15].

---

Panzer Dragoon Saga

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Panzer Dragoon Saga, a 1998 role-playing game for the Sega Saturn. Saga is the most critically acclaimed Saturn game and appears on many lists of the best games of all time, but was released in very limited quantities and few people got to play it.

The article became a GA a couple of years ago. Since then, I've greatly expanded the Reception section, restructured the article a bit, and tightened up the references. Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through.

• Not keen on "have effects including". How about something like "The dragon's "berserks" [...] can inflict powerful attacks, heal Edge, or boost..."?
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Since you only use the "BP" abbreviation once I'd drop it and spell out "berserk points" on the second occurrence.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Certain enemy attacks inflict status-changing affects: Unless I've misunderstood the sentence, I think this would be better as "Certain enemy attacks can change Edge's status: the "stun" status..."
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• After battles, the player earns a ranking: I think it would be better to have "battle" and "player" agree in number; probably "After a battle, the player..."
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• The plot section seems to just fade out. I assume the destruction of Grig Orig is the climax of the game as far as battles are concerned? Perhaps some signposting would make this clearer.
  • The final battle is: Edge and the dragon defeat the network's "anti-dragon" programs. Is this obscure?

    It's not clear to the uninformed reader that this is the climax of the plot. Perhaps if you end the paragraph after that sentence, and make it clear that what follows is abstract and without a clear resolution, as you say below, then that would be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    Forgive my being difficult about this, but I'm not sure what it is you're suggesting here. Do you think we should literally write something like "The following events are abstract and do not end with a clear resolution"? Because that would be inserting personal interpretation, a violation of Wikipedia plot summary rules. I think if you read the events as they're described and come away thinking "that sounds weird", then the summary is probably a pretty accurate reflection of events.

    Having said all that, I rewatched the final sequence and rewrote the article to hopefully made some things a bit clearer. I made the fourth wall breaking element more explicit, and I'd forgotten that the sequence pretty explicitly says why Azel is asking directions. I hope this makes things a bit more useful. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    I think all I'm asking for is a clear indication that the defeat of the network's "anti-dragon" programs is the climactic battle. As someone who's never played the game, I read through the plot and took that sentence as indicating another step in the progress of the plot, expecting the plot to end in combat, as so often happens. Just adding "... in the game's final battle sequence" or something like that to that sentence would do it. I'm not a regular video game player, so perhaps my expectations aren't in sync with how games are actually plotted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    I appreciate the difficulty of having to come up with arguments about this when you're not familiar with the subject matter, and I do take the point that this is exactly who we should be writing for.... but I can't see eye to eye with you on this, I'm afraid.

Is it important to know it's the final battle? I don't think it's the important takeaway here, when we're summarising the plot. It's not even that climactic - it's this very abstract, almost ambient sequence that doesn't have a lot to do with the rest of the game's battles. The actual important event here is that Edge disappears into Sestren. If other editors have other opinions I'm all ears though. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Not sure what you mean by "just seems to fade out". The end of the game is pretty abstract, and ends without a clear resolution... Popcornduff (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    That's what I meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the timeline in the first couple of sentences of the "Development" section. If it took two years, and was released in 1998, then they began work in 1996. They started development at the same time that the Panzer Dragoon II Zwei team began development, but that game was released in 1996. So Panzer Dragoon II Zwei was released the same year it began development? Not impossible, but surprising enough I wanted to verify I had it right.
  • Nice catch. I went back and checked the sources and they don't agree. Gamespot says two years, but an interview with the developers in the strategy guide says three. I'm assuming the developers know best, and that makes more sense, as you point out - plus I found some more detail to include about how they split the teams. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Both subplots were cut for time.: a bit compressed -- this could mean lack of development time, or to eliminate a slow period of gameplay. I think it's the latter, but I'd suggest clarifying.
  • Done. I've reworked the entire Development section so you might want to reread the entire thing. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• In the graphics paragraph in the "Reception" section, Sega Saturn Magazine praises the '"stunning" visual effects', and Steve Key praises "some of the greatest visual effects on any home system". Could these comments be combined, so we get the statement first, and once only? Personally I think it's OK to drop the attributions into the footnotes unless they're important, but my main point here is the repetition.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• The music and sound also received praise, with Mielke likening it to the quality of Hollywood productions. Suggest "Mielke considered the music and sound to be of Hollywood production quality", or something similar; the first half of the current sentence is the paragraph topic, but I think Mielke's comment is strong enough that it can stand as the topic sentence without introduction.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• The paragraph starting "Several critics..." has some repetitive sentence rhythms: "Key felt... Edge wrote:... Mielke concluded:".
  • I know what you mean but I don't know to fix this yet. The easy solution for this, I think, leads very quickly into purple prose. I'm already uncomfortable with the number of attribution verbs used, and I'm about to leave you a Talk page message about that "noted" you added, since I don't want to distract from the discussion here... Popcornduff (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    When we've resolved the "noted" point we can revisit this. I wouldn't hold up support over this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    How about joining the Key and Edge quotes, which are both very positive, with some appropriate connective tissue? That would be easier with Key as the second quote, since Edge is a magazine and Key is a person. Maybe: 'Edge wrote: "It's a tragedy that the Saturn's standing will ensure Team Andromeda's adventure, with a radically different approach to FFVII, will enjoy a fraction of its rival's success", and Key was also impressed, arguing that if the game were released on PlayStation it would "fly off the shelves".' Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• and illustrated why the Saturn was seen as lacking compared to PlayStation: not very fluid. How about: "and illustrated the Saturn's shortcomings, compared to PlayStation"?
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Overall this is very clean, and I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support. Meant to come back to this a few days ago; this is FA quality now. I had a couple of remaining points under discussion but both were very minor and don't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "The player controls Edge, a young mercenary who battles an empire on a flying dragon and encounters a mysterious girl from a vanished civilization." - I think this could be reworded to make it more clear; how does he battle "an empire" (I think you mean the forces of an empire), and right now I read it as "an empire on a flying dragon", which made the actual meaning even more ambiguous
• "Battles mix real-time and turn-based elements,[4] with three action gauges that charge in real time." - bit jargon-y, any way you could clarify what some of these terms mean?
• "Changing position temporarily stops the gauges charging." - need a from between gauges and charging, I think
• "he discovers a girl buried in a wall." - doesn't buried imply that she's dead?
  • Um, she kind of is at that point. At this point in the story, we don't know if she's dead, in suspended animation, or if she's actually human at all, or what. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's just a few comments to start. Still have to get through everything after the plot. Looks good so far. ceranthor 20:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• "with a team of about 40, twice that of the Zwei team.[9] Both teams used the Zwei engine" - too many teams in close proximity
  • Reads well to me and I'm wary of elegant variation - but reworded as a compromise, hopefully. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• "development proceeded quickly and some staff were moved to help complete Zwei.[4]" - nitpick, but I'd like to add an "around" after moved
  • If it's all right with you, I'm going to ignore this nitpick, because I think the "around" would not only add an unnecessary word but connote a different meaning. To me "moved around" suggests a temporary change, or like they were moved several times to various places. Popcornduff (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• "Sega estimated that the game's script amounted to over 1,500 pages of Japanese text" - more than, not over
  • Done (though I've never bought the "more than/over" complaints - and did you know the AP recently announced they're cool with it now? Bombshell!) Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I did, although like a professor who still refuses to allow split infinitives, I haven't yet come around to accepting it just because the AP has caved! ;) ceranthor 03:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• "support free exploration, battle sequences, and real-time morphing and shading." - elsewhere you haven't used the serial comma; stay consistent throughout the article!
  • This was done to avoid confusion with the two "ands" at the end. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• "In January 2018, an anniversary edition of the soundtrack, Resurrection: Panzer Dragoon Saga, will be issued by Brave Wave Productions on CD, vinyl and download formats.[15] " - this should be tweaked, seeing as January is practically over
  • Yep... was waiting until today to update this. Done. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• "one of the greatest games crafted by human hands" - have there been any that weren't made by human hands, though? Not really sure what this quote adds...
  • Exactly the same thought occurred to me when I added the quote - just a clumsy way to say "one of the best games ever made", isn't it? I've paraphrased to that effect now. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• "used copies sold for around US$300" - close to or about, not around
  • Changed to "about". Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• "which went on to develop the final Panzer Dragoon game, Panzer Dragoon Orta (2002), for Xbox.[4]" - always think "went on to" is redundant - better as just "later developed" or even "developed"
  • Excellent point, should have seen this myself. Fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Besides my nitpicks above, this is very engaging and well-written. Support on 1a. ceranthor 02:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• I wouldn't link mutinous.

...actually can't find anything else to complain about WRT comprehensiveness and prose, so all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (Two staff died during development,) in the lead, I think that “two staff members” would sound more complete as opposed to just “two staff”. I would also change the same part in the “Development” section.
  • Not done, sorry. "Staff" is a slightly tricky word when it comes to plurals, but writing "two staff", "three staff" etc is correct and clear. If you really think it's weird you could talk me out of it, but I hate adding unnecessary words. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I will leave this up to you as it is your nomination and it most likely just boils down to a stylistic choice. I have never heard of "staff" being used in this way though (i.e. staff with a number attached to the beginning). I am more used to seeing it as a general term. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
      • It's not unusual - for example [16], [17]. But this does make me wonder if it's a British English thing? Popcornduff (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I am American so it could be that. I have also not read a lit of materials that would really use the word, but whenever I run across it, it is always "X staff members" or "X members of the staff" so it just looks/reads weird to just have "X staff". Not that it is wrong, but it just does not seem right to me. Hope that makes sense. Just for clarification, I am completely fine with keeping the current phrasing in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• For this part (the game had a limited release outside Japan and sales worldwide were poor), I would say “its sales” to read more clearly.
  • Same again - I don't think this adds anything or makes it significantly clearer. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• If you are going to link dragon in the lead, then I would link it in its first use in the body of the article as well for consistency.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• I am confused by this part (the player controls Edge, a young mercenary who becomes a dragon) as the rest of the article make it sound more like Edge rides a dragon as opposed to becoming a dragon.
  • Embarrassing mistake I added in a recent edit. Thanks for catching it. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Please add NPC in parenthesis following the first mention of the concept non-player characters as you use the abbreviation without fully defining it.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• ”Cutscenes” is linked multiple times in the article.
  • Only twice, I think, but fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• I may be missing it, but I do not believe that “Sega” is linked in the body of the article.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would link “JRPG”.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments on my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1) if possible. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Deckiller

I'm mostly neutral, leaning toward weak oppose. Weak support—it's not bad, but the gameplay section feels vague and stilted—I feel it could be better worded throughout, ideally by someone with fresh eyes who has played the game. I took a pass at it but didn't want to change the meaning of anything. Also, is there any more information about this game in primary/secondary sources? It feels like it's missing some details, mostly in the creation of the story, setting, and characters. The legacy and release sections were quite short, so I did some slight reorganization to satisfy criterion 2b. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 09:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay section is probably fine now. However, I would love to see more information about the creation of the cast and setting, if possible. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 09:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe I've read every source out there about this game, at least in English, and some in Japanese, too. There's no more information to be added about the development. If you think that means there isn't enough information to take the article to FA, so be it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll certainly take your word on it. The article is comprehensive enough on the surface (criterion 1b); as long as you've already conducted a complete survey of the relevant literature (1c) then we're good to go in that regard. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 10:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I take writing seriously, so any examples of the prose being "vague and stilted" I am interested in hearing. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine in its current form. The problem with gameplay sections is that we have to convey a lot of complex and interrelated concepts. Some sentences had a ton of small clauses separated by commas; it just felt off. It's mostly a matter of stylistic differences. When I used to write gameplay sections, I thought I had no choice but to resort to that kind of writing style; I eventually felt a little more comfortable by expanding the section a bit and letting it "breathe" naturally. It's fine as is, I think, especially since you have demonstrated command of the language as well as clear intent with each contested edit. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 10:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool. BTW, the stuff about Orta was in the Development section way back when I first wrote the article, but the editor who reviewed it for GA moved it to Legacy. That's the circle of life, I guess. Popcornduff (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support—seems ready to go, and any issues I had were justified by the nominator in edit summaries. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix ^talk

I hadn't seen an image or source review on this yet, so I thought I would pitch in with those.

Images:

• File:PanzerDragoonSagaBox.jpg - Especially since this is a copyrighted, fair-use image, the infobox needs more filling out. This will help to ensure the image meets WP:NFCC. Let's start by filling in all the boxes with accurate information, and being specific; "Illustration" is a poor rationale but "To illustrate the video game described in the article" is better.

• Thanks. I never think about image stuff. I filled the boxes using the Ocarina of Time info as a template. I don't know what the source for the image was, though, because it was uploaded by someone else years ago... Popcornduff (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• File:Pds screen.jpg - Good. Use the infobox here for an example of what's needed on the box art rationale.
• File:Sega-Saturn-Console-Set-Mk2.jpg - Good. An Evan-Amos work, he's known for free-use images.

Sources - spotchecks not done:

• 1. 2: URL says: "Panzer Dragoon Saga Review | Edge Online". Is Edge Online the website? It shouldn't be in the title linked with the URL if it is.

• Fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• 1. 13: What makes rpgfan.net a reliable source? I looked through it and couldn't find anything about who actually publishes it or how they may have a reputation for fact-checking.

• I thought the same thing when I found the source, but it's listed as reliable on WP:VG/S, so I assumed it was trusted? Popcornduff (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• 1. 27: G4 reference is a little bare, and I can't get it to pull up to check it. Can an archived version be provided? Right now I'm getting nothing of the source, just a blank G4 home page.

• Got a version from Wayback, but I can't find anything on the original page about the authors or even the date beyond 2012 (from the copyright). It's not an essential source so can be cut if it doesn't make the grade. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• 32: What makes NowGamer a reliable source? Can't find publishing info here either, and it's not listed at WP:VG/RS, so I don't know here.

• Removed to be on the safe side. Popcornduff (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Overall: I would personally suggest as an improvement to the sources here or on any article to note the publisher as well whenever possible. For instance, #24 is Retro Gamer, which is published by Imagine Publishing. IGN is published by Ziff Davis. It may seem like nitpicking, but it's very helpful for establishing a source as reliable to our readers.

• Red Phoenix: Do you have any advice for how to determine the publisher of a source? I'm not sure where to look for this information. Popcornduff (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely. There will be some instances you won't get one (namely for more unusual sources like RPGFan), but usually you can. For starters, big name magazines and websites that have articles on Wikipedia will have the publisher listed in the article, which is pretty helpful. There are only a few really big names that do this kind of publishing, so look and see if your websites' articles about them have the publisher. For other sites that don't have a Wikipedia page about them, check to see if there's an "About Us" link off their home page. This will usually list the publisher, or check the bottom of the main page to see who has copyrighted the material; it's listed there sometimes as well. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• All right, I've filled the publishers in as best I can. Popcornduff (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Still some work to do here. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Support on images and sources. I went back and did a few more tweaks myself, as well as ran a bot to archive all the internet sources and preserve the material, preventing link rot in the future. I think the references look a lot more professional and are all sourced to reliable sources, and I confirmed that fair use rationales on the images have been repaired. Well done! Red Phoenix ^talk 15:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Updating...

Thanks to all who've contributed to the review so far. However, after years of nothing, a couple of new articles have cropped out about this game all of a sudden, I guess because of its 20th anniversary, so I'd like to integrate that new information into the article. It might need to be reviewed again afterwards... it'll take me a few days to get round to updating it anyway. Popcornduff (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In that case, there's no problem with leaving this open a little longer. Sarastro (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• There are three date formats in use in the sources: 4 April 2013, June 22, 2005 and 1999-08-29, and June 5, 1998 used in the infobox (for the release dates). These should be standardised. - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Done TarkusAB^talk 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• FN33 needs a retrieval date. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing note: The nominator has asked to withdraw this nomination because it has changed considerably since the first reviewers supported it. It was the nominator who realised that changes need to be made, it was not a requirement of this review. Because this FAC had considerable support before changes were made, and in the interests of simplicity, it is easier to restart than to make this page longer and more complicated. Therefore the nominator has dispensation to immediately renominate this article at FAC without the usual two-week wait, and should feel free to ping the previous reviewers with a neutrally worded notice that the nomination has restarted. Sarastro (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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