Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2017

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2017 [1].

Liliuokalani edit

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk), Mailee66 (talk), Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last ruling monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii who died on November 11, 1917. Aim towards possible TFA for November 11, 2017. Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: I think we originally planned to have this as DYK (resulting from the GA) on November 11, 2017. Per DYK rules, it can only be DYK if not otherwise appearing/having appeared on the main page. TFA doesn't have those restrictions, so we could have it appear as TFA at a later date. My personal experience is that not only is FAC a little backlogged, but TFA nominations also take time to get through. But let's see what @KAVEBEAR: thinks.— Maile (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concern this is moving too fast and the article still needs some additional work. I can help when I can. I'm on break for the entire week. But pass or not these reviews will help improve the article. As for DYK, we should go ahead with it expecting we won't get it to FA and through TFA nomination by then. Worse scenario we can postpone TFA to January 17. Maile66 can you nominate the article for DYK now? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea. If this does not pass by the November date it can always be a good TFA for the January 17 anniversary of the overthrow.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DYK Liliuokalani was nominated yesterday. @KAVEBEAR and Mark Miller: please feel free to offer ALT hooks there. — Maile (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Some initial comments on the first things that caught my eye:

  • Several reference notes (3, 26, 132) contain links to what looks like a non-RS blog to provide translated content from historical Hawaiian newspapers, such as Ka Nupepa Kuokoa and Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika. The blog itself warns that the translations are "works in progress". Is there no better source for this material? It appears that Ulukau: The Hawaiian Electronic Library has images of these papers available online, albeit those are in Hawaiian.
Ulukau books online are in both English and Hawaiian, (although, I don't know about the specific ones you mention) - whichever the reader clicks as their preference (the selector button is in the upper right hand corner. Click "Kikokikoana Hawaii" to get the Hawaiian language version, or "English text" to get the English language version). The Kunkendall books, for instance, if you click the links you're getting the English version. Except for the issue of the location of source on the books, which can be easily fixed, I think maybe @KAVEBEAR: or @Mark Miller: might have the answer to your other questions. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the relevant issue from Ref 3, I found images of the paper here, but no translated text. If it comes to a choice, I think a reliable source in the original language would be preferable to a non-reliable translation. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree per policy and guidelines that is actually acceptable. It isn't that it must be an English language source but that if no other reliable English source is available, non English sources can be used.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book citations are inconsistent as to whether a location is given.
Checked done — Maile (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please comment on the reliability of the Rogne 2002 source? The publisher specializes in devotional literature, and the Amazon description of the book says it presents inspirational "characters", including Biblical patriarchs. This seems to suggest material selected for inspirational value rather than for historical accuracy. Most of the remaining sources seem to be books from academic publishers or reliably sourced historical newspapers, but I will circle back to confirm after I've had a chance to review more thoroughly. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The specific source, Rogne 2003 needs to be looked at to see exactly how strong the source is. Off hand I would say not to discount what appears to be inspirational material on Hawaii's Christian community, Hiram Bingham is considered both inspirational and historic. It would certainly depend on the context, author and publisher to determine the RS strength. It is late here so, If I don't respond directly, I will shortly--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source cannot be compared to Bingham which is an accepted historical source of the period. The page being cited also is written in the first person voice from Father Damien's perspective (yet it is not an autobiography). I removed it since all of the information in that sentence can be found in the book by Law which was published by UH Press and has been peer reviewed. If anybody disagree we can discuss on talk or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments after a more thorough review:

  • Ref 142: A local church newsletter may be within the letter of WP:RS, but seems weak for an FA. Is there specific detail in the text that isn't supported by adjoining Ref 141, which has much stronger sources?
  • Removed Ref 142. It was just an additional source that gave more detail about the clock that is not found in the article here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar question applies for Ref 177, which has as its second source a local canoe club. Is there information needed from that source that isn't in the ESPN article?
This appears under the Legacy section. The canoe club tells the reader why the race carries Liliuokalani's name and why it's held on Labor Day weekend - to honor the Queen by holding it the weekend of her birthday. The ESPN article omits those details.— Maile (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 153 and 157 seem to be handled inconsistently with other newspaper and magazine sources – these two use Harvard refs to a bibliography entry, while other such stories are fully cited in the notes. The Harv-ref/bibliography approach is used consistently for books and journals.
  • Reformated.
  • Refs 159 and 166 say "Queen Lili'uokalani Trust" in italics, while Ref 171 calls the same organization "Lili'uokalani Trust" with no italics. Should be consistent in both name and format.
  • Standardized the naming for the Trust. The problem is that the trust seems to have rebranded itself in recent year just looking at their annual reports as simply Lili'uokalani Trust while they were referred to as the Queen Lili'uokalani Trust just a few years before. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 163 is missing the publication and access date details.
  • Chronicling America is credited with a 'via' parameter in Ref 164, but is used extensively in other citations without a 'via'. This should be consistent.
  • Maile66 what do you think? I have a tendency to not add the via and you do so it is just a difference in our referencing style that is creating this. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the "via" for consistency, since it seems to be the only one of its kind. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 174 links to a marketing company, not to the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame. The page you should probably use is http://www.hmhof.org/honorees. This could also replace the archive link in Ref 173.
  • What? You can link Ref 173 and 174 to http://www.hmhof.org/honorees but does not list Charles E. King or the Nani La Eha separately. I changed the link as recommended.
  • Looking at this more closely, I was confused by the web site design. The site opens subpages for the honorees without changing the URL. You can right-click to open the subpage with its own URL, which goes to the marketing company, who are apparently hosting subpages under their own domain rather than the Hall of Fame's domain. So they've not blocked deep linking, but they have ensured that anyone following the deep link will be cut off from the main site. Given the way they've done this, I guess the original URL for what was Ref 174 (the page for Charles E. King) is OK. Sorry for the trip down the garden path. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame initially had a dedicated page for each honoree, with a direct link that didn't require jumping through hoops to access. A couple of years ago, they re-designed the website, which resulted in (IMO) a less user-friendly and less informative website. And they still change it around on occasion. So, it's the old Wikipedia bug-a-boo about the URLs changing that necessitates that bot that checks for dead links. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like what is now Ref 172 is now without any URL. I'm OK with whichever of the links you prefer (now that the confusion over the site design has been cleared up), but it does need a link since it is a web citation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 178 presents the library as if it were an author; more typically the library would be listed as publisher and no author would be given since the page is unsigned.
  • Changed to: University of Hawaii at Manoa Board of Regents (October 19, 2001). "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Regents for October 19, 2001". libweb.hawaii.edu. Retrieved September 30, 2017. Is that okay?
  • Refs 183, 185 and 188 all cite the "Hawaiian Almanac and Annual" for various years without any other publication information. How are readers supposed to know what this is, much less whether it is reliable?
  • @RL0919: These are... But my question is do we actually want to list 19 more sources into the bloated Bibliography?
  • If you really need to cite them all, then better a larger bibliography than to leave readers in the dark. But there might be alternatives. One option would be to find an alternative source that provides the information more compactly. Or perhaps an explanatory note could be crafted that explains more about where the information was sourced, but without listing the full details (much of which is repetitive) separately for each annual edition. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no sources I know of that provide this compactly. Let me know if you have any specific alternatives for the ones (The Court, Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, year–year) I have already.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the nomination continues (pending resolution of the image dispute issue below), I'll try to come up with an explanatory note and post it here for your consideration. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1875). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1875". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1875. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 12–13. hdl:10524/664.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1876). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1876". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1876. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 62–64. hdl:10524/665.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1877). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1877". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1877. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 56–59. hdl:10524/658.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1878). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1878". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1878. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 5, 34–38. hdl:10524/667.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1879). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1879". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1879. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 33–38. hdl:10524/669.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1880). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1880". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1880. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 33–38. hdl:10524/656.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1881). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1881". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1881. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 65–70. hdl:10524/23168.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1882). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1882". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1882. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 77–83. hdl:10524/23169.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1883). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1883". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1883. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 74–80. hdl:10524/657.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1884). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1884". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1884. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 76–82. hdl:10524/985.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1885). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1885". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1885. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 84–91. hdl:10524/1078.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1886). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1886". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1886. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 81–88. hdl:10524/1484.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1887). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1887". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1887. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 91–98. hdl:10524/659.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1888). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1888". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1888. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 91–99. hdl:10524/666.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1889). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1889". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1889. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 117–126. hdl:10524/655.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1890). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1890". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1890. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 117–126. hdl:10524/31851.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1891). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1891". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1891. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 161–169. hdl:10524/661.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1892). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1892". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1892. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 144–152. hdl:10524/662.
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1893). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1893". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1893. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 139–147. hdl:10524/663.


Leaving aside items questioned above, the remaining sources have a mix of academic books, journal articles, popular books, and journalistic sources (modern and historical). There are also about 30 cites to the subject's own writings. Those categories are all accepted as RS, although some should be treated with caution. Spot-checking I didn't see any uses that seemed obviously concerning. --RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the resolved issues above. Looks like only three items are still unresolved: the Rogne source, URL for Ref 172, and how best to cite the Almanac and Annual. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RL0919 I addressed Rogne and the URL issue.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now struck above. For the Annual, a possible explanatory note might read like this: "Information on her titles and styles from 1874 to 1893 is from the yearly editions of the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, all edited by Thomas G. Thrum and published by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Abbreviated citations are provided to indicate the specific editions used." I'm not hung up on the exact wording, just want some way to provide the publishing details so the abbreviated cites are meaningful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RL0919 Like this?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good. I think we can call the source review completed. --RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • For images showing more than one person, captions should do a better job of identifying which is which
  • File:Lydia_Kamakaeha.jpg: source links are dead, when/where was this first published?
    • Many of these images were uploaded from the original Digital Online Archive of the State of Hawaii. They went off line but have since returned on different servers which changed the urls but kept the content online. I will correct links and check first publication.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Liliuokalani_and_relative_(detailed).jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Kapiolani_and_Liliuokalani_at_Golden_Jubilee_(Onipaa).jpg
  • If you're going to use PD-US for these, need a pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:USS_Boston_landing_force,_1893_(PP-36-3-002).jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Same with File:Liliuokalani_entering_palace_for_trial_of_1895_(PP-98-12-010).jpg
  • Add rough note on first publication both before 1920.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aloha_oe_song_01.png should use original publication date
  • File:Liliuokalani_in_1917.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Queen_Liliuokalani_in_mourning_at_Washington_Place.gif
  • For the former, what was the author's date of death? For the latter, the source site identifies a pre-2003 publication so the unpublished tag won't apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert change on the latter. The former was published before 1923 so added link to where it was first published.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Hawaii_(Kalakaua).svg should include a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work was based on other coat of arms from modern photographs and PD publications. Those files have appropriate tags.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Addressed most of these to my knowledge. And fixed migrated (not dead) links. But based on our past FA interactions, this is all I know about these images. Most of them have been published and printed in late 19th or early 20th century books on the overthrow but they are the archival image versions of those and others are straight archival images from the Hawaii State Archives or the Queen Liliuokalani Trust (onipaa.org). I am not sure what you want on the last image, just adding a PD-US to it?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If PD US applies, sure. For the others, if you can identify a pre-1923 publication that would work. If an archival image were unpublished, you'd need to see if {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: The infobox image is iffy as a TFA image. I tested it yesterday when I nominated the DYK. Shrunk down to that size, it was hard to tell who that is. Too old and grainy; too much throne chair and official attire. Is there something we can put in the article that is more a close-up on her head and shoulders? — Maile (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cropped it a bit and swapped it in the infobox. Tell me what you think. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am against it. I can revert my change that seems to make it grainy but the reasoning for DYK and FA thumbnail size doesn't seem reasonable to replace what appears to be an official image of the Queen while ruling and has a clear publishing. I'd like to revert that for now.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I swapped it back. Per DYK rules: Wikipedia:DYKIMG "3. It must already be in the article". YES, only an image from the article can be used in DYK. The larger one also has clear publishing. And I would add that when we get to TFA, that would also be a reduced image with the same issues of how it looks. It's not just an issue of the graininess. In a reduced size, it's hard to see who that is. I understand you are the one who originally uploaded the one you want to use, but it's not workable as a reduced image for the main page. — Maile (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: stability is one of the FA criteria, and edit-warring over the image could well result in an oppose on that grounds. Sort it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. Reach a consensus on which one to use. IMO, the J. J. Williams image dates to her reign, but it doesn't work well as an infobox image. It should be incorporated in the body if it ends up being ruled out. The George Prince image was taken during her residence in DC with the queen in the formal regalia of the monarchy. It seems exactly like the one she used for her 1898 autobiography File:Liliuokalani of Hawaii.jpg, anyway we can verify this and see if Prince photographed this one as well? Maybe that is something we can find in old DC newspapers from the era...There is also not a strong argument for a set image for Liliuokalani. Looking at Google and book covers you see most people just choose which ever one they like best from the hundreds of photographs she took in her lifetime. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the majority agrees on is fine with me. I just want it to be viable as a reduced main page image. For what it's worth, the image in DYK has to be from the article, but it does not have to be from the infobox. We could put the Prince image lower in the article. However ... whatever is in the infobox is the first image readers see of her. Again ... at TFA, it's the same issue of what works on the main page. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restarting

Nikkimaria, I swapped some images that I couldn't find pre-1923 publication dates and added appropriate tags to others. Can you let me know what problems remain with the images? One of the original request I don't get was the one regarding the coat of arms, maybe you can be more direct with your suggestions there.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Haleakala_-_the_C._R._Bishop_Residence,_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_D._Howard_Hitchcock,_1899,_Bishop_Museum.JPG needs a US PD tag and a date of death for the author
  • File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Hawaii_(Kalakaua).svg should include a licensing tag on the image description page for the original design, which is presumably PD by now? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "founder of the Kamehameha Schools." Why does the reader need to know this in the lede of the article about Liliuokalani, which is a fairly long lede? You never mention this again (which makes it unsourced) Consider cutting.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you italicize hānai in the article, it probably should be in the infobox. Consider a link there on first use.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was temporarily blocked by the President Grover Cleveland." I would cut "the"
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the oligarchical government" this has the feel of editorializing. If you feel the need to point out here that the Republic got there by questionable means, suggest more subtlety.
@Wehwalt: I'm just guessing at how that terminology ended up there. The term is in the lead, but not in the article, which might be what caught your eye. Separate biographies I've been creating/expanding on other individuals from that time and place, in the sourcing I see that phrase a lot, and I think it is referring to the provisional government that was inbetween the monarchy and the Republic. I can't swear to it without re-locating sources, but I'm pretty sure "oligarchy" was the accepted term used across the board, including (if memory serves me) used by one of our US Presidents. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Here's some examples of what I was referring to.
  • Grover Cleveland, "The Provisional Government has not assumed a republican, or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council, or oligarchy, without the consent of the people"."Hawaiian Situation: The President's Message to Congress". The National Tribune. Washington D. C. December 21, 1893. p. 8, col. 4. Retrieved October 19, 2017 – via Chronicling America.
  • And in a search of only Hawaiian newspapers for the period of 1893-1898 (the life of the Provisional Government), results in 460 individual newspaper pages that are littered with the terminology (color highlighted each time).Chronicling America - Hawn newspapers.
So, to shine a little light on this. The monarchy was overthrown by 13 white businessmen, with some rabble rousing help and interference by the United States. They installed themselves in office. It was not voted on by either the populace or the legislature. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked - I have resolved this, I believe. I put the above Cleveland quote in the body of the article, with the above reference. — Maile (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the aliʻi class of Hawaiian nobility, her family were considered collateral relations of the reigning House of Kamehameha sharing common descent from the 18th-century aliʻi nui (supreme monarch) Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku." "Family" is singular, at least in AmEng. The introductory phrase is a bit confusing. Consider "Her family was of the aliʻi class of the Hawaiian nobility, collateral relations of the reigning ..."
Done — Maile (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was one of the royal twins alongside Kamanawa depicted on the Hawaiian coat of arms.[7]" the "alongside Kamanawa" causes problems in this sentence. Maybe "was depicted, along with his royal twin Kamanawa, on the Hawaiian coat of arms".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She, along with her classmates, had been formally proclaimed by Kamehameha III as eligible for the throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii.[13] Liliʻuokalani later noted that these "pupils were exclusively persons whose claims to the throne were acknowledged."[14]" so basically you're saying the same thing twice. I might cut the quote. If you want to substitute something else by L. about her schooling, that's another possibility. You really don't say anything about what the schooling was like for her, just who her classmates were.
  • Added some information enough to cover some more details. But she doesn't speak much about her schooling either since she didn't look back fondly on this part in her life. The majority of that section of her memoir is devoted to who her peers were. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The boarding school headed by the Cookes discontinued around 1850," I might suggest a "was" before "discontinued" and change "headed" to "run".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After returning from school," age or year, or possibly both, please. Also remember that the last real mention of her was in the young age group of her class, so having her come home clutching her diploma is a bit of a surprise so suddenly.
  • The last mention was when she transferred to a day school. Corrected that to reflect when she moved back with her Hanai parents. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pākī's death in 1855" Since you differentiate between the two spouses by name, is it proper to refer to "the Pākīs'," earlier?
  • I think so. As a family, they were the Pākīs. Pākī refers to Abner Pākī same as you would differentiate Lincoln, the person from the Lincoln's, the family.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but declared that if neither the King nor any high chief though proper to marry her" Note 2. Presumably "though" should be "thought".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the royal marriage" should "marriage" be "wedding"?
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Courtship" might be better placed somewhere in the following paragraph.
  • "She ultimately broke off the engagement at the urging of King Kamehameha IV and the opposition of the Bishops to the union." I would change "at" to "because of" because "at ... the opposition" reads oddly.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a staff member of Prince Lot Kapuāiwa (the future Kamehameha V) and secretary of King Kamehameha IV. " I would change the first "of" to "for" and the second to "to". I imagine that the secretary job was a personal secretary?
?? Obit for Dominis says he was "secretary and chamberlain" to Kam IV.
?? Obit 2 says "private secretary" for both Kam IV and Kam V, in addition to later being a Governor under Kam V.
— Maile (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dominis began as a staff member to Prince Lot and later as a personal secretary, aide de campe and adjutant general for Kamehameha IV. As far as I know, Dominis did not hold the position of chamberlain during the reigns of the Kamehameha's. Changed the propositions.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they had known each from childhood when he spied upon the royal children from a neighboring school next to the Cookes'." "neighboring" is redundant here. I might change "spied on" to "watched".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Rev." at baptism, you refer to the officiant as "Reverend" without the "the".
  • "her hānai sister Pauahi and her husband Charles Reed Bishop." Long intro for two people who in the last paragraph you called "the Bishops"
  • Remove, it is redundant anyway since we've introduced both figures by their full names.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Dominis's mother Mary made her disapproval apparent by not attending the ceremony. " Can you make your disapproval apparent? Either way, you're guessing.
  • These are the arguments of Helena G. Allens.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible Allen got it wrong? I don't have access to her book, but the 1862 newspaper announcement lists Mrs. Dominis as one of the guests: "Among foreigners present were Mr. J. H. Brown and Miss (unreadable) Swinton, W. A. Aldrich and lady, Mrs. Dominis ... " — Maile (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"NOTES OF THE WEEK". The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. September 18, 1862. Image 2, col. 5. Retrieved October 18, 2017 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.
  • I haven't read the passage in a while looking at it now..."Although some newspapers listed Mrs. Mary Dominis as a guest, one made the telling statement: "Mrs. Dominis, the groom's mother, waited at her home to greet her new daughter-in-law." Mary Dominis did not approve of the "kanaka" marriages. No doubt she would not have approved of anyone's marriage to her only son, but certainly not the marriage to a native, as later letters exchanged with Boston relatives reveal.2 Although written about someone else, they include the fervent wish that "he" not marry a "kanaka." ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. It was not correct anyway based on the news sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The couple moved into the Dominises' residence Washington Place in Honolulu." I think a comma after "residence"
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that "Liliuokalani" is spelled without the mark in the sections at the bottom of the article, such as her arms, and her family tree.
Done — Maile (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAVEBEAR: I took care of all that I could from Wehwalt's first list above, and have checked-signed off on each one I dealt with. But others were not details I was necessarily familiar with. So would you please have a look at those if you have time? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Can you strike the one that are sufficiently addressed, so it's easier to navigate the remaining ones? There are some I need a little more time to address like the schooling piece.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt and KAVEBEAR: I struck the ones I believed were taken care of, so that should make it easier to focus on the remaining. Remove any strikeout I put there prematurely. — Maile (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at it again later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory break 1 edit

Some more comments:

  • "Lunalilo died in 1874, also without an heir to succeed to him." I would cut all after "heir".
  • Changed to "Lunalilo died without a successor in 1874." — Maile (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "without a heir". He had a successor, it's just that no one knew for certain who it would be.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checked - changed to heir. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leleiohoku died in 1877, leaving no one to succeed him." Heir is not really an office. I might say, after the comma, "meaning the king again had no heir"
  • Changed to "Leleiohoku died without a successor in 1877" — Maile (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checked - changed to heir per item above. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wanted to be named heir to her son's right" I would cut all after "heir"
  • "the smarting of the royal ones" it's unclear what "smarting" means in this context.
  • It means smarting like the pain sensation one would have if they had a sore eye. Liliu (smarting) was one of her birth names. Her brother just used the less crude name of her birth and added -"okalani" (of the ones of heaven or royal ones) which is a common suffix for Hawaiian royal names. If it isn't clear how should that be conveyed? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the obvious synonyms really seems to help. I might just drop a footnote and explain there. Smarting's unusual as a noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to set aside land for branch hospitals at Kakaʻako." multiple hospitals?
  • Comment - This is ffy and probably should be eliminated or reworded. This is what the source says: "The next month, Princess Liliuokalani, who had been so overcome by what she had seen at Kalaupapa, assisted the president of the Board of Health, H. A. P. Carter, in procuring land at Kakaako, in Honolulu, for the establishment of “branch hospitals.” - the source has “branch hospitals.” in quotes as shown. Looking at the notes for that source, it cites: W. N. Armstrong, “Report of the President of the Board of Health to the Legislative Assembly, 1882,” Leprosy in Hawaii, 113 - I have been unable to run that report down. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maile66 and Wehwalt: There is a snippet version which is probably a compilation of multiple years. "In October last, my predecessor, Mr. Carter, succeeded with the kind co-operation of Her Royal Highness Liliuokalani, in procuring a lease of the premises at Kakaako, near Honolulu, upon which be caused to be erected buildings which should serve as branch hospitals." I am not sure if there was ever the plural "hospitals" after this point there because Kakaʻako was always referred in the singular form in later sources. What do you suggest to clarify?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect a minor shift in the English language ... Perhaps substitute "hospital purposes" for "branch hospitals"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. I reworded it a little bit and remove the plural. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were seated with the other members of the Royal Household and foreign royal guests." given that they fell into Category B, I might say "and were seated with other foreign royal guests, and with members of the Royal Household."
  • "Attempts were made to replace Kalākaua with Liliʻuokalani as queen." By whom, generally? I imagine by royalists.
  • "After unsuccessfully dissuading his departure," maybe "After failing to persuade the king to stay " or similar.
  • "hold-over" may be more common as holdover.
  • "and the 1887 constitution gave the legislature the power to vote for the dismissal of her cabinet. Seven resolutions of want of confidence were introduced during this session, and four of her self-appointed cabinets" I might cut the "self-appointed" which makes it sound illegitimate and find some other way to make it clear she had appointed them.
  • @KAVEBEAR: I am somewhat confused by the article wording. It says cabinets were ousted, but is it referring to the entire cabinets, or just which member of the cabinet was named as head of it? Checking the Kuykendall source, I'm no more clear. Article says the the Widemann, Macfarlane, Cornwell. and Wilcox cabinets were dismissed. But was there a Widemann cabinet? "The queen wrote that Noble C. O. Berger's "was the casting vote. It was decided between Mr. Parker and myself that Mr. Widemann [Berger's father-in-law] was to be a member of the next cabinet and for that reason Mr. Berger voted against the Wilcox cabinet. And so it was, for Mr. Widemann gave his consent and afterwards he withdrew."200 There is another version of this affair, which says that Berger's vote was secured by a promise that his father-in-law Judge Widemann should have the naming of the next cabinet; after the vote was cast, Widemann was offered only a place in the cabinet along with Parker, Peterson, and Colburn; he refused to go into such a combination." Etc. etc. — Maile (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maile66: The Widemann cabinet was her first chosen cabinet consisting of Widemann, Parker, Whiting and Spencer. The cabinets were named after the leading minister of the group or the one charged with setting it up; see User:KAVEBEAR/Liliuokalani#Cabinent Ministers. The Widemann cabinet was ousted after the lottery bill was introduced and replaced soon after by the ministry that Macfarlane tried to set up. It was a mess Hawaiian politics during the 1892 Legislative Session of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Widemmann refused to join the last cabinet selection before the overthrow because of the people chosen. The last cabinet was referred to as the Parker cabinet after the leading individual in the body. When cabinets were ousted it meant the entire body. The legislature had the power to introduce a resolution of want of confidence on the queen's cabinet. If this passes the chambers, it removes everyone on the cabinet not just the head. The queen could appoint people who resigned independently. The self-appointed prefix is there because it doesn't include the Cummins cabinet that was the holdover from her brother's reign. Does that explain it more better? You really have to read Kuykendall and the additional sources about this period in depth to actually understand what the hell was going on leading up to the overthrow. ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch! My brain hurts! I'm leaving this as an issue between you and Wehwalt, since you have a good grasp of what the situation was. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! — Maile (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Conflict....A major reason why the cabinets were removed many of the time was due to the queen's insistence to retain Charles Burnett Wilson as Marshal of the Kingdom despite the legislature scorn for him. The Marshal is subordinate to the Attorney General which means the queen had to find and appoint an Attorney General who would keep Wilson in office while the legislature keep demanding every new cabinet ministry to dismiss Wilson and when they didn't they tack that on to a list of grievance onto a resolution of want of confidence. It also had to do with the political divide in the houses; no party held a majority meaning many of these men were from the compromising National Reform party which was the party the queen supported personally. I don't know if the bit about Wilson should be included though. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know! It took me many weeks of reading the sources to actually understand it a little better what was going on. The reason why the cabinets are named is also to simplify the article a little so we don't have to name all the men on her cabinets.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilcox is not linked on first use, and I'd check out the other names of the cabinets.
  • Linked Cornwell, Wilcox and Macfarlane.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might move the explanation of the McKinley Tariff to the first mention.
  • @Wehwalt and KAVEBEAR: diff I did some moving and rewording around between the two sections where this information is somewhat duplicated. Please read before we sign off on what I did with this. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've omitted that the King might have been planning to go to Washington to discuss the McKinley Tariff with the ambassador.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in there, in there, and it's in the diff: "After failing to persuade the king to stay, Liliʻuokalani wrote that he and Hawaiian ambassador to the United States Henry A. P. Carter planned to discuss the tariff situation in Washington." — Maile (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. I had searched on "McKinley", silly me.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a controversial opium licensing bill" You mention this before, without the link on opium.
  • I haven't looked over the early part of the article a second time yet.
More sooner.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory break 2 edit
I've replied to one comment above. I'll give the article a second read when I'm done with the first and will apprise of any remaining issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to promulgate a new constitution that would have strengthened the power of the monarch relative to the legislature, where Euro-American business elites held disproportionate power." This seems a bit longwinded. I might say "to promulgate a new constitution to regain power for the monarchy and Native Hawaiians that had been lost under the Bayonet Constitution".
Done — Maile (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With a vote of two-thirds of the registered voters,[77]" I'm not quite sure what this means. Was there a referendum? I might also split that sentence somewhere.
It's sort of in the footnote in the sentence before it, and sourced pretty much like it's written. In Liliuokalani's own account in her book is (pp 230-231): The election of 1892 arrived, and with it the usual excitement of such occasions. Petitions poured in from every part of the Islands for a new constitution; these Hawaiians Plead for a New Constitution were addressed to myself as the reigning sovereign. They were supported by petitions addressed to the HuiKalaaina, who in turn indorsed and forwarded them to me. It was estimated by those in position to know, that out of a possible nine thousand five hundred registered voters, six thousand five hundred, or two-thirds, had signed these petitions. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, there is a lot of repetition in the first three paragraphs of this section, especially regarding the opponents and what the proposed constitution was to do. Suggest consolidation.
  • "(co-written by the Queen and two legislators Joseph Nāwahī and William Pūnohu White)" Likely should have a comma after "legislators".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The proposed lottery and opium licensing bills were controversial.[80] " It might be better to put it in the active voice and make clearer L's involvement. It hasn't been made really clear why these matters are so crucial, though you've mentioned it before. Were gambling and opium having a deleterious effect on some part of the population? Also watch the duplicate linking, you've linked them before.
  • "Committee of Safety" is linked on second use.
Moved link to first mention. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United States Government Minister" this may be a bit confusing, perhaps "the diplomatic representative of the United States," or similar? Or else cut "Government" and pipe "Minister" to Minister (diplomacy).
  • Changed to "United States Minister to Hawaii".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US Marines from the USS Boston and two companies of US sailors landed and took up positions at the US Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall. 162 sailors and Marines aboard the USS Boston in Honolulu Harbor came ashore well-armed but under orders of neutrality." These sentences say basically the same thing twice.
  • "the Provisional Government.[91][92] (break) A provisional government," Although the capitalization could be defended, putting the varying capitalization so close together looks a bit odd.
Taken care of — Maile (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the US Minister (ambassador)" well, see a few entries above. I suggest changing to "Stevens".
  • "The administration of Grover Cleveland" I might add ", who took office for a second time on March 4"
@KAVEBEAR and Wehwalt: This point is another place in the article that I feel an important piece of the narrative is missing. Author William DeWitt Alexander devoted a chapter (pp. 71-79) in his book to the provisional government sending representatives to D. C. in Feb 1893 to craft an annexation treaty, Liliuokalani protesting to President Harrison about it, and Harrison sending it to the Senate. This was in between Cleveland's two terms. Seems it might be important. What do you two think? — Maile (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was a dispute: Willis said the Queen said "beheading"; she later said she used "execute."[94][95][96]" The difference seems rather slight. Dead is dead. (Note to Wehwalt:That takes an explanation that is not in sourcing for this article. "Civilized" governments execute criminals all the time. The missionary descendants that overthrew the government believed the Hawaiians were heathens/cannibals, and not necessarily in a former time. And one of their favorite tactics was spreading fear that she was some backwards tribal woman. Word quickly spread that she had said "beheading", she was publicly denounced and called a Dyak headhunter, and other not thrilling names. That's why she changed the wording to "execute".— Maile (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Queen" proper under the circumstances, btw? She wasn't by then, legally.
  • "Cleveland sent the issue to the Congress, stating, "The Provisional Government has not assumed a republican, or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council, or oligarchy, without the consent of the people".[97] The Queen later changed her position on the issue of punishment for the conspirators, and on December 18, 1893, US Minister Willis demanded her reinstatement by the Provisional Government." My research says that Cleveland sent his special message to Congress on the Hawaiian situation on December 18, 1893, so I don't see how you justify the "later" after "Queen". There's a bit of a continuity issue here.
The President's message to Congress was separate. Minister Willis had to negotiate with Liliuokalani, and she was slow in coming around. Thus on December 18, as Cleveland's message reached the Congress, and following a final session with Willis, the queen agreed to meet the demands made upon her. By the time the queen capitulated, Willis was aware of the nature of the monarchy and of the lack of political ability, and even honesty, on the part of the queen's native advisers. He was convinced that, even if restored to the throne, the queen could not last. Thus, although his heart was not in it, Willis approached the provisional government with the president's proposition and asked immediate acceptance. As an honorable man who would do his duty, he had even thought of requesting all American citizens to withdraw from the controversy, which would have dispensed with over half of the armed forces of the provisional government. On the afternoon of December 19, the executive council was formally advised of the president's wishes. Kuykendall p. 645 — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Republic of Hawaii was recognized by the United States government as a protectorate," a protectorate of whom? Surely not the US, under Grover Cleveland?
@KAVEBEAR: Wow, this dates back a decade in this article. The source does not say this. However, this section probably needs to be reworked. Among other things, Dole appeared too far down in the section, and came across almost as a marginal figure with scant info about how he played into the story. I did some rewording Here-1. But I think we need to take a look at this whole section again, just to make sure how it all works together. — Maile (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comfortable, generally, that the citations reflect the references? I don't want to be hard, but this is one of the most important pre-statehood Hawaiian articles, and there's an extent to which I feel that some of this stuff should have been addressed pre-FAC. I don't catch everything. If I find one or two things beyond matters of style that make it seem that things have dropped between the nominators, that's par for the course, but I'm starting to feel it is a bit more than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to defer to KAVEBEAR's opinion on that. I don't know what he checked before this went to GA, and we didn't get a chance to eyeball this before it was nominated at FAC. I can only vouch for the citations that I put in, which were specific sections. Let's see what he says. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the base of Diamond Head Crater." do craters have bases? Our article on volcanic crater doesn't mention it.
Changed - It was on the beach below Diamond Head. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the former palace " I might say "of the ʻIolani Palace" and make the caption of the image in this section clearer in that regard.
  • Where was she imprisoned between January and September 1895. The image suggests it was the palace, in which case the "commutation" reads a bit oddly.
  • "in an upstairs bedroom of ʻIolani Palace, " I don't see why the link should be here.
  • "of the former ʻIolani Palace" I get what you are trying to say, but it may look odd to the reader who knows that it's still called that.

I've made some adjustments and added another source, that I hope clears up the palace wording. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she wrote her memoir Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen with the help of Julius A. Palmer Jr. and Sara Lee, as editor;" ambiguous whether there were 1 or 2 editors.
Corrected - I just rewrote the paragraph with clarifications, and an additional reference.— Maile (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it failed to pass in the United States Senate after the Kūʻē Petitions were submitted by a commission of Native Hawaiian delegates ... The petitions were used as evidence of the strong resistance of the Hawaiian community to annexation, and the treaty was defeated in the Senate. After the failure of the treaty," the treaty is mentioned as failing three times. Surely a bit of consolidation can be done.
I have rearranged some of the wording in the paragraph so that "treaty" only appears twice; also did some other slight wording rearrangement to make the paragraph clearer with regard to cause and effect of the signatures, and to the full name of the treaty "The Treaty for the Annexation of the Hawaiian Islands", as it appears to be written here. Am striking in presumption that this solves the problem, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "56th United States Congress[123]" I would think this was from the Hawaii Organic Act and would so state.
Corrected — Maile (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More soon. I'm sorry for the slow pace but it takes time.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory break 3 edit

@KAVEBEAR and Wehwalt: I've edited the Overthrow section, clarifying and filling in missing events in the flow of information. It added minimal size to the article. In doing so, I've struck out above issues that I think were also resolved when I edited the section. I can only verify the sourcing I put in to match the prose, or otherwise verify any sourcing to Kuykendall. Offline sourcing was not available to me to verify. Please feel free re-edit. As for the "beheading", that is worded different ways in different sources. I just went with Kuykendall, who reported that she was claiming the constitution called for the death penalty. Who knows if she really used the word "behead", or somebody fabricated that and it's been passed down as truth for a century. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see an assurance from the nominators as a whole that they feel that WP:V is satisfied.--20:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I can assure that the majority of the article is verifiable. All sources here are reliable. I'm really busy with work until beginning of November so I don't have time to address everything here but I will comment on them soon.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest we put this on hold until then.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the Overthrow section and added in the indigenous agency to the story such as the Committee of Law and Order bit because the overthrow is not just an event that happen between the queen and white people. Maile66 can you look over and trim any fat off the edges? What do you think is still missing? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will attend to this, as well have a second look at the other sections. @KAVEBEAR: Do you think we have too much listed under "Further reading"? It doesn't need to be an all-inclusive directory of anything and everything connected with the queen and the overthrow. — Maile (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization of "Crown Lands" or "Crown lands"? We ought to be consistent, but I'm finding inconsistency in sourcing. "Crown Lands" seems more in use. But the Organic Act says "Crown lands". Which is correct? — Maile (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt and KAVEBEAR: Still going through this, but I completely rewrote the Legacy section last month, so I can vouch for that sourcing. I pretty much wrote/rewrote the Later life and death last year, and I can vouch for the sourcing on that. KAVEBEAR and I pretty much rewrote the Crown Lands section last year, so that should be OK on sourcing. So far, the sourcing on Arrest and imprisonment looks OK, as does the sourcing on the Annexation section. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the sections on her early life, marriage, reign before overthrow, and religious belief. A good deal for the Annexation section was also rewritten with better sourcing. Sections on Arrest and imprisonment, Overthrow, Promulgating and Compositions may still need spot checks here and there, but they are fixes that can be done in the review process. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, how do you want to proceed? I like to review a fairly stable article, and I'm not in a position to check the references myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KAVEBEAR: Do you want to put this nomination aside? It does seem like we're re-working a lot, and it's not stable while we're doing it. FAC will always be there for re-nomination, no harm no foul on this. Whichever direction you want to go, I'll work on it with you. — Maile (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they are that problematic enough that they need to be rewritten wholesale and can be addressed item by item like we've been doing in the review process. Have we address most of your concerns so far? I just don't want to close it without further opinions from other reviewers.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in general, but then I have to go over the rewritten sections in more detail. Most of the sections mentioned by KAVEBEAR are ones I haven't gotten to yet. Since you don't have a ton of supports yet, there seems little harm in my suspending my review until you guys feel that subject to the usual human error, you think it's WP:V compliant.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Owen Dominis was given the title Prince Consort and restored to the Governorship of Oʻahu, which had been abolished following the Bayonet Constitution of 1887" Unclear, if it was abolished by the constitution, how was it re-established?
  • The keyword is following. The governorship were abolished by the legislative government put in power after the Bayonet Constitution. This is explained in detail on the governor pages. My question is it worth it in this article to elaborate more on the legislative acts that abolished the post in 1888 and the act that restored it in 1890 under Kalākaua's last legislative (the act didn't take into effect until 1891 when she became queen). I was trying to condense what unnecessary details.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohhhhhhhh ... I finally get it. Maybe we should just leave it as is. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likelike, husband Cleghorn and Kaʻiulani need more informtion:
  • No mention of her death. The last place she's mentioned is when Kalakaua becomes king.
  • "she named her niece Kaʻiulani as her successor" (first mention of her name) but we aren't told Likelike was her mother. Natural reader's assumption that sister Anna Kaiulani is the mother.
  • "Her sister's widower Archibald Scott Cleghorn was appointed..." - the first place he's mentioned, and is assumed - but not clear - that Likelike Cleghorn was his wife.

Recommend closing this FAC to resume at a later date edit

There is now an edit war happening in the article regarding the infobox image. There are also related issues at the DYK nomination. This is not ready for FAC. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's attempt to resolve the issue. It is a ridiculous thing to edit war about. Can I broker a compromise so things can proceed without this? Just use the original image and add the new 1898 image to a section below. We still can use either images for DYK.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR I am willing to go along with what you suggest. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if/when images are stable so I can re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added Prince's image to the article.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record here, I am withdrawing my request for an early close to this. There has been a lot of activity on this review since I posted the request, and resulting adjustments to the article. Let it play out as it will, according to however the review itself goes .— Maile (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • "Historian Ralph S. Kuykendall stated that she gave a conditional "if necessary" response; however, Liliʻuokalani's account was that she firmly turned down both men.": Why do you believe the primary source over the secondary source?
Dank I'm the editor who put that in there. I don't fully believe either, because both Liliuokalani and the source Kuykendall used had a vested interest in telling their version of history. Liliuokalani's account comes from her book. Kuykendall's account uses Lorrin A. Thurston's account, IMO just as prejudiced as Liliuokalani might have been. Thurston helped overthrow the monarchy. And Thurston was not there when the conversation took place - at best, Thurston got it second-hand. But here's Kuykendall's notes on why he reported it as he did:
"Liliuokalani, Diary, Dec. 20, 22, 23, 1887, in AH. The account of this episode by Liliuokalani in her book Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen, pp. 186-189, is obviously quite inaccurate. The account by Thurston in his Memoirs of the Hawaiian Revolution, pp. 175-179, points out some of the discrepancies between Liliuokalani's diary and her book."
— Maile (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire edit

  • Not a review, but IIRC, didn't Liliuokalani go on speaking engagements in the United States while in exile to try and drum up support for her restoration, and also made a hash of it? In the sense that the public was largely sympathetic to Liliuokalani at first, but by the end, they generally favored annexation? Basically that she was really bad at not pressing certain berserk buttons Europeans and European-Americans had about "native" governments potentially arresting and trying whites, similar to how President Cleveland was repulsed from supporting her after the original demand to try & hang the plotters (which is already in the article). To be clear, I reserve the right to be totally wrong on this, but if there was such a tour, it seems like it might be worth including in the Annexation section. SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. She was only abroad advocating against annexation for the latter part 1896 till 1898 which is mentioned in the article right now while the "hanging" comment/incident with Minister Albert S. Willis occurred in 1893 while the queen was still in the islands. Generally, I have not read any works that said the American public ever popularly favored annexation of Hawaii. There was significant opposition even in the US which is not mentioned anymore due to the historiography which glosses over the legacy of imperialism in Hawaii. Opposition to annexation was strong among Democrats (Cleveland's party and the party of the White South which didn't want a territory dominate by non-Whites to the join the Union). There is an article in Hawaiian Journal of History called “‘Aole Hoohui ia Hawaii’: U.S. Collegiate Teams Debate Annexation of Hawai‘i and Independence Prevails, 1893 to 1897” by Ronald C. Williams, Jr. which states that many in the US especially on college campuses on the West coast were against annexation. It was mainly the whites on the islands or their supporters on the mainland who were defaming the queen and the ability of natives to rule the island on their own. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for over six weeks. There has been one support but there is as yet no consensus to promote. Therefore, I think it would be better to archive now. It can be renominated after the usual two-week wait. Sarastro (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2017 [2].

Sévérine edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about a fictional character who appears in the 23rd James Bond film Skyfall (2012). Even though Sévérine has a relatively minor role in the overall film, the character was prominently featured in promotional materials and discussed during interviews. Media outlets frequently compared Sévérine to past Bond girls; Marlohe said that she looked to Xenia Onatopp as a point of inspiration for her own performance.

Critical response to Bond's treatment of Sévérine has been largely negative; commentators responded negatively to Bond's seduction of the character after discovering that she was a sex slave, and his cold response to her death. The character has also been a topic of racial criticism, receiving comparisons to previous Bond girls Aki, Kissy Suzuki, and Wai Lin.

I had written and expanded this article to the point of GA earlier in the year. I am looking forward to everyone’s comments and suggestions. If successful, this would be the first featured article on a character from the James Bond films. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Wondering if we need to have two non-free images here - seems to me the second would be sufficient to illustrate the character and her wardrobe. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for your message. The first image (the infobox one) focuses more so on the character while the second one (the one on the dress) more so focuses on a particular aspect of the character's wardrobe that attracted quite a bit of attention from media outlets. I understand your point though; what would you suggest? Do you think that the dress image should be moved up to the infobox? I just found it helpful to have the dress image next to the information that discusses it. Hope this makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'd suggest moving up the dress image and deleting the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the dress image up and deleted the other image per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 edit

It looks well written. I'm not experienced with film characters but I wonder if you could balance the lead section because the first one feels too small. Imagine like if you are writing a formal letter and write a premise of her role in the film rather than everything from her arc in the lead. Feel free to ping me. I think it's good FA material. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comment. I have worked to try to balance out the different paragraphs more. I also want each paragraph to stand for a different section, with the first being about the character in the film, the second about the production/casting/background, and the third about the reception. Hope the changes help to improve this and thank you again for the input. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Giving it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment edit

Can you explain your approach towards the inclusion of retrieval dates in your references? You include them in refs 2 and 39, but not otherwise. I can't see why this should be so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for your comment. I had forgotten to remove the retrieval dates from those two sources so I apologize for that. I have removed them now. Please let me know if anything else can be improved. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I was rather expecting that you would add retrieval dates to the others, rather than deleting those you had. What's the justification? Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for your comment. To the best of my knowledge, retrieval dates are only added and kept if the reference is not archived in some manner. I have been told in previous reviews that the retrieval date is useful when the link dies as it provides a date in which the site was active and lets you go back into a website archive to restore it. I have also been told in previous reviews that adding three dates (the date of the source's publication, retrieval date, and archive date) leads to a lot of unnecessary numbers in the references section. Hope this makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense, but is it best accepted practice? I see that the current FAC's Kate Winslet, Lady Gaga and The Carpenters all show archive + retrieval dates, as does the recently promoted DJ AM and... well, most of the articles I remember source-reviewing recently. However, I see that with your own Melanie Barnett I accepted your approach without comment. If no one else raises this issue I won't press it, but in future it may be worth your while to adopt what seems to be the most general FA practice. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for your comment. I think that it would be best if there was a discussion in the future to establish what the accepted FA practice should be as just going off other articles or doing what one thinks is "the most general FA practice" is too vague and could lead to issues. It would be better to have it put into a Wikipedia policy of some sort instead and have a consensus reached by a larger group of users. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV edit

  • Re: "Waste of good Whiskey", he actually says "it's a waste of good Scotch."
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't clear what "the most realized sequence of the movie" means. The archived link to that article doesn't work for me, by the way; it shows the article then disappears. Also, when using that template, you should add "url-status=live" if the original link is live, so that the live link is presented first. That produces:
Berlatsky, Noah (November 12, 2012). "James Bond's New, Not-So-Progressive Mommy Complex". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on May 2, 2017.
SarahSV (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I have used the citation that you have provided. I have also revised the portion you found unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: Thank you for your comments so far. I have addressed both of your points of concern. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Hope you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You changed only one template. The template default is "url-status=dead", so all the citations with live links need "url-status=live" to change the display order (that's assuming you want to provide an archive link; it isn't necessary). Compare:
SarahSV (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: Thank you for pointing this. I am not sure how I missed that so I apologize for that. Please let me know if there are any sources that I missed. Have a great day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47, there are a few problems with the citations, so please go through them and check for accuracy and consistency. Two examples (these are only examples): current citation 15 (Den of Geek) is displaying as dead but it's live, and citation 16 (Evening Standard) has the wrong article title, and why is George Osborne, the newspaper's editor, added as the publisher in that citation? With newspapers, you only have to add the title of the newspaper. You don't need publisher, editor or anything else, unless perhaps it's an unusual title and people need more details to track it down. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: Thank you for your comment. I have gone through all of the citations and made corrections where appropriate. I have tagged a few sources as dead as the link no longer works on my end. I have address the issue with publisher. I just wanted to be complete as possible with the citation, but I understand what you mean and will make sure to modify my citation style and approach in the future to adhere to Wikipedia policy and style. I have also made sure that the titles match up. I am glad that I checked as I made quite a few silly mistakes so it definitely improved the article a great deal. Aoba47 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One problem with the article is that it repeats a lot of PR interviews, often nothing to do with the character. For example (these are just examples), "Mendes said that Marlohe was 'brilliant' during her second audition" and "Marlohe called the role a 'turning point in [her] career'." There is a lot of quoting, "A said x", rather than summarizing the sources in your own words. SarahSV (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: I have cut down several of the quotes. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that it has "nothing to do with the character" as the casting and the actress' point of view are important pieces of background information that would be necessary for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Sarah, do you have anything further to add? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, I have no interest in opposing or continuing with the review, so it might be better to ask for more reviewers on WT:FAC. As I said above, I think there's too much quoting and in-text attribution (A said X, B said Y), too much about the actress, several sentences don't really say much, if anything (e.g. what does it mean to say "she created a deep background for the more minor role"?), and some of it isn't that clear. For an example of the last point, see the first paragraph of the section "Arc" (and "coerce any answers" should be fixed):

Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe) first encounters James Bond (Daniel Craig) while on an assignment in Shanghai. She helps the mercenary Patrice (Ola Rapace) assassinate an art dealer by leading the target in front of a window. Bond confronts Patrice about his affiliations, but is unable to coerce any answers before the assassin falls out of a window to his death. Sévérine and Bond exchange a glance before she leaves the room. Bond takes the payment intended for Patrice, a token for a casino in Macau.

The same paragraph on Wikia is clearer:

James Bond first sees Sévérine assisting Patrice in an art dealer's assassination. Sévérine is in an apartment across from Patrice, and she leads the dealer to a large window allowing Patrice a clear shot. After Patrice kills the dealer, Bond successfully disarms him and demands to know who he is working for. Patrice remains silent and falls out of the building to his death. Sévérine, now alone in the apartment, witnesses this, and after a sinister glance towards Bond she leaves to re-join her guards. Searching through Patrice's briefcase, Bond finds anonymous payment in the form of a chip from a casino in Macau. Bond decides to visit the casino and cash the chip, knowing this will attract attention and bring him closer to Patrice's employer.

SarahSV (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: Thank you for your comments. I will try to get to them by the end of the night. I honestly find it a little rude and condescending to put remarks and then not follow through with the review because you do not have an "interest". However, I will put aside my personal issues with your attitude, and I will still attempt to address your points. I also do not see how the Wikia summary is particularly clearer than mine. Aoba47 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if that comes across as rude. We've had discussions recently about the difficulty of opposing and sometimes being expected effectively to help rewrite some of the candidates. It's a problem of FAC having become too much like the peer-review process, rather than a final review. I've therefore decided not to oppose if I think that might happen. It isn't a personal issue or related to this article in particular, and I wouldn't have commented again had Sarastro not pinged me. SarahSV (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: Thank you for your response. I think we just disagree with the expectations for the FAC process; I just respectfully disagree with you on this matter, which is not necessarily a negative thing. I will try to address some of the concerns as I do want to improve the article as much as possible at the end of the day. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand on my previous comment, I do not see how the Wikia summary is better when large portions of it are not about Severine ( After Patrice kills the dealer, Bond successfully disarms him and demands to know who he is working for. Patrice remains silent and falls out of the building to his death.) and the phrase (a sinister glance) is rather silly. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Lead

  • Portrayed by Bérénice Marlohe - play is more preferable.
  • She collaborates with James Bond - might be worth mentioning who plays Bond in Skyfall.
  • Media commentators characterized Sévérine as a femme fatale - as femme fatale is French (non-English), it should be in italics.
  • I am not entirely certain about this. In my opinion, the word "femme fatale" has entered into English enough for it to be understood by an English audience so I do not believe that the italics are necessary. However, if you strongly believe otherwise, then I will put it in italics. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is common enough in English. However, we still italicize it (at least I have seen nee in italics in many articles) and so does the article we have on it on Wikipedia. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics had a mixed response to Sévérine, comparing her to previous Bond girls. The response to Bond's treatment of Sévérine was largely negative; commentators panned Bond's seduction of the character after discovering that she was a sex slave, and his cold response to her death. - close repetition of "response".

Arc

  • As I intend to watch Skyfall in the future, I am going to skip this section to avoid spoilers.
  • Hope you enjoy the film! Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casting and influences

  • The others include: Carole Bouquet, Claudine Auger, Sophie Marceau, and Eva Green. - this is better off as a footnote.
  • Good point! I always forget about footnotes on here so thank you for the reminder. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A strong believer in fate, Marlohe stated that she dreamt of acting alongside Javier Bardem six months before her Bond audition - not a fan of dream of, maybe wanted to act alongside?
  • Agreed, "dream of" is a little too cheesy for a Wikipedia article so I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because that part stood out when I first read it a few months ago, I read up a little further on it. Marlohe literally had a dream where she acted alongside Bardem, it wasn't just a wish to work with him. That's why it ties into the whole fate aspect. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your point. I have changed it back to include the "dream" verbage as it does more accurately reflect the source. Thank you for bringing this up. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To prepare for the role, she studied the script closely - do we really need this part? Isn't that true of most professional actors?
  • That is true. I just added it as the source made a particular point of it, but I agree with you. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While preparing for the role, Marlohe also paid close attention to the soundtracks of the earlier films, saying that she focused on "respecting the spirit of the James Bond movies" - while this also works where it currently is, I think it will work better at the second paragraph of Casting and influences, where we discuss her preparation for the role.

More later. FrB.TG (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Makes sense to me. I agree with your suggestion that it fits more so more with the second paragraph and I have moved it accordingly. Thank you for your comments so far and I look forward to the rest of your review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characterization

  • explaining that she aimed to imagine the character as more modern and realistic; she explained - two explain's
  • She went to say that she did not - went on to is completely unnecessary here. Just said should suffice, I believe.

Fashion

  • The backless evening gown that Sévérine is wearing - present simple should be more preferable. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "Marlohe attributed to keeping her a character's storyline a surprise for viewers" - "her character" not "her a character" unless I am missing something.
  • "Ali Gray of Theshiznit.co.uk referred to the character as a "pale reminder of 007's usual line of gorgeous yet meaningless female companions".[24]" - the source attached to it from a Mikhail Lecaros. Also, why is this Theshiznit.co.uk source reliable?
  • Good point. I have removed the source as I could not locate any information on their editors on the main website. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist criticism

  • "The critical response to Sévérine's death sequence was primarily negative" - unnecessary definite article.

Racial criticism

  • "Sévérine was characterized as the Asian Other through the black evening gown" - I am not sure here but does Other need to be capitalized?
  • Revised. I have it revised as a reference to the linked concept, but I understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me although it would certainly not bad if a fresh pair of eyes provides another in-depth review. That said, I will support this once why my minor comments are addressed. FrB.TG (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your review. I believe that I addressed everything. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article's quality. I hope you have a wonderful day! And since this nomination is still pretty recent, there is plenty of time for more people to review it hopefully. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I’m sure it’ll improve more with more reviews, but as it currently stands it makes for an good read. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moise edit

Lead:

  • “Critics had a mixed response to Sévérine, comparing her to previous Bond girls.“ I’m not sure what the second half of this sentence means here. Possibly “compared with previous Bond girls” (?) but even then it doesn’t seem like the clearest thing to say.” Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have revised the sentence to read better. What I was trying to communicate was that critics have both positively and negatively compared the character to previous Bond girls in the franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• “The character has also been a topic of racial criticism, receiving comparisons to previous Bond girls Aki, Kissy Suzuki, and Wai Lin.” I would argue that in the lead more important than who she was compared to would be what kind of racial criticisms commentators had mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Makes sense. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casting and influences:

  • “Mendes praised Marlohe during her second audition.” Doesn’t seem very useful or illuminating as is. Presumably Mendes would have been happy with her audition or he wouldn’t have cast her, so just saying he “praised” her doesn’t do much. I haven’t read the source but I recommend either removing the sentence or add to it to highlight the particular aspects of her audition that impressed Mendes. Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the sentence as it is rather silly. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marlohe also paid close attention to the soundtracks of the earlier films, saying that she focused on "respecting the spirit of the James Bond movies". " I'm not sure what this sentence means. She listened to the music of the earlier films and that affected her acting decisions?
  • Revised it to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with your edit, I’m not sure what this means in concrete terms. I haven’t read the source but, for example, if it said something like that she used the mysteriouness/aggression/sexiness/whatever of the music to help her get into character, that is something I could understand more clearly. Moisejp (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point. She did not specify a certain element (i.e. "mysteriouness/aggression/sexiness/whatever") of it necessarily, other than she listened to the soundtrack to get a better handle of the overall tone/spirit of the franchise. Here is the quote from the article about it: (Marlohe immersed herself in the past Bond films, honing in on the diverse musicality of the series. “The music helped me understand the spirit, so I can give my contribution, building my character in the best way, respecting the spirit of the James Bond movies.”). I apologize for asking this, but do you have any suggestions for this? Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph seems to jump around and has no clear cohesiveness about its overall topic. It talks about her dream she'd get the part, then practicing firearms for the part, then about her listening to music of earlier films, then about how the film led to other career opportunities. I might suggest considering breaking up the para and moving each sentence somewhere more appropriate. Possible ideas:
  • The first sentence of paragraph two could be put at the end of the paragraph one.
  • I have moved to the first paragraph, but I put it before the sentence on the two auditions to hopefully make some sort of flow. Please let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence, while interesting, may not clearly belong in the Casting and influences section. Maybe it better belongs in the Skyfall main article?
  • Good point, and it is also a pretty minor point that does not really connect with anything. Also, since the character never used firearms on the show, I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third sentence, if you can get it to work more clearly, could go in the final (currently third) paragraph.
  • Moved to the third paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth sentence could go at the end of the first para. In this way, you would have paragraph 1 about "casting" and paragraph 2 about "influences". Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to the first paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characterization:

  • “When asked to define the traits of a Bond girl, she perceived the role as "a powerful woman with a kind of male charisma and male power" and a "bit of animality”.” I’d argue “perceived” is a little awkward here because it suggests a longer-lasting verb, whereas “When asked” suggests something prompted at a specific moment in time. Moisejp (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m not saying you should necessarily remove it but just saying I found the part a bit pretentious and unconvincing where she says she wanted to portray more than just a Bond girl but a real human being. I found myself thinking, “Don’t all actors normally strive to bring depth to their characterization? Don’t all actors want to feel like their performance is multidimensional? Don’t talk about it, just do the performance and let it speak for itself.” That’s my reaction to that part of the article, which mentions “human being” three times. I feel it would be a little more engaging if that component was reduced even slightly. But if you argue that that’s not a reaction to the article (but rather to what she says), and you’re just reporting what she says, then I’d say ok, don’t change it. Moisejp (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point, and I completely agree with your reasoning. I have revised the portion. I have removed the first "human being" quote as it is a rather silly inclusion and I wanted the sentence to focus on her inspiration from the "chimera". I kept the second "human being" quote primarily for how she talks about the "Bond girl" concept, which I find interesting and noteworthy enough for inclusion. Let me know what you think. Hopefully, I made it better. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • “while Yahoo!'s Frank DiGiacomo regarded the character as complicated”. Again, I’m not sure that just “complicated” is very useful or illuminating information for the reader. Moisejp (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. I have removed the part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Sévérine has a titular instrumental track on the film's soundtrack,[18] which is a "string-drenched" piece playing during her sex scene with Bond.[19] To pass China's censorship laws, references to prostitution were removed from the subtitles. Sévérine's tattoo was changed from a symbol of a Chinese sex trafficking operation to that of a gang.” With more information about the specific character of the track than just “string-drenched”, the first sentence could arguably be considered to be about characterization. But I don’t know that the second sentence belongs here. Maybe it could be moved to a footnote where the tattoo is first mentioned? Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me. I have moved the tattoo bit to a footnote (I really should use footnotes more in the future). I have removed the sentence on the soundtrack, as I cannot locate the "string-drenched" quote again for some reason and I cannot locate any further information on the soundtrack piece. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba. I apologize I’ve been really busy but plan to get back to this review ASAP. One thing, though, is I think you may have missed seeing this comment [[3]]. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries. Take as much time as you need. I greatly appreciate all of your help during this review. You have helped to improve the article a great deal already. I have replied to your above comment, and I apologize for missing it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, continuing with the Characterization section, I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh, but I feel it is the weakest section of the article. Maybe this ties in a bit with the comments that SarahSV made above, particularly about "sentences [that] don't really say much, if anything." The level of analysis that the different citations give is in some cases a little shallow. I'm obviously not proposing that everything needs to be removed, but perhaps if you weeded out some of the least satisfying citations—and where information is available if you developed more some of the points—the overall average for the section would improve. Going through this section:

  • The first paragraph, including the points about the chimera, seems overall relatively decent. It's a bit contradictory that on one hand she agrees to define Bond girls (implying that her character is one), but right after she distances her character from the category. And I still think it makes her sound a little pretentious and not very smart that she emphasizes she wants her characterization to portray "a real human being". But overall, this paragraph works well enough for me, and I wouldn't insist that it be changed.
  • The second paragraph, however, jumps around from one quote to the next without any unity, and without the individual quotes telling us of anything of substance.
  • She's a "femme-fatale" and a "anti-heroine"—maybe if these were developed on, they would be meaningful, but just by themselves, I don't think they are.
  • "mix of good and evil, strong and vulnerable, aloof and up for some intimacy with the ever-seductive 007": Again, feels like shallow analysis. It doesn't tell us much that we can sink our teeth into to try to understand the character a bit.
  • "set of morals comparable to Bond": This could be something if it was developed more, with specifics, for example.
  • "personality as a combination of sex appeal, deception, and fear": Again, sorry, this seems not deep enough or meaningful without more development. And can we say "fear" is a really a component of personality? I'm not even totally sure we can say "sex appeal" and "deception" are truly components of personality. Somebody being "deceptive" and "confident of their sexuality" could be.
  • The last sentence in the paragraph is not even really about characterization in terms of character traits or personality. It's about the role she plays in the story, which might fit better in a plot analysis.
  • When I originally constructed this paragraph, I had envisioned it revolving around the character's representation as an anti-heroine and a femme fatale. Since it was not successful, I decided to just remove a lot of the information at this point. I personally found the information interesting, but since a majority of the people on here disagree, I just removed the entire second paragraph and moved the last sentence to a part of the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph "She also thought more critically about Sévérine's relationship with Silva, saying: "I just built everything with my imagination, and that is very exciting, too, because there's room for accidents on set." " makes Marlohe sound like not somebody one would take seriously, in my view. She talks about using her "imagination". That's what actors do, they use their imagination. She comes across as a silly actress who needs to tell everyone how she "uses her imagination" to play "real human beings". Maybe if in your sources there are other quotations that portray her in a better light, it could be an idea to replace them.
  • I find that an odd interpretation of the quote to be honest (there are plenty of male and female actors that talk about similar ideas), but I have decided to remove the sentence given your advice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GMA Network's Mikhail Lecaros wrote that Marlohe approached the character with a "bemused cynicism" ": Like the other media quotations above, this needs to be developed more.
  • Could you tell me in this section what your concept is for presenting the various points in a unified, coherent progression. As I mentioned above, the points seem to jump around a bit aimlessly (but maybe I just missed the progression you were aiming for). I would like to suggest that if you have any doubt about the unity and progression of the ideas, consider looking for which points could go together to improve the cohesiveness of the narrative. Moisejp (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just decided to remove a lot of the sentences since a majority of the reviewers on here took issue with it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jaguar edit

Just read through the article. I've arrived late to the FAC and thus can't raise any issues as I couldn't find any. Although I do think it might be a good idea to link Macau in its first mention (for accessibility's sake), but other than that the prose is of an excellent standard and I couldn't find any issues with the sourcing either, so I'll go ahead and support this. If a source review hasn't already been performed I could go ahead and spotcheck the sources? JAGUAR  19:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comment and your support. I have added the link for Macau as suggested. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Withdrawal/Archive edit

First, I would like to thank everyone that helped me with this and provided comments, but I would like to withdraw this nomination at this point. Could either @Sarastro1: or @Ian Rose: please archive this? I know that everyone has been trying to help, but it is very disheartening to see a significant amount of negative criticism given to my approach to the article. I know that I should not take it personally, but it still stings given the amount of time and energy I put into my articles without getting much in the way of real approval. I am no longer proud of this article (or really a majority of my work) and I just want to take a break from the FAC process and this site as a whole for a while. I just do not find working on this site in my spare time fun or meaningful anymore, especially since I am not really a good editor or contributor. Thank you again everyone, but I just want this nomination to be done at this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, I'll action your withdrawal request. FTR, I don't think anyone is questioning your editing talents in general -- the FAs to your credit did not happen by luck -- so I hope it won't be long before we see you here again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2017 [4].

Real Madrid C.F. edit

Nominator(s): DD2009 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a comprehensive synopsis of the history and structure of Real Madrid C.F., one of the most successful and valuable sports clubs in Spain and in the world. --DD2009 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comment edit

Drive-by nomination by a brand new editor with no edit history on this or any other article that I can find. See this note. I very much doubt that the main editors intended this nomination without some very careful preparation and prior review. The article had eight failed FACs between September 2007 and March 2009; it was awarded GA on fourth submission in August 2008. Of its numerous peer reviews, the most recent was in August 2011 when the wordcount was 4,636, since when it has now almost doubled, to 8,029. I believe the nomination should be withdrawn as out of process. Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, suggest withdrawal – I agree with Brian about the nom being out of process, as the nominator has never edited the article. At the last FAC, I noted that a large percentage of the sourcing was to the club's official website. The percentage of references to the team's site has probably gone down as there are seemingly more cites than before, but the site is still heavily used in the history section. Some recentism has crept in since the last FAC; the last four years of Real Madrid's history have a much larger section than the first 40, which may be responsible for most of the increase in word count. Also, there are a couple areas that could use references towards the end. If somebody could fix the recentism and improve the sourcing in the history section, this article would have a chance to pass in the future, as it's far from the worst I've seen here. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the necessary cleanup will be done in time to salvage this FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2017 [5].

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars edit

Nominator(s): Seiya (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important event in history. It was sent to copy editing and peer reviews, all of which are closed and archived. It has been modified and improved according to suggestions and hopefully it is now time to justify its nominations. I hope you will consider the article and address any eventual problems so that they can be corrected and improved. Seiya (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Maps, charts, and the symbol image should all be scaled up
  • File:Lavrenty_Beria.jpg needs more information to verify the given licensing tag
  • File:Crimean_nations_18-21_centuries_EST.svg needs a source for the data presented
  • File:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars_symbol_71.jpg: who created this symbol? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who created the symbol, the image has no source at the Wikimedia Commons.--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What size should the maps and charts be? 300px?--Seiya (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They should generally be scaled, not set to a fixed px size. See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done – The images have been scaled up. --Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

All sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability. As this is evidently the nominator's first FAC I have carried out spotchecks on the online sources:

  • Ref 13 (Banerji). The sentence cited to this source reads "The Crimean Council even organized mass massacres of Russian in Crimea, which killed tens of thousands". I can't find any similar informatioin in the source. (Incidentally, "mass" massacre is tautologous - a massacre means killing on a large scale.)
  • Done – Corrected.--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 28, 36, 46, 55, 63, 64 (Pohl 2000). I have a problem here. The Pohl 2000 source is unpaginated, yet all of these citations provide page references. Ref 36 cites page 1, so I checked the beginning of the source article to see whether any of the multiple details cited to p.1 in your text: "...a total of 8,995 former soldiers of the Red Army of Crimean Tatar descent were registered in special settlements. Among these veterans, there were 534 officers, 1,392 commanders, and 7,079 soldiers. There were also 742 members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and 1,225 members of Komsomol" appear in the source. The figures are all there, but well beyond what might be considered "p.1". You need to reconsider the pagings of all these references. Also, your wording "1,392 commanders" should read "1,392 sergeants".
Yes, I have found a PDF version of the report, with pages on it. Hope this helps [6].--Seiya (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done –
  • I checked a number of other sources and found that they supported what's in the article, with no evidence of close paraphrasing.
  • There are several formatting issues:
  • citations to page ranges should show "pp." not "p."
  • Done –
  • A number of citations (nos 13, 19, 76, 78, 81 and others) include an apersand sign. What is it's purpose? The sign indicates the word "and".
  • Done –
  • Ref 58 has an mdash in its page range
  • Done –
  • In the list of books, consistency is required over whether publisher locations are included. Should be all or none.
  • Done –
  • isbn formats should be consistent. The 13-digit format should be used; you can convert 10-digit to 13-digit using this
Which isbn formats are not consistent?--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done – Never mind, I converted them all to 13-digit isbn numbers.--Seiya (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The isbn for Polian is subdivided while the others are not. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done –
  • The Al-jezeera source is lacking a retrieval date
  • Done –
  • Italicization of sources: again you need to be consistent. Generally, we italicize if the source of origin is printed, e.g. a newspaper or journal. This you have done in the case of KyivPost but not with Time or NYT
  • Done –
  • Some of your online sources lack publisher details, and in some cases the publisher is being treated as the author.
You need to clarify. Which ones?--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pohl 2000 shows no publisher. You should add "Self-published" in the publisher field. BBC News is the publisher, not the author, of the "Crimean Tatars recall mass exile" report; the website address is not the publisher Likewise, "International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam", "Radio Free Europe", "Reuters", "Ukrainian Congress Committee of America" and "UN News Centre" are all publishers. You are not required to provide an author for each source, but you are required to state the publisher. Thus, the proper format for the BBC News source above is: "Crimean Tatars recall mass exile". BBC News. 18 May 2004. Retrieved 4 August 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)". The others should be reformatted accordingly.Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done –

Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl edit

Lede edit
  • "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar Qırımtatar sürgünligi; Russian Депортация крымских татар; Ukrainian Депортація кримських татар) refers to the ethnic cleansing of at least 191,044 Tatars from Crimea on 18 May 1944 carried out by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police, under the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin." Quite a lengthy opening sentence. How about cutting it in two? Thus, "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar Qırımtatar sürgünligi; Russian Депортация крымских татар; Ukrainian Депортація кримських татар) refers to the ethnic cleansing of at least 191,044 Tatars from Crimea on 18 May 1944. It was carried out by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police, under the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin."? Much cleaner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worth mentioning at that very early point that Crimea was in the Soviet Union; perhaps "Tatars from Crimea, in the southern Soviet Union", on 18 May 1944" or something like that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, should we be giving the specific date "18 May" here? Surely the deportations took a longer period of time; would it not be best to simply state "May"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lede, we link "Communists" to Communism; a better link might perhaps be Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we link "Communists", then it is probably best to link Red Army too. Then remove the later link to Red Army that appears nearer the end of the first paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to modern-day Uzbekistan" - why not just to "to Uzbeskistan", and then link to "Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic"? Also, perhaps make it clear that Uzbekistan was part of the Soviet Union at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present two-paragraph structure to the lede is perhaps a little dense for many readers. Have you considered splitting it into a three or four paragraph structure? That way we ease the reader in a little more gently, rather than bombarding them with lengthy chunks of prose from the get-go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would die in later years" - "died in later years"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stalin's regime" - minor point, but "government" or "administration" might be more neutral here. The term "regime" tends to have slightly negative connotations in the English language, and while I can fully appreciate why many people might think that perfectly acceptable when discussing Stalin's USSR, it's probably best that we try to keep our wording as neutral as possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was forbidden to even mention that nation in the files of the USSR" - cut the "even", it comes across as being a tad sensationalist or melodramatic. Maybe we could also reword "that nation in the files of the USSR", which is a little clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "condemned Stalin's crimes" - Not particularly neutral wording. Perhaps "Stalin's actions" or "Stalin's policies"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "given permission to return to their homeland" - "permitted to return to Crimea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "issued a declaration on 14 November 1989" - "declared on 14 November 1989". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deportations of people during the Stalin era had been a criminal act" - scrap "of people"; it is extraneous and self-evident in this context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some further instances of sensationalistic and slightly melodramatic language in the second paragraph of the lede. "Even though the local authorities did not help the Tatars to return"... "The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, never paid reparations to the Crimean Tatars". It feels a little like the prose deliberately seeks to portray the Russian and Crimean governments in a bad light and that gives me concerns about neutrality. Thankfully, a tidy up of the wording should deal with the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than "Even though the local authorities did not help the Tatars to return and did not compensate them for their lost land, by 2004 the Crimean Tatars had experienced a fragile revival, comprising 12% of the Crimean population. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, never paid reparations to the Crimean Tatars, nor did it compensate then for their lost property. Also, it never filed any charges or legal proceedings against the perpetrators of this forcible resettlement." we could go for something like: "By 2004, sufficient numbers of Tatars had returned to Crimea that they comprised 12% of the peninsula's population. Local authorities did not assist their return or compensate them for lost land. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, did not provide reparations, compensate those deported for lost property, or file legal proceedings against the perpetrators of the forced resettlement." This wording gives the reader the same information as before but (I hope) avoids any loaded or emotional language. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars was a crucial event in the history of that nation" - "that nation" being Crimea or the Crimean Tatars themselves? I think it needs to be made a bit clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A rally in Taras Shevchenko Park in Kiev, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 2014" - this reads a little as if it is referring to the deportation having taken place in 2014. Perhaps move "in 2014" to just after "in Kiev"; that should solve the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done---Seiya (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background edit
  • "for centuries, from 1441 to 1783" - scrap "for centuries"; it is superfluous given that the dates are provided directly after. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who were used for slave trade" - "used in the slave trade" would perhaps be a better wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thus extremely averse to the new Russian rule. Thus, the " - "thus... Thus" is a bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three sentences in a row end with "Ottoman Empire". Bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland" - using the term "homeland" might not be terribly neutral given the emotional resonance it carries. Perhaps "Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in Crimea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1783, they had comprised 98% of the population,[5] but by 1897, they comprised only 34.1% of the population" - the prose here is a little repetitive. How about "in 1783, they comprised 98% of the population,[5] but by 1897, this was down to 34.1%." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the same time, Moscow was carrying out the Russification of that area, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic nations. This Russification continued even during the Soviet era" - Avoid using the name of a capital city as a synonym for a government. While certainly used in some prose sources, it is not terribly specific and should be avoided at Wikipedia. Avoid the term "nation", which can be quite loaded and has a lot of baggage stemming from the Soviet period, with the more neutral "ethnic group". Also, terms like "even" again reflect a level of sensationalism within the prose. How about "While Crimean Tatars were emigrating, the Russian government encouraged Russification of the peninsula, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic ethnic groups; this Russification continued during the Soviet era". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1941 the Nazis invaded Eastern Europe" - better to say "In 1941, Nazi Germany invaded Eastern Europe" as most of the troops in the Wermacht were not actual members of the Nazi Party itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

Cant read the sources. Needs a c/e, the language slips into informality at places, which leads me to worry about those sources. The lead image is a dreadful choice. Needs work. Reading through. Ceoil (talk)

Hiatus edit

It's been a whole month since the last attempt at a FA review of this article was made. What happened? Why isn't this progressing further? Why did the users stop half-way through? User:Midnightblueowl, User:Ceoil, User:Brianboulton.--Seiya (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself, but for me it was the sheer mass of prose problems that prove an impediment. There has been a lot of good work on this article, particularly in attaining academic sources, but it reads very much like the writing of a non-native English speaker. I doubt that it will pass FAC at this juncture, and think that WP:Peer review will be the next best step for the article so that the prose can be tightened and it can be returned to FAC in future; next time, hopefully, with success. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either do the review or don't. You are just randomly mentioning "prose problems" without any clarification, which is useless. What sentences are problematic? Give a clear anwser and they will be corrected. And by the way, a little tip: before posting that an article should be sent for a peer review, you should actually do some research or simply read the first sentence where it was already mentioned that the article was already sent for a peer review before it was nominated here. [7] --Seiya (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The table in this article doesn't appear to comply with MOS:DTT. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What exactly is wrong with it?--Seiya (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to mark the scope for the header cells. Look for the word "scope" in this edit. It needs that kind of markup. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Seiya (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • Oppose at this time on prose. Samples only, in just one short section, Modern views and legacy:
  • "historian Peter J. Potichnyj assumes that the dissatisfaction": We don't present what historians are assuming, we present their conclusions and sometimes their opinions. Perhaps a different word was meant.
    • Done
  • "the Central Asia": Central Asia
    • Done
  • "Sokil symbolically took the fate of Crimean Tatars as an example of the nations who were denied this recognition": "symbolically" contradicts "example"; I'm guessing the fix here is to delete "symbolically".
    • Done
  • "which represented a symbolic victory of their efforts to return to their native land": "symbolically" misused again here; they were actually returning, not symbolically returning.
    • It does not say "symbolically returning" at all, please focus. Mr. Williams clearly writes: "In many ways, this migration was a symbolic victory..." [8], which means your comment is overruled.
  • "Not one of the ten nations who were deported": I haven't read all the comments above, but MBO was right to mention that "nations" is wrong in this context.
    • Done. Replaced "nations" with "nationality" to avoid confusion.
  • "Certain Crimean Tatar groups": "Certain" is overly mysterious here. "Some Crimean Tatar groups".
    • Done
  • "finance the rehabilitation": "the" is wrong, and I have no idea what "rehabilitation" means here; it's the wrong word.
    • Yes, if only there was some sort of an Internet dictionary or encyclopedia where one can look up such a term... But just to help you learn a few things, read the context of the 1991 Human Rights Watch report (source in the article) which uses the word extensively:
"The Germans also charge that, despite pro forma rehabilitation, the failure of the regime to state loudly to the Soviet public their innocence of the crimes charged under Stalin exposes them to continuing social abuse. (p. 3)"
"Second, the central government should insure that the Soviet public is better informed about the guiltlessness of these peoples... The fact is that the "rehabilitations" took place with minimal publicity, announced only in obscure official journals without mass readership. (p. 5)"
"Koreans became eligible for military service after the end of World War II, but only after Stalin's death in 1953 were the other restrictions abated. The Koreans were not mentioned among deported peoples in Khrushchev's 1956 Congress speech. A landmark in their rehabilitation was an October anniversary speech by Yuri Andropov after his accession as Party General Secretary in 1982, in which he made public mention of them as one of the nationalities now living with equal rights " (p. 28)
"Undaunted, the Tatars in June, 1957 sent a 6000-signature-petition to the Supreme Soviet demanding rehabilitation and return to the Crimea, the first of a series of petitions with a growing number of signatures." (p. 37)
"In most respects the process of rehabilitating the Ingush was parallel to that for the Chechens, except for the significant problem that when the Chechen-Ingush republic was reconstituted, the Ingush lands ceded to North Ossetia were not returned. After they were freed from exile, the Ingush pressed ever more insistently for return of their ancestral territory." (p. 48)
"Of all the deported nationalities treated in this report, the Kalmyks may be said to have perhaps the most trouble-free existence since their rehabilitation after Stalin's death, but that is only relative: they suffered severe hardships during the period of deportation and exile, and have never received compensation from the state. " (p. 61)
  • "financial compensation for the damages brought by the forcible resettlement.": "damages" means "money won in a lawsuit as a form of compensation".
    • Done
  • "the forcible resettlement": Delete "the". In fact, delete the middle part as redundant: "financial compensation for forcible resettlement". - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given the oppose, and the length of time this FAC has been open without attracting support, there is no consensus to promote this article. Therefore, I shall be archiving it shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2017 [9].

Operation PBHISTORY edit

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a CIA covert operation in Guatemala, one of many articles I worked on related to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, which became an FA earlier this year. It's based on pretty much every scholarly and book source that discusses the subject, and I feel it's comprehensive. It went through a detailed GA review by Shearonink earlier this year, and I've polished it since. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Guatearbenz0870.JPG: per the FOP tag, should include more details about the artwork pictured, particularly its specific location
  • Hmm. I'm uncertain how specific I can be about this, because the location "covered an entire city block within two hundred meters of the National Palace". If we need the precise address, I can ask Soman. But you reviewed this image already, here; has something changed since then?
  • Think you can just add that description to the image page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, done.
  • File:PatrickJHillings.jpg: don't see that tag at the source site, or am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I investigated this in more detail, and you're right. The image seems to originally come from the NYT, on whose website it is no longer available: I also find it unlikely that the NYT image would be PD, and unlikely that we could justify non-free use here. So I've removed the image: the article has a fair few images in any case.
  • @Nikkimaria: I've responded to your concerns. I've a question for you, if I may: this image is clearly horizontally compressed, but I've no idea of how to fix that besides downloading it, stretching it, and uploading it. I'm uncertain if there's a better way, or if that method is acceptable: d'you have any advice? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, they were very helpful. The issue has been fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SchroCat edit

  • Why is the title part-capitalised? I don't see any rationale in the MoS that would justify it (although I may have missed it). - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SchroCat: That's an understandable question. Basically it's because that's what the source do: Holland, for instance, says "There is, to be sure, an oft-told anecdote derived from PBHISTORY, the cryptonym for the project dedicated to gathering and exploiting Guatemalan Communist documents." (Holland, 2004, p 300). More generally, it's the convention used by the vast majority of RS for all of the related CIA operations: Operation PBFORTUNE and Operation PBSUCCESS, for instance. I'm uncertain as to the origins of the convention. If there is a good reason to ignore this convention and move the article to Operation Pbhistory, I'd be willing to do so. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm right in saying that most military operations also use the same capitalisation format, but we drop it to sit in line with the MoS. (And looking at WP:FA, I don't see any other capitalised operations). Ian Rose or Dank (both being active in that project) will know better than I. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Well, Milhist is not my usual area of work; this is as close as I get: so I'm happy to follow the advice of folks more experienced in this area. Let me just throw in a few more options: "PB" is the CIA's geographical moniker for Guatemala. The "History" was operation specific. So I imagine a case could be made for "Operation History", and for "Operation PBHistory". Also going to ping Peacemaker67, who reviewed PBFORTUNE at GAN: I'd like to hear your views. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others may have a different view, but although military operation names are usually rendered in Title Case, given these operation names seems always to be in all upper case in sources, we should IAR, ie I reckon the whole operation name should be in upper case across these CIA articles (Operation PBFORTUNE etc). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either Pbhistory or PBHistory would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I wonder if we could get your opinion here too, as we seem to be evenly divided. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did see the original ping and was going to stop by but, perhaps because I didn't yet have the nom on my watchlist, it dropped through the cracks... In RL I'm used to operation names being upper case (see the RAAF's current ops page for instance) but we do seem to have broad consensus for title case on WP, thus given the slightly unusual situation with this one (initials evidently being part of the name) I think I'd have to go with "PBHistory"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Ian Rose. It looks like "PBHistory" has the most support. As I've temporarily handed in my mop, I'm unable to move the page: might I ask you to do the honors? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SchroCat: The article has now been moved. Did you have any other suggestions you wish to mention? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will see if I can. I have promised myself to a couple of different things and time is a bit stretched, but if a window comes up, I'll be along. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Ref 10 requires pp. not p., and ndash not hyphen
  • Fixed: also used the dash script on the whole page, there were a few others.
  • For consistency, the citations to "Holly" should be to "Holly & Patterson", as per the other multiple author source.
  • Also fixed.

Otherwise, sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • Following the move, all mentions of PBHISTORY should be changed to PBHistory, including in the heading above.
    Done
  • "Kersten Committee" For clarity, this should be "Kersten Committee of the US House of Representatives"
    I've expanded the link in the text, I'd rather not expand the section title, for aesthetic reasons.
  • "Guatemalan communists were being controlled by the Soviet government" What communists? You have not said above that there were any. (I see that you say below that the Party of Labour was communist, so if you specify above in the lead "communist Guatemalan Party of Labour" it would be clear what you are referring to.)
    I've added that: it is indeed clearer.
  • There seems to be a contradiction between the comments of historians at the end of the lead, with Holland saying that the US wanted to hide the operation and Sewell that they wanted to publicize it.
    Well it's a bit contorted because the policy was contorted: the US officially denied its own involvement, but still wished to portray the coup itself as a success against Soviet communism...
  • Your reply suggests that in "publicize its success", "its" refers to the coup, but in the text it appears to refer to the "ill-fated" Operation PBHistory. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arévalo was staunchly anti-communist" "staunchly" is a POV word which implies approval. "strongly" would be better as neutral.
    Agreed, and I've gone further and simply removed the term: it isn't needed.
  • "since the failed coup in 1949" You have not previously referred to this. maybe "since a failed coup in 1949"
    Done
  • "ODACID" What does this stand for?
    This is a CIA cryptonym for the US embassy: not sure of the best way to work this in, though, given that it's a quote. I've gone with [U.S. embassy] for now.
  • "a member of one of the ruling juntas had prevented the Comité" This is confusing. Why "juntas" plural? Also you say above that the Comité was not created until 20 July.
    The tumult following the coup lasted for several months, until Castillo Armas was elected president in October; during this time five military juntas led the country. Castillo Armas led the last of those. This seems like too much detail though, and I'm not sure it addresses your issue.
  • The first issue could be addressed by changing "In the period of uncertain leadership" to something like "A succession of juntas took power in the period of confusion". On the second, you have said above the Armas established the Comite, and here describe it as existing before he took power. This is a contradiction. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USIA" What does this stand for?
    Added link
  • "served to perpetuate two existing CIA operations" "served to perpetuate" sounds odd. Maybe "assisted two existing CIA operations"
    Done
  • " Atlee Philips" Who was he?
    David Atlee Phillips: He's already linked, though...
  • "Operation KUGOWN also released a large quantity of communist propaganda material that had been brought into Guatemala from the outside" Brought in by the CIA or PGT?
    Not the CIA, but not just the PGT: a lot of folks read communist literature. I've reworded it.
  • "Anti-Communist members of the US Congress" Surely all members were anti-communist.
    Dunno, maybe some more explicitly than others? It's what the source says, so I think I ought to stick to that...
  • I think "Some members of the US Congress" would be better rather than quoting the author's POV description. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "purportedly investigating the penetration of communist influence" "purportedly" is POV. It implies that Kersten knew that the allegation was false. Also, was the allegation false? If I understand the article correctly, there was communist influence as the PGT was awowedly communist. The issue was whether it was indigenous or Soviet -inspired.
  • "this report also claimed that Soviet weapons had been brought covertly to Guatemala by submarine" "also falsely claimed"?
    Better, yes. Done.
  • "This unintentionally drew attention to Operation WASHTUB, a CIA effort to foist incriminating weapons on the Guatemalan government." How? Was the operation publicly exposed?
  • "This somewhat scholarly research" "somewhat scholarly" is POV and better deleted.
    Done
  • "Writing in 2008 author Jeremy Gunn compared PBHISTORY to a similarly unsuccessful attempt by the US to justify the invasion of Iraq after it had occurred.[" This seems a curious comparison as they were so different. I am surprised you do not mention the 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Were the two operations not connected by critics as examples of unjustifiable US interference?
    The intervention itself, yes. This is covered in more detail at the article on the coup. PBHistory specifically, though, was linked to the post-Iraq invasion justifications, rather than the invasion itself; as attempts to justify interventions after the fact.
  • This is a good article, but there is some POV language and use of initials and mention of people which assumes previous knowledge. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I've been working with this topic for a while, so I'm likely to drop in terms without defining them: thanks for pointing them out. I'll do my best to fix the language, which is something of a by-product of using sources which, though academic, are decidedly angry at the entire situation.
    @Dudley Miles: I've addressed all your comments, I do believe. There's a few that might need further discussion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See replies above. There are two comments you have not replied to. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been a little starved of attention, and has been open for six weeks without attracting any support. I think the best way to kick start something is to archive this now. Whether a PR would help, I'm not sure, but certainly feel free to ping the reviewers have commented here once this is renominated. In any case, this can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 [10].

1962 Tour de France edit

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 21:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1962 edition of the Tour de France cycle race. I choose to work on this as it was the first time a British rider wore the race's yellow jersey, Tom Simpson, an article I helped get featured status. I believe I've done as much research as possible for this. I have already brought another Tour up to FA, 2012, and GAs from 2011 to 2016. It has had a good copy-edit from Twofingered Typist. Note: after nearly two months at GAN, I jumped here as it was my ultimate goal. BaldBoris 21:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of the early stuff in this article between 2008 and 2013, and to the best of my knowledge no critical information is missing in the article, so I support this nomination in the role as previous contributor, which means that I will try to watch this page from time to time and assist BaldBoris to improve the article if the review says that is necessary. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Tour_de_France_1962,_Stage_1,_before_the_start_(1).jpg: source link asserts a different licensing status than the tag here. Same with File:Jacques_Anquetil,_Tour_de_France_1962_(1).jpg, File:Tour_de_France_1962_Spa-Herentals.jpg, File:Piet_van_Est,_Rik_van_Looy_and_Huub_Zilverberg,_Tour_de_France_1962_(cropped).jpg, File:Rudi_Altig_(1962).jpg, File:Federico_Bahamontes_(1962).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why, but the licences have been changed at source from CC by to public domain. Captures of File:Rudi Altig (1962).jpg: 15 Sepember 2016 and current. I'm not 100% on this, but according to [11] CC licenses are not revocable, so those licences don't think they need changing. BaldBoris 21:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, that's very odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Harrias talk
  • You have row scopes in most of the tables, but they are missing from those in the Final standings section.
    I take it you mean the rider/team should be the scope, like 2015 Vuelta a España#Final standings? That is the only race article I know of using that. I'm not sure it's needed for the results. Nothing conclusive at MOS:TABLE or MOS:DTT. BaldBoris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:DTT describes the use of row scopes in the Overview of basics section, which it lists as "Priority: high". In my opinion, that makes it pretty conclusive to make the table/article MOS compliant. Harrias talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainty isn't a rule followed in most feature lists. Of the many featured Olympic medal tables, only three use row headers (2000 Summer Paralympics medal table, 2008 Summer Paralympics medal table and 1924 Winter Olympics medal table), and they aren't consistent. I do agree if there is a clear row to use, which I'm not sure with standings/rankings. Would it be by rank or by rider? BaldBoris 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but only two of those many tables have been promoted to FL since 2012. If you look at recent FL promotions, relatively few are promoted without row scopes; the MOS and how we interpret it evolves to improve the articles we produce. I also agree that in some cases row scopes aren't appropriate, but in this case I would suggest that the rank is appropriate, as the list is clearly defined by that (both the order and inclusion criteria are by rank.) Harrias talk 18:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to make that infobox a bit narrower? It pretty much takes over my relatively narrow laptop screen.
    Nothing much I can do about that as the teams were allowed up to three sponsors, making their names very long. Not ideal, but anything else would look messy. BaldBoris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I thought that would be the case. Harrias talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly some more explanation of what a "trade team" is would be useful.
  • "For the first time, the French cyclists were outnumbered; there were 52 Italian cyclists and 50 French cyclists, the largest numbers from a nation, including Belgium with 28." This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, especially the odd addition of Belgium at the end.
  • "The total number of riders who finished the race was 94, a record." What sort of record? A record high, a record low, a record high to that point, an all-time record high? Clarify.
  • "Double reigning world road race champion Van Looy" Does this mean he won the world road race twice, or won two different world road races?
  • Is "the Nancy, in north-eastern France" right? It sounds odd to me to put "the" in front of Nancy, which I only know as a city, rather than a feature.
  • In most of the final paragraph of Route and stages you refer to stage by their digits, but occasionally you use words; be consistent. Given the existence of 2a and 2b etc, it is probably better to use digits throughout.
    Do you mean throughout the whole section? BaldBoris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just that paragraph, which it looks like you've done. Harrias talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fastest recorded stage above a distance of 200 km (124 mi)." Again, more clarification; the fastest that year, the fastest to that point, or the fastest ever?
  • "In first part of the eighth stage, another large group escaped, which in the final kilometers had merged with another chasing breakaway.." Missing "the" at the start, and then close repetition of "another".
  • "..won tenth stage's bunch sprint." Another missing "the".
  • Is there any link for categorised climbs?
    No. It's covered in Mountains classification in the Tour de France though. BaldBoris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, link to that on the first use of "categorised climb", even though you've already linked to Mountains classification in the Tour de France. Someone who didn't want/need to click on the Mountains classification link might be interested in finding out more about categorised climbs. Harrias talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The article only has info on the "Current situation", so wouldn't aid the reader. Also, it dosen't say a repeated link is OK in prose at MOS:DUPLINK. BaldBoris 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nineteenth stage followed the same route as the 21st stage" Comparable numbers should be in the same format; either 19th and 21st or nineteenth and twenty-first.
  • "Poulidor was placed ninth in the general classification, ten minutes in arrears, so he would have likely been seen as a threat." Is this missing a "not"?
  • "pre-race favourite Hans Junkermann" This seems a slight exaggeration, as it implies he was the outright favourite, rather than just one of the "other riders considered contenders" as listed in Pre-race favourites section.
  • The Doping section talks about "bad fish" but never specifically mentions doping. Unless there are sources the specifically talk about doping, and we mention it explicitly this is a BLP issue given some of these riders are still alive, and needs to be removed, or at least toned down.
    I've re-written parts and added some. BaldBoris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's much better. Harrias talk 07:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a really good piece of work, with just picky comments from me above. Harrias talk 10:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted out most of your comments and replied to the others. Thanks for a great review Harrias. BaldBoris 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for nearly two months with no support. Therefore, I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. It may be worth opening a PR before renominating in an attempt to attract more attention next time. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2017 [12].

We Are X edit

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rockumentary film about X Japan, arguably the biggest rock/metal band in Japan. The film deals with the turbulent history of the band in general and its front-man Yoshiki in particular. The article covers all aspects of the movie, including plot, production, reception and the soundtrack. The article is already a GA, has been on DYK? and has been peer reviewed. It is hard to think how the article can be expanded to cover any other aspects that may be worth mentioning. I think it is suitable to be promoted to GA and await any further comments. ISD (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Italicisation of source publishers: italicisation should be used for printed sources – magazines, newspapers, books – but not otherwise, i.e. not for organisations such as Anime News Network or CNN, or for websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and many others.
  • Website titles such as Deadline.com or fluxmagazine.com should not be given as publishers, when the publisher's name is available
  • Some sources may not meet FA standards of quality and reliability; can you comment on the following?
  • Blood Red Dragon (note you have mis-typed this title)
  • Loudwire
  • J. Rock News
  • Brave Words
  • Jame world

Apart from the above points, the sources and citations look well organised and, in general, solid. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton: I've tried to make some changes. I think I've corrected the italicisation but I'm not sure about all of it (e.g. MyM Buzz, as MyM is the magazine by MyM Buzz is the website. Most of the italicisation comes from the use of "work=" rather than "publisher=" in the citation templates. Concerning the sources:
  • Blood Red Dragon - Comic book that is mentioned in the film. As is directly mentioned by the film itself I assume that makes it reliable, but if I'm wrong do correct me.
  • Loudwire and Brave Words are both print heavy metal magazines and thus I assume makes them reliable.
  • J. Rock News - Replaced reference with one directly from the film's official website, which I assume is a reliable source.
  • Jame World - Replaced reference with one from Anime News Network.
ISD (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Incidentally, the "work=" field is generally used in connection with "publisher=", so that the work title is italicized but the publisher's name is not. Organisations like CNN etc are not "works". I'll check again, but I think you've got then hang of it. I hope you get some content comments soon. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brianboulton: Thanks for the update. If there is anything else I need to carry out do let me know. ISD (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SLIGHTLYmad 03:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I was involved in the evaluation of this article against the Good Article criteria and I'm happy to see it nominated against FA. Just a few quibbles however:

  • Lead:
  • I feel like the "mixed reviews" roundup here should also be included in its respective section, as well as supported with a reliable source as MoS requires this. Otherwise this is original research. On that note, I also think the Critical reception's last two paragraphs should be copyedited; the A said B structure is really tiresome and has been repeated around articles that has a Reception section. Have a look at this essay; it gives a couple of interesting points on how can this section deliver a fine read. The first paragraph should stay, though, as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aggregate scores are pretty standard to report on film articles.
  • "...while others criticized the film of hero worshiping": is 'hero worshiping' supposed to be a compound adjective (i.e. hero-worshiping)? In any case, this sentence needs a copyedit for clarity.
  • It's an established practice to add alt texts on each and every photos in this article. Try to be a bit descriptive when you deliver them.

Otherwise, looks good. I may do some minor copyedit on the prose for some that I missed. SLIGHTLYmad 06:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Slightlymad: I've tried to make all the changed you requested. I've added the alt-text to the images, I've edited "hero-worshipping" (I think it is a double p), and I've tried altering the reception section to read better. ISD (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "mixed reviews" is still unsourced. SLIGHTLYmad 13:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slightlymad: I've have removed the "mixed reviews" comment as I feel it is easier to go without it. ISD (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All files have reasonable ALT text. I see that the three last ones have a watermark/credit in the image which is a little distracting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you think it would help to contact the people responsible for the images? If not should I just get rid of the three photos and uses something else? I believe that these photos of X Japan's frontman Yoshiki are free-use and might possibly be suitable.
ISD (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the images are fine. It's the file description on Commons I wonder about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Oh I understand. I've tried expanding the description for the poster image. I don't know if OK now though. ISD (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber edit

Ok I know nothing of the band so can read with a neophyte's eye....

I wonder whether "hero-worshipping" is too informal for the lead. An alternative is not springing to mind however....
X Japan's story is told through the life of Yoshiki leading up to their performance at Madison Square Garden on October 11, 2014 - this sentence sounds odd - makes Yoshiki sound gender neutral...or plural...
his childhood friend, X Japan co-founder and vocalist Toshi was "brainwashed" by a cult leading to the group's breakup in 1997 - needs expanding and explaining
There is a lot of material from the first para repeated in the second para of the Plot section - this comes over as disjointed. You need to combine and rationalise them.
However, due to Pata being diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.. - better to say what the illness is, it sounds melodramatic otherwise.
the concert was postponed a whole year - "whole" redundant. Maybe better to say "almost 12 months" or something.
  • @Casliber: I believe I've carried out the changed you asked for. Let me know if they are OK and if so if you support the article being promoted. ISD (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The plot is still disjointed. Try to meld the two paragraphs and place the sentences in chronological order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Casliber: I've merged the two paragraphs together and arranged the plot chronologically. The opening sentence has also been reworked to mention that he is the frontman, which should solve the issue of his name sounding gender neutral or plural. ISD (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
''It follows his childhood friendship with vocalist Toshi, who first met each other at the age of four - Toshi didn't meet "each other" - needs rewording.
However, when Yoshiki was 10 his father committed suicide when he was still a child aged 10 - "However" not needed as not contrastive with previous sentence - also two "age 10"s here
Eventually the band formed, resulting in the development of visual kei and their early successes - umm....why "eventually"? He was 10 in previous sentence. Why not just have the circumstances and/or date, also I don't understand what it has to do with visual kei here.
guitarist hide died five months later in a reported suicide but what the band believe to have been the result of an accident when he tried to do a neck-stretching exercise while drunk - grammatically clunky, needs rewording. maybe "guitarist hide died five months later in a reported suicide, though the band believe he died accidentally, trying to do a neck-stretching exercise while drunk" or something
where he went into classical music - too colloquial sounding, maybe "where he began writing/became interested in/performed (etc.) classical music " or something similar
Despite having stopped listening to heavy metal at 13 or 14 years old in favor of new wave, Kijak listened to the band's music and was immediately drawn to it and surprised he had never heard it before. - needs tightening, try "Despite not having listened to heavy metal since age 13 or 14 in favor of new wave, Kijak was immediately drawn to the band's music, surprised he had never heard it before."
Francis Rizzo III from DVD Talk commented on the quality of the release saying that visually it is of mixed quality due to good quality of the more recent material balanced out by the poor quality of archive material that, "often suffers from artifacting and pixelation". - here, you don't need to say recent material is good as we'd pretty well expect it to be.

Overall, I think the article is looking better but I do think the prose needs more eyes - I don't have the eye for detail that some other here do so I suspect there will be more prose issues. I will ping some who might be interested...@Ceoil:...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Casliber: I've changed the Rizzo comment so hopefully that is better too. ISD (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

Have read through about half, and would like to track down a copy of the doc before I support/oppose either way. Am copyediting as I read through, overall it seems good; the lead is very well written. My main observation for now is that the article gives too much weight to release schedules and critical reception and not enough to plot and production, which are sections 20 times more interesting. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ceoil: OK. If you wish to see the documentary, it is available on DVD and Blu-Ray. I don't think it has been released as a download yet. As the film is a documentary I'm unsure how much I should write about it in the plot. ISD (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for two months now, with no consensus to support. I will be archiving shortly and I would recommend working with Casliber and Ceoil away from FAC. In any case, this can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2017 [13].

The Carpenters edit

Nominator(s): Ritchie333, We hope 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Carpenters is one of those groups that has generated a mixed reaction, particularly from dyed-in-the-wool rock fans who only listen to "real" music. However, they had genuine musical talent, their material has stood the test of time, and they are not as looked down as they once were. Sadly, no amount of critical reappraisal is going to bring back Karen Carpenter, and listening to some of her best singing in hindsight is quite harrowing in places.

This article has had a couple of goes at FAC about a decade ago, so the time is ripe for us to give it another go. Since then, Randy Schmidt has written a critically acclaimed biography that deserves its place in the few really good books about the duo. I could probably get this through GAN without too much difficulty, but it does strike me that this is an important enough article that going for the gold star really is a worthwhile exercise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't think we should be showing the logo twice if it's non-free, although I wonder if it's simple enough for PD-text in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought that but nobody I consulted during various improvements or the PR brought it up, so I assumed it wasn't an issue. Commons:Threshold of originality uses File:Boeing wordmark.svg as a canonical example of a logo that has insufficient originality to be copyrightable, which is fairly similar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That particular one's simpler, but looking at some of the examples in the gallery I'm pretty sure we'd be okay considering it PD. Open to other reviewer opinions though. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleCloudedWhite: Please explain why you are reverting in content that is not supported by the sources given in a Featured Article Candidate? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. The source states:
"Karen Carpenter possessed a deep contralto that actually undercut her brother's saccharine fantasies. It can be a revelation (some would say "bummer") to listen to the Carpenters' megahits -- "For All We Know," "Rainy Days and Mondays," "Superstar," "Goodbye to Love" -- and realize that few had happy endings, as Karen Carpenter was eminently more comfortable singing about loneliness and uncertainty.
Even "Sing," the "Sesame Street" song, comes off as a forced smile, while the cozy "Merry Christmas Darling" finds her at her most disconsolate".
I paraphrased that as "Her voice was particularly well suited to conveying melancholy, and many of the duo's hits occupy this territory". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NYT article in question. The editor seems to have/have had quite a few bones to pick with this article as seen on its talk page-Arrangement of Close to You and Guder. What has been discussed and re-discussed have been magnified minor points. We hope (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@We hope: What is your point? Are you trying to suggest that my edits should be discounted because I am "picking bones" (whatever that is supposed to mean within the context of Wikipedia)? I thought the point of Wikipedia was to improve articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought the story was something to the effect "if you can't stand to have your writing altered, don't edit Wikipedia". There are 3 examples of where your writing has been either changed or reverted-two on the talk page and now one here-where you've complained. We hope (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which "story" is that? "If you can't stand to have your writing altered, don't edit Wikipedia" - is that Wikipedia's new strapline? How interesting. And I have not "complained". I have disagreed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, in the "musical style" section, I went for objective information that described equipment, instrumentation and direct facts. Since the article has been teetering on about 50K of prose, which is about the limit of what a typical layman reader can digest, it meant some of the more "fluffier" opinion-based stuff like this just didn't make it to the final cut put up for FAC. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So when an article is submitted for FAC, opinion-based stuff is likely to be removed? Is that the FAC law? Even when the opinion is in a RS? I must make a note of that. But what about the other opinions in that section - such as "music critic Daniel Levitin called [Richard] 'one of the most gifted arrangers to emerge in popular music'", and "Record executive Mike Curb said it was Karen's voice that took the Carpenters above straight pop music into pop rock" - you haven't removed those. It seems rather strange to introduce an assessment of Karen - a much admired singer - with the line "Karen did not possess a powerful singing voice", and not counter that with anything more superlative than describing her voice as "warm and distinctive". And what is your basis for asserting how many bites a "typical layman" can digest? Do you believe readers should not be told about Karen being considered "eminently more comfortable singing about loneliness and uncertainty"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point of reference is WP:SIZERULE. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting how your first objection to my addition - which came a long time after I made the edit - was based on an objection to how I represented the source, specifically the use of the word 'melancholy'. Now, it's because the article is too big and just can't manage with this bit of info about a singer's talent at conveying emotion (which is the whole point of singing, otherwise we'd just have robots doing it). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a puzzle to see that here we have an editor (Ritchie333) removing - supposedly on the grounds of the article being too big to contain it, though this wasn't the first reason given - the only bit of info in the musical style section that mentions the tendency of the band's big hits (and the singer's voice) to successfully inhabit the sadder end of the emotional spectrum, whereas elsewhere in the article this same editor is quite happy to allow info about the inspiration for one minor album track to be repeated within close proximity of its first mention (in paragraph 8 of the main text we have "they were fired by a Disneyland supervisor named Mr. Guder for being 'too radical'. Bettis and Richard were unhappy about their dismissal and wrote the song "Mr. Guder" about their former superior", then 8 paragraphs lower down we have "the album also included "Mr. Guder", the song inspired by Disneyland supervisor Victor Guder, who had dismissed the young songwriters for playing popular music when they worked at the park". What can be the justification for this? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's of more interest to me is your sudden, intense interest in an article you cared to make a total of 6 edits to. It looks like it's not the article that's the issue here; so what is it? Is it a past disagreement with Ritchie as an editor or an admin and now you're trying to even the score here at FAC? We hope (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. It is the article that is of interest to me here. When I noticed work was being done to this article, I made edits that I believed improved the article. My editing here has nothing to do with Ritchie. I have previously criticised Ritchie on user talk pages. I don't "even scores" in article space. In fact I don't "even scores" anywhere. I can only assume that that is how you operate and that you are projecting your own standards onto me. For your information, I am interested in the Carpenters because, first, I like the band and own a greatest hits on vinyl, and second, I have a particular interest in Karen Carpenter because I used to be anorexic. I have made dozens of edits to her article since 2011, and have some insight into her pain. I hope you are very proud of yourself in repeatedly taking this discussion away from that of article content and thus making another editor (me) feel it necessary to admit to a past mental illness in an attempt to dissolve this absurd hostility that I have encountered while editing here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was this discussion you started which made things veer away from the job at hand: Whether or not this article is FA quality. You were not "forced" to admit anything-you are free to either speak about something or be silent about it. Your assumptions don't bother me in the least. We hope (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I propose the inclusion or exclusion of the above be discussed by others who will review the article. We hope (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion or exclusion of the above can be discussed by anyone; to stipulate otherwise is contrary to the supposed ethos of this site. I shall open an RfC if no agreement can be reached. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ian Rose, User:Sarastro1 Is it possible for the discussion after the Image review to be moved to the project talk page? It seems like a distraction to a discussion of whether this article is FAC quality. If so, as coordinators and editors not involved in the discussion, would either of you please move it there? Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is still off track for a FAC, so the request to move it still stands, thanks. We hope (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I don't think anything needs moving to the talk page yet, as the discussion is still on the article and other reviewers may want to view it. I would encourage nominators and reviewers to limit comments to the article and whether it meets the FA criteria. I am watching this and will move any further irrelevant comments to the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not connected to the article or the FA criteria moved to talk


Sources review edit

  • Ref 4: Dead link
That's page 14 of Schmidt - how can that be a dead link? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the number was 54 – but the link is working now, so all's well. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 74: The link seems to go to a different page. I see no mention of the Carpenters
Looks like the RIAA changed their website so much, even the Wayback machine link is broken. Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 111: slight inaccuracy in title
fixed We hope (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 158 and 159 appear to be identical, and could therefore be combined
The news story was spread over 2 pages. #158 is for text on page 5 of the newspaper and #159 is for text on page 24. We hope (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 196: www.theamas.com – what makes this a reliable source?
AFAIK, that's the official website for the American Music Awards (ie: The A M As). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 203 and 206 both contain slight title inaccuracies
both fixed We hope (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 208: Dead link
link fixed We hope (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 211: Music-city.org – what makes this a reliable source?
Nothing, I think, but the information is fairly innocuous being a bland list of appearances on an album. I've switched it for an AllMusic source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, sources appear to be in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment this article is about the musical group that existed in 1969–83 known as The Carpenters, not about the Carpenter siblings per se. So their extremely detailed childhood (hospital of birth, parents' dates and backgrounds etc) doesn't belong here, as each of the two has their own article where this stuff can be dealt with in detail. Only stick to what is relevant for the rest of the article—the duo's musical evolution (preferably as a duo, not just each sibling's, as that too can go in the individual biography articles). Similarly for the Richard Carpenter Trio and Spectrum stuff, only stuff that is directly relevant to the subject of this article, the band The Carpenters, needs to remain.—indopug (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, knowing their musical background is important to know how the duo achieved their style, and their respective articles do go into depth already. As long as we keep it under 50K, it's fine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:FA?, the article needs to be "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". While I completely agree with you that "knowing their musical background is important to know how the duo achieved their style", names of hospitals and parents' birth/death places/dates doesn't do this.
Further, regarding the first sentence, even in AmEng "Carpenters were" is correct since "Carpenters" is in the plural; indeed on seven other occasions this very article uses "Carpenters were" but never again "Carpenters was".—indopug (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody else agrees with you. Sorry. It's been discussed to death. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've changed my !vote to oppose on account of unnecessary detail.—indopug (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • If you are using the Oxford comma, then there needs to be an additional comma in this part “ the soft rock, easy listening and Adult contemporary music genres” after the word “listening”. Same goes for this part “their music has since been re-evaluated, attracting critical acclaim and continued commercial success”. There seems to be a mix of a use and an absence of the Oxford comma throughout the article so I would make sure to choose one or the other.
User:Ritchie333, did you intend to go with Oxford or Harvard for the article? We hope (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (the Carpenter family moved to the Los Angeles suburb of Downey hoping), I would add a comma after “Downey”.
Done We hope (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think that you should add the years in which the following songs were released “The Girl from Ipanema”, “Every Little Thing”, “Strangers in the Night”, “Dancing in the Street”, “We’ve Only Just Begun”. and any of the other cover songs. This is up to you, but I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
I thought it was obvious from the context, for example, "Girl from IPanema" was not released, just an early live cover (which many groups have done). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the update. I was more so asking if you think that the date for the release of the original versions of the songs should be included. Though, now upon further inspection, I could see that would be too disruptive to the overall flow of the article so I think that it is fine as it stands. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about having the “Carpenters” in bold in the “Offering (Ticket to Ride)” subsection. It may be a stylistic choice, but I have never seen words put in bold in a FA before.
I've trimmed this down a bit; the bold does look a bit odd. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subheadings are for sections of their musical careers. The subheading before that is "Pre-Carpenters"; the one after it is "Post-Carpenters" We hope (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the caption of the image of “Karen drumming on stage”, I would add the year in which the image was taken.
  • For this part (to meet the President, Richard Nixon, ), I do not think that the commas are necessary.
changed this to "President Nixon" We hope (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the two images of Richard and Karen in the chairs, I would explain the context in which the images were taken (i.e. publicity photos from Billboard).
  • For this part (a "new" Carpenters' Christmas album entitled An Old-Fashioned Christmas,). I am not sure that new needs to be put in quotes.
done We hope (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you attribute who says the following (Her lower register was warm and distinctive)?
I don't think this adds much, so I've taken it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the image in the “Public image” section, I would specify in the caption when the image was taken.

Wonderful work with the article. I honestly have never heard of The Carpenters before so this was an interesting read. Please let me know if any of my comments require further clarification. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Either way, I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:photos. Most were taken from a special advertising segment of Billboard in 1973. It's marked "Special segment sponsored by The Carpenters." I just looked at the entire segment and I don't see any credit given for any of the photos; some are dated and some aren't. The one of Karen drumming has no caption at all, so no date was given. There's no information given about the "chair" photos either. The photo was edited for the ad see unedited copy, and I think I remember seeing a copy of the photo labeled as an A&M Records promotional photo. The photo in the "public image" section is on the same page as the "chairs" photos; that one also has no information listed about it. We hope (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me; everything is good with the photos. It is really cool to see photos from that time period! Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to check in on any progress with this or if any of my comments need further clarification? There really was not too much that I feel that needs correction to be perfectly honest. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Given this edit I am assuming that the nominators wish to withdraw this. I've undone it so that this can be closed properly; otherwise the bot will not run on it and we will gets lots of weird glitches in the red tape. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2017 [14].

Revival (comics) edit

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the comic book Revival, published by Image Comics between 2012 and 2017. It passed GA in June 2017. The previous FA failed due to concerns over sources. Some of them have been replaced since then. Rationales showing why I think the other questioned sources are high quality can be found here. Since the previous FA nom, I tried to work with the opposer, but did not receive a response. I have also added a second image in the body of the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

I still support this article based on the prose as all of my concerns and comments were addressed during the first FAC. I do have some concerns about the "Merchandise" section though as it is rather short, and would be curious if the information could be moved into a different section (such as a part about the comic's release). Otherwise, great work with this and good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've mixed the merchandise into the release. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Slightlymad edit

Nothing else is bothersome to me... except the Reviews section; it's the usual A said B structure that has been retooled around many articles that has a Reception section. Have a look at this essay—Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections—as it gives a couple of interesting points to make this section a fine read. Is it standard to report on Comic Book Roundup aggregate scores on comic articles? If so, then just find a way not to remove them right after you've copyedited the section (In the essay, the True Detective example had the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate score removed as a result of the copyedit, even though it's pretty standard for film/TV articles to keep them intact.) Otherwise, I believe this passes FA. SLIGHTLYmad 05:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the essay link. I have revised the review section with your suggestions. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support SLIGHTLYmad 13:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open now for over six weeks, and despite two supports has attracted little commentary, no new comments for over a month, and no discussion of whether it meets the FA criteria. Therefore, with no consensus to support, I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2017 [15].

Common loon edit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) and Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article yet another FAC on a bird species! We think it up in close range of getting a shiny star, and it has also undergone copy-editing from the Guild of Copy Editors. We hope you enjoy reading the article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz edit

  • link mantle both in lead and in body
Linked! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention in the lead that the sexes are alike
Mentioned. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • "Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..." - I prefer the inclusion of the article: "The Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..."
I think it looks better without it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Brunnich and not Brünnich with the umlaut as in the Wikipedia article?
Replaced. Good catch! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as Gavia immer in his Ornithologia Borealis." This is incorrect - Brünnich used Colymbus immer. I've added a cite to his book in the article. The cite to "Assembly, New York (State) Legislature (1910)" is a weird choice. I suggest:
Fixed. Also, for consistency, removed the reference's location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

  • Perhaps worth mentioning the winter site fidelity and citing:
Paruk, J.D.; et al. (2015). "Winter site fidelity and winter movements in Common Loons (Gavia immer) across North America". Condor. 117 (4): 485–493. doi:10.1650/CONDOR-15-6.1.

Breeding

  • "or early June within one week" and later in third paragraph there is "After a week of construction in late spring," repetition of a week and the time of year.
  • "nesting success" - How is "success" defined? All eggs hatch and nestlings fledge or at least one nestling fledging, or ...?
  • "and both the male and female parents take turns..." -> "and both parents take turns..."
  • "Incubation takes 26 to 31 days,[32]" Your often cited Carboneras et al reference has c. 24-25. Why did you choose the Michigan numbers?
  • "The eggs are laid in late May or June." - oddly placed - and previous paragraph on nest building has "in May or early June". perhaps delete here. I assume that the eggs are laid soon after completion of the nest.
  • "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old." I would write "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks of age." or "typically fly when 10 to 11 weeks old."
  • "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old.[42] Fledging takes 70 to 77 days." fledging lasts until they fly so this appears to be repeating the same information.
  • perhaps give the maximum recorded age as 29 years 10 months and cite
"Longevity Records Of North American Birds". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
  • When does the common loon moult - and which feathers are replaced?

- Aa77zz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does the pair bond last from one breeding season to the next?
  • "They are capable of diving underwater in the next few days and can typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old.[42]" where ref 42 is: Laycock, George (1970). The Wilderness Bird. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. p. 69. This is not a suitable reference for this information.

- Aa77zz (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • mention that no subspecies are recognised
  • the article should mention sexual dimorphism - the male is significantly heavier than female. See Gray et al 2014, Evers 2004 pp.4-5, Tischler 2011 p.2, Piper et al 2008.
Gray, C.E.; et al. (2014). "Body mass in Common Loons (Gavia immer) strongly associated with migration distance". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 64–75. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp109.
Evers, David C. (2004). Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in North America (PDF) (Report). Hadley, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tischler, Keren B. (September 2011). Species Conservation Assessment for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in the Upper Great Lakes (PDF) (Report). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region.
Piper, W.H.; Walcott, C.; Mager, J.N.; Spilker, F.J. (2008). "Nestsite selection by male loons leads to sex-biased site familiarity". Journal of Animal Ecology. 77: 205–210. JSTOR 20143178.
  • "and the pair bond lasts for about five years." this is text added in response to my comment above. It appears that territory is all important and it is probably inaccurate to state that the pair-bond continues from one year to the next. Evers 2004 has "Pair bonds do not persist beyond the breeding season" but has "High site fidelity by both sexes assures regular pairing of same individuals as the previous year." For a discussion see Piper et al 2000
Piper, W.H.; Tischler, K.B.; Klich, M. (2000). "Territory acquisition in loons: the importance of take-over". Animal Behaviour. 59: 385–394. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1295.
  • should mention that pairs do not migrate together and do not winter together
  • perhaps add more detail on predation and separate chicks and eggs. In particular racoons can be important predators of eggs. Mentioned in Piper et al 2008
  • "Loons' nests are usually placed on islands" - not supported by source and doubtful.
Radomski, P.J.; Carlson, K.; Woizeschke, K. (2014). "Common Loon (Gavia immer) Nesting habitat models for North-Central Minnesota Lakes". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 102–107. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp113.
  • Moved it to the breeding section, and cited it!
  • perhaps add a second picture to the taxbox showing the non-breeding plumage
  • There an extensive literature on the common loon, much quite recent, and I don't think that the most reliable sources have been cited in the article. Some seem poor or unsuitable. By far the best review article is the Birds of North America article by Evers et al 2010. It is long, very detailed, well illustrated and cites the primary literature (up to 2010):
Evers, D.C.; Paruk, J.D.; McIntyre, J.W.; Barr, J.F. (2010). Rodewald, P.G. (ed.). "Common Loon (Gavia immer)". The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
I haven't gone through the list of reference cited in the wiki article systematically but noticed:
22 Garfield, Eagle - What is this? Why is there no link? I've looked here without success: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/whiteriver/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_001228
Removed.Restored. This is the reference Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
41 Audubon - short web page with no author
Replaced. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50 animal diversity web - more scholarly source needed
59 Staff, Bowker - what is this?
64 Alward, Brian Floyd (2007) - Masters degree thesis not suitable
66 Watch, Wisconsin Project Loon (1984) - is this needed
I'm surprised by the number of field guides cited: 16 Ryan; 18 Dunne; 19 Icenoggle; 21 Kaufman; 26 Rappole; 27 Peterson; 65 Stallcup; 32 Eastman. Usually field guides are general tertiary sources that lack cites to the primary literature. If you have difficulty accessing any article, please email me. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced the number of field guides. I think it should be acceptable within its scope. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add a couple more comments:

  • HBW is archived - this is silly as the archive is only the entry page for those without a subscription.
  • "and very rarely in Scotland, to the east, and in Alaska to the west.[15]" This is ambiguous as it could be understood that they very rarely breed in Alaska when in fact Alaska has the largest breeding pop of any US state. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment

  • Status and conservation : "In addition, it also has a large population size." How large is the population and how is it distributed both when breeding during the summer and then during the winter? - Aa77zz (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz Hopefully, all the comments have been addressed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources comments edit

Some of the above comments appear to relate to sources, although this is not specified. I've done a basic sources review, testing that all links are working, and checking formats, etc. Just a couple of points:

  • Ref 5: The "imprimatur" (i.e. publisher) is shown as "J.C. Kall". This should be added, together with publisher location
  • Added! For consistency with other references, did not add the publisher location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46: The title of the source article appears to be "Loon vocalizations: what you are hearing and what does it mean?", rather than the title that's showing.

Otherwise, from my perspective all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton Thanks a bunch for your comments! Hopefully, the two issues have been fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton Do you have any more comments? Thanks! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've dealt with the two points I raised, so sources are clear so far as links and formats are concerned. That is what I checked; I have no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • I'll review this soon, first some image comments. When an image is very long vertically, like the drawing of the egg here, it is a good idea to add the "upright" parameter, it will make the image smaller, so it doesn't take so much space and clash with the other images. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer at that picture, only the bottom egg is of this species, so it should be extracted as a new file and replace the image in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this photo of an adult with chicks[16] is of better quality than the one currently in the article.
  • Maybe it would be nice to show the immature bird.[17]
  • "It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" So what happened to this species name? Who coined it and when?
  • I've re-written this section, Colymbus was the original name, clearer now?. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The " It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" seems out of place since you follow this by " first described the common loon in 1764". Better for flow if the information is chronological, so you start with original description, then go on to synonyms.
  • The photo under Distribution and habitat is quite frankly boring, and is basically the same as the one in the taxobox. Why not a photo like this[18], or video like this[19]?
  • "The underparts are pure white, but has some black" Plural, so "have".
  • "and the webs are flesh coloured" I would add "the webs between the toes" or some such.
  • "duration of about one minute" Could be converted.
  • "and has a stable population trend that does warrant a vulnerable rating" Does not?
  • "Norway (Svalbard and mainland Norway)" Why do we need the part in parenthesis? Svalbard belongs to Norway.
  • "The common loon has faced a decline in breeding range primarily due to hunting, predation, human destruction of habitat, contaminant exposure, and water-level fluctuations, or flooding. Some environmentalists attempt to increase nesting success by mitigating the effects of some of these threats, namely terrestrial predation and water-level fluctuations, through the deployment of rafts and artificial nesting islands in the loon's breeding territories.[44]" This seems it belongs under conservation rather than breeding, and you also have similar text there.
  • " Onomatopoeic names representing the bird's call" No examples? Also seems grammatically wrong in context of the full sentence.
  • "eaten in the Scottish island" Islands?
  • "The common loon appears on Canadian currency, including the one-dollar "loonie" coin and the previous series of $20 bills.[73] It is the provincial bird of Ontario.[74] It was designated the state bird of Minnesota in 1961" Non-Americans might think Minnesota is also in Canada, sicne you start by mentioning Canada and Canadian places, but then jump straight to a US state without mentioning the country.
  • Any reason why the article listed under Further reading isn't used as a source?
  • Removed, I think this non-specialist publication adds little, a hangover from earlier versions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(another former name, great northern loon, was a compromise proposed by the International Ornithological Committee)" This long elaboration should be given in the article body, not the intro. All common names should also be listed in the article body.
  • The bill is described as black, but it looks grey in most photos, even in summer plumage?
  • The description in the intro seems a bit too short.
  • Seems you go into way much detail about conservation systems in the intro, most of it isn't really needed. Yet you don't mention cultural issues at all, though the intro should summarise the entire article.
  • Seems there is only one point left unanswered before I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, lol, FunkMonk the remaining comments (including one of yours) are a bit difficult to address for me, so having a much closer look at them! :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - alright, everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77 edit

  • Just a quick glance-over, make sure all your ISBN's are hyphenated correctly, and the taxobox needs the parameter |synonyms_ref=   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Dunkleosteus77 for this and most subsequent, I don't think it's good practice let alone a requirement to link to Google books, given the geographical variation and temporal instability of such links. I don't think it's a good idea to link to material that isn't fully free to read anyway, since that's effectively promoting the sales of the book. In 70 FAs I've never linked to Google Books and I've never had any suggestion that it is desirable before Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A case in point is your google link for ref 27. In the UK, I can't see any text. i suspect that will be the case for others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Thanks! Actually, this is the text that was cited, and the source supports it. However, it is a google book link, and would be best to not include it as a url. The page number is provided anyways, so I think the readers would not be confused as to which page is cited (This revision history might be helpful in finding the links, as the google links were there :P). Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention maximum diving time but you should mention average diving time too (ref no. 24 says 42 seconds)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref no. 36 is cited wrong, at the very bottom of the pdf it says how to cite it (under "Abstract citation")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added author and year, but not location since that's not required in citeweb Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a paid subscription, but I went to the page without signing in and all I could see was the first section (taxonomy) and the first two lines only of subsequent sections. Not sure how you are seeing the full text without paying Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sticking to HBW, one minute (few sources say one, few say three, few even say five). So, removed the mention of three minutes. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to say that the max time is disagreed upon and then list all the possible times   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you got the source right I think, but this is the actual citation, and shows the information present in the article. I do not know why your source is not showing any mention of loon. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Animal Diversity Web a reliable ref? I'm asking because I vaguely remember someone telling me that it's not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the doi in ref no. 43 is not hyperlinking which makes me think that it's not formatted correctly   

User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • remove the url from ref no. 55 since it doesn't link to a full version of the article, and it has a PMID of 28665230   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ref for the feather lice thing is from 50 years ago, is there are more recent ref you can use? It's not a problem if there isn't by the way   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink "acid rain," and has the loon's breeding range moved upward because of acid rain?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked to acid rain! Yeah, the range has move northward because the lakeshore habitat got polluted. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to word it differently, it kind of looks like separate thoughts, like they moved northwards and also they're environment is harmed by acid rain, etc., instead of they moved northwards because of acid rain, etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it's just the ADW ref and the fifty-year-old ref (but the second one is optional) and I can support. Also about the dive times, since there're multiple conflicting times from seemingly reputable sources, you might just want to list the 3 minute and the 5 minute dives also and say there's some controversy around it (but you don't have to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shyamal edit

  • The alternate name which redirects here is not included in the lead or marked in bold. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... has varying levels of intensity and can be identified as type I, II, or III." This seems to be some kind of study-specific classification which makes sense if it is clarified but otherwise is uninformative. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has different intensity values, which I did not write, as they seem to be very particular information. Removed the mention of the types. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every male loon has a unique yodel, which changes if the loon changes territory" - Sounds contradictory but I have looked it up and it needs far more careful explanation and the main paper that looks at this in detail is worth reading, synthesizing and citing - https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Walcott2005.pdf . Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it summarizes the results of the study - would suggest something along the lines of "...male that occupies a new territory appears to alter its yodel to be clearly distinguishable from the call of the previous territory owner." Shyamal (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The common loon's breeding range has moved northward," ... a time scale is useful. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heavy metals such as mercury may be partially removed from a bird's organs through excretion or deposition "... the sentence somehow suggests volition but I think this needs a rewrite with better choice of verbs which may need a little more reading/knowledge in/of general biology, especially on matters of toxicology - for instance a link to bio-magnification would make the next senten: ce a bit more easy to justify logically. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyamal: Thanks a ton for your review! Is there anything more you would like to suggest? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyamal: If everything looks fine from your side, we could have your support. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this needs a re-examination by someone familiar with this species and its biology (Sorry if perhaps you are but I feel quite unsure of several aspects). I fixed a few things in the lead but there are still rather odd pieces here and there
  • This does not parse well for me - "The common loon swims gracefully on the surface, dives as well as any flying bird, and flies competently for hundreds of kilometres in migration" Shyamal (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now just The common loon swims and dives well..., presumed comparison with penguins seems pointless even if true Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add specifically, since it is a pursuit predator one would like to know about its vision
  • I see that points on nocturnality and diurnality are unanswered see for instance (now incorporated)
  • I have just had to research for myself that loons migrate by day - (now incorporated)
  • There are subtle differences in the use of the terms "single clutch" (a bunch of eggs) and "single brood" (a bunch of young) and for instance in the lead, one would prefer to use single brood, because, typically a clutch will be replaced if damaged.
Now fixed. Broods are not laid. Shyamal (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks a lot, Shyamal! That really helps... really tough FAC this one. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the requirements of a tertiary source (like an encyclopaedic entry) is to lead readers to the most important primary and secondary sources ever published (and sometimes these may not be online). For instance, I have just looked at the journal entries in Google Scholar for "Gavia immer" with high citations and some of these are not cited in this article - for example this study on the pelvic musculature and doi:10.1007/FBF00023169 with 102 citations (now incorporated) - I am aware that not all reviewers have this expectation while examining FA and GA by the listed criteria. The only way this can be addressed is by making a near-complete bibliography and examining the sources.
  • I am not sure predators and parasites as a heading can accommodate other mortality sources such as disease (arguably also parasites!) - http://www.jstor.org/stable/1589663 http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.7589/0090-3558-34.3.524 (incorporated)
  • {{I take your point, although in practice most bird FAs do include diseases under this heading. Not sure what would be better though. Adding "diseases" to the heading looks cumbersome, perhaps rename "Natural mortality", although that's out of step with other bird FAS. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

No ALT text used anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Good catch! The image three is actually a hbw map taking the base world map mentioned in the source section (the base map is not the actual range map, but only the normal world map on which colouring has been done). For image four, removed the "other versions" part, and also moved video! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Do you have any more comments on images, or is it a support image-wise? Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not generally explicitly support or oppose FAC nominations, consider this "no opposition" however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC edit

Lead
  • The lead says nothing about its European breeding locations, referring only to its locations in North America and Iceland. Why?
Iceland is the main part of its European range, and the others are mentioned in the main text, but added them to lead also Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can sentences 3 and 5 not be better integrated somehow?
  • I can't quite see what you are asking here. Perhaps other edits may have changed the sentence numbering? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead bounces back and forth from single (it) to multiple (breeding adults). One or the other consistently would be better.
  • I've changed to consistently plural except where the text is clearly referring to the species as such. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Least concern but special status? Tell me briefly why in the lead.
  • "The sexes appear alike." Aren't males larger? Perhaps "The sexes look alike, though males are significantly larger and heavier than females." would be more apt.
Taxonomy
  • Is there really no dictionary available to use as sources for the etymology of "loon" and "diver" that doesn't require a subscription or a UK library card?!
  • I think it's generally accepted that OED is an authoritative source on etymology, especially first uses, and many sources like journals odon't have free access to text. What did you have in mind? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the possibility of "loon" coming from Scandinavian words for "lame" or "clumsy", as suggested in HBW?
  • OED has a separate entry and etymology for "loon" to refer to a clumsy person rather than the bird, and even that doesn't support the derivation you suggest. I don't think HBW is an authoritative source for etymology Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The url for reference 10 does not go to the specified source. Was this perhaps copied from loon without checking it?
    I did find the ref at this link, but there is nothing here that backs up these sentences.
  • Guilty as charged, I'm afraid, but I think my changes in response to your next comment solve this anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to reference 11, the ancient usage of Gavia probably refered to terns, not smews! Again, was this just copied from loon?
  • There's a lot of confusion here, gulls being another suggested ID. I've settled for Jobling's conclusion that the species can't be identified and replaced the previous refs 10, 11 and 12 with his most authoritative book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the common loon really in Colymbus until the 1960s? (I doubt it; Forster created Gavia for the loons in 1788.)

More to come... MeegsC (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course, the fact that the genus Gavia existed then doesn't necessarily preclude some authorities using Colymbus, presumably why the ICZN felt it necessary to make a decision, intending to close a controversy centred around the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) which for seventy years had divided the ornithologists of the Old World and the New, the former using this name for the Divers (Loons), the latter for the Grebes. The link to the text seems to have become truncated at some stage, so you might not have seen that, fixed now. I'll see if I have anything to illustrate late use of Colymbus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This 1947 article uses Colymbus for the loons only a few years before the ICZN ruling. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a link to a 1951 article as a note to make it clear that this was a live issue right up to the ICZN ruling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks edit

  • This is generally a fine article, and a topic important enough that I would love to see it get to FAC status. In looking over some previous GA nominations by Adityavagarwal, I've raised concerns multiple times about close paraphrasing and/or references that only support part of what they are used for. Given that, I would ideally like to see a spot check of the sources here. I'm rather busy at the moment, so I'm posting this in the hope that somebody else will undertake such a check. If that does not happen, I will do my best to perform such a check soon, as I understand you may wish to wrap this up by October 31. Please understand that I've no wish to be a dampener on this process, nor am I suggesting any bad faith whatsoever: I merely wish to be certain that due care has been taken. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your comments! :) I do not think there are any copyvio issues according to earwig, and if you pick up any source present in the article, I am sure it would contain the information it cites. I have already checked most of the information present in the article against the sources, in response to your comment earlier in the talk page. I am also making sure in checking the whole article and the information the references support before nominating any to GAN, because I did find sources that were added even before I started editing those articles, which I replaced with more accurate ones. Although, I do agree I might still have an error or two (humans do err, right?). I am currently bust with examinations, and that is why I am not able to give much time on wikipedia.

Brianboulton Would you like to perform a spot check on the sources? :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the above request I selected 10 sources at random, to spotcheck for close paraphrasing and accurate representation. Five of my sample presented no problem; with regard to the other five I noted the following:

  • Ref 17:
  • Article: "A number of fossil loon species are known from the Pliocene, and specimens from the Pleistocene of California and Florida appear to represent a paleosubspecies of the common loon"
  • Source: the source text is fairly impenetrable to the inexpert reader, but I couldn't find wording that supports the above statement. The word "paleosubspecies" does not appear in the source
  • I believe that A loon near immer also occurs in the Pleistocene of California and Florida. is supposed to source the second sentence, but I don't see how to get from "near immer" to "paleosubspecies". The first sentence appears to be adequately supported by the list of Pliocene fossil species on page 214. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21a:
  • Article: " It has a skeletal structure made up of a number of solid bones (unlike typical avian bones, which are normally hollow), which adds weight but helps in diving"
  • Source: I'm unable to find any reference to skeletal structure, solid bones, avian bones or hollow bones. The only mention of bones in the source is the brief sentence "Loons swim low in the water because their bones are heavy".
This is factually correct though. I have added an appropriate citation. Shyamal (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 41:
  • Article: "Significantly more nesting sites are found on islands than on mainland shoreline"
  • Source: "significantly more nesting sites were on islands than on mainland shoreline segments."
  • WP:LIMITED might apply here depending on whether it can be rewritten; "the birds nest more on islands than on shorelines of the mainland" is not exactly the same statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 58:
  • Article: "Internal parasites of the common loon include many species of worms, including flatworms, tapeworms, nematodes and spiny-headed worms"
  • Source: I've searched the pdf of the full article, and could find no mention of flatworms, tapeworms or spiny-headed worms
  • Spiny-headed worms are also know as Acanthocephala, trematodes are in the phylum of flatworms, and the best known species of cestodes is tapeworm. So, since Acanthocephala, trematodes, and cestodes agree with the paper, I think we could say the source is accurate? Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be inaccurate. Actually better to go by good sources - this needs careful research and phrasing. I would suggest a careful reading of sources like this. Shyamal (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or this! MeegsC (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 73:
  • Article: "In addition, artificial floating nesting platforms have been provided for the common loon in some lakes to reduce the impact of changing water levels due to dams and other human activities."
  • Source: I can't find anything in the article supporting "to reduce the impact of changing water levels due to dams and other human activities." The paper's focus is in presenting "success-failure ratios of island v. non-island nesting, and describes the techniques of building artificial islands designed for loon use..."

I'm prepared to be convinced that some of my concerns might arise from my lack of understanding what the source texts mean, but on the face of it, a 50 percent problem ratio should be a matter of some concern. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Brianboulton. Adityavagarwal, I've said this before, but I would like to reiterate it. Your enthusiasm for animal articles is commendable, and your output has been amazing to watch. But if your articles all have such issues, the expansions end up creating more issues than they can solve. It is unfortunate that GA reviews are often not thorough enough to catch things like this, and they should. But the policies here are quite straightforward: content should be supported by sources, and should be paraphrased enough to avoid copyright issues. Please remember, Brianboulton has flagged these issues after you said that you had checked all the sources at GAN. Please, please be more careful with your use of sources. On this article, on everything you have under review, and on everything you're planning on writing in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Is anything being done about the above issues in the source review? This nomination has been open for nearly two months and has only two supports. The problems highlighted in the spot checks is a little concerning, and we are fairly close to having to archive this. If work was being done, or if Shyamal or MeegsC were to complete their reviews, we might leave it open a little longer but otherwise I think this might have run its course. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid nothing seems to be happening on this review any more. Therefore, with no consensus to promote and with issues remaining over sourcing, I will be archiving this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual 2-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2017 [20].

Carol (film) edit

Nominator(s): Pyxis Solitary talk 05:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Matt723star (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Carol, a 2015 romantic drama about two women who fall in love in the 1950's. To me, the article is fantastic; it is well written and absolutely sourced to the heavens. I see it, as a genuine Wikipedia user and reader, as a top contender for FA hopefully by December, or even January. I don't have much experience in getting articles up to speed in terms of what it needs to be on the front page; I've managed to nominate and gain a page its GA status (West Coast by Lana Del Rey), but that's it. I'm capable of making edits, but I need others who are far more experienced to see this page and help wipe out the cracks and gain it the spot it deserves. And I've had people come for me and discredit my nomination for another page before because I either didn't have much edit history or because my contributions to the site haven't been as glamorous as some, so if this nomination goes away then by all means please, someone who's been here forever, re-nominate it. --Matt723star (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 film Carol directed by Todd Haynes, based on the groundbreaking 1952 lesbian romance novel The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith. Carol received 276 nominations, won 90 awards, and in the first extensive critical survey by the British Film Institute of 84 years of LGBT cinema from 12 countries was named the "best LGBT film of all time" in March 2016. After considerable contributions, I nominated it for GA status, helping it pass review on August 7, 2017. It is now listed as a Media and drama good article. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: Then shouldn't it be your name at the top of the page? Matt723star has made four edits to the article ever, and they were all 18 months ago. Nominations by editors who haven't been significantly involved in the writing are normally summarily closed because FAC is an interactive process and there's no point in reviewers providing feedback to someone who isn't familiar with the material. If you're happy to proceed, and you're in a position to address comments about the subject matter and the sources, I'd recommend you add your name at the top; if you're not, then this should probably be closed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: If Matt723 agrees with your suggestion, I'll step into the role of nominator. @Matt723star: Pyxis Solitary talk 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I have provided comments below, I am not sure about this FAC should proceed given that the nominator has not made a large contribution to the article, and he or she does not appear to have consulted with any of the primary editors. The nominator has done similar behavior in the past, such as putting up The Witch (2015 film) without doing a lot of editing on the article and then ignoring the nomination completely. Again, I am not sure if this FAC should proceed or not, but it definitely raises a red flag for me at least. The nominator also has done similar behavior with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sylvia Plath/archive1 so it may be best to close this on similar grounds.Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: @Aoba47: Matt723star has not responded and his login history is sporadic. After (1) HJ Mitchell's recommendation and (2) Aoba47's information about the nominator's past history in these matters, I added my name as the nominator, and crossed out Matt723's name and his nomination comment. I hope I did not misunderstand what "add your name at the top" (as nominator) meant. Please let me know if what I did was the way to go ('cause I know how thorny some things can become).
Does the FAC process have a time frame? I'm asking because right now my circadian rhythm is on the fritz and I'm crossing time zones again soon. In the meantime, I'm going to start handling the suggestions by Aoba47. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my concerns. And FACs usually last a while so that it receives a lot of feedback from different users so I think you should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! That's a relief. :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the update so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would greatly appreciate it if you could put your responses directly under each of my original comments so that way I can easily tell what you have addressed and read through your response easier. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should have thought about it when I responded. Sorry. I moved the "track" to after your comments. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to find another editor familiar with the subject that is willing to lend a hand in the FAC process. Unbeknownst to me when I took on the nomination, once the process has started there is reluctance by other parties to become involved. I have to balance my time on Wikipedia, therefore, I must regretfully withdraw my name as nominator. (Time permitting, I will do what I can to edit the two sections that some editors have suggested could be more cohesive.) Pyxis Solitary talk 07:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added "status=withdrawn" to the FAC template in the article's talk page. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I would change this part in the lead, (also known as Carol), to (later republished as Carol). I think that the verb “known” is a little vague and I think saying that it was republished would be more specific.
  • In this phrase (The next morning they discover that), I think you need a comma after “The next morning”.
  • In this phrase (Carol, meantime, has been seeing a), I think that “meantime” should be “in the meantime”.
  • In this phrase (During a meeting in mid-April with divorce lawyers that becomes confrontational), could it be shortened to the following (During a confrontational meeting in mid-April with divorce lawyers) for more concise language?
  • In this phrase ( contained and refuses to deny her nature), I would revise the word choice for “her nature”. It borders on being a euphemism and the phrasing should be more direct.
  • I would revise “demands regular visitation even if supervised.” to “demands regular visitation even if it requires supervision”. Just something about the original phrasing feels incomplete to me.
  • In this phrase (it was risky idea to play the role of Carol), it should read as “it was a risky idea”.
  • For this phrase (Film4 Productions and Tessa Ross financed the development of the film), I would make the connection between Ross and Film4 Productions clearer. It reads somewhat awkwardly to jump from a company to an individual person financing the film without any connection.
  • I would add the year in which Rear Window was released. Same goes for Brief Encounters.
  • I would link Eisenhower on its first use in the article.
  • I am not certain about having the Burwell and Lachman sentences as their own paragraph in the “Pre-production” subsection. It appears a little choppy this way in my opinion.
  • I think that these two sentences (They decided to show the cut to Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was impressed and endorsed it.) can be combined.
  • The images require ALT text.
  • I am a little confused by the structure of the “Critical response” subsection. are the second, third, and fourth paragraphs organized according to any theme or common point of reference in the critics’ reviews? I think that this section could use more revision to read more like a narrative instead of a list of critics’ opinions and their relevant quotes.
  • Has there been any progress on this front? Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this time I am unable to contribute the extensive editing that is being requested. I need to take my own advice and not turn Wikipedia into a job. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand how you feel; I have certainly spent too much time on Wikipedia in the past in my pursuit of various projects so it is important to remember to balance everything and put value and time in things that are really important and matter in the long-term. I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination then. Good luck with all of your work outside of Wikipedia and have a wonderful day! On a side-note, I keep meaning to see this film, but I still have not for some reason lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I truly appreciate your understanding. There is another editor that devoted a vast amount of time and contributions to the article and, hopefully, she will be taking a look at it. As for the film ... do see it. As an actress, Cate Blanchett is a chameleon. (Not only do I own two copies of the DVD and Blu-ray, but my home folder for Carol contains 4,215 items. You might say I totes like the movie. :-) By the way, exactly how do you withdraw an FAC nomination? Pyxis Solitary talk 01:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely will check it out in the future, and I think that as long as you state your intentions, then the FAC coordinators (@Sarastro1:@Ian Rose:) will handle the rest. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, this ping didn't show up in my notifications for some reason, I just happened on it when doing a period search for withdrawal requests among the FAC list. I'll take care of it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a similar concern with the “Response to Academy Award omissions”. It does not appear that the critics’ opinions are tied together into a strong narrative and it reads rather choppy (particularly with the use of a few shorter paragraphs, and a one-sentence paragraph at the end). I would suggest revising this to make it more cohesive for the reader.
  • Has there been any progress on this front? Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same response as ditto question above. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the LGBT link up to the first instance. Right now it is linked in a different place other than its first appearance in the article.
  • I am not sure about the inclusion of Desert Hearts in the “See also” section. Unless critics have tied these two films together, it borders on original research. I would remove it.
  • If Desert Hearts and Carol (film) are connected, then why is it not brought up in the article itself? Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re no connection made between Carol and Desert Hearts: I think it's been the result of not many editors knowing about Desert Hearts (and sometimes I read and re-read an article I'm involved in and don't see what's right in front of my nose). I can add the info in either the text or the *See also* section as a notation. { I'll betcha that wherever I add it and how I do it, someone is going to object. :-) } Pyxis Solitary talk 09:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep track — I made the following edits so far:
  • Carol republished
  • Comma
  • Meantime
  • During a meeting....
  • Nature
  • Regular visitation....
  • Risky idea
  • Rear Window and Brief Encounter
  • Eisenhower
  • Burwell and Lachman
  • LGBT link
  • Weinstein
  • Re ALT text: there are two images, the film poster and the photo from 2015 Cannes premiere. Both have text descriptions. I'm confused about what else needs to be done. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing this. At the time that I put up my comments, the ALT text was not there. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gertanis edit

  • I'm not crazy about that reception paragraph. It consists almost entirely of pull-quotes from Eng-Lang film critics, almost all positive, with no significant thematic thread uniting them. See Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for some advice. There is also very little first-response criticism à la cannoise: keep in mind that this was one of the most hotly anticipated films of the 68th Cannes Film Festival, as Mr. Haynes is bit of a darling on the Croisette, ever since scoring the Prix de la meilleure contribution artistique for Velvet Goldmine in '98. Keeping it Gallic, maybe we should mention that Cahiers du cinéma put this beautiful mélo on their 2016 Top 10 list? See also reviews in Libération, Premiere, LeMonde.
  • I miss a proper section on #THEMES, or indeed, analysis of Haynes' cinematic technique. There's lot of useful stuff on CriticsRoundUp.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool shows 59.9%. That's way too high—please paraphrase.
  • I find it strange to have a paragraph on 'popular culture', considering that the film itself is indeed popular culture—it reeks of trivia. Please integrate elsewhere in the prose.
  • We need alt text for the images.
  • The whole para on 'Controversy' is rather unfortunate, as it might become a troll magnet. See WP:CRIT. Same comment wrt 'popular culture' as above.

That's that for now. Gertanis (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pull quotes, French reviews, and Top 10 lists. The pull quotes are no different than those about critical response found in other film articles. I am fluent in more than one language, but French is not one of them. Based on the languages I do know, the accuracy of a web translator is not a reliable option, and I don't think the inclusion of French-language in the article would get a thumbs-up in this English language Wikipedia. There used to be a prose summary about top 10 lists, but it and the reliable sources were deleted by an editor. The hassle that ensued because of it is not worth revisiting.
Re: Themes and Critic's Roundup. Per MOS:FILM > Themes: "A separate section is not required if it is more appropriate to place the material in the Production or Reception sections." And in the article that's where you find the "themes" about the film. I believe an analysis of Haynes' technique is more appropriate in his article. Some of the opinions you find in Critic's Roundup are already cited in the article
Re: Earwig tool. That tool is questionable considering that many reviewers repeat the same details about a film. Except for personal reaction based on a reviewer's feelings, critics regurgitate and spin what they read elsewhere (often from production notes distributed at screenings). When content is quoted words, it has been sourced.
Re: Popular culture. According to MOS:FILM it's a legitimate section. It could be renamed, but the content is valid.
Re: Alt tex. Aoba47 pointed it out in his comments.
Re: Controversy section. What WP:CRIT is about does not apply here. What happened is a documented fact and is verified with reliable sources. It is not a section about "viewpoints".
Quite honestly, after looking at other Featured Articles about films, such as (for example) 200 (Stargate SG-1), Casino Royale (2006 film), Little Miss Sunshine, Summer of '42, and The Whistleblower -- I don't understand the basis for the critique regarding the reception section, popular culture, and controversy sections. They're all different articles with their own, individual circumstances and record, but the Carol article is not far removed from what you find in them, yet they were good enough for FA status. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for jumping into the discussion. I think that the primary issue with the critical reception sub-section is that it lacks a clear structure or narrative. Right now, it appears more like a list of quotes and critic's opinions in a rather random order. I would recommend looking through this source (which has already been linked above) to better understand how to revise the critical reception section as it does need work. A similar thing can be said about the controversy sub-section as it does not have a clear structure or narrative. The information is presented in an unclear and choppy manner and could improve from clear organization. I am not opposed to the sub-section staying, but it needs work to show its benefits to the article. I have to agree with Gertanis' concerns with the "In popular culture" sub-section. It could be integrated into a revised critical reception sub-section or be a part an an "Impact" sub-section if you could find more information on the film's impact following its release. I apologize for intruding on Gertanis' comments; just wanted to try to bring some clarity to this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The main editor does not seem to appreciate constructive criticism of the article, which is what this nomination page is all about. Pointing to practices in other featured articles is of little value, as they are indeed "different articles with their own, individual circumstances and record". I'm sorry if I'm being a wet blanket/douchebag here, but it's necessary, if this article is to become a top-notch page. Many thanks to aoba47 for his wise comments—other reviewers are also welcome to participate in this particular discussion. Gertanis (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments. You have pointed to important issues that need to be addressed in the nomination and the article as a whole. I would greatly encourage the nominator to look through these comments again and revise the article accordingly. If this FAC does not work (and I am not suggesting that it will not as it is still the beginning), then I would suggest peer review before putting this up again for a second FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2017 [21].

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) edit

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second studio album by Romanian singer Alexandra Stan. This is already the fifth (!!) nomination of this article, and I fully believe it should be promoted. There has been a lot work that was put into this, and I thik it is now ready for a better status than GA. I would greatly appreciate comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • As much as I would like to see this article pass, I find it strange that you nominate this article without any activity for months. Can you explain what steps you have done to improve this article from its last failed nomination? Can you also explain why you have decided not to edit the article in about two months and then renominate it for FAC? I look forward to your answers as it may be brought up by others who may find it puzzling since your only explanation is that it should be promoted. Thanks – jona ✉ 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, @AJona1992: There was actually a lot going on with this article. First, I have requested a copy-edit. Then, I have worked in detail to the article with Mike Christie, which also led to a check on each source. As the previous nomination (and most of the other) left me with nearly no comments and were closed due to inactivity, I decided to give this another try. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk)
  • While I like the content of the following sentence, I believe it can be cut down for clarity and conciseness: (She also took part in the first international songwriting camp FonoCamp in 2013, where she worked on material that was featured on the album.). I would reword it to the following for those reasons: (She also developed material for the album while attending the first international songwriting camp FonoCamp in 2013). On an unrelated note, songwriting camps sound really cool lol.
  • Is the comparisons with Britney Spears, Rihanna, and Sia notable enough for the lead? It is interesting information for sure, and it is important to include it in the relevant section in the article itself, but since only one critic made this comparison, it seems relatively minor to put so prominently in the lead. I would remove the sentence completely for this reason.
  • This is really picky so I apologize in advance, but I am not certain about the use of the word “sepia” in the ALT text for the Japan-exclusive album cover. It looks more black-and-white to me. This comment applies to the use of the word “sepia” in the “Release and artwork” section.
  • In the first sentence of the first paragraph in the “Background and development” section, add a comma after “In 2012 and 2013”.
  • The following sentence contains important content, but it reads a little awkwardly, particularly the second half: (The record's release was postponed following an alleged physical altercation with her manager Marcel Prodan, with her accusing Prodan of physically attacking and blackmailing her). I would revise it into two sentences, as I have stated below, just to make it read more smoothly in this section: (The record's release was postponed following an alleged physical altercation with her manager Marcel Prodan. Stan had accused Prodan of physically attacking and blackmailing her). I just do not find the “with her” sentence construction to be particularly successful or beneficial in this context.
  • In this phrase ( A re-issue of Saxobeats (2011) was finally made available), I do not believe the “finally” is necessary as it adds a little bit too much of a spin to the information. It should read as objectively as possible so I think that the word choice there pushes it towards a little bit of an issue regarding that.
  • For the sentence on the re-issue, I would add reference 5 to the end of it just to make it absolutely clear what reference is being used to support this information. There may be some confusion as the follow sentence uses both references 5 and 6 in the same part so clarification would be nice there.
  • In the second paragraph of the same section, there is a few repetitions of the album title, and I would recommend cutting back on that.
  • I have said this in a past FAC for this, but I just do not find the image in the “Promotion and commercial performance” to be that helpful. I understand it is really the only image of Stan performing during this album’s cycle, but it is just so low-quality (it is very blurry, you can barely make out Stan’s face) that I would just remove it altogether from the article as it really does not add much in my opinion.
  • I would add a clarifying phrase in front of Alesta to let readers know that is Stan’s third studio album, as it kind of just appears without any context in that sentence.
  • Please add a link for “Cherry Pop” in its first use in the article. The same applies to all of the singles as it appears that they are not linked on their first use in the body of the article (unless I am missing them, which is possible).
  • Please add the year in which “We Wanna” was released.
  • You have “dance music” linked twice; please link it only once.

I think that you have done excellent work with this article. My review is entirely focused on the prose, and I have not looked into anything related to the source reliability as I will leave that up to the person who conducts the source review. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Good luck with this round, and hopefully, you will receive more attention with this go. If possible, I would greatly appreciate some attention at my current FAC? It is kind of funny how we both nominated two album-related FACs around a similar time lol. Regardless of whether or not you can contribute to my own FAC, I hope you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi there! Thank you very much for taking your time to review this article. I have adressed every issue that you raised above. I'm looking forward to review "Sleeping with..." and analyze your Pru FAC (that could last until next week). Best regards and thanks again, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments, and I am looking forward to your reviews. I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Paparazzzi edit

Resolved comments from Paparazzzi (talk)
  • Expect a review soon. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Promotion and commercial performance section: Remove the Argentinian chart, since Los 40 Principales is part of WP:BADCHARTS
  • In the Composition and reception section: "The saxophone sound from "Mr. Saxobeat" (2011) returns on "Dance"." It sounds odd; maybe you tried to say that in "Dance" is used a similar saxophone sound from "Mr. Saxobeat"?
  • "and another Hitfire editor felt that "Dance", while the better than the previous singles from Unlocked, was unoriginal." Remove "the"
  • Is "Little Lies" an actual cover of Fleetwood Mac's song, or just use a sample? Because the only similarity (I noticed) between those two songs is the chorus.
  • Add and External links section
    • These are my comments; once they addressed, I will support this nomination. Regards, and great work! --Paparazzzi (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paparazzzi: Everything done, thank you SO much!! "Little Lies" appears to be just a cover as it's not credited to sample the Fletwood Mac single. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, so I'm going to support this nomination. If you don't mind, could you take a look at my FAC? If you are not able to do it, don't worry, I understand. Congratulations for your great work! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Paparazzzi: Thank you very much! Of course I will have a look at your FAC. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been addressed, so I'm going to support this nomination. If you don't mind, could you take a look at my FAC? If you are not able to do it, don't worry, I understand. Congratulations for your great work! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Sportsguy17 edit

The only two things I noticed were so minor that I just took care of them myself. With that, I support this nomination. A very well-written and well-organized article, good work! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon edit

I'm not a music expert, never heard of this album or artist, so just a few comments on prose. There's little to argue about, fine work:

  • Commercially, -> Not sure this is the right word. Is this ranking all about money?
Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlocked itself debuted -> this seems a bit odd, almost an afterthought. But isn't this the topic of the article instead of all these singles? I would expect a more prominent position, and definitely more detailed info.
Originally, the article included a nearly week-by-week overview of the album and its sales in Japan. However, that was suggested to be removed as it was way too much info for just one charting country. I think the info that we have now suffices. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • both the album and its content -> a puzzling choice of words
Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all really. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thank you very much for your comments and your time. I responded to your comments. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Although we have three supports so far, I'd be happier if some reviewers could look more closely at 1a, 1b and 1c so that we can see if the article meets those criteria. I wonder if Mike Christie or J Milburn are able to have a look? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm afraid I'm a little stretched for time at the moment and so can't make any promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if John or Tony1 are available to take a look? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John edit

  • Which dialect of English is the article in? I see examples of both major spelling conventions at the moment. John (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Hi there! The article should be written in British English, I think. Btw can we do a copy-edit to fix these issues? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to this early version, which has "colorful" and "practicing", which are American English. Per MOS:RETAIN we should leave it in this dialect. --John (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cover art for Unlocked was photographed by Dimitri Caceaune and shows Stan sporting a multicolored jacket in front of a neon light But neon light is red and the image looks green. What's going on? --John (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John: What's your suggestion here? I think it's odd to say "purple−pink background"; what should we do instead? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John: What do you think of: "...and shows Stan green–toned, wearing a multicolored jacket in front of a pink–purple background." ? Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I must have missed your first ping. Yes, that looks better. Do you accept my point above about WP:ENGVAR? --John (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another question; I see 18 references to iTunes; doesn't this source fall into WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are there other less promotional sources we could use? --John (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I haven't found any other source where I can get release dates for so many countries. Is iTunes that bad? I have seen it in other FACs. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: While John is working, I wonder if HJ Mitchell could take a look at this as well? I think between us, we should get this wrapped up fairly soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will look tomorrow morning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

Oppose at this time, purely on prose. I might pick up on a few things not related to prose, but prose is primarily what I'm looking at.

  • I don't review a lot of music articles, but from a quick glance at a few album FAs, it seems usual to include the genre in the opening sentence.
  • Even just the lead paragraph is choppy. It's essentially one fact per sentence with nothing linking them to make it flow.
  • She also developed material What's that also trying to say? In addition to what? And while we're on that phrase, what sort of material?
  • Album or record? Be consistent. Sure, mix it up a bit when you need to avoid repetition, but at the moment you have second studio album, several producers on the record, developed material for the album, to distribute the record, The album's music (also, what else would you get on an album?), critics gave the album. And that's just in the first paragraph.
  • which had led her to take a short hiatus in 2013 "had" is often unnecessary and this one just makes the sentence confusing; putting the date at the end confuses the reader and makes them go back to the beginning to recall the album's release date.
  • Do you need to mention the altercation with the manager so prominently? If it's a crucial detail you need to explain why; if it's not, you're putting too much emphasis on it.
  • Why are we discussing its performance in Japan first?
  • for her second album ... The record's release I'll let you off for the inconsistency here, but it's not clear what you're referring to
  • I see the chopiness continues into the background section. I have other things I need to do on-wiki and off so I'm afraid that's as far as I'm going for now. I may revisit to review the rest of the article or look at other criteria if there are improvements to the prose. For now my advice would be to think of an encyclopaedia article as telling a story, rather than just listing facts.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Are these thing we can get fixed before failing this alltogether for the 5th time? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to the coordinators. There's probably a few hours' work there. It's not insurmountable, but it's more work than an FAC is supposed to need. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell:,@Sarastro1: I hope you don't get me wrong, but we could work on the article together — if you have time... Maybe we can change the "oppose" into a "support" with some work. The article is 80% ready (as it made its way to 4 previous FACs), but it just needs links between sentences and some other clarification. That should not be that hard to do... Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As we have quite a bit of support, we can leave this open longer if both the nominator and HJ Mitchell feel that the issues can be addressed relatively quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1:, @HJ Mitchell: Thank you for your response. As I said, the main issues pointed out by HJ Mitchell are the sentences being "choppy". I will take a look later and edit the article. HJ Mitchell also needs further clarification on some parts, but those are things that can be done in a few days. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest bringing in an editor experienced in writing contemporary music FAs. You are making some progress, though you've introduced a couple of new problems (the position of "as a result" suggests she left the label because of her hiatus, and "however" is generally frowned upon at FAC). You need to read it as a whole, not just a word or a sentence at a time, and look at how it flows as a story. Which is hard to do with your own work, hence my recommendation to bring someone else in. I've looked at a handful of album FAs more or less at random (including Californication (album), The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, and just for something from the same decade as Unlocked, 4 (Beyoncé album)) and I notice several things: they all seem (based on the opening paragraph and a skim of the body) better written than this article, there are very few FAs on 2010s albums, they all cite more heavyweight sources, and they're all at least twice the word count of this article. I don't know how big these problems are, or even if they are problems, because I don't know enough about music or writing music articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell:: @Ian Rose: could take a look on the article. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Harry and John. The article is still in two minds with regards to whether it wants to be in AmEng and BrEng, for example:
  1. "Dimitri Caceaune was hired..."
  2. ..."which shows Stan sporting a multicolored jacket..."
  3. "Stan's violent breakup with Prodan
  4. The use of American commas: "In late 2013," although I only see one of these
  5. Compare with the use of British date formatting, for example

The prose is not up to scratch and the refs are questionable, including their formatting. I would suggest a closure here and a copy edit elsewhere. CassiantoTalk 22:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Looking at these two opposes, and given that not much work seems to be taking place on these issues, I'm now minded to archive this. But I'd just like to clarify from Cassianto, which are the questionable references and which are those with questionable formatting? I'd also appreciate if you could give an example of where the prose needs work. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I can't speak for Cas, but if I put this side-by-side with 4 (Beyoncé album) (partly because I love Beyoncé yes, mock me for my taste in music!, but mostly because it's a relatively recent album that's not so well-known or enough of a classic that there are reams of text written about it like there are with the other examples I mentioned above), there's certainly a difference. 4 looks like it's built on highbrow news sources and specialist music press (MTV, Billboard, Rolling Stone, etc); both use roughly the same sorts of sources for the chart positions. Unlocked looks like it's built on sources that look more like tabloids or celebrity gossip websites (I don't read Romanian, so if these are highly reputable newspapers I apologise, but headlines like "An international bombe is to explode! Alexandra Stan went to Hollywood! The artist is planning a fancy comeback" [sic] don't fill me with confidence) and then on iTunes listings and similar sources. Obviously there's a language gap, and obviously anything Beyoncé does is going to attract more attention than most singers, which is why I recommended bringing in somebody with experience of writing pop music FAs to tell us whether these are showstoppers or not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm not seeing much progress on this at the moment, and given the two opposes and the concerns of John, I will be archiving this shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2017&oldid=812936241"