Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2018

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2018 [1].

The Thing (1982 film) edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase: "I know I'd make this a Featured Article. And if you were all these things, then you'd just not make it a Featured Article, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to promote Featured Articles, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to prevent this becoming a Featured Article. And then it's won."

The Thing is a 1982 horror film, it bombed at the time but has since become recognised as a milestone in the horror genre. Read, be enlightened, feedback, and hopefully this can become one of our top articles! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


One of my all time favorite films, of course I'll take a look at it. I was going to comment how there was no analysis section, but then I saw the cinematic analysis section. Here are a few more articles I was able to find on JSTOR about The Thing:

  • White, Eric (November 1993). "The Erotics of Becoming: Xenogenesis and 'The Thing'". Science Fiction Studies. 20 (3): 394–408. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  • Leane, Elizabeth (July 2005). "Locating the Thing: The Antarctic as Alien Space in John W. Campbell's 'Who Goes There?'". Science Fiction Studies. 32 (2): 225–239. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  • Gomel, Elana (July 2012). "Posthuman Voices: Alien Infestation and the Poetics of Subjectivity". Science Fiction Studies. 39 (2): 177–194. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  • Jones, Kent (January–February 1999). "John Carpenter: American Movie Classic". Film Comment. 35 (1): 26–31. Retrieved April 5, 2018.

While the cinematic analysis section looks rather in depth as it stands, you might want to at least skim through what these journals have to say about The Thing. I'll have a close look at the article tonight. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hobo I will take a look. Sorry I didn't see this update to the talk page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, defer to FH on source coverage.

  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Further reading should be a separate section, not a subsection, and should not include Wikipedia articles. Also, formatting should match references, although additional information can be included
  • Why include a location for Los Angeles Times and not New York Times? Should be either neither or both
  • FN6 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other books
  • FN7 is malformed, same with 39-41
  • Newspaper refs without URLs should include page numbers
  • GamesRadar should be italicized, as should website names like Film.com - check others
  • FN 49-50: why no spaces?
  • Formatting for FN51 doesn't match similar sources, same with 167
  • Magazine titles should be consistently italicized
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations or not
Think I hit them all Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting a rather heavy use of sources that are either written by or interviews of people directly involved in the production
  • Box Office Mojo should not be italicized, nor should UPI, nor BFI, etc - check others
As I mentioned below, the template emphasises the use of the website parameter over the publisher one, and the website template italicizes its contents. UPI may be the publisher but UPI.com is the website. The only thing I can do here is change the contents of "Website" to "upi.com" instead rather than just explicitly stating UPI. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. While the use of the website parameter is emphasized, that doesn't mean any other approach is prohibited, nor that the website parameter should be used in cases for which it is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is inappropriate but I just want this FAC over at this point, I'll sort it once SerialNumber has finished with the refs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN74: page?
  • What makes Strange Horizons a high-quality reliable source? Alt Film Guide? Screamscape?
  • Rather than Goodreads, just cite the edition directly
I am really struggling here, it's virtually impossible as far as I can see to find information on this that isn't a fansite, that's why I cited GoodReads initially. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, this particular detail doesn't require secondary sourcing - you can cite the edition directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I can't find information on those issues to cite, they're apparently in the back of an entirely different comic so I can't find the info to cite the original texts. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN123 doesn't match formatting of other sources
  • FN127: archive link doesn't appear to work correctly
  • FN131: use |via=
  • Per WP:ROTTEN, RT and Metacritic's reliability is limited for pre-2000s films
  • Review aggregators may be cited if the film in question has been reappraised in modern times. Patience, Slightlymad 05:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they are being cited here more broadly, not simply in the context of modern reappraisal. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oppose pending resolution of some of these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The locations were included for newspapers where it was literally a newspaper. If it's online there is no location because the website is the source.
  • You're not following that logic consistently - for example FN79 has both a link and a location - and I don't know that that approach is compatible with the guidance for CS1. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of FN79, I cannot find the original article so I can't give a page number. I included the link not as a source but because the particular content is quoted in it so people can at least fact check it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic aren't given any point of prominence in the article, it's just used to mention how it is perceived in a broad sense, it is not used in anyway to indicate modern appreciation, there's a whole load of text before the RT/MC mention that goes into detail about it.
  • Although they are not the only sources provided, they are fairly prominently featured within the Critical reassessment section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that is true. Those sources are the bottom of that section, they're not at the top or discussed first, they're literally the last thought of that subsection.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But are a complete paragraph within that section. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange Horizons has an article. Seems perfectly fine for what it used for. Alt Film Guide is mentioned here, I'm only using it because it's literally the only place offering the information it is citing, but I'm not attached to it so if necessary it can go. Screamscape probably isn't great, I have no idea, again it's just one of the only sites mentioning the information being cited.
  • The website parameter italices the sites automatically. Only thing I can think of is to add things like BOM and UPI as publisher and a separate website parameter.
  • Using the website parameter is not a requirement; in many cases the publisher parameter makes more sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I'm trying to read through this Template:Cite web page, and it says "Website" paramater use is suggested while "Publisher" is optional, and it uses "Rotten Tomatoes" as an example of what would go in the "Website" parameter, which would become italicized when it perhaps shouldn't be. What you're asking of me here seems to be clashing with their guidelines unless I'm reading it wrong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RT is a website, so that parameter makes sense in that case. But something like UPI is a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There s a heavy use of sources by or interivews with cast and crew as they are all that is available. I can't really do much about that.
  • Famous Hobo suggested above that there were other sources that may have been missed - have you looked at those already? Where else have you looked for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • His references are on thematic analysis, which I have read through. They're not related to production. There are not many (any) sources I've been able to find that detail the more intricate aspects of the production. I don't know why that is, I was surprised as I expected the visual effects at least and design history to be more extensively detailed, but that is all I've been able to find using search engines. I don't have the BFI book, and I'm not buying it after the one I bought for the Shawshank Redemption article had no information about the production in it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got the pages that I could, but it isn't the full book. I have read through it though there wasn't anything in it not already in the article and not really any kind of minute details I could use and/or replace content with. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I date ordered the bibliography.
  • I disagree on Further Reading, a small subsection created to house like 4 links is unnecessary and visually unappealing. Where it is is logically fine, alongside navigation templates, categories, wikiquote, etc. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navigation templates, categories, wikiquote etc are in the External links section. At the moment the Further reading section is visually unappealing, and combines the function of that section and See also. If you would prefer not to have a separate section for Further reading, two of the three publications in there are potentially citable, and the third already has an article link inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikki, I'd like to try and close this unless there's anything outstanding from your perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have flagged a few pending points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refs are sorted Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely much better. It looks like you're representing refnames as author names in Bibliography, which I'm not a fan of - suggest using a different coding method. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example Nikkimaria? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example "MediaIGN08" or "DarkHorse3". It's reasonable to use these in the footnotes themselves where a citation doesn't have an author, but they aren't actually authors so shouldn't appear as such in the Bibliography section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I don't see how the referencing works without that. Either you use "ref=sfnref" so it goes directly to the ref and skips the footnotes, or use the system Serial Number 54129 has put into place, but the referencing won't work without an author. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should work fine to use {{harvid}} within |ref= in Bibliography entries, no? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried it but it seems to break it. It either skips the footnotes or doesn't work at all. I'm not super experienced at using that template though so perhaps I'm doing something wrong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
N/m it doesn't work with harvid but it will work with sfnref. I'll work through it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have only skim read, and while the prose could do with some tingtening, they are largely fine, and am sure reviewers will work through issues (I have started light copy editing). Its a great film and very please to see the article here. Ceoil (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support: that was a delightful read. Thank you for that! I think the prose looks fine, to be honest. I will support this article on the condition that something be done about standardizing all of the citations. You seem to mix both the Template:Sfn "shortened footnote" style with the method of providing full reference information for every inline citation. I think you should choose one or the other. For instance, see the Template:Sfnp citation style for my featured article on the Mosaics of Delos, using both print sources and online media. Aside from that issue, congratulations! I have a strong feeling that this nomination will sail through the gate on its way to victory. And Kurt Russell himself will approve it with a thumbs up. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • I'd maybe have made parallels to WP:sock-puppets for the introduction here (or would that be more fitting for Invasion of the Body Snatchers?), but anyhow, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pursues an Alaskan Malamute" How has the exact breed been identified here? Perhaps better to just say dog (or sled dog), as they do in the film itself... In any case, I don't see why mentioning the exact breed is in any way important to the plot.
  • "The Norwegian shouts at the Americans, but they cannot understand him and he is shot dead by the station Commander." Perhaps important to note here that he actually shoots at them first?
  • "Blair transforms into an enormous creature" Isn't this creature composed of many other individuals, though? There is even a dog poking out of it.
This doesn't seem to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you want it to be changed to? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the creature doesn't just consist of Blair, but if the sources only refer to it as a Blair-Thing, then we should too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cohen suggested that he read the original novella. He found the "creepiness" of" You could name Carpenter instea dof the second "he" for clarity, as it isn't entirely clear it is not Cohen you refer to.
  • "of workers employed under Bottin" Full name and link needed at first mention outside lead.
  • "including Nauls' confrontation of the "box Thing"." Which is what?
  • There is some duplicate linking, try this script to see:[2]
  • "was special make-up effects designer Rob Bottin" Seems he is presented after his first mention, so some of that could be cut.
  • "Masur described his character as not really interested in people, but who loves working with dogs." Something missing here.
  • "He went to a survivalist store and bought a flip knife for his character that he uses in a confrontation with David's character." The change of tense here seems odd.
  • "and the wolfdog Jed appears" Present and link at first mention instead of here.
  • "They would make the 27 miles (43.5 km) hike up a small, winding road" Sure about this measurement? That seems extremely long, and I can't find it mentioned in the two online sources used for it. Did they walk this distance every day?
  • "sometimes because there was too much dialogue slowed the pace and undermined the suspense." something wrong here.
  • "Approximately three minutes of scenes were filmed from Lancaster's script that introduced the characters more directly." I'm not sure what the significance/meaning of this is in context with the preceding paragraph. More directly than what? A former version of the script?
  • "as part of film's soundtrack" The.
  • The section titled "The Thing" Could maybe be titled The "Thing", as you do elsewhere, otherwise it seems to just replicate the filn's title, instead of referring to the creature. I would maybe retitle it "creature effects" or "special effects" instead, for clarity.
  • "At the age of 21, Bottin was hospitalized for exhaustion, double pneumonia and a bleeding ulcer, caused by his extensive workload" During or after working on the film?
  • "A cast was made of Lance Anderson's arm" He could be presented.
  • "The team originally wanted to shoot the film in black and white" Why?
This seems not to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer this one. It's not elaborated on in the source, just something they discussed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and commercially successful E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial ($792.9 million)" It seems unfair to list that after only listing what the Thing grossed in 1982... That number includes earnings from the 2002 re-release, according to the film's article.
  • Aww, you can't help but feel bad for Carpenter after that receptions section!
  • It seems the "Cinematic analysis" could need in text attribution for its statements, in the same manner as the review sections. Now these conclusions are just stated as absolute fact, though these are just interpretations by various writers. Especially when it goes into speculation about homosexuality and what not, which seems extremely subjective.
Any news on this, Darkwarriorblake? FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've added names for the more personal claims. I think the mistrust theme is more obvious. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Thing has been analysed as" Another case in point, you need to say by who, not only that it has been.
  • " Bravo listed a scene from The Thing at" Which scene?
  • I've deleted it for now. ATM it's impossible to evidence the scene (The blood test scene). I can find the series in one long cut on Youtube but can't evidence the actual episode number so can't properly source it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem the short story and art book mentioned udner cultural impact may be more fitting udner merchandise?
  • They're both not official works as far as I can see but things influenced by it. I class merchandise as licensed goods sold to profit from the film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These were published in an omnibus edition entitled The Thing From Another World Omnibus by Dark Horse Books in 2008" I can't find a good reference to this collection anywhere but that Goodreads link, not even on Dark Horse's website. Was it ever even released?
  • The impact on later film-makers could be mentioned in the intro.
  • Support - it looks fine to me now, especially after the added author attributions under analysis. FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was surprised not to find a link to body horror, of which this is probably one of the most famous cinematic examples. Might be worth working in somewhere with suitable refs. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

  • Many reasons have been cited for its failure to connect with audiences - so what does "connect with" mean as it is a vague expression? Why not just say "impress" or something?
  • ...since there were no women the men had no one to posture for, allowing for a unique psychology -I'd remove the "allowing for a unique psychology" as it isn't unique (for being all male) and is fluffy, and losing it does not lose meaning.
Err.I meant remove the whole segment "allowing for a [unique/different] psychology" - it doesn't say anything. It's not really "psychology" except in a loose sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He blamed some of the issues on his directorial method... - who is "he" here? No subject has been mentioned in the section
  • While finalizing the film, Universal sent Carpenter ... - why not just "finishing the film"? ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything about Carpenter being more satisfied or vindicated about the film in retrospect now?

Overall, a fascinating read. I loved the film when it came out....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am happy enough now...the one outstanding issue is pretty minor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

Where are we with addressing the various sourcing and citation problems listed here? I see some threads that seem open or unresolved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are perfectly fine, the comments want less first hand experiences, which... it's 1980 in the Antarctic, so there aren't any. As for the citation style, I've raised the point that the template advises the use of "Website" parameter and so that is what I have used. It's usage is per the guideline so I can't resolve the issue being raised. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were comments about consistency in citation style, as to how you're mixing the shortened citations with full citations. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a format I've used in Featured Articles before, I have to cite page numbers for books, which I don't have to do for the websites. I wouldn't reformat all the web references for the fewer book references. I've tried to separate out the book refs from the web refs but can't see a way to do it, but the refs are all correct and clear. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: want me to deal with the refs? I did one as an example, and if you're feeling a bit dispirited then I'd be happy to help. But it would be a bt of an undertaking and certainly not one to undertake without permission. It would certainly be a shame for all this work... etc., you know. Say ye? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to do it and can do so without losing the content or archives, then have at please. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain and Darkwarriorblake: Deepest apologies, I totally forgot about the poor old Thing; I'm about a quarter of the way through the refs, and you can see that what I've done so far shows (I think) that the issues raised are being / will be eventually sorted. Can you consider, for formality, that they are finished? I'm going to continue work on them, but they will take a while, and it seems a shame to hold up promotion of a fine article just for something mechanical / belt and braces like reformatting refs. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129 edit

Based on the number of times I've ended up reading the thing (ha!), I believe it clearly passes all the criteria for a FA. Epic work! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brief cmt edit

Image review appears to be missing, perhaps overlooked? Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:
No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • File:The Thing Score Sample.ogg: Here's the issue that always nags me with such samples: Does the reader's understanding of the article topic suffer from their absence? Regular music scores arguably don't meet that standard, is this score particulary important?
  • I think there is a reasonable level of discussion about the soundtrack to justify it, particularly because it's just used so much throughout the film that even a short sample is representative of the type of music and it's tone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the complex nature of the designs makes it difficult to understand in just words. Particularly the dog thing (I've seen a much clearer picture of the actual model before being covered in shadow and slime that could be used also. Especially if you haven't seen the film, stating that a chest opens into a mouth might be difficult to understand? Maybe I'm over thinking it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No ALT text that I can see.
Jo-Jo Eumerus, could I get your response to these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Should have replied earlier. It seems like the non-free images are barely adequate based on the explanations here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, should I interpret your comment as an objection to the FUR in use here? I'm not too sure any consensus was reached here about things like the score. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am only a little concerned about the soundtrack. Unless it is a major component of the article topic I don't think we can justify under NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, DWB, I'd really like to wrap this up -- can we get to an agreement here, just how strongly does everyone feel about this one? Perhaps a second opinion from Nikkimaria would help... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's reasonable to include given the commentary, but fair-use is a judgment call and it's also reasonable to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, this is one of these marginal cases where there won't be a clear cut yes or no answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt responses Nikki and Jo-Jo -- TBH that does help me, because it seems to confirm (correct me if I'm wrong) that although there are some reservations we don't have real objections to set against a general feeling of support for promotion. I'll give you guys a chance to reply but otherwise will expect to promote in the next few hours, and ask that any further discussion take place on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the file was just inserted with no commentary I'd agree it doesn't belong, as I do try not to be wasteful in articles, but I think given that there is commentary on it, it is also mentioned elsewhere as having received a worst score award as well, and it's used pretty much throughout the entirety of the film making it an example of the whole film score, it is justified to include it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:29, 31 July 2018 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2018 [3].

Japanese battleship Hyūga edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Built during World War I, Hyuga didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Hyuga's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and any remnants of AmEnglish. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago, during which there was much discussion of some of the images. I deleted the images until I could prove to my satisfaction that they were official photos and thus war booty. I've reinstated and retagged them with the appropriate license. I believe that the article satisfies the FA criteria and stand ready to address any issues identified by reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Vami_IV edit

  1. I advise the use of harv references. –Vami_IV✠ 02:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, won't be happening. I much prefer my own idiosyncratic style that involves less typing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acceptable, but unfortunate. I have nothing else to offer but my support. –Vami_IV✠ 13:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Just a few things.

  • " In addition, the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time ..." the reader may take the "in addition" as building on the quote immediately preceding. I might say "during the reconstruction" instead of "at this time".
  • " Captain Shigeushi Nakagawa assumed command on 30 April[13] and the ship was completed on that same day, too late for service in World War I.[18] " I might cut "on". Also, as we are using UK spellings (armoured), should "World War I" be "the First World War"? (plus obviously similar usages for WWII)(also are you going Pearl Harbor or Harbour?)
  • There isn't actually a strong national connection between the UK and First World War, etc. I've got plenty of British-published books on hand that use WWI.
  • " Beginning on 27 March 1932, she patrolled off the coast of China during the First Shanghai Incident, together with her sister ship Ise and the battlecruisers Kongo and Kirishima.[13]" Our article on same says the Shanghai Incident ended on 3 March 1932.
  • Good catch.
  • "When the war started for Japan on 8 December,[Note 4] the division, reinforced by the battleships Nagato and Mutsu and the light carrier Hōshō, sortied from Hashirajima to the Bonin Islands as distant support for the 1st Air Fleet attacking Pearl Harbor, and returned six days later." I imagine the sortie had to have begun before 8 December, if so, possibly the language used is a bit ambiguous.
  • The Bonins aren't very far from Kyushu and it appears that they did sail on the same day as the Pearl Harbor attack.
  • "she returned to Kure for repairs." Kure is linked on a second use.
  • Good catch
  • "the same day that the conversion officially began. It actually began two months later.[13] " I might say "Work" instead of "It".
  • Excellent idea.
  • "and began flying to bases in Southern Kyushu;" I'd lower-case "southern".
  • You are inconsistent on the capitalization of "Main Body".
  • Sometimes the IJN formally designed parts of the fleet as the main body for various operations, while other times it's just a handy collective noun.
  • " The convoy reached the Matsu Islands, off the Chinese coast, on the 15th and was unsuccessfully attacked by the submarine USS Rasher before they reached Zhoushan Island, near Shanghai, China, that night." I would cut ", China" as unneeded.
  • After referring to cruising off the coast of China after the First Shanghai Incident that seems reasonable.
Otherwise excellent as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt review; see if my changes address your concerns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM edit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have looked at the pretty minor changes since, and consider it meets the FA criteria. A single nitpick:

  • During the reconstruction, the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time. Redundant, as we've already established when this happened at the beginning of the sentence.

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • There are no citations to Whitley, listed among the sources
  • I don't really see the point of adding the subscription template when there is no online link
  • The sources section would look tidier if isbn formats were standardised into the modern 13-digit format.

No spotchecks carried out. Subject to the above the sources look in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whitley moved to a new further reading section.
  • Subscriptions are available through the editor, who publishes his email for interested parties. I can add that if thought necessary.
  • I see no need to convert existing 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit ones as both are equally findable in our software.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the point. It is the inconsistency that jars. I don't know why you're so resistant on this point, which I've raised with you before. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Brian has a point here. Every FAC I’ve seen brings up this issue if it exists. It shouldn’t be that card to convert the citations to one format or the other?—White Shadows Let’s Talk 06:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it does look jarring, but to me, it's a matter of Emerson's consistency and I'm not willing to spend the effort to make them consistent. If some great soul like White Shadows chooses to spend the time to do so, kudos to him, but I'll not do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got to say, that comes across as rather flippant. It took literally 45 seconds for me to update the ISBN and make them consistent. If we're promoting articles to FA-status, surely being "willing to spend the effort to make them [ISBNs] consistent" is something that isn't too much to ask at an FAC.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrogant rather than flippant, I'd say, not to mention self-defeating - more time spent evading the issue than dealing with it! Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy edit

  • I'm no expert on BrEng, but isn't it "modernised"?
  • "During the ships' modernization during the 1930s" - can we lose one of those "during"s?
  • I'd link fuel oil
  • I'd shift the images in the design section to the left, as they're being pushed down by the infobox on (I would assume most) computer monitors, which is then pushing the rest of the images from the sections they should be in.
  • "sailors aboard the sailing ship" - there's something about this that grates on me - I don't know if it's the repetition of "sail" or what, but I might suggest "the latter ship" or something along those lines.
  • "22,000 metres (24,000 yd) ahead of the convoy" - it strikes me odd to measure that distance in meters, rather than km/nmi.

That's all for me. Nice work, as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good eye. Appreciate the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - nice work. Just a suggestion, it might make sense to put the photo of her original configuration in the infobox (or the aerial shot in 1927) and put the colorized photo in the Cape Engano section, since the ship only appeared in her converted form for, what, a year and a half of her nearly thirty years in service. Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • (But it's such a great photo!) I have to agree with your reasoning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fifelfoo edit

This review should be read as fully supportive. The three outstanding questions probably just require a "no, no, no" (as expected from this reviewer) from the proposer. Lack of ability to recognise centrally cited source, 1c/2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Q: Myth of a Clean Wehrmacht issues in your sources?
  • Q: Social history issues: workers, women, "racial" I'm thinking here Korean issues in construction?
  • Q: Does this article WEIGHT a historiography section for its topic?
  • Published by whom, where, "Lengerer, Hans (March 2011). Ahlberg, Lars, ed. "The Japanese 14"-Gunned Battleships: An Abstract of the Fusō and Ise Classes – Part I". Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships (Paper X): 5–42.(subscription required)" and others such. I'm not troubled by quality, but by finding the work based on the citation.
    Ahlberg, Lars also appears to be the publisher. Lengerer is pretty obviously EXPERT and HQRS, as is Ahlberg. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this comes down to the difficulty of getting a handle on what kind of document is being cited, due to wikipedia's template's inability to handle the unusual publication mode of this journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I don't have enough citation information or reference to determine if a central source set, Lengerer, is HQRS.
    • What is the relevance of the first three questions to this article?
    • The issues are irregularly published and can be purchased from Ahlberg. If necessary I can send copies of the issues used here to a source reviewer, but I'll be offline for the next five days or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1bcd, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral. Sample answers might be, "No acts of criminality appeared in the construction and deployment of Hyūga in the reliable sources / Hyūga's shore party engaged in X during the Sino-Japanese war, this was not raised at any post-war tribunal, as it is discussed in the article;" "The HQRS have been fully used to cover social history topics / Korean women workers engaged in a riot during conversion which was put down which appears in the article;" "There is no historiographical debate on the history of the Hyūga in the HQRS / initially the Johnson school believed X, but this was refuted by the Bloggs school in the 1990s which appears in the article." I'm asking because you'd be best placed to know having mastered the sources, and because the questions go to 1bcd of the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, a light bulb goes off. If anything like any of that stuff was in the sources, I'd have added them, just to fill out the material on the ship's first couple of decades, for which there is very little material available compared to Western ships. I was completely thrown by your reference to the Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht and couldn't figure out the connection. Just as a general point, aside from a few ships' crews involved in the 1937 Shanghai Incident, the IJN's ships played very little part in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and the general Japanese refusal to discuss or acknowledge the atrocities committed by its troops during that time really isn't relevant, like it would be for an article on an Army infantry division that participated in the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cheers. As you might understand because of a project wide criticism of under attention to "unpleasant" or "unlawful" acts in history articles I'm asking all proposers. I thought I'd also chuck the "social history big three," and "whether there's any historiographical debate," onto my standard list as well. Construction / conversion and labour came up, as many of us know that shipyards are some of the most conflict ridden industrial sites, and I know the Home Islands were not the best at respecting Japanese, let alone Korean, labour. Some proposers/editors aren't aware of the role of these topics in "completeness." Thank you so very much! Happy editing, look forward to reviewing more articles! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that there's only a single book on a Japanese shipyard in English and I'm not sure how honest it is about labor relations as I believe that it was commissioned by Mitsubishi. I'll have to try and track down a copy through ILL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Definitely an "above and beyond" issue, but hopefully it will help with many articles in your area of expertise and interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm satisfied with the author's expertise, I've just been banging my head against the citation to clarify it without an extensive note, but I think the citation is adequate to allow a reader to contact Ahlberg and acquire the material. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Where are we with addressing the last several bits of feedback, etc? --Laser brain (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for the delay in responding, but everything should be good now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did I miss an image review above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, lemme ask Nikkimaria and see what she thinks of the new licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the recognition drawing
    • Increased to 300 px
  • File:HyugaAerial.jpg needs a publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2018 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2018 [4].

Neil Armstrong edit

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Neil Armstrong, who walked on the Moon and, for a time, on the Earth. I hope this article can be run on the front page on the 50th Anniversary of his Moon walk in July 2019. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Factotem edit

Completing the partial source review I conducted for the article's MILHIST ACR

Print:

  • Koestler-Grack's Neil Armstrong appears to have been published in 2010, not 2009 as stated in the bibliography.
    Changed to 2010. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad for not picking this up in the ACR, but the ISBN and OCLC links provided for Kranz's Failure is not an Option: Mission Control From Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond both link to Chaikin's A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts. The correct Worldcat entry for Kranz's work is here
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Worldcat entry as linked by both ISBN and OCLC for Nelson's Rocket Men gives the publisher as Viking, not John Murray. Would also point out, purely as a matter of curiosity, that the Book's subtitle in the title of that listing is different from the one given in the bibliography, though the latter is what is printed on the cover image in the Worldcat listing, which is odd, but not an issue for FAC.
    The subtitle is correct. [5] Changed the ISBN and OCLC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Online:

  • What makes Mach 25 Media a reliable source? Also, p. 25 states "Scheduled to check out MH-96 system", but it's not clear that this was the first flight of that system as stated in the article.
    Evans wrote a book on the subject, The X-15 Rocket Plane, and published this portion that was left out on the web. Added a reference from Hansen to support first flight claim. It can be inferred from Evans, but Hansen is explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.spacecollection.info/ reliable?
    Replaced with a NASA link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.earlyaviators.com/ reliable? Also, there doesn't appear to be anything on that page to support the assertion that Armstrong "talked about the exploits of the Brazilian-born Alberto Santos-Dumont"
    Added reference from Hansen to support this; removed www.earlyaviators.com. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.rightentertainment.com reliable?
    Replaced with a Hansen reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Anything else you see that needs correcting? Kees08 (Talk) 19:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me. Factotem (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Delighted to see this and that we will likely have something to run a year from July. A few comments:

  • I think the lede deserves some mention of the quiet, indeed reclusive life he led in his later years, which isn't mentioned much in the body either.
    I need to go through my sources, but I am pretty sure he was perceived as a recluse more than him being an actual recluse. Heck, I saw him speak live without going out of my way to. I will do my due diligence and look through the sources, and at least try to address the perception of reclusiveness. If I find the sources calling him reclusive, I will also put that in there. Kees08 (Talk) 05:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope to get to this this week. Kees08 (Talk) 07:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kees, did you get to this? If so (or when you do, hopefully soon) pls give Wehwalt a ping so he can have another look. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet; a combination of work related travel (limiting access to my books) and skimming the books to find the relevant sections are slowing me down a bit. Should settle out starting next week, I will start documenting my progress on the talk page of the Armstrong article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Can you give a summary here?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course; check Armstrong's talk page for my progress (did not want to clutter up this page). Kees08 (Talk)
    @Hawkeye7 and Wehwalt: Hawkeye, feel free to copyedit what I wrote. It both feels too long and too short to me..Wehwalt, let me know if this is satisfactory and if you have anything additional comments. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 00:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Houston replied" Consider saying the Capsule Communicator replied and name the astronaut who was serving as such.
    It was Charles Duke. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the very few personal items that Neil Armstrong carried with him to the Moon and back was a World Scout Badge.[11]" I might cut "and back". I don't think cutting it carries any implication that he left it there.
    But astronauts did leave trinkets there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know when Armstrong returned from Korea?
    In May 1952. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with music from Gilbert and Sullivan with new lyrics." I might change the second "with" to "but" to avoid repetition
    Good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " High-Speed Flight Station.[33]" Double linked in same paragraph. You might want to mention he was accepted once a position opened, as I assume happened.
    Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and attended a conference there co-sponsored by NASA on space exploration." I would move "on space exploration" to follow "there".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They practiced a "phantom rendezvous", carrying out the maneuver without a target.[63]" "They" is, I assume, Cooper and Conrad. However, Armstrong and See are the last people referred to.
    Changed to "cooper and Conrad" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission launched on March 16, 1966" given the discussion in the previous paragraph, I would sub "Gemini 8" for "The mission".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while Armstrong served as Capsule communicator (CAPCOM).[83]" I have more often seen "communicator" capitalized. I assume he wasn't the only one?
    Yes. They normally work in shifts, along with the Mission Control teams, since there has to be one there around the clock. They are normally drawn from the backup and support crews. But it's not unusual for other astronauts to be assigned as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a little more buildup to the launch of Apollo 11. Can you discuss the training perhaps? And on the journey to the Moon?
This one remains, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am reading and digesting the material and hopefully will have something written by the end of the week. Kees08 (Talk)
@Wehwalt: I wrote a paragraph on this. Tried to keep it brief but informative. Does this satisfy your concern? Kees08 (Talk)
I don't see anything on training/preparation. Presumably they went someplace to practice lunar conditions, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I added; they only went on one geological training expedition. Kees08 (Talk)
There is a whole paragraph on training:

To give the astronauts experience with how the LM would fly on its final landing descent, NASA commissioned Bell Aircraft to build two Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV), later augmented with three Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). Nicknamed the "Flying Bedsteads", they simulated the Moon's one-sixth of Earth's gravity by using a turbofan engine to support five-sixths of the craft's weight. On May 6, 1968, 100 feet (30 m) above the ground, Armstrong's controls started to degrade and the LLRV began rolling. He ejected safely. Later analysis suggested that if he had ejected half a second later, his parachute would not have opened in time. His only injury was from biting his tongue. The LLRV was completely destroyed. Even though he was nearly killed, Armstrong maintained that without the LLRV and LLTV, the lunar landings would not have been successful, as they gave commanders valuable experience in the behavior of lunar landing craft.

They only went on one geological mission because this was not the focus of their training; unlike the later missions, they were not going to be on the lunar surface for that long, or wander very far. Most training was in the simulators, but the Apollo 8, 9 and 10 crews all had priority. Apollo 11 only had top priority to use the simulators after Apollo 10 had flown in May 1969 (after which they only had to share with the prime and backup crews of Apollo 12). Later missions had far more time time to train and less competiotion for resources. Since most parts of the mission profile were covered by the earlier missions, Armstrong prioitised training for the part that was new, the lunar landing itself. As the article notes, training was also disrupted by crew changes; he lost his original CMP (Lovell) to Apollo 8, so Aldrin had to take over as CMP and Haise as LMP until Collins returned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " disputed that he had ever claimed coming up with the line spontaneously during the mission.[122]" Claimed coming up?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2011.[207] " I might change "the" to "a" as when Congress votes one, they make a new design.
    I did not know that. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually added an image of the medal in Collins' article, in case you wanted it here. There are some photos from the ceremony but I did not see any that were very high quality. Kees08 (Talk) 22:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a nice image, but I think we have enough here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on total quantity of images. If anything, I would replace the Obama picture with that picture, since the Obama photo is not mentioned at all in the prose but the Congressional Gold Medal is. I do not have a strong preference, I just did that with the Collins article. I leave the decision to you. Kees08 (Talk) 22:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've switched it with the George Bush image, because it suits the layout better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it all looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS edit

Hopefully this helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Can you confirm the image review is complete and addressed satisfactorily? Kees08 (Talk) 00:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done yet; File:F9F-2 Panthers VF-51 over Korea 1951.jpg still needs at least one more readily accessible source URL rather than something that requires a login, and I'm still not comfortable with using a potentially misleading caption in File:Frase de Neil Armstrong.ogg given how it's disputed whether Armstrong actually said "for a man" or just "for man". It would be better to paraphrase in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See [[Talk:Neil_Armstrong#"That's_one_small_step_for_[a]_man,_one_giant_leap_for_mankind"_in_introductory_paragraph|this talk page post]]. The [a] is exactly as it should be: he did not say it but intended to, hence the brackets. Kees08 (Talk) 00:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refactoring quotes like that with brackets is inappropriate as it incorrectly implies people used certain words when the truth is they didn't. That could easily give readers the wrong idea. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree here, as the brackets indicate that text was added that was not originally said. Here is a guideline on formatting. The exact quote from that guideline is [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details). If a reader is confused by the use of brackets in a quote, then there is nothing we can do for them if they do not go out and learn about them. The same goes for emdashes, semicolons, or any other literary element. The article text also makes it very clear on what he said, if anyone does not understand the brackets and needs additional clarification. Kees08 (Talk) 01:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is an historic quote, and paraphrasing makes no sense at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I will let you take care of the F9F-2 photo however you wish to. Kees08 (Talk) 01:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our standards do not require a more readily accessible source URL rather than one that requires a login, but added a link to the National Aviation Museum facebook page Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John edit

In the test pilot section, Armstrong's record altitude is mentioned three times (all with slightly different altitudes!). It should be possible to rewrite this so it flows better. --John (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • See what you think; I've had a hack at it.--John (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*The alt-text descriptions need some work; they are no longer a requirement but if we are to have them they should be better than this. --John (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC) I sorted out the alt-text, and removed a couple of pictures I thought were superfluous. I'm happy to support now. Nice work. --John (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes, especially to the ALT text. Much appreciated. Moving the bit about the boy scouts into the footnote was a brilliant idea. Wish I'd thought of that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also would like to thank you for alt text, did a great job! Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

I've begun the checks, but I will be offline for most of the next 48 hours. Here's what I have so far (ref numbers are per this version):

  • Ref 6: "CBS News" is not a newspaper, as you have it in the template. The "publisher=" field will get rid of the inappropriate italicisation.
  • Ref 14: pp error
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26: I would give the publisher as "Purdue University", rather than just "Purdue" which is meaningless to non-Americans
  • Ref 66: publisher clarification required – it is Yaroslavl Regional Government
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 79: I think the publisher is "Military Times Hall of Valour" tather then "Military Times"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 171: ndash not hyphen required in page range
  • Ref 190: (Twitter) How can this citation be verified?
    Replaced with a NASA reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to complete the review soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the sources review (ref numbers per this version):

  • Ref 110: This and ref 111 both link to the same source. One or other of them is presumably wrong.
    They are both correct; 111 also contains some commentary on touchdown time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 110 is titled: "The First Lunar Landing, time 109:45:40". This time signature does not appear in the source: I believe it should be 102:45:40, hence the confusion. Incidentally, the quotation from Armstrong that you've incorporated into the reference needs a citation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 112: How to use this? AS11 PA0 does not feature in the links
    It does. Switched reference to point to the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You've switched to a 580-page document, with no page reference, so this is not useful. As it's one of three citations to this sentence, do you actually need it at all? Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 117: What makes Snopes.com a quality reliable source?
    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 25#Snopes.com Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 123: Paywall, therefore add subscription template
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 125: CNN should be de-italicised (see Ref 207)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 128: Why is "University of Pennsylvania" shown as publisher of the Language Log?
    It's on their web site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the university have editorial control over the site? The fact that it's run by one of their staff doesn't mean they have responsibility for it. I'm not questioning the site's reliability, just the publisher detail
  • Ref 133: The publisher appears to be ThoughtCo, not About.com (which I believe no longer exists)
    Switched to the archived version. Thought.co article is not what we want. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 133: Italicise per Ref 121
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 154: Is Atlas Obscura a print source? If not, italicisation inappropriate.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 179: see 133 above
    Thought.co does not take you to the right place, so switched to the archived version. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 185: see 125 above
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 186: Wall Street Journal requires italics
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 215: Paywall, see 123 above
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 220: I'm not sure that "Federal Department Library program" can be described as the publisher here. Probably US Government Publishing Office.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 222: Compare format with Ref 124
    Compared. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 224: Check link – this doesn't appear to go to the right source
    Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 226: Fox News a reliable source?
    Yes, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 237#Is Fox News a WP:RS Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of points for the bibliography: ISBN formats should be constant, and "Penguin books" should be "Penguin Books".
    US government publications don't have ISBNs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my point – I'm talking about ISBN formats. See Kranz and compare with all others.
  • One final point. You have made extensive use of Hansen's 1999 biography, but none at all of Jay Barbree's more recent Life, published after Armstrong's death and therefore covering the subject's whole life. Any reason for not using it?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a copy. Hansen's biography was authorised, so it was authoritative enough for me. Jay Barbree is a journalist known for his purple prose, and the reviews were underwhelming, so I didn't feel like springing twenty bucks for it. Kees08 might have more to say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the audiobook; which I believe has some good information on his reclusiveness, I will check if I have a print copy. Been busy IRL so slacking a bit on responding in this review. If I do have it (even if I do not, I can buy it), were you looking for me to expand the article with information from the book, or to replace/bolster the existing citations? Kees08 (Talk) 09:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to bolster or replace any citations, nor is there is no requirement to use every available source. If you have it and it has something of value, sure. I note that some reviewers have challenged what he said about Armstrong's exclusiveness. He was more reclusive than Meghan Markle, but no more reclusive than most ordinary folk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about bolstering or replacing citations. Barbree's book may have alternative "takes" on some of the information in the article, and perhaps a few insights that Hansen doesn't have. The argument about not having to use every available source doesn't really apply here – at the moment you're using one biography, written nearly 20 years ago when the subject was still alive, and ignoring a much more recent one – that bothers me from the aspect of FACR 1c: "[the article] is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I've read a few of the online reviews of the book, and while they often include criticisms of style and approach, they are in the main positive rather than "underwhelming" or dismissive. Is the audiobook a complete text? If not, I'm sure a library copy can be found. It would be worth spending a little time investigating this source. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book has no footnotes, so I will not use it. The reviews on Amazon are poor: "First Man was much better, more detailed, more scientific, more meaty. This book is fluff and narrative", "There are other, and much better, Armstrong biographies out there. This one reads and feels as though it was rushed to press immediately after the astronaut's death, and is absolutely full of inaccuracies", "I mostly quit reading after the statement in the account of Gagarin's launch, '...his weight being increased constantly by the pull of gravity'", "Having read most of the available biographies of the Apollo astronauts, this is one of the poorer ones... a simplistic re-telling of the Apollo era, with many inaccuracies and speculations", "shallow and basically 1960's hero worship. Not much technical information. Mr. Armstrong's post-FAA career and life is rather trivialized". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all thew reviews take this line but, fair enough, you have made a case for not using the source and I won't pursue it further. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl edit

In the lede:

  • "When he stepped onto the lunar surface on July 21, 1969, he said: "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."" feels a little like random trivia. This is, I feel, particularly because of the place in which it is located. It just feels very random. I'd put it into the third paragraph, when we actually discuss the moon landing itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I always hate the first paragraph of biographies, they never flow well. I moved that statement into the chronological location for it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Why no mention at all of his childhood at the start of the second paragraph? I think that it would be interesting to give a very brief mention of his place of birth, class background, that sort of thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph is pretty long already, and I think adding the childhood would be a little excessive for it. Kees08 (Talk)
    It's only five and a half lines long (on my browser), which is pretty short by Wikipedia FA standards. I mean, the FA for Happy Chandler, which was on the main page a couple of days ago had a second paragraph that was nine and a half lines long. That example, in my view, is unnecessarily lengthy, and puts of readers. But Armstrong is a major 20th century figure and can warrant more than five and a half lines. On a personal level, I feel that a happy medium regarding length is a maximum of eight lines for the second and third paragraphs of the lede (I used that for Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela). Now I'm not saying that you must pack the paragraphs out to eight lines, but I really think that you could boos it up to seven easily without any harm to the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why nothing on his impact, legacy, and historical assessments? The fourth paragraph would be ideal for that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the sheer quantity of awards and things named after him, it would be difficult to prune that list down for the intro. Maybe the Flight Research Center, First Man movie, and Congressional Gold Medal? Which things do you think should be added? Kees08 (Talk)
    You don't necessarily have to list the awards in the lede, but the fourth paragraph would be a great space to simply say that he was given a wide range of awards and that lots of things were named after him. Give the reader a quick impression of his cultural impact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Addressed comments. Kees08 (Talk) 00:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Pinging again, can you respond to the above? Any other comments? Kees08 (Talk) 03:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apologies for the delay. I saw the original ping but got distracted and then forgot about it. Will take a look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, I'm a little bit concerned by the comparatively minimal use of material from the published biographies of Armstrong; I think that the article could be a lot stronger on that count, instead of relying so much on free web sources (The Guardian, Wired, Atlas Obscura etc) as much of the article presently does. There are many areas that I imagine could probable be fleshed out using those sources, particularly the "Life After Apollo" section. Despite this, I don't think that I would go so far as opposing the article at FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: been busy can you take a look at this? Kees08 (Talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: I went out of my way to add citations that were not from his books. I try to diversify the sources, so we are not relying solely on his life the way that he wanted it told. I will see if there are any important life events we missed in Life after Apollo. Did you have thoughts on my responses above? Kees08 (Talk) 03:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So did I. I didn't want the article to lean too heavily on a single source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl I finished up his teaching section; I plan to expand the other sections more. Let me know if the teaching section contains all the information you would like. Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot my books at home, but I should be back from work travel early this week and will try to finish this up. I want to focus on a comprehensive summary of the jobs he held in his post-NASA career. Kees08 (Talk) 06:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Can you take another look at this? I expanded out his life after Apollo. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 04:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Hey there, giving another reminder as this FAC has been sitting for awhile. Let me know if you have additional comments. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 07:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the tardiness, just been distracted with other things. I'm not really sure if there is anything else for me to add, to be honest. I don't think that there is anything seriously wrong here that would warrant a statement of opposition, although I think that it could profitably make far greater use of published biographies and other historical studies rather than online ones. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carabinieri edit

Hi, I hate to be the voice of dissent. I have not reviewed this article in depth, but since this review has been open for a while, I thought I'd post my comments, lest this FAC is closed. I have only checked a few claims in the article, but found some issues:

  • The article claims that "Armstrong is generally referred to as a 'reluctant' American hero". There are two sources for this paragraph. The first doesn't mention any facts from this article. The second only claims that his relatives referred to him as a reluctant American hero ("Praising Mr Armstrong as a 'reluctant American hero,' his heartbroken relatives expressed hope his legacy...")
    I think there are enough sources to back it up, but I've changed the text to say "Armstrong's family described him as a 'reluctant American hero'", and added a couple more references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, those sources weren't cited in that paragraph. If there's a reliable source claiming that this was a common description of him, I'd certainly encourage you to restore the claim.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article claims: "In March 1983, the U.S. State Department responded by issuing a global message to Muslims saying that Armstrong 'has not converted to Islam'". According to Hansen, this was only a message to American embassies and consulates in Muslim countries.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Use of Armstrong's name, image, and famous quote caused him problems over the years. MTV wanted to use his quote for its now-famous identity depicting the Apollo 11 landing when it launched in 1981, but he refused". This doesn't make any sense to me. How did Armstrong's refusal cause Armstrong any problems? If anything, this was a problem for MTV. By "identity" do you mean "logo"?
    What got my attention was "now-famous". Removed per MOS:PUFF. Replaced with station identification and a bit of explanation, as it's quite possible that it may change in the future. There's a law dating back to the days of crystal radio sets that says that a TV station has to identify itself every hour or so. They can just display the logo, but more often have a bit of audio and video too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not impressed with the sources used in the article. I'm seeing a lot of press releases, random websites. Surely, higher-quality sources are available for such a high-profile topic? Here are two specific instances:

  • "In May 2005, Armstrong became involved in a legal dispute with his barber of 20 years, Mark Sizemore" The source for this is the letter Armstrong's lawyers sent Sizemore. This is hardy the most impartial source and it also doesn't mention Sizemore was Armstrong's barber for 20 years.
    Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Purdue, he was also a member of Kappa Kappa Psi National Honorary Band Fraternity" This is sourced to a website that merely lists members of Kappa Kappa Psi and doesn't give any further context.
    What's the problem? The statement is supported by the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it only shows that the frat claims him as a member. I listened to the lecture by Hansen about Armstrong cited in one of the footnotes and he makes the point that people would consistently make up connections between themselves and him and that one should generally be careful about believing such claims. But even if we do accept its claim that Armstrong was a member, the site gives no further context as to how relevant this is or whether there is some other aspect to this that would have to be mentioned. The guidelines tell us to generally be careful when using primary sources and the FA criteria call for high-quality sources. I don't know that this is a high-quality source and have my doubts about a few of the other sources used in the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, Kappa Kappa Psi is a FA and we should make sure that it aligns w/ the Neil Armstrong article with respect to the outcome of this discussion. Hawkeye, can you find this in either of the Armstrong biographies? Kees08 (Talk) 06:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention in Hansen or Barbree, but I found a better source, which provided context [6], and have corrected the article accordingly. The claim was added (unsourced of course) on 22 June 2007. When I added sources to the article, I merely lifted the source from the Kappa Kappa Psi article. My bad. I might have removed it, but these things are often important in American military prosopography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some inconsistencies in the footnotes. Some names of newspapers are not in italics. One footnote citing an LA Times article lists the newspaper's owner. Same names of TV channels are in italics. The order of the author's names in footnote 119 is inconsistent.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected these. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more (the numbers of the footnotes refer to this version):
  • FN 130: Should those blog entries be attributed to their respective authors?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 160: Shouldn't the author (Sarah Bruhns) be listed?
    It should; added Kees08 (Talk)
  • FN 166, 208: Washington Post not italicized
    Should it be? I am getting confused on when to use newspaper and publisher parameters. I thought it had to be published in a newspaper for it to be the newspaper parameter, and online publishing received the publisher parameter. Can you or someone else correct my thinking on this? Kees08 (Talk)
    Okay, I think I have sorted out when to use those parameters. Changed parameter to newspaper for those two. Kees08 (Talk)
    In a {{{cite news}}} template, use |newspaper= for newspapers, |publisher= for TV stations etc. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 175: This is a talk given by Hansen. Shouldn't he be listed as the author or mentioned in some way? In any case, I don't quite understand why this is used. The Hansen book backs up the claim in its entirety and is certainly of higher quality than an off-hand remark during a Q&A.
    Removed fn 175. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should footnotes referencing reports that come from a news agency mention that agency? FN 201 does, 127 and 243 don't.
    I don't normally, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 206: Shouldn't Aldrin be listed as the author?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, added. Kees08 (Talk)

@Carabinieri: Let us know if we missed anything, and if you have further comments. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to answer. I'll get back to you this weekend.--Carabinieri (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry again. I've only managed to go through the first couple of section. Here's what I've found:
  • Footnote 6: Most of the information that precedes the footnote is not in the source.
    Added a bit from Hansen, with footnotes. It appears that originally the citation was correct, but some additional unsourced information was subsequently added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After returning to Purdue, he met Janet Elizabeth Shearon, who was majoring in home economics, at a party hosted by her sorority, Alpha Chi Omega." This is a little ambiguous. Does "After returning to Purdue" refer to this second stint at Purdue, to a later visit, or did he return for a longer time after that?
    Deleted "After returning to Purdue" to remove repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Armstrong returned to Purdue, where his best grades came in the four semesters following his return from Korea" Hansen doesn't really say that, as far as I can tell. He only lists a bunch of courses he did well in and then later says his grades slipped afterwards. That slip would also have taken place in those four semesters, no?
    No. Hansen is clear that his grades were now higher. "Sharper focus and greater maturity resulted in improved grades". But he had some sixes before (p. 58), so I've just tweaked the wording slightly. I've linked to Academic grading in the United States, specifically the six-point system used by Purdue at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: Have you had a chance to revisit the progress made here to address your opposition? --Laser brain (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to stand in the way of what appears to be a consensus in support of this nomination so I've withdrawn my oppose. I still think that the article uses a lot of sources that are far from the best available. This has led to the article containing at least two minor pieces of inaccurate information that have since been removed ([7] and [8]). I would think that there are enough better sources – biographies, the literature on the history of space exploration, high-quality newspapers and so on – out there that there's no need to rely on press releases, websites, etc. But the overwhelming consensus seems to disagree with me, so I'll get in line.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: There is no rush; if you need more time to review feel free to. I am once again away from my sources, so I cannot do another scrub of the article right now. If you want to make a list of what you consider the lowest quality sources I can try to replace them with higher quality. Another commenter had the same concern earlier. Kees08 (Talk) 01:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still here, with my books, for the next fortnight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, it's good to see this willingness to try and improve the article still further after a long review. I believe we need to close this and there is consensus to promote but I don't like leaving conscientious reviewers feeling a bit dissatisfied if I can help it, so I'll encourage you all to finetune referencing via the article talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MONGO edit

Having read the article twice and a third and fourth time with editing window open can find nothing major to complain about. Ran the various bots and the refs all come back as live and formatted appropriately overall. The article appears to cover the major details in sufficient depth to be both informative but not excessively so and properly balanced. I also checked duplicate links and found none in the article body that stood out. Noticed no missing non-breaking space issues. Saw a contraction like "didn't" but that one example was in a quotation anyway. Its an enjoyable read. All I can say is I am not sure why we cannot show current retrieval dates for the refs rather than from 10-12 years ago. Retrieved August 28, 2007 just looks like its not a current thing but that's a little quibble and does not impact my support.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2018 (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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2018 [9].

Edmonds station (Washington) edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 04:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fairly normal train station in an American suburb, with Amtrak and commuter train service. It has been rebuilt three times on the same site and has seen train service come and go over the past 120 years. I hope that this article can form the backbone of a future Good topic on commuter rail stations in the Seattle region. SounderBruce 04:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:GN_Railway_station_and_residence_in_Edmonds,_Washington.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The picture was taken in 1925, but I don't know when it was first published. The library's collection says it came from the studio's archives, but I can't find anything more than that. SounderBruce 06:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so how do we know it was published in the date range given in the tag and without copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

I haven't previously reviewed (or examined, really) any of our train station articles, so it's entirely possible that some of my concerns have been accepted by the community. If so, I'll be happy to be informed of it. But that notwithstanding:

  • Let's start off with the name. Is this "Edmonds", a station? Or is it "Edmonds Station"? Sources seem split on the issue (along with a few other options). The Travel Washington site gives a clear image of the signage at the station though, which certainly reads "Edmonds Station" to me. Is there a reason why you opted for the format you did?
    • The article uses the WP:USSTATION naming convention, which prefers the lowercase form since it does not include the word station in its proper name on platform signage (picture).
  • §Description lists quite a few amenities (ticket machines, waiting shelters, restrooms) that seem like they would be assumed to be a part of a train station. Indeed, what seems to be the relevant notability essay provides that "listing ... every ordinary or mundane facility may be considered excessive", calling out toilet facilities specifically as unlikely to be notable for inclusion (and being the subject of past editor disputes). I'm not certain of the acceptance level of that essay but, to me, its argument is compelling.
    • Some of the amenities listed (restrooms, non-ticket vending machines, a staffed waiting room) are unusual for a commuter rail station, so I think it warrants mention.
  • Near the end of §Description, you have a spaced em dash. You can either use a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash, but not what you have.
    • Changed to a regular, unspaced em dash.
  • "A formal investigation of stations across Snohomish County by the Washington State Railroad Commission in 1909 led to a court order for Great Northern to improve their depots, including a modernized depot for Edmonds at James Street, which the railroad appealed and lost." This construction is awkward, and on first read suggests that the railroad appealed the depot (rather than the court order).
    • Reordered the last bit.
  • §Early stations: Any appropriate link target for "shingle mills"?
  • "railroad paraphernalia"? I honestly have no idea what this is implying.
    • Changed to "knock-knacks"; paraphernalia was the wording in the source, so I went with it.
  • That paragraph also has a flow problem. You announce its opening, then talk about trains serving it, then describe it, then talk about trains serving it again (or, in this case, the lack thereof). Consider reworking it such that the description comes before train service?
    • Reordered.
  • §Modern depot and Amtrak: The section about Railpax is confusing as written. You introduce the Railpax plan with its purpose of "operat[ing] unprofitable transcontinental passenger services that railroads sought to cut", so the expectation for the reader is that Railpax would seek to preserve lines through this station. But in the next sentence, you describe how Railpax actually shut down service to this station. In isolation, both of those sentences are true, but the wording needs to be addressed to avoid a bait-and-switch for the reader there.
    • Reworded to emphasize the Railpax was about consolidating redundant private lines, which meant that some corridors had to go.
  • Do sources say who maintained the station in the absence of passenger service? Railpax? Burlington Northern?
    • Clarified that Burlington Northern kept maintenance of the passenger side.
  • "...passenger service. Passenger service..." Rework to avoid back-to-back use of this phrase.
    • Broken up.
  • "Edmonds, ... was slated to lose [services] at Edmonds station ..." [emphasis mine]. In principle, I think the first "Edmonds" there is intended to be the city, but since you refer to the station as "Edmonds" quite a bit, the repetition seems tautological.
    • Fixed.
  • Any idea why Amtrak left it in service?
    • Newspaper article says the following:
      • The Edmonds train station is not among those slated to be closed or automated, Amtrak officials decided last week. "The revenue production has been good" there, said Art Lloyd, Amtrak's director of corporate communications.
  • So, it was designated a high-speed rail corridor in 1992, which required raising the train speed. But that was opposed by locals in the 1980s? I'm pretty sure I know how the sequence of events actually worked (that is, it was discussed well before the official designation). But that's not what the article says.
    • The speed debate was started because of the normal Amtrak trains (headed east to Chicago, not on the Vancouver corridor), but later encompassed the Cascades trains.
  • §Commuter rail: In this section, and this section only, you suddenly start calling the city the "City of Edmonds".
    • Changed to "city government"
  • "The multimodal project, named "Edmonds Crossing", was evaluated in the 1990s and a preferred alternative was chosen in 1998..." As written, this makes it sound as though an alternative [to the Edmonds Crossing project] was chosen. But then it turns out that's not what happened.
    • Reordered the sentence to emphasize that it was the choosing of a "preferred location"
  • What or where is "Point Edwards"?
    • Added a general location description, but I think it would be better served with a link to a yet-to-be-created article.
  • Link commuter rail?
    • Done.
  • References: Print sources accessed online do not require access dates. The idea is that Google books or other online reproductions of a print sources are essentially convenience links. And while web-exclusive content can change at any time, print... doesn't.
    • I've seen Google Books links get updated or removed from time to time, so I've kept it just in case. I can remove it if it really is an issue.
  • You're not real consistent about whether you link publishers and publications. There are three ways to do this (link 'em all–or at least all that would bluelink, link on first appearance only, don't link), but consistency is important. For example, you tend to link Amtrak in the references, but not other publishers. And then there are those two redlinks at the end of the list.
    • Removed the extra Amtrak link, which brings all references up to links at first appearance only; also created two redirects for those red links.
  • I am concerned about how much information is cited to non-independent sources. To a certain extent, citing Amtrak or Sound Transit is to be expected here. But, for example, as another other than Amtrak itself discussed the station's Modernist architectural elements?
    • There doesn't seem to be other accessible sources on the station's design, though I am able to cite a newspaper article that describes the windows and Modernist style.
  • HistoryLink's formal name is HistoryLink.org Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, which it recommends for use in references.
    • The short form hasn't been deemed an issue before; I prefer it, as other references use short forms (e.g. Amtrak, Sound Transit).
  • The model railroad association that occupies a room in the station isn't notable enough to warrant a name-drop in the text; why do they get an external link?
    • Removed.
  • Regarding the licensing problem raised by Nikkimaria above: This is the library's current (and more verbose) description of the Juleen Studio Collection. Some, but not all, of the images in the collection were previously published (as, for example, postcards). If this image was not previously published, then the image entered the public domain in July 2005, 70 years after the death of John Juleen. On the other hand, if it was published as a postcard (or anything else) it would be in the public domain unless there was a notice and registration, and that registration was renewed by the studio. I can't confirm that Juleen did include a notice of copyright on the images he published as postcards (example here from the secondary collectibles market); so the burden is likely on the editor to confirm that there was not both a formal registration and a renewal of copyright (although I consider it very unlikely that there was both registration and renewal here). Absent that determination, you'll need to play it safe and treat this as potentially non-free media.

- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks for the review. I've answered your questions above to the best of my ability. For now, I'll remove the Juleen image and send an e-mail to the library to determine its copyright status. SounderBruce 04:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Just checking in again. Does it look better? SounderBruce 05:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Apologies for the slow response. Travel and this project don't always cooperate. I don't see any fatal problems here. I would really like to see the historical photo back, even if you have to license it as non-free media, but the article as it stands certainly checks all the criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AmericanAir88 edit

Support Fantastic Job AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Laser brain edit

  • Sources are fine, and formatting is fine. I did note the large number of older sources that list "p. 1". Is this a one-sheet? Is the real page number unavailable, or simply all the articles were on the front page? Just verifying we got the correct page numbers here. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laser brain: The newspaper is indeed multipage (usually 5-8 per issue) and the page numbers are direct from my scanned copies. SounderBruce 13:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo edit

I mostly look at 1c/2c Fifelfoo (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A number of PRIMARIES are used, I am not concerned by their use here: I believe their use is appropriate from sampling and reading the full text.
  • I am kind of surprised that there isn't a HQRS from the Railfan community? Given your awareness, is this an area that has not encouraged HQRS production from among that knowledge community?
    • I haven't been able to find, let alone obtain, many reliable sources regarding railroads in the Northwest. There are a few indexes of stations and other tidbits, but that's about it unless I want to muck around with self-published books.
  • For a 40K population I don't expect a relevant local history on this topic, but did you double check for local histories held at Edmonds library for example?
    • Several of the sources used were donated or referred to by the Edmonds Historical Museum, so I think I've done my due diligence in finding sources.
  • Varieties of English issue: depot for me as an Australian English speaker connotes a holding or loading or servicing place for trains, is this true? If so, ought the depot to be made more of in the appropriate section? The picture seems to indicate a solid "yes."?
    • @Fifelfoo: In American English, depot is used interchangeably with station, though often in a historical sense (e.g. current stations are just stations, but historic stations may be called a depot). SounderBruce 12:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you believe the weight applied to the depot in the appropriate section is relevant to the article regarding the station? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've cut out a few instances outside of the 1910-56 section. SounderBruce 22:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the quality of writing

Weak support from Ian edit

Like Fifelfoo, I think the writing is good, so only a very light copyedit from me. It seems quite comprehensive as well, and I'll take Nikki's and Andy's image/source reviews as read. The "weak" support is because I didn't really get a feeling from the article as to what makes this a particularly notable train station, though given what appears to be a reasonable amount of info from third-party sources, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it doesn't meet WP:NOTE guidelines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There's a duplink in Commuter rail and several in the Services section -- I wouldn't think the article is long enough to warrant them so pls review/rationalise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, it's a rather ordinary station; at best, it's noted for its Modernist architecture, as oppose to other historic stations. I have removed all but two duplinks (which I feel are needed to maintain standalone comprehension for the Services section). SounderBruce 04:01, 22 July 2018 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2018 [10].

Gallimimus edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This dinosaur was made famous by appearing in the movie Jurassic Park (like Dilophosaurus which was promoted recently), and is therefore the most popular article about an "ostrich dinosaur". As Gallimimus is a rather typical member of the group, I think this article can therefore serve as a good introduction to this kind of dinosaur, and I believe it is as comprehensive it can be. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Riley edit

  • You should probably say "the new genus and its species" instead of "the new genus and species" in "a large skeleton discovered in this region was made the holotype specimen of the new genus and species Gallimimus bullatus in 1972".
Not sure why, though? "Its" kind of goes without saying. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "fleet animal" mean? Does it mean that they are fast? It isn't the most clear from the lead; maybe say "which uses its speed to escape predators" if that is the case.
I see this is defined later in the article; I still think it would be good to clarify this in the lead. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added the same explanation, is that ok? FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the description section, you use millimeters and meters inconsistently; you say, for example, .79 meters, but at other times, you say, for example, 660 millimeters. Maybe just use meters? Similarly, you use feet (like "1.08 feet") in some places, but in others, use feet and inches. This seems to be related to the usage of millimeters.
The source uses both meters and milimeters, can't say why, but I feel it migh tbe best to stick to what the source does. I have changed conversions of all larger measurements to feet only, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the more commonly known bones and such in the description section (like the humerus or the femur), are described in parentheses, whereas less commonly known structures, like the coracoid, are not usually described. Could this possibly be fixed?
That is mainly because some of these bones are more unique to this animal than others, or are more thoroughly described in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fourth paragraph of the description section you mention the "first finger". This is a bit ambiguous; is this closer to the radius, or the ulna? It would be great if you could clarify this.
It is the finger that corresponds to the human thumb, not sure how best to explain it without being too anthropocentric. I added or "thumb"... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I'd put in parentheses "towards the radius", and remove "thumb". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the word "thumb" is used after all in some dinosaur literature, such as:[11][12] FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is a condyle?
Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence, "The lower jaw did not have a coronoid process or a supradentary bone, a common feature of beaked theropods (ornithomimosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, therizinosaurs and birds), but unusual among theropods in general", it is ambiguous where or not the lack of a coronoid process is a common feature of beaked theropods; maybe say either "the lack of which is a common...", or "the presence of which".
Ah, of course, added "lack of which". FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could probably link "maxilla" and "rhamphotheca" to the glossary of bird terms.
There is actually a dinosaur glossary in the making[13], based on the bird glossary. Once it's up and running, such terms will be linked there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: we can't currently link to the glossary in prep (I tried and was reverted on Cetiosauriscus) because it is in a sandbox. Even though linking with the template {{dinogloss}} will automatically link to the glossary once it is a full article. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you not just say "openings" instead of "foramina"?
The article generally uses anatomical terms throughout, even after they have been explained in parenthesis, so I think it would be inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to continue with this later; great job so far. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the history of discovery sections, the "Nemegt, Tsagan Khushu, Altan Ula IV and Naran Bulak localities" have no meaning to me; is there any way that you could get them on a map or at least give a concise description of where they are in the Nemegt Basin? If it's not really possible to do this concisely, though, it'd probably be better just to leave it as is, or maybe even exclude that piece of information. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I only have that one map that shows the Nemegt locality, but the others are somewhat nearby, so the map also indicates the general area within the Nemegt Basin. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, added "on". FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to the longer spelling, which seems to be preferred in newer sources, while the older spelling is common in older. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences "The Polish-Mongolian expeditions were notable for being led by women, among the first to name new dinosaurs. The fossils discovered in these expeditions shed new light on the interchange of fauna between Asia and North America during the Cretaceous period" don't seem to have much to do with the dinosaur. It seems to me like there is enough information on this expedition to make a separate article on it, if you are worried that this fact would be without an article to properly house it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was accepted at the Deinocheirus FAC, though. I think it is interesting for the context here especially since the type specimen of this dinosaur was found by a woman, and the genus was named by two other women, which was pretty unique for the time. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Maybe you could say "These discoveries were notable for being led by some of the first women to name dinosaurs" or something along those lines. Without that, it doesn't seem very relevant or significant. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 19:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about "including some of the first to name new dinosaurs." The fact that the expeditions were led by women was also very unique at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is addressed by my suggested fix above. Besides, the wording you just suggested seems to be ambiguous; one can interpret it as 1. some of the women were among the first to name dinosaurs or 2. they were among the first women to name dinosaurs. My proposed fix covers both the women leading the expedition, and them being among the first women to name new dinosaurs. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the proposed wording ("These discoveries were notable for being led by some of the first women to name dinosaurs"), it could be read as if there had been other expeditions lead by women before, just not women who had named dinosaurs. It doesn't really specify that the leading part is also significant in itself. We need to underline two firsts; among the first led by women, and among the first to name new dinosaurs. I tried to make it clearer with "were notable for being led by women, some of which were among the first women to name new dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your wording is good, as long as it includes "these discoveries", so the relevance is clear. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the expeditions were led by women, the discoveries were made during the expeditions (should go without saying that some of the discoveries were made by the women involved, when women naming taxa is already also mentioned in the sentence). FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Some of the skeletons were exhibited in Warsaw in 1968, mounted in tall, semi-erect postures, which was accepted at the time, though more horizontal postures are favoured today", is the posture a problem of accuracy, or one of aesthetics? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These dinosaurs would probably have held their backs habitually in horizontal pose, so though the erect postures were probably possible to attain, they would not have been typical. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one point, you refer to "specimen MPC-D100F/17", but later on, you just use, for example, "IGM 100/14", without the preceding "specimen". Is this a difference in the classification systems, or an inconsistency in writing? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is mainly because when it is established in the article early on that the numbers refer to specimens, I imagine they will know this once reading further into the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "Gallimimus mongoliensis" be in italics in the sentence "Barsbold informally referred to a nearly complete skeleton (IGM 100/14) as 'Gallimimus mongoliensis', but since it differs from Gallimimus in some details, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi and Barsbold proposed in 2006 that it probably belongs to a different genus"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a nomen nudum, not yet a validly published name, the convention is not to use italics. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Ornithomimosaurs belonged to the group Maniraptoriformes of coelurosaurian theropods, which also includes modern birds", it would make more sense to say "belonged to the Maniraptoriformes clade" instead of "belonged to the group Maniraptoriformes". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "clade Maniraptoriformes", though it is pretty interchangeable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review more of this article soon; it's certainly interesting. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know there was an article, linked. I put "capable og grasping" in parenthesis instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "However, the layers of mud and sand do not indicate flooding but a probably dry environment" sounds a bit odd; maybe remove the "a"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved "a" after "probably". FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The animal may have walked across the floor of a pond, breaking through the sediment layer with the tracks while it was soaked from rain or contained water" seems to contradict the "probably dry environment". If this is conflict with this theory, I think it would be good to distinguish it more. You could say, for example, "Another theory is..." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dry environment only contradicts flooding, not that there could have been wet from rain, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that some scientists thought Gallimimus might have been capable of cranial kinesis; why did they think this? And, what was the manner of this proposed cranial kinesis? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added "(due to the seemingly loose connection between some of the skull bones)". The paper doesn't explain what it was used for, but it is usually related to feeding. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Also, I meant that it would be interesting to see where the kinesis occurred; did the upper mandible have a joint just before it? Or was it behind the eye? Etc. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added "at the back of the skull". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe say "preserved" instead of "preserve" in the sentence "In 2001, palaeontologists Mark A. Norell, Makovicky, and Currie reported a Gallimimus skull (IGM 100/1133) and an Ornithomimus skull that preserve soft tissue structures on the beak"? They are both grammatically correct, but at least to me, "preserved" seems more natural to use. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but could be either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "Barrett also calculated that a 440 kilograms (970 lb) Gallimimus would have needed between 0.07 and 3.34 kilograms (0.15 and 7.36 lb) of food per day, depending on whether it had an ectothermic or endothermic ("warm" or "cold"-blooded) metabolism, which he found to be unfeasible if it was a filter-feeder", it sort of sounds like you are calling its metabolism unfeasible. Maybe say "an intake which he found..." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the paleoecology section, you say "fossil bones", which seems redundant; just say "bones". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, like the source, I think it is bets to be specific, since non-fossil bones can of course also be found in the same areas. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be missing a comma before "including" in the phrase "and crocodylomorphs including Shamosuchus, have been discovered in this region". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo with the caption "Adult holotype skeleton IGM 100/11, during a temporary exhibition in Experimentarium, Hellerup" seems to display Gallimimus in a semi-erect posture; maybe mention this? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in the same posture as in the opposite photo, don't remember how erect it was, but that is certainly tre for the photo uder classification, so added the text there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Some initial comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As evidenced by its relative Ornithomimus, it would have had feathers.—Is this certain, or should there be a "probably"
Palaeontologists would be pretty certain, following phylogenetic bracketing. We don't know sabretoothed cats had fur, but no one doubts they did, following that logic. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and had three digits with curved claws—perhaps "each had"
Added "each". FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • amphiplatyan, intercentrum, pneumaticity, manus, delopectoral parasphenoid—some of these seem unnecessarily technical, and those that have no link or gloss are totally opaque
As mentioned above, a dinosaur glossary based on the bird glossary is in the making, thanks to Jens Lallensack. Once it is done, I think we will go back and link older FAs to that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shovel-like shape was similar to that of thecommon seagull—Since there is no such thing as the common seagull, why not change to common gull, which is what is linked anyway. I can't access Hurum, is he definitely referring to Larus canus? It seems remarkably precise considering the general similarity between the bills of most gull species, and I don't see how the bill of any Larus species can reasonably be described as shovel-shaped. Nor does your fossil head remind me of any gull I've seen. skull of common gull
He is only referring to the lower jaw, though. Hurum says: "The shape of the dentary in Gallimimus is comparable to that of the front of the dentary in the common seagull (Larus) and indicates a similar shaped bill. The seagull-like lower jaw suggests that Gallimimus, like seagulls,had an opportunistic, possibly omnivorous diet..." So he uses the term common seagull, whatever that is, while only referring to its genus name... Not sure what to about that, actually... FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • colourisation—should this be "colouration"?
I think you're right, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • beaks of anseriform birds, which use these for manipulating food, straining sediments, filter-feeding by segregating food items from other material, and for cutting plants while grazing. They found the Northern shoveller...'—the beak of the shoveller is nothing like that of the common gull to which we were previously referred, although in this case it is unarguably shovel-shaped
It is only a comparison with the lamellae in the shoveller's beak, not the overall shape of the beak. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the unexpectedly early reviews, guys, I'll begin fixing these soon... FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These should be addressed now, Jimfbleak. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77 edit

  • In the lead, it should be, “Gallimimus is the largest known ornithomimid,” because saying ‘was’ would imply that it isn’t anymore with the juxtaposition of the ‘largest known’ part   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweaks, Dunkleosteus77, but why did the following explanatory sentence have to be removed? "the first vertebra that connects with the occipital condyle at the back of the skull." Also, feel free to add more points you may have. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that was a very complicated explainer for what cervical vertebrae are, it effectively said in very big words, “the vertebrae that attach to the back of the head.” Also normally I’d ce the entire page and add comments in one or two edits but I keep getting interrupted, but I’ll get there in the end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is only a explanation of what the atlas vertebra is, which is the first vertebra that attaches to the back of the skull. I doubt most readers know this. Cervical vertebrae are just the neck vertebrae collectively, which is explained elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case you might wanna re-add that with less big words like, “the first neck vertebra,” or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the supposedly "big" words are? Occipital condyle? It's an important anatomical feature, it is the part of the skull through which the atlas is connected. I've re added the explanation in parenthesis, I see no compelling reason to remove explanations of anatomical terms. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel mentioning the occipital condyle is largely unnecessary since you’re just trying to explain what the atlas is. You could just say, “back of the head,” because right now your explainer requires an explainer   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the condyle, kept the rest as is. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know what magazine named it Sanchusaurus, and I think it should be italicized (and Gallimimus mongoliensis)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the magazine name is listed in the source, but I don't think it's important to mention in the article text. As a nomen nudum, not validly published, such names are not italicised. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re gonna mention Sanchusaurus you might as well mention who gave the name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say who came up with the name, it seems the magazine only reported the name, but I have mentioned who assigned it to Gallimimus. In any case, the importance here is not who coined that name, but the fact that it was assigned to Gallimimus at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is presented and linked in the discovery section. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the source does so, I wouldn't want to use words not used therein. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a one of a kind fossil, as explained under history, it is very rare for fossil bones to be preserved with tracks, so the circumstances are important. And it also gives some insight into how this particular animal died. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They help create bone, but the source doesn't specify this. I added "(important components of bone)" though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed some things back, because the rewordings didn't really reflect the meaning that was intended. Some duplinks have also been removed. For example, generic name just links to genus, so there is no reason for a separate link. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that looks like a support from me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should note to the reviewers that I just added some speed estimates, which I only discovered now, of course a major oversight. FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Given that there is a large number of images, I'll discuss only these which may have issues. Pre-emptively, it seems like all images are used in good places but no ALT text can be found anywhere. Otherwise:

I'm not sure I see this? The full citation is seen under the licence tag. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why it is used in that particular section (how it was formerly depicted), and the inaccuracy is explained in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, from an image perspective this seems ready; no comment on any other point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Looking good...quibbles below...

Gallimimus is known from the Nemegt Formation in the Gobi Desert of southern Mongolia. This geologic formation has never been dated radiometrically.... at this point in the article, we've already established it comes from the Nemegt formation so no need to declare it again, so convert to, "The Nemegt formation has never been dated radiometrically"
Hehe, actually, the Nemegt Formation itself isn't mentioned until the palaeoecology section; only the Nemegt Basin (the area the formation is named after) and the Nemegt locality (the place within this area where some Gallimimus specimens have been found) are mentioned earlier under history. Granted, it is confusing that they use the same name (I have also been misled by this), but they refer to different things... FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right/my bad. ok strike that....

Otherwise looks fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 20 July 2018 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 [14].

Northern gannet edit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have buffed this article, which was built up by a former editor. It got a good going-over at GAN and I feel it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz edit

This article has a complex history. Before the recent edits this article was based on a translation of the article on Spanish wikipedia (see talk page template and edit here in Oct 2013 which was in turn a translation of the article on Galician (!) wikipedia see edits beginning in Sep 2008. The Galician article was clearly translated from the German version of April 2007 see this edit. The various translations retained the German references with S.=Seite=page and Band=volume.

As a result the current English article cites the German book Der Basstölpel Reinsch 1969 on 24 occasions. Clearly at the very least these need to be checked for accuracy, but I believe they should be replaced by cites to English language sources. Citing a German book for this article impedes the verification process; there are plenty of English language sources available and Reinsch doesn't appear to be an authority on this species - he isn't mentioned in the primary literature. Citations to Nelson 2010 also need to be checked.

I added all the Nelson 2010 ones, replacing the older ones based on the Gannet book. Will look to replacing Reinsch. I realised as I read source material that some segments had been mistranslated and removed/readjusted them to the source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed any remaining Reinsch refs, modifying and updating the text as required and with newer English refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I'm not sure on this but I wonder whether a year should be included with the number of pairs in each colony. The numbers can easily become out of date (see Bonaventure below)
I have been debating this. On thinking about it, strikes me as a bit clunky prose-wise but given the variability of the colony sizes not a bad thing...added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • "The specific name bassanus is from the Bass Rock in the Firth of Forth, which holds the world's largest colony of northern gannets.[8]" Jobling doesn't mention largest colony.
  • "The ornithologist Bryan Nelson supported the species' inclusion in Sula..." This sentence needs slightly more context. (I notice that Peters and HBW also placed the gannets in Sula.)
Expanded Nelson's reasons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding colonies

  • "Bonaventure Island off the south coast of Quebec is the largest colony with 32,000 nests."[44] - but the more recent Ref 63 Chardine et al 2013 p.190 has 59,586 breeding pairs (say 60,000) - 2009 data. The number is also out-of-date in the lead.

Breeding

  • "The typical lifespan is 17 years." The article needs to explain that this is the life expectancy once they reach breeding age (5 years) see here. (calculated using lifespan = 5 + (-1/ln(0.919)) = 16.8 )

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Breeding

  • "...so they stay at sea learning to fish and fly." Perhaps worth mentioning that when juveniles fledge they can barely fly. Cramp p. 190 has "Young leave nest sites before able to fly and begin dispersal by swimming". Nelson 1964 (Scottish Birds) has p.134 "Usually it jumps off the cliff edge and flies straight out to sea. Once having alighted it is unable to rise again for some time (possibly two weeks or more) and does not return to the nest to be fed." I haven't Nelson 1978/2010 or Nelson 2005.

In culture

  • "The Bird Rock colony in the Gulf of St Lawrence..." Bird Rocks
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nelson 1966 "The breeding biology of the gannet Sula Bassana on the Bass Rock, Scotland" Ibis 108 (4) 584-626 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1966.tb07210.x I cannot access this article but the abstract gives the average weight of an egg as 104.5g - This can be used as a source - exactly the same number is currently cited to Reinsch 1969, p. 59.
I replaced the ref. I suspect Reinsch obtained the value from Nelson anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supported above - great work -Aa77zz (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk edit

  • Will review as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as Anser bassanus or scoticus" Under which circumstances did the describer use two different names?
  • Gesner simply presents them as alternatives with no explanation at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NB: This is not surprising given it is four centuries ago.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "noting that the locals called it solendguse" The locals where?
  • "is compatriot the Louis Vieillot" Seems something is missing?
  • The various genus names listed under taxonomy are not linked.
  • "The ornithologist Bryan Nelson supported the species' inclusion" When? You give dates for other revisions.
  • 2010? I had assumed that this is the date of the reprint - the text was originally published in 1978. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention a lot of synonyms combinations under taxonomy, so these and their authorities should also be listed in the taxobox, no?
  • Seems to have been done, we wouldn't normally include pre-Linneaen names such as Gessner's Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or "parliament goose, missing last quotation mark.
  • So which of the other gannets is its closest relation?
  • The other two are very closely related to each other, so it might be tricky to find something that answers your question, I'll poke around Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading was that the next closest lineage was the common ancestor that then diverged to the Cape and Australasian gannets. Hence the answer is "both" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the two maps could be combined into one? They contain essentially the same information. But no big deal, the map in the taxobox just seems to make the breeding map redundant, though the latter is of course in higher res.
  • "Anatomical adaptations" Since everything listed earlier in description are also "anatomical adaptations", I think you need to be more specific here. Perhaps "Anatomical adaptations for diving" or such.
  • "The four toes feet" Toed?
  • The images seem a bit cluttered on the right side, perhaps stagger some of them?
  • I'm not keen, I'd rather lose an image or two, let's see what Cas thinks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you cna use the space more eficiently if you shift the images up so that the diving bird is shown directly under behaviour (where flying is also discussed)? FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northern species has more white" Which is the Northern species? Perhaps clearer to just use the name.
  • I thought "northern" was nominally and geographically pretty clear, but changed as requested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I had deleted this point after I realised the same, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the ornithologist Bryan Nelson" Not sure why you need a link all the way down here, the word is already mentioned under taxonomy.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hey lack external nostrils and their secondary nostrils can be closed when they are under water." So where are the nostrils located?
  • "The lungs are highly developed" What does this mean? Developed for what?
  • "dense down feather" Feathers?
  • I think the intro needs more description of its colouration than just "mainly white".
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the largest member of the gannet family, Sulidae." The article body says "making it the largest seabird native to the western Palearctic", which is somewhat different, perhaps consolidate the two.
  • "This translation by James Fisher" Cite?
  • "68% of the world population breeds around the coasts of the British Isles." No source.
  • "appear white when seen from a distance, due to the number of nests present on them" And surely because of the excrements, no?
  • The brilliant white gannets are far more obvious and whiter than the excrement, which is largely hidden by the sitting birds anyway. If you look at File:Fous de bassan Bonnaventure.JPG I think it's pretty clear that the birds are what you see. I'll add the excrement if you think it's worth it, but that seems close to OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it was more of a question, I see the excrements aren't that apparent... FunkMonk (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Alderney be grouped with the UK rather than separately?
  • No, it's a crown dependency with its own legislature, taxes etc, not part of the UK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 2000'" what's that last apostrophe for? Instead of a comma?
  • "around 40 km north" Needs conversion.
  • "The species has been recorded as a vagrant in ... Svalbard" But it breeds there? So I guess that was before?
  • Are all those external links needed? Some seem redundant in relation to what's already in the article.
  • Cut to two, feel free to remove those if you think they are unneed, I'm no fan of ELs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not seem to be any physical description of the egg? At least the colour should be stated.
I added egg details Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The egg measurements could get conversions.
  • We often leave in mm only since most bird eggs are so small, but that doean't apply to the gannet so converted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "per square metre" Conversion?
  • "light for such a large large seabird." Cut.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the leave the nest" They?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but you might want to look at the sentence that was just changed to "yearsnce the leold"! FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha, I'd like to know what Cas was on! Fixed now, many thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This goddamn laoptop has a very sensitive touchpad resulting in some unexpected cursor migration....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Basstölpel_(Sula_bassana)_world.png: suggest including a legend clarifying the meaning of the dots, and also adding a source to the description page
  • File:Leucothea_Allasseur_cour_Carree_Louvre.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added PD-old, PD-US

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Might take me a day or two, but to start things:

  • "It now faces few natural or man-made threats," The word "now" seems unnecessary.
  • "Young birds have been called "spotted booby" or "parliament goose", referring to their plumage." presumably the "referring" is to "spotted" rather than "parliament"? Possibly a tweak needed.
  • "The latter then splitting into the Cape and Australasian gannets around 0.5 million years ago.[19]" verb issue.
  • "The nostrils are inside the bill and can be closed to prevent water entry, and the eyes are protected by strong nictitating membranes.[30]" and ... and
  • "These sacs are connected to the lungs and are filled with air when the bird breathes in. The air can be expelled by muscle contractions.[31]" I would expect, based on the first sentence, for the air to be expelled when the bird breathes out.
  • "According to Nelson northern gannets can recognize the call of their breeding partner, chicks and birds in neighbouring nests." reads a bit oddly, Maybe put a "their" before "chicks"?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rest:
  • "The northern gannet's breeding range is on both coasts of the North Atlantic on coasts influenced by the Gulf Stream,[36]" Coasts ... coasts. Maybe sub in a "sides" for the first or "shores" for the second, either.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northern gannet's breeding range is on both coasts of the North Atlantic on coasts influenced by the Gulf Stream,[36] the exception being the colonies of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the islands off the east coast of Canada." Judging by the map, these last colonies seem to be on the coast of Newfoundland and so would be influenced by the Gulf Stream.
  • "and as food reserves during extended periods without food.[23]" I would cut the first use of "food"
  • "The cliffs containing the colonies appear white when seen from a distance, due to the number of nests present on them. " Nests or guano?
  • Changed to breeding birds, the brilliant white of the gannet is far more conspicuous than the droppings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are small colonies on Ireland's southern coast,[51] on Bull Rock, County Mayo, Clare Island and Great Saltee Island, County Wexford.[52]" a little tweaking to the location names as related to the counties, perhaps.
  • You refer to both Svalbard and Spitsbergen. Consistency.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bonaventure Island off the south coast of Quebec " I don't think that's an accurate way of stating its locale. Check our article on the island and a map.
  • " Should one of the pair die, the other bird will leave the breeding ground and find another mate.[99]" You mean they would find another colony?
  • I might link "fence" or "fencing".
  • Are there explanations for why the population is growing?
High reproductive success, added with ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Very little: all links working correctly, just a few quibbles:

  • Page range formats need to be consistent throughout. Compare, for example, 47 with e.g. 56 or 57
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11: according to the ref, "Version 8.1" but according to the source, "Version 8.2"
aligned. IOC birdlist updated recently Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 81 and 89: publisher should be given as The Cornell Lab of Ornithology rather than a web address.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources are in good order and appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2018 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2018 [15].

Abby (TV series) edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about an American television sitcom created by Nat Bernstein and Michael Katlin, which originally aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from January 6, 2003, to March 4, 2003. The show revolves around television producer Abigail "Abby" Walker (Sydney Tamiia Poitier) and her relationship with her ex-boyfriend Will Jeffries (Kadeem Hardison). After they break-up in the pilot episode, they agree to live together as friends in their rent controlled San Francisco apartment. The supporting cast includes Randy J. Goodwin, Tangie Ambrose, and Sean O'Bryan. Critics classified Abby as a sex comedy and a romantic comedy. Commentators often criticized its reliance on sexual humor, though Poitier's acting was praised by critics.

This is my sixth FAC nomination for a UPN television show, with the other five being Love, Inc., Eve, Mercy Point, Chains of Love, and All Souls. It is part of my interest in working on short-lived television series and hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. If anyone is interested, this is what the article looked like before I started working on it. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV edit

  • Comment. Hi Aoba, I've just started reading this. The first thing that jumps out is that there's too much quoting. There are nine quotes in the first two paragraphs of the first section. I would go through it and reserve quoting for wording that's distinctive in some important way. SarahSV (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment. I will go through the article either tonight or tomorrow to cut down on the quotes. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looking at one quote, "open book", it isn't the actor who is saying that. That's the writer's summary of the actor's words. Maybe the actor did in fact use those words, but we don't know that from the source. SarahSV (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed some of the quotes; please let me know if more quotes should be paraphrased. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better, but there are still a few that aren't needed. Some other issues:
  • "She uses him as a way to make Will jealous, and employs 'aggressively suggestive remarks and sounds as weapons'." It isn't clear what the words in quotes mean. What is an aggressively suggestive sound, and how would it be used as a weapon?
  • I have actually not watched the series (it is not available online to the best of my knowledge), but my best guess would be that they are referencing the show's use of sexual comedy. I have removed it as I am not entirely sure what is meant by it either on further inspection. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abby has difficulty with her chauvinistic boss Roger Tomkins": comma needed after boss if Roger is the only boss. Similarly, comma needed after boyfriend in "Abby breaks up with her boyfriend Will Jeffries" (I've added that one), and in any similar construction. If you leave out the comma, it means she has more than one boss or boyfriend.
  • Added. I have never actually heard of this rule before. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appear in a recurring capacity": I would find another way to write that.
  • "there was something special, which we picked up on immediately": I would leave that out. They always say there was something special about the script, actors, director, characters, and they always pick up on it immediately.
  • True true. I had the same thoughts too. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the show's focus on a biracial woman and her dates with white men reflected United Paramount Network (UPN)'s trend of adding white characters to its 'urban-flavored programming'." I think that needs to be explained some more.
  • Revised. The sentence is just about how the show was part of a trend of the network (UPN) adding more white characters to its shows (which had mostly black casts). Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will add more later. SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your help with this review. I believe that I have addressed everything so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few more issues:

  • "She is one of the few women working for the show.[4] Even though she works for a sports show": try to rewrite to remove the repetition.
  • "Max and Abby's sister, Joanne 'Jo' Walker": at first glance that looks as though Joanne is Max's sister too. You could try: "Max and Joanne 'Jo' Walker, Abby's sister, are both supportive of Abby" or "Max is supportive of Abby, as is Joanne etc".
  • There are a lot of sentences with the same subject–verb–object structure. "The executive producers of Abby were Nat Bernstein and Michael Katlin; it was produced by CBS Productions and Katlin/Bernstein Productions.[13][14] Bernstein and Katlin also served as the series' display artists and writers.[5][14] Gilda Stratton and Dava White cast the show.[14] It was filmed in Los Angeles.[14] Leonard R. Garner Jr. was a director ..." Try mixing things up a bit, e.g. "Filmed in Los Angeles, the show was directed by Leonard etc".
  • Revised, but let me know if further work is required. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too close to the sources in places, and the quoting needs to be reduced. It sometimes looks as though you're following the sources line by line, and quoting or slightly changing them. For example:
Wikipedia: Discussing the original concept, Katlin said: "We had wanted to have an interracial relationship, but not make the show about an interracial relationship." However, a common question from the pilot's test audience was: "Why aren't you dealing with it?"
Source: The series' creator, Mitchel Katlin, explained the switch in an earlier interview. "We had wanted to have an interracial relationship, but not make the show about an interracial relationship," he said. Katlin added that "the test audience for the original pilot asked, 'Why aren't you dealing with it?
  • That is strange as it was clearly not my intention. I have revised it, but I believe that both quotes are important to keep. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "UPN promoted the series" is unclear, including:
  • "Scott D. Pierce of The Deseret News wrote the network was placed a majority of its attention on the sitcom": wrote that ... had placed most of its attention? But even so I'm not sure what it means.
  • "Poitier was uncertain of the audience's possible response": not clearly meaningful.
  • I believe the rest of the sentence makes it meaningful; she did not agree with the network's move to have sitcoms/dramas on the same night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She explained the network": explained that.
  • "The series did garner some positive critical comments": but the first example is another negative one.
  • "Johnson criticized Poitier's performance writing that": needs comma before "writing".
  • "David responded positively": I assume that's Davis?
  • You don't need to add "via Google Books" to the citation.
  • Makes sense. Thank you for the help as I have always been confused about that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Terrace (2008), p.1 4", do you mean "pp. 1, 4"? I can see an entry about the show on p. 4 but not on p. 1 or p. 14.
  • Revised. Apologies for the typo Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image underneath the infobox is causing problems with white space, because of {{clear}}, when I widen my browser window. Perhaps move her to Production and Hardison to Broadcast history?
  • I have removed the image of Poitier. It did not add much beyond aesthetics. I never view Wikipedia articles in a large/wide browser so I missed that. I do not believe an image would be necessary in the "Broadcast history" section as it would not really tie into any of the information being presented there. Of course, please let me know if you have a suggestion. A little ironic considering that I first started researching this show due to my interest in the actress. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you again for your help; apologies for the silly mistakes made in the article >< lol. I believe that I have addressed everything so far. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does need the image of her, because she's playing the main character. The problem is that the image looks into the text, so it's hard to move it to the left. But I tried it and it's not so bad, because there's a cameraman on the left who is looking into the text, so that saves the image. Try it on preview and see what you think (the original image positions, but left for Poitier and right for Hardison). SarahSV (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the lead briefly confusing—the sentence about O'Byran being Will originally but that changing because of the interracial aspect. Then I realized it was because O'Bryan was white. Should that be added? "The supporting cast includes Randy J. Goodwin, Tangie Ambrose, and Sean O'Bryan. O'Bryan, a white actor, was originally announced to play Will. Executive producers Nat Bernstein and Michael Katlin had intended the series to feature Abby and Will as an interracial couple, but they recast the role of Will after a negative response from test audiences." SarahSV (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that you addressed this part in your c/e. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm doing some copy editing. Please revert anything you don't like. SarahSV (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Apologies for not getting to this earlier. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no rush. I think the biggest problem is the subject–verb–object sentence structure throughout. I've copy-edited to remove some of it. I think you should do some rewriting with that in mind. Also, look out for awkward phrases, such as "Abby is not portrayed as invested in any type of sport". By the way, you said it wasn't available online. I found a few episodes on YouTube, so it might be worth watching those to get a feel for it. Search for Abby Poitier. SarahSV (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have attempted to revise it further. I do not have as much of an issue with the subject–verb–object sentence structure as I do not want to force a particular sentence structure and have it detract from the content itself. When writing the article, I opted for a more simplistic structure to convey the information. Aoba47 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writing is currently an obstacle to my supporting promotion, but it probably doesn't need that much work. You just need to introduce better flow and remove awkward sentences. For example: "Following responses from test audiences, the role changed from O'Bryan with Hardison due to their common question ("Why aren't you dealing with it?") in response to the pilot episode's treatment of Will and Abby's interracial relationship." Try to imagine you're describing the show to one reader who has never heard of it, and you need to make everything clear for her. You should also make clear how much the show was criticized. SarahSV (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can definitely read through the article again to check for flow and awkward sentence construction; however, I would argue that is a separate issue entirely from varying SOV sentence construction. I am also not sure what you mean by this comment (i.e. You should also make clear how much the show was criticized). There is already a sentence in the lead that the show received primarily negative reviews and a paragraph in the "Critical reception" section covering the negative reviews so I am not sure how it could be made clearer? Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page gives advice about how to vary sentence structure. Regarding criticism, a couple of the sources are very negative indeed, and having watched parts of two episodes, I can see why. But if you believe that what's there is a fair overview of all the sources, that's fine. SarahSV (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link; I will look through the article further today and tomorrow. It is difficult as I have been looking at it for so long. If possible, could you identify any particular paragraphs that you feel have the most issues with prose? Every time that I revise, I feel like I am just making it more unnecessarily convoluted. Sorry for all of the messages, and thank you again for all of your help. Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I'm sorry that it's creating extra work for you. Have a look at that link, which explains why repeating the same sentence structure is a problem, then read through the article again, looking out for it. For example: "Abby was commercially unsuccessful and ranked last on the list of 146 shows tracked by the Nielsen Holdings. It attracted an average of 1.7 million viewers per week. The series was canceled after a nine-episode season was broadcast. The final episode aired on March 4, 2003." SarahSV (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It helps me with making the article stronger so I appreciate the input. Thank you for clarifying it; for some reason, I was having difficulty. If it is alright with you, I will message you again on this thread when I am done with the edits (probably tomorrow night). Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have revised the article with flow and sentence structure in mind. Please let me know if you think that the prose needs further work. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! I always enjoy working on these articles about very obscure topics for some reason lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, I hope your improvements will continue. The writing is still list-like in places; see the Production section in particular. Ask yourself whether every bit of information is necessary, and whether it could be presented differently. I'm also wondering about the sources. There are often several sources after what appears to be a simple point. For example, "Episodes were filmed in Los Angeles,[14] with Leonard R. Garner Jr. being one of the directors.[14][15] Are two sources needed to show that Garner was a director? Were there other directors? Also, "with ... being" is not a good construction; see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and search for "With as an additive link". SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: I have removed certain unnecessary information from the production section. I believe that it is important to include Leonard R. Garner Jr. (who directed the pilot) as he is notable name that sources have covered. Sources did not discuss any of the other directors so I do not believe that information should be added to the article. I have removed one of the sources; I used two to just support the information present. I also believe that it is important to keep Rick Marotta as he is another notable name attached to the series. I have completed my revisions. If there are still issues with the prose, I do not believe there is much else that I can do at this point; I have revised it to the best of my abilities. Thank you for the review again. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

The lead image, File:AbbyTVSeriesTitleCard.jpg, is a title card with an appropriate tag and non-free rationale. The other two, File:Sydney Tamiia Poitier.jpg and File:Kadeem Hardison 2013.jpg, are appropriately licensed and tagged. SarahSV (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Freikorp edit

  • You introduce Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a 'supernatural drama' and Girlfriends as a 'sitcom', yet in the proceeding sentence the show Haunted (TV series) isn't given any introduction. Also consider mentioning why Haunted was replaced.

That's all I found, though happy to support as is. Fantastic work as always. :) 04:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review and support! Aoba47 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk edit

Intriguing article! I commend you (once again) for writing about a little-known show with limited literature available on it. I'm happy to lend my support after you address or respond to my few comments/queries:

  • The lead says that O'Brien was cast in a "supportive role". It's not necessarily incorrect, but "supporting role" is the more preferred word, isn't it?
  • In the premise and character's section, there's a sudden shift to critical analysis when you say, "Abby's concept and tone received comparisons to the sitcoms Three's Company and Will & Grace. Rob Owen referred to the series as a sex comedy, though other critics felt it was a romantic comedy." Is there a reason why this is here and not in the reception section?
  • I would argue that they are more neutral critical commentary; none of the sources are praising or panning Abby in comparison to Three's Company and Will & Grace and their descriptions of the show as a sex comedy or a romantic comedy is not necessarily an example of a critical review. I put this information in the "Premise and characters" section as I felt that it would help to explain the overall tone of the series. I can move it to the reception section if you feel that is the best course of action though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that makes sense. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the broadcast section you say that the show was "aired against Frasier, 24, The Guardian, and Smallville during a "competitive" time". It might not be immediately apparent what "competitive" refers to. Is there any way you could elaborate on this just a little? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means that the show aired at the same time as popular and already established programs, which would lower the chances of people turning away from them in favor of something new. I have removed the sentence altogether though as it is quite trivial and not entirely necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't think that it was trivial. I just thought that a brief explanation that it was up against these established shows would have been better. Anyway, I'll leave this to your discretion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk2.0: Thank you for your comments and your kind words! I believe that I have addressed everything. I enjoy working on these very obscure shows for some reason. I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good job, as usual. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damian Vo edit

Comments from Argento Surfer edit

  • "Abby follows its lead character Abigail "Abby" Walker" - this is redundant. It won't follow a supporting character.
  • "overshares details about her love life with Max Ellis" - to avoid ambiguity here, I suggest "overshares details about her love life with her best friend, Max Ellis (Randy J. Goodwin), who is also the program's anchorman. On my first read, I thought her love life was with Max, not the sharing.
  • Did Abby and Will break up because of Will's selfishness? If so, I think it should be more clear in the prose. If not (or if you're not sure), then it's fine as is.
  • Unfortunately, the sources do not explicit state why Abby broke up with Will. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roger gives Abby tickets to a Kenny Lattimore concert, but she discovers that he has a hidden agenda." This is the only episode summary that plays coy. Do we know what the agenda is? I'm guessing Will has tickets for seats next to Abby...

That's all from me for now. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Good work with the article. Doing the source review. All the urls seem to be linked, archived and reliable based on the work and checking them. However, "Book sources" has no links. Is it because the publisher of the books are not well known. Remember to ping me in the reply.Tintor2 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for the review. I have linked the publishers for the book sources. Aoba47 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Passes the review.Tintor2 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a status update edit

  • @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain:, and @Sarastro1: Could I have a status update for this as I believe that it is ready for promotion? Thank you in advance, and have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64 edit

(edit conflict) The only thing I noticed from a thorough read was that the first "Abby" in the "Critical response" section is not italicized. Other than that, this article is very polished, well-sourced, and well-written. Support. JOEBRO64 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comment and the support. I have fixed the title. I am not sure how I missed that one lol. Have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Paparazzzi edit

  • they gave the role instead to Hardison and cast O'Bryan in a supporting role, along... repetition

That's the only thing I found; overall, I think this is ready for promotion, so I support this nomination. Congratulations, @Aoba47:. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2018 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2018 [16].

Oxalaia edit

Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a spinosaurid dinosaur discovered in Brazil, it has undergone a successful GA-review by Funkmonk, a peer review, a copy edit at the guild, and the restoration has been thoroughly checked at WP:DINOART. The contributions/expansions I've made to Oxalaia are part of a project of mine to bring all spinosaurid articles to at least GA status and half to FA, in hopes of it being a good/featured topic in the future. This is the second spinosaurid article to be nominated for FA after Baryonyx. I'm happy with how much it has grown over the past few months and I believe the article fits the criteria, I am the major contributor for Oxalaia though, so it could benefit from a pair or more of extra eyes. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Jens Lallensack edit

  • I have already mentioned this problem during the image review, and elaborating on it now: The legs in both the hypothetical life reconstruction and the scale chart are too short. I know they are based on the Ibrahim et al. (2014) reconstruction of the related Spinosaurus. However, I don't know of a source stating that Oxalaia might have had similar body proportions than Spinosaurus; on the contrary, the recent reconstruction of a Brazilian spinosaurine by Aureliano et al. 2018 shows proportions typical for all other spinosaurids. Importantly, Ibrahim et al. specifically state that with legs this short it "must have been an obligate quadruped on land". Bipedality with proportions like these is, plainly speaking, impossible, simply due to the anterior position of the center of mass. Yet, you reconstruct it as a biped, thus mixing separate hypothesis that cannot be mixed and violating Wikipedia:No original research. The only serious way to reconstruct the species is to stick to the sources (the Aureliano reconstruction).
We already discussed this in the image review, the Ibrahim et al. hypothesis on quadrupedalism has largely fallen out of favor, most palaeontologists now agree that Spinosaurus would've been perfectly balanced even with such short hind limbs. If we're going by Ibrahim et al. alone then these[17][18][19] restorations on the Spinosaurus article should be removed. One of the most well-known characteristics of theropod arms is that they were simply not built to bear weight, the animal's shoulders would be driven back into its neck if it tried this; resulting in internal decapitation. As for the Auerliano et al. specimen, it originates from the Ariape Basin and likely belongs to Irritator or Angaturama, both of which have of course been restored with longer legs. However, due to Oxalaia being most closely related to Spinosaurus, it follows logic that Spinosaurus should be used as a basis for the restoration. The chimera hypothesis has also been refuted, such as in this 2017 abstract.[20] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to butt in, but I don't see how the latter issue about showing it as a biped with a short legs is an issue when every single Spinosaurus reconstruction (rightfully) shows a bipedal posture as well. If you think that's an issue as well, surely a statement from a reputable palaeontologist could be found arguing against quadrupedality. I would also refute the idea that giving it short legs is excessively WP:OR; we reconstruct prehistoric animals using phylogenetic bracketing, inferring from their closest relatives, and in this case the closest relative with known limb proportions is Spinosaurus, not Baryonyx. I could claim WP:OR on Paranthodon having a reconstruction showing shoulder spines, but that would be dumb. Regarding Aureliano's study, they made no specific mention of Oxalaia. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not question that there are arguments against quadrupedality, and I'm certainly not asking for reconstructing it like this. But if you want to keep the proportions proposed by this single and still controversial paper, then you should reconstruct it the same way they did: swimming. Yes, I do feel that any image showing the Ibrahim Spinosaurus engaging in bipedal locomotion should be removed. Ibrahim himself stated that this is not possible, and as long as this hasn't been questioned, it is OR to reconstruct it this way. You are arguing that most palaeontologists now agree that Spinosaurus would've been perfectly balanced even with such short hind limbs – not sure how you come to this conclusion; if there really is a published paper to source this, please tell me which, I would be very interested in it. And no, Phylogenetic bracketing does only work when you have at least two species to span the bracket, here you only have Spinosaurus, thus no bracket. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's appeared in the literature, but nearly every reputable palaeontologist who's touched on the issue online has thought of the idea of at best unsupported and at worst utterly ridiculous. Anyway, I suppose you're correct it's not "bracketing", in the true sense, but we're still inferring from the closest relative, which is A-okay within the guidelines of WP:DINO. Any suggestion of longer legs would also fail to make a bracket, and it would be inferring based off of more distant relatives. If short legs aren't acceptable, then long legs are even worse. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't appeared so much in official publications from what I can tell. The controversy behind the hind limb size has been largely sorted out, such as in the abstract previously mentioned, and these discussions between Ibrahim et al. with Scott Hartman and Mark Witton.[21][22] However, the quadrupedalism continues to be met with heavy skepticism, a single scientific publication (Ibrahim et al. (2014)) cannot simply contradict one of the most basic principles of dinosaur anatomy that even most amateurs are aware of. Read how Jaime Headden touches on the subject,[23] Although a blog might not exactly be a "serious" source, these are still statements by a reputable person that is well-versed in paleobiology and biomechanics. As it is, I would like to get back to working on fixes to the article for FA. This is turning into a discussion on dinosaur anatomy more one for how to improve content on Wikipedia. As I said in the image review, if further scientific scrutiny confirms the ability of theropod hands and shoulders to somehow withstand the full weight of a 15 meter long creature without shattering, then I shall change my drawing. This is too much thought to put into speculative paleoart that will likely be fully replaced if more complete skeletal material is ever found. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogenetic inferring from a sister-group relationship alone has no justification, as the feature in question might well be an autapomorphy. You would do better reconstructing it based on the synapomorphies of a clade that is a little bit more inclusive. Alternatively, considering that this genus is only known from two jaw fragments, simply removing the two hypothetical reconstructions might even be the most honest solution. The issue with the Spinosaurus legs is independent from this. No, I don't think anything has been sorted out regarding the chimera hypothesis, the abstract you are citing is not a refutation; these are basically the same authors of the original Ibrahim study – if they have to defend their work in such a way, it only shows the opposite: that there is disagreement. All the blogs you are now citing do actually support my point: the Ibrahim reconstruction is incompatible with bipedal locomotion. Still, you base the reconstruction on it, leading to a thing violating basic laws of physics. I said everything there is to say, and now leave this point for others to decide. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Read your recent addition only now. As I explained above, I certainly do not ask you to reconstruct it in a quadrupedal pose. Rather, it is OK if you 1) reconstruct it in a swimming pose as in the original (although I personally don't favor this option), 2) reconstruct it based on synapomorphies of its clade, or 3) do not reconstruct it at all. But as it currently is, it is OR and certainly not what any of the paleontologists involved had in mind, and therefore I am unable to support the nomination. But lets see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I alluded to earlier, though, precedent says it's fine to include speculative reconstructions in FAs about fragmentary taxa, like Dromaeosauroides and Paranthodon, nor does it, in my opinion, fall under any of the criteria for removing an image listed at WP:DINO and WP:DINOART. As far as I can tell you're criticizing it based on your own view of it without precedent or guidelines backing your claim it should be removed up. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that was never my point. My point is that the reconstructions are incorrect and not in agreement with any published source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we cannot come to an agreement on this. As far as I'm aware, there must be consensus and these particular points must have been addressed, otherwise this review cannot properly proceed. Inquiring FunkMonk and IJReid for opinions on this matter, since they have experience with dinosaur FAs. Also because if what you've said is true, then none of these[24][25][26][27][28][29] images belong on Wikipedia articles and certainly not on Featured ones. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Jens is saying that the reconstruction should be more conservative because we only know of one spinosaurid with leg proportions like that (or at least that single specimen assigned to Spinosaurus that is not even from the same formation), while all others don't. And Spinosaurus is thought not to have been bipedal due to those proportions, so we can't have it both ways; either it has short legs and is not bipedal, or it has normal legs and is bipedal. He's not arguing against speculative restorations in general, just saying they should not introduce controversial ideas, and that's more in line with FAC criteria than "regular" articles. So I think it's a valid point, and also keep in mind that Jens is an actual palaeontologist, whereas I'm just some guy reading about dinosaurs in my spare time. As for the other images, it seems they have the problem of showing Spinosaurus as bipedal, but at least it is less controversial to show the weird proportions there, because they show Spinosaurus itself. One of them is also from a scientific publication (the one by Knüppe). FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the fact no consensus can be reached, I suggest the reconstruction simple be removed, a situation I think nobody will be outright opposed to, even if it's not everybody's preferred solution (and thinking over it again, I'm beginning to agree more with Jens, but I digress). Alternatively, a reconstruction not showing the legs, perhaps with it in water, might be useful. As far the Spinosaurus issue, I suggest we discuss that on its talk page, since it's a more complicated and pressing WP:SYNTH issue. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The water idea seems pretty good. As for the issue with Spinosaurus itself, I think that will not be solved for many years. Some independent researchers really need to look at that material, Sereno and friends seem a bit too entrenched. FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could redraw the legs and place it in the water, as Jens previously stated; such as in Tomopteryx's Halzkaraptor, would that be acceptable? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting not having the legs visible at all so as to avoid the issue; presumably hidden under opaque water. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we should go with Jens Lallensack and FunkMonk's previous idea, the legs should simply be redrawn to hover in a swimming pose on both images, so as to also not remove the size chart. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't half the dispute about their size in the first place though? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was also thinking of hiding the legs entirely, but if Jens is ok with showing them under water, I'm ok. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine I think, it just shouldn't show the animal engaging in bipedal locomotion. But it would be tricky to add water to the scale chart? This is how a recent paper solves the problem: [30]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm wondering if the scale chart is valid in the first place, because the size estimates presented by Kellner and colleagues (2011) were based on the traditional Spinosaurus reconstruction? Not sure how great the effect is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Water in the scale chart shouldn't be necessary, merely a floating swimming pose like with marine reptile size comparisons. I'm more worried about making the caption even longer; perhaps it could "Tentative size estimate, with the animal seen in a swimming position", with the text going into more detail? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we don't need to go into that much detail... But if we did, it wouldn't be that weird; captions in FAs are usually quite long anyways. Just look at the one on the Ceratosaurus scale chart, for example. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm half-done with the changes to the size chart and restoration, the new images will be up later at WP:DINOART. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Glad we could come to an agreement. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have a bunch of minor comments, more of which I will add the coming days:

  • (in reference to Oxalá) – maybe include "African deity" for explanation, as you have the same degree of explanation for the species name in the lead?
Done
  • spinosaurid theropod dinosaur – this might be too many attributes for the first sentence; think about adding a separate sentence stating it belongs to Spinosauridae. Instead, adding "a poorly known genus" might be a helpful addition.
I'm not sure that's necessary, the same number of attributes (or more) are used in the opening sentences of Velociraptor, Dromaeosauroides, Tyrannosaurus, Diplodocus, and Deinonychus; five other FAs on theropods. And "a poorly known genus" seems redundant, since we already have "Oxalaia is known only from two partial skull bones" in the lead.
Only a very minor suggestion, I write down what comes to my head, and perhaps you are right here – the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the Alcântara Formation – "in" the Alcantara Formation? Also, I would explain what this thing is, e.g. "within the rocks of the Alcantara Formation".
Done
  • Kellner et al. – avoid as many technical terms as possible, especially in the lead and especially when you used the alternative "and colleagues" before already.
Done
  • including two replacement teeth – do you mean two replacement teeth in each tooth position?
Done
  • that better distinguished it from other genera than the various tooth taxa named in the Spinosauridae such as Siamosaurus, which may become invalid in the future. – This does not seem like the place to have this information, it is not really relevant, I would remove.
Done
  • This environment had a large variety of lifeforms also present in Middle-Cretaceous North Africa. – Maybe better explain why Middle-Cretaceous North Africa is important in this context.
Done
  • Elaine Machado – better unlink, it does not appear to meet notability requirements.
Done
  • some terms that needs a link and/or explanation: bone bed, holotype
Done
  • and stated in a press release that "this is how most scientific discoveries happen, it was by accident" – since the source is in Portuguese you need to include the exact original quote as well, according to WP:MOS#Quotations.
Being worked on
How do I go about doing that? Can you give me some examples of the format on other articles, etc? Because there are a few quotes in Oxalaia originally in Portuguese, and I feel like simply writing down both the translation and the original would be rather awkward and cluttered, so I'm assuming this is done some other way.
If you translated it by yourself, you need to give the original quote according to the manual of style (e.g., in brackets and italics right after your translation). If you got the translation from somewhere else, it is sufficient to cite the source of the translation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That still looks rather awkward to me and seems like it'd interrupt the reading flow, can you link some examples of articles where this has been done?
I don't know, would have to search. Not a critical issue for me personally, though, this would not keep me from supporting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jaw fossils were presented at the Brazilian Academy of Sciences in March 2011, where the discoveries of Oxalaia […] were announced – Two issues. First, I do not understand what "presented at" means here, do you mean "presented by", and if so, where did they present (a journal?). Second, "where the discoveries of Oxalaia were announced" means the same as "the jaw fossils were presented", and is thus redundant.
Done
  • surpassing the previous record holder Pycnonemosaurus that measured 8.9 metres (29.2 feet) – this reads like sensational fan-speech and is not professional; I would simply write something like "it is larger than Pycnonemosaurus, which was estimated at 8.9 metres by one study".
Done
  • The maxilla extend forwards along the underside – the plural of maxilla is maxillae.
Done
  • It cannot be confirmed whether this reduction in tooth number is due to ontogeny; for that, a larger sample size is necessary. – Unclear. Do you mean that it is unclear if the number of teeth got reduced during growth? This would be unusual, as the contrary is usually the case in dinosaurs.
Done; fixed the wording, it was supposed to refer to the smaller quantity of teeth in the aforementioned Spinosaurus specimen (MSNM V4047).
  • It also features a shallow dent in the middle, suggesting it was located near the external nares (nasal openings) – but if so, wouldn't it be located more anteriorly than indicated in your head diagram?--Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I found this [31] diagram by the authors illustrating where the maxilla should go, I was off by one tooth. Also linked that source on the image information page.
  • it is also rounder than that of Spinosaurus – maybe add "in side view" (if correct) to be precise? Otherwise you might think it is rounded in top view or whatever.
Done
  • The maxillae extend forwards along the underside; they are encased between the praemaxillae and border an elaborate, triangle-shaped pit in a structure known as the secondary palate. – A bit vague, it sounds like the secondary palate was located anterior to the anterior processes of the maxillae. I think the whole roof of the mouth formed by the premaxilla and maxilla should be called a secondary palate, thus the anterior processes would be part of it. Furthermore, it seems you lack a citation here, as I can't find a mention of the secondary palate in the Kellner paper.
Done
  • This structure is more ornamented in Oxalaia than in other spinosaurids, which have smoother secondary palates. – But I think your source (Kellner) is only talking about the premaxillary part of the secondary palate, not about the maxillary part. It is generally safer to stick more closely with the original wording.
Done
  • The two ventral processes of the maxilla are very thin and are also present in Suchomimus, Cristatusaurus, and MNHN SAM 124, although not as exposed – not sure what the ventral processes would be. Do you mean the anterior processes you were talking about in the previous sentences? If so, I would call them by name from the beginning on.
Done
  • Another diastema of nearly equal length is found between the fifth and sixth alveoli; – I think you need singular here: alveolus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Both Oxalaia and Angaturama are successive outgroups of Spinosaurus; – not sure about the use of outgroup in this context; maybe reformulate to avoid it.
  • they apparently evolved separately from its general body plan – what does this mean? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the above two suggestions was touched by Lusotitan, under his only comment marked as Partly done. Here is the original excerpt from the source: "Oxalaia is clearly more related to the African spinosaurines (Figs 8 and 10A). Hence, at least with respect to Angaturama and Oxalaia, the Brazilian spinosaurid taxa represent successive outgroups to the African spinosaurine material MSNM V4047 (and MNHN SAM 124). Spinosaurinae seem to have been more morphologically diverse than previously thought."[32] - Like I said below, I wasn't sure how to explain "successive outgroups" to general readers, so the sentence in the article looks to have come out with some undesirable results. Any idea how I can fix it? I'm still not certain. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A possibility could be "The Brazilian genera Oxalaia and Angaturama were recovered as the two closest relatives of Spinosaurus, with Oxalaia forming its sister taxon. Though fragmentary, the Brazilian material indicates that spinosaurines were more diverse than previously recognized." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That works quite well actually, added it! The only other currently unsolved comment is the one you made about the quotations, marked above as "being worked on". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was found with part of the left side embedded in the rock matrix – you should add that it was found in situ (at its original position within the rock unit), unlike the maxilla fragment, which was a piece collected from the ground that might have moved a bit after being eroded from the rock. Also mention that fossils of the site, when not found in situ, have been removed from the formation by wave action. This will help the reader to get a better picture.
Done
  • The article seems to lack information on the geological setting, but this is important. In what type of rock was the fossil found? How was this rock deposited (by rivers, in a lake, a sabkha, or is it marine)? In context of the palaeoecology, this would also answer the obvious question where the water in the middle of a desert comes from. The next question would be if this setting was the same as that were Spinosaurus was found.
Done, looking up refs on the geology of the Bahariya and Kem Kem formations.
Marked as done, it took me a while but I managed to get the geological info and comparisons in, I tried my best to keep it relevant without going into unnecessary detail. Here are the changes so far,[33] Jens Lallensack, pinging for input. The Discovery section starts off a lot better now I think.
  • It might also be worthwhile to mention and compare with the Araripe basin, where the other spinosaur finds have been found, to provide the reader with a bit more background. You already have it on the map!
Done
  • I would replace or remove the paleogeographic map. It shows the earth at 83 mya, much too young, and therefore is very misleading, as the southern Atlantic was much wider at that time already. During the Cenomanian, when Oxalaia lived, the setting was very different since there might still have been a connection between both continents.
Done, replaced with a palaeogeographic map of the Albian-Cenomanian, which took a lot of effort to find, there don't seem to be many creative commons licensed maps of this particular time span/stage.
  • is a result of the Gondwana supercontinent – sounds like bad English, please check. I would have expected something like "is a result of the connection …".
Done
  • "we believe this is how the species [O. quilombensis] got transported" – seems weird, does it mean "dispersed"? Anyway, I would always be very careful with media accounts on scientific topics; especially regarding something like dinosaurs. From my own experience I can tell that these articles are usually written by people who have absolutely no idea about the topic, and who do not always understand what the scientist actually told them; quotes (if correct, you never know) can be very much out of context.
Being worked on
; "transportada" means "transported" in English, so it is the actual translation. Could this be changed to "dispersed" using brackets? Such as exemplified here[34] in the MOS? Or should it just be removed?
Hm, as transported and dispersed is something very different, I wouldn't do that. If the quote is that obscure and if it does not add significant information, I would just remove. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, removed quote. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has become apparent from the fossil record of Africa and South America that the composition of animal life in northern Gondwana appears to correlate with the evolutionary history of Diplodocoidea, Spinosauridae, Abelisauridae, and Carcharodontosauridae – I'm also not entirely sure here what this is trying to say (the composition of animal life correlates with animals?). Not comprehensible enough.
Changed it to be closer to the original statement, "From the distribution and variety of the dinosaur fossil record, it has become apparent that the composition of animal life in northern Gondwana appears to correlate with the evolutionary history of Diplodocoidea, Spinosauridae, Abelisauridae, and Carcharodontosauridae." - is this better?
I still don't understand. Do they mean that the observed faunal composition is in accordance with the known evolutionary history of the clades? But if so, why is it so relevant for this article? I really would try to state it using your own words, or, alternatively, just remove it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I guess it's not really that relevant to the article now that I think about it, probably better served for the article of the formation itself. Removed it. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happens next? It's been 4 days, sorry if that seems impatient, I'm still new to FAC. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, four days is very little in FAC time! It's mainly a matter of waiting for reviews, and well, I usually just work on other things in the meantime. One thing you can do after two supports is to request a source and image review here:[35] FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Lusotitan edit

Should the following comments be addressed, I'll be waiting on a resolution to the disagreement over the restoration before giving support:

All the suggestions below have been implemented, and there is now consensus on the restoration. Lusotitan
  • I would link Alexander Kellner's article from his first mention in the taxobox as well.
Done
  • ...during the Cenomanian of the Late Cretaceous, between 93.9 to 100.5 million years ago. - perhaps say "sometime between" instead here, since we don't have material across the entire Cenomanian.
Done
  • Its fossils were found in 1999 on Cajual Island in the rocks of the Alcântara Formation... - a bit pedantic, perhaps, but "its" fossils doesn't quite feel right here, maybe "known fossils" instead? It doesn't own the fossils, it's a taxon. But again, I might be seeing nothing here. Don't feel obligated to implement this if you disagree.
Done, you're right, it also kinda assumes that they're the only fossils left entirely.
  • ...which is known for its abundance of fragmentary, isolated fossil specimens. - correct me if I'm wrong, but even counting the isolated teeth I don't think there's enough specimens to qualify as an "abundance". Either way, "known for its abundant fragmentary, isolated fossil specimens" seems more natural here.
  • That's how most scientific papers on the Alcantara Formation describe and present it, besides teeth there are many isolated remains found there; although most are in a partial condition, it is still a rich fossil site. Also, "its abundance of" sounds more natural (at least to me), either way is grammatically correct though.
Okay, fair enough then.
  • ...who assigned the specimens to a new genus containing one species, Oxalaia quilombensis. - as the genus is monotypic, the binomial is another name for the article subject and should be bolded. I also usually like to mention that its the type species in sentences like these, but I'll grant this is a bit redundant.
Done
  • Generally, the majority of fossil remains found at the Alcântara Formation consist of teeth and isolated skeletal elements, of which the Laje do Coringa site yields hundreds. - do the sources make it clear if this is hundreds per [unit of time, perhaps year] or merely that's it's yielded hundreds of specimens? If the former, that obviously needs including, if the latter, it should say "has yielded". If it's not clear, then there's not really anything that can be done and the statement is fine.
Done, added "has yielded".
  • Besides the partial skull bones, numerous spinosaurid teeth had earlier been reported from the Laje do Coringa site. - do any sources indicate teeth have been found since? I would assume so, and if so then it should be mentioned they were found later as well. If not, obviously this can't be included the statement should be left alone.
  • I think it's probable that more teeth have been found since, but since it's not stated in any of the sources then yeah, the sentence should be left as it is.
  • The species description of Oxalaia, among many others, were composed into a volume of 20 works on prehistoric biodiversity that was published by the Academy in March 2011.[5][12] Oxalaia was described and named by Brazilian palaeontologists Alexander Kellner, Elaine Machado, Sergio Azevedeo, Deise Henriques, and Luciana Carvalho in 2011; - err, isn't this the same subject communicated slightly differently in two sentences in a row? Both are about the fact that Oxalaia was described in 2011, just with some different details added on.
Done, Merged the two sentences into each other
  • the type species is Oxalaia quilombensis and as such is the eighth officially named species of theropod from Brazil. - I'm not really sure what the "and as such" is doing here.
Done, well spotted! I do love removing a good redundancy.
  • The generic name Oxalaia is derived from the name of African deity Oxalá - looking at the article for the deity, it has many names, and "Oxalá" is only used in the section about the American beliefs. Is it known by this name in Africa? If not, "African deity Oxalá" isn't quite correct.
  • I'm not sure, the paper puts it as "The generic name comes from Oxalá, the most respected masculine deity in the African pantheon, introduced in Brazil during slavery"
Not a huge deal, it's not the topic of the article anyways.
  • Most general readers won't know what a specimen number is; most uses of them are accompanied by the word "specimen" or are in a list of taxa, but a few are isolated and could be confusing. Adding the word "specimen(s)" near these might be useful.
Done, I added "specimen(s)" near a few more, but I feel like doing it for every single one would be jarring, perhaps only during the first mentions?
Seems fair to me.
  • The referred maxilla fragment (MN 6119-V) has two alveoli and a broken third one that includes a partial tooth. - since you were just talking about other taxa, I would say "The maxilla fragment referred to Oxalaia (MN 6119-V) has two...".
Done
  • Both show typical spinosaurine dentition; morphotype II, however, has smoother tooth enamel. - is this smoother than morphotype I specifically, or compared to typical spinosaurine dentition? It's a bit unclear.
Done, it shows smoother enamel than the morphotype, not typical spinosaurine teeth.
  • Oxalaia's remaining teeth display a closer morphology to morphotype I while the second grouping of teeth represent either worn down morphotype I teeth or an undescribed spinosaurine from the Alcântara Formation. - err, "remaining" teeth? The paragraph never established we were talking about some of its teeth.
Done, removed "remaining".
  • The type elements of Oxalaia closely resemble those of the neotype and holotype fossils of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus - the given reference is from 2011, from before the description of the neotype. It can't possibly support an assertion the two specimens closely resemble each other.
Done, I've not a clue as to how "neotype and holotype" got in there, it is supposed to refer to specimens MSNM V4047 and MNHN SAM 124 from Spinosaurus. Also added in the missing PLOS one reference to that sentence.
  • The other, more fragmentary taxa such as Siamosaurus and "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis are based only on teeth and might become invalid in the future, when they may be reassigned to Ichthyovenator, Spinosaurus, or Suchomimus. The habit of naming theropods from isolated teeth or tooth fragments has resulted in many invalid and synonymous genera; it has also occurred with spinosaurids and is compounded by the common lack of overlapping skeletal remains—a precondition of validly distinguishing taxa.[16][18] - this feels like it should be relevant, but nothing in this excerpt is tying any of this information to Oxalaia as opposed to just being about Spinosauridae. As things are, this passage does not belong in this article rather than the family-level one.
  • Most general readers won't be aware of the history of research into spinosaurids, and how many genera in the family are so tentatively assigned or referred to new genera. In comparison to Oxalaia, which has good enough remains that it can be considered separate from other taxa with more confidence, especially due to the overlapping remains with Angaturama, Spinosaurus, Cristatusaurus, etc. Therefore I think it should stay.
Fair enough then.
  • In 2017, a phylogenetic analysis by Marcos Sales and Cesar Schultz showed that Oxalaia was more closely related to African spinosaurines than to Brazilian spinosaurines like Angaturama - I'd prefer this say "an analysis by [...] found that" to prevent it sounding like an objective statement.
Done
  • Both Oxalaia and Angaturama are successive outgroups of Spinosaurus; they apparently evolved separately from its general body plan, accounting for the small differences in their anatomies. - err, Oxalaia has no remains from the body. I see what this trying to say, but I feel it could be misleading (ex. a reader might feel this means they didn't have the short legs, when we don't know). Could a better term be found than "body plan"?
Done I see what you're trying to say, that is a problem, but I'm having difficulty finding another term. We might need more input on this, I believe it came as a byproduct of attempting to explain "successive outgroups" to lay readers.
Marked as done, per Jens' suggestion above.
  • All mentions of "diplodocids" should read diplodocoid; it's referring to what I presume are rebbachisaurids and dipldocoid is the term used in reference three.
Done
  • Since "Titanosauridae" is not generally recognized as a single family, I think it'd be preferrable to use "titanosaur", since that's what the linked article is called anyway (an article that uses Titanosauria, which might be confusing from a link labelled "titanosaurid"). Titanosaurid is what's used in the reference, but "titanosaur" seems like an acceptable non-WP:SYNTH substitute as long as "titanosaurian" isn't used.
Done
  • Reference three makes no reference of an abelisaurid; only the term abelisauroid used. Additionally, the reference says no large carnivores other than carcharodontosaurs and spinosaurs are present in the sample from Laje do Coringa, and that the only abelisauroid present is the Masiakasaurus-related noasaurid. As far as I can tell, the mention of an abelisaurid being present is entirely erroneous.
Done, nice catch, I must've misread it as "abelisaurid".
  • Notosuchians are mentioned in reference three (with genera identified) but are absent from the list of contemporary taxa in the palaeoecology section; they are not crocodilians.
Done, I forgot crocodilians are only a small part of the greater crocodylomorph superorder.
  • Also, a single-vertebral centrum was referred to Spinosaurus sp., suggesting the existence of more than one spinosaurid in the region. - the paper repeats the previously recognized two teeth morphotypes evidence for there being more than one; they don't connect the vertebra to the argument.
Done, please clarify, is it the "also" you want me to remove? Because this paragraph was not previously discussing the morphotypes.
No, what I mean is the current sentences states that there's a centrum from Spinosaurus and that this suggests the presence of a second spinosarid; the paper doesn't claim this, it says there's a centrum from Spinosaurus and that teeth suggest there's a second spinosaurid. Two different facts about spinosaurids in the formation are being conflated here.
I see what you mean, removed "suggesting the existence of more than one spinosaurid in the region." since that is already stated in the description paragraph discussing Medeiros's morphotypes.
  • with a few exceptions like Oxalaia quilombensis... - this isn't every difference in fauna listed in table one of reference three, so I'd say "with a few exceptions including Oxalaia..."
Done
  • It has become apparent from the fossil record of Africa and South America that the composition of animal life in northern Gondwana appears to correlate with the evolutionary history of diplodocidae, spinosauridae, abelisauridae, and carcharodontosauridae. - all family names here should be capitalized. Additionally, "Diplodocidae" should again read "Rebacchisauridae".
Done, also removed duplicate "diplodocoidea" link.
  • Drive by comment - I usually don't FAC review articles I have GA reviewed, but I have one comment. Wouldn't it be better to show for example a diagram of a complete Spinosaurus skull, like this[36] (so readers can see the placement of the bones in the skull), than a photo of yet another fragmentary piece (the one under classification) that will be hard to identify by the average reader? Also, it might look better if the image was then right aligned, since there is more white space on the right, but also because the subject would then "face" the text. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I also got around to fixing the broken text on that diagram.

Image review edit

  • Done
  • Done
  • Done, clarified it, is this good?
  • Clarified it.
  • File:Oxalaia Size Chart.svg: Are we OK with thusly disclaimed images in FA? Also, it's a bit unclear on who is responsible for which part of the image.
  • Done, I understand your concern, but the "Speculative paleoart" tag is meant to state that the image is hypothetical or theoretical, since the animal is only known from scant remains the size estimate is not for certain. Same goes for the life restoration. These are OK with FAs on dinosaurs as far as I've seen, here are two other examples.[37][38] The diagram is by User:Slate Weasel as declared in the author section, with modifications to the head shape to fit the scientist's description of the animal.
  • Done: Added sources for all images, even though I've never seen that done for dinosaur FAs, these reconstructions are all checked out at WP:DINOART before being placed on articles so they're quite sound most often.
  • File:Spinosaurus skull en.svg: Use seems fine, I presume that it doesn't resemble the source sketch too much? Because that sketch does not look like it's freely licensed to me.
  • It seems inevitable that any skeletal should resemble the source, otherwise one would have to deform the shape of the bones and mislead the viewer. From what I've seen that doesn't count as copyright infringement.
  • The restoration is accurate, as for the license, at the bottom of the page on the source it is stated: "Public user content licensed CC BY 4.0 unless otherwise specified".
  • Not sure what you mean about the source? The link works fine for me.
  • Done, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Replaced broken link with web archive of the previous version.
  • Done, Ok.
No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Alt text has been added to all images.

Support from Cas Liber edit

I took a look at PR and felt this article was ok then. Its been buffed and I can't see any outstanding prose or comprehensiveness issues Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

This ought really to be looked at by someone with subject expertise. As far as I can judge, the sources seem to be of the required quality and reliability, being mainly from learned journals. I have checked the links and they are all working. I have a few minor queries/quibbles:

  • A number of the online links go to abstracts, the article itself being behind a paywall. In these instances the (subscription required) template is useful. This applies I think to 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 16, 17, 22 and 24
  • Done, for all except #22 (now #23), which is not under a paywall, being released under the same volume as the Kellner (2011) ref. I also removed a duplicate reference while I was at it.
  • Ref 14 is lacking publisher details. National Geographic I believe?
  • Done
  • Ref 15: I'm not sure this serves any practical purpose.
  • Done, You're right, removed it.

Otherwise the sources are consistently presented in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of the sources was suggested by me, and the current selection of sources is pretty comprehensive, if not complete. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done, usually I'll ask someone else (like Jonesey) for help with source/citation editing but these are simple enough to fix by myself ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Just one formatting query as I promote this: are the citations for the sentence "Generally, the majority of fossil remains found at the Alcântara Formation..." meant to be out of order? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2018 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 [39].

William M. Branham edit

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile since I have submitted an featured article candidate, but I believe I have good one for you. :) William Branham was interesting character in the history of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement, and is credited with beginning the revival from which the modern Evangelical and Charistmatic movement emerged. A person from Indiana, my primary work on the article has been from the perspective of WikiProject Indiana and the work I have done improving content on famous Hoosiers. The subject is fairly controversial, and I have worked hard to have presented it in a balanced way by using all the major biographical works available on his life. (I give a special thank you to the article's other editors who contributed to fact checking and vetting of the article, and the multiple editors who assisted in copy editing.) I will be watching and try to address any issues you identify. Thanks and cheers! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment: First, I am struggling to understand how we can justify a non-free image of the subject in the lead when we have at least three free images further down in the article. The use of the non-free image could perhaps be justified further down in the article (as a "this is what the photograph looked like" image rather than a "this is who the article is about" photo) but I don't really want to offer an opinion on that. Second, I'm getting a lot of "Harv errors" in the footnotes and bibliography; this should be looked into. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Bad harv links are fixed or removed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an image I uploaded or placed in the lead, but I am open to removing or moving it. My argument for keeping it would be that according to all sources, this is the most iconic photo and "greatest relic" of his lifetime. This photo itself has mention within the article for its importance, so my fair use rationale would be that it meets the "contextual" requirement for fair use. It certainly adds alot of value to have it in the article to demonstrate an actual event noted in the article. While there are other available images of Branham himself to use, this particular image is the one he is most associated with and is notable in its own right for its importance to the subject. (As an aside: I have searched diligently, and I have not actually been able to verify this image is copyrighted. According to sources, the original photo was taken by a newspaper photographer in 1950. The claim of copyright on it is dubious to me, I cannot find anywhere that it was ever published by its creator, or even who the copyright holder is. I have found the image in multiple books, and none of them state the image has a copyright status, and none say published with permission of X, or any such thing. In short, the image has no verifiable copyright status that I have been able to ascertain.) Ultimately, I would agree to just remove the image rather than allow that to torpedo the article's FA candidacy. I have never used copyrighted images in other FA articles I have worked on and agree it is generally a good practice to avoid it altogether. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • File:William_M._Branham_historical_photo.jpg: since there are other images of the individual in the article, there isn't a strong rationale for {{non-free biog-pic}}
    • As noted above, the argument for keeping this particular image is because of its importance to the subject. The picture itself is refereed to as "the greatest relic of the healing revival", and it is not that there are not other images available of the subject, it is that this particular image is important. But again, I am open to moving or removing if you think that is warranted. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The move and FUR expansion definitely helped. I would advise against using {{non-free biog-pic}} under these circumstances though. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we believe the copyright for Man Sent From God is expired? There were editions of it published after 1950
    • I have the original edition, as well as two subsequent, they all state the original 1950 copyright date (including one that was published in 1981). I have found no evidence showing the copyright was renewed in 1978 as required. The copyright holder died in 1965, and his immediate successor organization dissolved in 1971. Publishing of the later editions was not actually done by the copyright holder, so it would appear they also assume the copyright has expired. I understand we should err on the side of caution, but every evidence (short of a paid for copyright validation) points to the fact that this copyright has expired. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Photo_of_the_grave_of_William_M._Branham.jpg: what's the copyright status of the sculptural work?
    • This is a tombstone. :) I do not believe this falls within the scope of copyright-able artwork. However, if you have concerns I can remove the image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would more than pass the threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel confident the tombstone is not copyrighted, but I have no way to verify that. To err on the side of caution I have removed the image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag on File:Signature_of_Rev._William_Branham.png does not make sense
    • In what way? I adjusted the description. This is from a public record, it is not copyrighted. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's from a public record, yes. But the current tag makes two claims that I don't believe are supported: first, that Clark County held copyright to the signature of an individual; second, that they have released that copyright worldwide (which would be atypical for sub-federal-level US governments). The image may well be PD for another reason, but not this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large number of your harv links aren't working
      • ...sorry, this actually looks worse than it was! You might find this script helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I used the script, that is an awesome tool, thanks for sharing! I only found two which were not linked, which I fixed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a pass for MOS issues, such as dashes, overlinking, etc
    • I have given this a once over again, and used AWB to do a link and dash cleanup. There are a fair number of editors involved in the article, which leads to this problem a bit. I hope to have cleaned it up. I did see a couple dash issues, but did not notice any linking issues or other MOS issues. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Examples include linking of United States (overlink) and "Book of Revelation 6:1-17" (should use dash rather than hyphen). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:LEADCITE - things like quotations should be cited even in the lead
    • That is a rather strict reading of LEADCITE, it says cites are neither required nor prohibited in the lead, but subject to editor consensus. All statements within the lead, including quotes, are cited within the body already. I went ahead though and duplicated the cites on the two quotations in the lead. I can add more if you feel it is needed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Hyatt a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author has a Doctor of Ministry degree from Regent University. I would say it is borderline acceptable. The book is self published though, I had not noticed that before. The source was only used exclusively on two sentences, I have removed those from the article along with all other Hyatt references. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your review, I have replied inline. In summary, I would rather just remove the disputed images rather than torpedo the review, but would encourage at least a second look at the lead image. I think there is a fair rationale for it, see my reply to Josh Milburn. If I cannot satisfy you that A Man Sent From God has an expired copyright, that would leave only two images in the article, and no picture of the subject of the biography. I have looked diligently, and A Man Sent From God is the only source of images I can find that I believe are in the public domain. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could potentially be a case made for the lead image, but not with the biog tag and not with the current rationale - it needs to be stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Nikki, but add that I don't think there's much of a case for it as the lead image. We should use a free image in the infobox, and then use this image further down with an informative caption clarifying its significance. (This isn't my main concern, but there's potentially a POV issue with using something presented as a "saintly" image in the lead anyway!) Josh Milburn (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken your advice and adjusted accordingly, I am using a free image for the Infobox and moved the questioned image into the body of the article where the image is discussed. I have also updated the fair use rationale on the image. I am open to removing it if you are still unsatisfied. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (shock! horror!) edit

How come that at this stage nobody has noticed "principle architect" in the first lead paragraph? (added in this edit by one Charles Edward) Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indignez-Vous! :) Your diff above is me re-adding compromise wording after the original sentence was added (which was also added by me). I am not sure I understand the context of your concern. But I assume you are worried about the term "has been called" as a potential WP:WEASEL term? The quote is attributed to its sources in the body of the article and is a partial direct quote (Moriarty and Weaver both use the term). I will add further attribution to try and address what I think your concern is. (It is referenced to both sources with footnotes already.) I will go ahead and add further attribution. If I misunderstand your concern, please better inform me. :) And to perhaps give a fuller context of explanation, the current wording is compromise phrasing with some other of the article's editors. It originally said "he is recognized as the principle architect...",Diff which continues to be my preferred way to express it. Try this on for size, it now says "...is recognized as the "principle architect of restorationist thought" for Charismatics by some Christian historians." Maybe "Christian writers" would be better? Weaver is certainly a historian, Moriarty is less so. (Again note, there are two references given and this point is fully attributed within the article in full context of its meaning.]) I am open to suggested alternatives in any event. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding my concern. I'm surprised that I have to point this out, but "principal" as an adjective is spelt thus, not as "principle". That, not anything else, is my concern, and also that such an error has been in the first lead paragraph, unnoticed, for weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood! Please accept my sincerest apology. I will do some new page patrol as penance. :) This is a quote, and I had not really thought about it. I will check the source to see how they spell it, since this is a quote. But I suspect I will find the source has it correct and the improper spelling is my fault! The horror! I will update as soon as I verify the source later today. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got to check the sources. I have discovered that "principle" is used by Weaver rather than "principal" which would be the correct spelling as you state. I was about to add a [sic] tag, but decided to check Moriarty to see if he had the correct spelling. The quote as given was from Weaver. Moriarty however uses the correct spelling, "principal". So I have altered the quotation to use Moriarty instead, thus resolving the problem. Let us breath a collective sigh of relief! Thank you, that is a really good catch and much appreciated! I hope you don't mind my humor. :) I really appreciate the feedback! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Overall an informative, comprehensive and neutral article. Just things I notice on my initial read of the article.

  • In the 2nd lead paragraph, "His ministry spawned many emulators and set in motion the broader healing revival that later became the modern Evangelical and Charismatic movement." Can we really say that William Branham "set in motion" what became modern Evangelicalism? Evangelicalism is much broader than the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements. This language needs to be more precise, even for the lead.
    • Based on the sources, he seems to be able to definitely have that credit as it relates to the modern charismatic movement, but as it relates to the evangelical movement I would agree that he is not a central figure there. Upon review of the article itself, the article only makes the claim as it relates to the charismatic movement, and not the evangelical movement. So I have removed "evangelical" from that sentence as it is not really supported by the article or references. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue in the 3rd lead paragraph, "Unlike his evangelical contemporaries, who followed doctrinal teachings known as the Full Gospel tradition ..." Once again, simply stating "evangelical" is misleading because it makes it seem as if all evangelicals in the 1950s and 1960s were in the holiness and Pentecostal camps.
    • Ditto, remove the word "evangelical", I think in this context it is referring to his fellow evangelists rather than "evangelism". The word can be safely removed without losing any context. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue in the Background subsection, "Some, like critic and radio personality Hank Hanegraaff, rejected the entire healing revival as a hoax and condemned the subsequent evangelical and Charismatic movements as a cult." Which "subsequent evangelical" movements were being condemned as cults? Is it just the charismatic evangelicals? If so, stating "evangelical and Charismatic" is redundant. Hanegraaff himself was a self-described evangelical Christian at the time.
    • I removed the word "subsequent", which I think resolve the issue. Hanegraaf is truly opposed to both evangelism and charismatic. Hanegraaf is currently an Eastern Orthodox Christian (I am not sure about the time of the writing of his book). Though he does not state it himself, he appears to view evangelistic and charismatic and interchangeable labels (while you are correct, they are not), so it is safe to say he is indeed speaking directly about evangelical charismatism. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1st paragraph under "Early campaigns", the article mentions the "word of knowledge" gift and then moves on abruptly. Later, the article explains it under the "Style" section. The first use is linked, but it feels abrupt to just move on without giving a brief explanation of what the gift was. It would be better to move the entire sentence to the Style section.
  • Done, agreed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing inconsistent styling of the Voice of Healing magazine. Sometimes "The" is italicized and sometimes not.
  • In the last paragraph under "Style", "neo-Pentecostal" redirects to Neo-charismatic movement, but in the 1970s, when Harrell was writing, neo-Pentecostal was a synonym for the Charismatic Movement. Please double check what Harrell means by the term neo-Pentecostal.
    • I have checked the source, and my subjective opinion is that he is referring to the entire pentecostal movement of the 1950s. I would probably direct the link instead to Pentecostalism, but there is already a link there. So I have just delinked it. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence under "Restorationism" needs some work: "Branham's teachings on Christian restorationism have had the most lasting impact on modern Christianity of his teachings"
    • I have adjusted to the following? "Of all of Branham's doctrines, his teachings on Christian restorationism have had the most lasting impact on modern Christianity. Charismatic writer Micheal Moriarty described his teachings on the subject as "extremely significant" because they have "impacted every major restoration movement since"."
  • Under "Legacy and influence", the 2nd paragraph has this sentence, "Charismatics are apologetic towards and Branham's early ministry and embrace his use of the "sign-gifts"." Something has been left out here, and the sentence does not make sense. Ltwin (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking time to review the article. I appreciate your feedback! I have addressed each of your points inline. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo edit

I am a labour historian by training, but Fifelfoo (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is Sims, Patsy (1996). further reading not cited? UPK isn't partisan, but scholarly? Does it set the contexts?
    • This is not a source I have access to, which is the only reason I have not used it. I was not able to verify online if it actually has any reference directly to Branham. I will try to get a copy though this week and check it out. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers for doing this! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was able to get a copy of this books. Branham was not discussed in depth in the book, though she does give about five pages to discussing his impact on Charismatic movement and the racial makeup of his meetings. So I have added some of he useful information I found there. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consideration: locations often help readers evaluate sources for presses they don't know intimately
  • Checked PRIMARIES and John Collins and Peter M. Duyzer (October 20, 2014) etc for appropriate use and HQRS and very satisfied
    • Thank you, I have tried to limit their impact on the article. There were previously more prominently used. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation out of style: Collins, John (October 7, 2016). see "John Collins and Peter M. Duyzer" for your footnote only cite style.
  • How is Trevin Wax's book review a HQRS for the claim, "according to which, loyalty to Christ requires rejection of non-Christian culture; an opinion not unique to Branham."?
  • Notes section, consider linking to the bibliography? ex: Weaver based his estimate on numbers reported by Branham's son. The estimate included 50,000 in the United States, with a considerable following in Central and South America (including 40,000 in Brazil), India, and Africa; particularly in Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (See: Weaver, pp. 151–153)
    • I have tried to do this, but could not figure out how. If someone could offer guidance, I'd be glad to do so. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is primarily a theological article, and more praise to that scholarly discipline, but to the extent that it is historical: is there a historiography, or for that matter an interesting scholarly debate amongst the theologians worth mentioning in itself? And from the social history perspective: were workers, women and black people raised individually in the scholarly sources? This is largely a pro-forma question, but a challenge to consider in your research.
    • Your point is well taken. I have tried to use as many reliable sources on the topic as I could find. You are correct, it is primarily theological. There is a huge wealth of primary sources and hagiographical sources on the subject of the article, but surprisingly few detailed third party non-religious sources. Many sources can be found mentioning the topic in passing, but there are really only two (that I could find) that give an in depth third party account of the topic - Harrell and Weaver. I have avoided using any of the hagiographical sources in order to keep the article as neutral as possible. I would certainly love to find more third party source material, the subject is certainly very interesting to read about. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes needs some typography work, "Spirit".(See Johns, p 154)" as an example.

Thank you for you review, it is much appreciated. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from A. Parrot edit

I hope to review in more depth over the next few days, as this is a solid article but seems in danger of being archived for lack of reviews. The only major flaw I've noticed so far is that the article doesn't make clear what the Charismatic movement is and what relationship it has to Pentecostalism. By looking at the article I can find out, of course, but given that Branham was one of the major figures in the emergence of the Charismatic movement, I think it needs to be explained in this article. A. Parrot (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had added two sentences cited to Grenze that hopefully can address this. Thanks for your comments, and I look forward to your full review. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Latter Rain (post–World War II movement) in the see also section looks like it could be integrated into the article text without much difficulty.
    • Branham's connection to the Latter Rain movement is not really explained in any detail in any of the sources. This is a see also that predates my work on the article. They were contemporaneous and related, but just how I am not sure. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the notes, with "See Grenz, p 90" and the like, is odd. Are these meant to be citations for the text in the note?
    • I think I have adjusted these to resolve this issue. Yes they are citations for the footnotes. I had a hard time getting nested footnotes to work, but I think it is all working now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The church flourished at first, but because of the Great Depression it was often short of funds, so Branham served without compensation. Branham believed the stagnation of the church's growth was a punishment from God for his failure to embrace Pentecostalism." Saying the church flourished but was short of funds seems to imply, but doesn't state as clearly as I'd like, that it had plenty of congregants even if it lacked money. "Stagnation of the church's growth" implies that it stopped attracting congregants after an initial boom, but that needs to be stated explicitly. If I'm wrong in what I'm inferring in either of those sentences, they need more significant adjustment.
  • "Crowder suggests Branham's gradual separation from Gordon Lindsay played a major part in the decline. Harrell attributed the decline to the increasing number of evangelists crowding the field and straining the financial resources of the Pentecostal denominations. Weaver agreed Pentecostal churches gradually withdrew their support for the healing revival, mainly over the financial stresses put on local churches by the healing campaigns. The Assemblies of God was the first to openly withdraw support from the healing revival in 1953." Weird mix of past and present tenses there.
  • Maybe briefly explain the content of the message to the Laodicean church, given the importance that Branham assigned to it.

There may be a few more comments to follow, and I hope to spot-check some citations in coming days, but this looks close to receiving my support. A. Parrot (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Apologies for the delay. I've spot-checked a bunch of citations, mainly through Google Books, and found no faults. I've looked around for other possible RSes on Branham, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of him in reliable sources. Some of the sources used here are non-academic writers, but they seem to be Christian critics of Branham (demonstrating how controversial he and his beliefs are even among American Protestants) or, in the case of John Crowder, Christians sympathetic to him. With a shortage of academic coverage of him, I suppose these kinds of sources are necessary.

I do, however, have one last suggestion. The description of Hanegraaff, "critic and radio personality", is vague. "Christian author and countercult activist" would better explain how he's relevant to the topic of Branham and better match the lead of our article on him. A. Parrot (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley edit

  • I see four error messages in the footnotes, missing url in 17 and 'Uses authors parameter' (see [[Category:CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter]]) in 103, 105 and 106. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are fixed now. Please note #17 is not available online from a reliable source. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should not have an access date. This is only for online sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2018 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2018 [40].

Cortinarius caperatus edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an esteemed edible mushroom from Europe. Have scraped sources and feel it is as comprehensive as possible for lay readers. Also reads ok and got a going-over at GAN. Anyway, I feel it is within striking distance of F status so have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Hooray! This must be the first mushroom here in a while. Pleased to see it here.

  • I confess I'm sad to see a one-paragraph lead at FAC!
added second para. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "free" in the lead jargon?
added explanation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bohemian naturalist Julius Vincenz von Krombholz illustrated it in his Naturgetreue Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der essbaren, schädlichen und verdächtigen Schwämme" Could we have a year? The significance of this may be missed.
yes/done. it's a date range. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "double veil" in the taxonomy section strikes me as jargon.
linked now, but probably needs an explanation of some sort... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "species Rozites (now Cortinarius) meleagris and R. castanella (now Cortinarius subcastanellus)" This, especially with the cryptic link, is a little tricky. How about "species C. meleagris and C. subcastanellus, both formerly of Rozites."
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By boss, do you mean an umbo? If so, a link to umbo (mycology) would be good.
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a highly regarded edible, perhaps "choice" would be preferable for the mycobox? Also, why the details about the taste after cooking in the description section? Taste in the field is relevant there, but probably not in the kitchen!
yes/done. moved latter bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there may be a little more to say; I'll dig out my guidebooks and see if they have anything to add! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I did scour and scour....and found much less than I expected for such a species! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few possibly useful comments from some of my guidebooks...

already had a note on soils but is helpful and has been added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
has been added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN 9780002200127 has some technical details. "[Cap cuticle] a cutis with hyphae 5-25um diameter. Pigment epimembranal, encrusting." It also mentions that it is readily recognisable because of the "whitish frost-like veil and white ring". pp. 456-7.
the microscopic stuff I think is beyond intrest of laypeople but added note on veil - we had the structure in but did not use the right word. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have at least one more worth looking at, but it's at the bottom of a pile of books I don't want to disturb at this time of night. There may also be some subtle differences in description, but I wasn't really looking for that. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May have miss-typed some of those ISBNs... Any problems, let me know, but need to go now... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great/thanks! I'll get started on these as this has been difficult to get info for.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, how's this going? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...the only book of @J Milburn:'s I didn't add was the one that repeated info as it mentions acid soils and about mushrooms of Europe as well (I nabbed the one just before it). Have I missed something else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I'm happy that my comments have been resolved; I'll have to look again before I can say I support, though. I certainly do not oppose. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no problem. Am sure if you see something worth fixing or improving, you'll let us know! cheers - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thought: I think it'd be useful to explain what a "double veil" is, though it probably belongs in the description section rather than the taxonomy section. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

good point @J Milburn:. I have expanded it. The genesis of it is in the taxonomy as it relates to its classification, but the description covers it anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. I'm reluctant, as I just feel there should be more on a highly regarded edible with an eyebrow-raising name, but I am forced to agree that there just doesn't seem to be! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks/I know - I have been surprised how little there is actually published on this mushroom Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk edit

  • Some authors are not presented at all (not referring to Persoon here, I see from last time why we might want to avoid nationality, hehe). FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done now. I was emboldened after discussion at the last FAC and went with "South African" for Persoon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a name thought quite apt given its wandering like a gypsy between genera" Thought by who? Seems a bit specific, since I doubt that's why it was called that in the first place... Is this idea retroactively applied in light of the taxonomic history, or is that really why it was called that? Also, I wonder if Gypsy should be linked there.
removed per below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this image[41] or something like it could be used. It looks very different from the photo in the taxobox, which might have some significance? If so, could be mentioned in the image captions.
I'm not sure that is correctly identified.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chanterelles is duplinked.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, picked mushrooms are often infested with maggots" Does this happen before r after they're picked?
Before - I tried to clarify. does that help?
  • "isotopes of caesium", "potassium", Link all.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a highly esteemed", "highly regarded" Source? Mention in article body? Also seems a bit much for both of these in the short intro.
I changed it to this. The Persson book is the cite that covers the first two sentences of Edibility section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim edit

I can't see much to criticise that hasn't been picked up by previous reviewers, just a couple of comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Christian —Why the Anglicisation of Afrikaans "Christiaan"?
no reason/changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • granny′s nightcap—perhaps give the Finnish original too if known?
sadly not in source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common names include the gypsy mushroom,[13] a name thought quite apt given its wandering like a gypsy between genera—I don't like much about this sentence. Most of it is, as far as I can see, one author's wry comment, rather a widespread opinion. Hardly a fact anyway. Also the conjunction with the common name gives the impression of an etymology, although that's obviously not what you're suggesting. A real etymology seems elusive. OED has "gipsy-bonnet" a woman's hat or bonnet with large side-flaps, but there's nothing to link this to the fungus.
removed it as misleading, and only one person's whimsy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Ref 7: Language of source should be given
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9: Year?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10: "British museun" s/b "British Museum"
fixed (I think?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17: 13-digit isbn formats should be standard. Compare this with 19, and check others
all converted to 13 digits and spaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 20: Publisher missing
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25: I'm getting repeated timeouts. The fault may be temporary, but please check
timing out for me to. Has doi so just removed link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32: Gives message: "This page cannot be found".
fixed url Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Laser brain edit

Great work overall—I can scarcely find anything to grumble about.

  • Is MOS:SEASON a concern in such articles? Obviously they occur only in the northern hemisphere so there doesn't seem to be any danger of confusion, but I'm unsure what the standard is for biological articles.
given most of the readership is in England and North America, there is a tendency to push for "southern hemisphere" qualifier. It strikes me as a tad overinclusive to write "northern hemisphere" every time here. It is clearly a northern hemisphere thing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use flavour and taste synonymously... I don't believe they mean the same thing in culinary terms.
I flavoured them all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully nitpicky but I don't feel like I'd be doing my job otherwise. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

being thorough is fine by me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2018 [42].

Claude Debussy edit

Nominator(s): Dmass (talk); Smerus (talk); Tim riley talk 16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has featured articles on nine French composers – Alkan, Bizet, Fauré, Massenet, Messiaen, Messager, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns – and we hope to increase that number to ten with this article on one of France’s greatest. After a particularly thorough and fruitful peer review we think the article is ready for consideration as a featured article. We look forward to your comments. Dmass (talk); Smerus (talk); Tim riley talk 16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda edit

My few concerns in the peer review were all met, especially transforming a mere list of influenced composers' names to a meaningful section. Bravi. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging and adding thanks for this support. Tim riley talk 06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Lead
  • Really minor, but there's a serial comma at "(1894), Nocturnes (1897–99), and Images (1905–1912)", but not elsewhere.
  • Slightly pointlessly, the MoS now states that we should put dates as "1897–1899", etc.
  • He "was nearly forty", but died "at the age of 55" with a "career of a little more than thirty years": needs to be consistent.
    • All attended to. (Strange new rule about date ranges: out of step with general publishing practice surely?) Tim riley talk 06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed it is, but such is life for those who needlessly tinker with the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Should "premier accessit" and "deuxième accessit" be in italics? (Asked from a position of ignorance!)
    • And answered from the same position, but I think probably yes, and have changed. Tim riley talk 06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later. – SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points. We'll await your further suggestions for improvements. Tim riley talk 06:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Return to Paris, 1887
  • Probably worth a comma in "During the Exposition Debussy", or it looks like it was named after him.
1894–1902
  • "well liked" hyphenated?
    • I've checked and I think not. The rule seems to be that there's a hyphen only if it's used as a compound adjective before the noun, as in 'she was a well-liked woman'. Dmass (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spot on. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per my 'early life' comment, this was also asked 'from a position of ignorance!' – SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's the kind of thing I feel I ought to know - but always have to look up. Google to the rescue! Looking forward to further comments when you have time. Dmass (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the end of his life, and it's a lovely read so far. I shall wrap a cold towel around my head and tackle the Works section when I've built up the courage. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No more needed from me. I did a couple of minor tweaks to get in line with the MoS, but I'm happy with the rest, from a prose position (I have no knowledge about the content, so this is a prose review only).

Support from me; nice work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, SC, for your support here and earlier input at PR. Greatly obliged. Tim riley talk 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt edit

Support My detailed comments can be found at the peer review. Very nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support here and for your input at PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim edit

Just to lower the tone a bit, I'm surprised his love life left him any time or energy for composing. Despite its length, I couldn't find anything significant enough to mention, a great read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jim, for the support. He was certainly consistent in his relations with the opposite sex: a complete cad from first to last. Tim riley talk 16:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Maison_natale_de_Debussy.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death
    • All we know is that it's a postcard from the 1920s, so I don't think these problems can be rectified. We could maybe replace with this File:Saint-Germain-en-Laye_Maison_Claude_Debussy_2011_10.jpg which is less atmospheric, would be Ok with copyright but perhaps fall foul of freedom of panorama (the criteria for which I confess I don't understand). Nikkimaria, I'd be grateful for your comments on this (and am grateful for your review as a whole). --Smerus (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a bit more nuanced, but we'll go with this for now: In countries that have freedom of panorama, like the UK, you can take pictures of 3D things in public - buildings, sculptures, etc - without any regard to the copyright status of the work. In countries like France, which do not, you basically have two copyrights to consider - the photographer, and the creator of the work being photographed - and therefore should have copyright tags for each. If Debussy lived in the building, we can generally assume that the building would qualify for a pre-1923 tag. However, see last point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical recordings should generally include a tag for both the original composition and the performance
  • File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées2.ogg: why would the uploader have right to this work? Same with File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées_4.ogg, File:Giorgi_Latsabidze_Ariettes_Oubliées_6.ogg
    • Why indeed? - as the uploader seems to be the guy that made the recording but doesn't give any indication that the performers have given their consent. Dmass, Tim, I think these will have to go, subject to your comments.--Smerus (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since France does not have freedom of panorama, photos of 3D works should include an explicit copyright tag for the work.
    • See my comment above on panorama. As regards the tomb, there's been a long discussion on the tomb of JP Rampal which seems to be heading clearly for keep.--Smerus (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue in that case, and potentially in the case of the alternate house image you mention above, appears primarily to be originality - if a thing doesn't have creativity in its expression, it doesn't qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria ([[User Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC) talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • This section of Paris was built in 1854 as part of the second phase of Baron Haussmann's sweeping reconstruction programme under Napoleon III. The architect was Adolphe Alphand (1817-91). Would this make the copyright status public domain? Tim riley talk 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep, any building around during Debussy's lifetime would qualify for a pre-1923 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as ever, Nikkimaria, for review and follow-up help. Tim riley talk 20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments etc - Brian Boulton edit

Generally delightful and informative (though I think the bloke who thinks the "Golliwogg's Cakewalk" renders Wagner into insignificance has a slight judgement vacuum). I didn't finish my PR musings, but here are a few further thoughts from my full reading of the article:

  • One of Debussy's best-known works, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune is mentioned several times in the text, without any information which describes its character (other than references to it being orchestral). I'd like a little more description – for example, that it's a symphonic poem (many people think it's a ballet), and that it is very short for a major work considered to be a masterpiece, lasting only around 10 minutes.
  • I am struggling to get on top of this sentence: "His early mélodies, inspired by Marie Vasnier, are more virtuosic in character than his later works in the genre, with extensive vocalise:". I reckon someone without music knowledge will be stumped altogether. The noun form "vocalise", meaning a particular form of sung music, is pretty obscure – many will read it as a verb and thus read the sentence as nonsense. Can the point be expressed in slightly more demotic form?
  • I'm uneasy about devoting a specific subsection to "Nature", particularly as it consists almost entirely of a quotation that doesn't directly relate to Debussy's music, rather to his personal philosophy of life and religion. It's relevant, but including it in this way seems rather to compartmentalise it. One way of treating it would be to use a paraphrased or part-paraphrased form of the quotation as a general preamble to the "Influences" section, so that we begin the section with an idea of Debussy's essential beliefs. The specific "Musical" and "Literary" subsections can then be read in that context.
  • "Their self-appointed spokesman, Jean Cocteau..." – when "their" refers to Les Six, this might sound to the casual reader as if Cocteau was one of their number. Possibly reword to clarify?

Nothing else – although I've embarked on a sources review and will report back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks BB. I've reworded the cakewalk sentence to give it a clearer context. And I've clarified that L'apres midi is a symphonic poem, and qualified Cocteau. Thinking about the other points.--Smerus (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also WP:BOLDly incorporated the 'nature' section, having abbreviated it, in the 'impressionism' section where I think it belongs and copyedited that section accordingly to give what seems to me to be a better flow of ideas. And I've clarified (I hope) 'vocalise'.--Smerus (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for this, Smerus! Most of the points BB was unhappy with were my fault. Tim riley talk 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tim, I'm a bit worried about the 'Mysterious nature' quote actually. Does it appear anywhere except in the Vallas 1933 book? I don't find a source citing whether it appears in a letter, or in something published by CD, or whatever.......--Smerus (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing leaps out from online sources, certainly. I'll toddle down to the British Library later this morning and have a rummage. I've ordered Vallas's book and will see where, if anywhere, he reckons to have got the quotation. More on this after lunch. Tim riley talk 06:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm glad to say I think we can be satisfied with the provenance of the quotation. It is from an interview with Debussy by Henry Malherbe, published in Excelsior magazine on 11 February 1911; this was while Debussy was composing the music for Le Martyre de saint Sébastien, and the religious aspect was an important part of the interview. Vallas devotes three pages (224–226) to the article. – Tim riley talk 11:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks: as this quote is featured a lot online in various places without source or date, I've added these to the article.--Smerus (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • V. good move. Quite apart from validating our own source, it will make Wikipedia the online authority for anyone wanting to cite the quote. Tim riley talk 14:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, BB, for your support, and for your input at PR and your sources review below. Hugely obliged. Tim riley talk 17:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

The sources are generally of the appropriate quality and reliability; I have noted one possible exception below. There are a few format issues (numbers per this version):

  • Ref 5: language should be stated (also 17, 105)
  • Ref 20: Why is this source (Djupdal) reliable per WP:FACR?
    • A legacy, of doubtful interest which I shall gladly blitz forthwith. Tim riley talk 20:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC) (And duly done. Tim riley talk 06:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)))[reply]
  • Ref 53: pp. missing
  • Ref 54: space required after p.
  • Ref 55: pp missing
  • Ref 59: "passim" is not particularly helpful to a researcher. It would be better to employ the form used in the previous ref, which gives a selection of page references
    • It seemed to me, and still does, the best way to refer to a whole book rather than any particular part of it, but I've replaced with the complete page-range of the text. Tim riley talk 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 88: replace "p," with "p."
  • Ref 89: please check this link – it's not working for me.
    • Me neither. I only put it in last week, too! Substitute found and used. Tim riley talk 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 113 (first part): the University of Illinois is not the publisher. The material is apparently a copy of an email sent by Dr Tipei to a student.
  • Ref 158 is rather oddly constructed.
  • Sources list. A couple of alphabetic order slip-ups:
  • reverse Brown → Boulez
  • reverse Poulenc → Potter

No further sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the source review, BB. I think we have covered all the points you raise above. Tim riley talk 06:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

This is also primarily a source review, specifically focused foremost on formatting consistency.

  • In templated references, typically, archive information goes last. Now, there's no requirement that you template, or do things the same way. But the problem here is because the webarchive template ends in a period, it produces an unfortunate ".," sequence in many of your references.
  • For journal articles indexed by JSTOR, you link the titles to the JSTOR landing page, and then provide a Wayback Machine archival link to the JSTOR page. That's not... exactly correct, since the Wayback Machine isn't providing an archival copy of the source itself in this situation. The templates typically link JSTOR entries by number, at or near the end of the citation. That's probably not mandated by the MOS, but might be something to consider.
  • The "Concours du Conservatoire" reference has some problems. First, it's missing volume/issue information for Le Mercure Musical (specifically: volume 4, number 8). Additionally, although what you are citing is on page 98 of the pdf, that's actually page 940 of the journal.
  • Pasler, in The Musical Times, is missing volume/issue information (volume 123, number 1672).
  • You cite Grove Music Online most of the time, but the Nectoux reference calls it Grove Online.
  • I'm fairly certain the MOS requires lists of page numbers cited in a single reference to be in order (as opposed to "pp. 12–13, 24, 27, 59 and 4").
  • Newman (1918) is missing volume/issue information (volume 59, number 903).
  • The "Alphabetical order" reference is formatted in a very different way than the rest of the Centre de documentaion Claude Debussy references are. As it isn't explicitly bylined to the Centre, I believe this one is incorrect and the format of the others is preferred.
  • Pasler, in 19th-Century Music is missing volume/issue information (volume 6, number 1).
  • Goubault has an issue number correctly provided, but is missing the volume number (76).
  • Orledge, in The Musical Times is missing volume/issue information (volume 115, number 1582).
  • Nadeua is missing volume/issue information (volume 66, number 1).
  • DeVoto is missing volume/issue information (volume 66, number 4).
  • You have two citations to BBC Radio 3, but they are not formatted in the same way.
  • You have at least a couple of initial author names that are either presented incorrectly in [first last] order, or else are missing the comma ("Robert Andres", "Phillips C. Henry", "Briscoe James R.").
  • Briscoe is missing volume/isuse information (volume 44, number 12).
  • What are the criteria for having a source in §Sources instead of cited in-line in §References? I assumed that the sources were all book-length works, but there is at least one journal publication there as well (de Martelly). That's doubly inconsistent because it uses a cite family template, which formats it rather differently than the hand-rolled entries in the previous section.
  • Some of your publisher locations are smaller or less familiar cities which probably require the inclusion of their country (Château-Gontier, Milton Keynes) or state (Van Nuys, etc.). But be consistent about when and how you do this, on a per-location basis.
  • Schmitz (1966) has what I presume to be an errant "P" at the end.
  • You don't always cite editors in the same way. Compare Nichols (1980) and Orledge (2003). Consider the editor (and, where appliable, translator) fields of the cite book template, or else ensure that people and roles in the others field are consistently treated.

No examination of prose or images done, at least for now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments noted. Thank you. Tim riley talk 22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Co-noms: I'll have a further look at these points over the next day or so. All pretty minor at first glance, but possibly worth considering. More anon. Tim riley talk 06:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the above comments seriatim:

  • Yes, the template is badly designed (there should be no full stop as the words are not a sentence) but there it is. It doesn't affect the reader's ability to verify the citations.
  • As above, a problem with the software. But nevertheless better to have the Wayback links, I think. They may be ugly but they provide continuing verifiabiity, which is what references are for, of course.
  • Vol etc numbers otiose. Publication and month suffice. It would be possible, but equally unhelpful, to add, say "Issue 38966" to ref 61. Verifiability is not compromised by the dual pagination – it is clear enough to anyone.
  • As above. For extreme consistency I have removed the vol etc from the MQ ref.
  • Yes. There is a now a Grove Art Online too. Done. You do not mention the publisher, but I have made it the OUP at each mention.
  • That would be unhelpful to the reader, as the pages refer in that order to the content.
  • As above.
  • Agreed. Done.
  • As above.
  • Issue number needed in this case, exceptionally, as there were two issues in 1990, with no month named. Volume would add nothing useful, each year having its own volume number.
  • As above
  • As above
  • As above
  • Indeed. Now harmonised.
  • Done
  • As above
  • I'll ask one of my co-noms to address this point.
  • I don't think the geographical coordinates of Van Nuys are going to be a matter of concern to the reader.
  • Removed.
  • Sadie given brackets.

There are a few helpful points there, for which thanks. (May I ask {@Smerus: or @Dmass: to consider the point raised in the seventeenth bullet point, above?) Tim riley talk 06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it is worth, my own practice is to include anything which is (originally) printed or is a standard source of reference in 'Sources'. That would include e.g. anything in Grove, Britannica and Oxford Companion (on- or off-line), and journal articles such as the De Martelly article mentioned. (Mea culpa, I was the one who unthinkingly put de Martelly in Sources when I did an edit, so I am the one who sparked this off). I.e., for me anyway, as far as possible the only sources given in full in 'References' are web-site references. But a simple alternative for consistency purposes would be to remove my de Martelly cite to References. I promise to lose little sleep.--Smerus (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers edit

Support. Comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced and beautifully illustrated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ss, for your support here and input at PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 06:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1 edit

Both late to the party, and rather redundant, as this appears to have more than a sufficiency of support. And just when you'd hit upon a composer I'd heard of. I'd have done a source review but BB's beaten me to that. Anyway, it's a beautifully written and impeccably sourced piece, and fully merits FA status. KJP1 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, KJ! Your kind words and support are greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 16:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Zingarese edit

I am also (very!) late to the party, but thought I'd lend my full support as well. This article is consise, written in a very professional tone, incredibly comprehensive, and well-sourced. Congratulations on such a beautiful article. Support. Zingarese (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One question, however, regarding Le Martyre de saint Sebastien; why "wholly orchestral suite" as opposed to "orchestral suite"? I think it can be reasonably inferred that the term "orchestral suite" is a suite for nothing but an orchestra :-) Zingarese (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and now trimmed. Thank you very much for your support, Zingarese and for your kind comments on the article. Very much obliged. Tim riley talk 08:36, 8 July 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2018 [43].

Peter Drummond (RAF officer) edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Drummond (nicknamed from youth, and later officially, "Peter") was a World War I fighter ace and one of the highest-ranking Australians to serve in the Royal Air Force. Having created this ten years ago, my memory's a little hazy, but I think I became interested in him because for a while it looked like he might be the solution to the long-running conflict between George Jones and William Bostock over command of the Royal Australian Air Force in World War II. It wasn't to be, though -- the Jones–Bostock feud continued to simmer and Drummond ended up losing his life in a plane crash over the Azores in 1945. This was GA for yonks but I recently expanded it and put it through MilHist A-Class Review, and I think it should satisfy the FA criteria as well. Tks in advance for your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford edit

What a fantastic article; comprehensive, well-written, thoroughly referenced, and interesting. As an aside, I was surprised to learn that 5'7" was a disqualifying height for WWI era infantry. I hope I don't get too much flack for giving a drive-by support without suggestions for improvement, however, despite having read the article twice I'm really struggling to find anything meaningful to say. Though, having just been promoted to A-Class, perhaps that's not unexpected. Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Chetsford. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D edit

Even by your high standards Ian, this is an excellent article. I have the following comments:

  • " He was twice offered command of the RAAF during the war but did not take up the position on either occasion." - this implies that he turned down the position, when it's later stated that the main reason was that the RAF was unwilling to release him for it (though on the first occasion it seems he didn't want it)
    • Actually I couched it the way I did because I felt it was a bit more ambiguous than saying he turned it down twice -- did you have particular wording in mind?
      • "He was twice offered command of the RAAF during the war but the RAF was unwilling to release him to take up the position" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lost in a plane crash at sea" - suggest tweaking to "killed in a plane crash at sea" or similar to avoid the euphemism
    • Again I chose the wording deliberately, not to be euphemistic but because AFAIK neither the plane nor his body was ever recovered so "lost" was the better term. If you feel strongly about I'm happy to change and see if anyone else has an issue with it.
      • I think that historians generally discourage the use of the term. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how he gained his nickname?
    • I wish!
  • "Drummond was evacuated later that year, suffering from dysentery." - I'd suggest noting that he was evacuated to England (which suggests he was very sick, and also helps to explain why and how he was able to join the RFC)
    • Will do.
  • "Drummond himself believed that the situation would be counteracted by attrition from the upcoming invasion of Europe" - the source takes a slightly different approach, stating that "By May 1944 he thought that only high casualty rates in the planned invasion of Europe would take up the over-supply." which I read to mean that he also recognised that there was an oversupply which would only be corrected if casualties were high, not that he expected this.
    • Heh, perhaps I inadvertently implied that he expected the situation in my quest to avoid closely paraphrasing the source, so happy to tweak -- can you suggest different wording?
      • Drummond himself believed that the situation would only be counteracted if the upcoming invasion of Europe led to heavy casualties" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always for reviewing Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article Ian. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Support by Wehwalt edit

Support Very nicely written. Only a couple of things.

  • "Drummond was awarded the Military Cross for "conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty" on 20 April 1917, when he and Lieutenant Adrian Cole engaged and drove off six enemy aircraft that were attempting to bomb Allied cavalry;" This makes it sound the award took place the date of the action.
  • Yes, I'd hoped that finishing the sentence with the award was promulgated in the London Gazette on 16 August I would nullify any confusion... Just a thought, if I said for his "conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty" does it make it any better? If not I'm open to suggestions...!
  • "Empire Air Training Scheme" this is piped twice in consecutive paragraphs--to different articles!
  • Well spotted -- that would've fooled the duplink checker nicely! The second link is the more appropriate one, will amend.

--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for taking a look, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JennyOz edit

Hi Ian, just a few possible tweaks... (I've got L plates on re gazettals)

  • the 2nd Stationary Hospital - add location WA?
    • I don't think my source for that statement gives a location, unless I missed something...
  • promoted to lieutenant on 1 May 1917 - temp?
    • Yes -- tks.
  • he and observer/gunner John Knowles - seems to be Frederick John Knowles
    • I'm sure you're right but in fact the observer's name isn't mentioned in the sources I've used, or have available -- looking into the article's history it was added by another editor without a citation, apologies for missing it.
  • Garjak Nuer tribesmen - add adb ref as Nuers not mentioned ref 28
    • Tks!
  • Nuer tribesmen - wlink Nuer people?
    • Yes, I guess so.
  • Air Force Headquarters, Melbourne - wlink Air Board (Australia)?
    • While the two terms do seem to have often been used interchangeably, I think they were distinct if closely connected entities, and I'd prefer keep them separate.
  • RAF Middle East Command in Cairo - hmm why that article say not established til 1939?
    • Will have to check on that.
      • My fault, although I'll plead extenuating circumstances... The link should be to RAF Middle East Command, but that article didn't exist when I created Drummond's article, so I'd linked to the next best thing at the time (technically RAF Middle East Command wasn't formed until 1941, but RAF Middle East had existed since WWI, and that's what Drummond joined in 1937). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • administering the Empire Air Training Scheme / marking the closure of the Empire Air Training Scheme - two close blue links but diff targets, change second one to Plan?
    • Yes, Wehwalt noticed it too -- fixed.
  • St Martins-in-the-Fields - singular Martin
    • Tks.
  • memorial service - add an online ref too?
    • Fair enough.
      • I chose a different newspaper as I think the one in this link got the date wrong. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australian Dictionary of Biography credited Tedder and Drummond - present tense credits?
    • Ditto.
  • Order of the Bath on 23 September 1941 - date Gazette 23 but St James's Palace date is 24, so which is actual date of order?
    • My understanding would be the date immediately beneath which the honour appears, which is indeed 24 Sep, so will change date in main body.

Notes and Refs

  • 18 - page not found, RAF site being redeveloped, can't find any mention squadron 111, 145
    • They would do that, wouldn't they? I may have to use archived links...
      • Glad you could find archived but now that I can read it, I'm confused. He is now in Squadron 145 but ref 18 is for Squadron 111. Wayback doesn't seem to have any captures for 145? I know from this that plane was used by twenty-four squadrons and can see specifically on here that both 111 and 145 used that aircraft, so I know it's correct but... Sorry to have to ask. JennyOz (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mmm, don't know why we had 111 Sqn there -- I found the 145 Sqn link, it was in a different area of the archived site to 111 Sqn. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40, 58, 59 - need supps in refs
    • Okay.
  • 67 - needs supp and page 4689?
  • Odgers, Air War Against Japan, pp. 15–17] - stray bracket
  • Newton, Dennis (1996). Australian Air Aces. Fyshwyck - Fyshwick
    • Will do, tks for picking up those two.

Thanks for all your input to this article over so many years! JennyOz (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough check, Jenny -- will update the article in the next day or so. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed everything now, Jenny. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All online refs are working and verify content. Thanks very much Ian, JennyOz (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

I can't see anything that requires attention – everything is in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. I'd merely make the mild suggestion that, for the sake of tidiness, the isbns are standardised into modern 13-digit format. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, will take care of the ISBNs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:UK3125Drummond.jpg: Orde was a British artist, so why would this be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks for checking Nikki -- naturally I'm going by the Australian War Memorial's tag, are you saying that even if the Australian Government / AWM commissioned or otherwise acquired it the licensing would be an issue? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they commissioned it, no - the issue would be "otherwise acquired". The AWM site only says PD, not specifically why, and that matters when deciding US status, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I can ask them, although I'll be pleasantly surprised if they know more than is stated on the image file. What would you suggest if I get no joy, as I'd like to use the image if possible -- I'm not aware of any decent photos from the second half of the war, and the unfinished nature of this sketch seemed kind of appropriate given the circumstances of his death. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suspect, unless there is information available about commissioning, we'd be looking at a UK tag instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's feasible that the UK War Artists' Advisory Committee purchased the final painting, and the Australian official war art scheme purchased the sketch (as is implied in the AWM database entry). Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, I haven't heard anything back from AWM, perhaps I should look at the UK tag now -- pls let me know your thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - while as Nick mentions it's feasible that AustraliaGov might apply, without confirmation on that I would go with PD-UKGov. Fortunately that also has the worldwide expiry proviso. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's done. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SchroCat edit

  • Support. Nicely done and a pleasure to read. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2018 [44].

Bougainville counterattack edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers what must be one of the worst military blunders of World War II. In March 1944 around 15,000 Japanese troops attempted to attack fortified positions on the island of Bougainville which were held by 62,000 Americans who knew that they were coming. While the Japanese fought bravely, the offensive ended in total failure, with the veteran US Army units stopping the attack in a matter of days.

A draft of this article languished in my user space for four years until 2016 when AustralianRupert prompted me to resume work on it, and went on to write at least half of the article (and possibly much more) himself. The article draws on a wide range of American, Japanese, Australian and New Zealand sources to provide a comprehensive account of this little-remembered, but important, battle. It was assessed as a GA in September 2016, and passed an A-class review in January this year. We have since expanded and copy edited the article, and are hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

  • I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have looked at the copyedits and changes since 1 January when I last looked at it. I have just one nitpick, relating to the use of the term "pillbox". I believe this is a misnomer, and the structures being referred to were bunkers made of logs. Pillboxes are generally concrete structures. It is not a war-stopper, but I thought I should mention it. I consider this meets the FA criteria, I haven't looked at the image licensing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, PM, thanks for taking a look. I agree that "bunker" is how I would describe them, but the cited source (Miller) does use the term "pillbox": [45]. Gailey does also: [46]. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines them as concrete positions, so it doesn't seem to be a US-English thing. It might be dated American language in the sources? If this is the case, changing to 'bunker' or similar seems sensible. Thanks also from me for the review Peacemaker. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: G'day, Dan, do you have an opinion on this? Happy to change "pillbox" to "bunker" if you feel that would be an improvement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Collins, M-W and Amerian Heritage all say that pillboxes are concrete structures. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank, I've just replaced 'pillbox' with 'bunker' per the above. This must be dated language in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bougainville_Operation_map.jpg: are any details given about provenance in the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, Nikki, the map was sourced from Reports of General MacArthur: Japanese Operations in the Southwest Pacific Area, Volume II, Part I. The preface to the cited work states that the work "...is the Japanese official record, contained in operational monographs furnished by the Japanese Demobilization Bureaux, the successors to the former War and Navy Ministries, developed by Officers of the Japanese Imperial Headquarters, Tokyo, and on the Staffs of major Japanese Commanders in the field". The foreword, also provides: "The preliminary work for compiling the MacArthur volumes began in 1943 within the G-3 Section of his General Staff..." as well as "Since they were Government property, the general turned over to the Department in 1953 these volumes and related source materials" and "Volume II of the Reports represents the contributions of Japanese officers employed to tell their story of operations against MacArthur's forces." Not sure whether that impacts the license, though. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Support from Fifelfoo edit

Support on hqrs (heavily used texts quality), research completeness & weight (sources depth and diversity, "white myths," class/gender/ethnicity, military science disciplinary debate, historiographical debate), standard citation format One 1c issue about Miller's extensive use, four queries Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht check? I'm picturing the potential issues in this location being: slave labour, failure to accept surrender, trophy taking, etc.
    • Haven't found anything in the context of this particular battle. Nelson mentions something related to failure to accept surrender in the context of some of the Australian operations later in the war, but nothing that I could see specifically about this battle. This also mentions something about trophy taking and refusal to accept surrender on Bougainville, but nothing specifically relating to this battle. I will have to wait to see if Nick can add anything when he gets back from his trip. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't seen anything which touches on these issues concerning this particular battle. None of the sources discusses the Japanese using conscripted Bogainvillians or other slaves as porters in this battle. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • cheers, they were the potentials to ask after here Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything weighty on: Women? Koreans? Bogainvillians?
    • Added a little more on Bougainvilleans, but couldn't find anything in my searches for the other topics. Within the context of this battle, as opposed to the wider campaign (which Nelson covers to an extent), I'd say there wouldn't be much in this regard, but I will have to wait until Nick gets back to see if he has anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As noted in the article, few Bogainvillians lived in the area where this battle occurred - which was remote and had a difficult climate, even by Bogainville's standards. I also haven't seen anything on women being present on the Allied or Japanese side: most likely they were not as this was a frontline area, and female medical personnel were usually stationed at the main bases. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The military science debate in aftermath is great. Is there a historiographical debate? If so is it WEIGHTy to include?
    • Expanded the aftermath a little, but that is probably all I can bring to the party. Historiography isn't my strong suit, I'm afraid. Nick may be able to add something. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There isn't a debate in the sources on this issue. The sources are all in agreement on the details of the battle, the doomed nature of the attack, and its consequences. There's a lively debate over the Australian campaign in Bougainville in 1944-45 (e.g., whether it was worthwhile), but the 1943-1944 campaign between American and Japanese forces is uncontroversial: there's agreement among historians that it was a very worthwhile and well conducted campaign for the Americans and an utter fiasco for the Japanese. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ross, J.M.S missing full stop
  • Good inclusion of available Japanese sources: you've checked for ones that you can't reach without heavier WP assistance such as japanese first language editors?
    • Added a bit more from Shindo and Tanaka, but that's all I have found that I can access at this stage. My high school Japanese doesn't allow me to read anything but a few letters (not even words) these days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm very confident that we've used all the English-language works which cover the Japanese side of this story. The US Army and US Marine Corps official histories do an excellent job of explaining the Japanese side of the battle, based on Japanese documents and interviews with Japanese veterans. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miller, John, Jr. (1959). is relied upon so heavily because? Clear my concerns? Seminal? The major close narrative?
    • It is the best account of this phase of the campaign, in my opinion. It is also the most accessible. Most of the recent work I've read on the Bougainville campaign doesn't cover this battle in much detail. Usually a paragraph or two. I will see if I can glean anything more from Gailey tomorrow, though, but I don't think he adds much if anything that Miller doesn't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Miller's chapter remains the main account of this battle. The US Army official history series (the "Green Books") continues to be very highly regarded by modern historians, so can be assumed to have stood the test of time. We've also used more recent works on the Bougainville campaign, of which Karl James' book on the Australian involvement is the only major scholarly-style work to appear in decades. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the responses! Fifelfoo (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day, Fifelfoo. Thanks for taking a look and welcome back! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks also from me Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • thanks. I agree with the standard of the US military's commitment to military history, particularly as works stand the test of time. It is good to be back and the reviewing community is very rewarding work Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Looks good to me. You remind me that I still have an article that has been sitting in my userspace since 2010. My only quibble is the footnotes in the Infobox. Normally, these are unnecessary, as the details are in the body of the article. But the US casualties are not in the body of the article. I think they should be. As an aside, there are some details on Allied casualties on Bougainville [48]. Table 62 lists 2,335 Allied casualties in Bougainville campaign between 15 February and 21 April 1944. (Morison incorrectly says that the 263 were killed, wounded and missing.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the statement supporting fn 37 on Morison, p. 430. (On p. 427 he says that the Japanese Navy landed about 1,400 reinforcements.) Looking through Japanese Monograph No. 44, the Japanese estimated American dead at 700; Japanese casualties are given as 3,000 killed and 4,000 wounded, along with a breakdown. The orders are clearly calling for the US beachhead to be annihilated. Afterwards, Eighth Area Army issues new orders calling for defensive operations to wear down the enemy until it is exhausted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that you're referring to the second citation to page 430 of Morison? It was out of place, as the entire para should be cited to Miller: I've just fixed this. I've added the number of men moved to the coverage of the role of Japanese barges. I know that this is unusual for a FAC, but could you add material from that Japanese Monograph? I don't think it was one of the ones I had access to before the ANU's collection was destroyed. I've also added the casualty figures to the body of the article. Thanks a lot for the review and these comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2018 [49].

Yeomanry Cavalry edit

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the history of the British yeomanry from its formation in 1794 during the French Revolutionary Wars until its amalgamation into the Territorial Force in 1908. A uniquely aristocratic institution, it was retained after the Napoleonic Wars for its utility as a mounted police force, gaining notoriety for its role in the Peterloo Massacre. It struggled to justify itself militarily, and survived in the late 19th century largely due to the wealth and political influence of its leadership. It found a renewed purpose as mounted infantry, much to the distaste of those members who remained wedded to the cavalry tradition, following the failure of the regular army in the Second Boer War. The article received some attention in a peer review (before this article was moved to its current name), and more thorough scrutiny, including a full image review, in a successful MILHIST A-Class assessment. I am aware of one potential probem with the sourcing: Mileham's The Stirlingshire Yeomanry Cavalry and the Scottish Radical Disturbances of April 1820 was published in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, but not having access to this in JSTOR, I used a copy published on http://www.balfronheritage.org.uk/home. Whilst I'm certain the venue fails FAC standards for sourcing, the actual source document does, I believe, pass muster. Factotem (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN11 is incomplete
Not sure in what ways it was incomplete. I've added website name and founder name as publisher. Is that enough, or is it still missing something?
  • Hansard should be italicized
Done
  • Mileham 1985 should include full details of the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which source you're referring to here. I've added issue and page number information to the JSTOR element. I've also put in a RX request to see if I can get the page numbers for the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research copy of the original document. Hopefully I can dispense with the balfronheritage.org.uk link altogether. Factotem (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that Mileham's article was split over two editions of the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. I've added all the info to the single cite in the bibliography, but it's not possible to add to different JSTOR refs, so I've recorded the second as a hidden comment for now. I'll fix this when I know the results of the RX request. Factotem (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RX came up trumps. I've updated the ref for the actual JSAHR document, added both editions to the bibliography, and removed the url for the balfronheritage website. Factotem (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR and believe it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

I also reviewed this article at ACR and believe it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod edit

I originally usurped the article Yeomanry, which is a general history of the yeomanry from formation to present day. When it became apparent that I was actually writing a sub-article dealing with a specific period of the yeomanry history, my edits were spun off to create this article, and the yeomanry article was restored to the version before I started.
Ok - I don't know why this can't be seen from the page history. Did you do a cut n'paste move without saying so?
No. I put in a request at WP:RM and one of the editors there did the move. Factotem (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for this to be checked by an expert, also my new point at the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the editor who did the move, so hopefully they will be able to allay your concerns on this matter. Factotem (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, he blames a technical glitch. I think you should add a note to the article talk explaining where the first version came from, & that will sort it. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done with this edit Factotem (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that Yeoman's first mention had "Yeomanry Cavalry" - I don't know if it's part of the FA requirements, but a check on missing links to the article should be done - basic housekeeping (and views promotion).
As I see it, this is a sub-article for Yeomanry, so that's where the incoming links will originate. Links in other articles that mention the yeomanry will logically link to the main article. I see you linked to this article in the Yeoman article, whereas I would have said that the more logical link there would be to Yeomanry.
Well I hadn't looked at Yeomanry, but no I do, there's no link to this there either in the first two sections, with "descended from volunteer cavalry regiments. ....In the 1790s, the threat of invasion of the Kingdom of Great Britain was high, after the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. To improve the country's defences, volunteer regiments were raised in many counties from yeomen." Only a "see also" that ought to be a "main". Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edited Yeomanry to give this article a bit more exposure. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in view of the unusual nature of these units, and the frankly rather limited extent of their actual military engagements, it would be better to abandon the usual unit article layout, and put all or most of 5 Recruitment, 6 Popular perception and 7 Funding, remuneration and terms of service before the history. Really they are more interesting, and I found reading the history gave rise to many questions that were only answered (and very well so) much further down.
I'm not sure about this, and think there will be issues however we cut it. Certainly, the "Perceptions" section relies on knowledge of the yeomanry's activities, so logically it should come after the historical narrative. The first para of the recruitment section also becomes problematic, mentioning as it does Peterloo, the Swing Riots, the Chartist disturbances and the yeomanry's dual role as police force and military auxiliary. I'm hesitant to introduce these without first explaining in some detail their relevance. This is especially the case, I think, when it comes to the yeomanry's role. I think the common perception (certainly mine before I started) is of the yeomanry is as a military force, and its role in policing is less well-known. I'd be interested in knowing some specifics about what questions you had, and also the opinions of other reviewers on this.
1) ""Nevertheless, the yeomanry's continued existence owed more to its significant representation in Parliament.." - meaning MPs who were members? Or had been? Or a general class sympathy?" and 2) "It would be good to have a section giving a clearer idea of the typical service requirements of this part-time force. Did they do annual excercises etc? Also were you able to leave at any time? In 1870 "basic training and drill requirements were laid down.." - so what were they? By 1905 we have plans with "the requirement that they should abandon their civilian lives for the six months of training considered necessary for them to be effective in such a reserve role". How did/would that work? All in one go? Paid?" were questions I found the answer for lower down. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. The current structure may well be ill-considered, but it was not unconsidered. However it is structured, there will, I think, be the same issue of touching on aspects that are discussed in more detail later. The most obvious example, as mentioned above, is the first paragraph on recruitment. The "Funding..." section, also, references the confused legislation discussed in the history narrative and aid to the civil power which forms a significant part of that narrative. The current structure attracted no comments in PR and ACR, and as far as I can see, restructuring would only result in an alternative way of sequencing the narrative rather than improving it. If other reviewers take issue here at FAC, then I would consider a rewrite, but the time and effort required for that is significantly more than the polishing that is appropriate at FAC. If this is grounds to oppose this candidacy, then so be it. I still appreciate the input. BTW, I understand that the above represent the examples I requested, but note c, I think, at the end of the statement, clarifies what "significant representation in Parliament" is referring to, and the source does not go into details about what "basic training and drill requirements were laid down". Factotem (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1818 and 1855, the peak years of its employment in support of the civil power, the yeomanry was on average called out for approximately 26 days per year." What does the last bit mean? Individual units somewhere were called out? Annual average for all units?
Individual units somewhere. The source states "...the force spent cumulatively at least 960 days on duty: approximately 26 days a year for this 37-year period." Not sure I see the problem with the current wording. Do you have any suggestions?
Well, I was unclear what was being said. I'm not sure the source is entirely clear either. Maybe "there were on average approximately 26 days per year when a yeomanry unit was called out". Or just quote the source. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re-written to "units of yeomanry were on duty somewhere for approximately 26 days per year on average." Factotem (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm not entirely sure his Scottishness is worth mentioning really - I see someone at the A class review wanted it. His dying in a cavalry charge a few years later might be. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the false title. I added the additional information about Berkeley and Airlie as a result of an ACR comment. I'm ambivalent about whether this info is kept or not; anyone who's curious can follow the link. I don't think it useful to add that Airlie died in a cavalry charge. For one thing, the source I used doesn't mention it, and for another he was leading a regular cavalry regiment, so it's not really relevant in an article about the yeomanry.
That he commanded a regular cavalry regiment is surely relevant to his comment? Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've removed "Scottish peer" and added that he was an experienced cavalry officer, then adjutant to a yeomanry regiment and later killed leading the 12th Lancers (my error - the source did mention it). Factotem (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the big image, the "Recruitment" para needs splitting.
Done.
  • "Members of the Beaufort family" actually the Somerset family - "members of the Somerset family headed by the Duke of Beaufort" perhaps?
Amended to state that "Dukes of Beaufort served with the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars for over 150 years..."
  • "by 1892 all but one troop of the Middlesex Yeomanry were recruited in London" - not entirely surprizing given the majority of the couunty had already been absorbed by London sprawl.
The statement supports the fundamental point of that para, that recruitment was increasingly urban. Is there anything specific that needs to be addressed here?
  • In general there are links missing, and some repeated. I have added some - mostly peers and counties.
Some of the links added were duplicates, which I removed. I did, when writing this article, look into finding links to the peers you added links for, but there was nothing in the source to establish with certainty a link between the name given in the source and the article linked to. It seemed to me to be a bit of an assumption, and straying into WP:OR to add those (I left the ones you added, though). I also try to avoid links that are not relevant to the text in the link. For example, " Royal Midlothian Yeomanry Cavalry Races" refers to a horse race event, so I'm not sure that linking Midlothian is all that useful (but also left that one in). I do try and link wherever it seems relevant, though, and I'm not sure I see any grievous underlinking. Could you give me some examples, please?
Well, you seem to have removed most of them. If you trust your source as to the name and the date, then identifying the peer, whether with WP or other sources, is hardly OR. Other Windsor, 6th Earl of Plymouth was certainly the only "Lord Plymouth" in 1832, and indeed the bio article mentions his involvement with the Worcestershire Yeomanry. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have removed all duplicate links, and the dup link checker doesn't report any more. Lord Plymouth's WP article threw up a number of red flags that dissuaded me from linking him based on that article (it refers without sources to a non-existent yeomanry "division" which fought in a foreign country where no yeomanry unit was ever deployed), though I confess I could have done a better job researching off-wiki in this case, and your point about fixing them by dates alone is a good one. I've re-checked the article and believe that the two links you added account for all linkable but previously unlinked people. Factotem (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - we have his splendid obituary from The Gentleman's Magazine if any doubt lingers. They don't write them like that any more. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Seeing that earlier led to my confession above. I just wasn't sure how far we are permitted to go in establishing links that are not explicitly made in the source, and I erred on the side of caution for both Plymouth and Chesham. Is that the links issue settled, or is the article still deficient in your opinion? Factotem (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are more, especially in the last section, but I won't push it. Imo, if a place is worth mentioning, it is worth linking. Not everybody knows that Midlothian is not in Cornwall. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly finished - more later All done now. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Don't understand what you're asking for here. There is already a {{main}} hatnote to Yeomanry at the top of the article. Are you saying that I should ad another hatnote to the disambig page? If so, why, when it links to the article already hatnoted? Factotem (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have a redirected disam page for your title that goes to another page. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a redirect that I created, nor do I understand this aspect of WP. I've changed the target on that redirect page from Yeomanry to Yeomanry Cavalry. Is that what was needed? Factotem (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Support - all my points adequately covered, & the article meets FA criteria. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo edit

This is in my expertise Fifelfoo (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post chartist myth of a Clean Wehrmacht issues, you did read for them? WWII: NW Europe (war rape, camp liberation the concern), Palestine, Syria, Malaya (political actions of military forces the concern)
Not an issue here, I believe, as the Yeomanry Cavalry never served overseas in the time period with which this article is concerned. Individual yeomen served with the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa during the Second Boer War, but the Imperial Yeomanry at that time was a separate organisation. The first overseas service performed by the yeomanry came during the First World War, but by that time they had lost their status as a distinct organisation and were part of the Territorial Force. I'm not aware of any actions by the yeomanry during that period that would require the type of coverage demanded by the activities of German forces in WWII, and that period is anyway outside the scope of this article. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you're trimming, do keep the issue of "santising" accounts in mind. If there's anything in HQRS unsanitary mentioned of equivalent WEIGHT to the "aftermath / heritage" material you're otherwise mentioning, the unsanitary material ought also go in. I'll ask you to ping me when you've trimmed? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little surprised given the topic that the bibliography is so grognard in publisher rather than social history, particularly to coverage 1850? This concern is motivated by the MILHIST concern regarding Clean hands.
I'm sorry. I don't understand this at all. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bugle identified a trend of poor sourcing and research in relation to military history. This trend is caused in part by editor's use of non-scholarly sources that ignore aspects of the subject, such as "grognard" or militaria publications. This can result in "the more extreme example, a commander of an SS death squad "worked (...) to reduce atrocities committed"." The same process which causes this in relation to WWII articles about Germany can be present in any military history article. I would ask the same question on Neil Armstrong below if I reviewed it. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm a little confused. You state below that the central sources used are appropriately HQRS. The vast bulk of this article is indeed built around the works of Dr George Hay, Professor Ian Beckett and Dr. Patrick Mileham. I cannot find a bio for Mileham online, but he was considered enough of an expert on the British military to be asked to give evidence to Parliament in relation to the debate on the military implications for the independence for Scotland, in which he lists some of his credentials. I'm not sure that these can be considered non-scholarly and I have not seen anything to suggest that they have ignored any important aspects of the subject, nor have I of their work. Factotem (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I was asking you. You've read the HQRS, you'd know if there were any weighty unsanitary matters. I trust your answers. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of PRIMARIES totally appropriate
  • Social history: Yeoman's wives? Very happy on class by sampling. Post 1919 readings for class in yeomanry? Any evidence from your HQRS of weight?
Nothing in the sources about yeomen's wives. A detailed analysis of the composition of the yeomanry is only provided by Hay, whose account ends at 1914, and again, the period from 1908 is outside of this article's scope. I'm afraid I don't understand the question about weight. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to this question, and questions of potential conduct on deployment in North West Europe, how is the period from 1908 outside the article's scope when there are 1200 words of Heritage dealing specifically with the post 1908 period including regiments, composition, deployment? I'm finding it hard to reconcile a "scope" issue here with the current weight in heritage of assignment of yeomanry regiments to specific deployments in WWII? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's an Aftermath section that is I believe expected of all such articles. Having said that, I see your point. It does go into a little too much detail. I'll look into trimming that down to produce a more summarised account. Would that fix the issue for you? Factotem (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when you're done so I can reread! Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fifelfoo: I've trimmed the Heritage section down to less than 500 words. Let me know what you think. Factotem (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It reads great to me, focuses well on the "cavalry" issue, and reflects the WEIGHT of the heritage section to the body of the article. Good work! Fifelfoo (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the use of Beckett Hay and Mileham as central sources to be appropriate HQRS for topic
  • Decline reason "£5 allowance (equivalent to £500 in 2016)" was this equivalence in your source, or did you compute it? In your source did it give the nature of the computation (inflation by income, commodity bundle, %gdp)?. I am very tetchy about these computations as original research given the difference of Measuring economic worth over time, and I assume closers will consider my tetchyness in this regard. My fundamental belief is that editor choice regarding correct computation is original research: let scholars be damned for their shitty decisions in scholarship. If your secondaries don't support the text the simplest way of resolving this is to remove all modern computations.
These are all done automatically using Template:Inflation. I'm not aware of any problems with WP:OR doing this, but happy to be corrected. Factotem (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited the inflation template now Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "original research" issue is that measuring economic worth over time is really quite hard and requires analytical decisions about appropriate measures. Why did you choose UK-GDP a gdp deflator, instead of UK which is a retail price (ie: consumer price) index? When our sources do it for us it is easy, we can quote them. However, when we make the decision I argue that this is clearly original research. I hope this explains it, and lets you respond. Based on your response we'll know if the article needs editing, or if I need to strike my concern. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the instructions at Template:Inflation, I used UK-GDP for expenditure by the government and the wealthy, and I used UK for personal expenditure. I thought that these would be useful to the reader in understanding the scale of expenditure, but I'm not precious about them and would not fight to retain them. I'm curious as to why this template is available, though, if it's use is inherently WP:OR. Factotem (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree that inflation templates or indices raise all sorts of difficult issues, which WP editors generally ignore. But it is still good to make a stab at it. I think the solution is to explain carefully in a note where the figure comes from, and perhaps even give an alternative calculated on another basis, and a note of caution. An explained arithmetical calculation is not OR. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the response. In future I'd recommend adding the inflation citation template for the inflation you used at the end of the sentence (if there's a single use), or at the end of the paragraph for multiple uses in a paragraph. The template is available because some people don't understand OR, or the problems of measuring worth over time in economies, or economic history; and, a large popular demand exists for it among editors. I have long disagreed with the "simple calculation" argument when it comes to inflation, but I'm not going to oppose the article given the GDP-deflator is the "correct," one to use for the gentry. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise supportive.
Drive-by: All these as clear as daylight, as usual! Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm afraid that the only point I understand is the one about the conversions of money to modern equivalents. These are all done automatically using Template:Inflation. I'm not aware of any problems with WP:OR doing this, but happy to be corrected. Factotem (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on my clarity, sorry, and will get back to the individual points to clarify. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2018 [50].

Taapaca edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in northern Chile, one of the northernmost volcanoes of that country in fact. Taapaca is a holy mountain for local people and was one for the Inka. The volcano was once considered to be extinct but now we know that it had eruptions until about 2300 years ago. The important local town of Putre lies on its slopes and on top of recent volcanic deposits and thus could be in danger from future eruptive activity. This is my second nomination for FA after Tutupaca; as with that article Mike Christie did a thorough copyedit on Taapaca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Support. My only reservation is criterion 3, images; the article would benefit from a map, though it's not a significant enough issue for me to withhold support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a map's been added; that's helpful. Even better would be a map showing local topographic features mentioned in the article, but that may not be possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images that are present are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim edit

  • If sector collapses is technical enough to be red-linked to a non-existent article, you should explain what it means in this context.
  • I agree that a diagrammatic map of the locality would be an enhancement
  • You've linked tarapaca which is a disambiguation page head by something you've already said before about the word for eagle. I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that link
Otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In order:
  • I swear, I had promised at some point to write an article about sector collapses. In the absence of an article I've added a parenthetical.
  • There are a number of geological maps, none of which is freely licensed. There is File:Txu-oclc-224571178-se19-10.jpg which is topographical and could be cropped. Otherwise, the only other way would be to ask someone at commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop to see if they can make a map.
  • Um, clarify the issue please? I am not sure I understand.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

Will try to get to this in the next few days. ceranthor 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak and Ceranthor: in case there any follow ups... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had honestly forgotten this was on my todo list. Will get to it ASAP! ceranthor 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Still going through and making some copyedits here and there, but this is pretty much ready. ceranthor 19:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

I've been unable to check many refs specifically, because of paywalls and language, but in general the article seems to be based on scholarly sources and I am happy to AGF. A few minor issues:

  • Ref 1: does not give full source title
  • Ref 2: requires retrieval date
  • Ref 3: gives links to two separate web pages. Which, respectively, are the sources for a, b and c?
  • Ref 3: requires retrieval date
  • Ref 9: Link is to abstract only - see note below.
  • Ref 23: requires retrieval date
  • Ref 61: You shouldn't use caps for the source title, even though that's how it is presented in the original. See also Reinhard in the sources list
  • Wegner, W.; Worner, G.; Kronz, A in sources list lacks publisher information
  • General: some of the sources link to abstracts & require purchase or approved login to get access to the source articles. It would be helpful if these were indicated, e.g. by use of subscription templates.

Otherwise, all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton Got most issues. Re paywalled/restricted source articles, I was using an university VPN which isn't paywalled to access them. My account on that VPN has now lapsed, so some sources I need to access in other ways; I've added some "subscription needed" tags. Regarding http://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010040366, to be honest I am not entirely certain who the publisher is for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need a publisher. Surely its the Institute de Recherche pour le Développment? It's on their website. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added it as "website". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look.....

  • Is it usual to describe a volcano from teh date of its last eruption? e.g. this is a Holocene volcano but was active before the holocene as well....?
  • emplacement is an odd word - does it have a specific meaning in geology?
  • In the Name section, the words-as-words are formatted differently. Italics in the first sentence and double quotes in the last sentence

Otherwise looks ok. Nothing standing out on prose or comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Thanks for commenting. In order:
  • Yes, usually volcanoes are described from the last eruption date, since e.g its hazard level depends on it.
  • If Google Scholar is a reliable source for such information, yes, "emplacement" is usually used to describe this concept.
  • Standardized it.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 30 June 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2018 [51].

Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the presence of thousands of Australian soldiers in the UK during World War II. While the huge Australian Army establishment in the UK during World War I is reasonably well known, the much smaller deployments during World War II are not. This is something of a shame, as they are quite interesting. The largest of these deployments was 8,000-strong combat force which formed part of the mobile reserves which would have responded to the feared German invasion in 1940. In addition, over 5,000 released Australian prisoners of war passed through the UK on their way home during 1945. Other Australian soldiers dispatched to the UK included liaison officers, railroad engineers and some very cold foresters. Following the war, members of the AIF took part in an almost test-level cricket series and the 1946 London Victory Parade. This article may be the only online resource covering all of these deployments.

I have developed this article over the last year. It passed a GA review in December 2017, and a A-class review in January. The article has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your consideration and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Nick, nice work with this article. I reviewed it at A-class and saw it evolve before that also. I have a few minor suggestions/comments, otherwise it looks pretty good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • War Office is overlinked in the Liaison officers section
  • in the Works consulted section, is there a page range for Beaumont's chapter in Dennis et al?
  • same as above for Beckett's chapter in Bridge, and Field's chapter
    • Beckett's chapter was published in html format, so there aren't page numbers. Fixed for field. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Field's chapter, suggest adding the editor for Tobruk and El Alamein
    • The book doesn't identify the primary author as also being the editor of that chapter. It may have been commissioned and edited directly by Gavin Long in his role as the general editor of the series (which I think was the case for the corresponding chapter on prisoners of the Japanese in The Japanese Thrust). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Nick, I meant for the volume itself. Isn't that Barton Maughan? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, he's the primary author, but he's not identified as also having edited Field's chapter. Given that Maughan was notoriously slow in finishing the book and did so from eccentric locations (Broken Hill and, from memory, India), I'd imagine that Long handled the POW chapter which covers soldiers captured throughout the AIF's time in the Middle East rather than only the period Maughan covered. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries. Didn't know that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please don't ask me why I know so much gossip about the authors of the official history! Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the title link for the Field chapter doesn't seem to go to Tobruk and El Alamein, its seems to go to Walker's medical series
    • Whoops! Fixed - and well spotted. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Loftus, Australia" --> "Loftus, New South Wales"? (earlier you use "Clayton, Victoria")
    • The books used that style, but I agree that it's not the best. I've changed this to NSW. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Released_Australian_POWs_marching_down_Horseferry_Road_in_1918.JPG: with no identified author, how do we know this is AustraliaGov? Unlike some of the other images, this was taken in a place accessible to civilians. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largely as it's from the Australian War Memorial's collection. The photo appears to have been taken from a building on Horseferry Road in London. At this time the Australian Imperial Force occupied most of the buildings on the road. As such, the image was either taken by an Australian government employee or was donated to the AWM (an Australian Government institution). Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this at GAN and again at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about in either review. I've gone through the additions/changes since, and I consider this article meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Factotem edit

Prose (mostly nitpicks)

  • You sometimes run a leading subordinate clause directly into the main clause, e.g. In April 1944 two majors from the Army's Directorate of Research..., but other times separate them with a comma, e.g. In April 1944, the Department of Information... When I asked about this a while back, the response was that it does not matter which method you use, but it does need to be consistent throughout.
    • Good catch - I've standardised on using a comma. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a few, so I went through it myself. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many instances where you use "with" as a conjunction, e.g. Several small engineer units were also sent to the UK, with up to 600 forestry troops being active there between July 1940 and mid-1943, which I believe is frowned upon. They should be replaced with proper conjunctions (in this example, "Several small engineer units were also sent to the UK, and up to 600 forestry troops were active there between July 1940 and mid-1943" would do it).
    • Fixed - and this is a big improvement. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • While the UK had accommodated... While implies concurrence, which is not the case here. Replace it with "Although"?
  • ...January 1941 in order to concentrate... Believe that "in order to" is generally frowned upon, and the "in order" can be deleted.
  • In mid-1944 AIF personnel were dispatched to the UK to establish facilities to accommodate and support... Personally I find the repetition of "to" clunky. I would write this as "In mid-1944 AIF personnel arrived in the UK to establish facilities for Australian POWs due to be released from German prison camps."
  • Significant numbers of released AIF POWs arrived in the UK as the war in Europe neared its conclusion during April 1945 and ended in May This sentence ends awkwardly. Does the "ended in May" refer to the release of POWs or the war? I think you mean "Significant numbers of released AIF POWs arrived in the UK in the last two months of the war in Europe"?

Background

  • ...airmen who had been trained under the Empire Air Training Scheme and several flying squadrons... Not quite sure exactly what you're trying to say here, but you're effectively saying that "airmen trained under several flying squadrons", which doesn't really make sense.

Liaison officers

  • His role included representing Australia on senior decision-making bodies... Not sure about this one. People can be on the board of an organisation, but aren't they generally in an organisational body?
    • I'm pretty sure that 'on' is the standard usage (eg, someone is 'on' a committee - especially if they're relatively senior in their organisation) Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major General Rupert Downes, who was the Army's most senior medical officer as the Director General of Medical Services, arrived... Is it an aussie thing not to hyphenate the ranks of general officers, or a typo? Do we need to say "most"? Isn't senior in this usage a superlative? I would be tempted to write this sentence as "Major General Rupert Downes who, as the Director General of Medical Services was the Army's senior medical officer, arrived...".
    • I don't think that a hyphen is used here (eg, [52]). That change reads much better - thanks.
  • ...and helped to facilitate orders of medical equipment for the Army Did he facilitate orders, or the supply?
    • Orders of stuff (presumably figuring out what was the best equipment and placing the contract) Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival in the UK

  • ...and Convoy US 3 off the Australian coast Missing "was" after 3.
  • Several ministers believed that the British Government was seeking to divide the AIF... British or Australian ministers?
    • Australians. I think that this is clear in the context? Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and been promoted and been appointed... Quite sure that second "been" should not be there.

Reorganisation

  • ...leading to the 2/3rd Field Ambulance being split in half to form the 2/11th Field Ambulance The use of "form" tripped me up by leading me to expect two units to be listed rather than just the 2/11th. Maybe "create" would be better?
  • Australforce was involved in the Battle of Britain. Invokes images of Australians in Spitfires and Hurricanes chasing Heinkels and Messerschmitts. Perhaps "caught up" would be more accurate than "involved"?
    • No, they were involved. The Battle of Britain wasn't just an aerial campaign (see, for instance, [53], [54], [55], as well as the official history which discusses the role of the Army alongside that of the RAF in its chapters on the battle (for instance, [56]). Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question comes down to whether "Battle of Britain" refers solely to the air battle or to the wider issue of defence against invasion. The latter indisputably involved army, navy and air force, but the former is, I think, the common perception of the battle. The article Battle of Britain seems to back this up. The source you provide makes no explicit mention of the BoB, and provides no sense of "participation", in relation to the casualty suffered on 13 July. It does state, on p. 305, "In fact, the ability of this army to defend Britain was not tested because the Navy commanded the seas girdling Britain and the Air Force defeated German efforts to gain control of the air. In the air battle the principle role was to be played by Fighter Command which included (in July when the Battle of Britain opened)...". This contradicts, I think, the assertion that "Australforce was involved in the Battle of Britain", and does so more explicitly than any statement on p. 307 that might be construed to support the assertion. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The B-class Battle of Britain article represents the outdated view that this was only an aerial battle (totally ignoring the huge RN role, and the large land force assembled in southern England). That said, I do take your broader point and have tweaked this to "Australforce remained on alert throughout the Battle of Britain" which is clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Currently working through a source review. It will take a few hours yet. Factotem (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for checking the sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The narrative on the 9th Division confused me a little. It took me a few attempts to figure out that Australforce became 9th Division, if indeed that is what actually happened. I think what confused me was the statement ...Australforce was to be used as the nucleus for a new 9th Division, which led me to believe that significant parts of Australforce/6th Division remained. The problem is compounded when you continue to discuss Australforce in the subsequent paragraphs, and apart from the appointment of Wynter as commander, 9th Division is not mentioned until the rather sudden re-appearance in Following the departure of the 9th Division... in the next section.

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • The situation seems to have been confusing. This was also raised in the A-class review, and the basic problem is that I can't find a source which specifies exactly when Australforce became the 9th Division/when the 9th Division was formally established. From looking at the Australforce war diaries on the Australian War Memorial website today it appears that this came into effect at the start of November 1940. However, this isn't explicitly stated, and the war diaries use Australforce and 9th Division pretty much interchangeably well after this time! As it doesn't really matter for this article, I've tweaked the text to refer to Australforce (which, per the primary sources, is correct).
See no problems with the responses so far, except for the issue of involvement in the BoB, which I've responded to above. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more points:

  • There are quite a few instances of "in addition", which is often redundant. The two sentences "The force's administrative headquarters was in London, and large numbers of Australian training, medical and other support facilities were located in the UK. In addition, Australian soldiers frequently took leave in the country." might be better combined as "The force's administrative headquarters was in London, large numbers of Australian training, medical and other support facilities were located in the UK, and Australian soldiers frequently took leave in the country." A similar merge might improve the narrative relating to Dunhill in the second para of the "Liaison officers" section. There are a coule of other incidences, but "In addition to their military functions, the AIF personnel in the UK..." seems a perfectly legitimate use to me.
    • Only five, which is probably below average for me! (I use it to avoid over-using "also"). I've gotten this down to just the one use. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "at this time" quite a lot, which can also be redundant. For example, in the first para of the section "Arrival in the UK", you have already set the time period in the very first clause, so beginning the second sentence with "At this time..." is not necessary.

See User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing for more info on these issues. Factotem (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • I understand the preference at FAC is to have consistent ISBN formats. You have a mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.
  • Volume III of the work Australia in the War of 1939–1945, Tobruk and ElAlamein, appears to be authored by Barton Maughan. Field's contribution, Prisoners of the Germans and Italians, is an Appendix to that work. Adding the parameters editor1-last=Maughan and editor1-first=Barton, whilst not technically correct, would present this correctly in the Works consulted.
Just discovered that AustralianRupert also pointed this out. Barton Maughan is listed as the author in the Worldcat entry for this volume. Factotem (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but he's not listed at the editor anywhere. As the series had a general editor (Gavin Long), it's more likely that he was the editor of the chapter, and this was bolted onto the book. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jackson's Australians in Overlord missing publisher info (Media Marketing Group in Canberra, according to Worldcat)
  • Minor quibble, more an FYI and not a problem: You specify the 1952 edition of Long's To Benghazi, but the the OCLC ref you supply relates to the 1986 edition according to Worldcat. Both editions are 336 pages long, so page numbering in your refs should not be affected.
  • Same issue with Greece, Crete and Syria. Again not a major issue as pagination does not appear to differ.
    • Worldcat doesn't seem to have separate OCLCs for the first editions of these two books. The 1980s editions were reprints, with only the addition of new introductions which didn't affect the page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher for McClymont's To Greece appears to be War History Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs
    • Fixed (the details in the NZETC summary differed from the title page). Thanks for spotting this. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the Australian Forest History Society's newsletter or Graham McKenzie Smith a reliable source?
    • McKenzie Smith is the leading expert on the structure and deployments of the Australian Army in World War II, and recently authored this vast and comprehensive work on the subject (which was supported by a grant from the Army). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any issues with the online sources, other than how the CWGC database is used (see below).
Except ref #18 ("Smart, Edward Kenneth"), link is dead. Factotem (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link works fine for me when I click it, and is still at the same url. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too now. Temporary glitch. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I conducted spotchecks on Refs 3, 20, 35, 38, 65, 75, 83, 87 (as at this version of the article), which all checked out OK, plus the following, for which there are some mostly minor quibbles:

  • Ref #101 (Donohoe–Marques pp. 5, 7) Source does not constrain female contingent to Australian Women's Army Service; it actually states "...women who had served across the Australian forces" and specifically mentions the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force
    • That para gives the details of a female major in the Australian Women’s Army Service who took part in the contingent, and the page later refers to the PR material highlighting the involvement of "female soldiers". Page 11 also notes a report from the AWAS party in the contingent which referred to the experiences of women in the plural, so she wasn't alone. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the number of women, but the units they were from. You mention only the AWAS, but the source also mentions the WAAAF. This is a technicality. The article is not wrong, it just misses out a small detail. Factotem (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WAAAF was the female branch of the Royal Australian Air Force. This article is about the Australian Army. Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me. Good point. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #102 (Donohoe–Marques pp. 10-11) Source states that the male and female contingents were sent to separate camps, and identifies Kensington Gardens only for the male contingent. It does not specify where the female contingent was accommodated.
  • Ref #84 (Field p. 801) Source states that AIF personnel were either sick or "protected" (whatever that means)
    • From the contemporary newspaper report, which describes a party from a field ambulance unit arriving together, I'd guess that "protected" personnel were medical personnel (who often volunteered to be left behind with wounded soldiers to be taken prisoner during retreats to care for them). But the source uses the term without explaining it! I've removed the reference to the 28 being ill, as this doesn't seem to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #32b (McClymont p. 31) I don't see anything on that page to support the assertion that "The New Zealand Government also agreed for its forces on Convoy US 3 to be sent to the UK".
    • Good catch. The NZ Government had already agreed to this in April, and McClymont doesn't state that it was re-agreed in May (it seems like the NZ government maintained this position, but this isn't explicitly stated). I've corrected the page number and article. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #45 (Plowman p. 124) Where on that page is there support for the statement that "The 18th Brigade was the largest Australian formation on the convoy..."?
    • Where it notes that it comprised three infantry battalions (or about 3000 soldiers). I could trim this if you think it's too much of a stretch. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: unstretched. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #107 (CWGC) I don't have any fundamental problem using the CWGC database as a source, but I believe it qualifies as a WP:PRIMARY source, and we have to be very careful how we use it. The source makes no mention of Australforce or the Forestry Group, so it appears to be your own WP:OR to specify these in the article. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to re-phrase the last para to "A total of 33 members of the Second AIF are recorded by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) in the United Kingdom as being buried in or commemorated at graveyards it administers. The men came from a variety of units, the majority of them infantry." or similar. This reflects only what can be confirmed from the source, without adding any evaluation, interpretation or synthesis.
    • Not at all. If you use the 'download results' button on that page it provides you with more detailed information on these men, which includes their date of death and the unit they were serving in (these also appear via the green arrows to the right of each person). The units listed here relate directly to the units listed in the article, and it's not OR to match this (for example, it lists five members of the forestry companies). I didn't seek to attribute the casualties who I was unable to match up - eg, those from various infantry battalions which didn't serve in the UK. These were presumably POWs who had been repatriated due to serious ill-health, but no source confirms this. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that having to download the results or click on each individual entry in the cited search result strays into analysis, which is specifically proscribed for primary sources. I think that, given the standards expected at FAC, you can still make the fundamental point you wish to make about 2AIF casualties based simply on the information readily available from the search results, without requiring the reader to dig deeper. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - it's just summarising what the source clearly presents in tabular form. No analysis is required to say that (for instance) five members of the forestry group died when the source clearly shows this. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, and I don't dispute that the data is in the source, but don't agree that we're permitted to do that. Maybe other reviewers can weigh in with an opinion. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done now. Factotem (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC) @Factotem: I think that I've now addressed all your comments, other than the last one where we have differing views. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Just need some third party input on the CWGC issue now. Factotem (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi Nick, I already made a few minor edits 27 May, but here are a few minor queries...

  • Malaya - link to British Malaya?
  • at a British artillery school at Larkhill - wlink pipe Royal School of Artillery?
  • comprehensive range of services - couple of examples? telegrams/postal/Aust'n newspapers/cold beer/Aust'n newsreels?
    • Added. There's scope for a great article on this facility. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • advisors v advisers
    • Tweaked to "advisers" per the Macquarie Dictionary. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • agents general - wlink to Agent-general
  • rapidly transport liberated POWs to the UK, usually by air, after being liberated.[87] Few prisoners were liberated - 3x liberated, maybe swap one for 'freed'?
    • oops, it looks like I messed up the first sentence a bit while copy editing. Now unmessed (I hope). Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axis forces - wlink
  • Following their return to Australia in November, the forest companies were - forestry?
  • Citation 90 - Jones, Barry O is Barry Jones (Australian politician)?
    • I'd be amazed if it wasn't - added. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, JennyOz (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot Jenny. As a question, do you have an opinion on the final sourcing query immediately above? Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, regarding Ref (now) 108 - I don't really feel experienced enough to talk to all the concerns mentioned by Factotem (evaluation, interpretation, synthesis, analysis), but if the database allowed interrogation to refine the search to list a subset of eg the Forestry Coy only members, you'd be able to cite that total as a separate result. That function however is not available so you have simply used the one source to achieve such results. I would think that the totals you are providing are more akin to the spirit of WP:CALC. Most importantly, as long as those figures are verifiable from that one source, I don't see any analysis.
I will be interested in learning from any others' opinions but in the meantime I have no deal breaking concerns so am happy to sign my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Jenny Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice article (on a subject I knew nothing about before). Very readable, nice use of images and well put together. Support on prose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at ACR and believe it meets the FA standard. (I corrected one typo). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo edit

Support on HQRS, weighty coverage, coverage completeness against "white myth," appropriate primary use, weighty structure, citation style consistency. Obviously had I been reviewing in other forums I would have got to this earlier. However, Fifelfoo (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you read for the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht? The threat to this article is Battle of Brisbane-esque issues and War rape territory I suspect. Might also have Arthur Harris questions? Of course, this is dependent upon the sources you read, and my expectation is high regarding your reading. (AWM, for example, has a tendency to be hard grained against lying in my findings.) Solely a question.
    • A couple of the sources hint at the Australian soldiers often behaving badly (the seemingly high proportion who were sentenced to detention and the proposal that they be banned from the hotel in Colchester due to drunkenness), but neither states this. I've included what I could find, as well as a photo of Australian soldiers on leave in London where they appear drunk. The Colchester town council's proposal may have also been motivated by memories of the frequent poor conduct of Australians in World War I though, given that it was put forward before they arrived in the area. No sources discuss the troops committing rape, and they didn't see much fighting and weren't involved in any controversial battles, etc. The POWs had fought in Greece and North Africa, not the air campaign against Germany. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this topic require a historiography section? Your obvious reading of the source basis informs the answer, expected: no.
    • No, the sources are all pretty consistent. There isn't a large literature on this topic, and there aren't any points of controversy.Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly to the two above: AWM does excellent work: did they raise class, gender, colour/race/indigenous issues not apparent?
    • No. There were a very small number of Indigenous Australian soldiers in the UK, but as the sources only mention this in passing I haven't included it in order to avoid giving undue weight to the issue (which would also raise the risk of obscuring the much broader and more significant issue of the near total exclusion of Indigenous Australians from the AIF at this time due to policies which banned them from joining). I've covered the presence of women to the extent raised in the sources, noting also that they represented only a small portion of the forces due to the discrimination they faced. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • agree completely on weighting in the article and this discussion Fifelfoo (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no HQRS issues, and I see a treatment of sources based primarily on their quality by sampling.
  • Ought we request a technical feature? When I hover over a footnote I get to see the source cited. When I hover over a backlink I don't get to see the text preceding to the prior paragraph break or prior source set at the end of a sentence?
  • PRIMARIES are used appropriately. For example, "An Army officer also served on the staff of Australia's representative to the British War Cabinet. In March 1945 they were joined by RAN and RAAF officers.[15]" is trivium appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and the claim lays fundamentally within a secondarily sourced element for the narrative. Scholars would be disinterested in this point, encyclopaedia have different interests. Good work.
    • @Fifelfoo: thanks for your review. Sorry about the slow response: I've been out of town. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your responses, four days isn't slow at all! Fifelfoo (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2018 [57].

St Donat's Castle edit

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little castle in a corner of South Wales. It has quite an interesting history. The article received a very helpful Peer Review and I look forward to any and all further comments/suggestions here. A quick note on two of the sources. I've not been able to find the page numbers for the Venning or the Procter, although both can easily be viewed as Google snippets. Neither is essential, and both could go if necessary. Better still would be if an editor had access to the sources. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Support by Chetsford edit

This article is surpassed in its nice illustrations only by its pleasantly readable prose. Most sources are available online in some form or the other so it was easy to check and, insofar as I can tell, everything looks okay. This also seems to be as comprehensive as anything out there about St Donat's Castle. I support it contingent on remedy of a few minor concerns ...

  • A number of images lack ALT fields.
Will attend to those. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - now Done. Hope they meet the need as I've no experience of writing alt text. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This line - "Of St Donat's, Shaw was quoted as saying, "This is what God would have built if he had had the money"." - is sourced to a Wordpress site which, itself, may not be RS but is no longer active and is currently unarchived in any case.
Green tickY - That's a pity, as it was a nice site. Replaced the source. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the ideal lead for an article of this length is two or three paragraphs, and this article has a four paragraph lead. While LEADLENGTH is not a fast rule, it seems to be a guideline that makes sense to follow in the case of this specific article.
Get the point and agree. Will look to trim to three. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - Now done. In my defence, I think it originally was three and it appears to have become four when the distance from Llantwit was added. Howsoever, it's now three as per MoS. KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Cadw" supposed to be in all caps here: "but both Alan Hall and CADW sugges"?
It shouldn't be but I can't find it. Will keep looking. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - Now found and corrected. KJP1 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The castle site offers natural defences, in the form of steeps slopes to two sides and the coast to a third." Is "steeps" supposed to be "steep"?
Green tickY - yes indeed. Now Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence - "The unprotected, eastern, side is encircled by a deep, dry moat." - "eastern" is treated as a paranthetical expression, however, unless I'm mistaken the use of paranthetical expressions is limited to phrases and clauses and I don't think "eastern" is either of those in the way it's used. In other words, could both of the commas be eliminated? I'm not 100% sure on this point.
Green tickY - Done. A bit above my paygrade and should probably have waited for Mr Riley, but have amended in a way that hopefully works. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look to me for reliable help with commas. I am in a continual tangle with the bloody things. I think Chetsford is right, but I'm absolutely no authority. Tim riley talk 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford - Really grateful for the super-quick response and delighted you found the article an interesting read. Shall get straight on to your comments. KJP1 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope the issues raised have now been addressed. Really appreciate the interest and the improvements. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are - perfect! Chetsford (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Thank you for a nice excuse not to deal with another recent death: turn to a lovely article instead.

Lead

  • How about a year for the death in duel? 19th century comes late in what follows.
Green tickY - Done.
  • I think we don't need Hearst's given names twice in the lead, nor his name twice, just separated by a full stop.
Green tickY - Done.

The de Stradlings

  • That's a strange header - "the de", but I'd not know no repair. Perhaps "Stradling family"?
Green tickY - Done.
  • link the keep?
Green tickY - Done.
  • "at a slightly later date," - how about simply "later"?
Green tickY - Done.
  • "A number achieved more than local fame." - I don't believe it ;) - a number of them, or something more elegant?
Green tickY - Done.
  • "fought for and funded Charles I" - I may be the only one to think "for and funded" sounds strange.
Green tickY - Done.

Decline

  • "unscholarly (and) inauthentic" - why not "unscholarly inauthentic"?
Don't think that would quite flow. I'll see if I can rework the quote.
Green tickY - Now Done, by rewording. KJP1 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • any chance to link Edwardian somewhere else, not from a quote?
I see what you mean. Let me have a think. KJP1 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - Done now.

Citizen K

  • I believe that "ruthless" remodelling (or something else) should go to the lead, also would love the Shaw quote there, but know that some hate quotes in the lead ;)
Green tickY - Done. But I'll need to put the cites in. KJP1 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely stories around the place, including the lives saved, - thank you. More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt - Many thanks. The castle does indeed have a great story to tell. Shall get on to your comments soonest. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for all done, - I improved the other, and will be out now. Hope to back tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

  • "restorations of Nicholl Carne, Morgan Williams and Hearst himself", - I'd give them all given names, or none, and don't think "himself" adds.
Green tickY - Done.
  • I'd love a plan. The description is probably correct, but I don't "see" buildings and courts when reading.
Red XN - So would I, but sadly I don't know how to do them.

Interior

  • "beasts of the Apostles" - why Apostles, when the link goes correctly to the Evangelists. Can we trust that readers know about the beasts (or "living creatures" or symbols)?
Green tickY - Done.
  • link Devon?
Green tickY - Done.
  • The sentence about the listed building comes a bit as surprise in "description".
    • I know what you mean, but I think it's better here than elsewhere.

Thank you again, lovely reading. The minor points are just suggestions, I am ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt - Gerda - many thanks again. Shall address these tomorrow. Absolutely agree about a plan. I'd love one too as they hugely help understanding of complex structures, but I'm just not able to do one! KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt - Gerda, thanks indeed for the comments and for the Support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps cast an eye on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt - Would be pleased to have a look and shall do so tomorrow. Although music articles are not my forte! I've never recovered from being thrown out of the school choir by the music master, who said I had the worst singing voice he'd ever heard. KJP1 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry for that never-healing wound! If only teachers knew what they are inflicting ... - Comments always welcome, and especially by someone not familiar with the topic, but by now several looked, so take your time. The composer mentioned above appeared on RD, and I am pleased about that. (My last such attempt failed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Great piece of research, but I have few nitpicks, the first of which deters me from immediate support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not enthralled by the lead. The first paragraph seems to summarise the summary, so we have Hearst and Atlantic College mentioned twice, but on the other hand there is no indication that the castle is on the coast, so it was a complete surprise when I started reading about the RNLI two-thirds through (as you may have gathered, I've not visited this site)
Green tickY - A very good point. I've rewritten and re-read it so many times, that I'd become blind to what it actually was saying! You're quite right, para. 1 was like a lead within a lead. I've now tried a, further, re-write to give it better flow and remove the repetition. If you were able to review, I'd be very grateful.
  • ultimately, in the county— it's some time since we have mentioned the county, perhaps "Glamorgan" instead?
Green tickY - Done.
  • Red and one for Fallow deer— Caps inconsistent, either all lc as in their articles, or capped as "Red and one for Fallow Deer", style often seen in books.
Green tickY - Done.
  • The castle was designated a Grade I listed building, the highest possible grade reserved for buildings of exceptional interest, in 1952—perhaps give the reason for designation summary from the source?
Green tickY - Done and Done.
  • I don't like all the links in your book sources, as far as I checked they all appeared to be links to Worldcat listings or Google book advertisements. I think the point of a url link is to take the reader to useful content, and personally I never link to journals or books unless they have permanently available full free text. I know you've written other FAs, so I assume that your practice is acceptable, and I'm just registering a concern that you are free to ignore.
Red XN - for now. I absolutely take the point, and another editor made it in relation to Cragside. They particularly disliked the Google links, on grounds of commerciality, and I now try to only use Worldcat, unless the Google link gives a useful snippet, as it does here. Personally, I must confess to a weakness for the links, and they've not proved deal breakers in the past. But I'm quite open to removing them if that's the consensus. I strongly suspect Brian B, who I'm hoping to see when he's put Guy Burgess to bed, will be firmly in the "remove" camp!
I'm 100% with Jim on this. It drives me barmy when I click on a link expecting to read a page from a book and find instead just the name of the publisher and the ISBN etc. Tim riley talk 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. I feel the groundswell of opinion on this may be moving in a direction not entirely to my advantage.....KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak - Jim, many thanks indeed for the comments. I shall go through them later today. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak - Many thanks for the comments, especially the first one, and for the interest. I hope the revisions are acceptable. With all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reads much better, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very much appreciated, and the lead's much the better for your comments. KJP1 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I enjoyed reading this article for PR and I enjoyed it again just now. Seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. A few odds and ends of no great consequence but worth a brief look, maybe:

  • Lead
    • "the Celtic chieftan Caradog" – I don't suppose the Celts had a special spelling of "chieftain", but I wasn't quite confident enough to change "chieftan" myself. Over to you.
Green tickY - You know bloody well it's my typing and not a Celtic variant!
  • History
    • "The Winning of the Lordship of Glamorgan out of Welshmens' Hands" – just checking again that the possessive apostrophe is in that position in the original, as opposed to "Welshmen's hands", as we would now write. I'm not sure the matter was sorted out definitively at PR.
Green tickY - Good catch, and it wasn't resolved. This, [58] clearly has the possessive apostrophe where you think it should be, as do the other inline sources I've found. So duly amended with apologies.
  • Citizen Kane's domain: 1925–1960
    • Heading: I'm delighted to see that reviewers at PR and, so far, here, haven't been so po-faced as to object to this title, which I think is whimsical but perfect.
    • "a nighttime tour" – the OED punctuates "night-time", as (even more importantly, of course) do I.
Green tickY - Done.
  • "Ivor Novello and George Bernard Shaw" – have I not previously registered my usual plea for the piping of Bernard Shaw's name to give him the courtesy of the title he insisted on, and which most reputable scholars give him? Not something I can insist on, I admit.
Green tickY - You have indeed and I got it right in the lead, but wrong here. Now corrected.

Nothing there to prevent my registering my support. Excellent stuff. – Tim riley talk 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - Greatly appreciate your support and comments here, and your input at PR. Many thanks, and congratulations on Elizabeth David. I hope the clean-up after her TFA appearance wasn't too arduous. KJP1 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley p.s. - Tim - sorry, I did have a query. What do you think of "rooves" as opposed to "roofs" in the lead. I believe it's ok, if a bit archaic, but when I see it "on the page", it looks odd to me. And will it confuse non-native speakers? KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I always use "roofs" as the plural of "roof", and I'm quite sure it is the more usual form, but the OED is perfectly OK with "rooves", and if that's your preference I'd stick with it. (It may conceivably be significant [sic] that I didn't notice the spelling.) – Tim riley talk 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All the online sources I can access, which is most of them. say what the citations here say they say. The citation style is a little inconsistent: some online citations lack issue/access dates. I don't look to have both, but I think there should be one or other in:

  • "Archbishop James Ussher". www.libraryireland.com.
  • "Atlantic Arts". www.stdonats.com.
  • "Listed Buildings - Full Report - HeritageBill Cadw Assets - Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net. (hyphen should be an en dash, too)
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "Listed Buildings – Full Report – HeritageBill Cadw Assets – Reports". cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net.
  • "LIU WRH – Collection Highlights". www.liucedarswampcollection.org.
  • "Penhow Castle". www.castlexplorer.co.uk.
  • "St Donats Arts Centre - Theatres Trust". database.theatrestrust.org.uk.
  • "St Donats Arts Centre, Theatre, Vale Of Glamorgan, Wales". www.visitwales.com.
  • "St Donat's Castle" (PDF). Could do with source info too.
  • "St Donat's Castle". www.parksandgardens.org.
  • "St Donats Castle, Castle/Fort, Vale Of Glamorgan, Wales". www.visitwales.com.
  • "St Donat's Castle; Atlantic College; United World College of the Atlantic, St Donat's". Coflein.
  • "'St Donat's: Part of the Castle, with the Watchtower Beyond', Joseph Mallord William Turner, 1798 – Tate". Tate Gallery.
  • "STRADLING, Sir John, 1st Bt. (1563–1637), of St. Donat's Castle, Glam. – History of Parliament Online". www.historyofparliamentonline.org.
    • And Stradling should be in ulc.
  • "Stradling-Carne of St Donats Castle papers". arcw.llgc.org.uk.
  • "The Old Swan". Llantwit Major History Society.

And

  • Refs 3 and 41 are one and the same
  • Ref 94 lacks a page number.
Green tickY - All the above done, I hope! KJP1 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are small presentational points, which of course need tweaking, but the sourcing seems to me otherwise admirable. Tim riley talk 21:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - Tim, very much appreciated. Quite above and beyond. I shall attend to all these later today. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley - with a rather throbbing head, I think I've now done of all these, with the exception of the bloody en-dashes. Do they matter? Is there a helpful script? Help! KJP1 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine now. I've dealt with the dashes. One last point (sorry for missing it before): refs 62 and 64 are one and the same and should be amalgamated. With that minor caveat the source review is now satisfactorily signed off. – Tim riley talk 16:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - 62 & 64 now combined. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil edit

Have read this article closely three times now; during the PR, in the interim, and in the last hour or so. Have taken the liberty of editing directly rather than a protracted back and forth, so please feel free to revert. Great stuff; I was gripped each time. Support on prose and story telling. My only remaining material gripe is that the image in the infobox is a little small; maybe Gerda could do something there. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil - Many thanks for your input and comments at PR and your enhancements and Support here. Very pleased with all of your amendments, none of which I'd want to change. With all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:St.Donats2.jpg needs a US PD tag
Green tickY - Done.
  • File:HearstAbout1910.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - Many thanks indeed for having a look at the images. The first one, I've tagged as suggested. I'm afraid I've no idea about the second as I just picked it up from Commons. It's the best there but, if necessary, I could replace it. Some of the others appear to have been released by the Library of Congress, so I suppose they'd be ok? Could you advise? Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[59]
Essentially for the given tag you need to be able to show pre-1923 publication, not just creation. If you're looking to swap images several of the ones in that Commons category meet that, eg Arena_magazine_-_Volume_35_(1906)_(14577938059).jpg or Hon._William_Randolph_Hearst,_1906.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - Done. Many thanks. It doesn't work quite so well, but unfortunately we've none of Hearst in the 1920s which would be best. Thanks indeed for the review. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Richard Nevell edit

The medieval history of the site looks a touch light compared to the 20th century, though perhaps not surprisingly given the wealth of information that is on Hearst. Have you checked Anthony Emery's Greater Medieval Houses to see what he has to say? I think it would also be worth noting the RCAHMW investigation of the site since that identified the 12th century keep which hadn't previously been appreciated. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell - Many thanks. You're of course right that it's always possible to add more. If there's something specific on the castle's medieval history that you think should be covered, I'd be delighted to include it. I don't have Emery, but my library may have a copy that I could check if you think there's something that should be included. I'm not getting anything online in relation to the RCHME. If you could point me in the direction of anything that's available, I'd very much appreciate it. KJP1 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spuregon (1993) mentions the reinterpretation. I presume it was the result of a building survey rather than desk based assessment, but it's not clear from how it's written. Perhaps the 2000 RCAHMW volume currently cited might go into more detail? If it doesn't, I think it might be a dead end as I couldn't find more in the Historic Environment Record. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell - Very helpful and many thanks. I shall have a look at the RCAHMW again tomorrow and see if I can extract something on the keep. Tantalisingly, the Spuregon is giving me the first line about St Donat's but nothing more. You don't have full access by any chance? KJP1 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell - You were right to think the RCAHMW survey might have more. It references their, on-site, identification of the original Norman stone castle and notes that this was missed in their earlier survey, undertaken in the 1960s when the castle was being reconfigured to accommodate Atlantic College. I've put two references in, at the end of the first paragraphs of the Architecture and Description and Exterior sections. I hope they meet the need but I'd be pleased to expand it if you think something more is required or if the Spurgeon source has something that would warrant inclusion? Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Have now added Emery as a source, but again, I'm afraid it focusses on the Hearst period, not the medieval! KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s. And have now added a snippet from the Spurgeon article, which draws a very nice link with the church. Many thanks indeed for your help, suggestions and interest. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's not too late for me to switch to support. Good work with the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell: KJP1 is temporarily unable to edit Wikipedia (being in a country where access is blocked), and he has asked me to record his thanks here for your support. Tim riley talk 19:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat edit

Another punter from the PR. The article has been strengthened since then, and on prose terms it passes the criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - Very much appreciated and glad you enjoyed it. For a small castle in a quiet Welsh corner, it’s had a surprisingly eventful history. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SN54129 edit

Nice article, KPG1, as perfectly sculptured as its subject  :) Just one thing really; I can...senssse a gap in the literature, particularly for your medieval coverage (which, being, a medieval castle I suggest is its most important period as a working building, but, yes, MRDA, I know!) I'm thinking, for example, Stan Awbery and Ralph Griffiths on the Stradling / St Donats connection (1967 & 1968 respectively), Graham Thomas on the family library, or R. G. Williams on aspects of the Castle's chapel and church (1935). I see you use Whittle, but she did a tihng (1999?) specifically on the Tudor gardens too. No mention of the "miracle cross" of St Donats? See T. G. Law, 1886. Basically, I just think a little more could perhaps be mined to really fill out the earlier period.
Have a good holiday KP! Try not to get rounded up with all the other subversives  ;) :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 - Hi SN54129 and glad you liked the article. The castle does have rather an extraordinary history. I'd of course be very happy to expand the medieval coverage if you think there's something significant missing. The "Miracle Cross", for example, has quite extensive coverage, e.g.[60], and I could certainly put something in. You'll have seen from the above that Richard was rightly keen to have something on recent interpretations of the castle's Norman architecture, and I think that's been dealt with. So, if there's something specific from the authorities you mention, if you could indicate what, that would be most helpful. But it will have to wait, I'm afraid, for the reasons mentioned below. I'm in Istanbul from tomorrow and I don't think they currently permit access to Wikipedia, although reports vary. We shall see. I shall certainly seek to avoid arrest! Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 - Having avoided arrest by departing just before Erdogan's big Istanbul rally, I've:
  • Added a little from Thomas on the library;
  • Included a little more on the medieval occupants and expanded the sources;
  • Referenced the "miraculous cross" with a couple of sources.
I unfortunately don't have Awbery. Is there anything in there you'd specifically like to see? If there is, I'd be most pleased to add it. I could also expand on the Whittle a little, but I think the significance of the "finest Renaissance garden in Wales" is made clear. Let me know. Thanks again and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

Ian Rose - Hi Ian, it's me nagging again. We stand at 6 Supports, with cleared image and source reviews, and comments to which I hope I've responded adequately. My issue is that I go abroad at the end of this week and won't have access to the sources for a while. If it were possible to wrap this up by Friday, that would be helpful. If it isn't, not a problem and I certainly don't want to try and rush things. I'll just let any further commentators know that they may have to wait a while for a response. With many thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this might be a bit more of a problem. Wikipedia is currently blocked where I'm going, so it may not be possible to access at all. Not sure as to the best way forward? KJP1 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the nom has garnered a good deal of support in a relatively short time, as a rule I prefer to give the community at least a couple of weeks to look things over. How long will you be away? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose - absolutely understood. It's my fault, I should have nominated sooner, or held back. I'm away until the middle of June. If responses can wait, that's fine. I'm just concerned that the current ban on Wikipedia in Turkey, I'm going to be in Istanbul, might make me completely incommunicado. What about if I put a note to that effect up here? Would that work? Sorry to be a pain. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the coords were willing to let it open until your return, and a few of us kept an eye for the easier responses on prose etc. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil - That would be really helpful. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mid-June is not a prob, by then it will still have been open barely a month. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo edit

I engaged in terms of sourcing and research quality, which were satiated by the careful description of issues in dispute in the history of the place. I do not expect a historiography section to be relevant thereby. Nor do I find any indication of a myth of a Clean Wehrmacht issue. I found the language gripping given my disinterest in stately homes and medieval sites. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo - Dear Fifelfoo, most glad you found it a gripping read and thank you for your interest and support. I have to confess to not quite getting the Clean Wermacht issue - indeed I initially wondered if you'd intended to offer Support to another article! But your final comment suggests not. If I am missing something, do let me know and I'd be very happy to make an amendment. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In April 2018 the Milhist project's Bugle covered a major problem in editorial trends, basically a tendency to sanitise social and political history, particularly of practices considered morally abhorrent, in articles. So it is something that needs an eye kept on it. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo - Ah, understood. Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2018 [61].

North Cascades National Park edit

Nominator(s): MONGO 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenced upgrading the details of this article in 2014 then took a nearly 4 year hiatus from it and recently returned and fleshed out the rest of the details. The article underwent a peer review here which is archived. The reviewer felt the history section was too long however all my previous national park related FACs have had similar or longer history sections. To provide more balance to the article I went and expanded mainly the section on Fauna as shown here in the last week since admittedly that section was weak. I feel the article is close to FA level at this point. The ref URLs are all solid and working, the article is comprehensive and on topic but it may need further fine tuning with grammar and composition. The goal is to see the article approved early enough to possibly see it on the mainpage for the park's 50th anniversary on October 2, 2018.--MONGO 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by GMG edit

Did a full read through c/e. Here are the points that I jotted down as I went, and wasn't able to immediately fix myself:

  • Mining, logging and dam construction section, last paragraph needs citation. I don't see this covered anywhere in the preceding source.
    Added source to end of last paragraph in the section
  • The sentence beginning "The North Cascades National Park Complex management activities include..." is wonky. It reads like it wanted to be a semi-colon separated list-of-lists, and then backslides into two separate sentences with a full stop, and then picks back up with "and the administrative division..." as if it was an embedded list-of-lists all along.
    Seemed like a paragraph of less than useful or necessary information so I simply removed it altogether.
  • "Many visitors that wish to see Mount Shuksan by car drive to the Heather Meadows Visitor Center in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest well outside of the park." Unless I'm mistaken, this is not a sentence.
    Took the whole car/drive wording out and adjusted it so it is no longer tedious reading
  • I left a crappy edit summary, but I did remove here a pretty sizable chunk about the park service generally, and which wasn't really about this park in particular.
    Yeah, looks fine to me now.
  • The last sentence in the last paragraph of the Glaciers section needs a citation. It does not appear to be contained in the previous citation.
    Repositioned from being a standalone paragraph at end to being added to tail of first paragraph and after rephrasing, added a reference
  • The last sentence in the second paragraph of the Camping, hiking and mountaineering section needs a citation. It does not appear to be covered in the previous citation.
    Rewrote this bit of information and referenced it.

GMGtalk 17:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent copyediting and much appreciated. MOS for whether to use US or U.S. indicates the most current form is US now but either is fine and I am not beholden to either so long as we have consistency. I will address other concerns you have mentioned in next few days. Thank you for the deep copyediting, correcting some grammar and links as well as punctuation and your thoughts!--MONGO 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably actually prefer "US" naturally when writing, but yes, the important thing is that it's consistent either way. And....I think my third bullet is a misreading actually. If you put a comma after "car", then it makes "drive" the verb, whereas I was interpreting it as if...it was spoken almost hyphenated..."that wish to see the mount by car-drive", as one would say "you can go by bus, train, or scenic car ride", where I guess drive is part of a noun phrase, rather than the first verb in the next clause. GMGtalk 23:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to drop the ball on this one. Some follow up minor notes: The Sooty Grouse picture is a little out of place, since it's not actually mentioned in the article. There's also some minor formatting issues around the Glaciers section, where the image above causes significant white space on wide screen monitors, and the images on the right start to stack significantly. Probably could use some artful arranging/pruning. I'll try to give it another thorough once over tomorrow. GMGtalk 01:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added sooty grouse to the article body and reposition some images to left margin to avoid stacking issues.
  • Looking at the small sub-section on attractions, the following do not appear to be backed up by their immediately following citations:
  • few maintained buildings and roads within the two units of the park
I simply removed it
  • popular with backpackers and mountain climbers
Does this really need a reference?
  • Picket Ranges, Mount Triumph, Eldorado Peak
  • popular with climbers due to glaciation and technical rock
  • at 9,127 ft (2,782 m) is the second highest peak in the park
Have done a complete reorganization of the last sections pertaining to these issues
GMGtalk 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camping, hiking and mountaineering
  • strictly regulated Doesn't seem to be in the source. Can't really say this in WP's voice as commentary on the bare facts of the permitting system. Need a source that itself evaluates the system as strict, otherwise WP:OR and whatnot.
Reworded for clarity and moved ref to support. See: [62]
  • the size of parties allowed Not in source, likely intended to point to the previous source. But would still need commentary for any descriptors as per above.
Moved ref to support wording. See: [63]
  • Since the vast majority of the park is designated wilderness, the goal is to ensure all hikers and backcountry travelers enjoy the opportunities for solitude. I don't see anything in the source that addresses either the proportion of the park designated as wilderness, or the goal of the park being primarily the enjoyment of solitude.
Moved reference up and adjusted wording. See: [64]
  • Unlike most national parks, there is no entrance fee at North Cascades The source backs up the no fee part, but doesn't back up the "Unlike most national parks" part.
Changed most to some and added ref as shown here: [65]
  • Bicycles are allowed in the park but only on the same roads that vehicles are allowed on. There is no mountain bike access allowed on hiking trails. Source doesn't seem to say anything about bikes at all.
The source used backs up what is written and is the same source as this one
  • sturdy quality I'm not sure if this is maybe a technical climbing term. The source does say "climbing routes of high quality" but it's not totally clear that translate one to one to "sturdy".
Not sure what the issue is with this. I suppose I can change the wording. See: [66]
  • ice climbing...bouldering...above the tree line None of these appear to be covered in the cited source.
Just removed it as it kind of happens without saying since climbing is done there and sometimes that mean crossing glacier and ice, etc.
GMGtalk 13:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will look these over but I am not putting a reference after every single sentence and every single word that is merely a derivative of a source word to avoid close paraphrasing.
No sorry, that's not what I'm suggesting. I hate mid sentence citations and try to avoid them at all costs. But a lot of these just aren't covered in the sources. GMGtalk 16:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on these and have most addressed by end of day.MONGO 17:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really just waiting on other's comments. I'm probably not qualified to write about the more technical subjects on an FA level or to judge them. GMGtalk 19:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the North Cascades map
  • File:Nlaka'pamux.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published?
  • File:Stephen_Mather_1916.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:Lowercurtis.jpg: source for 1985 extent? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Increased display size of North Cascades map
    • File:Nlaka'pamux.jpg appears to be owned by the Canadian Museum of history so I removed the image
    • Switched Stephen Mather image with one that is used on the National Park Service website and updated url on Commons page to show origination and that is it in the public domaain
    • Lowercurtis image source url and links added. The image was uploaded and released to the public domain by Mauri S. Pelto (User:Peltoms)

Support from Gerda edit

Thank you for great nature! Just a few comments, while I read:

Lead

  • For a newcomer to the topic, consider to first say mountain ranges first, than sizes.

Modern exploration

  • modern meaning 1811? interesting ;)

Establishing the national park

  • or Establishing the National Park? - It's this specific one, no?

That's it. Again thank you, Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Gerda. Have made some minor adjustments.

Coordinator comment: Hi MONGO, this seems to have stalled in recent times and will be archived if it doesn't attract some additional review soon. I've added it to the Urgents list. --Laser brain (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to seek out other old FACs and see if I can help out there to also get them moving. Seems the FAC arena is lacking enough reviewers. I cannot request anyone to come and make suggestions as it is totally contrary to my way of going about this sort of thing.--MONGO 01:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Hopefully adding to the urgents list will prod some interest. We've gotten complaints in the past about nominations being suddenly archived or nominators not being sure how much time they have left, so I've been experimenting with leaving some low-overhead friendly notes. --Laser brain (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I don't have the time to commit to a complete review at the moment, but I gravitated toward the climate section (as usual) and found some things that don't sit well.
  • The western slopes receive 76 inches (190 cm) more moisture than the eastern slopes, which works out to more than 400 in (1,000 cm) of snow falling in the west more than the east. - The source doesn't support the implication that snowfall accounts for the entire 76-inch difference in precipitation. If 76 inches of liquid "worked out" to 407" of snow, that would require an implausibly wet 5:1 ratio. Maybe simply switching out "works out to" → "contributes to" would suffice.
  • On the western slopes, at elevations between 1,000 and 4,000 ft (300 and 1,220 m), snowfall depths range from 50-to-75 in (130-to-190 cm) annually. Above 4,000 ft (1,200 m) snowfall depths of 400 to 600 in (1,000 to 1,500 cm) are normal. - I'm not sure what "annually" means here, since the source says only 7k+ ft peaks retain snowpack year-round. Also, the suggestion that typical snowdepth increases from 75 to 400 inches as soon as you cross the 4,000 foot contour line is unsupported and, again, implausible. Source discusses a gradual increase starting from the "lowest elevations."
  • Since the 1950s, there has been a 5 °F (−15 °C) mean winter minimum temperature increase at elevations above 4,000 ft (1,200 m). - The {{convert}} template doesn't work here, since F and C convert differently for temperature values than they do for increments; 5F warmer corresponds to an increase in about 3C (you'd have to check the math).
  • it is warmer than other regions at a similar latitude further inland - You want "farther" (physical distance), not "further" (rhetorical).
  • Altitude and whether one is in the eastern or western sections of the park can greatly influence the overall mean temperatures. - This could be turned into something vastly more succinct, like "Altitude and location within the park..."

This relatively small section was a bit clunky, so I'm hoping it's not representative of the entire article. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • have addressed your concerns listed above by making the following changes:[67] and [68]

CommentsSupport by Jens Lallensack edit

I read through half of the article by now. While most reads well without much to nitpick for me, I feel that certain sections, namely the ones about the paleoindians and the geology (from those I already read), are not up to the standards yet. Details below.

  • The map in the infobox shows all of the US, making it difficult to understand the exact location of the park (e.g., its distance to the see). While I had some problems imagining the geography since the "geography" section does only appear in the middle of the article. The infobox of the featured article Redwood National and State Parks does show the state per default, with an option to show the whole country. Maybe these options would be a good addition to this article as well?
Updated infobox to show various maps
  • Historians believe human history in the region – I would remove the "Historians believe", its a bit weird and doesn't add anything.
Human history removed
  • Historians believe human history in the region that is now part of North Cascades National Park – Which part of the National Park? Or do you mean that the National Park is part of the region?
Changed "Human history in the region that is now part of North Cascades National Park dates back to the end of the last glacial period, and the region has been continuously inhabited for the last 8-10,000 years" to "Human history in North Cascades National Park and the surrounding region begins 8-10,000 years ago, after the end of the last glacial period."
  • Hozomeen chert – isn't that just the name for the local chert occurrence? I would just link to chert.
done
  • Hozomeen chert is part of the archaeological record throughout the Skagit River Valley – do you mean blades made out of the material?
adjusted for wording as seen in this diff: [69]
  • Is microflakes the same as micro blades? Maybe use the same word to avoid confusion.
Amended as shown here: [70]
  • indicating people visited the region if for no other purpose than to obtain raw materials – I assume that "region" refers to the National Park. This is confusing, as it was also stated that "the region has been continuously inhabited for the last 8-10,000 years." "Inhabited" is more than just "visiting".
I simply removed the part about visiting the region as shown in this diff: [71]
  • The micro blades are part of an archeological assemblage – Does this assemblage refers to the entire park?
I would assume so since there are 260 sites identified in the park there are probably others outside the park as well. The indigenous people did not have a formal park boundary as we have today, nor is it likely they could even ponder 10K years ago that there would someday be a Canada and a United States. They can be assumed to have traveled between these regions, seeking out raw materials and food stuffs. In most parks I have written about in this region and the northern Rockies, local natives would venture into the mountains to seek out things just mentioned, but the winters, especially in higher elevations, were no more inviting (probably less so then) than now and surely they would retreat to lower elevations during winter. The problem is this is not spelled out well in the refs I have available so without making a vast assumption I cannot back up, we have this.
  • Prehistoric micro blades from 9,600 years ago have been discovered at Cascade Pass, a mountain pass that connects the western lowlands to the interior regions of the park and the Stehekin River Valley. The micro blades are part of an archeological assemblage that includes five distinct cultural periods, indicating that people were traveling into the mountains nearly 10,000 years ago.[7] The archeological excavation at Cascade Pass is one of 260 prehistoric sites that have been identified in the park.[8] – I don't quite understand what I should get from this. If there are 260 prehistoric sites in the park, why are you elaborating on a single one, what is the significance of it? And then, I miss information on the other prehistoric sites; are these exclusively micro blades, or is there more?
This was altered as shown in these diff: [72] and [73]
  • Please mention that Skagits are a coastal tribe living in the west right at their first mention, I found it quite hard to understand the geographic relationships between the tribes as this is only mentioned at the end of that discussion.
added "Residing mainly to the west of the park near Puget Sound, the Skagits lived in settlements..."
  • Did/do the tribes live within the borders of the current park? Are there any archaeological finds indicating settlements?
As mentioned in the article, it is most likely they resided only seasonally, during the summer.
  • The first sentences in "park management" might be better suited for the section "geography", as they are about the topic.
  • Maybe (not sure here) add the geographic overview right to the beginning of the article? Would help a lot to know the geography first.
Previous FA level articles on National Parks I have been the primary contributor have the human history and park creation sections first. This may not be the best way to do it, but has been adequate for previous FAs
  • the North Cascades are composed primarily of Mesozoic crystalline and metamorphic rocks.[43] The exposed rocks predate the middle Devonian and are approximately 400 million years old. – This is contradicting itself, as the Devonian is older than the Mesozoic.
All but completely rewrote the section and it hopefully is easier to read and better explains things now
  • The North Cascades are the northern section of the Cascade Range – this info could be easily incorporated into the previous sentence which is talking about the sections, for conciseness.
I adjusted this slightly
  • I would use "younger" instead of "newer" when talking about rocks.
done
  • the vertical relief is significant, averaging between 4,000 and 6,000 ft (1,200 and 1,800 m) – this info (with the same numbers) were already given.
Rewrote this sentence [74]
  • the heavier basaltic rocks of the ocean floor had started to push the lighter granitic rocks – The reader might not know where the ocean floor is coming from all of the sudden. The section fails to give the general picture of the geologic development. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed these issues better now I hope see the alterations in these edit:}} [75]
  • I continue with additional comments first and will answer to the above later.
  • Why did you change the spelling of the box title to something different from the article title?
This was just a typo and now corrected
  • The geology section is much improved, thank you very much. Only few more nitpicks here. You write A complex assemblage of various rocks and formations – but formations are large-scale units of rocks (i.e., formations consist of rocks), so maybe remove the "rocks".
Did a swap of words to clarify: [76]
  • rocks deep underground near the collusion zone became crystalized – most rocks are consisting of crystals; maybe better "recrystalized"?
I believe this has been addressed now
  • while others were formed into granitic rocks – could you check this again? Granite usually forms from melt, not from other rocks.
As in last comment above, wording altered for specifics
  • The uplifted rocks eroded mostly away, however 40 million years ago the heavier basaltic rocks of the ocean floor had started to push the lighter granitic rocks that are the core of the mountains upward; a process that is ongoing – Is this referring to the oceanic crust of the pacific, which is being subducted under the continental crust?
This is complex as mentioned. I could find no reference to support that the mountains are still rising due to subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate, which is the culprit that has created the volcanic portions of the Cascade Range which lies west of he park. Common logic would suggest that this same subduction also formed the existing North Cascades but I have not found that specific mention anywhere
  • I think it would really help to include some basic information on the geography in the lead (e.g., that the nationalpark is divided into a northern and southern part by the Skagit river).
Done: [77]
  • The University of Washington – is "The" part of a name and has to be capitalized?
was a typo, fixed
  • In the Thunder Creek watershed alone, this decreased runoff amounts to a loss of 30 percent of the summer streamflow. – unclear: Is this since 1971, or since the end of the Little Ice age?
Replaced entire sentence: [78]
  • For the last section on the glaciers, I think it might make sense to discuss the long-term losses (since the little ice age) first and the more recent losses last.
  • 9,000 ft (2,700 m) vertical feet – there appears to be one "feet" to much
fixed
  • I would generally link species in the image captions
good idea, done
  • Not sure if it makes sense to include an image of the Common Bearberry when this species is not discussed in the text at all? Maybe replace with one of the important trees, which are broadly discussed.
I can add it. I try and use images taken in the park itself and this one was
  • At what elevation does the White bark pine occur? Since you are discussing the elevation of the other trees as well.
Added to this and cited: [79]
  • The article appears to suggest that there are two species of wolfes (Timber wolf and gray wolf), but the Timer is a subspecies of the Gray.
adjusted now
  • I'm not sure about your mammal list (including 75 mammal species such as the timber wolf, coyote, bobcat, Canada lynx, cougar, moose, elk, river otter, hoary marmot, pika, mountain goat and black bear). There appears to be no obvious reasoning behind it, kind of a arbitrary list, and since you are mentioning the black bear but not the grizzly, I first thought that there is no grizzly.
It is a random sample as this is not a list article so the species listed could be changed, altered, so long as they are actually found in the park. Is random an issue? Grizzlies do not reside in the park for all basic purposes...sightings are nearly nonexistent so why include them with other commonly more found species? Albeit the lynx and cougar are rarely seen too, but they are not virtually nonexistent.
Well, I have nothing against a well-chosen collection, but I feel that a completely random list is of little help. I would: 1) remove the wolf (if the grizzly is not included, the wolf, which you stated is practically non-existent, should be removed also). 2) State the scope of the list. For example: "Notable species frequently seen in the park include …" or "The park is best known for its occurrences of …"; I think this would help the reader to understand what he can expect to find in the list. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection I have made a much more concerted effort to parcel the mammal species into their orders/families and rearranged the paragraph wording better as shown here: [80]
  • You are mentioning 10 species of bats, but no word about the other mammal clades. How many rodents, for example?
I thought that there were 10 species of bats to be singularly impressive factoid but rodents include beavers, gophers, mice, etc...so its a big Order of critters
  • Is there no beaver? A very significant species, both from an ecologically and popular point of view.
I can add it but there is not any easily located details about where they are, how many etc.
Mentioning it in the list is enough I think, thank you.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the climate section, wouldn't it make sense to discuss the average temperatures (last paragraph) before the detailed discussion about the amount of snow (second paragraph)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow is the interesting detail about the climate so I put it first.
  • You are discussing two animal species in great detail: the grizzly and the wolverine. But why not discussing the wolf as well, isn't it as significant? There must be similar campaigns for it, as it was also extirpated from the region but reintroduced again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that there is no plans to do a wolf reintroduction in the park. To maintain summary style I decided to not go into great depth on each rare mammal species so I chose two of probable interest to most readers. The wolf is virtually nonexistent. I made some alterations though: [81]
  • There have been few things that made me wonder, triggering me to check some sources:
    • Source #4: I couldn't find most of the information in this source. For example, Hozomeen chert is not mentioned, neither are Skagit tribes (Especially, I would like to see a source for "Paleo-Indian Native American ancestors of Skagit tribes", as I don't see how one could relate the Paleo Indians to this but not other tribes).
Moved a reference up to support the Hozomeen Chert discussion [82] and [83]
    • Source #106: I couldn't find the claim made in the article that the haze is caused by farming and construction. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
added a ref to support that [84]
But your new source lists "Wood-burning stoves, construction, farming, industry, forest fires, mining and volcanoes" as origins for air particles, so construction and farming are not the only sources as the article seems to suggest, and there is no hint that those two would be the major sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the wording now to better reflect the available reference as shown her: [85]
  • I would state where in the park "Cascade Pass" is, as you give the same information for other points of interest. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • I think this is pretty much it, I'm close to supporting now, waiting for the remaining points to be addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support from Cas Liber edit

Looking now...

  • Environmentalists then campaigned to preserve the remaining wildness of the region... - should that be "wilderness"...?
  • Rarely seen mammals like the wolf is listed as endangered, while the grizzly bear is listed as threatened, though sightings of both are extremely uncommon to nonexistant - this sentence seems a bit circular with it repeating "rarely seen" ..."sightings". Can you rejig it?
  • North Cascade National Park has management plans in place to return grizzly bears to the park but not wolves, as the latter is seen as likely to reestablish itself naturally over time - "wolves" and "themselves" or "wolf"..."itself"....

Otherwise looking good comprehensiveness= and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think these issues are covered now. Admit it might still need a tweak or two, Thank you for the copyedits
I am happy, but others might still find some prose improvements. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John edit

Super article! I only read it for the prose, and I'd say it's not quite there yet. I will post a fuller review. --John (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost finished copyedit. "Collusion"? "farenheit"? Some of these errors are non-trivial. I've gone for US over U.S. throughout; abbreviation needs to be consistent. --John (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was my first pass. Please inspect. --John (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty deep copyedit and I thank you. "Collusion" is a correctly spelled but is the wrong word altogether of course so Word missed it even though I should not have. I may not have run some sections through spellcheck and that explains the misspelling of "farenheit". US vs U.S. only matters if were talking about it being used as an adjective or a noun. I am indifferent and as MoS states, consistency is paramount. In official titles like "US Army Captain" it simply looks better to have it as "U.S. Army Captain" but that's an opinion not a standard I do not think. "Archaeology" with the second "a" is preferred in formal writing so good catch on that too.MONGO (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, thank you for writing such an interesting article. I now support, but please check this further series of copyedits. Alt-text, while no longer essential for FA, makes the articles more accessible to users of screen reader technology and should always be used. --John (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I...had not considered that. Thank you for that addition and the further copyedits. makes me think other FAs I have done should have this alt text too.MONGO (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

(Inadvertently posted to the closed peer review page, transferred from there. Apologies!)

  • The external links checker tool indicates that all links are working (although it can't be guaranteed 100% accurate)
  • However, I did notice that one link (ref 14) doesn't go to a page entitled "Geology Fieldnotes". Can you check?
  • Also, in ref 6. p. 323 is not in the google preview so the link is meaningless
  • Refs 35–38: "Wilderness Connect" appears to be a work of the University of Montana
  • Ref 129: source is behind a paywall, so you need to add the (subscription required) template
  • General point: ISBNs should be presentled uniformly, preferably in hyphenated format

I notice that about three-quarters of the refs are to sources published by the National Parks Service, which I suppose is inevitable with a topic like this. Subject to my points above, the references look well ordered and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will address these points in next day or two..thank you
I believe I have addressed the points you brought up in this series of edits: [86]
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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2018 [87].

SMS Hessen edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another German battleship article at FAC - this one was the only member of her class to see action at the Battle of Jutland, and she was the oldest battleship on either side present. Over the course of a very long career, she served under three different German navies along with the Soviet Navy. I initially wrote this article eight years ago before completely rewriting it last year; it has since passed a MILHIST A-class review. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I forgot to actually transclude the nomination until now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 edit

A few observations from me:

  • suggest "covered the retreat of the battered German battlecruisers away from the British battlecruiser squadron.
    • Done
  • suggest grammar tweak "After Jutland revealed how inadequate pre-dreadnoughts like Hessen were in the face of more modern weapons, and she..."
    • How about "so" instead of "and"? "and she and her sisters" sounds repetitive to me.
  • suggest "Re-armed, she served with the fleet in the 1920s and early 1930s..."
    • Good idea
  • I think the mention of HMS Dreadnought should be cut from where it is and inserted into the service history in the appropriate chronological point. It would fit perfectly at the end of the first para.
    • To me, it makes more sense in the design section, since it has more to do with technical characteristics than it does a specific event in the ship's activities
      • I find it jars when we haven't even got her to sea and we're being told she is going to be obsolete, but she didn't become such until after she went to sea. But it is a fairly minor matter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the body, power is initially given in metric horsepower, but in ihp in the infobox
    • Good catch
  • the number of TTs is not given in infobox
    • Fixed
  • perhaps link North Sea?
    • Done
  • Prince Heinrich? What did he have to do with naval matters? link?
    • Good catch - after writing so many of these, I can forget what I've unpacked and what I haven't sometimes
  • "latest underwater weapons" is this a euphemism for submarines, mines and torpedoes? Perhaps just say that, as it begs the question.
    • Good idea
  • link Skagerrak at first mention
    • Done
  • when it says " the oldest battleship in service with the main fleet", perhaps add in there what had happened to her sisters?
    • Added a line on this
  • suggest "18 April to 9 May 1929"
    • Done

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking these, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Factotem edit

On Prose:

Design

  • ...all mounted submerged in the hull Not sure "submerged" is the right word here. Do you mean "under the waterline"?
    • How about "below the waterline"?
Even better. Factotem (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her armored belt was 110 to 250 millimeters (4.3 to 9.8 in) thick, with the heavier armor in the central portion that protected her magazines and propulsion machinery spaces, and the thinner plating at the ends of the hull Literally read, this says that the central portion protected the magazines etc., but I suspect you mean the heavier armour there was doing the protection. Also, "ends of the hull" could be written better. Maybe "Her armored belt was 110 to 250 millimeters (4.3 to 9.8 in) thick, the heavier armor in the central portion protecting her magazines and propulsion machinery, and the thinner plating at either end of the hull"? This also eliminates the troublesome use of "with" as a conjunction and the unnecessary "spaces".
    • That works for me.

Pre-war career

  • ...shipyard sea trials... Is this correct? Sea trials in the confines of a shipyard? Looks like an oxymoron to me.
    • Yeah, that's correct - the builder conducted trials of its own before it delivered the ship to the navy.
  • ... the fleet assembled for the annual autumn fleet maneuvers, held with the bulk of the fleet... If the fleet assembled, then "held with the bulk of the fleet" is just tautology.
    • Good point.
  • Hessen won the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) for excellent shooting in the II Squadron... Last part reads a bit awkwardly to me. I'm not sure you need the definite article, but more importantly, it reads as if the Hessen fired its guns into the rest of II Squadron. Is it important to include II Squadron in the assertion? You might be better simply to state "Hessen won the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) for excellent shooting".
    • The reason for including the squadron was that the Kaiser awarded a prize for each squadron, so
Then maybe "Hessen was the II Squadron winner of the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) for excellent shooting"? Factotem (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me.
  • The year 1914 began uneventfully, with the only event of note... If there was even one notable event, you cannot describe the year as uneventful. Maybe "The year 1914 began quietly..."?
    • I was thinking that the uneventful part was the beginning of the year - the one event noted was in May.
You're still basically saying "It was uneventful, except for the event in May". It's contradictory and jarring. If my suggestion is not to your taste, then maybe "The year 1914 was uneventful until May, when..."? Factotem (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense - I went with your original suggestion.

World War I

  • ...scheduled to be withdrawn to reserve status... Would it be more correct to say either that it was "downgraded to reserve status" or "withdrawn into the reserve"?
    • I like the latter option.
  • ...with her place in the II Squadron... I get confused about this with army units. Is it correct to use the definite article here? I know that it would be wrong to use it when talking about army company-level formations, which are, I believe, analogous to naval squadrons.
    • I think you're right - these should be gone now.

Battle of Jutland

  • At 03:07, Hessen narrowly avoided a torpedo, but Pommern, the ship directly ahead of Hessen, was not so lucky. At 03:10, Pommern was struck by at least one torpedo, which is believed to have detonated one of the ship's 6.7 in (17 cm) shell magazines, destroying the ship. Hessen was undamaged. POV; it was lucky for the British. Also not sure that we need to know timings to the minute, and we can infer that Hessen was not damaged. Maybe "Hessen narrowly avoided a torpedo, but directly ahead, Pommern was struck by at least one, which is believed to have detonated one of her 6.7 in (17 cm) shell magazines, destroying the ship."?
    • I've adopted most of that, though I left the first time in and the bit about Hessen being undamaged - my point there was that Hessen wasn't struck by any debris from Pommern (for instance, when Liberté blew up in 1911, the explosion did this to another battleship moored a couple hundred yards away)
Are ships so frequently damaged by debris from other ships exploding that you have to state explicitly that Hessen wasn't damaged? It seems so odd. You've already stated that Hessen avoided a torpedo, and that it was the Pommern that was hit. I think that we can assume that Hessen wasn't damaged, and I'm not sure that if you left that out there would be anybody wondering whether the Hessen was damaged Factotem (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that's a fair assumption.
  • In the above, you've reversed the unit of measure order ("6.7 in (17 cm)"). Most of the article leads with cm and converts to inches. It's also reversed when you discuss the armament of HMS Dreadnought. That's understandable, I guess, given the nationality, but I suspect that consistency takes priority.
    • Fixed both
  • Aboard Hessen, it was assumed that a submarine had destroyed Pommern; at 03:12 Hessen fired her main battery at an imagined submarine.[32] Hessen and several other battleships engaged imaginary submarines again at 05:06, and again at 05:13. -> "Aboard Hessen, it was assumed that a submarine had destroyed Pommern, and at 03:12 she fired her main battery at what was believed to be the target.[32] She and several other battleships engaged imaginary submarines again at 05:06 and 05:13."?
    • I don't know that we can make the leap that Hessen's gunners believed the submarine they thought they saw was the one that had sunk Pommern. But I have replaced the last "Hessen" with "she" to avoid some redundancy.

That's all from me on prose. Factotem (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • I understand the preference at FAC is to have consistent ISBN formats. You have a mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.
    • These should be fixed now
  • Minor quibble: ISBN provided for Campbell's Jutland : an analysis of the fighting appears to refer to the US edition published by Lyons Press in NY. British edition has the ISBN 9780851777504.
    • I'll have to take a look at what my hard copy has.
  • The ASIN number for both volumes of Die Deutschen Kriegschiffe is duplicated. Don't they have unique IDs? Also, the ASIN link results in an error.
    • These have been swapped for ISBNs - when I first started using the book, I had cribbed the citations from other articles where it had been used, which had the ASIN numbers in them.

Spotchecks

Online access was available to me for only three refs:

  • Refs #2 (Staff p. 4) & #10 (Staff p. 7) OK
  • Ref #41 (Williams p. 231) The source does not itself establish any link between the gun displayed at the Australian War Memorial and the Hessen specifically. It states only that the gun was "...designed for a German class of battle-cruiser already obsolete in 1914..."
    • That citation is just for the fact that the Amiens Gun is preserved at the AWM - the citation to François covers the fact that the Amiens Gun came from Hessen.
Suggest, then, that you move the Francios ref to the end as well. That way you're fully covered. Factotem (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness

That works for me. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine as far as I can ascertain. I googled "sms hessen" for books, and found only Unmanned Systems of World Wars I and II and Battles at Sea in World War I - Jutland to be relevant. Both have some information relating to the ship, but nothing that is not already covered in the article. Factotem (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking all of this, Factotem - it's much appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • "the II Squadron": Not taking a position, but be consistent with "the".
    • I'm not sure what you're referring to on this one - I had removed all of them before you copyedited the article, and the only thing I'm finding now is Factotem's suggested wording on the Schiesspreis (see above), but I wouldn't think that situation would apply.
      • I found one and made the edit, check it please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see why I wasn't finding it - I was searching for "the I" in the edit window - it was the first one, which was linked. Thanks Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the "Run to the North",": My interpretation of WP:INTEXT is that either the quote marks need to be dropped (and possibly some text can be added), or the source of the quote needs to be attributed.
    • It's the name for that phase of the battle, not a quote.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • Link squadron, steamship, Elbe, admiral, Altenbruch, round
    • All done.
  • I think that mentioning her position in the battleline and assignment to II Battle Squadron in the lede is a little too much detail.
    • Yeah, that's a good point
  • at the Germaniawerft shipyard?
    • fixed
  • construction number is probably better rendered and linked as yard number--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo edit

Observations around 1b 1c 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cassell Military Paperbacks appears to be a Series, rather than a publisher. The publisher would be Cassell. Correspondingly, sometimes it assists the reader to know which particular Osprey series a work was published in, some are better than others.
    • Fixed Cassell and added the series for the two Osprey books
  • Source variety is good for the narrative being representative of correct synthesis of scholarly consensus
  • Q: A number of grognard presses have been used. Is there any risk of the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, obviously transposed onto the Kaiserlich Marine, here? (I'm asking this question of all military history articles, of all susceptibility to black/white myths)
    • Not that I'd imagine for a ship like this. The thing I'd be concerned about with German ships (and this holds true for all of the colonial powers, of course) would be the colonial cruisers of the late 19th and early 20th century, since their crews might well have been involved with imperialist repression of colonized peoples, which modern historians might not be so keen to discuss.
  • Q: Were any historiographical issues of note raised in your reading? I do know this is unlikely with SMS Hessen. (I'm asking this question of all historical articles).
    • No, the German Imperial Navy and the naval campaign of WWI isn't a particularly controversial topic. There are still arguments on the British side (Brooks' and Sumida's arguments about British fire control come to mind), but this article doesn't discuss any of that. Thanks Fifelfoo. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2018 [88].

Helicopter 66 edit

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a single U.S. Navy helicopter that has been called "one of the most famous, or at least most iconic, helicopters in history". I hesitated to nominate this for FA consideration as it's on the shorter side of articles here. That said, this is a unique entry among vehicular articles in that it is about a single vehicle that was used for a total of 3200 hours (about four months of use) and had a crew of four people. As a result, it produced much less recorded history than a cruiser or battleship which might have seen decades of use by a crew of hundreds or thousands. The article is GA-classed and was recently passed to A-class. Chetsford (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I reviewed this at the A-class review and found it to be engaging, well-written, and presumably as well researched as is possible for an article on an individual helicopter. It's short, but it doesn't obviously leave the reader wanting. I think it meets the criteria. I like articles on obscure subjects like a single helicopter. The only thing I might suggest is to include it in List of individual aircraft and add a link to that list in the see also. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much! I've added the list to the see also and concurrently added Helicopter 66 to the list. Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - fixed! Chetsford (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk edit

  • I'll review this soon. At first glance, why do you use a painting instead of a photo in the infobox? It would seem more appropriate to swap position with the image under design (and then remove the pixel size forcing of the infobox image). FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk - thanks for the comment. I've replaced the image per your suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could still be room for the painting elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the two photos under design and history could also have years stated in the captions.
  • "the Navy began the practice of repainting Helicopter 740 as Helicopter 66 for the later recovery missions in which it participated" Does this mean it was repainted for each separate occasion, and back again when succeeding? Could be clarified.
  • The Apollo missions could be linked n the image captions.
  • "In September 1969 German singer Manuela" Link her.
  • "covered the next year by Samantha" Introduce her.
  • "was cited by Laura Lynn" Likewise.
  • Any reason why you link to the Samantha version of the song rather than the supposedly original Manuela version[89] under external links?
FunkMonk - thanks much for your review. I've made all these updates, but please let me know if you notice I've missed anything. Chetsford (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM edit

Not much to nitpick I have to say.

  • Suggest providing engine power information in the design section
  • Suggest linking Jones at first mention in the body

That's it. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - both done! Chetsford (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment: Hi Chetsford, has this had a source review? Also, if this is your first potential FA it will also need a spot-check against cited sources for accuracy and plagiarism. Please request such in the source check request box on WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain - thanks much, I've just added the source review request. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Ref 17: Can you clarify the publisher? The source is a facsimile report, with no indication of its origin or authority.
  • Ref 23: This Meccano Magazine is dubbed the "Space Recovery Special", though I can't see anything in the list of contents to justify this. As the magazine is paginated, can you supply the page numbers for your two citations?
  • A very petty point, which I won't insist on, is that the ISBNs of the books could be standardised into modern 13-digit format.

All links working. The sources appear to be in good order and subject the above are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton - thanks so much. I've done #2 and #3. For #1, I've updated it as indicated in this footnote.[1] This is from a link originally contained in this article. LMK if that works! Chetsford (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Aircraft Accident Report". The Space Review (Original U.S. Navy accident report scanned and uploaded by The Space Review.). United States Navy aircraft mishap board. pp. 1–4. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 7, 2018. Retrieved February 7, 2018 – via The Space Review.
  • Support on 1c checked 1c HQRS quality, sources versus claims and scope. PRIMARY use is appropriate. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2018 (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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2018 [90].

2nd Red Banner Army edit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a field army of the Soviet Red Army during World War II, which served in the Far East and saw combat during the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The article passed GA and a Milhist A-Class review before I nominated it. Kges1901 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • I don't generally check links, and I'm not checking them here. The percentage of red links in this article may or may not be a problem at FAC.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ivan_Konev_c._1945.jpg: not seeing that license on the source page? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with File:Ivan Konev 2.jpg, a portrait from mil.ru. Kges1901 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

  • The lead seems short for an article of this length. Could be useful to include a second paragraph, maybe noting that it underwent multiple changes of how it was composed, or specific objectives during the Manchuria campaign?
  • Should perhaps include a transliteration of the Russian name.
  • "...the far eastern frontiers of the Soviet Union." Shouldn't "far eastern" be capitalised here, as it refers to a distinct geographic region of the USSR?
  • The first sentence of the "Before 1941" section reads awkwardly, with the "due to increased tensions with Japan" at the end. I'd move that clause up, perhaps like "Due to increased tensions with Japan, the 2nd Army was created in 1938."
  • Though it's linked, feel that "komkor" should have a translation provided.
  • "...which both inherited the front's Order of the Red Banner." This reads oddly, so should be clarified they each were awarded the order.
  • "The 2nd Independent Red Banner Army (2nd OKA)..." This the first mention of this name, so if it is the same as the 2nd Army it needs to be made clear.
  • "In September, the front was dissolved and its troops were split into two independent armies, which both inherited the front's Order of the Red Banner." This sentence comes in the middle of a description of the army (or so it seems), and seems more appropriate to move it either to the end of this paragraph, or to the start of the new one. Just makes it flow better.
  • I'd like to keep it in chronological order. Kges1901 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, on 22 June 1941, the 59th Tank Division and 69th Motorized Division were transferred by rail west to the front in accordance with a directive dated 25 June." Can be written clearer, something like: "Follwoing the beginning of Operation Barbarossa ... a directive dated 25 June transferred the 59th and 69th Divisions by rail to the western front."
  • "On 22 June the army also included the 101st Blagoveshchensk and the Ust-Bureysk fortified regions." This is somewhat unclear, and is better written like "the 101st and Ust-Bureysk were incorporated into the army on 22 June" (this seems like a response to Barbarossa, which if so could be added at the end).
  • Clarified, moved to the end of the next period because it seems out of place. Kges1901 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and remaining units (including the 3rd Fighter Aviation Regiment) were directly subordinated to the Air Force (VVS) of the 2nd KA." Better written as "the remaining unites were made directly subordinate to the Air Force."
  • "In August the 95th Mixed Aviation Division, which became the 95th Fighter Aviation Division (IAD) by 1 September, was formed in the VVS of the 2nd KA." Change to "In August the 95th Division was formed in the VVS; it became the 95th IAD by 1 September.
  • "In July, the 96th and 204th Rifle Divisions were shipped to the front..." Clarify what front, as both the Western and Far Eastern have been noted throughout.
  • Done, I decided to standardize on Eastern Front since that is what is first linked. Kges1901 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 1943, the 1st and 2nd Amur tank brigades were formed in the army from its separate tank battalions, and in June, the 1st was merged into the 2nd. The latter became the 258th Tank Brigade in July" Can be simplified: "In April 1943 the 1st and 2nd brigades were formed; in June the 1st was merged into the 2nd, becoming the 258th in July."
  • "The army's three rifle divisions were at around 90% of their nominal strength..." Is 90% notable for some reason? Without context it seems odd to note that.
  • I felt that it was significant because it shows the manpower strength of the army. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aihun, Sunwu, and Hsunho were to be captured by the end of 11 August." Does that need to be in future tense? Can simply say "Aihun, Sunwu, and Hsunho were captured by the end of 11 August.
  • Clarified - scheduled/didn't actually happen. Kges1901 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anyway to either expand the postwar section, or include it in the previous section? A two-sentence section for a feature article seems a little small.
  • Not a major issue, but there does seem to be a lot of red links throughout the article. A quick look through the Russian version of the article shows some of them exist there, would it be possible to do so here? This is not a factor in the overall status of the article, but more an observation. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good progress so far, make sure to ping me when it's all done, and I'll take another look at it. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this in some detail at GAN. A few points from me:

  • in the "Before 1941" section, there are a succession of sentences ending in "the army". Some could be dispensed with, perhaps mix up the language a bit, eg "formation"?
  • weird that one fortified region is numbered and the other is not (per 101st Blagoveshchensk). Makes me suspect that the 101st Blagoveshchensk was a division. Suggest listing them as 101st Blagoveshchensk Fortified Region and Ust-Bureysk Fortified Region? Or "101st Blagoveshchensk and Ust-Bureysk Fortified Regions"?
  • Both were listed as fortified regions. By 1941 most of the fortified regions had received numbers. Kges1901 (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "31st SmAD departed for the Eastern Front" if that is what is meant, as there is also the Far Eastern Front.
  • suggest "73rd and 74th Tank Brigades" as these are formation titles
  • suggest "101st Blagoveshchensk Fortified Region" rather than 101st Fortified Region
  • I preferred to use the partial name after the first mention. Kges1901 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The 96th SmAD was converted into an IAD in May."
  • suggest "1st and 2nd Amur Tank Brigades" per above
  • Done. These were lowercased by dank's ce.Kges1901 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the 355th Rifle Division be linked?
  • suggest "3rd and 12th Rifle Divisions and the 73rd and 74th Tank Brigades"
  • link reconnaissance
  • suggest "3rd and 12th Rifle Divisions"
  • suggest "3rd and 12th Divisions"

I had a quick search for more information, but you seem to have used all the main sources. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Kges1901, it looks like you may be on a short break from editing but we need to start seeing some movement here (ping Kaiser matias, address PM's comments, etc.) or this will be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Kges1901 (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

It is difficult for me to assess the quality and nature of the mainly Russian language sources, but as far as I can judge they seem to be of the appropriate standard. I've concentrated mainly on the mechanics. Ref 12 is lacking publisher information. Otherwise, all links appear to be working, and presentation is consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added publisher. Kges1901 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fifelfoo edit

Support based on responses to questions. This seems stalled, but? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1c Question: Were there no authors with last names O-Z? (Pyl'cyn is irrelevant obviously, I must ask due to the unusual concentration of author last names)
  • Coincidence? I could make it more even if I cited Glantz's original source as well, but that isn't necessary. Kges1901 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c Question: What makes Niehorster HQRS?
  • Niehorster is used in many similar articles which have reached featured status, so I thought he was considered a high quality SPS. In any case, Niehorster simply repeated the data in the Combat Composition of the Soviet Army, translated some from Drig or similar source, then added the army headquarters location from any number of declassified Soviet orders (though he anachronistically used the name of the city that wasn't adopted until 1957). Kges1901 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c fix: Niehorster acknowledges coauthors: In Coorperation[sic] with Craig Crofoot & Marek Supłat
  • 1b Question: Given the extensive (and correct) treatment of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, why is the treatment of the Battles of Khalkhin Gol so limited?
  • Because the unit did not fight there, so far I have found only one aviation unit from the army that was sent to Khalkhin Gol. Kges1901 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b Question: Were interesting historiographical or military science questions raised (I don't expect them to have been, but must ask)?
  • Trivial Glantz / Russian data plagiarism check conducted.
  • Forgot to ask earlier before striking issues clearly resolved: from your obvious reading, and given the grognardish topic which is liable to the general problem; does the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht specifically apply to the unit. Through your research efforts and deep reading of multiple language sources, was there indications that the 2nd Red Banner Army engaged in political or war criminal efforts. This is asked not as a slur, but of all military history topics by me given the essay I find influential Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/April_2018/Review_essay. We must ask this of ourselves particularly in the english language project given the abject failings listed there. Ask, and ask of our source readings. This is not a specific criticism of your article but a genuine question. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but Soviet treatment of Japanese POWs and activities in backing Chinese Communist forces in Manchuria are well known and covered elsewhere. Kges1901 (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2018 (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/Featured_log/July_2018&oldid=852806857"