Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2017

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2017 [1].

---

Andha Naal

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC), Vensatry (talk)

This article is about a milestone in Tamil cinema, the industry's first film without song or dance sequences, that won a National Film Award, even if it didn't succeed commercially in its original release due to its experimental nature. I have reworked the article over the course of months to ensure it is FA-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Had my say at the PR. NumerounovedantTalk 11:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• The film's name, "Andha Naal", is overused; substitute "the film" and "it" where possible.

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for those edits Dank. I'm travelling till Sunday, and I hope Vensatry will address any issue with this FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks for the copyedits. I've edited out a few instances, but couldn't do much in the "Themes and influences" and "Legacy" sections as they compare several films with this one. —Vensatry _(talk) 04:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support with a minor tweak: Where you say "Sivanandam and Naidu decide to interrogate Pattabi...", it would probably be better as "Sivanandam and Naidu interrogate Pattabi..." This brings the focus on to the action, rather than on the decision to take action. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: Slightly rephrased the bit, thanks for the support. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Source and image review

• Just make sure you are consistent with linking publishers. An article about The Hindu exists, so wiki-linking in note 5 would be useful, for instance.
• We have only one image in the article i.e. the poster that is appropriately licensed and captioned, although you need to provide an alt text. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Your comments have been resolved, FrB.TG.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I've copyedited -- please revert anything I've screwed up.

• "Sivanandam asks Usha, who tells him how she and Rajan fell in love": I think "asks" is the wrong verb; it implies a particular question. Do you mean "questions"?

  Changed to 'interrogates'. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• "a Tamilian professor": elsewhere you use "Tamil" as the adjective form; is there some reason to say "Tamilian" here? Are the terms interchangeable?

  Tamil professor would mean that he taught Tamil at St. Xavier's College, Kolkata. 'Tamilian' denotes his ethnicity. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can we get a link for the first use of "₹"? Most readers won't recognize it.

  Unfortunately, there seems to be some issue with the template itself. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure what the problem is -- I added a link here; is there an issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of "Themes and influences", I'd suggest cutting the titles of Vest's and Pillai's books; they're given in the citations, and it interrupts the flow to include them in the main text.

  I'm not sure if the author is same as the namesake investigative journalist. If that isn't the case, the book carries more weight than the author. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK, but the book title and author are both available in the footnote. Currently we have "According to Jason P. Vest's Spike Lee: Finding the Story and Forcing the Issue, the three films follow a nonlinear narrative by presenting diverging accounts of the same incident. In his 2015 book Madras Studios, film historian Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai notes that Andha Naal is unrelated to Rashomon except for its whodunit plot, where the murder is explored using various angles." About half of this text is just describing where we got the information, and we have no reason to believe it's particularly interesting to the reader, do we? I'd suggest "Film journalist Jason Vest describes the three films as following a nonlinear narrative by presenting diverging accounts of the same incident. Film historian Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai notes that Andha Naal is unrelated to Rashomon except for its whodunit plot, where the murder is explored using various angles." Actually this makes it clearer that the sentences are a little too plainly declarative; we could probably link the second one to the following sentence, but let's see if we agree on this first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed, done —Vensatry _(talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• "When she discovers that her husband has betrayed India, she does not hesitate to kill him": but she does hesitate, doesn't she? According to the plot section, she changed her mind.

  There seems to be some discrepancy with the source. Will leave this to the co-nom. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  It would be better to re-watch the film on YouTube and find out. I currently can't do that since I'm travelling, but I'll return this night. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  Rephrased the bit —Vensatry _(talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  I reworded it; "goes to the extent of killing him" seemed a bit clumsy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The film was later re-released after winning the Certificate of Merit for the Second Best Feature Film in Tamil at the 2nd National Film Awards": suggest giving the year of re-release here; a reader unfamiliar with the award might not realize this was the very next year.

  The source isn't clear either. Mentioned the year of ceremony. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• What's the reason for the hidden comments at the top of a couple of sections? They appear to only contain URLs.

  Removed —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• "in accordance with international parameters": what does this mean?

  Removed —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note [a] seems to say the same thing three times: what's the difference between the "widely considered" claim and Saravanan's claim? And Guy's claim seems less broad; he's only talking about south India, so why is that worth mentioning if we've established that it's the first in all of India?

  Limca Book of Records' claim cannot be disregarded; it's the Indian version of Guinness World Records. The South Indian cinema (it's a subset of Indian cinema) bit seems reasonable to me as it's a well-established fact supported by a book published by the NFDC. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  That's not quite what I meant. I meant to say that you have three claims in that footnote: "Indian cinema's first sound film without songs", "the first songless film in India", and "the first of its kind in the whole of South Indian cinema". These all say more or less the same thing, don't they? Except that the last one only mentions South India? Why do we need to say the same thing three times? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  Principally, all three claims are nearly one and the same. But isn't it good to note 'perspectives' and 'facts'? —Vensatry _(talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean. If I assert the sky is blue, I may want to put in more than one citation, but I wouldn't write "The sky is blue, according to Joe Scientist; Jane Scientist also says the sky is blue; and another scientist said the sky is blue too." I'd write "The sky is blue.^[1][2][3]" What are you suggesting is different about this situation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure the "sky" analogy works here because it's clearly a case of WP:OBVIOUS. Okay, consider this: Telugu film actor Brahmanandam holds the Guinness record for having acted in most films (~700) in a single language – this is an established 'fact' (strictly) according to the Guinness Book of Records. On the other hand, multiple sources claim that the late Tamil actress Manorama supposedly had more than 1,500 screen credits (with majority of those being in one language); however, her record did not make it to the Guinness. Now, how would you clarify this in both of their articles? —Vensatry _(talk) 12:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  I wrote a reply to this and then realized I'd been misreading something in the note. Sorry! It's fine as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments. Would you mind revisiting the nom? —Vensatry _(talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take another look this evening; thanks for the ping -- I meant to check in on this last night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Out of time for now; will follow up on the remaining points tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Any update yet? —Vensatry _(talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess it wasn't clear -- I did revisit after my note above, and I responded to all the remaining points. There are still a couple of unstruck points above that I don't think are dealt with yet -- the one about the book authors and titles, and the one about footnote a. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: My bad, I've hopefully resolved your concerns. Thanks, —Vensatry _(talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, after rewatching parts of the film on YouTube, I corrected some plot points. Can you please review my last change? Also, Muktha Srinivasan is credited onscreen by his real name V. Srinivasan, and he did not get the "Muktha" prefix until 1961, when he launched Muktha Films, named after his nephew. How do we balance this? Do we write V. Srinivasan – who later became popularly known as Muktha Srinivasan – assisted Balachander with this film? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your change looks fine, and I like the suggested "later became popularly known as". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Please refer to my comments at the peer review here, I'm continuing it from there.

• Thrillers do use elements of suspense to sustain their narrative. What is the reason for specifically mentioning it as a mystery-thriller?

I don't know; perhaps because the entire mystery of the film is who killed Rajan? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Who did it? is always a suspense. Anyways, anything to say Vensatry?

I'm no expert, but this should be referenced. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is possible. So, assuming good faith here. What to do, is left to the nominators and other reviewers.

• Can we have sub sections for Production section a la Mayabazar?

I hope that can be done. But the section's length and mixed up content is the obstacle to splitting it. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No compulsion.

• Please follow WP:FILMRATING

  Vensatry and Mike Christie, the "U" certificate sentence is fine, is it? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I think so -- the rating given is the Indian one, which is what's relevant to this film; seems reasonable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oh! is that so! I'm so sorry then. I was ignorant of that.

• Researcher and ethnographer Preeti Mudliar compared Ratha Kanneer (1954) to Andha Naal because in both films, "the sin of foreignness is [neutralised] by a chaste Tamil woman, the virtuous wife". -- I find this more appropriate in the Themes section.

Actually, RK came afterwards. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable.

• Given Chimbu Deven's acknowledgement, can we know what exactly it was on his directorial?

In the credits of Deven's film, it is acknowledged as an influence on that film's plot. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable. Pavanjandhyala 16:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support — My concerns are addressed and i have nothing else to say. Pavanjandhyala 09:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: I read this few weeks ago and was kind of impressed with the article. Definitely FA-worthy. Congrats Kailash29792!Krish | Talk 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Glancing over this with a view to promotion, I'm not entirely convinced that we are there on prose. For example, "critic"-based words are overused in the reception section, and "film" is overused in the production section. There also appear to be a few run-on sentences ("After watching Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950) at a film festival, director Sundaram Balachander was inspired by it and wrote a play in the same narrative style") and possibly a few instances of redundancy, albeit nothing major. I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this. If nothing happens in a few days, I'd be prepared to recuse and have a go myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro1. I hope an admin will conduct an image, prose and source review soon. As for offline sources, I have them uploaded online, and will share if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88

I think the prose is OK after input now from quite a number of people. I've made some suggestions myself, including to the example that Sarastro1 has raised above. I also have three sourcing issues thus far:

• "Andha Naal is set in World War II, during the bombing of the Indian city of Madras by Japanese forces in 1943. Residents of the city moved to nearby hill stations to protect themselves from further bombings and invasion." - It seems to me that Bayly and Harper at page 192 are talking about events in 1942, not during the bombings of 1943. The chapter is entitled "1942" and there is no talk of Madras actually being bombed: only unfulfilled rumours that it might be attacked.

Replaced with another source. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Footnote 33, cited on four occasions, is a dead link.

Done: added the field deadurl=unfit. But the archived link still works. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Production" twice cites this reference to explain the history of how the film came to be produced. On each occasion the information is based on quotes from Balachander's wife Shanta. I don't think the article can take her word as gospel: anything she says needs to be attributed to her rather than spoken in Wikipedia's voice as if it were incontrovertible fact. This becomes a particular issue because the article states unambiguously in the "Production" section that the storyline was inspired by Rashomon. This statement is based on footnote 5 and Mrs Balachander. But the article later says, based on other references, that this is highly debatable.

I see your point. Given that the film is very old it's difficult to find information about the production. If we were to remove the bit, we would miss out on the context. What do you suggest? —Vensatry _(talk) 06:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree the content is important. You could possibly attribute it to Mrs Balachander. For example, "According to Balachander's wife...", or "In [YEAR], Balachander's wife recounted that..." Syek88 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks —Vensatry _(talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I also made one significant series of changes here. In hindsight I should have left that to the article's authors. The article repeatedly referred to the term "murder" to describe the precipitating event of the plot. I think this is the wrong word. There was no murder: Rajan was killed, accidentally, by his wife. Even if the event were a murder, neither the investigator characters nor the audience would have known that, so it would be unsafe to say, as the article did: "Purushothaman Naidu, a local police inspector, arrives at Rajan's house and starts investigating the murder." I think the article should refer to a "killing", a "death", or similar, when it describes the precipitating event. Please undo me if I have acted upon a grave misapprehension. Syek88 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, he wasn't 'assassinated'. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Syek88 thanks for this, very helpful. Are you happy with the prose and sourcing now? If so, I think this is good to go. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. Vensatry might still be considering my third point but I am happy to support on faith that it will be done. It is not a big issue in any case. Syek88 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Syek88, just two things left to clarify: can translated titles be added to the non-English sources? Also, there is a footnote reading "the Film Preservation and Restoration Workshop India 2016 gives it's exact length as 13,165 feet" (source). I don't know how to rephrase this footnote, but I know it needs to be rephrased. After reading, can you please suggest something? --Kailash29792 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think translated titles would be good. I had noticed the Tamil titles in the footnotes and felt it didn't give much of a clue as to what the references were about. I deleted an apostrophe from the footnote - otherwise the footnote looked OK to me. Syek88 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Syek88: Thanks for the copyedits and review; both are much appreciated. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure - I've marked my comments as a support. Syek88 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Syek88: Thanks for the support. The problem with adding translations (for titles) is they mostly border WP:OR. Besides, there needs to be some consistency over figurative/literal usages. And, Tamil dailies are notorious for using colloquial phrases for which there are no English translations available. If the reviewers want to have a clue about the titles, they can very well be explained in the talk page. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that translating the title of a reference amounts to original research; we translate all the time. The Founding Ceremony of the Nation is another article nominated here at the moment in which the titles of Chinese-language sources are translated into the footnotes. But your point about untranslatable colloquial titles could be insurmountable! Syek88 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2017 [2].

---

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Another one of my German battleship articles, this one accidentally helped make later German battleships more resistant to underwater damage. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review a couple of months ago. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Comments what design changes were recommended for the Deutschland-class battleship after the grounding? What defects were identified during the trials? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hildebrand doesn't say on either count, and the German sources I have that cover battleship development start with the dreadnoughts, unfortunately. The Deutschlands weren't exactly known for their resistance to underwater damage (witness Pommern at Jutland, while the dreadnoughts were, on the other hand, so it makes more sense to me that whatever changes that were recommended weren't actually incorporated into the Deutschland class. But that's just a hunch. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Parsecboy: No worries, you can't go beyond what the sources say! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Link cylindrical boilers, keel, rivet, squadron (the generic term), armored frigate, launched, Kaiser, commissioned, Netherlands, flagship, coastal defense ships, ironclad, drydock, Kaiser Wilhelm II (the ship), rammed, grounding on first use
  • Think I've got all of these
    • I fixed the one for cylindrical boilers for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Watch the rounding in your conversions: 45 cm doesn't equal 18 inches
  • Fixed
• Link the guns, redlinks are acceptable
  • Done
• received 150 mm (5.9 in) of armor Redundant conversion
  • Fixed
• along with the aviso Hela comma after Hela
  • Done
• Service as a flagship is probably worth adding to the lede
  • There's already a line about that
• for excellent gunnery Perhaps "excellence in gunnery"?
  • Works for me
• a United States squadron Awkward, howzabout "an American" squadron?
  • Done
• Probably worth mentioning that she was disarmed and that her guns were, IIRC, used as railroad guns on the Western Front.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Added details on this, but according to Friedman sixteen of the twenty 24cm guns from the class were employed as coastal guns (the remainder kept as spares, I assume) - he doesn't specify which guns went where, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

image review

• File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1887)_b_517.jpg: what is the creator's date of death?
  • It's unclear - the illustration has a signature, but I can't make it out. According to the caption, it's based on a photograph by a Th. Politzky, but I can't find anything about him. In any event, I've uploaded it locally, since it's undoubtedly PD in the US, and the border needed to be cropped anyway.
• File:SMS_Kaiser_Wilhelm_II_after_refit.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also unclear, but according to the source, it was received by ONI in 1911, which indicates it was already in circulation by that point. Renard's photos were commonly printed as post cards, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, Prose is good, all images licensed correctly. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, Iazyges, what are the grounds for your support if you have not looked at the prose. It is helpful to specify which of the FA criteria your support covers. At the moment, I am inclined to disregard this as a drive-by support unless you can expand on your comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I went and read the text and didn't find any room for improvement, short of rewriting entire sections for minimal improvement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Euryalus (all very minor, apologies in advance if these seem nitpicky)Changed to support per the below.

Lead

• Minor sentence structure suggestion: How about "Kaiser Friedrich III’’ was extensively modernized in 1908; her secondary ". Also, this modernization seems to mark the commencement of a new chapter in her service, so might it fit better as the opening sentence of the third paragraph rather than the closing one of the second?
  • That works for me.

Design

• Is there any way of explaining what a “Marine-type” boiler is, without that explanation overwhelming the section?
  • As I recall, they're just a type of boiler built by the Imperial shipyards - will have to check Gröner to see if he elaborates on that.
    • Thanks. No big deal.

• There’ s a few paragraphs in a row that start with the name of the vessel. Perhaps change the opening of the second paragraph in Design to “The battleship”?
  • How about just "The ship"?

Service History (Construction to 1900)

First paragraph:

• Forgive my ignorance, but what is the meaning of “construction number 22”?
  • It's the yard number - shipyards assign them to every ship they build.

• “She was ordered under the contract name.." - was it normal for the contract name to be a placeholder? If not, do we know when she was renamed?
  • Yeah, it was standard at least for the German Navy to order ships either as replacements for out of date ships or as additions to the numerical strength of the fleet (since the number of ships was authorized by the Reichstag).

• Do we know whether the three-shaft design that was of concern in the sea trials, was relevant to the subsequent rectification of defects? (removed, I see this was already asked above).

• Second paragraph – wording is mildly confusing on first read through – sounds like she is escorting the Kaiser’s yacht and the aviso, and we only discover the Kaiser is also present when he is referred to at the sentence end. How about “sent to escort the Kaiser, aboard his yacht ‘’Hohenzollern’’ and accompanied by the aviso ‘’Hela’’, to visit his grandmother ..” or any similar phrasing?
  • How does "Kaiser Friedrich III and the aviso Hela were sent to escort the Kaiser's yacht Hohenzollern" sound?
    • Better, but I've added a little to it directly in the article (see here). -- Euryalus (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Last sentence – no need for comma after “return”
  • Fixed.

Service history (1901 grounding)

First paragraph:

• Suggest removing “the” before upcoming joint Army-Navy maneuvers” , because it implies we the reader already know about them.
  • Good catch.

Last paragraph

• Would be interesting (but by no means essential) to know why the lightship was out of position.
  • Unfortunately Hildebrand et al. don't go into detail about the results of the investigation, and none of the contemporary reports I've seen do either.
    • OK, thanks for looking.

Service history (1902-1903)

Last paragraph:

• Is “regatta” the right word? The wikilinked article suggests it is an event for sailing vessels or at best small powered craft, not battleships. Or have I misunderstood the role this vessel played, and “taking part” means something more ceremonial?
  • Yeah, basically the major navies liked to show off their newest ships at these big sailing events - is there some way you'd like to see that clarified?
    • In a moment of BRD I've changed "participated" to "were present at." Might be too passive, feel free to change to something else if preferred.

Service history (1904-1914)

First paragraph:

• Sentence beginning “On 1 October …” seems a bit long. Any way to break this into two?
  • Yeah, that's a bit unwieldy - see if how I split it works.

Overall

A great article, thanks for the opportunity to read this through. All of the above are very minor, and from the view of a decided non-expert in twentieth century ships. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• No spot checks done
• Need ampersands in the refs to match the format in the footnotes
  • Done
• Gröner is volume 1 of a two-volume set.
  • Added
• Subsection headers in the Notes section should be ordinary level 3 headers, not simply bolded.
  • Fixed.
• What state or country is Annapolis in?
  • I've stopped putting state/country info, as I think the city is sufficient.
• Comma after Washington
  • Fixed. Thanks Sturm.
• References are known to me and are highly reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

comments

• been a while since I reviewed a feature class article, and this is a pleasure to read.
• Sentences like this: After the maneuvers ended, Kaiser Friedrich III was replaced as the deputy commander's flagship by Kaiser Wilhelm II, though she remained in the I Squadron. could also be worded After the maneuvers ended Kaiser Wilhelm II replaced Kaiser Friedrich III as the deputy commander's flagship.... Just is a little more active. Presumably she was a more modern ship?
  • That sounds fine to me. My general thought was to keep Kaiser Friedrich III the center of the narrative, and so accepted a bit of passive voice as a result, but it's fine to go the other direction.
• is "disembarked the landing force" considered correct? the landing force disembarked at....? where the landing force disembarked? the landing force disembarked at...I think under those conditions it needs an object.
  • Changed to "...day, where the landing force disembarked. The ships then proceeded..."
• continued on to.... repetitive. continued to...
  • Just to clarify, you mean remove the "on"?

• yes, remove on.

• 1901 grounding is the best section. Question about the men with injuries. Is it 3 men suffered serious injuries, one of whom died?
  • Yes, that's right - would it be clearer if stated that way?

• yes.  :)

• here are some suggestions to tighten the prose. As always feel free to revert. I'm just thinking a few shorter sentences and a little less repetition. auntieruth (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• then still being designed.... then still in design? then still under design?

• • Hmm, this I'm not so sure about.
• same routine of training? You start the previous section with periodic maintenance...
  • How does adding "as in previous years" work?

• do all years start with a training exercise? or is a training exercise just part of annual preparations? is the beginning of the year in January (as in calendar year), or...? here are some suggestions.

• Kaiser Friedrich III was assigned to the "hostile" force, and was first tasked with preventing the "German" squadron from passing through the Great Belt in the Baltic. was assigned, was first tasked....Assigned to the "hostile" force, KFIII first prevented and second... Just seemed like there is an abundance of passive auxiliary verbs
  • I think I've fixed this now - have a look and see if that works.
• I'll be happy to support this though! auntieruth (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review, Ruth! Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think this is good for promotion now. If Auntieruth55 has any further points, these could be raised on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 [3].

---

William T. Stearn

Nominator(s): Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

This article is about a distinguished British botanist. Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) This is the most complete biography of this scientist available to date. In context, there have been only four botanists that have reached FA status to date, and none since 2006. For comparison, they are listed here.

• Charles Darwin
• G. Ledyard Stebbins
• Barbara McClintock
• Georg Forster

• Support I had the opportunity to comment on this excellent article before it came here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support A really incredible article. It's recently passed GA so, despite a close inspection, I was unable to find much to critique it on, nor reason to oppose its elevation to FA. Particularly notable here is the exceptionally thorough bibliography. The only issue I see is that there are no ALT tags on the images. With that correction, and resolution of the issues outlined by Nikkimaria, I would entirely support this as a FA. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure what is intended here, since running the Alt text tool shows that all images have an alt text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear you're right, my apologies. I'm not sure what happened. I had two tabs open simultaneously and I must have pasted the wrong article name when I ran the Alt text tool myself. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We have all done it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments to Nikkimaria added below --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• 1. File:William_Thomas_Stearn.jpg: suggest {{non-free biog-pic}} rather than current tag

Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• 2. Images are tending to the tiny side, and see WP:IMGSIZE regarding fixed px sizes

True in principle but I was concerned to make images match text. I allowed image size to float, but the Awards images did travel outside the section - my only recourse therefore was to switch to horizontal. I hope that is ok. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• 3. File:Cambridgeshire_High_School_for_Boys_1900.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

That's always an issue - clearly one cannot prove this. Therefore one has to use common sense. The image is a professional one and therefore likely to be taken by an adult. It is highly unlikely that any professional photographer alive in 1900 is still alive in 2017? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have now identified the author and added it to the file page. It might be a struggle to look for their obituary though.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It is true that the author is certainly now dead, but the issue is whether they were dead 70 years ago - it is quite possible for someone who was an adult in 1900 to still have been alive in 1947. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I see, obviously very difficult to prove one way or another.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Life expectancy of males in England in 1900 was 47 (Office of National Statistics). So it is "reasonably certain" that an adult male alive in 1900 had died by 1947. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons has just finished an RfC that concluded that where author date of death is unknown, we should use creation+120 as a cutoff for life+70 works - although that issue is still under discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

So I see, although there is consideration of a case by case basis. There is a difference between unknown and presumed. A common sense analysis might suggest that it is unlikely anyone owns the copywrite to a photograph taken by a photographer for a Stationary Store that turned it into a postcard in 1900 when it was built. That store is no longer in business. It would be extremely unlikely that it has any commercial value. I see that some of the discussion used the premise that the photographer was at least 20 years old in 1900, as did I.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

An extensive search of the Cambridge archives suggests this is most likely Harry S Driver (1877–1947), although one cannot be 100% certain. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you feel then that this is likely to have been a corporation-owned copyright? If it were held by Driver, life+70 wouldn't apply until the end of the year. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So it would seem - unless the school that exists on that site now owns the copywrite, since they have used it on a website - I could check. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Letter sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• 4. File:GoulandrisMuseum.jpg: see here

Well it is a maybe. But also the author (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu), who is now elderly, has expressly made this public. Did you have any specific suggestions? It strikes me that it falls under "shall be permissible". --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is the architecture, not the photo - the freedom of panorama issue is unclear. Hopefully there are sources available to clarify, or the building is PD otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So it remains a maybe? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I could discuss it with the Museum staff, since I assume that if FOP is not applicable, the Museum would hold the copywrite and could grant permission for use --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Letter sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• 5. File:Medaille-Linnaeus.jpg needs a US PD tag and more information to verify the current tag

Tag added, but I agree we have no source, and although widely used on Wikimedia, I can find no original source. The author is Valérie Chansigaud who has uploaded a lot if images to Commons, but I see some questions have been raised about her license tags. It is possible of course that it is her own work, but I cannot prove it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that it is unusable, this image is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike CC BY-NC-SA Licence, could be substituted? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately no - see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Non-commercial_licenses. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But it does say may be used on English Wikipedia? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The artefact was created in 1888 - see discussion under #6 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Licence adjusted to {{PD-1923}} --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• 6. File:Order_of_the_North_Star,_Grand_Cross_(Sweden)_-_Fram_Museum.jpg: what is the status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are looking for precisely here. The author made it PD, and is an active contributor of images. I also see many images from this museum on Commons. Is the question what permission did the museum give the author to photograph and reproduce the artifacts? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My question is, what is the copyright status of the artifact itself, as opposed to the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure how one could establish that, other than writing to the museum perhaps.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The museum would only hold copyright if they either created the work themselves or had some copyright arrangement with the original copyright holder. In most cases someone who is not the copyright holder donates the artifact; the museum owns it, but not the copyright on its design. It's likely that has now expired, but you'd need to verify when the design originated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The artefact was created in 1748. Does that help? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would mean PD-1923 would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Licence adjusted to {{PD-1923}} --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Up to now I have tended to trust the licensing on Commons. I don't profess to be an expert on image licensing and I am happy to defer to those who are. It seems to me that most of these issues are unresolvable, for instance proving the death date of the of the photographer, or the copywrite status of a museum artefact. The council of perfection I suppose is to delete all images that are disputed? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally, if we cannot be reasonably certain an image is free we should assume it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So it comes down to a definition of "reasonably certain" --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues reduced to 2: Images 3 and 4. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Other reviews

• Support A remarkable man, and an outstanding article, well written, extensively cited, clear in his greatness without losing neutrality and elegantly structured. I made a few c-edits, and have one quibble. In Early Years - a new species of Allium (A. farreri Stearn, 1930) - it should be noted that this species was later merged back into another species, by Stearn himself. Still, thank you to all the writers and reviewers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually that last point is discussed in Note h. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so it was. Very good, carry on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support WRT prose and comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we can request a source review (unless I missed one) at WT:FAC now. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Conditional Support by Lingzhi

• Nary a single page number anywhere? Reason for this?... I'm adding the Oppose (per 1c) here because I suddenly remembered an incident in which a FAC coordinator closed a FAC when I was barely started finding flaws...I don't want the coord to miss my remarks. But I am very open to withdrawing my Oppose if things get straightened out somehow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that for every citation, you want the exact page number in the source that is being referred to? If so that will balloon the reference section, already at 131 entries, considerably. However I will take a look and see to what extent that would make the article any more useful. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Many sources don't have page numbers, because they are web resources (e.g. 1, 3-8). Many are articles, for instance citation 2 is used 22 times and is a 17 page article so that would likely add 17 more lines. Others are very short articles like 9, which has 3 pages, or 10, 18 (1), 15 (2), 17 (4). Others like 19-20 refer to the work as a whole, because it is a publication by the author and pagination is immaterial. So it is a question as whether 1c is actually improved by exact page numbers within articles every time they are mentioned? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not for sources that don't have page numbers. :-) If there are no page numbers (web source, forex), then of course you do not/cannot add individual page numbers. If an entire journal article is some arbitrarily short length (two pages? three pages?), then you don't need individual page numbers. Beyond that arbitrary minimum, pages are a Good Thing. Wikipedia's referencing needs are not the same as journals in the relevant field. No one's professional reputation is at stake here, and neither readers nor reviewers are necessarily knowledgeable in the relevant field. So... for any source longer than... three pages?... that has numbered pages, page numbers are a good thing.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I will look into examples further. In other situations, eg 23, 25, 28 where books are cited without pagination it is because, they are primary sources, and the secondary sources which are more easily retrieved, are provided, the primary sources being cited for readers wishing to delve more deeply. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) If you're adding something "for readers who want to probe more deeply," then perhaps a footnote would be in order rather than a citation.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been over all the citations carefully, several times, and have added page numbers to references where I believe they would be helpful. Most of the pagination is contained in the bibliography, but the bulk of the citations are to works in their entirety, principally the canon of the subject. As mentioned above I'm not sure it would be helpful to add a page number on each occasion to those articles (principally obituaries and tributes) where nearly every page is cited. I trust this meets your concerns. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nolo contendere on the page numbers, as per WP:AGF. Oppose stricken. Many of the citation templates etc. are handled in a notably complex and nonstandard manner, e.g., {{cite book|last1=Stearn|first1=W. T.|title=Botanical gardens and botanical literature in the eighteenth century|date=1961|pages=xli–cxl|ref=harv}}, in {{harvtxt|Hunt et al.|1958–1961}} vol. 2 (instead of "|chapter=") and nonstandard cite webs etc. I pity the poor n00b who tries to edit through that kind of tangle. Looking on the bright side, I very seriously doubt that any n00b will do any serious editing to an article about William T. Stearn.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

For that reason in the past I have added helpful comments to the references as a guide to the citation style in use, to encourage uniformity. Actually determining what is "standard" when it comes to WP citation is no easy task. One important point is to at least ensure uniformity. Keeping chapters and multiauthored texts separate has many advantages, particularly in portability. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about keeping chapters and multi-authored texts separate. I was suggesting, forex, that the above should have been something more like my test edits here  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So I saw. However, I think I will revert, at least pro tem because that is concatenating chapter and text, and duplicates unless one deletes the latter. You will find that in previous articles I avoided any confusion by keeping Chapters in a separate part of the bibliography. The trouble here is that the bibliography is already curated by subject. I will play around with the idea a bit. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Style

(←) OK then. Waiting for your next word on the subject.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I reorganised the bibliography to make this clearer. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks nicer. I just noticed the footnotes, which I earlier said didn't exist. The refs section is huge & complex. But... what can you do? I think it works.

Optional cosmetic note #1: If you wish, bunched sfns can be consolidated using {{sfnm}}. So all instances similar to this: "the title of his biography of Linnaeus.[17][118][134]" would become more like "the title of his biography of Linnaeus.[108]" (or some number; the enumeration would change). If you find that appealing, I could whip up a thing to do it in a jiffy. But if that doesn't appeal, then the way it is now is fine too.

Optional cosmetic note #2: Wherever you have name/date followed by cites (like "Walters (1992)[17] and Heywood (2002)[2]"), you could use {{harvtxt}}.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Also adding Comments to assist other editors in view of your n00b concerns. More later --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Navigation Comments now in References and Bibliography.

Note 1. I haven't used that template but I have tried to edit articles with bundled references, which were a pain. I can see that cosmetically there are less numbers in the displayed text, but that is offset by longer footnotes which detracts from the advantages of "short" footnotes. I also wonder about ease of maintenance. Know any good examples using this? I might try a test edit.

Tried it. I think it has a place - maybe where there is a natural pairing --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note 2. Might try a test edit - not sure how often that exists - will check - thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Substituted those two - but seem to be only two examples --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I put a test version with {{sfnm}} in a personal sandbbox page; you can see if you like it. It actually increases the reference count from 143 to 166 by spreading them out; forex "^{abcdefghijklmnopqrstu}Prance 2014" becomes "^abcdePrance 2014"... Moreover, " and fields.[2][6][7]" becomes " and fields.[7]" etc.
• Because it's in userspace, categories and some metadata templates were removed from the bottom of the page, and {{good article}} was removed from the top. I also haven't gone over it with a magnifying glass to look for errors caused by my program... (ah there's an error with Hara et al; fixed it manually).

Obviously I have no objection if you really think it will help. On the other hand clearly I am (1) concerned about introducing errors, and (2) making sure whenever you do this it incorporates any recent edits I have added. I have no idea how your programme works, but I notice that if the intent was to remove multiple citation numbers from the displayed text, then it clearly missed quite a few, or was it based on "more than two" - I had tried to make 3 the limit. While admittedly I don't like seeing 20 letters before a reference, the downside is that it produces a fairly dense Reference section, and it is harder to find things and maintain. Swings and Roundabouts. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's 100% cosmetic. I personally find the multiple boxes^[1][2][3] very distracting and annoying when I read – looks cluttered – but many people don't notice or don't care. There is one editor in particular who (among several other things) is well known for explaining at length why he thinks {{sfnm}} is evil.... Ah, there are some multiple citations together because yuo've mixed {{sfn}} with named refs<ref name="Foo" />. I don't believe I'd ever seen that done before, so the possibility hadn't occurred to me. I could program around it, but since it seems to be a special case, it would be better to revise them manually (if desired). The program would use the latest version of the article as its input. I haven't seen any other errors; would check. But again, all is cosmetic and so a matter of choice/taste.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

And that's the problem - it always comes down to personal choices which vary considerably. I looked over a random sample of Biography FAs and its all over the shop - and often not all that well done. The mixture of sfn and <ref> came from a decision at the Plant Project where I wrote most of the style guidance, that sfn|loc=url defeats the purpose of not cluttering wikitext, so those were made <ref>. See Comments at the top of References and Bibliography. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• what does this mean: "particularly when he was younger.this period, also published in the new"

Obviously gobbledygook. I traced it back to a browser crash - which inserted a fragment from a phrase a few paragraphs earlier. Fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• While I was fixing the error my program made with hara et al., I noticed that "An Enumeration of the Flowering Plants of Nepal" is mentioned twice, with different capitalization.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly not ideal - must have happened when earlier block was split into separate sections. I removed the second one. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• why is ""a small man, his pink face topped with a thatch of white hair" a part of his legacy?
• why is "wumpty" a part of his legacy?

Yes, I scratched my head over that one. A lot of his biographers write about the man - his characteristics and appearance. I tried to minimise such content, fascinating as it was - but hadn't yet come up with a better idea of where to place such references. Any thoughts? (its in legacy right now because that is what people say they remember --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just lose the cute pink face. It doesn't seem particularly distinctive (many people can be described similarly). The wumpty could be tossed out or could be kept somewhere, but not kept in Legacy. IMO.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Again I pulled out a random sample of FA bios and checked the project page - no consistency. Walt Disney has a separate section on personality - others put something in Biography, but absolutely no consistency. With a bit of thought I could probably pull together a separate section. But everyone comments on his remarkable personality --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Separate section is OK. Fitting it in somewhere else relevant is OKtoo. But in legacy... maybe a stretch.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry but I got a small chuckle when I saw Stearn ranked coequal with the Hookers (go ahead, click the link. Unwl.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

I have no idea - it does not seem to have been vandalism, and its been there since the beginning - it does not make sense to wl the surname and fornames. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Stafleau isn't British. Drop Stafleau or recast sentence.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't the implication hence the comma - and nor was Linnaeus - but if you think that's how people will read it I will recast --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• You can't wl Linnaeus' book as if it offered support for the idea that Stearn was honored for his work on Linnaeus. Unwl.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not following this one since I'm not sure where you are pointing - maybe I will find it amongst your ces. All I can think of is that maybe you are referring to Stearn's edited version of the Linnaean text? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As I thought - fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Am copy editing from the bottom up (as always). Will take time. Revert if/when/where you wish.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I did notice you have been rather busy - maybe I should stay away from it till you have finished --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Right now would be a good time to do your work. I'm probably on the opposite side of the world from you, or at least halfway. Bedtime approaches.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Canada - And you? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) - Ah, thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Extensive ce reviewed - minor tweaks added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Botanical taxonomy

• "Stearn played an active part in the ..." perhaps a candidate for the Legacy section. Judgment call... yes, the more I look at it, the more I think it could well be moved.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but on the other hand it also makes more sense to keep subject matter together - maybe add "continuing". legacy implies something posthumous. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Due to the illness of F.J. Chittenden, and through the good offices of Bowles and together with Gilmour" You may wanna consider the possibility that this is inside baseball (metaphor)... I commented it out.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing could be more felicitous. On the other hand it brings together several major influences on his career - I had to actually write - or considerably upgrade a number of biographies in order to bring them into this article. I will have another look once I have reviewed all the ces. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto for "upon the death of then secretary Chittenden"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ditto "again chaired by Camp"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

It may be baseball, but then maybe the article is aimed at baseball players. Those interested in a biography of Stearn are likely to be those interested in the institutions he worked in, the lives of his colleagues over his life, the history of botany, and of UK botanical gardens. These would be arguments for retention of pertinent details as to how these intercept. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "he described its history back to 1864 in his 1952 paper" OK, I commented this one out too, but for a completely different reason, as a completely different kind of case. The other details I commented out (described above) should be deleted outright, in my opinion. They are not about Stearn. This "history to 1864" could be left in because it actually is about Stearn, but it breaks the logic of the passage. I think it should be footnoted. However, there are 3 references directly after it (before my edits, that is). I don't know which one is relevant. I don't know which, if any, should go in the (proposed) footnote. So I punted and commented it out.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In the end I rewrote the section and tightened it up a bit. Stockholm wasn't an example, it was a tour de force that became a horticultural legend (he passed on a bus trip and drafted the entire code before the others got back). You may notice some patterns here, the wealthy Bowles appears regularly like a fairy godfather guiding our subject to new opportunities, while the unfortunate Chittenden (I wrote a short bio on him) conveniently fell ill and died creating a whole raft of opportunities for the hero of this piece to seize on and make his own. But that's baseball. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Linnaeus

• Was the his 176-page introduction the text that made Stearn a recognised authority on Linnaeus? That's the way I interpreted that sentence, and my re-write states that much more clearly. But I am double-checking.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Similarly I rewrote this section. Life is never that simple. Yes, it is his best known work on the subject but one becomes an authority based on one's canon. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Botanical history

Also rewritten. I think you will understand that in the end texts look best when written by one person, even though incorporating many of your suggestions.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Later years

• OK, I'm stuck, so I've reached a pausing point. The section "Later work" originally began "At the Lindley Library (1933–1952)", so I assumed Stearn was there from 1933 to 1952 an rewrote the text to reflect that assumption. But no, he went to India etc... Is the new text ("Stearn wrote steadily while at the Lindley Library between 1933 and 1952") wrong? And.... I haven't read earlier sections closely yet, but they seem overlapping/redundant. Forex "Royal Horticultural Society, London (1933–1952)" covers the same period. You'd think the section earlier in the text would be about his life, but it also mentions of his work. Then we have a section covering the same period but devoted only to his works...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Later years is from 1933 on in contrast to his amateur output while at school and working in the bookstore at Cambridge. You are correct that in general WP biographies tend to separate life, career and output, but it is impossible to completely and surgically place someone's life into compartments. Consequently writing is mentioned only in general terms in the earlier sections. I tried to minimise overlap but also ensure some continuity. Yes I was at the Lindley Library from 1933 to 1952 but like most adult males took a leave of absence during the war while in the Library's employment. The Lindley Library is at the RHS. I'm wondering if some confusion arises from working backwards, unlike (hopefully) the reader?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

General

Now I'm confused. Is this the source review requested by the Coordinator? It seems to me that what started out as a ce, seems to be be becoming a major rewrite, so that each change needs to be looked at in the context of the structure and content of the article as a whole, not just phrase by phrase. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I now need to look at this section by section rather than edit by edit. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• This article unquestionably needs a good copy edit to check for wordy, snake-like sentences, broken logic and dangling modifiers. I saw cases of referring to a primary source as evidence that that particular primary source exists (e.g., Smith and Jones wrote a book in 2013 about the Sun{{Smith|Jones|2013}} I'm still waiting to see what we will do about the whole page number thing. But in any event, no matter how lenient we feel we can be with the latter two points, the first is a must. End review. Good luck.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Like Michael Goodyear, I'm a little confused now by the review of Lingzhi. We have a conditional support, but qualified by "needs a good copy edit to check for wordy, snake-like sentences, broken logic and dangling modifiers". This is unhelpful, to be blunt, at this late stage as that does not look like a conditional support, but more of a reason to oppose. Without at least one or two samples, I'm not sure if these points are actionable or reasonable. It is also unhelpful placing it before the comments made earlier, so I've moved it to the end. Another point which is baffling me is that Lingzhi has said that a good copy edit is needed, but has copy-edited himself. It is not clear if this is the requested source review, and if, as seems to be indicated above, this review has resulted in a fairly major re-write, it would be fairly polite to request the opinion of the very experienced reviewers who supported this article before the major copy-edit which the reviewer performed. This needs to be a collaborative process. Jimfbleak, DarjeelingTea, Sabine's Sunbird, Casliber do you have an opinion on the changes made to this article? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• • @Sarastro1: I called it "Conditional Support" rather than "Weak Oppose" (tho I was tempted to do the latter) because 1) a good copy edit is only an easy request away, and 2) the ref situation is a little contentious. I have already Opposed Amargasaurus, so perhaps more would be overkill... I ceased copy editing. I was very far from finished. The nominator prefers his own writing style. I can find examples of snake-like sentences with dangling modifiers that I altered; but I would think these should be obvious. And asking at least two of those above if the refs are OK is pointless; they are firmly in the "no pages ever!" camp. Does that help you?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - been away for a few days - to be fair I have accepted 90%+ of the reviewers changes - I just rewrote sections - rafter ce to try and keep style consistent, and also I think I get a tiny bit of deference on familiarity with subject matter. if there are still "dangling modifiers" that the reviewer wants to reword I'm not putting up objections. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also I'm a bit confused about the reference thing - I have said several times that if the reviewer wants to change everything to {{sfnm}} I'm not objecting. Some examples of reference issues would be helpful. It maybe that someone is implying motive by citation - to add a citation does not always mean - I'm justifying this sentence - in a number of cases it means - and this is the material I'm referring to. I also don't know what spotty citation means - I'm seeking clarity. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• To clarify: this article is on the verge of promotion. If there are still problems, the coordinators cannot spend too long searching for vague prose concerns. It needs to be concrete; not a laundry list, just samples to see how close we are. Otherwise your comments could be disregarded as unactionable. Asking "those above" is to clarify the prose points as your concerns now seem to be prose related. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you for your kind guidance. In truth, my concerns are not only prose related:

• (undent) It is cited very spottily, but I am being gracious and passing on that issue, because of recent discussions. Examples of spotty cites? No page numbers for direct quotes: He has been variously described as a [[polymath]],{{sfn|Festing|1978}} "the modern Linnaeus",{{sfn|Buchan|2007}}{{sfn|Stafleu|Cowan|1985}}{{sfn|Bourne|2010}} "the great Linnaean scholar of our day", {{sfn|Cox|2003}} "one of the world’s greatest botanists"{{sfn|Carmichael|2007}}... One description that Stearn rejected, however, was "The Complete Naturalist"{{efn|"I note you are giving a lecture relating to me as 'a Complete naturalist' which I am most certainly far from being: the only person to whom that distinction could have been given in modern times was [[Charles E. Raven|Charles Raven]]"{{sfn|Walters|1992b}} I believe there are other cites to books that are without page numbers. Does the practice of eliding 1c by skipping page numbers for journals (which we have discussed elsewhere) also extend to books?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had dealt with the page numbering and reached a Nolo Contendere? As explained above - do we really need a page number within a 3 page article? It sounds like this has been the subject of extensive discussion elsewhere - so I'm happy to take another look at the examples provided here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Exact page numbers provided for all above examples --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dangling modifiers

• I killed a few dangling modifiers; the nominator even re-introduced at least one. Let's find some examples:
  • But then it evolved into an etymological dictionary, only to discover such a work had already been published in the Netherlands before the war. [The book made a discovery?]

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• • One of the focuses of his work at the Natural History Museum was Caribbean flora, which included field work. [field work is a Caribbean plant?]  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Run-on sentence: He first met them in 1967 and offered practical help with their museum and stayed with them when they visited Greece.

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • A series of botanical publications followed, starting with a new species of Allium (A. farreri Stearn, 1930), a genus he would repeatedly turn to, many of which bear his name and of which he was considered a world expert.

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Snake: Seven volumes of Flora of Jamaica had appeared prior to the Second World War, and although the project was revived after the war, Stearn's efforts which included six months field work in Jamaica (where he followed in the footsteps of Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753), whose collection was left to the Museum) did not come to fruition and no further volumes appeared.

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Snake: While at the Library he continued his self-education through evening classes, learning Swedish, and travelling widely during his three-week annual leaves in the pre-war years to visit other botanical libraries, botanic gardens, museums, herbaria and collections, as well as collecting plants, with special emphasis on Epimedium and Allium.

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • OK this next one is grammatically fine, but why is it included in the article on Stearn? "Lindley also bequeathed his herbarium to the Cambridge University Herbarium, where it now forms the Lindley Collection"

That one is simple. Stearn was a Lindley specialist. Lindley's books were bequeathed to the library where Stearn was employed, while his plant collection was given to the Cambridge University herbarium where Stearn's career began. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Snake: In 1930, the library had been rehoused in a new floor added to the Society's Vincent Square headquarters, and the role of the library somewhat downgraded, with the appointment of Frederick Chittenden as Keeper of the Library (1930–1939), and to whom Hutchinson reported.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. Do the other reviewers have any comments on these points? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy to take another look at all the above examples and see if I can understand the objections. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation

(←) Well then, I'm glad we're moving forward constructively. My original goal was to request a copy edit (from someone other than me, because it seemed you disagreed with me), then step away gracefully. Alas, the vigilant eye of Sarastro1 locked on me as I was on my way out the door, and pressed me for details which i originally did not want to provide. Thus pressed, I provided. Now you know the reason why referencing was reintroduced into the discussion... as for that topic, you said, "It maybe that someone is implying motive by citation - to add a citation does not always mean - I'm justifying this sentence - in a number of cases it means - and this is the material I'm referring to." I... have never seen anyone use {{sfn}} in the latter manner, and I am not sure whether it should or can be used in that manner. It seems to me that it runs a grave danger of WP:OR, tho many might say in this case it's an exception. I defer here to the opinions of others. As for "spotty", I mean "page numbers" again. This is an ongoing debate and I was trying to defer the issue for another day and another article... However, I do think you should at the very very least add page numbers for direct quotes, provided the source has page numbers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I must say I am confused as to what the intention is here, and that's after spending many years as reviewer, editorial board member and editor of academic journals. It is not a matter of sfn or any other citation device. If you refer to something, provide a citation. That's not original research, its secondary research, surely. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A citation supports/defends an assertion. A note provides extra information (perhaps clarifying or expanding a point). Are you defending, or providing extra info? It seems to me you are doing the latter... If you point to a primary source and make an assertion about that primary source based on your own observations, it usually is WP:OR, but there are exceptions (e.g., a fact that is obvious from looking at a map ). Is your case the same type? I have already explicitly stated that I would defer to the opinions of others as to whether or not notes and citations can be mixed in the same section in this case.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am just trying to get some clarity, so we can proceed. I don't think I was inserting any of my own assertions. Can you point to what you think is OR? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying it's OR, actually – just an unusual practice that might be wandering toward the range of things considered OR. And you described it yourself: any time you use a reference to mean "this is the material I'm describing". BTW, I have not looked at the article in a day or so. If these things are cleared up, please say so. Sorry & tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

With specific reference to citations, no I haven't changed any (other than page numbers) because I am awaiting input as to which specific ones concern you --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:ALLPRIMARY says "Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source." There seem to be many (many) similar examples in this article. Two closely related questions questions therefore are, how "acceptable" are they, and how "flexible" should we be? In cases where there is no significant extra information – just a bare mention of the publication's name – and similar bare info, the use of a primary source is acceptable.

I don't ever recall seeing that primary sources are unacceptable? Are you saying it requires additional sourcing? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Forex, "Later enlarged and reissued as a book{{sfn|Raven|2000}}" You can almost certainly find a direct statement of "revised" and "enlarged" in the book itself. This is almost certainly acceptable.
  • However, when we are given even more extra information before the cite, it moves into a more problematic area. Forex, "Stearn became a member of the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) in 1954,{{sfn|BSBI|2016}} joining the Maps Committee the following year to prepare their Atlas of the British Flora (1962).{{sfn|Perring|Walters|1962}}" Does Perring & Walters say any of the following: Stearn joined the committee. He joined the committee in 1955. He joined the committee to write the book... And how does he join in 1955 to write a book in 1962?

That's because the secondary source (Robson) is provided at the end of that paragraph dealing with Stearn's association with the BSBI, rather than attached to every statement within it. To be clear I have added a page reference to the secondary source. As far as the dates go, that is how long it took to prepare a very detailed mapping of the British Flora --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Another example: "1930 would also see his first bibliographic work, on the botanist Reginald Farrer,{{sfn|Stearn|1930a}}" I'm OK with mentioning "1930" and "bibliographic work", but does Stearn 1930a say anywhere (the introduction?) "Ahem, my name is Stearn, and this is my first bibliographic work"?

That is because I make two statements in that sentence and provide the secondary source, with page numbers {{sfn|Nelson|Desmond|2002|pp=144,146,148}} after the second - are you requesting the source be added after each of the two statements in the sentence? In an abundance of caution I have done so --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Another example: "Amongst his early work, starting in 1932 were several papers on Epimedium, which he had studied at Cambridge, Kew and Paris, and a genus for which he became known, and many species of which bear his name.{{sfn|Avent|2010}}" I count.. 5 and perhaps 6 assertions in that sentence [early work, starting in 1932, several papers, studied at Cambridge Kew & Paris, became known for, many species his name]. How many of those assertions are actually contained within Avent 2010? Maybe all of them, in the introduction I would guess. But are they?

Not exactly. Avent supports the statements in the second half of the sentence. The issues around London, Cambridge and Paris were dealt with in earlier sections, and I don't think bear repeating. Again, to be cautious, I added the appropriate pages of Nelson & Desmond - the same as in the previous sentence - to support the first statement. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• [November 11th 1960. Promoted by Professor Jan van Steenis, whose citation mentioned, inter alia, Stearn's "remarkable rise to a lofty scientific level by exploiting with energy, perseverance, caution and a rare combination of talent and character — under difficult and often disheartening circumstance] direct quote needs page number

Added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• [Blunt states he received "some 30 foolscap pages of comments, almost all of which have been incorporated, often indeed verbatim, in my text". ] direct quote needs page number

Added - I hope this addresses your concerns --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Etc.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I just became aware of the prolonged discussion around this on WP:FAC, so it would appear it is not entirely straight forward --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not entirely straight forward"?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Only that there appear to be a range of opinions --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK, good then. I've been trying unsuccessfully for over a day to extract myself from this review. I will now give a one-shot summary of the conceptual differences between your practice and my understanding of "best practice". After that, I am really gonna try to walk away again. :-). This will be a little long (sorry!!!), so I will number the topics. Sorry again!

1. So here goes: you say there is a range of opinions about referencing, and you are correct when it comes to journals. Science people (Jimfbleak, Sabine's Sunbird, etc.) are apparently accustomed to the practice of omitting page numbers for journals. And that's of course OK within their field (of course, of course), but the debate is whether that's OK for Wikipedia. But again, this stark difference of referencing paradigms is only about journals. I honestly... I could be wrong... but I honestly do not think there is any experienced Wikipedian who thinks direct quotes can ever go without page numbers. I think everyone agrees that every direct quote should have a page number, no matter whether it comes from book, journal, etc. [Jimfbleak said on his talk page that he very strongly doubts that he would ever directly quote a journal, but that is a sub-issue.] I am not here to engage in this debate in this forum; I am only saying that you are correct that the debate exists and is unresolved – with respect to journals. For that reason, I am certainly willing to let journals slide here. I have already Opposed on one separate FAC, as the proper scope for the debate.
2. As I said, I strongly believe that everyone thinks direct quotes should always get page numbers. In addition, I think most people believe that facts cited to books should always get page numbers, whether they are direct quotes are not. You can ask the people I mentioned above about that. Regardless, I am even willing to let some (but not all) cites from books slide here, at least somewhat, because... just because. Just because WP:AGF, since you are experienced in the field, and you have made a good faith effort to include page numbers. According to a very strict application of the rules as I see them, I should not let any book cites slide. But I am. I will. Per WP:AGF. Do you understand this point?

All direct quotes have page numbers --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Now we come to the issue of using {{sfn}} simply to indicate "this is the book or article I am discussing at this moment". One of your comments above opened my eyes to the problem here. In one example above, you said, "That's because the secondary source (Robson) is provided at the end of that paragraph." OK. Here's the problem: You are using one tool (that would be {{sfn}}) to perform two functions (as a pointer to a cite/reference, and as a pointer to a note). Unfortunately, in the case above, there is a scoping clash. You are using the {{sfn}} at the end of the paragraph as a pointer to a cite/reference; you are intending its scope to cover the entire paragraph. But inside that paragraph, and therefore inside the scope of the "Robson" reference, is a {{sfn}} that you are using as a pointer to a note. So... the inner scoping does not override the outer scoping, in your mind, because they serve different purposes. In your mind, they do not clash. But how do other readers disambiguate the purposes and the scoping? How do they determine when you are using {{sfn}} to point to a note, and when you are {{sfn}} to point to a cite/reference? There are no visual clues to distinguish "This is what I am talking about here in this sentence; it's a note" from "This supports my assertion, it is a cite/reference." So to make a very very very long story short (too late!), I very strongly suggest that you provide a clear visual clue to disambiguate the two rhetorical goals. More specifically, please stop using {{sfn}} as a footnote device. You can use different ways of circumventing this issue:
   1. You can put that info in a {{efn|footnote}}
   2. If you think about it and if you decide this particular article or book or whatever that you are discussing really isn't a major waypoint in Stearn's career, you can simply skip mentioning the title at all.
   3. If you are sure it's a waypoint and feel averse to using a footnote for any reason, you can just include it in the article's text.
   4. If other solutions don't seem appropriate for a certain point, in some contexts you could use {{harvtxt}} or {{harvnb}} or {{harv}}, perhaps with a little additional punctuation.
2. There we go. I hope this huge post can somehow bridge the communicative gap here. I apologize for the very grave danger of tl;dr.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we have reached an impasse here. It is probably time to get some other opinions as to whether this is actually an issue or not. I understand you feel very strongly about it, but I would like some sort of concensus, since it clearly makes an enormous difference in the construction of WP articles. You appear to be making a very stark distinction between primary and secondary sources and it would seem want them visually separated. I'm not at all sure that referring to "notes" helps the discussion much since that is a separate issue. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Break for air (gasp)

I've just become aware that a re-opinion has been requested, and uh, I guess there goes my evening? It's a big article with another big article's worth of comments since my support, but I'll try and provide my opinion in a timely way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• On second pass through -

• I find the sentence Seward was impressed by him, giving him access to the herbarium of the Botany School (now Department of Plant Sciences - see image)[13] where he worked as a part-time research assistant,[2] and later to the Cambridge University Library.[1][9] a touch vague about which he worked as a part time research assistant, I assume it wasn't Sward.

True - rephrased --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• In his war service but was accepted into the Royal Air Force (RAF) Medical Services, given his work with the St John Ambulance Brigade. what work? Never mentioned before.

Ok - rephrased --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I may still be smarting from WP:BIRD being brought to heel by WP:MOS, but is it customary for sentences like were obliged to live in the Library - I know which library but why the caps?

Specified - --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• More to come, but to be clear this isn't enough of itself to remove my support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, finished my second pass through. There were a number of places were I found myself wanting to rewrite, but concluded that I would not make it better, only different and more how I would write. I remain impressed at the scope of the article and its depth and thoroughness, and found the prose fine (although on occasion it dipped into more detail than necessary, I'll allow it) . I have one last matter to look into, Lingzhi's sticking point about the use of {{sfn}} as a citation tool and footnote. I think I understand the point he is driving at. I want to go through again to see if it impedes verifiability or confuses as he suggests. But it's late here and I must concede I won't get to that tonight. On balance though I still support this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - the danger is often is that every time someone comes by and rewrites, the next person wants to change it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm traveling and cannot edit much. If you compare my t tldr scoping discussion to my earlier confusion about one sfn covering various facts maybe it will make sense. I don't want separation be primary and secondary sources I want sfn used for citations only. Am on cellphone can't discuss.(talk)
  • I think we got that - but that is till separating primary and secondary --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Necessary. Use fen in article text; use harv variant inside footnote. Not strange not unheard of.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bookstore

To my ear "bookstore" sounds like North American English in contrast to "bookshop" which sounds BrE. I have some forms of agreement: from oxforddictionaries.com which in BrE simply diverts bookstore, without comment, to bookshop (how rude!); from Chambers which defines bookstore as North American for bookshop; and from OED which has "bookstore, n. ... Chiefly U.S. ... A bookshop." I don't want to go crashing around in an FAC in my size 10 wellies changing stuff, but would involved editors please carefully consider altering bookstore to bookshop in its seven appearances here? Thank you. In passing can I also say that in the fifth appearance of bookstore, in "Cambridge years (1929–1933)", I don't understand the reason for its having a capital B. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to ignore what some later biographers referred to it as, and do some research into what it was actually called, which turns out to be "Booksellers". However the predominance of contemporary references seem to refer to it as "bookshop" so I will change it as you suggest. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much. I know it sounded picky of me but I do find it reads better now. And yes, bookseller could have worked too - I had not thought of that - but bookshop does sound fine. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisit by Jim

As requested, I've had another look at this. I think the prose reads very well, my only new comment being that "spare time" may be superfluous in "spare time, lunchtimes, evenings and weekends"—what else is left? The references now look much better than before, and the restyling has aided their usability. I still support this article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Tx I will take a look --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda

I was invited on my talk, and like to follow.

General

• Please decide for consistent date format, I'd say European.

You are correct, MOS requires consistent format but does not specify "European". UK usage is not consstent but dmy is the most common - the few dates that were mdy have been changed, thanks

I wasn't precise, should have said consistant within an article, and European for a European topic. Thank you.

• Consider - if life and work are split - to have life afterwards, - it's a bit difficult to return to Cambridge after his wife was 103 ;)

Interesting idea - there may be inconsistencies either way. The format for biographies, at least in the Plant project, is Life then Work. I think rather than look for sequiturs it is best to consider the two as free standing entities

Understand. Never wrote a substantial bio like this one. My typical opera singers have a career, then recordings, little life ;)

I like lots of life - if I can find it. I like to make my characters human.

• If split, wouldn't the bicycle commuting belong to life?

There are actually three general sections - Life - Career - Work. I placed the several references to bicycles - see for instance photograph on 1st page of Festing - was his preferred method of comuting between places of work, so I placed them in Career.

Fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can more cites have page numbers?

What should have page numbers is a topic of active discussion at FAC. Most of the cites refer to either a particular work, or within the various biographical articles ("Articles about Stearn"). Of these, many are web resources, and the rest articles with only 1-5 pages, so I'm not sure that adding page umbers for every cite would be helpful. However all direct quotes have been paginated.

Lead

• Perhaps a hint at him being influential in the first paragraph?

Good point - added

• Perhaps no wife and children in the lead at all, certainly not before talking about why we should read about him.

That would depend on how the main text is structured. The lead is a summary of the text, and it seems to make sense to me at least to follow the order of the main text.

I actually don't believe that the summary has to follow the same order. Remember that the reader is not yet introduced to your structure life/career/work, so might be surprised that he first dies, then works ;) - I wouldn't mention the children if all you can say about them is that they survived him, or I might say something minimal such as "The couple had three children." - Language question: at the time of his wedding, his wife "would become" his collaborator, but from the perspective of a summary, "she became", no?

Childhood

• Perhaps get father's name as a unit, not the surname a line later, the unit followed by "and his wife ..."?

I'm not sure I completely follow you here. I have tried ordering this a number of different ways, and changed it again just recently - the surname is introduced at the beginning of line one (William Thomas Stearn) so it is a reasonable assumption that his father would also be Stearn. One could call his parents Thomas Stearn and Ellen Stearn, rather than Tomas and Ellen Stearn - or one take a feminist position and refer to his parents as Thomas Stearn and Ellen Kiddy. Let me play around with these. For now I am adopting option 2 - "Thomas Stearn (1871/2–1922) and Ellen ("Nellie") Kiddy (1886–1986)"

You did what I wanted ;) - The mother with a different surname would tell me, they were not married, or was she Ellen ("Nellie", née Kiddy, 1886–1986)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since whether she took his name or not is not discussed - but as phrased it gives her more autonomy. They were the people who became his parents

• Perhaps repeat his name - instead of "his" - when he hasn't been mentioned in two sentences, but the father instead.

Agree, done

• "Milton Road Junior Council School (see image)" - the "(see image)" is new to me, and I don't find the image.

Thank you for making me rethink that one. There is a story behind that one. During GAN I was obliged to remove a number of images that turned out to be non-free. So I made them external links and placed them in the Bibliography under Images. If you click on the citation next to the image it took you to the citation link. So I just simplified the whole thing. All links to external images (since external links in line are not allowed) are anchored directly to the link in Images!

Thank you, understand now, and think it's a great solution! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• "He would spend his school holidays on his uncle's Suffolk, tending cows grazing by the roadside, and where he observed the wild flowers of the hedgerows and fields." - may be my lack of English, but "tending" then "observed" reads a bit awkward.

Agree, rephrased

• "and while he was there, he was encouraged by his biology teacher, Mr Eastwood, who recognised his talents" - I guess that could be put simpler without loosing the meaning.

Agree, rephrased

• "He would also spend part of his school holidays" might be better without "also".

Agree, rephrased

Later life

• "develop linguistic (particularly German and the classics) and bibliographic skills." - takes too long before we get to skills.

Agree

Lindley

• "Librarian at the Royal Horticultural Society's (RHS) Lindley Library" - how about "Librarian at the Lindley Library of the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS)"?

Agree --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am thoroughly impressed by the man's work - and yours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Gerda. I will carefully examine each one and respond a little later --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Watching, and please feel free to insert your comments right below the items, indenting to clarify what's yours. Just sign the last comment of one edit, not every single one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am now happy with all the details, - just not yet the order of summary in the lead, and the passive role the children "play" there. Would like to know what others think. Bach was mentioned: the lead doesn't say by how many children he was survived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And he had lots and lots of children! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do a source review; I hope to get it done today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review:

I will try and get to all these on Sunday

• There's a harv error showing for footnote 13: "link from #CITEREFCUBS1904 doesn't point to any citation".

Oh, yes, earlier reviewer wanted source deleted - fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• No location for Bowles, Perring & Walters, or Stern; or (in the collaborative section) for Baumann (1993) or the first Linnaeus.

Absent locations generally because not stated (and a defect in Google Books), therefore some sleuthing is required - will inquire further

If they're not stated, that's OK, but if they can be found of course that would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

- fixed

• You don't give the location for Cambridge University Press in most cases, which is fine, but then in a couple of cases you do (Arber, Tutin). I'd suggest being consistent.

Agree - erred on side of inclusion

You had both "Cambridge" and "Cambridge, England", so I made them consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Tx

• Suggest being consistent with US locations and states; you have "Santa Barbara CA", "Pittsburgh", and "Portland, Or.". I've had non-US editors request fully spelled out state names, rather than abbreviations, so I'd suggest "Santa Barbara, California", "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", and so on.

All US States spelled out in full

• Woodcock & Coutts is listed under books, but the date has a month and day, and the publisher is just given as "Country Life". Did this actually appear in a magazine?

Country Life also published books. Another Google Books thing - they tend to give exact date of publication. I took a look at a copy for verification - amended and added additional biblio material for erification

• I haven't seen anyone include an "inauthor" search on Google in a bibliography section, and given that we can't know how the results of the search will change as Google changes its algorithm, I'm not sure this is a good idea. Have you seen this done in other articles?

Well, seeing it on other pages gave me the idea. I based the decision to include it on the grounds that as more books get digitised, it will automatically update. No worse than any other xlink that can rot

• Does the "Works by Stearn" section include only a selection of his works? If so I think it should say so at the top of that section.

Yes, he wrote 500! I added the word "cited" to clarify the criteria for inclusion

I guessed it would be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the Selected publications section it appears you indent with "Reviews:" to introduce reviews in some cases but not all; is there a reason for the different formats?

Probably the number! I changed them all to cite format

• The second-to-last citation at the end of "Articles about Stearn" (Heywood) appears to be out of alphabetical order. I assume you're placing the Jstor Global Plants one at the end as there's no author available?

Correct on both counts - fixed

• You have a citation for "Stearn, William (15 October 1965a)" but there doesn't appear to be a 1965b. There are several others like this -- 1952, 1955, 1981, 1989. I thought perhaps you were using the "a" suffix where there is a less specific date -- e.g. Stearns 1952 and Stearns 7 September 1952a, so that the latter can be referred to just as 1952a, but that doesn't appear to be necessary for the 1981 or 1989 citations.

(i) Stearn 1965. The original citation was cited as {{sfn|Stearn|1965}}, when another publication was added later I made the date 1965a to differentiate it, according to the rules I had seen (the alternative being to go back and change the original to 1965a and make the new one 1965b). (ii) Similarly for the other instances, eg 1952 etc all of which I just checked

I follow you, and I agree that most of the cites are fine. Let me just ask a couple of follow up points.

• 1952: There are three Stearns citations for 1952: "William Herbert's 'Appendix'...", which is dated November 1952; "Proposed International Code...", which is dated 1952; and "International Code of Nomenclature...", which is dated "7 September 1952a". I agree you don't need to make them 1952a, 1952b, and 1952c, but when you cite "Stearn 1952", as you do in footnotes 125 and 126, I'm not clear which of the first two you're referring to.

I see what you mean - ok, this could take a while to sort out and make sure there is no ambiguity. I have clarified the Stearn cites

• 1965: I can't see that you cite the 1965a article anywhere; am I missing it?

No. There was no harv parameter. I added it as a placeholder while I toyed whether to cite it or not - eventually I did. So it is now cited

• 1989: It took me a while to see that "Stearn 1989" referred to the "Nandina, Ranzania..." chapter in Cullen 2011. I see from the wikitext that you've labelled this as a 1989 source, but I don't see anything that explains that date in the visible form of the citation -- shouldn't there be?

That's a complicated story. As a matter of principle, I reduced clutter in using chapters of books by omitting all redundant matter such as dates, eg Smith (1989) in Jones (1989) (though every now and then someone flies by with AWB and reinserts them). In this particular case it is more complicated. His chapter was published in the original 1989 edition of the book, but also reprinted posthumously in the 2011 edition, which is the one I cited and linked to online edition (but included "original date"). I could put the date back, but it would still look odd as Stearn (1989) in Cullen (2011) - unless of course I add another foot note.

Foot note added in abundance of caution

These three points are all that's left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• This link is dead.

It seems the journal just reorganised their website - I have replaced the old url with the new one

• One citation to Stafleu & Cowan gives the page number; the other doesn't -- I'd suggest making them consistent.

That's all I can find on the sources. I'll do a spotcheck shortly and report back here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's because I was asked to prioritise pagination of direct quotes - and its only 3 pages long. Since its available online I changed both to direct page links

And I think that completes all responses to Source review --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done a spotcheck and have no concerns, though I should say that I have no access to the major sources used. I check about six or seven of the sources which I am able to access and found no problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide if you so wish --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; that would be very helpful. I've emailed you with three requests. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So notifications says - but I have been waiting for the email all morning! Try emailing me directly? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an email link I can use, perhaps on an external webpage? Or try emailing me through my email link . Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is here. Ok, its on my user page but here it is again - mgoodyear@dal.ca --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've emailed you; let me know if you haven't received it within a few minutes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Spotchecks are good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review is complete; there are no issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: With four supports and a conditional support, I think have consensus to promote. Some of the issues that have arisen here are a little on the experimental side and I'm not sure how much consensus they enjoy. I'm also not sure that FAC is the best place for the extended commentary that came to dominate this review, and it became quite hard to follow quite quickly. There may still be a few prose or sourcing issues (including anything that Gerda might find), but I think these can be addressed outside of FAC on the talk page. One little issue I would recommend addressing is that we have a few duplicate links; these should be trimmed where possible. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2017 [4].

---

Sino-Roman relations

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the largely indirect relations between the Roman Empire (and its medieval incarnation, the Eastern Roman Empire) and the Han dynasty of China, followed by relations with subsequent Chinese dynasties. It contains information about ancient authors from both the Roman and Han Chinese realms and in some cases their attempts to understand the geography, history, culture, society, and governments of the respective empires on opposite ends of the Eurasian continent. The major focus, however, is on the poorly understood diplomatic missions that occurred between these two empires, as well as the trade activity that occurred between them via the Indian Ocean. In my humble opinion, the article is very well-sourced, easy to read, and well within the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size. From what I can tell it also possesses all the necessary FA requirements, being a well-organized, stable article with plenty of images to illustrate the topic. At the end of last year it also passed its Wikipedia:Good articles review, months after I had nominated it and honed each section according to the suggestions of the reviewers. I hope that you enjoy the read! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Anything with a {{PD-old}} tag also needs a US PD tag
• File:LocationOfTashkurgan.jpg: what's the source of the underlying data?
• File:Illustration_of_Byzantine_embassy_to_Tang_Taizong_643_CE.jpg needs a better tag
• Photos of 3D works should also include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria. Even though I've written FA articles in the past, I've never really been good at this license tagging thing and I almost always wind up needing help with it. To the best of my abilities I've included US PD tags (specifically "PD-1923") for each of the PD-Old images used in the article. I've removed the image file "LocationOfTashkurgan.jpg" because I do not feel like hunting down the originator of the map, let alone having him or her hunt for the source that they used. If it's a non-sourced image, then it can go in the waste bin as far as I'm concerned. I never really noticed anything about the tag or source for that image, because it was a preexisting image before I began editing the article. As for "Illustration_of_Byzantine_embassy_to_Tang_Taizong_643_CE.jpg" I have since added a "PD-1923" tag as well, since it was published in 1920. As for photos of 3D works, you're going to have to be more specific here, since including "a tag for original work" flew right over my head. How do I go about doing that? I don't understand you. You might as well be speaking Swahili. Lol. Anyways, thanks for the image review. This is always something that slips my mind when I submit an FA, since I tend to have all my other ducks lined in a row and ready to go. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If you take a picture of a three-dimensional artwork, there are two copyrights that need to be considered: your copyright as the photographer, and the artist's copyright on their artwork. In this case, the artworks are all almost certainly out of copyright, but we should include a tag that indicates why - whether {{PD-old}} or whatever else - in addition to the tag indicating the photographer's copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Okay. I'll see to it that PD-old tags are added to those images, then! Thanks for clarifying. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Recusing as coordinator for this one. I'm reading this (slowly), and it looks good so far. I made two minor tweaks, and my only real question so far (to the end of the Geography section) is whether we need all three maps in the lead. The first certainly, the third probably, but I'm not quite sure of the need for the second. Also, we have two Renaissance reconstructions of Roman maps. I'd like to know a little more about where these came from; how were they created? More importantly, I think the captions need referencing as the maps are not mentioned in the text (unless I missed it, or it comes later). Sarastro1 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

More: I've read down to the end of "Other Roman Embassies" now. Generally, looking very good, but a few little quibbles to add to the ones above. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Recent excavations at the burial site of China's first Emperor Qin Shi Huang": Can we date this? "Recent" is a little vague, and will date.
• It's a little disconcerting to see the long quote by Florus cited to Yule. I think we need to say something along the lines of "Quoted in Yule..." in the ref. We need to say where we found the quote, if not in the original source. This is also the case for the later quotes in the "Envoy Gan Ying" section.
• Given that Yule was writing over a hundred years ago, has there been no follow-up work since?
• It's a bit jarring to read of Gan Ying without any explanation of who he is until the next section. Could we at least say "since Chinese records insist that Gan Ying was the first Chinese to reach as far west as Tiaozhi in [year]"? We also end up linking him twice in quick succession: here and in the next section.
• Why are the two long quotations in the "Envoy Gan Ying" section in italics? I'm pretty sure this is against MOS.
• "While Syrian jugglers were renowned in Western Classical literature,[65] Chinese sources from the 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD mention them as well.": I might be missing something here, but I'm really not sure why we are saying "while" here. Where is the comparison?
• "which Yule deftly notes was the same criticism directed at papal missionary John of Montecorvino when he arrived in China in the late 13th century": Hmm, "deftly"? We can't really pass comment on the accuracy, effectiveness, brilliance, or otherwise of our sources as this would certainly be POV.
• "as well as a Chinese officer, Liu Xian of Huiji (in Zhejiang), who unfortunately died en route": Similarly, I'm not sure we should be saying that this is "unfortunate".
• I also noticed around here the rather odd footnote "Yule (1915), p. 53; please see footnotes #4–5." While undoubtedly polite, it comes across as a little unprofessional!
• I note again that we are very dependent on Yule here. Is there really nothing more modern in this field? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. To the best of my abilities I've attempted to tackle each and every bullet point you have raised here. You may cycle through the latest edits to see the various changes that I've recently made to the article. I've also provided a British Library citation for that Renaissance map, and removed the second map of the lead section as you've suggested. As for a seemingly heavy reliance on Henry Yule (1915), I will admit that 26 out of 161 citations is a bit skewed, but by no means nearing a majority of the citations or even a quarter of them. This is a very arcane topic; there aren't many present-day academics who tackle it in full or as extensively as Yule did. Despite the lack of attention this topic receives in academia as a whole, I've nevertheless managed to cite Thorley (1971), Yü (1986), Pulleyblank (1999), Young (2001), Lewis (2007), de Crespigny (2007), Bang (2009), Hill (2009), Scheidel (2009), Christopoulos (2012), and Ball (2016), all of whom have given it considerable attention. Unfortunately I was unable to directly consult Leslie Gardiner (1996), but the article doesn't suffer too much from the lack of her groundbreaking scholarship on the matter. Quite frankly I don't think it is the fault of the article that the topic itself isn't given a greater amount of attention it probably deserves. That's my 2 cents at any rate. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

More: Still looking very good, and very readable. I've read to the end of "Roman exports to China". Sarastro1 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a little uncomfortable with the length of the quotation from Ma Duanlin and wonder if some of it could be cut or paraphrased. Not a big issue in any case.
• "Richthofen's identification of Cattigara as Hanoi was widely accepted until archaeological discoveries made at Óc Eo (near Ho Chi Minh City) in the Mekong Delta suggested this may have been its location": Can we date these discoveries? It would provide some contrast with the 1877 date mentioned. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I dated it as "mid-20th century" since it is explained a couple sentences later that it was excavated by Louis Malleret during the 1940s. As for the Ma Duanlin quote, I'll see what I can do, although I also don't consider it a pressing issue. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

More, leaning support: I've read to the end now, and fully expect to support this. It is very interesting, and very well written. However, there are a few places where we drift into academic style which does not quite fit here. There is one example below, but there are a few borderline cases where we get a little too "chatty". Nothing that can't be fixed easily. My other nagging concern is the use of long quotations, as I mentioned above and one below. I'd not oppose on this, or even come close, but I do wonder how necessary they are. My inclination is to replace them with a summary, but that is perhaps a matter of taste; I do know that a few editors would actually oppose over similar issues, but maybe not when we are quoting primary sources. Anyway, this can be discussed further. I'd like to read over it one last time, and maybe give a few places a mild copy-edit, but there are no major issues here at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Despite the claims by Pliny the Elder about the trade imbalance and much of Rome's coinage used to purchase silk, Warwick Ball asserts that the spice trade and purchase of other commodities was of much greater consequence for the Roman economy": I'm not too sure what we are saying here. Greater positive or negative consequence, and how does that link to the main idea about the silk trade?
• I'm not sure of the benefit of the long quotes by Pliny and Seneca. If Pliny were cut right now, the main text would still summarise the content perfectly; the second quote is a little more useful but could easily be replaced with a word or two more. The article is already long; I'd say they are unnecessary, but that would not affect whether I support.
• "Trade items such as spice and silk had to be paid for with Roman gold coinage, but although there was some demand in China for Roman glass, glass was also produced locally in China": Can we rephrase to avoid "...glass. Glass..."?
• "Even with the Byzantine production of silk starting in the 6th century AD, Chinese varieties were still considered of better quality, a fact that is perhaps underscored by the discovery of a Byzantine solidus minted during the reign of Justin II found in a Sui-dynasty tomb of Shanxi province in 1953, among other Byzantine coins found at various sites.": This reads a little too much like a history paper and less like an encyclopedia. I couldn't really think of a way to reword this, but I think we need to take out the academic tone. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: greetings! Thanks for coming back to review the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have reworded the part about Warwick Ball's claim regarding the spice trade.
• I have removed the quote by Pliny the Elder and summarized its contents instead, seeing how it perhaps offers less to our readers than other quotations used in the article. I have no desire and see no need to do the same for the quote by Seneca the Elder, though. For that matter I don't think there is any problem in quoting brief passages from primary sources. Although merely mentioning it borders on Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, I feel compelled to note that some featured articles contain quotations from primary sources as well, such as the article on Pericles (my namesake here on Wiki). I would consider it to be highly obnoxious if someone actually opposed this article's FA candidacy on the sole basis that some primary source quotations have been sparingly used. With the removal of Pliny, there are now only five block quotations, three of them very small, and two of them somewhat large. Perhaps the two larger ones can be parsed down, but again, I don't think that should affect the article's FA candidacy. If someone actually does oppose the article on such grounds, I'd suggest waiting for a second, third, fourth, and fifth opinion on the matter before considering the removal of further quotations.
• I have reworded the sentence about glass. Good catch! It's never a good thing to sound redundant.
• I have also reworded the part about Chinese silk and Byzantine coins that you thought sounded too academic for an encyclopedia.

I hope that these recent changes are suitable enough to earn your support. Please let me know if there are any further concerns you might have with the article and its prose, sourcing, image captions, etc. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: This was very enjoyable, and thank you for your patience with the pace of my review. I've removed some of the less formal, or "academic" phrasings but feel free to revert anything I messed up. This is a long article, and I might have missed something but it looks good after a couple of read-throughs. It is a little unusual for a WP article, in several ways, but I think it meets the FA criteria. I have this watch-listed and will keep an eye on other comments in case I have missed anything important. Long, deeply sourced articles like this can be tricky to review, so I hope this one gets a few more eyes. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: great! Thanks for taking the time to review thearticle. The flow of it has been markedly improved and the prose tightened thanks to your input. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

I like this, very worthy and interesting subject. Some comments from a non-historian.

• I've made a handful of edits
• In Roman geography China and the silk-producing Seres' of the Far East. - probably good to explain what Seres means here, since its the first mention in the main text
• Florus seems to have confused the Seres with peoples of India, or at least noted that their skin complexions proved that they both lived "beneath another sky" than the Romans.[2] Roman authors generally seem to have demonstrated some confusion as to where the Seres were located precisely, in either Central Asia or East Asia This would be clearer if I understood what the writer meant by Seres, so that one can better contrast it with the confusion of classical writers.
• In the 1st-century AD Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, ... he visited many of these locations is a very long sentence. Maybe break it up thusly In the 1st-century AD Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, its anonymous Greek-speaking author, a merchant of Roman Egypt, provides such vivid accounts of trade cities that it is clear he visited many of these locations. These accounts included trade cities in Arabia, Pakistan, and India, including travel times from rivers and towns, where to drop anchor, the locations of royal courts, lifestyles of the locals and goods found in their markets, and favorable times of year to sail from Egypt to these places in order to catch the monsoon winds.?
• Consistency: Óc Eo in lead, most likely Oc Eo, Vietnam in text
• Some of the locations and dependent states of Rome in the Weilüe that were identified by Friedrich Hirth (1885) have been contradicted by John E. Hill (2004). I feel this would flow better if you first introduced the idea that Hirth identified locations, and only then introduce the idea that these have been disputed (and I think disputed its a better term). Example Frederick Hirth (1885) identified a number of the locations and dependent states named in the Weilüe, although some of his identifications have been disputed... Or something like that.
• Both the Old Book of Tang and New Book of Tang record that the Arabs (Da shi 大食) sent their commander "Mo Yi" (摩拽伐之, Pinyin: Mó zhuāi fá zhī, i.e. Muawiyah I, the governor of Syria before becoming the Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680 AD) to besiege the Byzantine capital, Constantinople, and forced the Byzantines to pay them tribute - the information in brackets really breaks up the flow of this sentence - maybe better as a footnote?

More comments to follow,. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. As per your suggestions, I have clarified who the Seres were, reworded and split apart that long sentence about the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, and reworded the passage about Hirth (1885), Hill (2004), and the Weilüe. However, I did not edit the part about the Arabs and Muawiyah I. I think most readers simply do not consult the footnotes, and removing the context that "Mo Yi" has been identified as Muawiyah I would lead most readers to question who the hell we're talking about. That explanation is planted there in order to avoid confusion as much as it is to highlight the fact that the Chinese were privy enough to affairs and important individuals of the Mediterranean world that they identified them by name (at least by the 7th century AD). In either case I look forward to your other suggestions. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• maybe commander "Mo Yi" (Muawiyah I, governor of Syria and later Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680 AD) to besiege the Byzantine capital, Constantinople... ? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, because I have not created a separate article yet for "Mo Yi" (as opposed to Muawiyah I, who should have a separate article from the person described in Chinese sources). Removing the Chinese characters goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China-related articles. Until I or someone else creates a "Mo Yi" article, I'm afraid that they have to stay. Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it's been discussed ad nauseum in the talk pages, but I feel compelled to note that I thought the MOS existed to make Wikipedia easier and clearer to read. But I've had my own run-ins with the MOS and their...idiosyncrasies, so I won't push the issue here. I still think that Muawiyah I, governor of Syria and later Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680 AD is clearer than the governor of Syria before becoming the Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680 AD. Throwing the verb becoming threw me off on my first pass through because I skipped over the whole "Mo Yi" (摩拽伐之, Pinyin: Mó zhuāi fá zhī, i.e. - I missed the bracket opening an assumed the next bit of text followed on from the Arabs (Da shi 大食) sent their commander. And brevity is a bonus here.

Anyway, on with the review.

• Embassy to Augustus - The 2nd-century AD Roman historian Florus describes Context of who Florus is is great, would have been better the first time he was mentioned in the main text of the article.
• Question on this section, we have describes the visit of numerous envoys, including the "Seres" (possibly the Chinese) to the first Roman Emperor Augustus (r. 27 BC – 14 AD) followed by a direct quote. Then a discussion about how little else can be found from the sources. My question is - is there nothing more than can be said about this embassy than the quote? There must be some analysis in the historical literature about it? (This may not be actionable, but it seems this section is of particular importance and relies heavily on just the account.
• in both the Parthian Empire and Kushan Empire of Asia, ethnic Greeks continued to be employed as entertainers such as musicians and athletes why continued? (Isn't clear from the surrounding sentences. Also, why the introduction of Syrian jugglers at the end of the paragraph... are we talking Syrian Greeks?

More to come, saving edit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• provided much-needed "prestige" for Emperor Huan, as he was facing serious political troubles and fallout for the forced suicide of Liang Ji, who had dominated the Han government well after the death of his sister Empress Liang Na. - some context is needed as this is a bit of a non sequitur. Who is Liang Ji? Is it enough to say political troubles after the forced suicide of politician and rival Liang Ji? Or better yet, how about he was facing serious political troubles in the period known as the Disasters of the Partisan Prohibitions. (or first DPP). This makes it explicit that the troubles were severe (severe enough to have a wikipedia article), links clearly to the troubles and Liang Ji if readers are interested, without getting bogged down in history tangential to the scope of the article.
• Yule speculated that the Roman visitors must have lost their original wares due to robbery or shipwreck and used the aforementioned items as gifts instead, prompting the Chinese sources to accuse them of withholding their more precious valuables, I think this section should come after the sentence on what the gifts were, and lead with the accusation, and then follow with the scholarly assessment that they may have been robbed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: my reply to your latest suggestions:

• I shifted the description of Florus up to the first instance where he is mentioned in the article. Good catch!
• There's not much analysis about Florus' quote and, as Yule pointed out, no other instance where a Roman historian mentioned a "Seres" embassy arriving in the Roman Empire.
• As a historian I thought it was clear, but I suppose most people don't realize the Parthian Empire and Kushan Empire came after the Hellenistic period in Asia (a period that coincided with Alexander the Great's conquests and the diadochi successor state of the Seleucid Empire). I have amended that sentence accordingly to provide a bit more context about how ethnic Greeks in Asia "continued" their professions as athletes and musicians.
• Syrian jugglers means just that...it could include anyone from ancient Syria, not necessarily ethnic Greeks (although they were the premier ethnic group there in Hellenistic times). That's too much to explain in one sentence without getting too wordy; I think it is fine how it is and doesn't mislead the reader in any way.
• I have added the word "politician" before "Liang Ji."
• I have shifted the sentence about Yule's speculations of this group's wares being taken in robbery or lost in a shipwreck right after the sentence that listed the wares offered as gifts to the Han court. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another embassy from Daqin is recorded in the year 284 AD, as bringing tributary gifts to the Chinese Jin Empire (265–420 AD). would make a lot more sense if in the year 284AD, was taken out. It's badly broken as is
• Chinese histories for the Tang dynasty (618–907 AD) record contacts with merchants from "Fulin" (拂菻), the new name used to designate the Byzantine Empire, the continuation of the Roman Empire in the east.[27][83] During the 19th century Hirth and Yule identified Fulin as the Byzantine Empire Redundancy: two sentences telling us the Fulin in Byzantine, one after another. Try and reword so the salient points (Tang dynasty records, Hirth and Yule's conclusion, what Fulin is) are covered once
• Yule asserts that the additional Fulin embassies during the Tang period arrived in 711 and 719 AD, with another in 742 AD that may have simply been Nestorian monks Asserts jibes oddly with may in this sentence - maybe Yule sugests? Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have reworded that sentence about Daqin and the Jin Empire, shifting the date "284 AD" into the next sentence.
• I have slightly reworded the part about Fulin being the Byzantine Empire, but I disagree that there is a redundancy here when one sentence is about the statements found in Tang-period Chinese histories and another is about the scholarly consensus as it existed in the 19th century. These two are not the same. If you have a better suggestion, supply it please, because I fail to see the problem here.
• No. Yule does not "suggest" that Fulin embassies came in 711 and 719 AD. Those are the dates he was adamant about. It was the mission in 742 AD that is more questionable and may have only been one of Nestorian Christian monks from West Asia instead of "Fulin" people. The sentence reads just fine from what I can tell. You might be overthinking this, just a bit too hard. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Mea culpa...

• the Tang Dynasty considered "Daqin" and "Fulin" is followed by an account which compares Fulin was held to be identical with the ancient Ta-ts'in.. I'm going to go out on a limb - Ta-ts'in is Daqin - rendered differently (I'm guessing Wade-Giles spelling is different). This is complicated stuff for people not in the field and could use an explanation, (Wade-Giles and Ta-ts'in hadn't appeared yet in the main text, maybe a footnote? It's a fascinating account, just needs to be a little clearer for laypeople.
• He also lists Roman items found there, including glass beads and bracelets. Dumb question - What does this add to the paragraph? The sections is about whether the romans went there. We already know that Roman stuff was found there. Warwick Ball's hypothesis is interesting, this factoid isn't. If it is, it isn't clear why.
• I'll come back and finish off. I'm struggling a little bit with the background of the coins paragraph, so I'll look at it later with a clear head. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have added information about Wade-Giles versus Pinyin spelling conventions into the footnote for that block quote of a passage from the Wenxian Tongkao.
• I have shifted the statement about beads and bracelets up to the previous paragraph where it is more relevant. Good point!
• I look forward to the rest of your review. Regards. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, reading through again support. Good stuff. Thanks for putting up with my comments :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: thanks! I'm glad that you enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. All the best. Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• I can't quite sign off on the first paragraph (though I'll probably support anyway). Normally, I limit myself to problems that are small enough that I can just fix them, without complaining ... but there's no obvious fix, since leads are limited to 4 paragraphs. It tries to do too much, so it's hard to avoid problems like the "Mutual awareness" sentence, which follows a sentence about Parthians and Kushans, raising the question of who's aware of whom. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: hello! Thanks for reviewing and copyediting the article. I have no qualms with the edits you've made thus far, so there's no need to revert anything. As for your concern about the first paragraph, I found a very easy solution. I simply shifted the problematic/confusing sentence up and just before the one about the Parthian and Kushan empires. This makes it clear that we are still talking about the Han Chinese and Roman empires. This was a great observation! I look forward to any others and am willing to address any objections you might have. All the best. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• much-needed "prestige" for: Lose the scare-quotes, if possible.
• "giving him the title": Lose the in-text link to the the Chinese Wikisource. There are several options.
• stuffed into a "feather bag": I changed this to: stuffed into what was called a "feather bag". Since quote marks can mean roughly four different things, it's important to specify what they mean (which sometimes means you can drop the quote marks altogether).
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I can't speak to much of the history, but the article is dense and the scope is breathtaking ... quite an accomplishment. More please! - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: excellent! Thank you very much for your support. I have removed the scare quotes around the word "prestige" and I've moved the Chinese language Wikisource link down to the "External links" section. I hope that suffices! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review: All sources of very high quality, and certainly reliable. Formatting looks largely OK for "Sources" (though I might have missed something as it is certainly comprehensive) but I noticed a couple of things in the Citations:

• Consistency over ending citations with a period/full stop (e.g. ref 3) or not (e.g. ref 4)
• Consistency over page numbers: Are we using pp. 123-124 or 123-24: there is some variation.
• Consistency over using p. and pp. or p and pp for page numbers.
• Ref 46: "Florus, as quoted in Yule (1915), p. 18; footnote#" Do we have a missing footnote number here?

Otherwise looks OK, but as there are such extensive references, I'll have another quick check when these have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: greetings! It is nice to hear from you again. I have fixed citation #46 in the meantime (by specifying which footnote was used on that particular page in Yule's book), but we'll have to discuss these other points before moving forward. I was able to find one citation that lacked a letter "p" referring to the page number (ref #106, Grant 2005, p. 99). Having fixed that, I was unable to find any others that lacked the abbreviation for pagination. If you are able to spot any others, please let me know and I will fix them. As to your other queries: unfortunately, even if I chose not to place periods at the end of regular citations, there would still need to be periods at the end of certain citations that contain additional text or references to online sources that require punctuation after stating the date of retrieval. I think I'll just place periods after the end of each citation, but I'd like to hear your input about that first. As for placing a period after "p" or "pp", the academic standard is to provide punctuation after a single "p" but not the double one. Should I go ahead and apply that standard to the article? I meant to do that anyway but must have forgotten or made some minor mistakes. Yours most sincerely, Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and decided to be bold, fixing all the citations so that the use of punctuation is now entirely consistent. I hope this is sufficient! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen ""pp" used on WP, only "pp." and I think it is better done like this so that no-one thinks it is an inconsistency. One other query: "Pulleyblank (1999), p. 77f." is not quite clear: what are we meaning by f here? There are a few possible interpretations, and I think we need to be clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I have gone through the entire article and placed a period after every "pp" that I could find. Feel free to check it, but I'm almost positive that I got each and every one. As for the Pulleyblank citation, it is one of the very few that I did not personally add to this article. Upon inspection (since I have access to JSTOR and am able to read Pulleyblank's article), it appears that someone made a typo. The "f" doesn't appear to have any relevance at all, and the page numbers should be 77-78, not just "77" alone. I have fixed that. As for the few other citations in the article that I did not add, I can't really remember them, but I can assure you that I do not introduce typos or mistakes into my own citations (I tend to double-check them and actually add material to the article while having a book or article open, so that there's virtually no room for mistakes). Please do let me know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed. Cheers! --Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think sourcing is OK now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Great! Glad to hear it. Thanks once again for reviewing the article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic! This is excellent news! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2017 [5].

---

Alan Shepard

Nominator(s): JustinTime55 and Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Alan Shepard, the first American in space, and one of twelve men to walk on the moon. The article recently completed an A class review that included an image review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

An interesting read. Here are my first-pass comments:

Lead

• The 4th paragraph starts with "This was surgically corrected", which refers to his dizziness and nausea at the end the previous paragraph; shouldn't this topic be in one paragraph and not spread over two? These two paragraphs could be merged. MOS:LEAD says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs ..." – the lead currently has 5.

  A good idea. I have merged the paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education

• When did he attend school? No years are given.

  Not certain about his school years. I know he skipped the sixth and eight grades. He waa at Pinkerton from 1936 to 1940; added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• No reason is given for him skipping grades 6 and 8 at school (the source is offline, so I can't check it). Presumably it was because of his above average performance, but perhaps that should be stated.

  It says that he impressed his teachers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Should the second occurrence of "Louise Brewer" at end of the section not be "Brewer", or "Louise" as she is referred to later?

  Sure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Navy service

• I take it events in the opening sentences took place in 1944. No year is given.

  August 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "... calling Louise at 17:00" – is that each day?

  Yes, Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Project Gemini

• "Shepard was designated Chief of the Astronaut Office" – when did this happen?

  In November 1963. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Apollo program

• No mention is made of Apollo 13's fate? Considering that Shepard nearly commanded it, perhaps a brief mention should be made.

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, that helps. Just one point: I take it "joje" means "joke". It seems to be a very obscure word to me, it's not defined in Dictionary.com and a Wikipedia search for articles using this word yielded only one – Alan Shepard. I'd suggest that it be changed. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Typo. j and k are adjacent on the keyboard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  LOL, and there I was trying to look up to this "obscure" word! Actually, according to the Urban Dictionary, it is a word! [6] —Bruce1ee^talk 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  It is, and it fooled the automated spell checker that I rely on to correct my awful typing as I write. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

In media

• The format of the first entry is different to the rest. How about this: "1965 British science-fiction TV series Thunderbirds – character of Alan Tracy is named after him"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  All that's changed is the source, not the formatting. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oh. I thought you meant the reference format. Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• These entries also need sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done some minor edits here, but feel free to revert. That's all for now – I'll have a more detailed look later. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Just one more thing:

• Ref.# 115 (H.R.4517) has a dead link. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  That would be right. Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  Support the prose and MOS. Thanks for all your work on the article, it's looking good. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• File:Alan-shepard.jpg: source link is dead, and could we have a better description than "none"?

  I can fix the description. The image is part of a series that includes this image. I have located several; there should be at least a dozen. But I cannot find it on NASA's site. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  We could switch to this image Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• File:Mr-3-patch-small.gif and File:Apollo_14-insignia.png: the tag indicates that insignia use is restricted - how does that impact our use?

  The image is in the public domain. Assuming that they qualify as NASA logos, there are some restrictions on use. It doesn't impact us. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• File:Alan_Shepard_statue.jpg: bit confused here - the FUR states that the sculptor has given permission to use the image for any purpose, and record of same has been filed with OTRS...so if that's the case, why is this still non-free? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Too complicated for me. Maybe @Bubba73: can explain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I've done it, but the file is still only on my computer. It looks a lot better than the low-contrast one, but the low-contrast one may be more historic. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

John

• What does "Status Deceased" add? --John (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  It conforms to the consensus at template:Infobox astronaut and makes all the astronaut infoboxes consistent. It was added to the infobox in 2007. You changed the status code from "deceased" to "dead" in the documentation (but not the example) per WP:EUPHEMISM in 2014. Another editor opined in 2015 that "dead" doesn't add much, and should be discouraged, but the documentation didn't change. I have removed the status card; but the discussion really belongs over there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  Huh, I'd forgotten that. You mean there are loads of articles on dead astronauts with a template helpfully adding that as well as being dead they are also "deceased"? Gosh. Consistency isn't always a good thing! --John (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment

• The following sentence under Mercury Seven is unclear: "Since this [32 qualified candidates] was more than expected, NASA decided not to bother with the remaining candidates, selecting six astronauts instead of the twelve originally planned." Huh?? Why did they decide to select fewer astronauts, when they had a higher than expected qualification rate? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  Replaced the second clause with these two explanatory sentences: The degree of interest also indicated that far fewer would drop out during training than anticipated, which would result in training astronauts who would not be required to fly Project Mercury missions. It was therefore decided to cut the number of astronauts selected to just six. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I've read to the end of naval service and done some minor, very revertible copy-edits. Just a couple of queries so far, more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced we need as much about his family, particularly his father, as we get.
• The paragraph on Fighter Squadron 193 cuts rather abruptly away from Shepard, and the relevance is not obvious for a sentence or three. Can we make this a little smoother? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Sure. I have re-worded it to start with Shepard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaning Support: This is a rather marvellous article and brings the Shepard alive rather nicely. Just a few nit-picks. The only reason I'm not (yet) supporting outright is that I think the article needs a touch more context, as detailed below. Nothing major, just a sentence here and there to aid the reader. But great work in any case. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "That evening, Shepard discussed the day's events with fellow naval aviators Jim Lovell, Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra.": It would be nice for a sentence to say who these people were to stop readers clicking away from the article.

  I said that they were fellow naval aviators. Added "all of whom would eventually become astronauts". So sad that their names are not household words Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the article would benefit from a little background on the space race: not much, just a few sentences to put all this in context. Similarly, I've a pretty good idea what Mercury Seven was, but a brief introduction to it and its intention would benefit the reader who doesn't want to follow links. I think it is better if a FA is self-contained in this way, and it wouldn't take much writing. For example, we say "James E. Webb announced that Mercury had accomplished all its goals and no more missions would be flown", but we don't really indicate what its goals were.

  I have written a paragraph on the Space Race. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Similarly, a little more on Gagarin; my understanding is that it was ridiculously close as to who would get into space first, and that there was a lot of disappointment at NASA. Could we reflect this briefly?

  Added a couple of sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto what Project Gemini was.

  Added a sentence on what Project Gemini was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "There was no known cure, but in about 20 percent of cases the condition went away by itself.": Is this still the case? Judging by his surgical cure, it is not so maybe "There was then no known cure..."

  As of June 2016 it is. It is just that the article is written in the past tense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the "Awards and Honours" section, as it looks a distant cousin of "In popular culture" sections, but that is just my opinion, is not based on FA criteria, and can be thoroughly ignored and even dismissively waved away.

  Sure, we can do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• We mention his "philandering" but don't really discuss his marriage after its beginning. Did his wife find out? Do we know anything else about their marriage? How long did he carry on ... er... carrying on?

  Sure. Added a paragraph at the start of "Later life" Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Happy to switch to full support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

Support on prose

• Leaning support for this excellent article. I made a small number of minor edits, which you are welcome to revert if you find them wrong-headed. I have two remaining nitpicks, as follows, both in the Project Gemini: Chief astronaut section:

• "An X-ray found a lump on his thyroid, and on January 17, 1964, surgeons at Hermann Hospital removed 20 percent of it." − Accidental ambiguity. This might mean 20 percent of the thyroid or 20 percent of the lump. I assume it means 20 percent of the thyroid, but it would be good to clarify in the text.

  Yes, it was 20 per cent of his thyroid. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• "This included monitoring the development and implementation of effective training programs to assure the flight readiness of personnel for crew assignments on manned space flights, and furnishing pilot evaluations applicable to the design, construction, and operations of spacecraft systems and related equipment. He also provided qualitative scientific and engineering observations to facilitate overall mission planning, formulation of feasible operational procedures, and selection and conduct of specific experiments for each flight." − This is the one place in the article where the jargon bothered me. Could this be compressed or rewritten in plainer English? Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It now reads smoothly. Happy to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Ian

I was planning to perform a full copyedit and review but time's been against me and it seems to have attracted a good deal of commentary anyway. One thing absent that I thought you might consider including is Tom Wolfe's view of Shepard's personality, a duality Wolfe characterised as "Smilin' Al" vs. the "Icy Commander". It might fit nicely around the "mood of the day" bit -- I can supply a ref to my copy of The Right Stuff if needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Tks -- I think the quote you added from Wolfe will make clear to the uninitiated exactly what he was talking about.

One other thing that caught my eye on a quick read-through, re. Moon Shot "generated some controversy for use of a staged photo purportedly showing Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon"... The cited source draws attention to the photo being composited but doesn't seem to mention a "controversy" over it, unless I missed something. Also I think that in mentioning this you should add that the composite was created because there was only video footage of the actual shots, else it reads to me as though there's a question as to whether he really hit those golf balls at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Tks, that's great; the only thing is I still don't see where the source clearly supports the idea that the compositing "generated controversy" -- to me it seems like a fairly matter-of-fact discussion of how and why the composite photo was created. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted that claim. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I can support without going through the article word-by-word and I don't want to hold things up while I try and find time for that -- based on the resolution of all my concerns here and in the source review, plus the depth of commentary by other reviewers, I certainly have no objection to promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Do we have a location for Shayler?

  London. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sources otherwise accurately formatted.
• Ref 4 is to an email on Rootsweb, and the correspondent is not sure that Shepard is defended from Richard Warren, nor does she seem particularly authoritative. As the information is already cited to a book, why are we using this source, which can hardly be a RS?

  Already have one, so removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• What makes Spaceflight 101 a reliable source?

  Replaced with newspaper source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• We have " This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration." at the bottom of the article. Can I check, what material does this refer to in the article?

  Yes, using Earwig's Copyvio Detector Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No other issues that I spotted. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I took some notes for a source review a little while ago but have only now found time to write them up here...

• I had the same thought as Sarastro re. Rootsweb, so glad the other ref suffices.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Page number formatting in the citations all looks fine and the links are all live.
• Typo: "UNited States Navy".

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Book refs use both "NASA" and the full name, perhaps go for one or the other.

  Standised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN136 just seems to take us to a picture -- is the path accurate?

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  Um, so we're using a picture of the lettuce on his chest to cite awards and honours? I would've thought we could do better than that, and if not we could just drop the pretty pictures and leave mention/referencing of his major awards to elsewhere in the article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  All the uncommon awards are already in the article. I felt that the picture was more definitive about the common ones. I've removed the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• You spell out a state like Ohio but not Utah or Colorado -- again should be consistent and I think best spell out for the non-US reader.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN138 could probably be formatted with a template for consistency with others.

  It is using {{imdb character}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• One other query from me regarding the PD material, and it does not affect this source review, more simple curiosity. Is there any reason why we didn't paraphrase that source? I know this is perfectly acceptable, within the rules, etc, but it just strikes me as odd that this couldn't be rephrased. It is only a few phrases, after all. But no matter, and it doesn't affect any of my review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done. It has an Earwig score of 42.9%, which is almost entirely composed of proper nouns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2017 [7].

---

Lion-class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Lion-class battlecruisers were two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better. This recently passed a MilHist A-class review, which included an image review, and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the plan and the map
• File:Lion_class_battleship_-_Jane's_Fighting_Ships,_1919_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_24797.png: image itself says 1918, title says 1919, description says 1920 - which is correct?
  • Fixed the caption; apparently the original drawing was republished in 1920 and credited to the 1919 edition of Janes.
• File:HMS_Princess_Royal_LOC_18244u.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:HMS_Lion_(Lion-class_battlecruiser).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The first is a Bain collection image with no known copyright restrictions. Replaced the second one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Recommend ditching the hatnote - there's no connection between this article and the battleship class, apart from having the same name.
  • I still think that there's the possibility of confusion, "battleship, battlecruiser, what's the diff?"
• "...the first German battlecruisers, the Moltke class..." - SMS Von der Tann was first.
  • Good catch
• I'm not sure the quotation marks are necessary around "contingency"
• I wonder how Burt is doing his math - I can't figure out a way in which there's a 70% increase from Indefatigable to Lion, unless he's comparing normal displacement of the former and loaded displacement of the latter (and even that comes up about a thousand tons short) - it's more like a 40% increase. Can you check Burt again to make sure that's not a typo?
  • You're right, screwed up which one was the divisor.
• On nickel steel - usually, when I see references to nickel steel, it's referring to Harvey or Krupp steel, but it seems like here it's being used to mean something other that KCA.
  • Nickel steel, IIRC, predates Harvey steel and KCA. It might have been used for vertical armor when introduced, but after Harvey and KCA were developed it was often used for deck armor as it was significantly cheaper than either. I believe it was phased out after Krupp non-cemented armor was developed as that had better ductility.
• "Her funnel uptakes...her vulnerability..." - presumably these should both be "their"? Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Looks good now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Footnotes and references are formatted consistently.
• Earwig looks fine.
• What makes dreadnoughtproject.org reliable? Don't know if this has been discussed previously, but if so, point me in the right direction. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the primary authors, Simon Harley, has published articles on the pre-war Royal Navy in the Mariner's Mirror and is also an editor here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:

I think Simon is fine, as is the PhD, but the other two contributors appear to be hobbyists, which I'm not sure cuts the mustard (especially since the one who handles the fire control stuff likely wrote the material you're using). You might just take the citation from their page and cite it directly. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Excellently done as usual, just a few things: "before World War I". To use British terminology, I would say "before the First World War". I would also change the section heading "World War I" and elsewhere as necessary.

There's actually no strong national tie either way to using First World War or WWI; I've got plenty of British books that use WWI.

"German East Asia Squadron from using the Panama Canal. After the German squadron " I might say "German ships" or similar to avoid the repetition. C

Good idea.

• "In 1920 they were both put into reserve and sold for scrap a few years later in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922." I think there needs to be another "were" here before "sold". I might strike "both" though, as there were only two ships, "they" is pretty unambiguous.

• Indeed.

• I think in the first paragraph of the body, there should be some link to the pre-WWI Anglo-German naval arms race. A hatnote is one possibility. I might even say Asquith Government rather than simply Government, with a pipe to H. H. Asquith.

• Excellent idea, although I tweaked it somewhat. I'm not sure, though, if I should explicitly mention that Asquith was the PM or not.

• "Data from a nine-foot (2.7 m) Argo rangefinder located on top of the conning tower was input into a Mk I Dreyer Fire-Control Table" should "input" be "inputted"?

• Technically, I think that you may be right, but I think it's one of those things where the verb and noun forms have merged. I've input a lot of data (and even single datums!), but I've never heard inputted in my life.

• "pointers" link?

• This one's a bit tricky, but I've rephrased it and added a link. How well does it work now?

• "The conning tower sides were 10 inches (254 mm) thick and it had a three-inch roof" Assuming "it" refers to conning tower, I would say "sides of the conning tower" so you are referring to a noun rather than an adjective.
• "In addition, the two four-inch guns mounted above the forward group of casemates were enclosed in casemates of their own to protect the gun crews from weather and enemy action as part of these modifications." the last phrase seems a little remote. I would start the sentence "As part of these modifications, the two ... " and forget about the in addition.
• "Both ships were fitted with a single example" I might say "Each ship was fitted with one ..."
• "made a port visit to Brest in February 1914 and the squadron then visited Russia in June." I would strike "then"
• "Ten minutes later she'd closed the range enough" I did not think we used contractions.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your detailed comments; see if the changes that I made are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support They all look good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, will comment prose suggestions later. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. This is very good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are safe to request a source review at the top of WT:FAC now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Added one above. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this closely at Milhist ACR and have reviewed the changes thus far. I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 [8].

---

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated many articles about magazines full of bad writing, but this is a magazine I can actually recommend. F&SF (as it is universally known) is a survivor from 1949, and from the start has been one of the most important magazines in science fiction and fantasy, though it's been decades since magazine publishing was the most important market in the genre. It's always had a focus on quality writing over sensationalism, and has maintained its high reputation up to the present day. Sadly, all the covers are in copyright, so I've only been able to include one image, of the first issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• "when he left Joseph Ferman": garden path. The sentence is a bit long.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review and support. I've tweaked that sentence; does that fix it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Fsffall49.jpg: should only include the latter fair-use tag, and suggest expanding purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  I cut the first tag; is that what you meant? Not sure what to say for the purpose -- it's to illustrate the magazine's appearance, and I don't discuss the cover at all. Perhaps that's an indication that I should be using a different image, for a cover that is mentioned in the article? Or is the justification for using the first issue stronger, just because it's the first issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  The main purpose of having a cover image in the lead is for visual identification - what cover do you think would best serve that purpose? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  I found one I think works better and substituted it. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Nikki, a couple more images have now been added; would you mind taking another look? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

All current images look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

Lead

• Shouldn't Ashley's quote at the end of the 1st paragraph be cited? WP:LEADCITE suggests that "direct quotations [in the lead] should be supported by an inline citation."

  Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Publication history

• Shouldn't the issue data table be directly under the Publication history section header? It covers the period 1949–2017, not just Lawrence Spivak's tenure.

  I had some trouble with text flow when I tried that, but you're right it makes no sense there. I moved it to the right of the page instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bibliographic details

• The stream of issue price changes in this section is quite a mouthfull to digest. Can't it be tabularized, something like the issue data table further up?

  Done -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  That looks better; I tweaked the table header here to match the Anthologies table below – I hope that's ok. —Bruce1ee^talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

General

• The use of the possessive apostrophe is inconsistent, for example, Brian Aldiss's "Hothouse" and Mills' tenure.

  Well spotted. Fixed for several, but I believe the rule is that a voiced s at the end (i.e. a z sound) doesn't get the extra s after the apostrophe, so I didn't add an s after Mills. I'm not certain of the rule, though, so if you know better, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  I think that's right, but have a look at MOS:POSS – that covers the topic in detail. —Bruce1ee^talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise it's looking good. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support the prose and MOS. Thanks for your fixes and your ongoing work on SF & F magazines. —Bruce1ee^talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a pleasure; and thanks for the support -- and the link to WP:POSS, which appears to say my approach is OK. Still a few more magazines to go, though I think the major ones are almost all done now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Commentsfrom RL0919

I made a few copy edits, and just have a few comments:

• Would be helpful to add alt text for the images.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The phrase "taboo-breaking" is given in quotes -- is this a quote from the source cited at the end of the sentence?

  No, it was an attempt to summarize the discussion there; the magazine tried to include stories with more sex than was common in the genre at the time. On looking at it again I'm not sure I can justify "taboo-breaking", as there had been some other stories about sex up to that point, but I decided to just cut that half of the sentence. It's about Venture, not about F&SF, and the reader doesn't need the background to understand the point, which is that Boucher couldn't take on the extra work of another magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the limited availability of images, I see there are a couple of photos of Gordon Van Gelder on Commons. Perhaps one of those would be relevant.

  Thanks for pointing that out; no idea why I didn't think to look. I found one of Spivak too, but nothing for the other editors, sadly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Generally looking quite good. --RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good; happy to support. RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

Hi Mike (and Andy/Sarastro), I started a copyedit/review a while ago but have been waylaid, I expect to finish this w/e and can also do the source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Recusing coord duties (of course), I've finished copyediting all but Overseas editions, which I know has been revised since the nom opened and can probably survive without me... ;-) Pls let me know any concerns with my edits; outstanding points/queries:

• We note that Starship Troopers "proved to be one of Heinlein's most controversial books" -- it's also one of his most popular, does this source happen to mention that too?

  I can't quickly find a cite for its popularity -- the source doesn't say it was popular, nor does the SFE3 entry on Heinlein. I do mention the Hugo that it won, which points in that direction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  No worries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Tiptree contributing some of her finest stories" -- I realise "finest" would be via the source but wonder if it might also support something that doesn't sound quite so opinionated, e.g. "best-known" or some such.

  Changed to "best-known". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Under Bibliographic details (bullet points and table), WP style guidelines might suggest "Late 1949" or at least the more generic "Autumn 1949", but OTOH "Fall 1949" probably reflects the exact terminology on the cover, so I just put it out there for your consideration; not a show-stopper for me...

  Sorry, not clear on the issue here -- yes, "Fall 1949" is the cover date for the first issue. The date ranges I give are not the calendar dates during which the editors held the post; they're the cover dates of the issues for which they're responsible. Perhaps if I changed the heading to "As of March 2017, the issues for which each editor was responsible are as follows"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Hi Mike, the point was that we should generally avoid using seasons to denote times of the year but if -- as you confirm -- it's the cover "date" for the first issue then it's probably fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I might check over Holdstock's encyclopedia for any worthwhile tidbits when I do the source review later but this looks very comprehensive though not overly detailed -- well done as usual.
  • Mike, Holdstock's encyclopedia highlights Mel Hunter's idiosyncratic "robot" series of illustrations in F&SF -- worth a mention alongside Bonestell, Freas and Emsh?

    Good find; I added a sentence, and it gave me an excuse to include another cover. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

    An opportunist after my own heart... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • In the same work, Christopher Priest describes F&SF as "a sort of New Wave of its own ever since its inception", which might work in the Assessment section here.

    I read what he says; it would fit in the first paragraph of the "Edward Ferman" section. I think he's largely echoing what Ashley says, though, even to the point of picking out Zelazny as someone who appeared in both F&SF and the British magazines. Do you think there's something in what Priest says that's not adequately covered in the current text? It's earlier than Ashley's comments, and it would give a different source (nice to use someone other Ashley where possible), I suppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

    Well, yes, I think it'd be fair to give space to someone other than Ashley (invaluable though Ashley is) and especially to a reasonably well-known author -- plus I found Priest's words kinda snappy. I mean I'm not sure that we need suppress one for the other (unless I've missed the bit you're referring to) but will leave to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

    Done; I added a bit to assessment, and a bit to the discussion of the New Wave in the section on Edward Ferman. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

    Tks mate, the only thing I could suggest is that because Priest's words are from many years ago it might be better to use past tense (i.e."agreed", "added") but again will leave to you -- very happy to support; another fine achievement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

    Reworded -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

    Added a word but apart from that, all good I think -- tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and the copyedit is appreciated as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No probs, will aim to get onto the source review in a day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support just a few suggestions.

• "but the decision was quickly taken" I would say "made" for "taken". Sounds more US.
• "The magazine was quite different in presentation from the existing science fiction magazines of the day" Given the number of times you use the word "magazine" in this paragraph, I would change "The Magazine" to "F&SF".
• "Boucher bought "A Canticle for Leibowitz" from Walter M. Miller, who had been unable to sell it elsewhere, and printed it in the April 1955 issue; it was the first in that series," Are we talking about a short story (as the lack of italics might argue) or the novel? A link might be helpful. Was there a series of short stories that became the novel?
• "It remained eclectic over the 1960s and 1970s" I would say "through", not "over".
• "Ashley describes it as bridging "the attitude gap between the slick magazines and the pulps"'; and argues that it made the genre more respectable." That shouldn't be a semicolon.

Very well done and engaging. I often read it in the 1980s.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. I've made all the changes you suggest; I linked to A Canticle for Leibowitz, which is about the novel, but the publication history gives the details; as you guessed, it was originally a series of short stories and became a fixup novel. I had avoided linking it because it's not immediately obvious from the linked article that the novel is not directly what I'm talking about. Perhaps it would be better to link to the publication details section; what do you think? Or perhaps clarify in the text, or in a note? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly something like " 'A Canticle for Liebowitz", the first story in the series that would become the novel of the same name".? I leave it in your discretion.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Ian

• www.sf-hefte.de is a new one for me and I don't trust my German, so could you take me through how we established reliability?

  This was added a few days ago by an IP; there's a discussion on the article talk page. Looking through that I see I took them at their word when they said it was reliable -- I thought it was a page by the publisher, but per Google Translate it appears to be someone's personal page. I'm pretty sure this is not going to be reliable. I don't think one can ping IPs, but I'll leave a note on the talk page and do some more research and see what's salvageable. It's mostly non-controversial (how long did the German series last, and what were the titles) and I can get some, but not all, of it from the ISFDB. I'll report back here in a couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  Now removed. The only thing I lost was the exact number of that edition under each title; the ISFDB will eventually add those covers, and then I can re-add the information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Worth adding OCLCs for the book refs missing ISBNs?

  Will do, probably tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  Now done, except for the Kingsley Amis. I can find other editions of this on Worldcat, but not the Ballantine edition. Is it acceptable to use an OCLC for a different edition? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  Hmm, not sure about that -- maybe just leave, I don't think it's a showstopper. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• You use "Westport, Connecticut" but "Middletown, CT" -- aside from consistency I think it's best to spell out states, provinces, etc.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• "de Camp" and "del Rey" but "De Larber"? Unless the latter's is always rendered with the capital...

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN53 -- Weinberg (1988) but looks like it should be 1985?

  Actually the mistake was the other way round; I've fixed the other cites to say 1988. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not really a sourcing thing but in the same general area of the article -- I know we sometimes editorialise a bit in footnotes but do we really need "approvingly" in #5?

  I think I was trying to add Aldiss & Wingrove's weight to the comment, but there's no need to do so, so I cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing else leapt out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Minor point, but the location of the notes is not consistent. Some come before the accompanying footnote, some come after. Not worth holding up promotion, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2017 [9].

---

White-naped xenopsaris

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The latest from WP:BIRD. This species is pretty obscure, and the article is shorter than many we produce because of that. But everything that can be said about this species is there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• "the same 1989 study that linked Xenopsaris to Pachyramphus." But wasn't this already believed? The sentence makes it sound like it was a novel conclusion.

• Clarified

• "were found to actually formed a fourth family" Form?

• fixed

• "and Psaris, a genus erected by Georges Cuvier" Genus of what?

• synonym of Tityra, added

• "The subspecies X. a. minor is has"

• Fixed

• "ti-ti-ti-ti", according to the Handbook of the Birds of the World." It seems a bit odd that you only make in-text attribution here in the description?

• It's a direct lift of how they represented it, not something I wrote myself. If it's fine to cite inline I'll change

• "where their ranges overlap in Venezuela." I get what you mean, but I can't help but think "wouldn't they look similar anywhere?

• Clarified

• "from June to September,[14] but the Austral summer in Argentina (October to January)." Not sure what the but is meant for.

• clarified

• "unusual in suboscine birds" The term is not used in the linked article. Is it a valid grouping?

• removed birds

• Image review - let's get this part over with; all licenses and sources are fine, but I wonder whether a range map could be added? FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can get/make one

• You should replace the pixel forcing of the horizontal drawing with the "upright" parameter. Then the image will scale according to which screen it is viewed from.

• Removed pixel forcing, will play with upright parameter when I get home

• The drawing could also be left aligned, so that the subject "faces" the text. Also, why do you use the binomial in the caption?

• I've never understood the fixation with having images look inwards, but I'll see how it looks left aligned on my huge screen at work before changing.

It's not too important, just looks slightly better... FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Last issue; "It lives in open savannah" only stated in intro.

• removed

• Support - looks fine to me now (don't forget the upright parameter!). FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Quick comments first:

• In the 2nd para of the lead, I feel like it may be good to tone down the ", and" thing. It just gets repetitive.

• Fixed

• In the breeding section, the sentence "They are constructed from woven plant fibre and a few rootlets, or fine dry grass," could either mean: They construct their nest with either just the plant fibers and rootlets, or with just the fine dry grass; or it could be taken to mean that they always construct it with woven plant fiber and use either rootlets or fine dry grass.

• Fixed

• Still is a bit confusing, maybe split the sentences?

• How so? Nests have been found constructed one way, or another way. I tried rewording

• The flow is weird in the sentence "The hatchlings are dark-skinned with grey down, and pink mouths." Removing the comma should fix it.

• Done

• In the 2nd para of the taxonomy section, you have, in parentheses, the family name. Yet, you do that pretty much nowhere else.

• Removed

• Only Oxford comma inconsistency I really see is in the sentence "The species is also known as the reed becard, white-naped becard, and simply xenopsaris." There might be more, though.

• Removed

And that's all for now. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Now for some more:

• In the sentence "The species is not common and little is known about it, but it is not considered in danger of extinction, and has been classified as of Least Concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature," "least concern" should be lowercase, like it is on its Wikipedia page.

• Done

• Add a comma before the genus name in the sentence "Burmeister originally placed it in the the becard genus Pachyramphus," so that it is clear that Pachyramphus is the becard genus.

• sure

• Add "to" in the sentence "When placed with the tyrant-flycatchers, Tyrannidae, it was considered closely related the genera Suiriri, Serpophaga and Knipolegus."

• done

• Link "Tityridae" in the 3rd para of taxonomy.

• Done

• First time genus Tityra is mentioned, so maybe add something about how it was proposed that it was closely linked to that genus, before the sentence "A 2007 study of mitochondrial DNA confirmed the white-naped xenopsaris' place in the Tityridae, and its close relationship to both Pachyramphus and the genus Tityra."

• The 1989 study didn't find support the close relationship, that's something that came out in 2007. Reworded slightly to introduce the tityrias.

• Reword the sentence "The female is similar to the male except duller overall, and the crown is tinged with chestnut," maybe to "The female is similar to the male, but is duller overall and has a chestnut-tinged crown."

• okay

• Add "being" in the sentence "The initial trill is described as rising and then falling, and the last trill is described as long," before "long" and after "as".

• Done

• In the sentence "In 2006 the species was reported for the first time in Peru, but it was unclear if this represented a vagrant escaping cold weather or a migrant, as the species is mostly uncommon across its range and that area is poorly studied ornithologically," "ornithologically" isn't needed and is a bit of a big term, per say.

• I think it's worth clarifying, but I did link the term

• En dash should be used instead of hyphen in the sentence "Both sexes incubate the eggs during the 14-15 day brooding period."

• Bloody mdashes. Sigh. Done

• Capitalization of "least concern" in the sentence "For these reasons, it is evaluated as being Least Concern."

• Done

• It would be nice to see a range map.

• It would. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I can make one, what source should it be based on? FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

HBW. I was going to dust of GIMP and do it on the weekend though. I was just being a smart alec. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see this, so made a map. Seems the illustration of the bird should be moved to the left just so it doesn't clash with the taxobox... FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No drama, thanks for the map! Love the illustration as suggested. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And that is all! Again, good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• @RileyBugz: Anything else?. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Shoot. Temporary support, pending me getting better. Feel free to promote if I don't respond further, just so I don't hold this up. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Never heard of this one! Nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• • It was entirely unfamiliar to me before I started too. Comments below. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• a small tityrid—pointless repeat imho

• removed

• The genus name Xenopsairs… —you should give the source language in this sentence, Ancient Greek or Latin as appropriate. Also add that Psaris is from Gr. psar, starling. Let me know if you need a ref for that

• done

• nominate subspecies —link

• linked

• wing coverts —covert feathers are not flight feathers, which is your current link.

• fixed

• You mention only the wing chord length of minor, might as well give the tail length too.

• I thought about this but decided not to. Bird measurements like this are not interesting except insofar as they establish size differences between different taxa or populations. I think its enough to establish that one is bigger than the other and provide an example, but if you disagree I can put tail in

• In the Diet section, the subject of all the sentences beginning They is Chicks in the nest, not what you intended I think.

• Fixed

• Nesting timing varies by location, in Venezuela is reported — missing word?

• Fixed

• 11,000,000 km2 (4,200,000 sq mi). —Would look neater templated to give million as word instead of string of zeroes, but your call.

• How do I do that? Can't work it out on the template page

• Your final ref from Hornero needs italics for the binomial

• fixed

I'm happy with those responses. I've fixed the "million" bit in the text, it's not exactly intuitive, even the space being necessary. Changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Saving the millions coding to my user page if I need it later ;) Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

although it was long still known to be closely related to Pachyramphus. - this is ambiguous and sounds odd. Presumably you mean after it was moved to new genus?

• Fixed I think

..which overlaps in range in Venezuela. - sounds odd - "which overlaps its range in Venezuela." (?)

• Changed

The white-naped xenopsaris differs from the cincerous becard in being smaller... - repetitive, could say, " The white-naped xenopsaris is smaller" or " The former (differs from the latter) in being smaller" or something

• Changed.

Otherwise looks pretty good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edits and support. I was amused that one of the edits undid a change requested above. My only quibble was linking to species description when referring to a generic description. I feel it's a deficiency of the target article, but I think I'll unlink it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for undoing the link to species description; it would be nice to have something to link to, but I can't find a suitable article, or a suitable section of species description. Which edit undid something ... species of least concern? - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I feel it would optimal for species description to be a bit wider in breadth rather than having a new article, but that's an aside to here. All you undid was the insertion of being in the sentence about calls. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I see it now. "The initial trill rises then falls" would be my preference, unless there's a reason to suggest that there's some question or doubt, which the current language does (by saying that it's only described that way). - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it, we still need a source review which can be requested in the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, been a while since I've done one of these, what is the usual place? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Never mind worked it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are sourced consistently and appropriate, with the following quibble:

• In ref 12, although the title is in Spanish, should the species name be italicised?

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not the nominator, but seems to me that like with the English common name, the genus name is incorporated in the Spanish common name, and would therefore appear not to be italicised. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

At second look at the actual linked page, no, they write the entire binomial, but the specific name is incorrectly capitalised, and they have no italics on their page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• If you follow through to the pdf it is correctly italicized but incorrectly capitalised, I have changed my citation to match. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2017 [10].

---

Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

With peace and joy, [[[Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125|Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), is another cantata by J. S. Bach, for the first time a chorale cantata. The idea grew discussing what we can do about celebrating 500 years Protestant Reformation. My 2ct: this article on music by Bach who set a text by a contemporary poet who included and paraphrased Luther who paraphrased Simeon's canticle which is part of the prescribed gospel for Purification, 2 February. With such a great story, I was surprised that it's rather a work not published and recorded often. - The article received a GA review by Sainsf in April. I went over it, moving Mincham to external links (as Brianboulton advised) and checking for double links (as Tim would have done). - Previous cantatas didn't rely so much on other articles (look for "Main"), - I am a bit unsure how much from them needs to be taken on board, tried to include a bit but am open to suggestions about less or more. Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Restart

Old nomination I think we need a another look at the old nomination had got a little bogged down; new eyes and a fresh start might be the best way forward. We haven't used restarts at FAC for a long time, but they were formerly used relatively frequently and are very effective in cases like this one. For those who are new to them, this is effectively a fresh start and the nomination has been moved back to the top of the list. Any questions on the process can be raised here, on my talk page, or at WT:FAC, but I think this is the best route forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is new to me, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with this approach for this long-running review -- I was still a bit leery of promotion but I don't think much would've been gained from a standard archive and two-week wait either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Iadmc

Support with minor quibbles: perhaps we don't need quite so much background as that is covered in other articles which can be linked from this one? And we don't need the other Lutheran hymns here, do we? They don't really seem relevant. I did a little cleanup of overlinks, too: e.g. Lutheran etc. Great candidate otherwise! Listening via Spotify helps... — Iadmc♫^talk  23:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just to add, my tools (WPC, in this case) found an incorrectly formatted hidden comment: now corrected. No other issues — Iadmc♫^talk  00:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made the section about other chorale cantatas into a table. Is that better? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

G'day, Gerda, nice work. Definitely not a topic I know much about, but hopefully some of these comments will help: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Overall, it looks well referenced, but a couple of areas looked unreferenced to me:
  • in the section titled "Luther's hymns", the paragraph beginning "Bach composed an early chorale cantata..."
    • added the ref which probably got lost in copy-editing --GA
  • in the section titled "Luther's hymns", the third last and final lines of the table

third last is the cantata the article is about, the other the same as the one mentioned above, but I repeated the ref anyway --GA

• there appear to be a few duplicate links that might need to be reduced: Bach's elary cantatas, Trinity Sunday, Bible (King James/Luke#2:31, alto, bass (voice type), Alfred Durr, arioso

I removed most, but not alto and bass in the scoring section, where consistently (over cantata articles) all instruments and voices are linked, - it just happens here that they were mentioned also before. --GA

• anyway, all the best with this FAC

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: happy with the changes made or clarifications. Good luck with the remainder of the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

I am unfamiliar with this subject, so please excuse me if I don't understand some of the technical stuff.

Thank you for looking, appreciated! --GA

• link canticle in the lead despite WP:SEAOFBLUE, it needs a link

It had a link, which was removed at the request of earlier comments. Now what? --GA

• link Sheet music#full score for "scored" (or another better link, I really am not sure what is best).

"scored" is derived from score, but means particlular which voices and instruments are assigned to perform the music, so the lead to "full score" seems not so helpful, perhaps to Instrumentation (music)? --GA

• some instruments in the lead should probably be linked, eg flauto traverso

We have about 200 articles on Bach cantatas, which consistently avoid another see of blue in the lead by linking summarily Baroque instruments in lead and infobox, while all instruments are linked in the section about them. --GA

• "The opening chorus has been compared to" in what ways is it similar? If this is worth stating in the lead, the why is also needed.

It is worth stating because the St Matthew Passion is a piece many readers will know, while this cantata is rather unknown. These readers will immediately recall the mood of the piece. For the others, I'm afraid, even a long explanation would not help much. There was a longer comparison in the section about the movement, but shortened because the source for the long version was considered not so reliable. - We can think about making that longer again, based on different sources. --GA

• Thomanerchor is sufficiently obscure to a lay reader that it probably needs to be pointed out this is a boy's choir

Would people for whom it's obscure know that boy's choir means not "only boys" but "only male singers, boys for the higher voices", which was the normal thing at the time? We have a link, for those who don't know that well into the 19th century many claimed that women should be silent in church. It's a cultural thing not specific for this cantata. Our choir had women only from 1899. --GA

• Christ lag in Todes Banden could do with a translation, as could other hymn titles in German that are not translated

I would like to hear other voices to that question. All have links (where you'll find a translation), all are long, some don't mean a thing because it's simply the first line, usually not a full sentence, - and all not relevant for this cantata. --GA

• link Metre (music)

done, also Metre (poetry), thank you! --GA

• Advent and Luke 2:31 are overlinked

Advent done, - the other is simply the source, which readers may want to look up without going back to where it was also mentioned, I think. --GA

That's me done, for what it's worth. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is raising good questions, open for discussion, especially about the comparison to the passion. Thank you.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support by Edelseider

I love Bach so thank you for asking me to have a look at your article. I have yet only read it superficially and intend to read it with more concentration later. However, I was struck by:

• "The score for the first movement was first published by Diabelli around 1835 with a Latin text, Da pacem nobis Domine." Is this the Diabelli of the Diabelli Variations? If yes, you should link to him (and maybe add a sentence on the Beethoven connexion, if there is any).

--Edelseider (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, good point. I wasn't sure because it just said Diabelli, but found and added a better ref which has Ant. Diabelli, so am pretty sure it's the one. I linked him, but think to insert Beethoven would be a bit far-fetched. Even the mentioning of other cantatas on Luther hymns has been criticised by some as not relevant to this cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another point: "The autograph score is lost, its last documented owner being Christian Friedrich Prenzel." As a reader, I feel that this is a bit short on interesting informations. In what year exactly was that documented, and in what place? And who is Christian Friedrich Prenzel? How did he become the owner of the score? --Edelseider (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to find out and add, I am sorry not to more than this source offers, added his years of birth and death though ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at the source and the name is Christian Friedrich Penzel, not Prenzel. It is this guy: Christian Friedrich Penzel. I am sorry, but that section needs a bit of reworking! --Edelseider (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for finding him, inspite of my spelling error, - a added a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. I have no other remarks and support the promotion. --Edelseider (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Support by Dr. Blofeld

Support Looks sound enough to me and meets FA criteria. Happy Birthday Bach!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support by Michael Goodyear

Support: Minor suggestions to follow later. Nominator is recognised as a consistent high quality contributor on Bach cantatas (including the preceding and succeeding cantatas in the cycle) in both German and English. Looks good. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Specifically since Gerda has a number of other Bach cantatas that are FA I should defer to her on the general structure and approach, because consistency is important. My comments are just suggestions. Michael Goodyear (talk)

For example, from this cycle - Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4

Since Infobox, Lead and Body are essentially independent, I prefer to link them as such. There would be a great advantage to having a consistent format across the cantata cycle! Don't be afraid of hats.

I don't think I understand "link them as such". --GA

Add links to each on their own merits - dont worry about overlinking based on link in text. I see all instruments linked in some boxes --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh. In the lead and the infobox, there's a general lead to Baroque instruments. The links to the single instruments are of little use, kept only in the scoring section, intentionally so. They should not appear on FA level. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: I saw someone on the talk page wanted the Infobox removed (there are some in the music community who don't like them). I support them but like some of the other cantatas I would link it. The question of images is interesting - would a special infobox for all cantatas be better? The German version uses the bachhande image as a unifier. It looks to me that you are using a bach composition infobox, the German uses a bachkantate infobox. You can still use the other image elsewhere.

The infobox removal request wasn't serious, just bait that didn't work ;) - see? - Seriously: who want to waste time arguing about infoboxes? - Special infobox? We made Bach composition first, by now I almost think musical composition would also fit, - the more general the less maintenance. - The image should be special, for the work. - The composer shown systematically in German is decades too old ;) - We just had the discussion on the Piano Concerto No. 24 NOT to show the composer's all too familiar image (painted after his death). Click through the concertos (per navbos) to see how the images try to show the flavour of the piece, if available, or at least the composer in the period. --GA

ps: I see that in German, they don't show the old composer anymore, just a crop of his hands, - but would be stereotype as well. - Mozart's operas used to have the same image, - I prefer the new looks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Background: With foreign languages I prefer to place the English first and place german in parentheses, thus Choirmaster or Cantor (Thomaskantor). Also it would make much more sense to start with the church! for instance:

In 1723, Bach was appointed as music director to the Church of St Thomas (Thomaskirche) and its school in Leipzig, where he held the titles of Choirmaster (Thomaskantor) of the St. Thomas' Boy's Choir (Thomanerchor).

The church? The job included responsibility for four churches, two of them major, - they just couldn't call him Thomas-Nikolai-Peter-Matthäus-Kantor, and Kantor is much more than choirmaster, more church music director, as explained.

But the name derives from the church. A non Bach specialist would be quite confused.

I come from Kafka, where we decided to have the original title first, then translate. We have about 200 articles on Bach's cantatas, some of them FA, - I would not like to change the format for this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's what I was looking for - if there are other FA Bach cantata pages - nobody can fault you for following the format. Anyway I'm only making suggestions!

We can't clarify enough - and perhaps should do even more - that he was NOT employed by any church body, but by the town of Leipzig. The term Thomaskantor is nice and short but downright misleading. We have a long article, linked, to explain that. --GA

You need to be consistent with italics - I fixed a few - what about Table? And what does Repeated refer to in the table? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying italics for Cantatas - not for hymns - usually it is for foreign languages

And what about Latin - sometimes in italics others not eg nunc dimittis

Latin incipits like Requiem, Magnificat, Nun dimittis became part of the English language. --GA

OK it looks like most of my ideas have already been tried and rejected by someone!

"the idea is to say that each of the nine was made to one cantata, - can you find a better way?"

Actually that is exactly what I was trying to say - the other way is ambiguous.

• "Bach used nine hymns by Luther as the basis for a chorale cantata"
• Bach used a hymn by Luther as the basis for a cantata on nine occasions

Very good, taken. --GA

Did Bach really have a "career"?! Are those the only examples - that is what it sounds like.

That was not my wording, but I try to keep suggestions if possible. --GA

Where did per omnes versus come from - you will need to explain it

It is explained right afterwards: "in all stanzas". --GA

There is a comment about people who don't know which could be many - the article may be too technical

Readings

You should probably explain Marian

Purification should be explained

"Feast of the Purification, (German: Mariae Reinigung)" - I'm confused - German first or last ?

Mariae Reinigung is the old term of Bach's time, that nobody uses anymore, - it's only added here for people who read a German source, also it's the literal translation for Purification of Mary. I would explain Marian and Purification if the purification aspect, or Mary, would be of any relevance for Bach's music, but he stayed with the canticle part of the gospel. - Two users who are not too familiar with the topic copy-edited without requesting more explanations. --GA

Should't you use German title of hymn? Somewhere you need to compare the Lutheran text with the biblical - now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word.

That is done in the hymn's article.

Thank you for good questions, - I hope that can stay patient answering some again and again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This is very detailed, and technical. Every time I read last stanza or second line I feel the need for having the full text in German and English in front of me - such as on the matching hymn page

I don't think the full text of the English would be needed if we didn't have the article on the hymn. We could make "last stanza" a link to the last stanza in the hymn article, or at least to text and translation, - would that help? --GA

But there is a lot more text in the cantata than in the hymn

Should text quotes like light for the heathen always be accompanied by original German Licht für die Heiden?

For whom? --GA

I'm pointing out an inconsistency - sometimes both texts appear but not always

Sorry I was brief, I had no time. Back now. - So: there are German terms that need to be in German, such as the cantata title etc., but things that are perfectly well understood in English don't need to be accompanied by an equivalent, I'd say. -GA

Thomaskirche. This is the first mention of this church - maybe it should be introduced earlier since it gives its name to school and choir. Will think about naming the four churches then where Thomaskantor is explained, but am on my way out for now. --GA

For most English speakers the text of the Nunc dimittis is well known in its church usage in English since the reformation

"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word. For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; To be a light to lighten the Gentiles and to be the glory of thy people Israel"

which is rather different to an English translation of Luther's hymn, and may be worth quoting as the original source.

I don't know if Luther spoke any English. His source was Latin. - This article is about Bach's music, for Luther's text was the basis and inspiration. The other would rather be to be considered for the hymn article. The English passage is linked wherever Luke 2 appears, and if needed that can come more often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure he didn't!

Movements

Is it important to differentiate Richard Jones as a musicologist, compared to Hoffman and Durr?

No, good point, that probably predates him having an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

2. it is unclear what the text of the aria is - is it only the phrase Ich will auch mit gebrochnen Augen? The way the text is stated in the other movements is clearer.

For all cantata texts: the ref behind the English leads to the (for me best) translation, which is copyrighted, so we can't quote it completely. But a bit more will do, thanks for pointing that out. --GA

4. Similar. If the entire text is Ein unbegreiflich Licht erfüllt den ganzen Kreis der Erden. Es schallet kräftig fort und fort. It would be better to state that that the outset (or use the table - perhaps better), otherwise it looks as if you are only commenting on excepts

Of course they are only excerpt or rather incipits. It would be a long article with the complete and very baroque text. The text is several sources in German, in other several in English, and in Oron (Bach-Cantatas) in a few more language. --GA

6. Unclear what Jones summarises means. Book does not help. Why not Jones comments....., since discussing his book is not the point of the article

This part was called "reception", but I found (so far) only that summary, and a reviewer who didn't accept a paragraph for only one sentence. I said "summarize" to clarify that it is not only about movement 6 but the complete work. - Better suggestions welcome. At time it closed the lead, but was not wanted there either. --GA

I realise a full text is provided in Dellal (1) but one would never know that from this article

How would one not know to look at a reference? --GA

Bibliography

The standard for En WP is Google.com, please change from .de - readers in Germany will be automatically switched to .de in any case

good point, changed --GA

Theology (Liturgy)

Since this was composed for a very specific occasion and Bach was a religious man, whether a brief note on the significance of the occasion and how the text and music complement is in order

Musicologically and liturgicologically speaking, the Nunc dimittis originated as a Sequence sung before the Gospel, at least till the Council of Trent. Luther was critical of these from a liturgical viewpoint and set about replacing them with vernacular hymns, hence Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, although this departed more from the original than his other treatment of sequences. Because of its other subtext of departure, Luther also included it in Funeral responsories. I am not sure if its current use as an evening hymn was known to Bach. The other use of the departure symbol was to sing it at the end of the service, to signify the departure of the people.(see Robin Leaver: Luther's Liturgical Music)

Very interesting but more for Luther and liturgy than this cantata, no? - While the Magnificat was sung on high feast days (in Latin), I know nothing similar yet about the Nunc dimittis. The cantata (no substitute for the canticle, just on the same topic) was performed next to the sermon, - when in two parts (but this isn't) before and after the sermon, in a morning service. On the high holidays, there was a service in the morning in one church, in the afternoon in the other, same cantata, - more about that in BWV 40. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bach may well have known that in his time the Nunc dimittis was used in the service of Compline in the Roman rite. But the real question is what was Bach saying with this cantata in relation to the Feast day. It might also be worth mentioning that he composed several other (three that I can think of) cantatas for Mariae Reinigung, including Ich habe genug. Also Luther placed Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin at the end of Vespers (Edward Traill Horn, Theodosius Harnack. Outline of Liturgics) One could spend a lot of time on this aspect! A Cantata written to celebrate new life that is often grouped into his "death" cantatas because it deals with the peaceful acceptance of the end of life, with bold harmonic regions acknowledging the momentous nature of life’s passing :)

Inviting! - Back to practical - and I just re-read at the top of the page that a reviewer thinks there's too much background: We could mention that the previous year, he had composed Erfreute Zeit im neuen Bunde, BWV 83, but I would not like to speak about Ich habe genug, BWV 82 which was not yet written, and has a complicated history of its own, - just click on Purification in the table to see them all together, or any of the other occasion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That often happens - one reviewer wants more - others want less - in the end you are in charge ;) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support

Comments and support by Yunshui

A few suggestions on the general wording:

• which is celebrated on 2 February and also known as Candlemas. "and is also known as Candlemas" would read better, to my mind.

taken, thank you --GA

• cantatas based on a related Lutheran hymn implies all cantatas are based on one hymn; for clarity, consider "cantatas based on related Lutheran hymns"

The chorale cantatas are on ONE hymn. --GA

• In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig, where he was responsible for the music at four churches and for the training and education of boys It's not completely clear from the wording here whether the responsibilities described are connected to the role of Thomaskantor or were things Bach was already responsible for prior to his appointment. The linked article at Thomaskantor suggests the former, but it could be read either way in this article.

I added a bit, please check and rephrase if needed. --GA

• during tempus clausum (the silent period) of Advent and Lent Without the translation, this reads "during tempus clausum of Advent and Lent", which sounds a bit odd without the definite article. Perhaps "during the closed period (tempus clausum) of Advent and Lent"?

tried --GA

• new works for almost all of these liturgical events, known as his first cantata cycle the way this is phrased makes it appear that the phrase "known as his first cantata cycle" applies to "all of these liturgical events". Perhaps, "new works for almost all of these liturgical events; these works are known as his first cantata cycle" or something similar?

tried --GA

• The choice of hymns to use in the series of chorale cantatas was probably made according to the wishes of a local minister, who based himself upon the prescribed readings and his plans for sermons this is really hard to parse; I'm assuming it means that the local minister based his choice of hymns upon the prescribed readings and plans for sermons, but it's very unclear. I would suggest, "The choice of hymns to use in the series of chorale cantatas was probably made according to the wishes of a local minister, who based these choices upon the prescribed readings and his plans for sermons" or better still "The choice of hymns to use in the series of chorale cantatas was probably made according to the wishes of a local minister, based upon the prescribed readings and his plans for sermons".

I replaced "himself" by "his choice", is that better? (Actually did so before I read the question.) --GA

• In the following table of cantatas on hymns by Luther performed during the chorala cantata cycle, nine new compositions and the repeated performance of the Easter cantata This is a bit wordy and confusing, I'd suggest adding the word "comprising" before "nine new compositions"

done, and a bit more explanation --GA

• He deviated from using the strophic hymn text and tune in all stanzas (per omnes versus) "per omnes versus" could uses a bit of explanation for non-Latin readers.

the explanation (for all stanzas) follows, - can you perhaps word that unmistakenly? --GA

• book of Malachi's, "the Lord will come to his temple" should "the" not be capitalised?
• is focused on Simeon's perspective as a means of how to anticipate one's own death this is also a bit hard to parse - I read it as, "one can anticipate one's own death using the method of seeing things from Simeon's persepctive", as though "Simeon's perspective" is some sort of augury. I'm fairly sure that isn't what it's supposed to mean...

help wanted, and that sentence had many versions already. His model of facing death is to face it in joy and peace. How can we say that? --GA

• The duration of the piece has been stated as 24 minutes that seems a bit prescriptive, especially since the source only says "circa 24 minutes". You'd need a hell of a conductor to get it bang on 1440 seconds every single time!

That's another sentence changed often (I started with "given", and I think is of rather little importance ;) --GA

• The autograph score is lost I can kind of figure out what an autograph score might be, but a piped link to Music manuscript (where the term is actually defined) would probably be helpful to many readers.

done --GA

• Just as a general note for the article as a whole: should the quotations in German not be in italics, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC?

Poems and songs in quotation, which separates them enough not to need italics on top. --GA

Overall it's a nice piece of work - perhaps a bit technical for my non-musician's mind (I had to follow a lot of wikilinks!) but coherent, extensive and interesting. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I adjusted to most and left you two phrasing questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool. With regards to the "Simeon's perspective" line, here are a few options off the top of my head: "The second movement, based on Luther's second stanza:

...focuses on how Simeon's perspective exemplifies an appropriate model for facing one's own death."

...uses Simeon's approach to death as an exemplary model."

...establishes Simeon's approach to death as a model for listeners to follow."

...is concerned with how one should approach one's death, and uses Simeon's perspective (with joy and peace) as a model example.

Hopefully there's something helpful there.

I'm unsure about your argument on the italics; I guess it comes down to a question of why italics are used (is it specifically to differentiate German text from English text, or is it a stylistic requirement?). It's not a deal breaker for me, though; I prefer my foreign languages in italics but that's just a personal quirk. Regardless, this gets my Support for promotion to FA. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'm not sure we need an image and source review as these were covered in the nomination before the restart, but I just checked and I think there was still an issue over the FUR for the sound samples. One way or another, I think that needs sorting before this is promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What do people think of no sound files if they cause headaches? Calling John especially who kindly made them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: John has removed the audio samples, so I think we are clear, and we certainly have consensus to promote. Thanks to everyone for their patience on this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2017 [11].

---

Maine Centennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a rather ugly US commemorative, but still one of interest, and somewhat valuable today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moisejp

• Lead: "centennial commission decided to charge a premium" / Inception and legislation: "the centennial commission decided to issue it at a premium": For those who aren't coin buffs, could you explain in the article what this means?
• "first considering a two-year extension for the National Screw-Thread Commission. Once the committee had heard of the standardization of screw threads": I wonder whether it would be an idea to remove this? If I have understood it directly, it's not directly related to the Maine coin story. Also, for someone like myself who is not that familiar with various processes related to making coins, it feels like an extra layer of detail to decipher—especially if it is not directly related to the main story.
• "Once the committee had heard of the standardization of screw threads, Congressman Peters addressed the committee, of which he was not a member, regarding the Maine coinage proposal, telling of the history of the state and citizens' desire to celebrate the centennial, including with a commemorative coin." Even if you do remove the first bit, this sentence is awfully long, with lots of clauses. Would you consider breaking it up into more than one sentence, or break it using a semi-colon?

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is going to be my biggest comment. I really believe the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the Inception and legislation section get bogged down by detailing what every single person said chronologically. The reader needs to try to grasp the point of view of each of the many characters who are listed, and it gets difficult to keep track of the overall narrative. I have to admit that I gave up trying, because there are too many details and it gets exhausting. Plus, the structure gets quite repetitive: A said ____; B replied ____; C recalled that D had said ____. I would like to strongly suggest that you summarize the points more. Maybe you don't need to mention every single person. I see these people all have wiki-links so they must be historical people of some importance, but if you could find a way to remove unnecessary details that could help. Maybe there would be ways to merge structures of the type "A said ____; B said _____" to become, for example, "A and B discussed ____"? That's just an idea, but however you do it, I really think you need to make this section less dense.

I still have a few other smaller comments and will get to them soon. Moisejp (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. My book references cover how these coins came to be very lightly if at all, and few have Congressional ProQuest. So I'm trying to increase the knowledge that is freely available to all. I will try to do it in a less dense way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've taken out unnecessary detail and dealt with your other concerns. Thank you for the comments.

Thank you. I've got a bit busy the last few days, but plan to make time to continue this review soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Your removal of unnecessary detail has been an improvement. The Inception and legislation section is still a tiny bit dense for my tastes, but it may be a matter of personal preference, so that's OK. But its denseness means I don't feel I understand every detail as well as I should, and I have some questions:

• "Initially, the idea was to have a circulating commemorative that could advertise the centennial celebrations in Maine, but subsequent to the approval of the legislation... " Is the "approval of the legislation" the same approval process that is described in the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, or was it a previous level of approval? This wasn't clear to me. Or I think maybe the first paragraph is talking about state government, while the rest is talking about federal government? Maybe this could be spelled out more clearly for readers less familiar with the U.S. government.
• Did you add clarification for what "issue it at a premium" means? I'm guessing it means instead of going into regular circulation, the coin is sold for an amount higher than its face value, but I'm not sure. If you're confident that should be clear to everyone, and no other reviewers have any doubt, maybe it's just me.

I had clarified the lede, now I've tried to make it very clear in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Minnesota's Oscar E. Keller asked Peters to confirm there would be no expense to the government, which Peters did... In response to questions by Gard, Peters explained that although Maine would pay for the dies..." This sounds possibly contradictory but I couldn't tell whether the two statements were supposed to be related or were talking about different things. Ah, but now that I realize the context of the second to fourth paragraphs is the federal government, it seems to make more sense. Could this be unclear to other readers? It could be another reason to make this context extra clear from the outset.

"federal" added.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "On May 3, McLean asked that the three coin bills (Maine, Alabama and Pilgrim) be considered by the Senate immediately, rather than awaiting their turns, but Utah Senator Reed Smoot objected: Smoot's attempt to bring up an anti-dumping trade bill had just been objected to by Charles S. Thomas of Colorado." The colon suggests that what follows it is the reason for Smoot's objection, but the exact implication is not clear to me. Was Smoot grumpy that his own bill had been rejected, so he wasn't going to let another bill get fast-tracked?

I looked at the Congressional Record again and what you said is the way it looks. Smoot basically says, if we are going to go by the agenda, we should start with the first bill on it, which they do, but pass by about forty items before they get to one they actually discuss (deportation of aliens). I've tried to make this clearer, but am hampered by the source and the references to arcane Senate rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "This was probably in an attempt to improve the striking quality of the coins, and if so, likely had limited success, as the full detail would not appear on many coins." I'm not convinced the second half of the sentence make sense as is. At minimum, I would take out "likely". Actually, maybe that's all you need. I was going to suggest a change of verb tense in the second half, but I'm not confident about that either. I would just take out "likely".

Axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Near the rim are the name of the country and HALF DOLLAR." May I suggest it would be more straightforward and plain English to use "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" instead of "the name of the country" (which sounds a bit forced to me here).

This and the one below are my efforts to vary somewhat formulaic language common to most commemorative coins of the era. I've done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• "with the excess over the round number" also feels a bit forced to me, but ignore this comment and the one above if you disagree.

That's all my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done that. Thank you for the extensive comments. It is always good to get a new perspective on these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• It all looks good. I'm happy to Support. Moisejp (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the support as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Just some minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• there in commemoration of it—clunky, don't like sentence ending in "it"
• They catalog—in BE, "catalogue" isn't a verb, is this acceptable in AE?

It may be numismatic (and philatelic) usage. I am determined to avoid saying "are worth". Changed to "list".

• Relatively few sold —missing "were"?

I've done those. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments by Mike Christie

A couple of minor points that aren't worth withholding support for:

• "They list for hundreds to thousands of dollars" -- this isn't strictly an "as of 2017" situation, but it might be good to provide date context in the lead -- prices can change, after all.

I think it is phrased vaguely enough that it should survive a good long time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• "That legislation for a Maine Centennial half dollar had been introduced in the House of Representatives by that state's John A. Peters": two "that"s in quick succession.
• Is it worth redlinking the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures?

Linked to the list of defunct committees.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• "planned to give their endorsement of the bill": perhaps "planned to endorse the bill".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. Except as noted, I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them, I think this just needs image and source reviews. These can be requested at the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Source and image reviews

• All images appropriately licensed.
• Add |lastauthoramp=y to the template to give Swiatek and Breen an ampersand as used in the notes.
• Don't really think that this makes a difference, but the Congressional Record was not available to me prior to 1994. So I'm not sure that the links are actually useful. If they are available through Proquest or other subscription that should be noted.
• Multiple redundant links to the Congressional Record.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Re the above two: The Congressional Record cites are produced by a template. I will give some thought to a talk page note on the template to allow the page number to be de-linked. The others I've done. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a big deal with the Congressional Record. Everything looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2017 [12].

---

York City War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Following on from the North Eastern Railway War Memorial which recently made it through FAC, this is the second half of the story. the city council commissioned the same architect but had a tenth of the railway company's budget to play with; this and the proposed locations of both resulted in considerable controversy. Pevsner laments that the original, much more ambitious, scheme was abandoned in favour of this more modest memorial. The article is a shorter one, but I believe it's up to scratch. As ever, all feedback is welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Yunshui

Just a few notes from a straight read-through:

• "the leading English architect of his generation" - would be nice to have a source for this quote.
  • It's from Historic England, but there's a bit of a distance between the quote and the reference so I've added a duplicate.
• Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations, as well as the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing—the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world—and the Stone of Remembrance which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials. - bit of a mix of list punctuation; I would suggest the following:

Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations; the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world, and the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials.

• • I like that. In fact, I like that so much I'm going to go back through all my other Lutyens articles when I get chance and rewrite them the same way!
• the only two to stand as a civic memorial in a city - plurals suggest this should be "the only two to stand as civic memorials in cities."
  • Done.
• whether the war dead should be commemorated with a building with a community function or a purely monumental memorial - I'm not super happy with how this reads: "with a building with" sounds clumsy, and the way this is worded makes it unclear whether "purely monumental memorial" is meant to equate to "building" or "community function".
  • Leave this with me for a day or two and I'll think about rewriting it.
• The committee gave Lutyens a budget of £2,000 (1920) - would be nice to have an approximate modern equivalent value to this.
  • This has come up a few times in previous FACs. The trouble is the inflation template is essentially useless for something this old (the figure is only slightly more useful than if it was plucked out of thin air) and we haven't been able to come up with an easily translatable alternative. I'm open to suggestions.
• but the committee opted for his second choice of a site inside the walls in the moat by Lendal Bridge, 100 yards (90 metres) from the proposed location for the NER's memorial. - I'm being super nitpicky, but this seems like too many descriptors ("second choice" "inside the walls" "in the moat" "by Lendal bridge" "100 yards from the proposed location..."). Probably doesn't need fixing, but it doesn't read quite right to me.
  • It's a bit wordy, but these are all vital descriptors—we need to know where it is and how it relates to the NER's memorial and the walls and Lendal Bridge are both relevant to what comes later, and it's noteworthy (especially in light of the controversy that followed) that Lutyens originally proposed another site.
• Given the proximity to the city walls—Lutyens' initial proposal for which abutted against the wall... - this doesn't make sense; "for which" makes it appear that Lutyens proposal was for "the city walls", and "against" is tautological alongside "abutted".
  • Must be a relic of a previous rewrite; fixed now.
• in the centre of which is the City of York's coat of arms. - maybe link Coat of arms of York?
  • Didn't know that existed! Linked.

Overall I enjoyed the writing style, though there's a bit of a preponderance of em-dashed parenthetical phrases. Interesting article, and a very enjoyable read. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I know I tend to overuse emdashes; I'll see if I can cut them down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm guilty of the same thing myself—I just like the damn things—but other parenthetical punctuation options exist (and variety improves readability!). Yunshui ^雲_水 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as an addendum - I'm a little concerned about consistency in the citation formatting - there is a mixture of shortened footnotes, named references and inline citations, which I'm not sure meets the requirements of FA criterion 2c. Not actually sure what the procedure is for using shortened footnotes with web references, though. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any sense in using shortened footnotes for a single-page web document and personally I've always liked this format because it's tidy and clutter-free. I can't remember anyone objecting to it in any previous FACs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Could just be my personal opinion then. If it hasn't been commented on in previous FACs (I don't do them very often) then it's probably fine. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to lend my Support - the fixes that can be done are done, I have every faith you'll do a fine job rewording the bit that hasn't been reworded yet, and while a modern financial equivalent would be nice, the pound is bouncing around so much with Brexit on the horizon that any non-templated estimate would be massively outdated in about twenty minutes. It's not a deal-breaker - I look forward to seeing this on the Main Page. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• One comment: repeating Yunshui's suggestion above (with the semicolon fix): "Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations; the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world; and the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials." There's nothing technically wrong with that, but it's slightly garden path-y, and a bit more involved than is ideal, perhaps. Another option is: "Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations, and the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world. He also designed the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials." - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

↑ This is better than my version. Yunshui ^雲_水 16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Keith D

Appears strange to have a couple of instances of metric first for the height of the monument, rather than being consistent with imperial first which appears to be used in other places in article. Keith D (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88

My only issues are about prose, and in that respect I have general rather than specific comments:

The article is trying to do an awful lot with punctuation. In particular, it is replete with semi-colons, parentheses and parenthetical dashes. The punctuation is never ungrammatical. But the paragraphs are quite long to begin with, so long and heavily punctuated sentences make the task of reading quite difficult at times. Some examples:

• 'Proposals for a war memorial in York were mired in controversy from the outset; a war memorial committee was established after a council meeting in May 1919 and the committee opened a memorial fund for donations in August, but six years elapsed before the City War Memorial was unveiled.' There is no reason why the semi-colon should not be a full-stop. It would be a much snappier read that way: introducing the paragraph with one punchy sentence. There are other examples in the article where a simple full stop would do the job better. 'Nonetheless, objections were raised after the approval;' is one.
• The final paragraph of the article has two lengthy parenthetical explanations of the criteria for Grade II and II*. It is quite clunky, even lawyerly, to read. I think you would be fine, and the reader better served, simply by explaining the criteria in separate sentences. There will be many readers who don't know the criteria, so there is no need to apologise for explaining them by jamming them into parentheses.
• There is one sentence in the "Inception" section that contains two parenthetical notes, which is two, and certainly one, too many.

There is also unnecessary use of passive voice. For example: 'The memorial was eventually unveiled by Prince Albert, the Duke of York (later King George VI), on 25 June 1925—six years after the memorial fund was opened.' The passive voicing of this sentence is not only unnecessary but makes the reader wonder whether the identity of the unveiler is relevant to the adverb "eventually", to which the answer is "no". Another example: 'The York City War Memorial was designated a grade II listed building...' The passive voice begs the question: designated by whom? Cast the sentence in the active voice and we will know. Another example is 'a war memorial committee was established after a council meeting in May 1919': again, established by whom? The preposition 'after' means that the reader is unable to make the otherwise obvious inference that the council meeting itself established the committee. I recommend going through the article sentence-by-sentence to identify unnecessary passive voicing because there is quite a lot of it. Turning these sentences around would make them easier to read and in many cases provide greater clarity.

This may all seem nitpicky, but I do think it reflects the difference between Good Article and Featured Article level.

I have checked the article against the source in footnote 1 only and discovered no problems. I can't verify the use of the Skelton source as it is not publicly accessible. The article certainly seems to be an easy pass on all other criteria. Syek88 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Much of what you're saying is good advice ... with the caveat that making something readable often takes a lot of work. It's not just chopping sentences in two. Concerning the passive voice: linguists are skeptical of much of the 20th-century admonitions against passive voice, even though there's general agreement that overuse of the passive is one of the signs of bureaucratese. And that should be avoided, of course. A readable and accessible treatment of what linguists have discovered on the subject can be found in Pinker's The Sense of Style. I'm bringing this up because I'm not sure if I agree with your advice on the passive above; for instance,why would I care which bureaucrat signed off on the grade II listing? And flipping around "The memorial was eventually unveiled by Prince Albert" to "Prince Albert unveiled the memorial" wouldn't find approval from style gurus or from linguists; see for instance Sense of Style, chapters 2 and 4. I note that someone has already rewritten that sentence (probably Harry), and the change looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It is good advice, and I'm aware of my overuse of dashes and semicolons, which why I've been through this morning working on readability. I don't have strong opinions on the passive voice in cases like these, but it harms nothing to re-write it where it's easy to do. I agree with you though, Dan, that the exact details of the listing process are a little too bureaucratic and the passive voice is better for concision (because the answer is "by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the advice of English Heritage, which is now Historic England"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It probably isn't particularly helpful of me to chip in again on passive voice in the middle of this review, but I do question the exceptionally broad assertion that flipping the Prince Albert sentence "wouldn't find approval from [any?] style gurus or from [any?] linguists". I do not think your (Dank's) single citation comes anywhere near establishing that. In any event, I think the largest problem with passive voice, not evident in the Prince Albert sentence of course, is unnecessary omission of the subject. When I read the article I did care who signed off on the grade II listing. I immediately asked myself whether it was the same council that approved the memorial decades earlier: if it were, that would have been an interesting fact. Or was it the national government? Or an independent non-government body given statutory powers? And we need not necessarily say "Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the advice of English Heritage, which is now Historic England". Something briefer and less specific may suffice, especially as it was presumably the Secretary's delegate rather than the Secretary personally. Syek88 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Meets the criteria from my point of view, although Keith D's point on consistency of imperial v metric should be addressed. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Yes indeed, I've addressed that now. I've also been working on the concerns about the prose above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think this still needs a source review for formatting etc, unless I've missed one somewhere. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC as usual. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

The only point I can find to comment on is that Pevsner & Neave is cited as Pevsner, and Skelton & Gliddon is cited as Skelton. I'm not sure this is strictly wrong, since it's unambiguous, but I've never seen dual authors cited with just the first author's name and wanted to check that it was deliberate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for looking. It is deliberate. It's just the way I've always done it. I didn't realise it was unusual. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 [13].

---

Golden swallow (bird)

Nominator(s): RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits , Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a swallow in the genus Tachycineta. It isn't very well studied, like, I daresay, most Caribbean birds. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Since this is seems to be the WP:Primary topic, I think this article should be moved to Golden swallow, which is now a disambiguation page with only one other topic (a film) linked. The disambig page should be moved to Golden swallow (disambiguation) instead. Review to come, but this issue is pretty important. Sorry I only noticed it after nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, looking at the page views, and just at the google search results, there is no primary topic. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The movie is obviously named after a bird, so it would mean the bird has the "right" to the title, being the original subject... FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the generally accepted "criteria" says that which is the original topic doesn't matter, thus invalidating your argument. Furthermore, the top hit on google for "golden swallow" is the movie. But, the second hit is for the bird, meaning that none of them are the primary topic. Also, the movie formerly (before I started the improvement of the bird, but even so, the page hits now are about equal) had many more views than the bird. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that the movie is located at a different article title (Golden Swallow (1968 film)), so the bird isn't even competing with the movie for the name. This is about whether Golden swallow really needs to be a disambiguation page, or if that could become Golden swallow (disambiguation) instead, thus freeing up the unbracketed name for the bird. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, since there is no primary topic, then the dab page should be kept at "Golden swallow". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's very much up for discussion, let's see if others chime in. I'll go on with the rest of the review when I've finished the map. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

With just two articles using this name and one having to have a date in its name I'd move this to golden swallow, dab at the top to the film and remove the dab page entirely. Oh, and I'll review soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll make a formal move request once the FAC is over. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making it easy! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Map now added. Any reason why this illustration[14] isn't used? Seems a nice counterpart to the one in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Added illustration. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Subspecies should be listed in the taxobox, with authorities.
• "Adult of the race sclateri perching on an artificial nest box" Two things with this caption. First, I'd assume all nest boxes are artificial? Seems like stating the obvious. Also, perhaps less confusing to say subspecies instead of race there, since you use that term in the rest of the article. I know the terms can be used synonymously, but it's better to be consistent and clear.

Changed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"The current genus Tachycineta, on the other hand, was originally described in 1850 by the ornithologist Jean Cabanis." This is missing the point, which is that the species was moved to this genus at some point, which contains other species. Therefore there is no need to mention when that genus was named (it is not monotypic), the important part is when the species was moved to the genus, by who, and why.

• "This swallow is bitypic" The species is. You shouldn't mix common terms with taxonomic terms here.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "This swallow is bitypic, consisting of two subspecies; the second, T. e. sclateri" You should mention the nominate trinomial first here, may not be obvious to most people what the name is.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• You could mention much earlier that the nominate subspecies is probably extinct. For example, you refer to it in present tense under description, and you don't refer to it by name under distribution, you just say the species is extinct in Jamaica.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The golden swallow is native to Hispaniola" I'd add "the island of Hispaniola". Most people may not know it is an island, as they probably know the names of the countries located on it instead.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The golden swallow is victim to various mammalian" Victim sounds overly dramatic, something like "preyed upon" would be better.

What??? Anyways, I think that this should be kept, as mammals are thought to be a possibly cause of extinction of the Jamaican subspecies. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The only species that is known to inhabit nest boxes occupied by golden swallows is Polyancistrus loripes, a species of katydid." State this is an insect, by reading the text I thought it was another bird.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I assume much of the behaviour section applies specifically to the extant subspecies, in which case it should probably be noted.
• The intro seems slightly too detailed compared to the length of the article body. Could be summarised further.

Is it good now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Only a few points missing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Hume/Walters source[15] has some info about the extinct subspecies not mentioned here: It's last major roosting site was destroyed in 1987, it was considered common in the 19th century (gradually declining during the century), and there is no mention of its range between Cockpit Country and the Blue Mountains (Jamaica). These seem like significant omissions.

Added mention. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd add the part about last roosting site too. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Added now. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - it looks good now, but I still think the two subspecies should be listed in the taxobox, but this seems to be inconsequently done across other FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Article is well sourced and reads well. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Sabine's Sunbird

First off good on ya for not listening to me when I was doubtful this could get to FAC size (not listening to me is an important life lesson for anyone). Now on with the review.

• Lead- unless there's a good reason, I think the lead should follow the same subject order as the main text. This lead jumps around a lot. Status is towards the front, in the main text it is at the end. At the very least in the first paragraph I think it's essential to place the habitat requirements after the distribution.

I think that its status should be put near the front of the lead, as it is relatively important and is probably the most studied subject of this bird. Otherwise, I did do what you wanted. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• An esoteric point, I know typically we describe the nominate and then explain how subspecies differ, but since the nominate is extinct wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around?

I guess, but the nominate race was described first with the other subspecies being described in terms of changes from the nominate. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Early naturalists were not aware of this species Do we know that for sure? Records can be lost.

I suppose, just going on what this paper said (Graves was the guy that scoured the island for 20 years trying to find it). Given its delay in description, I reckon it's not a far-fetched point to make. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why is there a section about its status in the taxonomy section when it's also in the lead and its own section?

Removed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any information about why the two subspecies are treated as a single species as opposed to two species? When where they lumped? Has anyone advocated splitting them?

I have been trying to hunt this. This is proving really hard Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't anything there isn't anything. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Have you found anything yet? Also, could you (after you hopefully find it) do the subspecies taxobox thing, as I am pretty inexperienced in what authority to cite, etc. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• We know its habitat requirements in Hispaniola (with the eponymous pines) , what about Jamaica?

Could not be found RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The Graves paper does discuss habitat in part - I have read it a couple of times and will see what/how to add something. I think we can add a bit more than what we have, just need to digest it and think... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Any progress? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Will look tonight. been distracted.... added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

More to come. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Is it good now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Some more. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Predators and parasites - surely this should just be predators in this instance?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• The nominate subspecies is presumed to be extinct, possibly because of habitat loss and predation. The population is declining, mostly due to shifting agriculture and predation by introduced mammalian species surely that should be the remaining population?

Added "The remaining T. e. sclateri...". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: What do you think now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• • All good, support Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Looks pretty good, but of course some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• The description in the lead is a bit too detailed for my taste, since it's all repeated later, but I'll leave that to you

I did that a bit, hopefully I will summarize it more later. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• inhabits the inner hills of islands— do you mean "interior"?

Reworded RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• has blue-green forehead —missing "a"

I actually had to reword this, so now it is all resolved. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• This swallow is bitypic, consisting of two subspecies— This swallow has two subspecies is simpler and avoids the undefined technical term

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• clade —needs link

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• You correctly use BE "metre", "centimetre" and "fibre" in this article, but consistently use AE "color", which is not appropriate for this swallow

Done, with much regret RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• insects of the order Hemiptera, and various other insects—avoid repeat of "insect" in the same sentence

Reworded RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

Looks good but there are formatting problems with the references that should be easy to fix.

• Ref 2 - add place of publication (London) for consistency. It is easier for the reader if the link is to the actual page - and I prefer to use BHL when available as in this case. url=http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/21519975

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 6 Bryant (1866) Need name of journal (Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History). Normally sentence case is used for the title of a journal article.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 7 Cory (1884) The Birds of Haiti... This is a book. Need publisher and place.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 8 Cory (1984) "Description of Several New Birds .. Need name of journal (Auk). Need sentence case for article title.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 10 Whittingham et al (2002). Sentence case for title of article.

Actually, everything here is correctly capitalized, the things that are capitalized are supposed to be that way. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 12 Proctor (2016). Why not include a link here as the thesis is unpublished?

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 13 Ridgway & Friedmann (1901). This is a multi volume book not a journal so need publisher and place. But this reference appears to be incorrect - the descriptions of the swallows are in Part 3 published in 1904 on pages 101-102 available on BHL. (I had to search - the species are called Gosse's Swallow and Sclater's Swallow) ie: Ridgway, Robert; Friedmann, Herbert (1904). The birds of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the higher groups, genera, species, and subspecies of birds known to occur in North America, from the Arctic lands to the Isthmus of Panama, the West Indies and other islands of the Caribbean sea, and the Galapagos Archipelago. Vol. Part 3. Washington DC: Smithsonian Museum. pp. 101–102.

Switched. Thanks for actually making the citation. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 14 Townsend et al (2008). Sentence case for title of journal article.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 15 Hume & Walters (2012). Place of publication? (for consistency)

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aa77zz: All done, thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Another:

• Ref. 7 Cory (1884). The Birds of Haiti... This is a book and requires a page number. The scan is poor but I think you want page 45 which is at url=http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/45795787 There is a picture on the previous page. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

got it/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Supported above. Reference 12 Proctor (2016) is a dissertation for a Master's degree. I'm unhappy with the use of this type of source. Theses and dissertations are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as journal articles. If the results of a study are important they would normally be written up and submitted to a journal, usually in collaboration with the supervisor. The submitted article will then be peer reviewed before publication. The dissertation by Proctor is unusual in that it consists of what appear to be two prepared manuscripts each with other authors including his supervisor David W. Winkler listed on the title page. It seems likely that these two manuscripts have been submitted for publication. If and when they eventually appear in print after peer review, it would be good to cite the published articles rather than this dissertation. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

agreed/we can do that. The dilemma is weighing up comprehensiveness vs breadth and Reliability of sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we will do that. I'm pretty glad that I found that, or I don't think that this could have been expanded to FAC appropriate levels. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them, I think we just need image and source reviews now. These can be requested at the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, only the image review is needed—Aa77zz did the source review. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, no problem. That's why it's good to bold "source review", then I don't miss it! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Image review has just been completed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• Images are PD-old or CC-licensed with credible "own work" claim - OK.
• Sufficient source and author information - OK.
• Map has source information - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Thanks for the image review! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 [16].

---

Operation Mincemeat

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a story that has fascinated me since I saw the film about it some thirty years or more ago. Most people have heard of it, but even now it seems such an odd long-shot to try that it's difficult to believe it's not fictional. I've been working on the article recently, and I would love this to be an FA, if people think that this merits the attempt. It's recently been through a successful MilHist A-class review, and I look forward to all additional comments and suggestions people can make. – The Bounder (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick read-through, but two comments:

• I think you could do with clarifying 'Purchase informed him that "he does not have to look like an officer – only a staff officer"'. I'm sure it's obvious to MILHIST people, but it isn't at all clear to me why a staff officer would be expected to be malnourished but any other officer wouldn't.
• "Haselden asked if the heat of the day and smell of the corpse, the doctors should bring the post mortem to a close and have lunch": I think a word is missing here.

Might come back to this one later and give it a more thorough going over. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto. I've tweaked on both points, following your suggestions. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

A really interesting read, I enjoyed it. Just a few comments:

Lead

• Last paragraph: Why not mention the name of Duff Cooper's novel (Operation Heartbreak) here.

Inspiration for Mincemeat

• "First and Second world wars": shouldn't it be "First and Second World Wars"?

Developing the plan; the corpse's new identity

• "£53, 10s 6d": Why the comma?
  • I see you changed the comma to a period. Why the punctuation? "£79 19s 2d" appears later in the same paragraph with no punctuation. I'm not aware that any punctuation is required in pound/shilling/pence figures, but please correct me if I'm wrong. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • There are a few ways of punctuating L.S.D., including none at all. I've removed it to be simple and consistent. – The Bounder (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Deception documents

• Stupid question, but who are "the Bosche" in the blockquote? The Germans? Perhaps an explanation in single square parentheses would help.

Spanish handling of the corpse and the ramifications

• The opening sentence needs to be dated.
• "On 11 May the briefcase was returned to Haselden by the Spanish authorities": with the original documents I take it; perhaps that should be added for clarity.
• "the diplomatic bag": why not "a diplomatic bag"?
  • "the db" is (in British English) the way the system is referred to. – The Bounder (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

German reaction; outcome

• The opening sentence needs a year.

Sources

• Subscription sources (like JSTOR) should have "(subscription required)" appended.
• There are several duplicated author name links.
  • Now removed (think I got them all) – The Bounder (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• The "BBC Documentary, 5 December 2010,a & b" references point to the two "Macintyre, Ben (5 December 2010). Operation Mincemeat (Television production)" entries. Wouldn't it be better to use "Macintyre 2010b" and "Macintyre 2010c", and change the existing "Macintyre 2010" to "Macintyre 2010a"?
  • I've gone with an alternative which makes it even clearer. – The Bounder (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You're using the source's title as the reference link, rather than the author. I suggested the above change to bring it in line with your other references, which are by author. In the Sources section all the entries are listed (and sorted) by author, so it makes sense to link by author. This is no big deal – if you would rather leave it as it is, I'm ok with that. BTW I see there are a few other non-author reference links, like "The Guardian, 29 October 1996" – for consistency perhaps they should also link to the author. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I was advised in a previous FAC that this was the best way to go. I'll certainly swap out things like the Guardian ref to the author, as that makes better sense, and tighten up one or two of the others so that the references and sources are more obviously referring to each other. I'll ping you when it's done, but hopefully within a couple of hours. Thanks again. – The Bounder (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Hi Bruce1ee, Now all done. I'm flexible on the Macintyre 2010a & b for the book and TV programme if you think that would be preferable. Let me know and I'll swap them around a bit further. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
        • If you've been advised elsewhere, and would prefer to leave it as is, that's fine with me. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

—Bruce1ee^talk 17:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Bruce1ee. I think I've covered all your points, with the exception of the diplomatic bag. Should you have any further comments I'd be delighted to deal with them. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi The Bounder, there's just the outstanding query regarding the pound/shilling/pence format above. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry Bruce1ee – missed that! Now all done. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Support the prose and MOS. Thanks for all your work on this article, I think it's nicely done and looking good. Good luck with the nomination. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
        • That's great: thank you very much for your very germane comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Charles_Cholmondeley.jpg: suggest {{non-free biog-pic}}, and the FUR needs work - the "minimal use" entry is incorrect. Same with File:Ewen_Montagu.jpg
• File:UK_National_Archives_-_WO_1065921.jpg: per the given tag, is a more specific tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Nikkimaria. I know next to nothing about image licensing, and I hope that the changes I have made on Cholmondeley, Montagu and the NA images have not broken anything too badly. Thank you once again - and please let me know if there is anything else I need to adjust. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The NA image is now fine, but I'm still not quite happy with the FURs. I seem to recall seeing an "examples" page somewhere but can't for the life of me find it, so take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Hi Nikkimaria, I'm struggling to know how to change these. Cholmondeley and Montagu were the two main planners of the operation, and it is counterintuative to remove them from the page (particularly when there are images of the 'bit-part' players throughout the article). If you could find the examples page that would be great, because I am not sure how to add "it's common sense to have these on the article" in Wiki-image-licensing speak! Is there a FUR help desk or something, as this is a particularly specialist area? Any help you can provide would be most appreciated. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
        • There's WP:MCQ, but that's not quite what you're looking for. Basically the parts of the FUR correspond to the various non-free content criteria - you want to specifically address how those criteria are met, rather than just say "this is fair use". So for the minimal use criterion: how many non-free images in the article? Could one image show both individuals? Have the images been cropped? Are they low resolution? (You've actually got some of this under the Commercial criterion). For Source, the site linked is actually crediting Wikipedia for the images, so that's creating a circularity issue - presumably these were published elsewhere at some point? What have you done to try to find the original source? Purpose is the trickiest criterion - the images should enhance reader understanding of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you Nikkimaria, that's extremely helpful. There is a photograph of the two men together here, which shows them in front of the vehicle that transported the body (i.e. during the operation); its not the best image of the two men, but I think it should be easier to put together a stronger rationale. Would you think this would be a better course of action? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
            • I do, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
              • Hi Nikkimaria, now done. I hope this will have a stronger rationale than the orevious two. If it does pass the threshold, do I need to do anything with the images I replaced? Do they get automatically deleted as they are no longer being used? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
                • You can tag the old images with {{orfud}}. The new image is pretty much fine, just needs two small tweaks: suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}}, and the "minimal" criterion should reflect not in how many articles the image is used but rather how many non-free images are in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• All now done. Thank you so much for all your help with these. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• "The Spaniards did not notice the eyelash fall out of the key letter from Nye.": How could we possibly know that? Even if a source is willing to take that guess, I'd leave this detail out.
  • I've reworked it to remove the suggestion that the spanish didn't notice, but retaining the information that the eyelas was not placed back in the envelope. - The Bounder (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• "directly mainly": directed mainly?
  • Yes, my typo there. - The Bounder (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Dank. I've addressed your two points, and I hope that these are suitable. Thanks again for your efforts. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Smurrayinchester

This is always one of my favourite WWII stories, and I'm glad we have such a good article on it. A couple of tiny points:

• The location map might work better if it simply shows the whole of Spain - showing just a truncated part of the south coast makes it a bit harder to place.
  • How does it look now? - The Bounder (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• "[The letter] should name Sicily and another location as cover" - is this "other location" known?
  • The letter suggested Sicily and another, without specifying somewhere specific. - The Bounder (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Images should have alt text (although since most of these are just decorative pictures of people, "alt=Photograph" or "alt=Portrait" would probably do for most of them - the ones that add something to the article and need more explanation are the van, the photo of his "fiancée", the map of where he was found, and the image of the corpse in uniform). Smurrayinchester 09:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you: I had no idea about alt text. I'll have a read through the guidelines and add them shortly.
  • All now added. - The Bounder (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments: I will work on the alt text point shortly. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Smurrayinchester, I think these are all done now. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good, Support Smurrayinchester 15:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • That is very kind of you: thank you very much for your commnts. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'm not quite sure whether Bruce1ee covered source formatting and reliability above; if not, we need a source review. Also, I think we would need a spot check of sources as this would be your first FA promoted. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Sarastro1, hopefully yes it will be the first. I'd forgotten about the talk page notification, and I'll do that now. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Sarastro1, my review above covered prose and source formatting, but not a source review. I see The Bounder has added a source review request to WT:FAC. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review Good to Go

• Aldrich is properly quoted.
• 3 cites each to Macintyre (the book) and Smyth verified
• If possible links should be provided to the newspapers in the refs.
• It would probably be good to put cites like [80][79] in numerical order.
• No copyvio noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, Sturmvogel 66. The cite swapping and newspaper linking is all done: is this what you meant? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Almost, I meant links to the actual newspaper articles themselves, although links to the newspapers are a good addition.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Ill see what I can find, but some of them are not available online (and the Times ones are behind a paywall which I can't access). If I can't verify the info, I won't put in the link, but the refs have page numbers and dates, so the links are a 'nice-to-have', rather than being essential. Leave it with me, and I'll see what I can dig out. – The Bounder (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Be sure to put "subscription required" for stuff like the Times.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not much in the way of success with these (partly because I used a third party database to access text versions of the articles which give the original print versions, but not the addresses for the versions, often because these differ).

• "Mystery Warrior Identified": too old for online
• "Jean Gerard Leigh; MI5 clerk whose photograph provided the 'love interest' in one of the great wartime deception" A similar article (a version appeared on the previous day) but this differs in a few places (the sub-title, for example) but not the print version we used. As there is no real benefit to putting in a link that may disappear behind a paywall, when we have the full details, including page number, etc, then I'm a little reticent about adding a link to something with a different title and date
  • If the facts that you reference are the same in both versions, I'd be fine with going with the online version.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • OK done. - The Bounder (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• There are three other articles from The Times:
  • Logan, Brian (16 June 2009). "The Man Who Really Was". The Times. London. p. 14.
  • Macintyre, Ben (5 April 2008). "Bond – the real Bond". The Times. p. 36.
  • Norwich, John (13 November 2003). "The Corpse That Fooled Hitler". The Times. p. 10.

I must be doing something wrong with my searches, because I can't get past a login page for subscription holders and a 'site within' search doesn't bring up anything. Can you have a stab and see if you have any more success than I can? - The Bounder (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the issue here; stalling at the login page is what I'd expect if you don't have a subscription. And that link would be fine; you just need to tell the reader that a subscription is required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the only link I can provide (for all three) is https://login.thetimes.co.uk/?gotoUrl=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/ which takes readers to the front page and they have to find their way to the article after that - and I'm not sure that is helpful to anyone! I didn't get it from the online version, and I'm not even sure if any of them are on there. - The Bounder (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I searched by article title on Bing and got [17] for the one that I did. What did you use for a search engine?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I used Google. As I know that online versions very often differ from print versions, I'm uncomfortable adding a link to an article without being able to check the full text. As a weblink is no better than the full hard copy details (i.e. including date and page), I do not think this would be a good step to take. - The Bounder (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that you're more sensitive to this issue than am I, but that's fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Sturmvogel 66 - much appreciated. Sarastro1, is there anything more you need me to do? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's fantastic news - my first one. Thank you very much! - The Bounder (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 [18].

---

North Ronaldsay sheep

Nominator(s): TheMagikCow (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

About a rather unusual breed of sheep, noted for their seaweed diet. They are found on a remote Orkney island. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll do a full review soon, but at first glance, the article seems a bit empty, I saw this photo of sheep among seals[19], which seems quite unique, perhaps it could be added? It also seems to be the only photo that shows lambs. This photo showing heads close up might be nice, though the fence is in the way.[20] FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added the first image in - I am not too familiar with using Flikr images and the uploading process. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I can upload it, if you want to use it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be great if you could - thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Here you go:[21] Note these seem to be in Lincolnshire. FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That is in the text now. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "These primitive sheep are" I think it would be better if the first sentence of the article body spells out the name of the subject.

I am slightly unsure to what you mean here. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The first section of the article outside the into, "Physical", should start with something like "North Ronaldsay sheep are physically very small", so that you name the subject of the article first time it is mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

clarified TheMagikCow (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• "and their head is dished." What does this mean?

Clarified TheMagikCow (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why is the wool section so far from the physical description section? Would seem the two are closely related.

yes - changed that. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Scientific analysis" The title seems a bit too generic. Analysis of what? Seems to be of its diet?

The section is a subsection of the diet section. Is this not therefore implied? TheMagikCow (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a bit hard to see sub-headers of sub-headers (no dividing line)... FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Prehistory" seems too specific a title, if it is not certain that their origin is actually prehistoric, something like "origin" would be more neutral. "The 9th and 15th centuries" certainly aren't prehistoric.

done TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this review - all the hard work is much appreciated! I will get onto the improvements. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

More to come as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The stone for the wall used to be taken from the shoreline, but now has to be imported onto the island." Why? Have all stones been used?

clarified. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• You only state in the intro they are feral, should be stated somewhere in the article body too.

clarified TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I assume the dykes are connected to the dyke? Are they made the same way?

Do you mean punds here? TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes... Seems like one giant labyrinth? --FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• "copper poisoning" You say toxic in the article body. I think there is a distinction.[22]

yeah - fixed that! TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Last comment before I support, you say "in North Ronaldsay" in almost every image caption, but isn't this redundant? I know they exist elsewhere, but I assume only the ones on this island are confined to the beach... FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that does seem a bit repetitive. Removed it. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - quite exciting article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Just a drive-by comment: you say radiocarbon dating has shown the δ13C value, but this isn't correct -- radiocarbon dating is a technique for dating things. What was probably done here was to use accelerator mass spectrometry to determine the ratio, but that's up to your sources. Radiocarbon dating comes up when fractionation is discussed because it messes up the age calibration, but it's never used to actually measure the fractionation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahh yes. I have double checked with the book source. Thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Source Review

Source review: Reviewing this version of the page, the following jumped out at me on a first look-through:

• Inconsistency in the use of locations, date formats, ISBNs and "via Google Books" mentions.

Cleaned up. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Unwarranted(?) italics in fn2.

That is part of the cite template, in the |website= parameter.TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Citation of encyclopedias (fn1, fn3, fn37 maybe more) in an atypical style; surely you should cite the particular entry, unless the entries were all written by the same person/people? I assume, too, that the "authors" you cite are actually editors.

These are ordinary books, written by the authors listed. The title encyclopedia is slightly misleading. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Weird "=" in fn4

Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Unwarranted accessdate in fn4

Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Animal feed science and technology" Caps?

Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fn17 is way off.

Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fn18 is in a different style to other journal cites.

I don't think it is. It just has more authors and a longer title. Should this be taken out? TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking again, I think what threw me is: Authors are "J Milburn" rather than "Milburn, J"; a month (rather than simply years, which is more typical) is given for the publication date; and the journal name is abbreviated. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fn19 is an edited collection and should be cited as such. Same for fn35.

What template would you use for this? TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You can use cite book; it'd look something like this: {{cite book|author=Smith, John|year=2012|chapter=A Chapter|editor=Smith, Jane|title=A Book|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=22-26}} Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It is already cite book. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not really my point; I'm not too concerned about which template is in use or whether templates are used at all. I'm concerned with whether the reference contains all appropriate information. You should cite the chapter, not the book. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh that makes sense - I have cited the original article. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fn22: Is the full date necessary? Why offer an ISSN?

Removed full date and ISSN. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fn23 should have a link or page numbers.

Linked. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fn26 is a journal article and should be cited as such.

Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "A historic Introduction". The Native Sheep of North Ronaldsay. Sheep-Isle. Retrieved 2009-04-23. Reliable?
• Fn31: Caps?

Fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fn34 is the Daily Record?

Is that an issue? I'm not too good on Scottish newspapers. Is that an unreliable/tabloid one? TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "North Ronaldsay Sheep Fellowship". Retrieved 2 December 2016. Reliable?

The official breed society responsible for the sheep on the Island. Much knowledge is held by the sheep court, which they have unprecedented access to. I consider this reliable. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Though somewhat partisan, to put it mildly! Perhaps you could expand on the reference a bit- a publisher at least. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but the information that the source is there to support is - population numbers - is likely to be the best estimate asd these people are closest the the native herd. I have added a RBST source there too to support the claim though. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fn39 needs attention

Sorted. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Scottish Places — Linga Holm". Retrieved 2 December 2016. Reliable?

No and removed. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Morris, Dr. June (September 2000). "The Case for Exempting Primitive Sheep from the National Scrapie Plan". Retrieved 4 January 2016." Reliable? Why "Dr."?

Removed Dr. added other source. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, these issues would be resolved before promotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all the work. Am working to resolve these now. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

J Milburn I believe I have addressed all issues. Feel free to improve/leave more comments on how to improve. Thanks for all the hard work. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-reviewing this version.

• FN1: You should cite the particular entry with its author rather than citing the encyclopedia as a whole. You should also mention the volume number.

As above, this is a book, that just happens to have the title of encyclopaedia. It is not an encyclopedia in the traditional sense and all entries on those animals are written by the authors listed. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what it looks like from a look at Google Books. It seems that you're citing the chapter "Sheep" (pp. 723-956, appearing in volume 2), which was written by Lawrence Alderson specifically. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense - I have changed it so Alderson is the primary author, with the others recognised as the whole book is cited. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN2: There's no need to italicise United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and there's a rogue dash. The way you cite roughly the same source in FN15 is completely different.

Cleaned up. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN3: Different author format.

Sorted. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's still inconsistency in the use of locations for book publishers.

Should be sorted. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN7 and 9: Same book; one lacks page numbers, the other lacks the link? Perhaps the references should be merged?

Same authors, different books. Added page number to 9. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN17 needs attention. The chapter thing is weird, and the author's initials are formatted in an atypical way.

I have tidied it up and used the |work= parameter to format the chapter. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It's still off. Why not use the "chapter" parameter? This is the reason it exists. (Also: CABI or CAB International? Consistency would be good.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Chapterized and standardised to CAB International. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN18: The location and publisher are surely unnecessary?

Done. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN19: The "via" is unnecessary.

done. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN23 lack an accessdate.

done. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• CSIRO, not Csiro

fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN32, 33 and 34 have different date formats. Is 34 not the Daily Record?

Yes, 34 is the Daily Record. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so why is the citation to the enigmatic "Scotlandnow" rather than the familiar Daily Record? Josh Milburn (talk)

Ahh, changed that to Daily Record. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN35 is an edited collection and should be cited as such

Cited with editor and work parameter. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, why not use the chapter parameter? The current citation is very odd, and inconsistent with others you use. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Check "via" on FN37

Capitalised. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• No publisher for FN38 or 41.

done. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Check italics on FN40.

fixed. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Generally: Check author initials. Make sure you're using a consistent format.

I am staying as close to the source as possible. If a name is given, I will use the name, else if only initials are given, I will use the (Last Name, Initial.;) name structure, for example - Bloggs, J.L. Is this acceptable? TheMagikCow (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course; just be aware that "Bloggs, J. L." is different from "Bloggs, J.L." and "Bloggs, JL"! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn: Yeah - that should be sorted. I think I have addressed all of these concerns now. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm now roughly happy with the source formatting. Some of the sources aren't blowing me away in terms of reliability; maybe some of those completing fuller reviews will have views on this. I have also not performed any spotchecks. I hope to be back. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seems pretty comprehensive for an article on a population of 3,600 sheep. I did wonder if the wool is still used, and where the presumably rather tiny amount of meat gets sold (and for how much). Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Johnbod. I have looked into both points there, and with regards to the wool, some is spun locally mill here, but no coverage in secondary sources. As for the meat, I can't find any information, aside from the sources given. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Doing a flyby, I was drawn to the claim in the Enclosure section that the sheep dyke at 19 kilometres is "the largest single dry stone entity in the world". What the cited sources say is that it is "probably the largest drystone construction conceived of as a single entity in the world." Since "probably" is a weasel word, I looked a bit further. The Mourne Wall in Northern Ireland is about 30 kilometres long, according to this source. Another RS saying much the same is here. Finetooth (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Finetooth. I have change it to one of the largest. Will that suffice? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Finetooth (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose. A very interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

• "also known as the Orkney," - Would it be more appropriate to state "also known as the Orkney sheep"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. Changed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "lives on North Ronaldsay, the northernmost island of the Orkney Islands, Scotland." - but only a few lines later it is revealed that they also live on Linga Holm? Maybe this should be "originating from" rather than "lives on"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarified in the text. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "to live almost entirely on seaweed" - I think that we can be more specific here. The idea that they can "love almost entirely on" could be read as meaning that they actually live atop seaweed. It is better to be very explicit that they subsist almost entirely on a diet of seaweed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The meat is protected by the UK Government " - what does this mean? I think we need to be more explicit here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarified, using so instead of and. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that we could do more here. "The meat is protected by the UK Government, so only meat from North Ronaldsay sheep can be marketed as Orkney Lamb" is not crystal clear as the idea of the UK government "protecting" the meat could be understood in a literal manner, particularly by non-native speakers of English. How about something like "The UK government specifies that only meat from North Ronaldsay sheep can be marketed as Orkney Lamb". That is not only shorter, but is cleaner and more precise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Lamb meat and mutton from the sheep have been specially designated by the UK Government, ...." This is less clear than before, and neither version is precise or accurate. The meat has Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) status throughout the European Union. The relevant article is Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union (and List of United Kingdom food and drink products with protected status), and whatever protection there is covers the whole EU and maybe some other countries (by bilateral trade agreements) as well. A link to the list on the EU website would be good. I've added the category, which the article lacked (unlike Shetland sheep). Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• The citation system used, where the page numbers appear within the text of the article itself, is unusual and not very user-friendly. I would definitely recommend a change on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There has been some extensive discussion on the talk page regarding this. The main issue to changing seemed to be WP:CITEVAR. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that this is an important issue so will raise he question at the Talk Page rather than here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments and review Midnightblueowl. I am working to try to address these. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I in the infobox, under "Use" it specifies "wool" but not meat. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "an increased susceptibility to toxicity to the trace element copper," - I think that this could be cleaned up a little and made clearer. At present it is a little repetitive with its "to... to". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Reworded to A 2005 study at the University of Liverpool found that they have a greater susceptibility to copper toxixity, when compared with a more traditional breed such as the Cambridge. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The meat has a unique, rich flavour of the meat," - bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

removed of the meat. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "This discovery was used in a 2005 study of swabs taken from the sheep and analysed for this ratio." - I'm not quite sure what is actually being said here. Could it be clarified? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Reworded section. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1832, a dry stone wall, known as the dyke, was erected to confine the sheep inside, protecting the seaweed on the shore, which was harvested for iodine extraction. " - Too many commas and little bits. How about "In 1832, a dry stone wall known as the dyke was erected on the island. Its purpose was to keep the sheep inland and away from the shore, thus preventing them from eating the seaweed, which local people harvested for iodine extraction." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Implemented. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "damaged the gene pool of an already vulnerable breed" - Surely such "damage" is a very subjective concept? How about "diluted" as a more neutral term? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "It was designated an 'A' listed structure by Historic Scotland in 1999 to conserve this "unique and important structure"" - How about "In 1999, Historic Scotland described it as a "unique and important structure" and designated it an 'A'-list site requiring conservation". That's less repetitive and, I think, a little smoother. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that wording reads much better. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Successive storms, the worst of which " - again, subjective wording creeping in here. How about the "heaviest of which" or "most destructive of which"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Add a link to the European Union article when mentioning this institution in the text. The same goes for North Sea oil. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I feel that the two latter paragraphs in "Conservation" may be situated in the wrong place. Both discuss the DNA of this breed and its relationship with other British sheep breeds and thus have something of a historical dimension to them. For this reason I would strongly recommend moving them to the "Origin" section, where they should fit far more snugly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. I did a lot of editing on this, and it was rough going. Whenever I make this many changes, there are lots of opportunities for me to get things wrong, so please check my edits. The part I review at FAC is prose ... and not even the tough prose problems, just the straightforward stuff. I might or might not oppose a future nomination of another article, depending on how much work the prose needs on the day the article hits FAC. It might be a good idea in future nominations to get a co-nominator to help you check the prose; you could ask people who have reviewed your other nominations, or people who are interested in the same articles you're interested in. I thought the article was fascinating, and a good choice for FAC. I hope you'll return to FAC soon. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the work you have put in with the prose on this one. I completely understand what you are saying, and will endeavour to improve the prose on future nominations. However, most RS on the topic use the term dyke to describe the wall, so I have put the term back defined in the article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 08:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw there were a lot of edits to the article when I got up this morning, and feared the worst, but I'm very happy with the edits since mine, including yours, including the addition of "dyke". Mentioning it once and explaining it is a great idea. It was using the word every time that was a problem, because the word means "a wall that holds back the sea" to most English speakers. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it, I think we still need an image review. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

I see no problem with any of the five images. The first image is "own work" with an appropriate license. The next three are Geograph images with appropriate licenses. The fifth is a Flickr upload with an appropriate license. The captions make sense. All five images have alt text, though the terminal periods on the alt-text fragments seem unnecessary. I'm a bit rusty at this, so I don't mind if someone wants to double-check. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The image sourcing and licensing looks fine to me too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: This is the nominator's first FAC, and I did some quick spot-checks. Although hampered by not being able to see all the sources, I saw enough to be happy that there are no obvious problems. J Milburn had some reservations over one or two sources, but as no other reviewers raised concerns after he posted his review, I think any further sourcing issues can be taken up on the article talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2017 [23].

---

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1887 play)

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The dual character of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the most famous monsters in horror fiction, and this play is one of the earliest and most influential dramatic presentations of the character. The play also has unexpected connections to Dracula and Jack the Ripper. I want to thank User:J Milburn for providing the GA review, and User:Miniapolis from the Guild of Copy Editors for helping get the prose into shape. I'm hoping the reviewers here have the potion to finish transforming this into a featured article. RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

• Remove all the redlinks. I haven't seen a single FA with them.
• The section "Jekyll-Hyde transformation" uses three references together. Could you separate them a bit. In its current state, it seems like all references say the same thing.
• Try avoiding short paragraphs and either merge them or expand them.

Other than that, I found this article in good shape. Ping me when you do and I'll give you my support. Also, if you could comment on my own FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D.Gray-man/archive1, I would appreciate. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Replying on only the redlink point (I'm not the nominator)—please see WP:RED. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Thanks for the review. I have redistributed the references about the transformation, and consolidated a few paragraphs. Hopefully those changes address your second and third points. Regarding the redlinks, I have a two-part reply: First, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that FAs should not contain redlinks. Not only is this not one of the FA criteria, the guideline at WP:RED encourages redlinks for subjects that ought to have articles. I've removed one link that I'm less sure about, but I believe that Mansfield's later plays are notable and should get articles. Second, as a practical matter, I doubt that the links will even be red by the time this FAC ends (or in the event of an unusually short candidacy, certainly not for much longer), because I expect to create the articles myself. Today I created the article about Prince Karl. That leaves just two to fill in. So I'm hoping you will not allow the temporary absence of these articles to prevent your support. And of course let me know if there is anything else you think is needed. --RL0919 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment - you really like parenthetical asides. :-) Ctrl+f reveals 142 pairs in the article. Some are false positives, like the pair in the article title, but that's still a lot. Might be something to look for and try to work on throughout the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: Thanks for taking a look at the article. If you check closer, you'll find that 90% of the parentheses are in the references and the navigation box at the bottom of the article. That said, I believe another editor introduced more parenthetical items than I would normally prefer, so I've revised several of them. Thanks for pointing it out, and let me know if you spot any other opportunities for improvement. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: You're very right—my apologies. A lot of them are in the navbox too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

Lead

• Infobox: An illustration from the original Boston performance would be better, if available.

First American productions

• "Although he was ill, the author sent his wife and mother to the opening.": is there any reaction to the premier from Stevenson (via his wife and mother)?

1888 West End production

• What about adding, in parenthesis perhaps, that Bram Stoker would later write Dracula.

Reception

• "praised" and variants of that word are used quite frequently in this section – I think some synonyms should be used.

General

• United Kingdom and United States are sometimes written out in full, and sometimes abbreviated UK and US; I think that one or the other should be used.
• Redlinks: Are these referencing articles soon-to-be-created? If not I think they shouldn't be linked (see WP:REDNOT).

References / Works cited

• The references "Winter 1910a" and "Winter 1910b" don't match the two Winter entries in the Works cited section – they should be qualified by "1910a" and "1910b". (See {{Harvnb}}.) The blue links in References point to the correct entries in Works cited, but anyone working from a printed copy of the article won't be able to marry the two.
• The "Danahay & Chisholm 2011" references use "loc <number>" instead of a page number. I know Kindle ebooks don't have page numbers, but what is the number following "loc"?

  OK I worked this one out. Kindle books do have page numbers, but they also have a location within a page, which is what these references are using. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

—Bruce1ee^talk 09:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bruce1ee: Thanks for your review. I've updated the article to address most of your comments. Some specific replies as needed:

• Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any images from the Boston premier or the first Broadway production.
• For US/UK, they are now written out on first use in the lead and again on first use in the body, and abbreviated for all other uses.
• Yes, these are appropriate redlinks for notable plays. Since older plays are the focus of much of my article creation work, odds are that I will have created them myself before this FAC closes.
• Some Kindle books have page numbers, but this particular one only has the location numbers, at least as far as I can see on the Kindle reading app that I use.

Let me know if there is anything else I could do to improve the article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support the prose and MOS. Thank you for addressing the points I raised, I'm happy with your changes. It's an interesting and nicely written article. Good luck with the nomination. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

Hi RL0919, this is written very nicely. Quick question about "Although he was ill, the author sent his wife and mother to the opening ..." Do you mean "because he was ill", or does "although" have some other function there? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking the time to review. There's no special meaning to "although" and I'm certainly open to changing the wording of the sentence. I'm not sure that "because" is the best choice, however. It could be taken to imply that they only went due to his illness. I believe the intention was for all three to attend (Sullivan reserved a box for them), and one of them simply did not because of his illness. Anyhow, let me know if you would like some change to the sentence, or if you spot anything else that could be improved. --RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I was able to read one of the sources on snippet view, so I made a change, [24] but please revert if you're not keen. It's a minor thing, but it jumped out when I was reading through the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Question about this sentence: "The adaptation's changed social environment undercuts interpretations based on the novella's bachelor society, including interpretations in which Hyde signifies homosexuality or the corruption of a patriarchal society." I'm not quite sure what that means. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: There are interpretations of Stevenson's novella that focus on the lack of women in it -- all the significant characters are older bachelors. In some of these interpretations, Hyde symbolizes moral corruption within the novella's male-dominated society. In other interpretations, Hyde is a manifestation of Jekyll's suppressed homosexual desires. By adding prominent women characters who are romantic interests for the men (Agnes Carew is engaged to Jekyll and leered at by Hyde; Dr. Lanyon has a wife), plus a landlady for Hyde, Sullivan's play doesn't support those interpretations the way the novella does. Possibly the current version of the article tries to explain this too briefly. --RL0919 (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: I wonder if it could be rewritten. It isn't clear (to me) what "changed social environment" refers to—I assume that refers to the introduction of women—or "the corruption of a patriarchal society". SarahSV ^(talk) 04:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Gave it a try with this edit. Let me know if that works, or feel free to revise further if you are so inspired. --RL0919 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Will look shortly. Something missing here: "making Hyde's evil sexual and the Jekyll-Hyde transformation central to the performance". Or does it mean "making Hyde's evil sexual in nature"? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably being dense, but this still seems obtuse:

"In some interpretations of the novella, Hyde signifies moral corruption within a patriarchal society represented by the other male characters; other interpretations suggest Hyde is involved in homosexuality. These interpretations of the novella are more difficult to apply to the play due to Sullivan's addition of women characters and heterosexual relationships."

What is "moral corruption within a patriarchal society", and how do the "other interpretations" differ from the first one? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In both cases we are talking about multiple interpretations from various interpreters that have a common theme. I'll try to summarize them without lapsing into the academic jargon that most of them come with:

• Interpretation set number 1: The mostly-male character set in the novel represents the patriarchal society of Victorian England (or, for those who want to be more expansive, patriarchal societies in general). Hyde, as an evil character that springs up within this society, represents the moral failings of the society as a whole. Exactly what those moral failings are proposed to be will vary depending on the views of the person making the interpretation (if they bother to specify -- in some settings patriarchy is simply assumed to be evil per se).
• Interpretation set number 2: The character set consists of unattached males because some or all of them are repressed homosexuals. Jekyll in particular seeks (consciously or not) to liberate his homosexual desires, and Hyde is the result.

These are two entirely different interpretations whose commonality is that they depend on the absence of women in the story, which is what Sullivan changed. --RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: thank you for explaining. Can you find a way to make it clearer, spell it out more? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much clearer. Something that jumped out in the lead when I first read it: "It is an adaptation of Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an 1886 novella by Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson. ... After Hyde murders the father of Jekyll's fiancée ..." Then later in the lead: "In writing the stage adaptation, Sullivan made several changes to the story; these included a romantic interest for Jekyll ..." It isn't clear until later in the article that Jekyll had no fiancée in the original version, so when the reader reaches "a romantic interest for Jekyll", they might wonder what is meant. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This is well-written, interesting, nicely laid out, and it seems comprehensive and well-sourced. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and for following up on my previous clarification edit -- I got pulled away before I could update about it here. Per your comment above about "fiancée" and "romantic interest", I tweaked the wording to try to make it more clear in the lead that the fiancée is an addition. --RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's better, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

A good read. I made a couple of minor changes, if they're ok. It seems comprehensive, though I wonder if there is any more material on the Jekyll-Hyde transformation (i.e. what Hyde looks like), as Hyde's appearance is often a central part of discussion of any adaptation. But if there is nothing in the source it can't be elaborated on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support; no issue with the edits. There are several descriptions of Mansfield's performance as Hyde, so I've added a sentence about it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, a good segment to add. thanks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Josh

I mostly had my say at GAC, and, looking through the article again, it seems to have improved. I have made some small tweaks; hopefully nothing controversial. I have no hesitation in supporting, but I do have a couple of comments: Josh Milburn (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The playwright strengthened the contrast between Jekyll and Hyde in Stevenson's original" Could this be reworded? The playwright doesn't strengthen anything in the original, he strengthens things in contrast to the original.
• the Cambridge Tribune or The Cambridge Tribune? And I am I right that this is a US paper? It is cited alongside details about the reception of the Boston performance.

Thank you for your support. Looks like Sarah fixed your first item. For the second, the masthead includes "The", so I've made it consistently that. I also just created the article about it, and yep, it was a US paper. --RL0919 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, I think we still need a source review. I think can request one at the top of WT:FAC now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, still needed. I presciently added a request. --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources all seem wholly appropriate and reliable.

• I believe The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science, and Art is generally just known as The Saturday Review.
• We have an article on Lettice Cooper you could link to.
• What is the nature of the Geduld source? If it's an edited collection/anthology/sourcebook, you should probably cite the chapters separately, rather than citing the book as a whole.
• We have an article on Scott Allen Nollen.

I can't reliably speak to comprehensiveness, but a search during the GA review threw up nothing which had been missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review. Links added for authors and name shortened for the Review. Regarding Geduld, it is more of a sourcebook, and many chapters are reprints from other authors. For those I have cited accordingly (e.g., "Review in The Theatre, September 1, 1888, reprinted in ...") or where possible simply used the original source. However, there are some chapters (mostly list/chronology content) that are not attributed to any other author or source. It is only those that are cited simply as "Geduld 1983". Let me know if you have any other sourcing concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2017 [25].

---

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most infamous, and probably the most well-studied, episodes in U.S. foreign relations, and as such is of great importance. I recognize that this is a highly complex, and highly contentious, topic, and have therefore delved into the source material extensively; I believe I have done it justice, within the confines of 61kb of prose. To those who may be struck by some of the statements in the article, and may have concerns about political neutrality, I can do no better than to invite you to dig into the source material, and also to assure you that the article is actually substantially milder than many of the sources. Have at it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Simon Burchell

Support Comment I reviewed this for GA a year and a half ago. It is a fine article and I hope to find the time to review it here. My one initial concern for an article about Guatemala is that no Guatemalan sources have been used. That being said, well done on getting it this far... All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Simon, good to see you. That is an entirely valid concern (though I note that I have relied a fair bit on Gleijeses, whose work is chiefly based on interviews in Guatemala). My handicap here is my lack of Spanish, and an unwillingness to rely entirely on google translate; but if you were willing/able to check some of my work, I'd be quite willing to check for Spanish sources and add them where appropriate. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, I can do that - to start I ran Guatemala golpe 1954 (golpe = "coup") through Google Scholar.

• Article from Nueva Sociedad magazine
• Another from Foro Internacional via JSTOR

Lots more of Spanish-language sources on the Google Scholar search. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just a quick note to say that I've added the Casteneda source (which is Mexican, I believe?), and used it in several places: but I've treated it with a little circumspection with respect to very specific details, because there are places where this source makes claims contradicting virtually every other on the subject: such as, for instance, the idea that Jose Angel Sanchez briefly held power, which nobody else mentions. Working on the others now. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've just checked my copy of Los Presidentes de Guatemala by Hector Gaitán, and his only mention is as a member of the military council after the coup. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes his membership of Diaz' junta is well-known, but the leadership claim is unique to this source. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure how relevant it is, but Gaitán (p117) lists Carlos Enrique Díaz was president for one day, immediately after the resignation of Arbenz, before being pressured by Peurifoy to integrate a military council. Maybe Castenada got Angel Sanchez and Díaz confused. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's possible. Diaz led the junta of which Sanchez was a member, and which was in power for about 36 hours, give or take. Vanamonde (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Simon Burchell: I've added four Spanish sources, two of which are from Figueroa Ibarra, who, as I understand it, is the best known Guatemalan historian in this particular niche. Would you mind having a glance at my additions, at your leisure? I'll look for more sources, but these seem to be some of the best/most relevant. And it's worth noting that even they rely heavily on Immerman, Schlesinger/Kinzer, and Gleijeses, the three truly heavyweight English sources on the subject. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've spot-checked over half the uses of Castañeda, and don't see any problems so far. More later... However, in this and some of the other refs (Gilderhus for example), these refs would be better broken down with specific page nos. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Simon: Just fyi, I've added specific page numbers to all of the journal sources. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Authoritarian governments

• UFC to cap the salary of its workers at only 50 cents a day - does this refer to US cents, or Guatemalan centavos? Whichever it is, it needs to be made clear. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the source does not make it explicit, they just say fifty cents. The rest of the section repeatedly refers to dollars, which is really the only indication that they are referring to USD, apart from the fact that they were published in the US. Do you think this is sufficient basis to say USD? Other sources I've looked for do the same thing... Vanamonde (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think the source would be unlikely to change currency, so best to clarify to US cents. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Guatemalan Revolution and Presidency of Arévalo

• The word junta is wikilinked, but goes to a disambiguation page, could you pipe the link to the most appropriate article. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done: junta. Vanamonde (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• There are instances of "landowner" and "land-owner" - and I came across similar a similar inconsistency elsewhere that I corrected, so check all your hyphenated words against non-hyphenated forms, and be consistent. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I have them all now.

• Some got through (also land-holding and landholding) but I have fixed what I could find. It is worth checking that there aren't other inconsistencies like this. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've had another read through, and corrected some minor issues.

United Fruit Company lobbying

• By 1950...annual profits were 65 million U.S. dollars - any idea what this is in modern money? I believe there is a template that does the inflation calculation somewhere, but can't recall what it is called. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I found the template and added it in a couple of places. I'm still wondering as to which other instances it should be added to, as it is quite wordy; thoughts?

• It actually makes quite an impression, just about a 10-fold increase, which clarifies the article enormously, so for sums in the millions, I think it should be put in uniformly. If you don't like it interrupting the text, you could always insert the templates as footnotes - possibly in a separate footnote group. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• On second thoughts I think I agree with you; and I've added it for every figure that is precise. Is this okay? Also, just a note that I have the template rounding to the same level of accuracy as the given figure, which seems best to me; but I can change that, if needed.

• observed that "To the Guatemalans - the capital "T" looks weird here, surely it should be a small "t"? Simon Burchell (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well the capital T is in the quote. I've replaced it with [to]. Is that better?

• Much better, thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Planning

• ...The operational headquarters for the Operation... redundant, and repetitive, wording here - this can just be reduced to "The operational headquarters..." Simon Burchell (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• yes. done.

• ...a futile raid against the Army garrison at Salamá... - lower case A in Army, I think. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

Caracas conference and U.S. propaganda

• the Tenth Inter-American Conference, which was scheduled to be held in Caracas in March 1954 - I've linked to the article on the Pan-American_Conference, but that article says the Caracas conference was the 11th, not the 10th in its History section. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Welp. Gleijeses does say tenth. Maybe it's best to just drop the adjective? Vanamonde (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that would be best, the year and location should be sufficient. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

Árbenz's resignation

• You refer to the PGT here, using the acronym for the first time. It would not be obvious to most readers that this is the Guatemalan Party of Labour, already referred to several times. I've added the acronym and Spanish name in parenthesis at the first instance, but you may want to think about whether you want to use the acronym in this section at all, rather than the name as used throughout. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good point, thanks for fixing it. I think I would like to stick with the acronym, mostly to keep things concise. A minor point: you linked "Molotov" and "Austria" but I've always been under the impression that terms within quotation marks should not be linked...or am I misreading MOS:LINKSTYLE? Vanamonde (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think common sense should apply - in this case, many readers will have no idea who Molotov is (and maybe even where Austria is). If you get any hassle for it, by all means remove them. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I'll leave them be for the time being, personally I think they were a helpful addition. Vanamonde (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a great article, well researched, well written, and thorough. I am happy to support its promotion. Well done, and thank you for a great addition to the encyclopedia. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for a solid review. Vanamonde (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up several of the detail-heavy images

• I've scaled up Eisenhower, and the memorandum. Which else were you referring to? Is the scaling sufficient?

• Suggest also the Guatemala map, and I'm not seeing any change to the memorandum? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done. I'd changed the memo from upright to normal thumb. I've now changed it, too, to 300px; but I'm actually uncertain about that. It's damned ugly, and you still can't read it, so I'm wondering if 220 is best for that image after all.

• Perhaps upright=1.1? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

• done, I believe

• File:Manuel_Estrada_Cabrera_01.jpg: when/where was this first published?

• Even the Library of Congress, where it is from, does not seem to know: the negative that it was created from is from between 1909 and 1920. The website of the LoC says "No known restrictions on publication." If this does not resolve the issue, how is [26] as an alternative?

• That alternative would work, although you'd need to add in the author's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I've removed this: though I'm curious as to why the pre-1923 rule does not apply to either of these. The author's date of death was a no-go, he seems obscure. How is this, for which we actually know the author, and know that he died in 1928?

• PD-1923 requires that the image be published, not just created, before 1923 - if we don't know publication that doesn't work. Alternative is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ah I see. I've added the alternative.

• File:Ubico_Castaneda,_Jorge.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?

• Honestly, I don't know, and it does not help that the original link is broken, and it was PD in France.
• Okay, I've dug into this further. Here is the situation: it was published in a newspaper [27] in France, on 8 January 1938. Its author is unknown. In France, this document would have entered the public domain on 8 January 2008, after which the image was scanned and uploaded to Wikipedia. This much I'm sure of. Now it seems that in most cases the US does not apply the rule of shorter term, and we're not yet 95 years from the date of publication: so I'm not sure how to proceed from here.

• Unless you can find another reason why it would be PD in the US, it would seem this cannot be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ah that's unfortunate. I've removed it, and will look for alternatives.
• Rather infuriatingly, none of the images on commons have the information to meet the criteria you have described here (except for one, which shows a young Ubico on a bicycle) and so I guess we will just have to do without.

• File:Guatearbenz0870.JPG: what is the copyright status of the mural?

• Investigating, but perhaps Soman could help here.
• I wasn't aware of this before, but it seems to me that the copyright status of the mural itself is irrelevant, because Guatemala allows the reproduction of public artwork: [28]. In any case, it is a mural in a public area, created collectively by the activist group HIJOS. The group specializes in graffiti type images. It was painted in Spring 2004, and erased a year later [29]. This suggests, but doesn't state explicitly, that no copyright ever existed. What does this mean for its use?

• Just add this template and it should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done, thanks

• File:1920UnitedFruitCompanyEntrance.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sculptural work?

• Investigating.
• Did a little bit of digging: the building was built in 1920 [30] and was designed by a General Allison Owen, who died in 1951. I cannot find any source which specifically discusses the design of the sculpture. Where does that leave us?

• If this part was build pre-1923, then {{PD-1923}} should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well nobody is saying "oh and the facade was definitely built at the same time as the building" but there are plenty of references that refer to its construction in 1920 and the facade in the same breath; so I think we're okay. I've added that tag.

• File:Coat_of_arms_of_Guatemala.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• It is merely a fragment of the flag: surely it has the same copyright status? Or is it more complicated than that? Anyhow, it is currently used in at least one FA, but it is far from critical to the article, and could be removed.

• What is the copyright status of the flag, for that matter? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oh lordy. I'd always sort of assumed using a flag was fine with respect to representing the country it was off...I'll investigate, although I'm wondering if Simon knows something, having brought multiple Guatemala articles to FA.

• Some countries explicitly state that national symbols like flags are not protected by copyright, others don't - I'm not sure which is the case in Guatemala. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems a strangely complicated question to answer. The closest I've come to finding something is [31], on the Spanish Wikipedia: but even that does not answer this question completely. I'm pinging Simon again since I forgot to sign the previous post, and also because I suspect that without a knowledge of Spanish, I am going to get exactly nowhere with this search. Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, wasn't that easy to track down but I think this covers it, "LEY DE DERECHO DE AUTOR Y DERECHOS CONEXOS DE GUATEMALA DECRETO NÚMERO 33-98 EL CONGRESO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA" (Law of Rights of the Author and Associated Rights) from the website of the Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes (Ministry of Culture and Sports) - specifically Article 13, subsection g (page 39 of the linked PDF):

ARTICULO 13. Exclusiones. No son objeto de protección por derecho de autor, entre otras:

g) Las reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, de escudos, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, Estado, municipio o división político administrativa equivalente, ni las denominaciones, reglas, símbolos, siglas o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente, así como la designación verbal de los mismos;

Basically, and without fully translating the legalese (though I can do that if required) - flags are exempt from copyright, so you're good to use it. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Simon! That would have taken me hours to find, I think, if I'd found it at all....Nikkimaria, I believe that's everything. Vanamonde (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. I know very little about image licensing, so I would ask your indulgence in helping me work through these.
• @Nikkimaria: I don't have definite answers, but I've found more information with respect to each of those images. Could you take a look? Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: My apologies for bothering you once again: it's just that in the time since your review, two images (Arevalo, Rios Montt) have been added, and we are also contemplating replacing the Monroe doctrine map with this. In addition, some size changes have been made (mostly thumbnails being reduced to uprights). Would you be willing to scrutinize these additions as well? Thanks and regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• File:JuanJoseArevaloBermejo_-_cropped.jpg needs a US PD tag, other two are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria I was unable to track down the original author of the image, so I've removed it. In the meantime, though, I've added this, to address indopug's concern over insufficient images in the second half of the article. Is this okay, or do we need to be concerned about the PGT's claim over the image? Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Potentially - do we know the copyright status of the design? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I've been investigating for a while, and (possibly because of my lack of Spanish) I was unable to find evidence of any claim that the PGT makes. I asked Mr. Penguin on commons, who created the file, and here is their response: "They're currently under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share 3.0 (that's the default whenever you upload), however I'd hazard that they're public domain. The Hammer-Sickle-Star is identical to numerous other communist flags and logos, and the text alone isn't enough to give it it's own copyright." Is this enough for us? If not, I will remove the image. Vanamonde (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, probably {{PD-ineligible}} is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Duly tagged. Many thanks for the helpful review, Nikkimaria. Vanamonde (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Indopug

Comment on the first three sections Looking at the sources, the research seems impeccable, well done. However I find quite a bit of repetition of information, which usually points to the article improperly organised, and in need of a re-structuring. For example, take Decree 900:

• Presidency of Árbenz and land reform: "The official title of the agrarian reform bill was Decree 900 ... Approximately 500,000 individuals, or one-sixth of the population, had received land by this point"
• Operation PBFORTUNE: "The worries of the U.S. increased after the election of Jacobo Árbenz in 1951 and his enactment of Decree 900, the agrarian reform law, in 1952.[52][54] The new law benefited approximately half a million people"
• United Fruit Company: "The company's labor troubles were compounded in 1952 when Jacobo Árbenz passed Decree 900, the agrarian reform law."
• Cold war motivations: "The enactment of the agrarian reform law in 1952 provoked Truman to authorize Operation PBFORTUNE"

Note that Decree 900 is not even the subject of the article, just one of its (i.e. the coup's) many causes! And the same holds true for other stuff as well—the Guatemalan Party of Labour, PBFORTUNE's failure, UFC's lobbying etc.

My recommendation is to re-read the first three sections and re-arrange the information chronologically. The stuff about PBFORTUNE, UFC and Cold War paranoia (in Operation PBFORTUNE and Genesis of the coup) are so interrelated that maybe you're better off dealing with them together in a single section called Prelude that deals with what the Americans (govt + its cronies + UFC) were up to in 1951–1953. Obviously para 1 of UFC, which begins in 1899, wouldn't fit here; that would instead dovetail better with Authoritarian governments. Doing so will also prevent the article from taking way too long (6800 words) to get to the actual coup itself (the Operation PBSUCCESS section).—indopug (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Indopug I've implemented your suggestion of reorganizing, which I think is a good one. I'd quibble with your notion that the actual coup is limited to the Operation PBSUCCESS section, but that's maybe a discussion for elsewhere. The merger allowed me to prune about 1500b of text, give or take. The minor problem this creates is that of section titles, as Cold war stuff is now spread over two subsections; but take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that I've got more time IRL I want to do a more-detailed section-by-section copyedit and review over the coming days. For now I want to ask what the point of the third para ("Historians and authors writing about the 1954 coup...") of Eisenhower administration is. It just rehashes everything you've already said in Genesis, with a repetitive prose style, "Some historians say this, others say that, still others say this". Further that section isn't really the place to discuss the historiography of the coup. I think deleting the paragraph wholesale will not affect the article in any negative way.—indopug (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit, I think it has tightened the prose. I should probably ping @Simon Burchell: and @Midnightblueowl: though, because Simon is not overly fond of the "UFC" acronym, which you've reintroduced, and MBO made suggested some wording changes that have now disappeared. As to that third paragraph: I can see why it seems a little repetitive, but as Snowfire has said below, I do think we need to include that level of analysis somewhere. In my mind, I sort of saw the first two paragraphs as describing the two motivations, and the last one as weighing them against each other (which is honestly what a lot of the source material does). Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I went into it gung-ho; feel free to revert any inappropriate changes. ("UFC" was there before my copyedits though.)—indopug (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde's not wrong - I detest overuse of acronyms, which will often send a reader back to the beginning of an article to see what it stands for, especially if an article is using a lot of different acronyms. I'm not dead set against their use in moderation, but I prefer clarity over brevity. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Indopug, but I'd agree that if we can avoid it; by the use of "the company", for example; we should. I also think it would not be wrong to use the full form in a new section. So, to go forward, how about I wait until you're done copy-editing, and then I can go and perform a few minor reverts/tweaks, and then Simon could read it over? Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm done with my copyedits, so you can go ahead. I understand not wanting to overuse acronyms, but here they were mostly to avoid being repetitive ("the company ... the company ... the company" in consecutive sentences). One acronym I have inserted widely is PGT for the Guatemalan Party of Labour; again, I don't mind reverting to the full name, but I don't think referring to them generically as "the communist party" is appropriate.—indopug (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Second half of the article needs more pics.

• I agree in principle, but to be honest it is really difficult to find appropriately licensed images...indeed when I began working on this I spent a lot of time searching for such, and added all I could find. In fact, I'm not even sure that the licensing is okay for image of Arevalo. If you have any suggestions, they would be welcome. There are pictures of more peripheral figures: Nixon (who received a hostile reception in LA because of this coup), Dag Hammerskjold, Alvaro Colom (who issued the official government apology) and some of the figures peripheral to PBHISTORY, who are not currently named in the article. Thoughts?
• Also, a question I've been meaning to ask: is there a reason you've reduced image size? I thought it was prose length that was a problem...
• Another question for you: you're copy-edits removed the fact that Arbenz had been a leader of the October coup in 1944. This was a fact which gave him a lot of legitimacy, and so is probably worth mentioning; indeed, i'd say it's more important than the entire Arana episode in which it was included; but since you removed it, I want to ask about where it might fit best. Thoughts?

• "65 million U.S. dollars (equivalent to $647,030,000 in 2016)"—not a fan of this too-wordy format (there's also the mismatch of style between "65 million U.S. dollars" and "$647,030,000"). This is cheeky but all I think you just need a single footnote (or even a parenthetical note in the main text itself) saying "to obtain the approximate equivalent value in 2016 dollars, multiply the 1950s dollar figure by 10." I also think "65 million U.S. dollars" should be rendered "$65 million" throughout.

• I'm going to ping Simon again (sorry!) because adding the template was his idea. I could fix the wording by removing a template parameter and adding some words, but I'd rather not do it twice.
• I've modified the template to deal with the formatting issue.
• Never mind: the formatting issue is insoluble. We have to decide whether we want this template or not. Simon (again, sorry!), Indopug. Vanamonde (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm really out of it today, it would seem. I had fixed it, just missed one instance...still, a decision is needed, but no formatting issue.

• I think the template should be used; it is no good taking up Indopug's suggestion of saying "to obtain the approximate equivalent value in 2016 dollars, multiply the 1950s dollar figure by 10.", because inflation will render this statement obsolete sooner or later, while the template will update the value (as I understand it). The template can be moved to a footnote, if it is interfering with reading flow, for example:

US$65,000,000<ref group="inflation">US$65,000,000 is equivalent to {{Inflation|US|65000000|1930|r=-5}} in modern money.</ref>

and display to footnotes separately below with {{reflist|group="inflation}}

However, I do now note that you have put "in 2016" after the templates - this is not correct, because the template will update as new years are added, so needs to be changed to "today" or something not time sensitive. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm open to trying the footnotes. There isn't really a way around the "2016", though, because it is 2016, not today; that's what the template produces, and as I understand it the template is linked to an inflation value that might not be up to date. Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's 2016 now, but it defaults to the latest value, so when the 2017 value is added, that is what it will display, if you change to "in modern money" no-one has to come back and constantly update the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "modern money" is a good suggestion, I've implemented it. Vanamonde (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Simon Burchell and Finetooth: I've tried to synthesize the various suggestions, and converted the inflation values to footnotes. I don't think a separate citation is needed for this, as a citation is implicit in the use of the template, at least for the purposes of verification. Vanamonde (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good, but the "2016" really needs to be change to "modern money" or something similar, since the 2016 has not been defined in the inflation template. Since by default the template will grab the latest value, when 2017 (or later) is added, the footnote will be incorrectly stating that the value is for 2016, when this will no longer be the case. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Simon: this was true earlier, but the "2016" now comes from the template itself, and so will update automatically when the inflation value is updated. Vanamonde (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Great, then it all looks good! Simon Burchell (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ctrl+F for "Dulles" and make sure its clear which brother is being referred to. Eg: "In a report to Dulles, Peurifoy stated..." could go either way.

• done

• This is a personal preference but I never knew the point of having "Further information" and "Main article" links at the start of every section when those links usually feature in the first very words of the section.

• Given that this is a long and complicated article, with a large number of links, I thought it would be helpful; is it much of a problem?

• The article italicises coup d'état everywhere expect in the article title, lead and infobox.—indopug (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Now that you ask, I'm wondering if it needs to be italicized anywhere...thoughts?

Monroe Doctrine

• I think the map should be more closely cropped so that you can see Guatemala better. You certainly don't need to show Greenland and maybe not even the most of Canada to help the reader locate its position on the world map.

• Uh, this is an svg map, so it's not simply a matter of cropping and uploading again; so if this is important, it might take me a while to figure out how to do.

• Maybe just modify File:Political_Evolution_of_Central_America_and_the_Caribbean_1945.png ? Crop off the timescale at the bottom, change the text, maybe crop off the eastern side if you want. If you want to get real fancy, re-color the non-Guatamalan countries with dull and unobtrusive colors and make Guatamala stand out. SnowFire (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• How about this?

• The map's caption reads as though the Doctrine was a law that made Guatemala come under US hegemony.

• tweaked this

• "The Monroe Doctrine continued to be seen as relevant to Guatemala, and was used to justify the coup in 1954"—this sentence is unnecessary. It is out of place here (rightly discussed later at Reactions), and somewhat obvious and redundant to what's been discussed before in the section.

• I put it there because Smith explicitly states what the rest of the section only implies, thereby avoiding even the suggestion of synthesis in a politically fraught topic.

• "control of Guatemala's resources and its economy shifted away from Britain and Germany to the U.S."—"shifted" gives off a passive connotation here; as though the change happened spontaneously. But surely it was because of deliberate U.S. policy?

• Not necessarily; a lot of this was British and German withdrawal, if the source is to be believed.

Authoritarian governments and the United Fruit Company

• I think you should insert banana republic somewhere; isn't Guatemala the archetype?

• Yes it is, but this is trickier than it would seem because the term is thrown around to the point where it looses meaning, so scholars don't use it as much as the popular media. I've added it in the Monroe doctrine section, where it seemed most appropriate.

• "When Cabrera was overthrown in 1920, the U.S. sent an armed force to make certain that the new president remained friendly to it" but also "The U.S. did not need to use its military might in Guatemala"?

• Not sure how to deal with this. This is the same source, stating two sort-of-inconsistant things two pages apart; but strictly speaking its not inconsistant, because the US force didn't actually do any fighting in Guatemala, unlike elsewhere. They just hung out and looked threatening.

Guatemalan Revolution and presidency of Arévalo

• Junta (governing body) is an awful article; is there a better link?

• I'd remove it, but it was the result of a suggestion below. I thought about Military dictatorship, but that article is just as bad.

• The first para here lacks flow and is a little confusing, especially "It stopped short of drastically changing labor relations in the countryside" onwards. That sentence indicates that you're going to discuss his conservative measures but instead it is followed by the minimum wage and state farms. I'm also not sure the "nonetheless" belongs in the last sentence.

• I've tweaked this; take a look. The idea is that though he implemented some social reform, the system of feudalism did not change (though the source does not say feudalism) and that he was not remotely radical: Streeter says "barely qualified as a social democrat".

• "Another cause for U.S. worry was Arévalo's support of the Caribbean Legion, a group of progressive exiles, and of revolutionaries who aimed to overthrow U.S.-backed dictatorships across Central America, who included Fidel Castro"—very confusing sentence. It's not clear whether "the Caribbean Legion, a group of progressive exiles, and of revolutionaries" refers to three different groups or two or one. The "who included Fidel Castro" clause also seems ungrammatical.

• tweaked this: is it better now?

Presidency of Árbenz and land reform

• Not sure Fortuny needs to be named. He doesn't feature in the article again, and we're already drowning in names. "and a few played a role in drafting the new president's policies" is all you need.

• done

• "The value of the land itself was what the owners had declared it to be in their tax returns in 1952" → wasn't there something in the article about how the owners had understated these values to save on taxes? That was hilarious and awesome, and you should restore it.

• done

• Is the acres-to-ha conversion necessary? It is also inconsistently done (1.4 million acres).

• I think there is enough variation in the basic measure of land across the globe that it is, in fact, necessary. I fixed the inconsistency.

• IMO having two comments by historians is a bit of an overkill. Piero Gleijeses' comment seems redundant to what preceded it, and can be removed.—indopug (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• done
• @Indopug: I do believe I have fixed or responded to each of your suggestions. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Great to see the article brought this far, Vanamonde. I have a few comments:

• I'm a little confused by the use of citations in the lede. Some sentences have them; others do not. Personally I think that the best option is to be rid of them entirely in the lede, particularly as all of the material is appropriately cited in the article body. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is a response to a tendency for people to read just the lead, and go "hey I don't like that and it's not cited, let me remove it." Some sentences are specific enough to allow me to cite a source in the lede: others are too much of a summary, and so I don't. If you think it will be clearer without, I can remove them. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I second MBO. There's no need of the refs here.—indopug (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, then. done. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• "sought evidence of Soviet influence" - I would link to the Soviet Union here. Given that the Soviet state collapsed a quarter of a decade ago, many (younger and future) readers may have little familiarity with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't because I wanted to avoid a duplicate link: if you think it's worth it, I'll add one.

• Actually, I misread your comment, and didn't realize you were referring to the lede. This has been done, by Simon. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• "military dictatorship" - would "military junta" be a better term? I do not know much about Carlos Castillo Armas but certainly when dealing with articles like Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi it is always judicious to avoid describing a leader as a "dictator" outright. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm. The term is used by the sources quite frequently, but I can see your concern. I've always understood "junta" to mean a council: how about "authoritarian ruler" or "authoritarian military ruler"? Also, I'm wondering how to avoid repetition in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would probably go with "authoritarian military ruler" but you may wish to get further comments from other editors before making such a change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Simon Burchell, Indopug, and SnowFire: Thoughts on this? Vanamonde (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Junta is definitely a council. If it was just Armas in charge, I'd only use junta if there was strong WP:COMMONNAME that his government was referred to as a junta anyway, which it sounds like there isn't. As for dictator or not: dictator is fine if the politically "neutral" sources by detached academic historians use it freely, IMO. (Which I suspect they do. Just sources politically hostile to the coup calling the resulting government a dictatorship is less compelling.) SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• I believe a lay reader would understand the terms junta, dictator and authoritarian to be largely synonymous, and hence I don't mind either way.—indopug (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Duplinking of Carlos Castillo Armas in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the lede contains two sentences that consecutively end in "Arbenz". It's not a major problem, but is a little repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Replaced one use. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• "though the operation was quickly aborted it was a precursor to PBSUCCESS." - how about "although the operation was quickly aborted, it was a precursor to PBSUCCESS."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• done. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Should the image of Eisenhower and Dulles be situated at the top of the article, rather than below a box? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I put it there because I felt having text-only boxes at the very top was dreadfully dull, but I'm open to suggestions.

Historical background

• "U.S. President James Monroe's foreign-policy doctrine of 1823 warned the..." - perhaps a bit trivial, but the sentence does not explicitly make reference to the Monroe Doctrine itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oops, yes we do, in the following sentence. I'm losing the plot in my old age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• "to ensure that access to resources and markets was not limited" - "to ensure that American access to resources and markets was not limited"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done: "U.S. access".

• Did Latin American countries of this era lock out the Europeans or the like? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the US was keeping access open in general, rather than trying to make the Latin American countries personal economic colonies. (There are certainly some cases of US cooperation with European powers elsewhere, i.e. in China and Japan, to open markets.) If so, I'd actually go back to the old wording and leave out "American." SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• "likened Latin American countries to fighting children" - would "squabbling children" better reflect meaning here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• sure, done.

• "was "practically sovereign" on the continent." - what continent is meant here? South America, or the Americas as a singular entity? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly it's not made clear, because this is Gilderhus quoting Cleveland. The statement came after an incident in Venezuela, so I suppose it would have to be the Americas; but saying "practically sovereign" in the Americas might be a little dodgy...what if I extend the quote, and say ""practically sovereign on [the] continent"" that way we dump the ambiguity in Cleveland's lap?

• "While the U.S. did not initially have the power to enforce the doctrine, over the course of the 19th century many European powers withdrew from Latin America, and the U.S. expanded its sphere of influence there" - I wonder if "and the U.S. expanded its sphere of influence there" could be replaced with something that flows a little more smoothly. How about "allowing the U.S. to expand its sphere of influence throughout the region"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I still think you can probably drop the quote entirely and be fine. In the 1890s, a more expansive interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine rose to prominence, culminating in the Spanish-American War, etc. Maybe a little dryer, but also potentially more succinct. SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "a U.S. economic empire" - I'm always a little concerned by references to an "American empire" or a "Soviet empire" given that neither were literal empires; for that reason I wonder if there is a more neutral way or phrasing this? "U.S. economic hegemony" perhaps. Not a big point, and I'm personally fine with the present wording but just wondered if you had any thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well I'd share your hesitation with respect to the general "American empire" but the "economic" is, I believe, enough of a qualifier. Common sense says it's not off the mark, either...the U.S. owned bits of territory everywhere, and U.S. companies owned large chunks of central America. like the UFC.

• "the dominant Guatemalan trade partner" - "Guatamala's dominant trade partner" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done.

• "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, president of Guatemala" - we capitalise "President" when referring to U.S. leaders in the sub-section above. I'd recommend standardisation here, unless you have a particular reason not to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• My understanding of this is that we capitalize when the term is before the name, ie "Guatemalan President Manuel Estrada Cabrera" but "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, president of Guatemala". Am I wrong about this?
• Never mind, I was wrong. I looked up the MOS page, and I believe I have aligned all titles with it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The new entity held large tracts of land across Central America, and also controlled the railroads in Guatemala.[12] By 1900 it had become the largest exporter of bananas in the world,[13] and had a monopoly over the Guatemalan banana trade.[14] It also controlled the docks and the communications in the country.[14]" Here we have three sentences, but I think that the first and the third have a strong thematic similarity, so I would recommend putting them next to each other. For instance, the wording could be rearranged so that it says "The new entity held large tracts of land across Central America,[12] and in Guatemala controlled both the railroads,[12] and the docks and communication system.[14]." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I like that. done.

• "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, Dictator of Guatemala from 1898 to 1920." - I'd recommend changing this to "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, President of Guatemala from 1898 to 1920." in order to avoid any possible neutrality issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "replacing it with a vagrancy law, which stipulated " - I actually find this comma quite superfluous and would suggest that the sentence would be improved were it to be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "European fascist leaders" - link to fascism here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Ubico was strongly anti-communist, reacting to several peasant rebellions with incarcerations and massacres" - this sentence feels a little bit like it is situated in the wrong place in the paragraph, being squished between two sentences discussing the UFC. I would move it to an earlier point in the paragraph, probably just before the sentence that mentions Ubico's admiration for European fascism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Ubico received substantial support from the U.S. throughout his tenure." - again, I think that this is a sentence that would thematically work more appropriately at an earlier juncture in the paragraph, perhaps right after "had to ally with the U.S. for geopolitical reasons" Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• reorganize

• "philosophically conservative" - Is this the same as political conservatism? If so, let's have a link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, doesn't really seem to be...the articles on political philosophies tend to be rather centered on Europe and the US, and I don't think Arevalo's rather unique philosophy fits into this very closely.

• "cracked down on the communist party" - do we have a link to the party in question? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• no, we don't. I could add a redlink, if necessary.

• "the United States was suspicious of him" - "the U.S.", maybe given that we use this acronym elsewhere? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "progressive exiles" - link to progressivism? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if the Caribbean Legion really fits western definitions of progressivism..

• "free elections of 1950" - do we have a link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• linked.

• I feel that the images are a bit too clustered around the 'Presidency of Árbenz and land reform' sub-section. Would things be improved by moving the "Farmland in the Quetzaltenango Department" image to the left? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is mostly a personal hatred of left-aligned images: I find them highly disruptive to the text, especially when they are small...

• "into a communist country" - "into a communist state"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "its immediate objectives of emancipating peasants from feudalism, and improving workers' rights" - no need for the comma here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "whom were indigenous people. [38]" - delete the space bar and the link; we already have a link to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas article at an earlier juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

Genesis and prelude

• "This image was worsened" - would "image was strengthened" or "enhanced" work better here? It may also be a little more neutral. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Thanks to its position " - "due to its position"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "obstacle to progress in" - "obstacle to social reform"? Progress is something of a subjective concept. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd rather stick to progress, because this is the view of the government, attributed in the text, and not Wikipedia's voice.

• Not sure that the "Main article: United Fruit Company" is really necessary here, not particularly accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Changed to "Further information"; or would you rather see it removed?

• I think that the second paragraph in the "United Fruit Company lobbying" section is a bit lengthy; perhaps it could be divided into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "The company began a public relations campaign" - "launched a..."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well to me "launched" suggests something public, which this was not, so I went with "began".

• "The U.S. had grown more suspicious of the Guatemalan Revolution as the Cold War developed and the Guatemalan government clashed with U.S. corporations on an increasing number of issues,[56][57] and the Cold War predisposed the Truman administration to see the Guatemalan government as communist.[56]" - this is pretty lengthy. How about dividing it into two sentences? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Washington's worries over communist influence increased " - maybe we could replace the term "Washington" with more explicit terminology like "The U.S. governments worries..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I guess we could: the term was introduced (not just by me) for variety, as "US government" gets repetitive really fast.

• "awarded a medal by New York City" - perhaps "awarded a medal in New York City"? Or "awarded a medal by the New York City government", something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done: government

• "Truman instructed the CIA to follow up on it." - this is the first appearance of "CIA" in the main body of the text so I would convert "CIA" to "Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• There is much use of "dictator/s" here, to describe the presidents of Nicaragua, Venezuela, and the Dominican Republic. Are all of these figures unequivocally regarded as such? As mentioned before, this is a term that I am very reluctant to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from passerby: I can't comment about Venezuela, but for Nicaragua, yes, definitely a dictator even in neutral sources, and for Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, I think you could say "megalomaniac" in a scholarly, neutral voice. (From the article: "Dios en cielo, Trujillo en tierra", to give you an idea of his self-worth. ) SnowFire (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Again, I hear your concern; but these are, if anything, even more clear cut than Castillo Armas, which I talked about above. The most charitable term used for them is "autocrat". The comparison to Fidel Castro is actually a trifle misleading, because from what I can tell from the sources, some scholars won't call Castro a dictator because he took power in a popular insurrection; whereas these rulers generally inherited their power, or took over in a military coup.

• "However, the plan was terminated soon after: accounts of its termination vary. Some sources state that the State Department discovered the plan when a senior official was asked to sign a certain document: others, that Somoza was indiscreet." - I'm not convinced by the recurrence of the ":" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• removed the second instance.

• "including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother and CIA director Allen Dulles" - "including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, the CIA director Allen Dulles"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• " maintained the lobbying" - " maintained that the lobbying". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

Operation PBSUCCESS

• "The total budget has been estimated at between 5 and 7 million dollars, and the planning employed over 100 CIA agents. In addition, the operation recruited scores of individuals from among Guatemalan exiles and the populations of the surrounding countries. The operational headquarters was in the town of Opa-locka, Florida". I would ensure that there is a citation at the end of every sentence here, as each is somewhat stand-alone in its content. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well it's the same source, but okay. Duplicated.

• "The State Department created a team of diplomats" - "The U.S. State Department created a team of diplomats", lest someone thinks that a Guatemalan state department is being referenced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Random passerby comment: I disagree. The preceding paragraph is on the CIA, the next sentence says "Ambassador to Guatamala." It's perfectly clear from context it's talking about the US, and I'd say good writing style would be to remove superfluous words in the name of concision. It's especially unneeded here because nobody ever translates the Spanish equivalent government agency as "State Department", it's "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" ("Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores"), at least for Spain. Checking... seems it's similar for Guatamala, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Guatemala) / Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. I don't think anybody would ever refer to it as a "State Department" to begin with. SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• The version I wrote said U.S. state department: Indopug removed it, and honestly I think it's clear who we're talking about.

• "Latin America" is linked here for the first time but that term has appeared previously in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• fixed

• "a number of participants were arrested. A number of CIA agents " - this is a little repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• replaced one of those with "several"

• The fourth paragraph of "Planning" has only one citation, right at the end of the paragraph. I would ensure that there is at least one other citation earlier in the paragraph, even if it just a duplication of the aforementioned citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• duplicated.
• The same goes for the second paragraph of "Psychological warfare". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• duplicated once

• "Washington issued a series of statements" - is it worth using "U.S. government" over "Washington"? "Washington" is a commonly understood synonym for the U.S. government in the U.S. and U.K. but I do not know if it is widely utilised elsewhere. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've replaced some uses, but left some others in where there isn't really room for confusion, to provide variety; per above.

• "her continuing non-intervention" - again, giving the U.S. a feminine pronoun is probably something we should avoid for the purposes of Wikipedia. "its continuing non-intervention" would be better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, this was not me...fixed (also mentioned below).

• "was able to make concrete Latin American views on communism" - I think that this could be rephrased; I misunderstood what it was saying the first time around. "able to cement negative views of communism across Latin American governments"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "the American arms embargo " - "U.S. arms embargo"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• yes, fixed.

• "Atlantic Ocean port of Puerto Barrios" - "Atlantic port of Puerto Barrios"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "forcing Árbenz to hand them over to the military, and deepening his rift with his top generals" - "forcing Árbenz to hand them over to the military, and deepening the rift between him and his top generals"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "ranging in size from 198 to 60." Should the smaller number come first? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• The second paragraph in "Castillo Armas' invasion" is a bit lengthy; I would suggest dividing it into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• " all known to be men of personal integrity" - " all regarded as men of personal integrity"? That does not push such an objective description. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• changed to "regarded to be". It's a good point, I slipped into the tone used by the source there.

• "The Soviet Union was the only country to support Guatemala. When the U.S. and its allies proposed referring the matter to the Organization of American States, the USSR" - Maybe standardise the use of Soviet Union/USSR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Soon after Díaz was overthrown" - should there not be a comma after "after"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I dunno that it's strictly necessary, but I agree it flows better. done.

• "Soon after taking office as President Castillo Armas faced" - again, a comma is needed after "President". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• likewise

• "equivalent to equivalent to $890,000 in 2016 U.S. dollars in modern money" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ah screwed up the template there (and once below). This format is going to change, though, per the discussion above.

Operation PBHISTORY

• "Due to the quick overthrow of the Árbenz government, the CIA believed that the government " - this is a little repetitive. Maybe switch the second "government" to "regime" or "administration". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done, to "administration

• "supposed ties to the Soviet Union" - the previously sentence also ends in "Soviet Union", so to avoid repetition how about changing this to "supposed Soviet ties"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "a specialist in the structure of communist parties" - "a specialist in communist parties"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well the source says structure, so I'd like to stick with that...one might, I suppose, be an expert in the ideology of communist parties, or the history thereof...

• "opening of a CIA file on Ernesto Che Guevara." - "opening of a CIA file on Argentine communist Ernesto Che Guevara."? Just to make it clear to any readers who have never heard of him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Despite the efforts of the CIA, both international and academic reaction to U.S. policy remained highly negative. Even books partially funded by the CIA were somewhat critical of its role." - what is the citation for this statement? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Still Holland, who is doing sort of a meta analysis, so I've duplicated the source.

Aftermath

• "which led to the Bay of Pigs disaster" - "disaster" may be a bit POV. Maybe "failed Bay of Pigs invasion". Then maybe add a bit more about that: "failed Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow the Cuban government"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Armas also detained a number of citizens trying to flee the country. He also " - "also.... also". Bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• just removed the first one, as it's sort of redundant.

• We have a picture of Vinicio Cerezo but no information about him and the restoration of the electoral system in the text. I would keep the image and add a sentence or two about the restoration of elections at the end of the "Civil War" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• You know, I realized belatedly that Cerezo is not really mentioned in the source connected with the coup at all; whereas Rios Montt is, and is already mentioned in the article, and we seemed to have an okay image of him. So I've switched the image instead.

Some issues with the citations

• In the citations, there is a mention of "Grandin, Greg (2000). The blood of Guatemala: a history of race and nation." I would definitely capitalise "Blood", and "A History of Race and Nation" to ensure that there is a standard formatting throughout the citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• The same goes for "The time of freedom: campesino workers in Guatemala's October Revolution." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• "Cullather, Nicholas (1994). Operation PBSUCCESS: The United States and Guatemala, 1952–1954." No publisher?

• fixed. It's not really a book, it was a report...

• "London, UK: Zed Books." - "UK" is probably superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• removed

• it could have been London (Ontario), better more precise than not enough. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Hove, Mark T. (September 2007). "The Arbenz Factor: Salvador Allende, U.S.-Chilean Relations, and the 1954 U.S. Intervention in Guatemala". Diplomatic History. 31 (4). - Needs page numbers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

• Gordon, Max (Summer 1971). "A Case History of U. S. Subversion: Guatemala, 1954". Science and Society. 35 (2). - Also needs page numbers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• fixed

• Citations include both "Retrieved 14 January 2014" and "Retrieved 2016-08-13." Standardise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• fixed

• Some citations specify publishing locations, others do not. Make sure they all do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, this one is going to take more time: location of publication is ridiculously hard to track down sometimes, and many of these books won't say anywhere in the book itself.
• done, I believe.

• "McCleary, Rachel M. (1999). Dictating Democracy: Guatemala and the End of Violent Revolution. University Press of Florida. p. 237. ISBN 978-0-8130-1726-6. Retrieved 3 January 2017. - Why is the page number appearing in the reference here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• because I imported the ref from another article...removed.

• Schlesinger, Stephen; Kinzer, Stephen (1999). Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala. David Rockefeller Center series on Latin American studies, Harvard University. ISBN 978-0-674-01930-0. - Harvard University Press? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• done
• @Midnightblueowl: I think that's everything. Vanamonde (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. Fantastic work Vanamonde, well done for all the hard work that you have put in to this article. It is an important subject and I look forward to seeing it becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire

Nice work. Support. I have some comments, but these are mostly optional or are "my two cents" type deals, especially if they conflict with others recommendations.

Many thanks, Snowfire. I've responded below. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A few responses in-line, but as per above, don't feel obligated to make any changes for 'em, the article is solid as is. SnowFire (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Monroe Doctrine: This section reads rather, hmm, how to put this... very cynical. A nicer interpretation would be something like "the Monroe Doctrine was about protecting Latin America from European imperialism" (which I'm not saying should be the slant instead, but merely pointing out that this can go multiple ways). Also, I'm a little skeptical of taking random quotes from earlier eras out; I've found myself accidentally doing the same thing myself to make it clear who I think the heroes or villains are in a drama. Like, Cleveland was not particularly an imperialist from my recollection + a quick check of his WP article, and he clearly didn't mean that the US actually ruled or had sovereignty in Latin America. (Mentioning a quote like that, for, say, Teddy Roosevelt, who definitely WAS an imperalist, would be fine.) I'd tone the section down a little.

• I can understand the concern here, to some extent. The Monroe doctrine main article says "opposing:" isn't that the same as warning? I don't think we can say "protecting Latin America" in Wikipedia's voice. The quotations are all those selected by Gilderhus, you're completely correct in saying that we should not pick and choose them. Even so, if there are quotations you would wish to omit or paraphrase, let me know; and I can provide quotes from the source if needed. In passing, I will point out that Gilderhus himself is somewhat harsher on the doctrine than our article is.

• Fair enough. I'd just prefer that any quotes on an "expansive" reading of the Monroe Doctrine come from people who Definitely Were on the "American imperalism is rad" side of things, since it's entirely possible to say one thing and do another. Did Gilderhus quote anyone other than Cleveland? (Or was Cleveland more of an imperialist than I think?)

• Truman: Did Truman actually authorize the coup? My readings on the topic were mostly related to the Iran incident where Truman resolutely ignored the British and wanted to present that US as the true ally of nationalist movements around the world. The caption (for a slightly misleading image, since that's apparently Korea) indicates he authorized it, but the text says "relied on purely diplomatic and economic means." Was this the CIA running around on their own? (Wouldn't surprise me.) Could this be clarified?

• Well the sources all do seem to say that Truman authorized it; he used diplomatic methods initially, got steadily more concerned/paranoid (depending on your POV) and authorized PBFORTUNE in 1950. The point about the image is a fair one, and I've mentioned the date in the caption.

• Historiography: Thank you, thank you for acknowledging that there are historians who think it was about the UFC and ones who think it was about anti-communism. I've run into zealots before who are 100% sure that "their" school is correct and the other is irrelevant propaganda, so acknowledging that both exist is great, especially when both are probably right.

• Yes this does tend to polarize folks, does it not? What I find interesting is that multiple sources decidedly sympathetic to the GR say that it was the fracas over communism that really drove the coup; but also that the concerns over communism were misplaced/exaggerated/paranoid...which is a different sort of dialectic than usually plays out with this matter.

• To wildly guess... I think that certain Marxist historians really, really want "proof" that their hypothesis that corporations secretly run everything in capitalism, and that they're also psychotic and evil, is true. It's too tempting to use Iran & Guatemala for this, despite the fact that it requires them to pretend that the Red Scare wasn't going on, a strange position for a socialist. Flip side, from the "conservative" perspective, the Red Scare is already a well-known and lost battle, so sweep as much stuff under it as possible.

• Arms shipments: The line about the naval blockade violating international law is probably fine, but just curious, what kind of law was it? Weapons shipments are traditionally a big exception or, at the least, an argued-over point... something very similar happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all. Also, the US had to *inform* the Guatemalan military of the arms shipment? Were the military really that clueless, or was it more "exacerbate tensions and insist the military not take the creation of a rival force lying down?"

• With respect to illegality, I'm afraid the source is not very helpful. Here is the quote (yeah the article uses a different edition, I know):

  On 24 May, the Navy provided a more daunting indicator of US resolve in operation HARDROCK BAKER, the sea blockade of Guatemala. Submarines and warships patrolled the sea approaches to Guatemala, stopping all ships and searching for arms. The task force was instructed to damage vessels if necessary to make them stop. Ships transiting the Panama Canal en route to Guatemala were detained and searched. The blockade's blatant illegality made it a powerful weapon of intimidation. The United States stopped and boarded French and British freighters in defiance of international law. France and Britain muted their protests in hopes that the United States would show similar restraint with regard to their colonial troubles in the Middle East. The message to Guatemala was clear: If the United States would violate freedom of the seas, it would not be stopped by so feeble an instrument as the nonintervention clause of the Rio Pact.[Cullather, 1999, page 82]

• As to the rest of it, honestly it's possible. The Guatemalan military/intelligence was quite a shambles during this period.

• Interesting. It's something I'd personally find questionable to emphasize too much (I can think of plenty of situations where not selling armaments to a government would be *stopping* human rights abuses, so standing up for the international right to weapons purchases is a bit shaky...), but up to you.

• Aerial bombing: Wait, the CIA *admitted they did that* and paid a million dollars compensation for damages?! Weird. (Not a request to change anything, I'm just surprised.)

• Right?

• Political legacy: This is kinda vague, but... the article says that the CIA thought Guatamala was a success, and it helped lead into the Bay of Pigs? The impression I always got was that even at the time, Guatamala was considered a disaster gone terribly wrong done by clueless cowboys. And that was within the CIA, not just internationally.

• My understanding is that the CIA felt it was a success because they removed the government they wanted to remove, and replaced it with one they liked better...the messiness enters the picture when you take a step back and see what it actually did.

• "93% of these violations were committed by the U.S.-backed military" - I see this is super-cited, which is great, but can the phrasing be a little clearer here about 93% of what kind of event specifically? Or maybe a wikilink? Counting atrocities is really tricky. (Especially since you have stuff like 10 arbitrary executions of one person at a time, and a single slaughter of 500 people... is that 11 atrocities or 510?) SnowFire (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Again, a fair point; again, I'm not certain. "93 percent of wartime human rights violations" is what McAllister says....Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• In the external links, "From Árbenz to Zelaya: Chiquita in Latin America" is a dead link.
• I made some minor formatting corrections [32]
• Sentences that need cites are all cited.
• Sources are all of encyclopedic quality.
• I don't think spotchecks are needed, but I'll do them if they are. This otherwise looks good. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Coemgenus. I have removed the dead link, as the video did not work even in the archived url. Vanamonde (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

Support Comment

This looks very good to me thus far. I will have to review in installments. This is installment 1, and I'm planning to do installment 2 over the weekend. I don't anticipate there will be many recommendations, but here are a few:

Lede

• "Castillo Armas' force invaded Guatemala on 18 June 1954, backed by a heavy campaign of psychological warfare. This included bombings of Guatemala City, and a radio station which broadcast anti-government propaganda and a version of military events favorable to the rebellion, claiming to be genuine news." – Since at first glance this might seem to be saying that Armas bombed the radio station, perhaps this would be more clear: "Castillo Armas' force invaded Guatemala on 18 June 1954 and bombed Guatemala City. Armas was backed by a heavy campaign of psychological warfare, including radio broadcasts of anti-government propaganda and a version of military events favorable to the rebellion, claiming to be genuine news."

• I agree that this is a problem, but the fact is that the sources make it clear that the primary intent and impact of the bombing was psychological. How about this: "The coup was preceded by U.S. efforts to criticize and isolate Guatemala internationally. Castillo Armas' force invaded Guatemala on 18 June 1954, backed by a heavy campaign of psychological warfare. This included a radio station which broadcast anti-government propaganda and a version of military events favorable to the rebellion, claiming to be genuine news, as well as bombings of Guatemala City and a naval blockade of Guatemala."

Yes, that's fine. Finetooth (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Monroe Doctrine

• "The U.S. did not need to use its military might in Guatemala, where a series of dictators were willing to accommodate her economic interests in return for her support..." – Suggestion: "U.S." and "its" rather than "her" and "her".

• Hmm, dunno how this crept in, certainly wasn't me...but I've fixed it.

Authoritarian governments and the United Fruit Company

• "By 1930 the UFC had built an operating capital of 215 million U.S. dollars (equivalent to 3082400000 U.S. dollars in modern money)" – Instead of spelling out U.S. dollars here and elsewhere, wouldn't the dollar symbol be more tidy? Also, the conversions to equivalent values are hard to read, especially when they run to billions. A possible solution would be to use rounded numbers supported by an a single explanatory footnote or citation explaining how these numbers were derived. Making these changes, you could then say, "By 1930 the UFC had built an operating capital of $215 million (equivalent to about $3 billion in modern money)."

• Might I refer you to the discussion above, about this issue? I'm going to attempt a solution based on all of your suggestions, and let's take it from there.

Yes. I missed that discussion earlier. This is tricky. I think it would be best to cite Schlesinger and Kinzer for the base number and to give a source for the inflation calculator. Here's a possible fix. The rounding is easy to adjust; the calculator updates automatically; the formatnum template adds comma separators. A small problem is that the current year template will be slightly off for a little while each year, but the difference is not apt to be mathematically significant.

By 1930 the UFC had built an operating capital of $215 million,{{sfn|Schlesinger|Kinzer|1999|pp=67–71}} equivalent to ${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|215000000|1930|r=-5}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars when adjusted for inflation.<ref name="CPI">{{cite web|title = Consumer Price Index (Estimate) 1800– | publisher = Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis | year = 2016 | url =https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1800.cfm | accessdate = 10 March 2017}}</ref> Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be inclined to support promotion whatever you decide to do with this suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Eisenhower administration

• "During his successful campaign for the U.S. presidency, Dwight Eisenhower to pursue a more proactive anti-communist policy, promising to rollback communism, rather than contain it." - Missing word(s). Should "planned" be inserted between "Eisenhower" and "to"?

Finetooth (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes indeed, the missing word was "pledged". Thanks. Finetooth, I've responded to each of your points, I believe. Vanamonde (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Installment 2

Operation PBSUCCESS

• "Castillo Armas was given enough money to recruit a small force of approximately 150 mercenaries from among Guatemalan exiles and the populations of nearby countries." - "Small" could be deleted since 150 is specific.

• done

Castillo Armas' invasion

• "Castillo Armas' force of 480 men..." - How did it grow from 150 to 480? Is a one-sentence explanation needed, or did I miss it?

• I dug into the source material again, and I found that my memory was correct: this is a slight discrepancy between the sources. Immerman, who describes the preparation in great detail but is the older source, says that Castillo Armas was given the money to hire 150 men. Cullather, who is more recent and also had access to declassified CIA documents, says 480: and this tallies far better with the fact that there were four separate forces attacking four cities during the invasion. Meanwhile, Gleijeses also mentions a force of larger than 150, but neither Gleijeses nor Cullather explicitly discusses this fact of Castillo Armas being given funds for recruitment, which seems an important detail. So I'm wondering if the way out of this is just to call it a "small force" when citing Immerman for the recruitment, and using the 480 figure later on, when discussing the invasion?

Yes. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In my mind, the doubt was created only by the difference between the two numbers, and 480 seemed much more plausible. Finetooth (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Árbenz's resignation

• "The victory of a small garrison of 30 soldiers..." - "Small" could disappear here too since 30 says it all.

• done

Military governments

• "Elections were held in early October, from which all political parties were barred from participating." - "from participating" could be erased without changing the meaning.

• done

That's all of my suggestions. Excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Switching to support, as noted above. If you find an answer to the 150 to 480 question above, that's great. If not, that will not noticeably diminish my enthusiasm for this very fine article. Finetooth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Finetooth. For the sake of completeness, I have answered your question above. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think this is ready to wrap up, but Vanamonde93 there is one unanswered query in the image review from Nikki. This could probably be promoted anyway, but I think it's worth wrapping it all up, and this is all I have time for tonight anyway! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I've responded to Nikkimaria, and I will leave or remove the image depending on her response. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2017 [33].

---

Kona Lanes

Nominator(s): —ATS 🖖 talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the late, great Kona Lanes. Already a Good article, I believe its day in the sun is due. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I guess I have a soft spot for faux-Hawaiian kitsch... ;-)

• Copyedited prose so pls let me know if I've inadvertently altered any meaning.
• I note that concerns were raised in the earlier FAC re. depth of coverage and sourcing; I think both have improved since then but will await a formal source review for reliability, and perhaps a spotcheck of sources for accurate use, before considering support for promotion.
• Although in general the info in the lead doesn't require citation if the same material is cited in the main body, last time I looked quotes were the exception, so "flamboyant neon lights and ostentatious rooflines meant to attract motorists like moths" should be cited.
• Following on, I think we should clearly attribute quotes in the main body. For instance it should be made clear if it's Hurley saying "expensive and attractive buildings that screamed, 'Have fun here'" or if the author is quoting someone else.
• "The waning nostalgia took its toll on Kona Lanes over time" -- I think I understand what's meant here but the expression's a bit odd, not quite sure how to improve it as yet but it needs some work.
  • This hasn't been addressed -- "The waning nostalgia took" certainly looks wrong grammatically. Do you mean a nostalgia "boom"? If so I think you'd need to explain roughly when such a boom was considered to have begun (cited to reliable sources naturally). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Ian, I missed this one. I believe I've now addressed the issue in line with the source. Cheers to you! —ATS 🖖 talk 05:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Tks mate, looks good; striking other actioned comments as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian, all looks good. I hope I've addressed the remaining kitsch—er, I mean, concerns. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Returning... Now that Imzadi has undertaken a source review and their remaining concerns have (I believe) been actioned, and I don't see any issues with changes since I last copyedited/reviewed, I think I'm ready to support this. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I believe we still need an image review, and I'd prefer someone else take that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber

Ok looking now.

Kona Lanes was a bowling center in Costa Mesa, California, from 1958 to 2003. - would prefer if final clause said something like "built/constructed 1958 and demolished in 2003" or somesuch rather than just a date range. Also then remove date from mention of demolition a few sentences on.

• Otherwise I don't see any prose clangers...and it looks pretty comprehensive so it's looking alright.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Source review from Imzadi1979

I've stumbled here from my FAC, and I had done a source review at the previous FAC, so I'm going to do another one here.

• After FN6, the other footnotes that cite articles from the Daily Pilot don't need to have the paper's name linked, and normally we wouldn't relink per the spirit, if not the exact wording of, WP:OVERLINK. This would apply to other newspaper names as well.
  • Also for FN6, etc., you've omitted the state from the city. Since this is an article about a building in Costa Mesa, I suppose that we don't need it, but normally I would include a state name except for those really well known cities that don't need a state, like New York, Chicago, etc.
• In FN8, etc., we wouldn't italicize PBA since that's the name of the publisher. In fact, it would be best to spell out the name of the organization unless they're literally named just "PBA".
• The same comment immediately above would apply to FN23; the state and school district would each be a publisher.
• In FN31, I think the |format= and |type= are flip-flopped; normally now the file format is in a smaller size type compared to the type of source.
• In FN39, the all caps word in the title should be dropped to normal capitalization per the MOS.
• Again as before, I don't know that we should be citing an eBay listing at all. Those links are somewhat ephemeral as they will go away at some point, and I am concerned that the seller is including Wikipedia content in the listing, creating a circular reference. I would drop the sentence completely if you can't find a higher quality source to use. Ditto citing Etsy in FN53.
• Regarding FN55, there is a better way to cite a Facebook posting. According to the guidance from The Chicago Manual of Style, among others, when citing a social media posting, the text of the posting itself is the title. You would truncate it to 40 words followed by an ellipsis as necessary. Then in our citation templates, the organization or individual behind the Facebook page would be the publisher, and you'd either use |via=Facebook or |type=Facebook post to indicate which website is hosting it.

Moving on to the bibliography:

• The "Cited as" notations are superfluous and should be dropped. The shortened citations used above are fairly standard, and it's not very useful to note what is being cited as what this far down the page after the shortened citations.
• Chattel is the author and 234 Pico Boulevard Historic Resource Assessment is the title of a book-like document and should be italicized. As for the publisher, that is either Chattel again, or it's the city. If it's the company, then the city would be a republisher listed in the |via= parameter.
• The same comments would apply to the yearbook. Since it's a book-like document, that title should be in italics. The USBC would be the author and publisher in that case.
• For consistency, I'd drop the date on the Hurley book to just the year since most book citation are to just the year. (In fact, books normally lack a specific date in print, and only Google or Amazon assign a full date of release in their catalogs while libraries do not.)

One idea for thought is to run the full book citation in the first footnote where it would appear, and use the |ref=harv coding so that you can use the shortened citations in the subsequent footnotes. This would mimic how Chicago does footnotes by running a citation in full on first usage and shortening it on the second and subsequent uses. I mention this because most of these sources are only cited once. (You might also want to look at {{harvp}}, which is like {{harvnb}}, except it puts the year in parentheses after the author's last name, making it consistent with how the other citations format the date.)

I hope this is helpful. Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 23 February 2017‎ (UTC)

Thank you, Imzadi1979, I'll get to these presently. I would note that part of the reason we do some of the things you've noted is that, with a living encyclopedia, refs get moved around, and the first instance of a newspaper name might be the last after an edit. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Understandable on the editing, however it's not hard to every so often shift the link from one footnote to another so that it remains on the first usage within the list of footnotes. It's really no different if paragraphs are shifted around in the text: if paragraph A has a wikilink, and it is moved to come after paragraph B, which also mentions that linked item, then someone would have to move the link into paragraph B at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Imzadi1979, I think I'm caught up. I used the archive version of the ebay page to alleviate any circular ref concerns; both the ebay and etsy sources are, I believe, non-controversial and the only way to demonstrate the lasting impression of Kona all these years later. Otherwise, please let me know if I've missed anything, and my thanks again! —ATS 🖖 talk 01:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I applied a few edits, as you've noticed. All of the California cities should have their missing state names in the footnotes. I also cleaned up a few other minor issues. Just like Facebook, YouTube isn't a publisher of original content, at least not in most cases, so it shouldn't be cited as such.

The last of my edits switched some templates over so that the dates in the shortened citations are in parentheses. I find that its matches the aesthetics of the other citations better to use that, but it's a newer template that not many are familiar with, so if you'd prefer to switch it back, feel free.

I will renew my objection here to citing an eBay or an Etsy sales listing as I do not believe that such things warrant classification as a "reliable source", let alone a "high-quality reliable source" as required in the Featured Article criteria. I'm not supporting nor opposing the overall nomination, but this issue needs to be resolved before promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the harv fixes, Imzadi1979. I seriously had no clue how to do that. As for ebay/etsy, I'll look to see if there's another way. Edit: gone. For the moment, anyway, I cannot find another way to do this. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Leaning support

• Suggest "part of the distinctive sign" in the lead, since the "Bowl" section was not saved.
• I was wondering why you had "nude bowling" in quotes, so I looked at the source and realized it was just an adline and there was never any nude bowling. You might want to make that clear in the article.
• "by neighbors who didn't think it fit in": suggest "who felt it didn't fit in".

That's all I can see to comment on. The article is short but clearly written, and some online searching doesn't turn up any sources to suggest to add to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike Christie! Let me know if I've addressed your concerns. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your changes looks good to me; switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! If you'll forgive me, I've used an L4 header to differentiate this section from the one above. Happy editing! —ATS 🖖 talk 01:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I knew that. Thanks for fixing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Cas Liber

Looking now...

• Images all appropriately licenced but unclear from description of File:Kona comparison.jpg that/how Chris Jepson has given permission for his segment of that image. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've sent an email and hope to hear back presently. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose failing that (it is small), you could argue Fair Use. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably, but it'd need migration from Commons in that event. Jepsen was going to put a specific disclaimer on his web site but he somehow lost access; I've sent a release to e-sign if he's willing. I'll letcha know. Edit: new version uploaded with fair use rationale. Please let me know, Cas, if this is satisfactory. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

To the closing coord:

If a promotion would be held up by the image issue noted above, let me know so I can address it in the alternative if the image owner is not able to respond quickly. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that this is pretty much ready for promotion, it might be worth thinking of an alternative if nothing has happened in a few days. I'd wait a little longer if the image is important. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarastro1. I can argue fair use per image size and the required transformative nature, given that a text explanation of the remodel would be inadequate. I think I'll just upload a version here with the proper arguments and do whatever fixes are needed when the time comes. Back presently. Edit: done. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like Casliber to check the rationale for using this as fair use; I'm not an expert, but I wonder if there is enough commentary in the text to justify the use of the image if it is not free? In case Cas doesn't get a chance to pop back, I've asked Nikkimaria to have a look as well. In any case, the caption for the image quotes the Los Angeles Times but there is no reference. I think we need one; this caption is also the only mention in the article of remodelling that I could see from a quick scan. If we are not even discussing the remodelling, the FUR seems even shakier to me. But it is perfectly possible I'm wrong. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarastro1. The reference is there, BTW; I've added a comment. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Got that, thanks. However, a direct quotation, even in a caption, still needs a reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is fine as far as commentary, but the "historic images" tag is not a good choice - that's primarily intended for cases where the image, as opposed to just what it shows, is considered to be of historical significance (eg. Tank Man). I'm also concerned by File:Kona_Lanes_1960s-2002.jpg - if we don't know where the top image was first published, we don't know that that was before 1963 nor can we be sure the copyright was not renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think the best thing to do in the interim is use only the certain free images while I await the results of my continuing efforts to add certainty to the others. Give me a few minutes Done, Nikkimaria, and thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: Permission obtained and emailed re File:Kona_Lanes_1960s-2002.jpg. The other is in progress. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ready to go, Sarastro1? —ATS 🖖 talk 19:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2017 [34].

---

Hrithik Roshan

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Hrithik Roshan, known for his acting and dancing ability, and good looks. I have been working on this for a month now in hopes of having another FA about a Bollywood actor (at the moment there is only one FA about an actor at Portal:Bollywood and two about male personalities). I have shamelessly copied a little bit from other articles linked to it, hoping that is not a problem. Otherwise it is a very well-researched article.

PS, a big thanks to BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ for all the help during expansion. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

Resolved comments from Kailash

I'll do a readthrough of the article today, and post comments tomorrow. But after I ran the article through Checklinks, I must say the URLs must be archived to prevent link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC) I have archived one source and might do others sometime in the future but I don't have that much time now. Early life and background "Punjabi people" redirects to "Punjabis"; please fix. "During an interview he revealed that he was traumatised because of stammering, a speech disorder that surfaced when he was around six-years-old, which he still has today" - interview with who? And I think we should not violate WP:REALTIME. "Roshan's maternal grandfather, the filmmaker J. Om Prakash, first brought him on-screen at the age of six in the film Aasha (1980)" - Om Prakash was already introduced in the first para of this section, so why introduce him again? "Roshan turned down a master's degree" - you mean refused? "turn down" sounds idiomatic. More to come soon... Kailash29792 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Look forward to it. Film career "Roshan was originally scheduled to make his screen debut in Shekhar Kapur's Tara Rum Pum Pum opposite Preity Zinta, but the film was cancelled" - I'm not demanding this, but is there a reason why? Besides, he already appeared onscreen in Aasha (1980). Perhaps you mean "screen debut" as lead actor. "Kapur had signed Hrithik for Ta Ra Rum Pum opposite Preity Zinta. The film was supposed to mark Roshan Jr's debut. Unfortunately for Hrithik, Kapur got busy with Elizabeth and Ta Ra Rum Pum never took off". Y now done. In this same para, two Rediff reviewers are anonymously mentioned. Can you please mention their names? Sorry, Y done now. "Yaadein was reviled by critics" - but there is only one review mentioned: that of The Hindu. Perhaps an additional review could be added to support the statement. "He enjoyed little success in 2002" - do not begin paras with pronouns. "as did Arjun Sablok's romantic film Na Tum Jaano Na Hum (2002)" - I'd prefer simply "romance" over "romantic film". We could reduce usage of the word "film". "A 2010 article on the website Bollywood Hungama claimed that Roshan's starring role in Koi... Mil Gaya revived his career." - Remove "the website", since BH has already been introduced in "Debut, success and setback". And mention the year of Koi... Mil Gaya. "Rediff.com opined that "Hrithik is back where he belongs. At the top." " - who of Rediff? "Described as "India's first sci-fi flick"," - actually, no. Kaadu (1952) holds that honour. Courtesy, The Hindu. "Roshan denied reports suggesting that his character was inspired by Tom Hanks' portrayal of Forrest Gump in the titular film" - I'm not demanding this removal, but are you sure it doesn't violate WP:RUMOUR? Well, it was not merely a rumor. Comparisons were made by critics even after the film's release, this for instance. Very well. Looking back, even I feel the pre-Jadoo Rohit Mehra was very much like Forrest Gump. If any critic has noted striking similarities between the two characters (like how Benedict Cumberbatch compared Doctor Strange to Sherlock Holmes), feel free to add. If not, never mind. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Used the same source I referred you to. Just wait for more. I'll put a sign at the end of every group of comments like this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC) All done. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "He co-starred with Naseeruddin Shah and Priyanka Chopra in his father's superhero production Krrish, the first Indian film in this genre. A follow-up to his family's production Koi... Mil Gaya, it saw him play tripple roles—the title superhero, his alter ego Krishna Mehra, and his father Rohit." - But there have been prior superhero films, as noted here. And Hrithik played only two roles (Rohit and Krishna, the latter who gains the "Krrish" moniker.) Since Koi Mil Gaya and Rohit have already been introduced, you don't have to introduce them again. But do mention Hrithik returning as Rohit. Ugh, if it is not the first Indian superhero film, I don't understand why does the media report it to be one. Anyway, rectified. "Mughal emperor Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar (played by Roshan) and the Rajput princess Jodha Bai (played by Rai)" - You could wikilink Mughal, and "Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar" redirects to "Akbar" (perhaps you could pipe the full name). Also, please fix the link to Jodha Bai. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Done. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Personal life I think this image can have a reworded caption, like Roshan and Sussanne Khan (pictured in 2012) were married for fourteen years. In the media Could any statements regarding nepotism be added here? I say this because that's what Bollywood is notorious for. And I'm sure Roshan didn't find success entirely on his own terms. Added a sentence on favoritism although something about it feels off (perhaps because the way it is phrased). Final comments Very impressive work so far. Once my remaining comments have been resolved, I'll support this FAC. And do archive all URLs to avoid link rotting. As for source reviewing, I'm too lazy to do that. But I may make minor c/e at times, so I hope you don't mind. I'm sure there are more experienced users for doing source reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC) I will archive them when I can and don't worry about the source review (that, thanks to Wehwalt, has already been done). Feel free to rephrase any sentence. Thank you for the review. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC) I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is my final comment: the lead requires no citations, but quoted material must be attributed per WP:LEADCITE: "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." I see "one-trick pony" in the lead section with no attributed source. But otherwise this FAC has my Support. So congratulations! Kailash29792 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kailash. I wouldn't like to mention India Today in the lead so simply removed the claim.

Source review by Wehwalt

Also recommend archiving sources. In addition:

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited, with the following caveats:

• Titles do not appear to be consistently capitalised (the various cites to rediff are an example, as are the ones to Bollywood Hungama). I understand you are reproducing them, but MOS:TITLE?

Do you mean I should capitalize every word in the title (except for prepositions, conjunctions etc)? I usually write the title exactly how it is written in the source, including the capitalization. But I did correct a Rediff source from "NeT" to "Net".

• I think that accessdates should be more recent than 2009. Since you have read the sources, this should not be difficult.
• There is a discrepancy between the title given for ref 77 and that stated in the source.
• Reference 165 and also 168 contain six different sources. Can this not be split up? Verifiability should not be an obstacle course.

They are not used elsewhere. It looks weird with the mounds and mounds of citations and is practical to group them. Verfiability, I believe, should be no problem here, as the titles reveal the year e.g. "Roshan in Most Desirable Men 2009".

• New York Daily News may be where we have the article, but it is not the name of the publication.
• I may do a second run through, there are a LOT of sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp

Resolved comments from Moisejp

Hi, FrB.TG. I'm quite busy and can't promise I'll get through a full review, but let's see how far I get. For now, comments about the lead: "Roshan is one of the highest-paid actors in India and has won six Filmfare Awards among others." Here "among others" might be okay, but it doesn't seem as clear as would be ideal. I see from a Google search that "Filmfare Awards" can be referred to as "Filmfares". How about "Roshan is one of the highest-paid actors in India and has won many awards, including six Filmfares." The last paragraph of the lead seems jumbled to me. Have you considered grouping the mentions of stage and television performances together, and then the endorsements and clothing line together? Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Hi, Moisejp, both your points have been addressed. Return for a review only when/if you can. Regards, – FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Early life and background: "He said that things improved for him gradually, after he started practising speech therapies on a daily basis.[6] He was treated at age 14.[7]" I didn't look at the sources, but is it possible to combine these sentences? It sounds like the speech therapies occurred when he was 14. If so, there may be a smoother way to say so. A side note: I would normally use "therapy" as an uncountable noun, unless there is need to really stress the plurality of multiple types of therapy—but I haven't looked at the source, so please keep it as is if you feel it is appropriate. I'm confused by your latest edit. I thought the therapies were the treatment, but it now says the treatment was subsequent, so presumably a separate process? Or is "was treated" meant to mean "found himself cured (after having received the therapies)"? Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Actually speech therapies and treatment are taken from two different sources. The first talks about his speech therapies while the latter says that he was treated at 11 without explicitly stating how so I'm not sure if it is right that we just assume therapies treated his stammering. — FrB.TG (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC) "Prakash first brought Roshan on-screen at the age of six in the film Aasha (1980); Prakash filmed him dance in a song enacted by Jeetendra, for which he paid Roshan ₹100 (US$1.50).[8][9] He followed with uncredited appearances in various family film projects, including his father's production Aap Ke Deewane (1980)." The main subject of the first sentence is Prakash, so the switch to Roshan for "He followed" may not be as clear as would be ideal. Moisejp (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC) "He was diagnosed with scoliosis that would not allow him to dance or perform stunts. He locked himself in his room and remained disconsolate for months.[13][14] Roshan considers this phase "the turning point of my life".[13]" It could be good to clarify, was this all when he was 12—if not, when was it? Also, "turning point" suggests he overcame his depression, but there is no explicit explanation about how he did so. Well, the source does not quite go into details about this, but still I have used another quote from him which might make it less awkward. "To learn filmmaking from the ground up, he started off sweeping floors, then gradually progressed to more demanding responsibilities like story development, camera work, direction, and editing." I'm sure it's true he started by sweeping floors—and maybe even that someone can soak up a bit of knowledge by just being on set (sweeping floors) with open eyes—but nonetheless it feels a little bit out of place between "to learn filmmaking from the ground up" and "more demanding responsibilities like story development, camera work, direction, and editing." Some people might not consider sweeping floors to have anything to do with learning the filmmaking trade, plus surely the gulf in amount of responsibility between sweeping floors and doing story development seems huge—to the point it almost seems comical to have them in the same sentence. I wonder whether there is a better way to indicate that he humbly started from the bottom (sweeping floors), but still transition more coherently into how he made the leap into real filmmaking duties. I guess one reason he was able to make this leap was that it was known he was from a filmmaking family, so he had some clout? If so, it could be good to clarify this, but also clarify why he was required to start by sweeping floors—if your sources get into these details. Moisejp (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC) What was stated in the article was not even in the source. Another source I found insists that he swept floor and made tea while he assisted his father, not before. Now why he did those jobs, the source doesn't explain that. All done, I guess. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC) I understand that you might be busy in real life and not be able to resume your review, but I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Hi, FrB.TG! Sorry for the delay. I will look at your changes very soon. Thank you for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Okay, all my comments above have been addressed. One more thing about the "Early life and background" section, I was wondering whether the block quote about his stammering is really necessary, and whether it really adds much to our understanding of him. It tells us that he found the experience very unpleasant, but not how it may have affected his long-term outlook in life, for example. You may have already made enough of a point with the earlier bits about "traumatised" and "For oral tests at school, I used to bunk school, I used to fall sick, I used to break my hand, I used to get a sprain." But if you disagree, that's okay too. I still hope to work my way through the rest of the article, but we'll see if I manage. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC) The fact that he compared it to hell and described what he went through really says a lot about his suffering, but I don't feel strongly about it, so I can remove it if it's not add much. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC) I would support removing it, unless others disagree. Moisejp (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Removed per my edit summary. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) More comments: "In preparation for the part, he trained extensively to bulk up his physical build with the actor Salman Khan." May I suggest "In preparation for the part, he trained extensively with the actor Salman Khan to bulk up his physical build" "He also took acting, singing, dancing, fencing, and riding lessons for years in addition to working on his diction." I understand that this comes right after "trained extensively" and is related, but "for years" feels out of place to me. It breaks away from the timeline in progress. "For his second release, Khalid Mohammed's crime drama Fiza, Roshan found himself challenged playing the role of Amaan, an innocent Muslim boy who becomes a terrorist after the 1992-93 Bombay riots." I interpreted "found himself challenged" to mean that the role was difficult or challenging for him. But it is not specified why this might be so. (Or is the fact that it was a "different role"?—but it was only his second film, so we can't really say he had been doing a certain kind of role until then.) Or if "found himself challenged" isn't meant to mean that, maybe a more simple phrasing would be better. Whether I have attached the wrong source to the statement or I have misinterpreted the source since nowhere did it say that he found the role challenging, so scrapped that part. "Roshan appeared in the arthouse film because he wanted to play different roles." This comment goes hand in hand with the last one (addressing one of them might solve the other). I would like to suggest that "wanted to play different roles" is not the clearest way to say this. This is just my imagination and may be not accurate but, for example, maybe something like "Roshan appeared in the arthouse film because he wanted to push himself outside of his comfort zone, and challenge himself to portray a terrorist in a sympathetic way." Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) "Adarsh criticised the film's "exhilarating" screenplay". Normally "exhilarating" is a positive quality, so without more context it is unclear why this would be cause for criticism. "Roshan at the 2001 book launch of Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...—his biggest commercial success to that point" It's a "book launch" but the main text only talks about the movie—and the wiki-link is to the movie. Was it the movie-version of the novel? I found this confusing. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC) The source for the image says so, but I have never known about a book version of the film. Rephrased. "Film critics were polarised on their view of the film, comparing its storyline to the 1982 Hollywood release E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,[51] but were unanimous in their praise for Roshan." The structure of this sentence suggests that all (or many) critics compared its storyline to E.T.'s and this "polarized" them—but that doesn't make sense. Do you want to say something like "Film critics were polarised on their view of the film—some of them negatively comparing its storyline to the 1982 Hollywood release E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial—but were unanimous in their praise for Roshan." Moisejp (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Addressed your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Great, I'll strike through them soon when I get a chance. More comments: "Roshan had reservations about the role but later agreed to the project after the script narration." I can guess but am not sure what a script narration is. Is there a wiki-link or paraphrasing you can provide? And do you have further information about what happened at this script narration to change his mind? I see you have changed it to: "Roshan had reservations about the role but later agreed to the project after being impressed with the film's story." It sounds a little weak to me because it sounds like he wasn't familiar at all with the story at all when he first wanted to turn it down (which is implausible). How about something like "Roshan had reservations about the role but later agreed to the project after becoming more familiar with the specifics of the story." Would that work for you? Moisejp, but it is what happened; he rejected the film before even reading the script but was hooked after reading the script. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC) OK, no worries. I'm fine with the way it is. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC) "Roshan received the Zee Cine Critics Award for Best Actor – Male and nominations for Filmfare, IIFA and Zee Cine Award for Best Actor." It looks like the Zee Cine Award for Best Actor is mentioned twice, or are they two separate awards? If they are separate awards, is there a way to more clearly differentiate them for the reader?Moisejp (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC) The award he won is Zee Cine Critics Award for Best Actor while the nomination is Zee Cine Award for Best Actor, two different categories. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC) OK. I see from Zee Cine Awards that the non-Critic awards are decided by Viewers. Would it be worthwhile to add a precision like "Roshan received the Zee Cine Critics Award for Best Actor – Male and nominations for Filmfare, IIFA and Zee Cine (Viewers) Award for Best Actor"? For people like me who aren't familiar with the Zee Awards and could get easily confused. That would be a lot clearer for me. But if you feel strongly that it is clear enough, I won't insist. Moisejp (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Shifted "Critics" to the end for it to be more noticeable. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC) I think I'm almost done. Other comments: "Alongside other Bollywood stars, Roshan played a football match for charity organised by Aamir Khan's daughter in 2014." Would it be worthwhile to name her? "In 2006, Roshan was one of the four Bollywood actors, along with Priyanka Chopra, Kajol and Shah Rukh Khan, whose miniature dolls were launched in the United Kingdom, under the name of "Bollywood Legends"." I wonder whether there would be a better place for this sentence. The sentence before and after are talking about his power in the industry, and the whole paragraph talks about his income and power. Possibly putting it next to the point about his wax figure could be an idea—although that para is about his sexiness, which miniature dolls are not necessarily related to. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Shifted it to the next paragraph, but in a way that it does not feel forced there. Those are all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Moisejp, thank you so much for such a thorough review of the article, which I hope you also enjoyed reading/knowing about. I have hopefully resolved/responded to all of your concerns much to your satisfaction. Cheers, – FrB.TG (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. You changes look good, and you have pretty much addressed all of my comments. The article is very thorough and well written, and is interesting. There was one more comment above that I'm not sure you saw (another idea for the "reservations" sentence) that I guess is not a deal-breaker but I would still urge you to consider. In any case, excellent work on the article! Moisejp (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Resolved comments from Casliber

Reading through now. Prose looks ok at first look... .He locked himself in his room and remained disconsolate for months. Believing that "[t]here was no pain. The doctors were wrong", Roshan considers this phase "the turning point of my life". - this sorta jumps...one minute he's sad and the next it's been a turning point. Is there something missing here about how he got over being disconsolate? Roshan appeared in the "art-oriented" film because he wanted "to experiment with all kinds of characters". - get rid of quotes - first bit is just an art-house film (?), second bit, "try different roles"(?) Thank you, I hope both your comments have been addressed to your satisfaction. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Yes, but it still doesn't tell me how he snapped out of it.. All the source says is that about a year later he went to a beach wondering about his future and deciding to take a chance against the doctors. He ran faster as he became more confident. Is it something worth adding? Yes - the way it is at the moment it doesn't flow or make sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Elaborated. I hope at this point it makes sense while also not reading trivial. Tamarind links to a tree...presumably should link somewhere else...? Supposed to link nowhere as the article for the brand does not exist. If it is a notable brand, redlink it (or better still, make a stub) - if not, leave unlinked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC) I do not think that is notable enough. Roshan prefers to avoid getting "stuck with just one kind of screen persona", and takes on roles to "create another version of him". - in other words, he prefers not to be typecast by taking on diverse roles...(simpler) Roshan is among Bollywood's highest-paid actors and most high-profile Indian celebrities - I'd take out the high-profile mention and leave it to the facts in the following sentences to demonstrate this. This section does come over as somewhat effusive. I have tried not to be unduly demonstrative here, but what can we do if he is so popular and wins so many media honors. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC) I agree - I am a bit torn as I am unfamiliar with the actor - safest is to let the facts speak for themselves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Yup! – FrB.TG (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC) I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Cautious support in comprehensiveness and prose, though not a topic I am familiar with. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47

The image in the infobox requires an ALT description. Make sure that every image you use in the article has one of these. You use the quote "one-trick pony" in the lead. You would either have to put the reference for this quote or paraphrase it to avoid the link. Per my response above to Kailash i.e. removed. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Is it really true that he is the highest-paid film star on television? The source you cite appears to back it up, but it seems like a rather large claim (especially since you repeat it in the lead) to argue that he is the highest-paid film star in ALL television history. I know that Jennifer Lopez was paid $17.5 million for a single season of American Idol, which seems higher to me. Also Charlie Sheen (who has appeared in numerous films) was paid $1.8 million per episode for Two and A Half Men so I am not sure if your claim is entirely accurate. I would either recommend doing further research on this to better support it or removing it altogether. Actually that was meant to be Indian television. Sorry about that. No worries, thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) You say that he was born with an extra thumb; I am assuming that this was removed shortly after birth, but could you please clarify this for me? Also, the way you tie this with him feeling isolated for not feeling attractive can lead to the impression that this extra thumb was a cause of this and I am not sure if that is true. The last time it was known to me; he still showed it in a 2003 film so no he did not have it removed, but I guess the sentence makes it sound that way. Oh, I just assumed that it would be removed. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) The following sentence does not seem entirely encyclopedic in tone: (A year passed, he went to a beach, wondering about his future). I understand what you mean, but it seems a little odd when compared to the rest of the article. I would cut this sentence completely, and start the next sentence with "After a year, he started jogging..." to keep the tone as encyclopedic as possible. Is the following sentence, (Roshan found separation to be "worse than death"), really necessary? It does not anything to a person's understanding of the actor. I am pretty sure that a majority of people who go through divorce experience similar feelings so it is not unique to him. I would remove this. Do you have any follow-up information about the case with Kangana Ranaut? (I am referencing the second paragraph of the "Personal life" section.) I would assume either some sort of progress or resolution came of this. The case was closed by the cyber crime cell of the Mumbai Police because of lack of any leads. Should that be mentioned? I would include this information if you have sources to back it up to be comprehensive. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Do you have any information on why he changed his mind to be a part of the film industry again? (I am referencing the first sentence of the third paragraph of the same section). No. I hate how some of the stories in the article are incomplete because of lack of information in the sources. No worries, it is fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) What is an "item number"? Item number is common in Indian cinema especially Bollywood. It is a musical performance during a film without having anything to do with the plot. Our encyclopedia has a great article about it. Thank you for the clarification. Could you possible provide a Wikilink for the article on its first use? Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) It is wiki-linked in the second line of the second paragraph of second sub-section of second section, its first instance. ;) Thank you for pointing this out; I must have read over it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Overall, great job with the article. These are my notes from my first read-through of it. After you address my comments, I will read through it again and add more notes to my review. Let me know if you have any questions/comments about my review so far. I apologize if I miss anything obvious as I have never heard of this actor before or seen any of his work. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I figured that you might not be aware of this actor. It is always good to invite reviewers not familiar with the subject they are reviewing. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: I agree; it is always better to get an outsider's perspective on a topic. Ping me when you are done with my comments please. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: Two remaining queries, one replied, other done. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• @FrB.TG: Support: Great work with the article and thank you for your prompt responses to my comments. I can definitely support this and good luck with getting this promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• No audio files used, images only.
• All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
• Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections.
• Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with the rest of the comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff

Resolved comments from Bollyjeff

Not all references have the author listed. For example, "Masand's Verdict: Go Dhoom 2" lists the author as Rajeev Masand in the article, but not here. "Playing the good guy is boring" implies in the second sentence that the author is Subhash K Jha. Please check them all for authors. Please alphabetize the categories Some confusion with the names. Third paragraph of Early life and background starts with Prakash. I assume this references J. Om Prakash from first paragraph, but why not say "His grandfather J. Om Prakash" on the first instance here to be sure? I think it is better the way it is: "his mother, Pinky, is the daughter of producer and director J. Om Prakash". It is quite obvious from the sentence that Prakash is his grandfather. If we say grandfather; we will also have to say whether maternal or paternal that might make it even more confusing. I am talking about the desire to identify in the 'third' paragraph that this is the same Prakash that is his relative who helped him get started. The full name is two paragraphs earlier. Same thing in first para with his father 'Rakesh' and grandfather 'Roshan'. It might be better for most readers to list their full names the first time to avoid confusion. Within the career text, it seems fairly random which films titles have the year in parenthesis afterwards and which don't. What's the rule here? Well, I don't think there is such thing as consistency here; I mean won't it be a little boring to have every film listed as xxx (2000), xyz (2001), blah blah blah (2002)? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Personal life Source says there were 'rumours' of alimony, and there is a link to another article that says no alimony was paid. Source says he 'thought' about quitting the industry, not that he did. "In December" [of the same year] would be more clear. I almost thought you meant this year. All done. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Artistry and media image "On the other hand, Roshan is acknowledged in the media for being one of India's most talented actors of his generation, his devotion to his work and his ability to commit heavily to each role" - incomplete sentence. Ok, what's missing here? Perhaps change "generation, his devotion" to "generation for his devotion" or "generation, for his devotion" Done; I can request for spot-check if it is needed. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC) "At a 2015 film festival, he was named the Most Versatile Artist.[151]" - source does not support this claim. This is now the third time I have found an unsupported claim and I have not even checked very many sources. Disappointing. They were not unsupported claims - slightly phrased differently or misinterpreted. As for this one, it is an honest mistake that could honestly happen to anyone - I found the text below Roshan's image which was for Ali Zafar. My bad! – FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Early life and background The video source is over 30 minutes long. Please specify the time at which the relevant information is presented for each use. Can you find alternate/additional sources for his birth date, religion, school, college degree, etc? The ones given do not specify exactly. I don't know if this one is good enough because it may be circular from wikipedia, but as an example it has some of the information at least: [35]. To me, the sources given do not flat out state the facts; much is inferred. I will not be able to support the article without better sources for this critical personal information. Added a book source, but it does not have information of when the book was published and ISBN (but that shouldn't be a problem). – FrB.TG (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC) I don't think a self published ebook will work. @Wehwalt: What do you think of this source [36] that was added or and one I suggested above [37]? Are either one of these acceptable? Bollyjeff | talk 15:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Replaced the book with a source from The Times of India, which was used only for his Punjabi heritage in that sentence. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC) The Times of India is acceptable. I wasn't thrilled with the other two and hope you can make do without them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC) This one has several of the items on pages 51-53 [38], [39]. Bollyjeff | talk 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Done and it was already used for one sentence in the article but not for info like date of birth, college education etc. Thanks for referring me to it. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Do we really need to list 5 films as his "greatest commercial success" in the lead? You have already mentioned Krrish 3 earlier. It is not just he that made the films successful anyway. I think it will be cleaner without this. Tweaked. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Maybe the lead or somewhere can mention his many injuries, which are scattered throughout? From Artistry section again, "Roshan was noted for his versatility in..." - By whom? Film career I think there should be info about the massive level of instant fame he received after Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai. At the end of the para, there is one discussing that: "Rediff.com's Vivek Fernandes remarked that the success of the film established Roshan as a prominent actor in Bollywood". I think that it should suffice. I would like to see it emphasized more, it possible. Added a sentence. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) On Koi Mil Gaya, you say "Film critics were polarised on their view of the film—some of them negatively compared its storyline to the 1982 Hollywood release E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial—but were unanimous in their praise for Roshan.[18][51]" - The two sources given do not convince me of 'unanimous' praise. You should also mention that KMG came out in 2003. "Dhoom 2 became the highest-grossing Indian film of all time, a distinction it held for two years.[67]" - The source seems to indicate one year, no? Well, no. Dhoom 2 stands at no 12 with ₹1.5 billion before Om Shanti Om (2007) that earned ₹1.49 billion. And then there is Ghajini (2008; with 1.9 billion), the film that broke its record, which makes it two years. You are right. I was confused because number 11 did not have the year beside it. "Bang Bang!, an official adaptation of the 2010 Hollywood release Knight and Day" - Source please. I have just gone ahead where I have not replied. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC) The new source also does not say it is "official", as in sanctioned by the owners of Knight and Day. A valid source is needed, otherwise it's "unofficial". Tweaked. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Good job. Bollyjeff | talk 17:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro1

Resolved comments from Sarastro1

Oppose: (Recusing as coordinator) I looked at this with a view to promoting, but noticed quite a few prose points. There is nothing major, and I expect to strike the oppose, but I wanted to put a brake on here first. A quick look revealed quite a few bits of uncomfortable prose, and these are just from the lead and first section, which is a little concerning this late in a FAC. I think we need someone to take a look at the whole article and give it some polish as the prose is not currently quite at FA standard. I emphasise that these are samples, and just addressing these would not be enough for me to strike the oppose. Someone needs to look for similar instances throughout the article, particularly examples of redundancy. I may be able to copy-edit this a little myself, but I can't guarantee anything at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "he has been noted for portraying a variety of character types and for his dancing ability": This is not ideal phrasing; why not just "has portrayed a variety of characters and is known for his dancing ability"? "He ranks high in listings of the most popular Indian celebrities": This should be "highly" rather than "high" but I'm not sure of the need for this. Why not just "He is among the most popular Indian celebrities", or just stick "A popular figure in India [comma]" at the start of a sentence? "marked a major turning point in Roshan's career": Redundancy: why not just "was"? "The 2003 science fiction film Koi... Mil Gaya marked a major turning point in Roshan's career, earning him two Filmfare Awards—Best Actor and Best Actor (Critics), and he later appeared in its highly successful sequels: Krrish (2006) and Krrish 3 (2013).": In fact, this whole sentence is a little untidy; we have an unclosed dash, and there is just a little too much going on. Why not "The 2003 science fiction film Koi... Mil Gaya, for which he received two Best Actor awards, was a turning point in Roshan's career; he also appeared in its highly successful sequels: Krrish (2006) and Krrish 3 (2013)." "He went on to earn wide [earned widespread] critical praise for his portrayal of a thief in the 2006 adventure film Dhoom 2,": Redundancy. "While performing stunts in some of his films, Roshan has sustained severe injuries.": This is a bit of a non sequitur as it just seems added randomly to the end of a paragraph. My inclination would be to cut this. Given several injuries he sustained while performing many of his stunts, Bollyjeff suggested that it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, but removed. "As a judge on the latter, he became the highest-paid film star on Indian television": The highest paid star, or just the highest paid film star? Film star. We use the serial comma in the last paragraph of the lead, but not the others. It is fine to use it or not to use it, but we need consistency. "Roshan was born on 10 January 1974 in Mumbai to a Punjabi family of Bollywood personalities": This is not the best phrasing as it makes his entire family sound like some kind of circus act. Maybe "a Punjabi family prominent in Bollywood"? Or something similar. "After he started practising speech therapies": Surely just "speech therapy" rather than a plural? "He locked himself in his room and remained disconsolate for months.": As written, it appears that he locked himself in a room for months, which sounds unlikely. I don't think there is much I can do about it, as the source puts it that way: "he locked himself in his room and stayed disconsolate for months". "Roshan sees this phase as "the turning point of [his] life".": What phase are we talking about? Several different things happen here, and we need to be clear what was the turning point. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Note: I just glanced through the rest of the article, which isn't too bad. In that case, I may be able to copy-edit this myself this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC) I have adapted most of your suggestions and shall wait for the possible copyedits before adding anything else. – FrB.TG (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC) One little point. Do we need to list so many films in the lead? I'd prefer to cut a few but I'm not sure which ones would be the most important. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Removed one recent film that wasn't as successful as his previous films but I can't think of removing another one as they all proved very successful for him. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "For the role, Roshan learned sword-fighting and horse-riding, as well as the Urdu language": The WHOLE language, or just the parts he needed for the film? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC) The source says that he learned it to perfect his dialogues and pronounce the words correctly. Fun fact (or not): anyone who can speak Hindi understands much of Urdu and vice versa as many words and sentences are similar. "Commercial fluctuations": I'm not too convinced about this as a section heading. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "Roshan ended 2008 with an appearance in the popular item number "Krazzy 4" from the film of same name": What is a popular item number? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Item number is common in Indian cinema especially Bollywood. It is a musical performance during a film without having anything to do with the plot. Our encyclopedia has a great article about it. It is linked in the second sentence of the second para of the second sub-section of second section. ;) – FrB.TG (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC) No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "where they overcome their conflicts": Not quite sure conflicts is the right word; with each other? With someone else? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: There is one point above, but that doesn't affect my support. I've copy-edited this quite heavily but feel this now meets the FA criteria. I think this is admirably balanced for an article about a current actor. Nice work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a million for your copyedits and support. I admire the fact that after opposing, you stepped in to help, quite rare among reviewers. Also, I apologize if I added too much work for you. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 [40].

---

John C. Calhoun

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesman who held a number of high political offices in the United States during the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the sectional divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of nullification and slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from a brief glance of the article:

• Why don't you use a photograph to illustrate him in the main infobox?

For a while, the lead image was the 1849 Mathew Brady photograph. That was replaced by consensus here. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is your link correct, it doesn't seem to point to a specific discussion.—indopug (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

4th bullet down. Sorry, I should have said that at the beginning. Display name 99 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• References need to be formatted better—university names have been italicised (they shouldn't be), for example.

Thanks. I've taken care of the part about university names. If there are any other issues, please bring them up specifically. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Also refs 73–85 have been formatted differently than the others, and also feature lengthy quotations from the sourced material (why?).

Here is an excellent question. The part of the Secretary of State section concerning the Texas annexation and election of 1844, which is what includes the lengthy quotations, was written mostly by an editor by the name of 36hourblock. That editor has a citation style that always seems to involve the use of lengthy quotes from the sources. You'll see it in every article that he or she edits. I have never liked the style.

There previously were many more quotes in this article. Before renominating this article I went through the Secretary of State section and removed numerous quotations which I found to be particularly confusing, excessive, or unrelated. Others I managed to work into the main text. I chose to keep the remaining quotes in the article largely due to the fact that I was recently involved in a major dispute with 36hourblock in which that person, after falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet, alleged that I had engaged in harassment and troll-like behavior by altering his or her edits. I did not want a repeat.

Yet, if you say specifically that you concur with my opinion that the quotations are unnecessary, and a distraction in that they are inconsistent with the citation style in the rest of the article, I will remove them. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Indopug, I have decided to remove all the remaining quotes, revising the citations to make them the same format as the rest of those in the article. I also removed all references to "Presidential Profiles, 2016", as it is still unclear to me what that even is. Display name 99 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Legacy looks like it needs an overhaul:

• Historical reputation is far too scattershot and recentist, relying a lot on newspaper articles of the past few months instead of scholarly works. There needs to be more about how historians of the past 165 years have perceived him. Perhaps Thaddeus_Stevens#Historical_and_popular_view can be a model in this regard?

I will try to expand this section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, thus far I have expanded the section by adding a paragraph about how Calhoun is viewed and portrayed by one of his biograpers, John Niven. It is now the second paragraph of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I have added a two-sentence paragraph describing Calhoun as being viewed favorably by historians of the Lost Cause movement. So in the section we now have the traditional Southern perspective, the modern leftist perspective, and a more moderate, nuanced, and balanced perspective, represented by Niven. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I have also added a quote from Bartlett about the importance of Calhoun's philosophy regarding the protection of minority rights and of choosing good and virtuous civic leaders. Will this be enough? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I have also added a slight bit more to the "Legacy" section about the impact of Calhoun's philosophy on the progress of sectionalism in the South. I wish to know if you know find the section satisfactory. Display name 99 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Film and television is stubby and probably unnecessary. I'd remove it or at the least merge its content with one of the other Legacy subsections.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It's accepted practice to include film and other forms of popular media in which biography subjects have been featured. I don't think this content could fit into either of the other sections. Therefore I think it best to leave it where it is. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

indopug, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I am attempting to contact you once more on the status of your review. Despite having made yourself a reviewer for this article, you have provided me with no opinion or perspective on how well I have done implementing the changes that you have proposed. You're not supposed to simply post a list of suggestions and then not return to the review. Rather, you should respond to the concerns of the nominator and provide any advice which may be necessary on how to best implement the changes. After this is done, you should probably either "support" or "oppose" the nomination, depending on whether your concerns were properly addressed. I suggest you below on this page to see how Coemgenus has conducted a review in order to determine what an ideal one should look like.

Therefore I ask you: have I responded to your review to your satisfaction? Is there anything else that I might do to improve the article? Display name 99 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated right at the beginning, I only took "a brief glance of the article", and commented on a few things that immediately stood out for me. Therefore, there's no way I can either support or oppose this nomination as a whole. Having said that I will return over the weekend to review my points above, especially about the Legacy section in detail. In the meantime: what makes Shannon Selin's personal website a reliable source? The statement it provides a cite for, "Recently, Calhoun's reputation has suffered ..." seems obvious enough to be better sourced?—indopug (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I understand your concerns about this source. I have replaced it with an article-already cited elsewhere in the article-by Clyde Wilson, editor of the Calhoun Papers. Display name 99 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• As the US does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, images of 3D works should include tags for the original works in addition to the photo

The Fort Hill historical marker is for a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and which is on the Clemson University campus. Calhoun was buried underneath his gravestone immediately after his death. I'm not sure what kind of copyright issues we would have here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Likely that and the statue are out of copyright, but we should include a tag on the image description page saying so and why. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've dealt with the gravestone, but I'm not sure what to do about the marker. I suppose there's a good chance that was created after 1923. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Any way to verify that, or to check for other possible reasons it might be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I can email the NPS to try to find a date. But what happens if the marker wasn't erected before 1923? We have plenty of photographs on our encyclopedia of things created after 1923. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There may be another reason that it would be PD - that is the case for some things that we have photographs for, while others are in a country with different freedom of panorama rules. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, the marker for Fort Hill is on the campus of Clemson University. It's also a historical site that is generally recognized as something preserved for the public, and not for private use. Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so is there a USGov tag that would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I tried a Department of the Interior tag. However, the tag said that the work was created by someone from the U.S. Government as part of an official duty. That is not the case. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, is there any other tag that you would recommend? It's a photo of government property taken by someone who was not working for the government. Display name 99 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If the marker was created by someone working for the government, a USGov tag is appropriate for the marker; the photo is covered by the CC tag. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have re-added the Department of the Interior tag. While the image itself was not created by the Federal government, the marker in the picture was. Thank you for your assistance. Is there anything else that you would like to bring to my attention regarding the images and sources, or with anything else in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:John_C_Calhoun_by_Mathew_Brady,_1849.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg

The former was published as a lithograph in 1850. As for the second, I don't know for certain of the publican date. It was acquired by the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution in 1978. The identity of the photographer is unknown, and so I imagine it would be difficult to pinpoint an exact publication date. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

For the former, please add details to the description page. For the latter, the current tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have dealt with the former. On the Commons page, File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg, there is already a "Licensing" section, which includes a template stating that the photograph was published before 1923 and is thus in the public domain. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

But if we can't verify that the photo was published before 1923, then we don't know whether that tag is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt we will be able to verify it. We don't even know the author or the exact year that the image was taken. Do I need to remove it? Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there another reason it might be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Having been created around 1843, it's likely that it was published before 1923. Even if it wasn't, we don't know who took the picture, so to whom would we credit it? Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't know that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: photographers of 2D works don't generate a new copyright. What is the status of the original work?

The original work was created by Healy in 1851. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please update image description page with the appropriate info and tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The page already reads: "Charleston City Chambe; George P.A. Healy's painting of Calhoun, 1851, no copyright". I'm not sure what "tag" you're asking for (I don't work often in Commons or with imaging) but that seems like all the information you could need. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If it was displayed in 1851, {{PD-1923}} would work. But in this case, we should also remove the incorrect information - the photographer does not get any copyright on this work, so that tag shouldn't be there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Jcctypo01.jpg should include details of the original work

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also suggest doing some MOS work - for example, seeing some overlinking/WP:SEAOFBLUE issues.

I don't see how this is an issue. I'm fairly certain that nothing is linked more than twice in the body of the article. Also, what else is there? Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on at least a couple of occasions you've linked the same thing twice in the same section. For another example, you've got [[Abbeville, South Carolina|Abbeville]], [[South Carolina]], [[United States|U.S.]] - that's several MOSLINK issues in a single line. Your citation formatting in particular is all over the place and needs serious cleanup - you're mixing up works and publishers often. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have discovered and removed two duplicate links. Please excuse me, but I can't find any sections with the same thing linked twice. If you're including the infobox, it's ok to have something linked in the infobox and also linked in the body of the article. The MOS article specifically allows for that. Also, to me the citation style does not seem terribly inconsistent. All printed books or journals are cited using the Harvard reference format, and are cited in full at the article's bottom. Internet articles are cited using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nullification is linked twice in the lead, Randolph twice in War of 1812. MOSLINK also covers other types of linking issues, such as linking multiple items in such a way that they appear to be a single link. As to citations, some of your Harvard refs are not linking correctly, and you are varying significantly in what information is entered in what parameter for the cite templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Those instances of duplicate links have been remedied. I have added the Harvard referencing style to two sources to which it had somehow not been applied previously. I have also increased the consistency in the citation style. Thank you once again for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for the review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I supported last time, have read the discussion at the old FAC and the article again. I think it deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus

Lede

• A link to war hawk might be useful.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think "Federal" should be capitalized.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• The "Yet" in the fourth paragraph is confusing--I don't think the statement contradicts anything that came before.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Early life

• "His father, also named Patrick..." would be clearer as "Patrick's father, also named Patrick..."

Patrick's father, also named Patrick

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "These opinions helped shape his son's attitudes regarding these issues." The phrasing here is awkward. I'm not sure it needs to be said at all--the reader will get the idea even without it--but if you want to keep it, something like "The son would follow in his father's political footsteps." Something like that.

Done. I have revised the sentence to read: "Calhoun would eventually adopt his father's states' rights beliefs."Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Much better than my suggestion, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Marriage etc.

• "He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson; but was not outspoken about his religious beliefs." The two "but"s in this sentence make it cumbersome. Maybe "He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson, and was not outspoken about his religious beliefs."?

Done. Changed to: "Calhoun was not openly religious. He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson. He was generally not outspoken about his religious beliefs."

• Also: what are "Southern varieties of Unitarianism"? Is there some article you could link to that would explain how they were distinct from Northern and European Unitarians?

An introduction to a part of the Calhoun Papers implies that it was less organized that that found in New England-which makes sense if you consider Jefferson's lack of organized religious adherence. I added this sentence: "Southern Unitarianism was generally less organized than the variety popular in New England." Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Before he died, he was touched by the Second Great Awakening...." How? Did he revert to Trinitarianism?

I couldn't find any strong mention of this claim in the source. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

War of 1812

• "With a base among the Irish (or Scotch Irish)" Probably just the Scotch Irish, right? The Catholic Irish population of South Carolina must have been minuscule in those days.

They could still have been descendant from those people living in Northern Ireland. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose. However your source material puts it is fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "... thus inaugurating the War of 1812." You don't need "thus" here.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...break the power of hostile Indians..." You should explain that the Indians in question were allied to the British so the reader understands why Indian fighting had anything to do with a war against Britain.

Done. I added the sentence: "These Indians had, in many cases, cooperated with the British or Spanish in opposing American interests." Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• You link Era of Good Feelings, which is good, but it might be useful to briefly say what was significant about it (the demise of the Federalist Party and there basically being only one party in the country).

Done. I added "an era marked by the formal demise of the Federalist Party and increased nationalism". Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Postwar planning

• "A new bank was chartered as the Second Bank of the United States by President James Madison in 1816." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Congress chartered it? Executives couldn't issue charters on their own. Maybe "Congress chartered a new Second Bank of the United States in 1816."

Done. I have clarified this point. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Throughout his proposals..." "Throughout" is odd here. Do you mean throughout the wording of various proposals, or throughout the time when he proposing things?

Done. I removed the word "out". Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, thank you for the review. I've gotten this far now-I'll do more tonight. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Secretary of War etc.

• This section is very disorganized. It's hard to get a handle on the narrative, because we keep jumping back and forth in the chronology.
• "His first priority was an effective navy, including steam frigates..." This paragraph largely restates the ideas you describe in "Postwar planning". It could probably be condensed a lot by reference to his ideas as a member of the House.

I took out the last sentence of the paragraph, which I thought was not exactly relevant to his time as Secretary of War. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...sought to reduce the operations and finances of the War Department." Did they succeed?

Yes they did. See the Reduction Act, mentioned later in the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1817, the deplorable state of the War Department led four men to decline offers to accept the Secretary of War position before Calhoun finally assumed the role." This should probably come before the first sentence of the section. You talk about him accepting the job, then a paragraph later describe things that happened before that.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is footnote 10 meant to cover everything that came before in this paragraph?

Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• A link to Indian removal would be useful in the section that pertains to that policy.

Done. See "relocation". Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• On that note: the view of Indian removal here is extremely one-sided. Some analysis of the policy's effects would go a long way toward needed historical context and NPOV-ization.

The First Seminole War was the most important event that took place between the United States and the Indians during Calhoun's tenure as Secretary of War. Calhoun himself had very little role in it other than to oppose the invasion of Florida. We know how that turned out: the Seminoles were beaten and Florida annexed. Generally, the treaties that Calhoun concluded with Indians helped cede more land to white settlers. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Vice presidency

• "The Electoral College elected Calhoun vice president by a landslide." The actual vote total might be of interest to the reader.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "After Clay, the Speaker of the House and also a candidate in the previous election, was appointed Secretary of State by Adams,..." would be better in active voice: "After Adams appointed Clay, who was also a candidate in the previous election, Secretary of State..."
• On that score, an introductory sentence naming the four main candidates for the presidency after Calhoun dropped out might set up the situation nicely and save you from mentioning various politicians' candidacies throughout the paragraph.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "However, Calhoun's service..." Since the next sections explain this more fully, I'd cut this sentence completely.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nullification

• "The southern legislators miscalculated and the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" passed and was signed by President Adams." We don't need to keep calling Adams by his title, and this would be better in active voice. "The southern legislators miscalculated: the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" passed and Adams signed it into law."

That's the first time that Adams is referred to by his title. I don't see an issue with it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• "President Jackson, meanwhile..." again, don't need to repeat his title. See MOS:SURNAME.

Done. I've removed this one. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "was strongly against" ---> "opposed". Avoiding light verbs makes for stronger prose.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you missed this one, so I fixed it for you. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• "In May 1830, Jackson discovered that Calhoun had asked President Monroe to censure then-General Jackson for his invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 while Calhoun was serving as Secretary of War." How about: 'In May 1830, Jackson discovered that Calhoun, while serving in Monroe's cabinet, had asked the President to censure Jackson for his 1818 invasion of Spanish Florida."
• "Jackson had invaded Florida..." You already explained this in the "secretary of War" section.

Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• This whole paragraph about the censure has nothing to do with nullification. It might be better in one of the other sections of "Vice Presidency," either in the first part or in "Resignation".

The censure issue and nullification are very much connected. All of the scandals that placed Calhoun at odds with Jackson-censure, Petticoat, and nullification-all sort of got grouped together. Jackson loved to personalize just about any kind of dispute, and the censure issue, along with the Petticoat affair, gave him the ammunition to do so with nullification. It is important to understand his mindset here. To Jackson, all of these issues were attempts made by a few scheming and bitter men-such as Calhoun and Clay-to undermine the federal government and his administration. It was all a great conspiracy. Calhoun didn't get his way in Florida, and he was seeking revenge. That is more or less how Jackson saw the situation. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think "Federal" needs a capital F here.

Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Petticoat affair

• In the first paragraph, the first sentence would work better as the last sentence.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Resignation

• "...South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne was considered less capable..." By whom?

I added a quote from the South Carolina newspaper City Gazette. In 1830, Webster had mopped the floor with Hayne in a series of debates, after which Hayne had been unable to do anything to reduce the tariff. Calhoun had a more distinguished record, and so the South Carolina legislature thought that he might do a job. Sure enough, he and Clay negotiated the Tariff of 1833, which Jackson reluctantly signed and which ended the crisis. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

First term...

• "However, he gained little support, even from the South, and so decided to quit." The important fact in the sentence is that he quit, not that he decided. "However, he gained little support, even from the South, and quit the race."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, here's a little more. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Appointment and the Annexation of Texas

• I made some minor changes [41]
• "He abandoned his quest in December 1843, before the Democratic Convention convened, having failed to mobilize solid southern support." You already explained this in the previous section.

Done. I removed this sentence and the one before it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Again: "President Tyler and his allies..." --> "Tyler and his allies"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Moreover, Tyler declared national security to be at stake: If foreign powers – Great Britain in particular – Texas would be reduced to a British cotton-producing reserve and a base to exert geostrategic influence over North America." There's a word or two missing from this sentence.

Done. See my edit here.Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "synonymous with slavery" --this quote seems to refer to something, but it's not clear what.

The idea is that many in the North considered the term "states' rights" to be merely a substitute for slavery. I have tried to clarify this here.

• "due to the fact that" is almost always better as "because"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Calhoun's linking of Texas annexation to the expansion of slavery had totally alienated many who might previously have supported the treaty." might be better as "In linking Texas annexation to the expansion of slavery, Calhoun had alienated many who might previously have supported the treaty."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "after fierce partisan struggles" Did the vote really break down on party lines? I had the impression that it was more sectional.

It was mostly partisan. Whigs had strength in the North and in parts of the South-especially the Upper South. They almost unanimously rejected it. I have added the vote totals by party here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Election of 1844

• "As a result, the highly pro-Texas partisan, James K. Polk, a strong Jacksonian and former House Speaker and Governor of Tennessee, won the nomination." You could lose some of the adverbs and keep the sentence's meaning while making the prose more encyclopedic. E.g., "As a result, James K. Polk, a pro-Texas Jacksonian and former House Speaker and Governor of Tennessee, won the nomination."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Oregon boundary dispute

• All of the action in this sub-section takes place after Calhoun was back in the Senate. Wouldn't it be better placed in that section?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Second term

• "he chose to abstain from voting"--->"he abstained from voting"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of the Compromise

• "...Calhoun, weeks from death and too feeble to speak..." What was the nature of his illness? Did it pop up suddenly, or had his health been declining for some time?

I have attempted to elaborate on this here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agrarian republicanism

• The MoS suggests using prose instead of lists when at all possible. See MOS:LISTBULLET.

Done. I have combined this section into a single paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The evils of war etc.

• "Calhoun was consistently opposed to the War with Mexico from the outset..." I would strike out either "consistently" or "from the outset".

Done. I have chosen the latter. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Link spoils system.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I have responded to all of your concerns up until this point. Thank you for your review. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Concurrent majority

• The first four paragraphs are very good, but the "Disquisition on Government" section would be best as a separate article. As it stands, it's far too long and detailed for a general biography article on Calhoun.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Monuments and memorials

• Calhoun County, Georgia, is not the only Calhoun County. Either list them all, or list none of them (I incline toward the latter).

Done. I have removed any mention of counties. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Film and television

• There are actually several movies that portray Calhoun. See this list. In Ulysses S. Grant, we split the Ulysses S. Grant cultural depictions off into a separate article to keep it from overwhelming the general biography. I'd recommend doing that here, too.

IMDB is not a reliable source, and I don't think many of the films listed there are particularly notable. La Amistad is by the far the most famous movie to portray Calhoun. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, we can agree to disagree on that one. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• I'd link Calhoun College and Residential college, if you keep this section. I'm on the fence about whether it belongs here in more than one sentence. It has far more to do with modern-day Yale than with Calhoun's actual legacy. Maybe consider condensing it here.

I have linked these two things. I think that the Yale part is important, because it demonstrates the attempt to balance a respect and acknowledgement of the past with the values of the present. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Further reading

• If you don't actually link to them in the article, the "ref = harv" field isn't necessary, and it actually creates an erro message for users who have a certain cite-format-checking extension in their monobook.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I have responded to your remaining concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that seems to be everything. This article looks to be up to snuff. Thanks for bearing with my many comments. I'm glad to support this nomination of an article about an important figure in American history. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, thank you for your support and for your comprehensive and helpful review of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

The article is in excellent shape; I could only find a handful of nitpicks. I've copyedited; please revert as needed.

• "With a base among the Irish (or Scotch Irish)": I don't understand the "or"; is this an alternative name?

Many people moved from Scotland to Ireland, and then to the U.S. Others just came from Ireland. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, but as it stands it reads as though it's uncertain which of the two groups provided his base. If it's OK to do so I'd probably make this just "Irish"; if the Scotch Irish support is independently important I think it should be "Irish and Scotch Irish", without the parentheses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I have chosen the latter course. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The militia had proven itself quite unreliable during the war and Calhoun saw the need for a permanent and professional military force. Historian Ulrich B. Phillips has traced Calhoun's complex plans to permanently strengthen the nation's military capabilities." Why do we need to mention Phillips here, rather than combine these two sentences and simply cite him?

Good point. I removed that sentence. I kept the mention of Phillips later on when the article includes a direct quote from him. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "a system of internal taxation that would not collapse from a war-time shrinkage of maritime trade, like customs duties": it's not clear whether this means some form of internal customs taxation, which could replace the border tariffs, or if this is actually referring to the tariffs. If it's the former, I suggest "a system of internal taxation, such as customs duties, that would not collapse from a war-time shrinkage of maritime trade"; if the latter, then "a system of internal taxation that would not collapse from a war-time shrinkage of maritime trade, as the tariffs had done".

The latter made more sense. I decided to use that. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Southern radicals known as 'fire-eaters' pushed the doctrine of states rights to its logical extreme by whole upholding the constitutional right...": "whole upholding" sounds odd; is this accurately quoted?

Done. "Whole" should not have been there. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "He believed that the spread of slavery improved public morals by ridding the countryside of the shiftless poor whites who had once held the region back": I don't follow this. How did it rid the countryside of poor whites?

Slaves competed with poor whites for labor. Their presence diminished the number of white sharecroppers and laborers. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get this. I can see there would have been competition for labour, which would have diminished the opportunities for poor whites, but where did they go? Presumably they didn't become rich, so they're either still there or they left. Did the spread of slavery really make poor white migrate to the frontier, or to elsewhere in the country; or at least was that Calhoun's argument? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been unable to access the source for that quote. Also, although Calhoun was in many ways an elitist, I not seen any evidence from any other source, primary or secondary, that Calhoun viewed the departure of poor whites as improving "public morals". Thus, I have decided that the best course was to remove the passage. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Congress and the citizens the territories": presumably should be "Congress and the citizens of the territories"?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I have responded to the remaining two concerns in a way that I hope will prove satisfactory. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. All the fixes look good; I have no hesitation in supporting. An impressive piece of work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thank you for your helpful review and declaration of support. Display name 99 (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we are just about there now. It looks like everything has been actioned, but in an ideal world I'd like Indopug to pop back for a last check. In any case, unless I've missed it, we still need a source review, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Additionally, unless I am mistaken, Display name 99, this would be your first FA. In that case, we will need a spot check of sources for reliability and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This too can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I have made a request at WT:FAC. I would appreciate it if you would please check to see if I did so correctly. If this article were to pass, it would indeed become my first FA. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is done correctly. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review and spotcheck

Starting this now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• You have a couple of Harvard errors; you can see them by installing this script.

  Thank you. I have discovered and fixed one. However, I'm not sure what to do about the messages I got concerning the errors under "Primary Sources." Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  It seems to be gone now, so unless you still see an error, I think this is taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please add locations to your book citations in primary, secondary, and further reading.

  Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  I see you've gone with "Oxford, New York" for the OUP location, which is understandable, but you're also citing some as OUP USA and some as Oxford University Press. This isn't something I'd insist on for FAC, but I'd suggest for consistency that you use Oxford for the UK ones, and New York for the US ones, and spell it out as Oxford University Press in both cases.

  OK. I fixed the "OUP USA" one. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Also it appears one is still missing: Holt (2004) has no location. That one has the title in quotes as if it's just a chapter, but there's no indication of what book it's from if so -- can you clarify?

  The location is given as "New York." All of the titles are in quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Titles of books are in italics; titles of chapters in books are in quotes. Is it a book or a chapter? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's a book. Display name 99 (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  I think the problem is that it's using {{cite journal}}, which of course is displaying it like a journal not a book. I can switch it for you if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've fixed it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• And I assume "Washington C.C." is a typo?

  Yes. It's fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  And be consistent about commas before state names; you have "Oakland, CA" but "Washington D.C." Not an issue for FAC but you might consider spelling out state names for the benefit of non-US readers -- few Europeans will know what state MO or MD stands for. I'd also suggest putting in "UK" for the Cambridge locations; the US Cambridge also is a well-known publishing location so the disambiguation is worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  It is proper to use commas to separate city names from those of their states. However, I don't think that it's required to separate Washington from D.C. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Check for consistency in journal titles; I see "Journal of Southern History" and "The Journal of Southern History". Similarly you have both "US Senate" and "United States Senate" in different places.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ford (1994) has an issue number given and pages cited, but Ford (1988) has neither, though it's from the same journal. Please give page ranges where possible as it helps readers who wish to follow up a footnote. There are some other related inconsistencies -- for example, Capers in further reading does not seem to have a volume number, and Belko (2004) has the volume issue listed as "Vol. 105 no. 3" instead of the '105 (3)" you use elsewhere.

  I have regrettably been unable to find a page number for the "Ford 1988" source. I see if I can find a volume number for Capers. I changed the format for Belko to that used elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Looks like you do have page numbers for Ford 1988, but are missing the volume/issue? This page says it's 54 (3). Capers is here; looks like 14 (1). I fixed Belko by switching it to {{cite journal}}, which has formatting consistent with the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your finding that information. I have inserted it into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• You have both "University" and "Univ" in the publisher names; be consistent -- in this case I don't think there's a need to abbreviate.

  Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's a trailing ",volume 1 of 3-volume scholarly biography" tacked on to the end of the secondary source list.

  Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• No publisher on Calhoun 1870 or Calhoun 1837 in the primary sources.

  The 1870 source has a publisher given. As for the 1837 source, nothing that I can find gives the name of a publishing company. It says instead "Printed by Duff Green." Green was the chief editor of the United States Telegraph, a powerful Calhoun-supporting newspaper. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I had a look and from what I can see, some bibliographies list Duff Green as the publisher; if he paid directly for the speeches printed then that might make sense, but as it is we probably have to leave it blank. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• What's the intended order of the primary sources? Date?

I've fixed the order so that it is dictated by date. All the sources have the same author, so organizing them by date makes sense. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Slavery a Positive Good speech needs the source spelled out beyond just "United States Senate".

  I'm not quite sure how this would be done. The speech was given by Calhoun in the Senate. How else should I cite it? Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Well, the goal of a citation is to allow the reader to find the source. You have a link to Wikisource, and there's no reason to doubt that it's accurate, but we don't treat our sister projects as reliable so we need something else. The Wikisource talk page has some links to sources; the last one gives a physical source, McLaughlin's 1914 Readings in the History of the American Nation, which is available on Google Books. I'd suggest citing that; it's pages 206-212. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. There is a link to a Google books source for the long quote given in the slavery section. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• You have a "p. 68" in the secondary sources for the 1999 book, which I suspect is debris and shouldn't be there.

  Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd remove the link to findagrave -- it's not that it's inaccurate, but we avoid using findagrave as it's crowd-sourced.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN 83 should be "pp." not "p."

  Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason why Crallé is cited in the footnote rather than making it a short ref pointing to a secondary source?

  It looks like he was cited twice. I have removed him from "Further reading." Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  What I meant was that in other cases, such as Phillips (1929), you list the source in the secondary sources, and have a short form citation such as "Phillips 1929, pp. 411–419." that points to that source. For consistency, shouldn't you be doing the same with Crallé? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I see what you mean. I added the Harvard citation style to that as well. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Checklinks shows some dead links.

  Mike Christie, I'm not sure what to do here either. I checked the links that were highlighted in blue and green and they both worked. Display name 99 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's the red ones I was concerned about, both to millercenter.org; they are coming up as dead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've fixed them both. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll come back and do a review for reliability, and a spotcheck, once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I have responded to a few more points. I'll finish the rest soon. Thank you for your review and assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is looking pretty good now; just a couple of minor points left. I'll look through again, probably this weekend, and will do some spotchecks then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just one more source formatting point -- you have the publisher listed for Belko (2004), which is a journal; I wouldn't oppose promotion for a minor point like this, but I would recommend you have a consistent format for journals. I believe in every other case you do not give a publisher, so consider removing it.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why is a letter to the NYT a reliable source for "Calhoun supported Whig candidate and Southern slaveholder Zachary Taylor for president in 1848 over Democratic candidate Lewis Cass, a Northerner who favored popular sovereignty to determine a new state's slaveholding status"? Even if reliable I think it could only be said to cite Calhoun's support for Taylor, not the characterization of Cass.

All sources other than that look reliable, and a spotcheck of four or five sources finds no close paraphrasing, so it's down to just these two points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I've chosen to remove that passage. I couldn't find any other source supporting Carroll's claim that Calhoun supported Taylor. Carroll was a highly-partisan anti-slavery and pro-Union writer. It is fathomable that she may have distorted the truth somewhat while trying to get a point across. It does make sense that Calhoun would've failed to support Cass, seeing how other Fire-Eaters such as Yancey did the same. I do believe that the description of Calhoun in the letter has having "spoke[n] against Popular Sovereignty to defeat Gen. CASS, whom he knew to be unmanageable" adequately conveys the sentiment expressed in the article.

I think that takes care of everything you've brought up so far. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; we're done here. Sorry to have nitpicked you a bit on this. I've enjoyed reading the article and I look forward to seeing it promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, don't worry about the nitpicking. That's what makes an article FA quality. Thank you once again for your work. I'm pinging Sarastro1 to let him or her know that the source review, reliability check, and spot check have been concluded. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Per consensus here, religion should only be included in infobox when it's a key defining trait one is prominently noted for, which doesn't seem to be the case with Calhoun Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) "He is best remembered for being a strong defender of slavery"..... it would be better to go with something more concise like "He is remembered for strongly defending slavery" Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I see two sets of consecutive sentences beginning with "he" in lead; replace one of them with "Calhoun" so the text isn't so repetitive Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Another set is still found in the first paragraph; let's fix that Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Per this discussion, four digits are overall preferred over two digits for years, which looks more complete and professional I'm not sure what you mean here. It looks like the full four digits are given for all of the years. Would you please direct me to where specifically you see the problem? Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I spot "secession from the Union in 1860–61" in the lead Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Done. I've fixed that. If there are any others, please identify them or else fix them yourself. Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Maybe "Marriage, family, and religion" could be renamed "Personal life" Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Overall, not too bad Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Sure thing. On another note, you say 3 of Calhoun's children died in infancy. Which ones were they? If going into early deaths, then it helps to be specific on the matter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, I have dealt with the issue regarding the years. I have also added the names of the three children who died in infancy. Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I now support this following its improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, thank you for your helpful review and for your declaration of support. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth

This is a well-written and apparently comprehensive article that I very much enjoyed reading. I'm surprised at finding so little to grumble about in an article of this size and scope. I made two or three minor edits as I went, and I have a short list of quibbles, as follows:

Secretary of War and postwar nationalism

• Lowercase "e" in "Eastern Indians" to match "western reservations" later in the sentence?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of the Compromise of 1850

• "The nearly 68-year old Calhoun had suffered period bouts of tuberculosis throughout his life." – Maybe just "periods" or "bouts" rather than both?

This was supposed to say "periodic." I have remedied the error. Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References

• The Harv error in citation 42 might be occurring because the publication year, 1988, differs from the year, 1993, in the reference section.

Good observation. I fixed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources

• I'm not sure what the entry "volume 1 of 3-volume scholarly biography" refers to.

A book from Wiltse was the last source cited in that section. That phrase refers to the other two volumes in the three-volume biography, both of which are listed under "Further Reading." But because I found it, upon further review, vague and unclear, I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

• The first entry under "Primary sources" has a harv error. You might either link something in the text to this entry or delete the entry if it's not needed, or remove the ref=harv parameter.

Done. I've moved it to "Further Reading" and removed the ref=harv.

External links

• I think you might be able to fix the Harv error here by replacing the Cong template with an URL–text combination.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Finetooth, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Switching to support, as noted above. I'm assuming you'll address Mike Christie's source review and spotcheck finds such as the two dead URLs. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Finetooth, thank you for your helpful review and declaration of support. Yes, I am working on the source review now. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2017 [42].

---

Carnaby's black cockatoo

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) and RileyBugz (talk · contribs) 23:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an endangered cockatoo. We feel it is within striking distance of FA status and promise to answer queries promptly. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Unfortunately, none of the photos used give good a view of the bird. Maybe consider putting this full view[43] somewhere (perhaps under conservation)? The arm is unfortunate, but it seems to be the best view. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

sigh. I have put it in...guess we just have to live with the arm... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Authorities for the synonyms?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps consider cropping this upright image?[44] I'm not sure all the grass at top and bottom adds anything?

agree cropping is a good idea. Late here, will get to it tomorrow...(sound of head hitting pillow...) zzzzz.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "known collectively as the white-tailed black cockatoo" What was the scientific name?

C. baudinii Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• The taxonomic situation seems somewhat contentious. Has no genetic work been done since the 1984 study?

Nothing that really focusses on them - there is 2011 study of all cockatoos that has them as a recent split. But gives no dates nor discusses them really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• More a standardisation issue, why is the conservation section a sub-section of the distribution section? In virtually all other FAs, it is a separate section, at the bottom of the article.

My own preference is a part of distribution, but I guess it is more complex and have gone with the flow and moved it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Its beak is shorter and broader than that of the closely related and similar long-billed black cockatoo" Are there no other differences?

added differences here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• You only give binomials for all plants, why not animal species?

laziness. added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• What is the colour of the egg?

Added RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "fell by over 50% over 45 years" Could one "over" maybe be reworded? Across?

Changed second "over" to "in". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "grow by 70% by 2050." Also seems repetitive. Is the first "by" needed?

Changed to "increase 70% by 2050". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Since European settlement" Maybe give date for this, for context?

I have piped this to Swan River Colony, which dates it as 1829 and discusses Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "had been lost" Why past tense here? Before that, you sday for example "habitat has been cleared"

Corrected RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• After these, I'll support. I was a bit disappointed there was no photo that showed the crest, this seems to be our only such photos, if you want to show it:[45] FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - nice to get some focus on endangered species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Image review - all images are properly licensed and sourced. I would still consider cropping the photo under feeding. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I've seen this in the wild, so I'd better review Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• bone coloured x2—I'd hyphenate

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• until the next breeding season, and sometimes even longer. The family will, after the breeding season, leave the nest until the next breeding season. —over seasoned

pruned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Names recorded include ngolyenok, ngoolyoo (from Northampton), G’noo-le-a (from Geraldton), and Gnowl-ya (from the eastern part of Shark Bay).[8] —the languages are?

the whole region is Nyungar language, and the paper mentions this and does not specify any other languages or dialects for names Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• markedly different plumage, whereas those of the former have similar plumage. —avoid repeated plumage

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• They can be distinguished by their constant begging calls—add "also"

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• single noted whistle—I'd hyphenate

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• They can be agile, manoeuvring quickly if startled or disturbed. In contrast, it waddles

I think it sounded better to pluralise after flocks, so pluralized the latter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• eating the larvae of invertebrates such as wood-boring insects and moths off rare plants. —Why are the larvae of wood-boring insects on the surface?

changed to 'from' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• First they chew through the stem holding the item before holding it with its foot and tearing bits off and extracting the seed.

changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• It is also susceptible to nematodes of the genus Ascaris if they are in cages that have open dirt flooring —also add "in captivity"

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume that one of you will fix the outstanding item about the languages, so changed to support above on that basis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

Lead

• "the young can usually be seen to fledge ten to eleven weeks after hatching." why not "the young fledge ten to eleven weeks after hatching." simpler and avoids another "usually/generally".

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy and naming

• I find the order of this section a little awkward. The discussion on the taxonomy and the names are mixed up. Perhaps it would be better to discuss the taxonomy and then the names.

I have put the names at the bottom now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Observation - no action required: It is curious that Ian Carnaby as the author of ref 2 is listed as J.C. Carnaby. see here

yeah, I noticed that...a misprint? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "These birds lived in mallee and sandplains" - mallee links to a specific region (the Mallee)- can mallee refer to a type of landscape/vegetation?

Yes—changed link RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "form the other subgenus, Calyptorhynchus." but Calyptorhynchus is the genus - perhaps "form the other subgenus of Calyptorhynchus."

changed to "form the nominate subgenus of Calyptorhynchus" RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

err, they are within the subgenus Calyptorhynchus within the genus Calyptorhynchus - will change sorry my bad/nice fix Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Description

• "closely related and similar long-billed black cockatoo" - but wouldn't Baudin's black cockatoo be better here.

Changed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• "mostly within the wheatbelt" - shouldn't this be "mostly within the Wheatbelt region"? It is mentioned and linked in the Status and conservation section below.

linked at first instance now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Feeding

• Gnangara - need link to Gnangara, Western Australia

Added RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Pinjar - need link to Pinjar, Western Australia

Added RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Breeding

• Is any nest material used?

Could not find. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Are the chicks fed by both sexes?

Added RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• How long do Carnaby's black cockatoos live? The ABBBS Database http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/biodiversity/abbbs/abbbs-search.pl gives a maximum recorded age of 25 year 10.8 months. (The average age is just over 4 years but the database is small - only 74 recoveries.) (The HBW alive article on the Short-billed Black-cockatoo mentions 19 years) Aa77zz (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Cockatoos are generally long-lived, so I suspect this is low maximum age is the result of the undersampling. Will have to think of how to incorporate it without using OR but showing thus. MOre later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Funnily enough, the other black cockies have even fewer records! Added now. I will peruse to see if we can add a covering note about longevity Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments

• What is the current estimated total population? "The 2016 Great Cocky Count counted 10,919 Carnaby's black cockatoos," The IUCN mention c.40,000 in 2012.

Added estimated total population. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The birdlife.org.au document on the 2016 Great Cocky Count claims that "The minimum population count for Carnaby’s Black ‐ Cockatoo in the Greater Perth‐Peel Region was 11,418 (around twice the average for 2010 ‐ 15)." This suggests that either the population is increasing - or more likely - the counting is improving. This doesn't appear to support the claim in the article that "indicating the population had declined by 50% on the Perth–Peel Coastal Plain since 2010, dropping by around 10% each year.[22]"

I've now read more of the 2016 Great Cocky Count article. Page 5 has "Trend analysis of roost counts for Carnaby’s Black ‐ Cockatoo in the Perth ‐ Peel Coastal Plain found significant declines in both the fraction of occupied roosts and average flock size over the past seven Great Cocky Counts (2010 ‐ 2016)." but adds "This trend estimate should be treated with some caution," Later in the page the total population is estimated at 40,000. I think this number should be mentioned in the article. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 22 "New report reveals..." the link gives a blank page for me. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

found new location and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

My first reaction was that they're wrecking my tree. But on reading the article it's a different species of black cocky. The lead picture is beautiful.

Source review

• I have moved three books down to the Cited Texts, and used a little magic to make the Forshaw reference like the rest.
• Random check of footnotes. FN 1, 8, 18, 26, 31, 34, 36 all okay
• FN 24: The author was wrong. Corrected.
• FN 30: Missing access date. Added today's date.
• FN 35: The URL was wrong. I have replaced it with the correct link. All other links are working. Footnote verified.
• FN 41: Don't doubt it but cannot see it. Can you point me to it?

Sure, it says "PSITTACIFORMES spp. (Except the species included in Appendix I and Agapornis roseicollis, Melopsittacus undulatus, Nymphicus hollandicus and Psittacula krameri, which are not included in the Appendices)" are all in column II - use contrl-F and you will see text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: We have a lot of support here, but I'd just like to let this run for a few more days to see if there is any further comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Understandable/no probs from me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support with comment - and Gnowl-ya (from the eastern part of Shark Bay). - neither this species nor Baudin's black cockatoo are found anywhere near Shark Bay according to the maps on their pages, so what gives? Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

dunno...a vagrant?? Much more likely to be this than Baudin's...ok maybe best to remove it I did remove it as it seemed just silly... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2017 [46].

---

1896 Cedar Keys hurricane

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My first FAC since 2015 is a rather substantial one. This hurricane—which caused nearly $10 million in damage, unprecedented at the time—was moving so fast that it assaulted Florida with a "tidal wave" in the early morning hours of Tuesday, September 29, and sent trees crashing down upon the Gettysburg Battlefield later that very same day. Along the way, it blew down every tree in a forest the size of Northern Island, caused a dam failure that swept away one community's downtown sector in just moments, toppled an elm tree planted by Abraham Lincoln, prompted weary storm victims to draw comparisons between airborne tin roofing and "giant vampires," and rained quite prodigiously over William McKinley and his front porch campaign—1,000 miles of mayhem in just 24 hours. The article itself uses a wide array of sources, both contemporary and modern, to craft what I believe is the most comprehensive account of the storm ever published. It recently sailed through its GA review, and while I'm confident there are no major flaws, I look forward to receiving further suggestions for improvement. Thanks in advance for any comments and reviews, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer (with help from User:Johnboddie). These are my edits. I liked the detailed accounts of damage, and the writing is lively. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the edits and prose support! I'm glad you like the level of detail – it's tough to get that right when so many different areas are involved. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose as well. I made a half-dozen truly minor edits. I can't imagine that this article is not comprehensive, though it is highly readable and does not seem to me to bog down anywhere. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The helpful edits and prose review are much appreciated. Thank you! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support as the good article reviewer. The prose is excellent and the article itself represents the most comprehensive account of the storm anywhere on the internet. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support and involvement in the review process. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review and table format review by Maile

• Earwig's Copyvio detector shows no issues of concern. The tool's 5.7% chance of copyvio is based on the common term "East Coast of the United States".
• Checklinks tool gives clean results, no dead links, no suspicious links, no links that fail to connect.
• Sources used are primarily news accounts, government sources, and the American Meteorological Society. Two of the books used as references are university published, and one by Arcadia Publisher (local history interest publisher).
• Although I can find Hurricanes and the Middle Atlantic States at Amazon and WorldCat, I find nothing on its publisher Blue Diamond Books.
• Formatting on the citations looks really good.
• Every paragraph sourced with several citations.
• No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
• Table looks good, is concise, generously cited on each item, and formatting is in accordance with WP:ACCESS#Tables.

@Juliancolton: is there any information you can give us about Blue Diamond book publishers? — Maile (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: Hey, thanks for the source and formatting review, and the mostly clean bill of health. :) I get the impression that Blue Diamond Books no longer exists, as their website has gone offline, and an archived snapshot of the homepage doesn't really inspire much confidence ("new and aspiring authors with creative talents that are Entertaining, Engaging and Exciting"). Otherwise, I can't find much info, either. Putting the sketchy publisher aside, the author himself is frequently quoted as an authority on Mid-Atlantic hurricanes, and the work in question is occasionally cited by the National Weather Service, has been listed as a recommended book by the National Weather Center Library, served as the focus of a NOAA seminar, and so on. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: And Blue Diamond could have been his personal self- publishing endeavor. I don't find much about Rick Schwartz, except he seems to have a private blog and is on Facebook. Blogs and Facebook are not credibility on Wikipedia. Just having weather people quote him does not make him or the book verifiable by WP:RS. And, unfortunately, that's the bottom line, Wikipedia criteria. — Maile (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I never said Facebook and blogs impart credibility. Even if it is self-published (which seems plausible, but I haven't been able to confirm it either way), WP:RSSELF says self-published works may be acceptable, depending on the context, if the author's work in the field has been been published by reliable, secondary sources. Wouldn't "having weather people quote him" actually satisfy that condition if the "weather people" are government meteorology agencies and such? None of the claims are contentious or likely to be disputed, as far as I can tell. I don't mean to be belligerent... I'm just trying to understand. The book has been a useful resource in a multitude of FAs I've written, and its reliability has never come into question until now. Of course, if it is an issue, it needs to be addressed and I'm glad you brought it up. I'm reasonably sure that many or even most of the references to the book could be replaced by more newspaper articles, and I obviously have no qualms about citing newspapers extensively. That said, I still like for the article to maintain at least the perception of some modern analyses being consulted instead of just eyewitness accounts from within the first few days of the event. I appreciate any further guidance you can offer. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I know you're acting in good faith, and just want everything to be correct to pass FAC. I honestly cannot answer you on whether or not he is credible, because I have not run across this situation before. However, he is quoted by the NWS as a statistical source exactly where you have linked. I do believe this is one of those WP:IAR situations. This article is pretty well written and researched, and everything else on it is top notch. Very well done. — Maile (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this and for supporting. In the future I'll try to minimize use of that source where possible, just to be on the safe side. I don't mind the occasional IAR but I'd rather not make a habit of it! Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support — Maile (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think this still needs an image review, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. In any case, it's worth leaving this open for a few more days to see if there is any further comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review requested, thanks for the reminder. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:September 29, 1896 hurricane weather map.jpg - NOAA image -okay
• File:1896 Atlantic hurricane 4 track.png - Original image from NASA base - okay
• File:Hurricane of 1896 in Cedar Key, Florida.jpg - Florida memory project image - okay
• File:Victims gathered around building devastated by hurricane- Cedar Key, Florida (3660384822).jpg - Needs a a Florida memory Project (PD-FLGov-PhotoColl) tag
• File:1884 Drew Pocket Map of Florida - Geographicus - Florida-drew-1884 (cropped).jpg - Needs a PD-old-auto-1923 tag
• File:After Great Hurricane of 1896 WDL4032.png - Is not a work of art - needs a PD-old-auto-1923 tag
• File:StSimons beacon Sept29 1896.jpg - actually properly tagged - okay
• File:Pcpn18960927thru30isohyet.png - Needs a PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE tag
• File:Third Columbia-Wrightsville railroad bridge after 1896 hurricane.jpg - properly tagged - okay
• File:78th & 102nd New York Regiments monument hurricane damage.jpg - properly tagged - okay
• File:September 30, 1896 hurricane 4 weather map.jpg - NOAA image - should be tagged like the first one

All images are PD but most could use some need attention to tagging. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

PD tags have been diffused to their more specific forms. Thanks for the image review Hawkeye7! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2017 [47].

---

Red-headed myzomela

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about. another honeyeater. An old GA in good shape, I've given it a spit and boot polish and am tossing it up here as I feel it is within striking distance of FA. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Just some minor nitpicking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• M. erythrocephala erythrocephala, M. erythrocephala infuscata—suggest M. e. erythrocephala, M. e. infuscata

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• It is sexually dimorphic and the male—I'd put a semicolon instead of "and"

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• It is a member of the genus—the intended subject of "it" is far, far away, needs repeating

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• primary centre of origin for the Myzomela erythrocephala subspecies —shouldn't that be species, or am I misunderstanding?

I have added "two" as it means where the complex arose from. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Will review more thoroughly soon, but I see there's a range map[48] on Commons, why not use it? It could need a source to support its information, though. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

good catch. added map, and added source for range data to map on commons Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Myzomela erythrocephala was first described by John Gould in 1840" Usually thew first sentence of the article body should mention the subject by the name in the title? Why not something like "The red-headed myzomela was described and named as Myzomela erythrocephala by John Gould in 1840"?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "and still bears its original name" Do we really need this information, seems self-evident, unless otherwise stated?

ok, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "in a large Meliphagoidea superfamily" The large?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "primary centre of origin for the two Myzomela erythrocephala subspecies." Is the binomial needed here? You start the sentence by mentioning the common name.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "M. e. erythrocephala is listed as being of least concern by the IUCN,[1] because the population is widespread, however Myzomela e. infuscata" Perhaps be consistent in whether abbreviating names or not throughout the article.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The Sumba myzomela is similar but slightly smaller than red-headed myzomela" Why no definite the for the latter species?

mistake. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "include spiders and insects such as beetles, bugs, wasps and caterpillars" What is meant by "bugs" here, to the exclusion of the other groups mentioned?

hemipterans - linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is a good deal of double-linking throughout the article.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "engaging in aggressive bill-wiping" What is that?

pretty much as it says - wiping the beak prominently to display in front of other birds Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Image review - to get this through quickly, I've reviewed the images, which are all fine, sourcing and license-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• One to go, then I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - nice to see a steady stream of older GAs getting the treatment... FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

I've made a series of small edits - please check that you are happy.

yr changes look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 9 Higgins, P.J.; Peter, J.M.; Steele, W.K. (2001). This needs a page number and is the same volume as listed in Sources. I suggest using sfn.

I meant to change that to something else - done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• "While there is no reliable information on incubation and feeding," Lewis 2010 reports that only females have a brood patch so can we infer that only the females incubate the eggs?

Added this, though Lewis seems pretty cautious in assuming such. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Probably worth mentioning that from banding recoveries the maximum recorded age is 7 years 1.5 months - ABBBS Database Search http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/biodiversity/abbbs/abbbs-search.pl - Aa77zz (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

entered now - I have trouble finding somewhere to slot lifespan in, so put it near the other mention of banding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• The lead and the Feeding section have "sallying for insects." where sallying links to hawking. Noske 1996 Table 8 on page 462 lists the foraging techniques (as percentages): gleaning=14.1%, hawking=0.8%, probing=84.9% which suggests the hawking is unusual. Perhaps the lead should mention gleaning rather than hawking. Check that Higgins (HANZAB) mentions hawking. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking online, I came across this interesting paper, which highlights some inconsistency among sources differentiating between sallying and hawking. Having looked on page 1161 of HANZAB now, it does seem to indicate gleaning as more common I have rejigged to highlight gleaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "the red-headed myzomela diverged from that of the black-breasted myzomela around 4 million years ago." The cite is to Marki et al 2017. I assume this information comes from the cladogram shown in Fig 4. Now I understand almost nothing about the statistical tests using in phylogeny but the numbers look bad. The Fig 4 cladogram shows the posterior probabilities for the red-headed - black-breasted node as 0.34 which is very low. In the discussion of Myzomela on page 526 the article has "Consistent with previous studies we corroborate the monophyly of Myzomela, but the relationships within the genus are complex and many are unsupported." and "but the poor resolution of this group hinders a robust assessment of their phylogenetic relationships and biogeographic history." I worry that this means that one shouldn't believe the timescale in this section of the cladogram. It may be that timing is roughly correct and it is just the branching that hasn't been determined. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point, I recalibrated to this to make it more reserved/qualified. I get so happy when I see cladograms I sometimes forget to check the numbers..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: - I would like you to respond to my point about "sallying for insects." in the lead before I support. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

oops/sorry. I meant to read and digest source material again. Hang on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support with a comment - M. e. erythrocephala is listed as being of least concern by the IUCN,[1] because the population is widespread, however M. e. infuscata is listed as near threatened. listed by whom? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It is listed as such in this book, which is referenced in the Conservation status section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's the reference, so the listing authority is the Australian government? Is it threatened as a whole, or just the Aussie population thereof? That's what I'd assume, but that's because I know a bit out this. Could help to make it clearer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I tweaked it thusly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Source review I checked refs 3, 9, 19, 22 and 23. All were appropriate, accurately represented and without copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Prose is clear and understandable, research seems thorough, structure and organization are good. The article says everything I'd expect it to say and leaves no major questions unanswered. If I had to nitpick, I'd like to know why the bird likes to hang out in coconut farms - is there something about the trees/farming method that attracts them, or is it just a case of their range being dominated by coconut growers? That seems like something the source is unlikely to cover in any detail so it's not a huge issue for me. Nice work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

given how little the bird has been studied, I suspect it is just noted that it was seen there sometimes. It's a tropical area so there'd be cocnut farms about the place..will see what I can find Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth

This looks to be the sort of high quality article we expect from Casliber. Just a few minor points:

• There is some duplication between the first and third paragraphs of the lead.

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• The taxonomy section is quite substantial and should perhaps be summarised better in the lead section.

I have added a bit but alot of it is a bit specialised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The birds exhibit sexual dimorphism, with males being slightly larger and much more brightly coloured than the females." - If you are going to mention "males" without an article, "females" should not have one either.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The adult male ..." - Perhaps you should mention here that you are talking about the nominate race.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• The difference in colouring between the two subspecies seem inconclusive, they both seem to have red on the rump extending onto the lower back.

the differences are really minor. Ok - the nominate has a dark brown back, but red rump and head. It is the other subspecies that has red extending to the lower back (though still has dark brown upperparts) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• It would probably be better to refer to the bird by just one of its names, red-headed myzomela or red-headed honeyeater, all the way through.

We generally call it the latter name...old habits die hard... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The red-headed myzomela in Australia ..." - Is this the nominate subspecies?

yes/rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "... in the west Kimberley" - Is that correct usage, it sounds a bit odd to me?

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• " the Australian population of M. e. infuscata" - Is this the intermediate population mentioned earlier as being on Cape York?

there is some of infuscata (on the Torres Strait Islands) and some intermediate populations (on Cape York). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with the alterations made, and am now supporting this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: We have a lot of support here, but I'd just like to let this run for a few more days to see if there is any further comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Understandable/no probs from me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2017 [49].

---

Other Worlds, Universe Science Fiction, and Science Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Raymond Palmer, who edited the three magazines that are the subject of this article, was one of the more colourful characters in the science fiction world; he was a dwarf, crippled and for periods partly paralyzed, but he still managed to hold down a central position in science fiction magazine publishing for two decades, albeit with some flim-flammery to help. He eventually gave up and switched to flying saucers as the topic of the one surviving magazine, and unfortunately there are almost no sources on the last two decades of that title. The years when the magazines contained science fiction stories are quite well covered though, so that's the focus here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Oworlds.jpg is tagged as lacking author info - is the illustrator known? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yes; added. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Comments by RL0919

This looks pretty good overall, especially considering the complex publication history, so I only have a few questions/concerns:

• I assume the mysterious "Chicago businessman" who partnered with Palmer is not named in any source?

  Unfortunately not; he's just "the anonymous businessman". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The business partner lost interest in the project almost immediately, and Palmer sold his half share in Clark Publications, which had published Other Worlds and Fate, and established Palmer Publications, taking over both the new magazines with Universe's third issue and Science Stories' second issue and giving up the editorial pseudonym." In the entire convoluted history of these magazines, this was the sentence that threw me. At first I thought it mistakenly said "sold" when it should have said "bought". It took a moment to realize that Clark Publications was not the publisher of Other Worlds -- that was Bell Publications -- and the sentence was not about Palmer buying out his partner. Actually, the disposition of Bell Publications seems to be unmentioned. That's before even getting to the second half of the sentence. I'm thinking this should be broken up so the reader can be stepped through it a little more slowly.

  I've attempted to clarify this-- how does that look? It might still be a bit too quick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• The "For a variety of reasons ..." quote from Palmer starts with two sets of quote marks -- just a typo, or something else?

  A typo; removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• WP:REDNOT discourages redlinks to people's names; there are several such links in the article.

  Removed. I'm not fond of REDNOT; I understand the reasoning, but it's a pity, because redlinks are valuable. Still, it's a sensible guideline, so the redlinks are gone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I need to ask about the use of the Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source, since it appears to be an open wiki. I see you asked about it twice at WP:RSN with no responses. I also see that it is used in the Weird Tales article, which passed FA this past October, but it seems no one even asked about it in the PR or FAC. If there isn't some other place where the reliability of this source was discussed, I think we should at least talk about it.

  It's not entirely an open wiki, as there is a sort of editorial review function, but I think the strongest argument I can make is to quote the online Science Fiction Encyclopedia, which is an authoritative reference in the field. They mention the ISFDB in two articles: Bibliographies and Online SF Resources. The bibliographies article in particular says that the ISFDB has superseded Reginald (a standard bibliography in the field); it does give caveats about pre-World War II publications, but that doesn't apply here. The other article calls it "incomparable"! Can I claim that "incomparable" implies "reliable"? Incidentally, I don't know if this counts as a COI, but I used to edit at the ISFDB, and still occasionally add data -- I was an admin over there for a while but lost the admin bit many years ago for inactivity. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now; it was an interesting read and seems close to the mark for FA already. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I just acquired a biography of Palmer, by the way, and I may be able to add one or two sentences about the flying saucer phase of the magazine from that, though it doesn't look detailed -- that's just FYI in case you want to look again after I've looked through it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with all the recent edits; in particular the part about the change of publishing companies seems more clear now. Regarding ISFDB, if they have editorial review and a positive reputation with reliable sources, then I'm good with accepting them for the type of information they are cited for here. (It's not like there are controversial BLP claims at stake.) As for any possible COI, unless you added the data you are citing, I don't see a concern. If you add a significant amount of material from your new sources, I'll take another look, but I would support for FA based on the current prose. --RL0919 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. The new material is here, if you want to take a look. Re the ISFDB, since you mention the editorial review I should clarify a bit, because it's not what editorial review usually means. The site used to be a plain wiki that anyone could edit. About 15 years ago the site owner changed it so that a moderation system was required to approve edits, and he made the most trusted users on the site moderators. The moderators can in turn approve other users as moderators. It's the same as if edits here had to be approved by admins; this is not central editorial review, but it does mean that plain vandalism never becomes visible. I think this system is not quite enough on its own to make the site reliable; I would rely instead on the fact that the SF Encyclopedia treats it as reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I made one small copy edit to the addition, but otherwise it seems good, so no change in my support. --RL0919 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Overall very good, although the phrasing is labored at times. I don't like "did his best", etc. Could do with less words. Still reading through, actionable points to follow. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Have had a look at the sources; they are reliable and authoritative. All are offline, so cant do further spot-checks, but this is a long trusted editor, so fine. Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Done reading through, issues hinted above resolved. Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil: I appreciate the copyediting; I've undone a couple of minor changes as explained below; let me know if you think any of these need further tweaking.

• "Palmer was unable to fill the magazine with material of this quality" -> "Palmer was unable to provide material of this quality": changed to "obtain enough material of this quality to fill the magazine"; the intended point is that he was able to get some good material, but not as much as he needed, so the remaining space in the magazine had to be filled with inferior stories. Also changed "provide" to "obtain" since he was dependent on authors to submit material, and couldn't directly provide stories.
• "he would print both news of flying saucers and also rumors" -> "he would print news of flying saucers and rumors": changed to "he would print both news and rumors of flying saucers"; my wording was clumsy but I think "both" is needed to make it clear what the rumors were about.

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JC

• though he was only partially successful. - This is a little too vague for me. Maybe "though early issues included mostly conventional stories" or something like that.

  I thought about this for a bit and have decided to just cut the phrase from the lead; making it more specific would require some qualifications and I think it would unbalance that paragraph. The shortened sentence is still accurate, and the second paragraph gives details of some stories he did publish, so I think we get some context. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe link going concern?

  When I looked at the going concern article I realized it implied there were no financial threats, which was definitely not the case for Other Worlds at that time. All I meant was that Other Worlds was still being published. I reworded it to avoid using the phrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• and both had higher budgets than Palmer was able to afford, and Other Worlds suffered as a result. - I would change the second "and" to "so" to reduce the repetition.

  Reworded; I went with a slightly different approach -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Minor style thing, but consecutive references should be in numerical order ([21][2][22] → [2][21][22] for instance)

  I think I got all of them. FYI, there was a recent discussion, and as far as I can tell there's no style requirement anywhere to do this, but in my case I almost never care about the order of the footnotes, and I agree they look odd if not in order. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd mention that the Chicago businessman was anonymous in one of his first mentions, if possible.

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• switch the magazines focus - Missing an apostrophe

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do you think it would be feasible and useful to create a graphical timeline showing when each magazine was being published and under which name? I know that probably isn't customary, but given that the article concerns multiple interconnected titles, and that I did get lost a couple times, I think it might be helpful. Just a thought in passing.

  I was hoping the existing tables would provide what you're asking for -- the overlap between the various runs makes it hard to put them all in a single table. Do you have a specific representation in mind that you think would work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  What I had in mind was something like this that could adapted to show each publication period and title change. Like I said, just a thought... feel free to disregard. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Overall it looks very nice, and I'll be happy to support pending Ceoil's prose review. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Juliancolton - have finished and happy now. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Thanks for the ping. No outstanding concerns - looks great. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we are safe to ask for a source review now (unless I missed it), in the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

RL0919 and Ceoil both commented on source reliability but I don't think went into formatting, which looks fine to me. All external links check out. I'm also happy with source reliability -- don't recall seeing ISFDB before but quite satisfied with it based on the discussion above. Sorry I didn't get a chance to do a full review this time but I think the team above has given it a good workout... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2017 [50].

---

Eve Russell

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, this article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, who was featured prominently throughout its entire run on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. Introduced as the seemingly perfect wife and mother, Eve's storylines revolve around her past alcohol and drug abuse while working as a nightclub singer and her past relationship and child with businessman Julian Crane.

Tracey Ross, who played Eve for the series' entire run, has discussed the casting process and her interpretation and influences when acting out the role. Ross' casting was part of NBC's attempt to include a racially diverse ensemble on daytime television. Ross' performance was praised by fans and critics, with the character's relationship with Julian receiving positive attention. The character's storylines were negatively received by the cast, specifically the scenes in which Vincent Clarkson gives birth to his father's child and Eve incorrectly attaches Julian's penis during a botched surgery.

Despite these mixed reactions, Ross received eight nominations for the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Daytime Drama Series, winning at the 38th NAACP Image Awards. This is my third nomination of a Passions-related article through the FAC process; the other two were Chad Harris-Crane and the Russell family (Passions). I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:PanagiotisZois

Hopefuly I'll be able to offer additional and more helpful comments in the future (sorry)... Shouldn't the information regarding her appearence in Providence be included under the "Appearances" section? Besides that the article is very well written and broad in its coverage of the character, dare I say even moreso than Chad's article. I'd definately support its promotion to featured article. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your support and comments. I completely agree with you and I have moved the "Other appearances and merchandise" subsection to the "Appearances" section. This is actually the article that I am the most proud of so I greatly appreciate the kind words. Hope to work with you further in the future! Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Not my usual area, so I can't comment on sourcing or comprehensiveness, just nit-picking over what appears to be a very solid article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Harmony" presumably a town? Real or fictional? In either case, do we know where in the US it's supposed to be?

• Good point. I have added the phrase "the fictional Northeastern town" in the lead, but let me know if you feel that it requires further clarification in the body of the article as well. I have WikiLinked Northeastern to make that part absolutely clear for a more global audience. We do not know the exact state in which the town is supposed to be located (though it could be somewhat guessed by the two death penalty cases that were prominently featured on the show, but an exact state is never provided outside of somewhere in the New England). Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• "better understand" twice in one sentence

• Oops, fixed this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• "born on Christmas" reads oddly to me, as a Brit I'd expect "Christmas Day", but if it's standard US, fine

• I am actually not sure. I have never used the word in this context before (I never knew anyone born on that day lol) so I have changed it for Christmas Day instead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• "and an erection might kill him" is this based on fact or is it an alternative fact?

• This is actually a fact fact lol. It was one of the soap opera's final storylines and was referenced as one of the worst ideas by one of its cast members (and I have to agree with her on that one lol). Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate your feedback, especially on something outside of your usual area of interest. Let me know if there is anything else that needs attention and I look forward to hopefully working with you more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with your responses, and happy to support above, an interesting read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• (easy) image review. Only image has appropriate FU tag Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tintor2

The article looks in a really good shape to become FA but there some things that bugged while reading it:

• Can "Ross initially saw the character as easy to play ("everyone's best friend, and the town doctor, and a great mother")" simply be changed to "Ross initially saw the character as easy to play stating it she is "everyone's best friend, and the town doctor, and a great mother"). Otherwise the quotes feel pointless if they are hidden. There is another example in the cast response section.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Remember each citation needs wikilinks if they are possible. (Reference 18 for example "TVGuideOnline Interview with Tracey Ross". TV Guide Online. CBS Interactive. October 2003.")

• I think that I have everything covered now. Let me know if there are any others that require WikiLinks. I am fairly certain that the only ones left are those without a Wikipedia article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll give my support if these issues are solved Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thank you for your help! I believe that I have covered both of your comments, but let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems better. I'll give my support. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Tintor2

All the sources are archived and apparently reliable. However, I am confused with refs 12 and 13 "Sloane Gaylin, Alison (February 21, 2000). "Tracey Ross goes One on One". NBC Passions Online. "Ben Masters and Tracey Ross "Passions"". NBC Live. April 11, 2000." Can these citations be given some links? Just doing that, I'll support it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thank you for the source review. Unfortunately, both sources are no longer accessible directly from the source as they were mostly likely removed a long time ago. I have found both interviews through a fan site here and here and have cited them directly. I could remove both if you feel that it is necessary as they are relatively minor. Just for clarity, I have also used the NBC Live source in the Russell family (Passions) article. I hope this response is helpful and I look forward to your response. Thank you again!

All right, it passes. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thank you for your help and I apologize for any inconvenience. Feel free to let me know if you need any help with anything anytime. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: @Laser brain: @Sarastro1: Just want to notifiy the FAC coordinators that this FAC has received three "support" votes and image and source reviews. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think I'd like to see just a little more commentary on this before promotion. I'd also like a little commentary on comprehensiveness and source reliability. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me; thank you for the message. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• In response to Aoba's message at my talk page, I'm happy to recuse from coord duties to go through this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

• Support Article looks good, I don't have any issues to address. MCMLXXXIX 20:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

• NBC needs linking in ref 16. Also, what is this reference? A newspaper article? A long lost webpage from 2000?

• Corrected. Also changed NBC from "work" to "publisher" in the same section. It is referencing a long lost webpage from 2000; I have attempted to locate a link through archiving, but unfortunately, I cannot not find anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've checked all the sources and they appear reliable—TheTruthAboutNursing's "about us" page gives me confidence that they're a RS

• Thank you for checking! Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Does African American need a hyphen?

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Valerie Davis aka Vincent Clarkson are linked twice in the "1999–2008: Passions". It's both the same link

• Removed second link. Also removed the link for Vincent as he was already linked the previous section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "However, Ross appreciated Eve's characterization as a human being who "is neither all good nor all bad, [who] has strengths and weaknesses"" - I think this quote can be paraphrased easily

• Very true; I am go overboard with quotes a lot of the time so thank you for pointing this out. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, I couldn't find anything wrong with the sources or actual content, so I'll support this. I also done some fact checking and everything appears to be in order, so the above points are very minor. I'd say it meets 1b of the FA criteria as it neglects no major facts, bearing in mind it's about a fictional character. Well done! JAGUAR  19:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: Thank you for your comments and your support! I have addressed your comments above. I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing, per note above, I copyedited as I reviewed so pls let me know any concerns there (FTR I've never seen this show so hopefully come to the subject with no preconceived ideas); outstanding points:

• "Eve was played by Tracey Ross for the series' entire run. In 2003, Amanda Maiden and Kimberly Kevon Williams played Eve in flashbacks." -- The second sentence pulled me up short as it begs the question why, if Ross played Eve the entire run, two others played the character in flashbacks; even if it's explained in the main body it just seems confusing here so I'd drop it.

• Removed. I added that in originally just to be as comprehensive as possible to who played the character. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, that takes care of the lead but I notice that in the main body this isn't explained either. As someone who doesn't know the show I'm struggling to understand why even one actress -- let alone two -- need to portray Eve in flashbacks when Ross was available the whole time. Did the flashbacks portray Eve at a much younger age or something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed this from the main body of the article. The flashbacks portray Eve at a much younger age in flashbacks to her childhood and her time as a nightclub singer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Heh, I didn't mean for you to remove this -- I think it's important to mention all actresses who portrayed the character -- I just felt we needed more information so readers don't have to guess (as I had to) why other actresses portrayed her when Ross was around for the entire show. I suggest you reinstate the text in the main body (I still don't think you really need it in the lead) along the lines of "In 2003, actresses Amanda Maiden and Kimberly Kevon Williams played the character in flashbacks to her childhood and her time as a nightclub singer." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification, and I apologize for my misunderstanding. I have restored the information in the lead and in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Ross played the role from the series debut to its finale on August 7, 2008." -- If you specify the end date, perhaps you should do the same for the debut date.

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Eve's willingness to "take any sacrifices you might be willing to make" an example of Rand's ideology" -- Actually the article doesn't say Eve "takes" sacrifices, but that she "makes" sacrifices and others will take those sacrifices. Also, since sacrifice is something Rand speaks against (and I believe that's evident from the source article) it's misleading to suggest this is an example of Randian "ideology". For now, I'd suggest that if you want to use a quote, use the whole statement "She’s always willing to make sacrifices, and there’s always somebody willing, as Ayn Rand said, to take any sacrifices you might be willing to make." and drop "an example of Rand's ideology".

• Makes sense. I know absolutely nothing about Ayn Rand's ideology; I have only read Anthem and that was in middle school or high school. I have attempted to revise this, but let me know if it needs more work. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Further on, "Ross identified Eve as "a self-sacrificing animal", who mirrored Rand's beliefs, and the actress emphasized that her character was distinct from her own self-identification as an individualist" -- Per the article, the first and last parts of this statement are accurate but it's misleading to say that this mirrors Rand's beliefs, rather it was a concept she discussed (negatively) in her writing such as The Fountainhead. I think it's simplest to just render this sentence as "Ross described Eve as "a self-sacrificing animal", and emphasized that her character was distinct from her own self-identification as an individualist", losing "who mirrored Rand's beliefs" and also avoiding the "identified/identification" repetition.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Early in the show, the actress based her understanding of Eve on the character's relationships with Grace and Ivy Winthrop." -- Can't quite put my finger on it but this reads oddly to me, I'd be interested to know just how the (offline) source puts it.

• That is more of a topic sentence as the information in the paragraph deals with how Ross constructed her approach to the character from her relationships with Grace and Ivy Winthrop. Hope that makes sense. I am not sure on how to change it though, but I am more than happy to take corrections and ideas for revision. I can also remove it completely if you think that it is not necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Following Ulrich's interpretation of Ivy as valuing Eve as a confidant..." -- Ditto.

• The quote from the source is this: "Kim says that Ivy really likes Eve. I’m trying to think if Eve really likes Ivy. I think she admires Ivy’s guts. So far, Ivy is the closest thing Eve has had to a confidant…she knows everything about Eve. I think Eve could like Ivy but Ivy’s been pretty horrible to Eve. It would almost make Eve a masochist to like someone who’s been so brutal to her in so many ways. So I wouldn’t say “like”…but I think there are things she admires and respects, like her ability to take-charge. Eve is always tiptoeing around and walking on eggshells." which is Tracey Ross' response to this question: "Do you think Eve and Ivy really like each other?". I have revised this slightly, but I can change it further if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I've got an idea for rewording this a bit but first, something else leaps out... Who is "Ulrich"? I searched the article and can't find another mention of them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oops, thank you for the clarification. I have revised this to be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a general comment I think we could reduce the reliance on quotes in the article but suggest we work on the specifics I've mentioned and come back to that afterwards.

• Sounds good to me. That is one of my biggest weaknesses is relying too much on quotes. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also I think based on what I believe are some honest misinterpretations of the source re. the Rand influence, could I ask you to double-check the whole article to ensure other sources are being used accurately, and when that's done I'll spotcheck a few?

• Everything should be in order. I apologize for the previous misinterpretations. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• No apology necessary -- it's always a pleasure working with someone so receptive to constructive criticism... :-) Cheers, 06:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Do any of your sources use the expression "jumped the shark" when referring to the botched reattachment storyline,'cos that's certainly what came to my mind when reading about it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Thank you for your comments so far and I look forward to working on this further! There were plenty of "jump the shark" moments that happened during the end of this show (even by its standards) lol. Aoba47 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Thank you again for your comments. I have responded to both of your questions. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Ian are you happy with the responses to your points? If so, I think we are good to go. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, been spread a little thin the last few days -- aside from what I've added above, I might just do a few spotchecks as I said I would, and if all goes well we should be done then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've spotchecked FNs 8, 9 and 14 and although I tweaked/trimmed a bit of the article after reading them (incidentally reducing the quotes a little, as I also suggested in my initial review) I don't have any special concerns with accuracy or close paraphrasing -- happy to support once the bit about the other actresses is restored/clarified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Thank you for your help; your edits have improve the article a great deal. I have added in the information about the other actresses who have portrayed the role. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: Just pinging you to let you know that Ian has responded to my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm afraid it will be tomorrow at the earliest before I have a chance to go through the list again. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries! Take as long as you need. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: Hello again. I apologize for the intrusion. Just wanted to check in on the progress with this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

RL has been insane this week, sorry! I hope to do a pass at FAC tonight (i.e. in a few hours) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for your response. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. Hope your week becomes less insane for you soon! Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2017 [51].

---

Courtney Love

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about singer, musician, and actress Courtney Love. I have worked on this article vociferously over a course of years, and for whatever reason have been unable to get it promoted in spite of numerous approvals during prior nominations. It covers the subject adequately, has been thoroughly cited, and re-worked for fluidity of prose. —Drown Soda (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support: I've reviewed it several times already, and it still looks to be in good condition. It's a bit long, but I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comments from Midnightblueowl
  • "Love has practiced several religions, including Catholicism, Episcopalianism and New Age religions," - this does not read terribly well. I'd scrap the latter use of "religions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this article. I've made a few minor tweaks of my own too, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support, as before. I went through the article again, and copyedited a little, but there was nothing significant wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Do we have up-to-date image and source reviews anywhere? If not, they can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
• Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections.
• Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

• The sound file has an appropriate rational for fair use and it is appropriately used to illustrate a section about Love’s music.

The image review passes. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support: This is a very solid article and it was a very informative and compelling read. I wish that I could add more in the form of feedback/comments, but it looks a majority if not all of the potential issues have already been covered in past FACs for this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Aoba47:. Is there anything I could do to try and further a promotion for this? I've nominated it numerous times and tried reaching out to other WikiProjects and the like, but haven't seemed to have been able to move it beyond the nomination stage. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drown Soda, I know how often you've given this one a go and based on the above I think this time your persistence and continuing desire to improve the article may well pay off -- for the moment I think you can afford to sit tight and await a source review (we may also need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing unless one took place in an earlier review, will check). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, going back through the previous FACs I couldn't see such a spotcheck but in any case I notice Sarastro has requested it at the top of WT:FAC, so just wait for that too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• The Earwig Copyvio detector gives the article the thumbs up.
• FN 256 and 274 are dead
• Random check: FN 69, 124, 144, 159, 167, 177, 180, 242, 270, 283, 302, 315 are all okay
• FN 55: Put this with the books, with an ISBN etc. And find page numbers.
• FN 108 says p. 74, but should be pp. 75-76, and doesn't give the February 1995 date.
• FN 152 only supports the first part; need a second source for "therefore Nobody's Daughter would remain Love's solo record, as opposed to a "Hole" record.
• Link Poppy Z. Brite

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Hawkeye7:. I think I've addressed each of these things—as far as FN 152, I removed the Vulture source altogether and instead provided an archived source for the original NME article that applies to both the reformation of the band as well as the release of the record. Let me know if you see anything else. Much appreciated. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I noticed a few duplicate links which should be checked, but the commendable patience of the nominator in getting reviews for this article has finally been rewarded, and I'm not going to hold up promotion over that. These can be sorted out after this FAC has closed. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2017 [52].

---

Project Y

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the best known part of the Manhattan Project: the Los Alamos Laboratory and the effort to design the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the site maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  I have increased the size of the main map, and have added a new map of the Tech Area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• No significant duplicate links due to the article's length.
• plutonium had unexpected properties but were comma after properties

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• University of California in Berkeley, in July 1942 Already know the year

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Link boiler

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lieutenant Colonel John M. Harman arrived on 19 January 1943; he was promoted to colonel on 15 February, and moved to Los Alamos on 19 April.[75] Los Alamos officially became a military establishment on 1 April 1943, with Harman as its first commander. The chronology here appears to be messed up. Where did he arrive on 19 Jan? And tell the reader why he's important in the first sentence.

  Y We can have the chronological order or the first sentence.

• the ratio of ν for uranium-235 What's "v"?

  Y Neutrons per fission. There originally was a a formula in the article that I thought the reader might have fun deriving, but I took it out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• It was decided to use a type of radio altimeter known as the 718, but when the manufacturer, RCA, was contacted, it was learned that a new tail warning radar, AN/APS-13, known as Archie, was entering production. This was found to be suitable for use with Thin Man. Combine these two sentences and explain why a tail-warning radar was suitable for use as a radio altimeter.

  Y Combined the sentences. Added a bit more about the radar. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• a small casting plant was established Tell the reader what it cast.

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Two new groups were created at Los Alamos to develop the implosion weapon, X (for explosives) Division headed by Kistiakowsky and G (for gadget) Division under Robert Bacher.[143][144] Although Teller was head of the T-1 (Implosion and Super) Group, Bethe considered that Teller was spending too much time on the Super, which had been given a low priority by Bethe and Oppenheimer. In June 1944, Oppenheimer created a dedicated Super Group under Teller, who was made directly responsible to Oppenheimer, and Peierls became head of the T-1 (Implosion) Group.[145][146] In September 1943, Teller's group became the F-1 (Super and General Theory) Group, part of the Enrico Fermi's new F (Fermi) Division. the chronology here is confusing, or there are some typos for years. But either way...

  Y Typo. It was in September 1944. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Henceforth the gun-type had to work with enriched uranium only, and this allowed the Thin Man design to be greatly simplified. A high-velocity gun was no longer required, and a simpler weapon could be substituted, one short enough to fit into a B-29 bomb bay. Do you mean Little Boy here?

  Y Yes. Heh, forgot to mention that. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• allow the powder bags clarify, do you mean the bags of propellant for the gun mechanism?

  Y Yes. Added that. It must have seemed an obvious approach to a navy ordnance man like Parsons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fat Man assembly, known as F13 don't you mean a pre-assembly?

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Phew!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - Reviewing these A-Class articles, especially those written by the nominator, can be frustrating because there is little to offer apart from admiration. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this highly informative contribution. I was astounded to learn how many people were employed there. I thought "authorities" was vague and I recall a "refused", which might be better as "rejected", (no big deal). There's a lot of redirects, mainly the names of the individuals; fixing them would add a little more shine to this fabulous article. Graham Beards (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I have elaborated on the British bureaucratic process. And changed "refused" to "rejected". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. I went over this at the A-class review and I remain impressed. My only concern is the length. The average reader is going to struggle with an article of nearly 13,000 words. If any of the information can be split into daughter articles, I would urge that this be done, but I have no concerns about the content itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unless I have missed it, I think this just needs a source review. One can be added in the usual place. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Formatting for dates, archive dates, and retrieved dates need consistency (see fn 1 and fn 233 for example)

  Y Corrected. (FN 1 required a special card) Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the Serber & Rhodes entry, University of California Press is wikilinked but you haven't linked others that have articles (like Oxford University Press). Need consistency.

  Y Removed the Wikilinks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No other issues noted. --Laser brain (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2017 [53].

---

August Meyszner

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about August Meyszner, a former gendarmerie officer and right-wing politician in Austria who travelled to Nazi Germany and joined the SS soon after Hitler's rise to power. After a series of police postings he was appointed by Heinrich Himmler as the head of the SS security and police organs in German-occupied Serbia, a position he held for two years. He was responsible for carrying out of numerous reprisal killings of civilians, the sending of tens of thousands of forced labourers to Germany and other occupied territories, and oversaw the killing of 8,000 Jewish women and children using a gas van. Sidelined in early 1944, he was captured by the Allies at the end of the war and extradited back to Yugoslavia, where he was tried and executed for war crimes. He has been described as one of Himmler's most brutal lieutenants. The article went through Milhist A-Class review in September 2015 and has been tweaked recently in preparation for this nomination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, as always! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - figure legends that contain a finite verb should end with a period. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Graham thanks. I think I got them all. Would you mind checking? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - for an engaging, good read and subject to a satisfactory image review. But can we do something about a few fused participles? They are becoming common these days in spoken English (especially the BBC), and I might be flogging a dead donkey but they look ugly to me in prose:

• with a Military Commander in Serbia being responsible for the military administration
• with Kuntze's chief of staff describing Meyszner
• with the men sending long letters of complaint to each other

How about using a simple past tense? "and a Military Commander in Serbia was responsible..." "and Kuntze's chief of staff described" "and the men sent long letters".

Alternatively, sometimes just dumping the "with" works well.

No big deal. Graham Beards (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had a crack at it, hopefully it is an improvement! Thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes. By the way, you are a far better writer than I am; it's always easier to criticise than to create. Graham Beards (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You're very kind, Graham. I am always keen to have input from editors who have a better grasp of grammar than I... Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• What do the colours represent in the map?
  • military area commands and districts, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• File:Der_Panther_Pfrimer_Putsch.jpg: not sure the tag is accurate - the photo certainly has an identified individual author
  • I'm pretty sure it is in Austria, as far as the newspaper is concerned. The photograph (I can't make out the photographer's name) would be PD-Austria because it is a lichtbild (simple photograph, not taken in a studio or involving lighting and poses) and was published in 1931, so copyright on it expired in 1981, and therefore before the URAA date. Should I add a PD-Austria tag to cover the photograph? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• File:Draza_Mihailovic,1943.jpg: that tag requires that the image was published before 1973 - was it?
  • Good question, it appears (from the alt text) this was substituted at some stage, have re-instated a PD one of him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• File:ParteiabzeichenGold_small.png: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This one is an emblem of a Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation covered by public law), I've added the appropriate (and rather obscure) PD tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I think we're good here Nikkimaria. Can you confirm? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, all good now. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments - taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Meyszner's time in Belgrade was characterised by friction and competition with German military, economic and foreign affairs officials and by his visceral hatred and distrust of Serbs. - this sentence flows a bit oddly with the "his" halfway along, but I can't think of an easier way to say it.

Same, I struggled with it too. I've added a comma to break up the two ideas.

With the outbreak of war, Meyszner started being appointed to more senior positions - the "started being appointed" is ungainly. Maybe "After war broke out, Meyszner was appointed to more senior positions" or maybe "Meyszner's career took off" or some other way of wording it...

Done.

Is there any further info on his marriage? Did Pia remain with him this whole time? up till he was executed?

No, no more information on his family circumstances in any of the sources.

Aah well. Probably for the best really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking good though and on target to pass I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Cas Liber! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note -- feel free to seek source review, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Formatting of refs all looks in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Earwig's copyvio tool looks clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 66 - checks out. material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 24 - largely checks out. material mostly faithful to source, but I can't find Kewisch's or Meyszner's names on page 334. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 26 - checks out. material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Cas Liber re: FN24, I think I must have known they were the relevant personalities and only cited Browning for the division of labour, but not the names. Added a citation to Tomasevich 2001 to cover the fact that they were the people concerned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ok all good/makes sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for now. There are some issues to be dealt with and I can look up the article by Moll and other sources only next week. The following claims seem questionable:

• Arrested shortly after the July Putsch was launched by the Bavarian branch of the German Nazi Party, during which Dollfuss was assassinated, Does Moll really say that "the Bavarian branch of the German Nazi Party" launched the July Putsch? Literature has it that the coup was mainly engineered by the Viennese SS and Theo Habicht with Hitler behind the scenes. Many putschists were members of the Styrian Heimatschutz. Or does that refer to the Austrian Legion (Österreichische Legion) being trained in Bavaria?

• I may have misunderstood this, German is not my first (or even third) language. I'll look for another source on the coup attempt. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've changed it to "Habicht and Frauenfeld" and cited that to Parkinson. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• The July Putsch is still subject of research. Research more recent than Parkinson's (Hans Schafranek and Kurt Bauer) keeps the debate ongoing. Hans Schafranek has argued that the Styrian Heimatschutz conspired with the Landesleitung against the Austrian SA under Hermann Reschny to support the Putsch in Vienna. Schafranek explictly points to the cooperation of Kammerhofer and Meyszner with SS-Gruppenführer Rodenbücher who helped them to reach influential positions and high SS ranks after coup had failed. See his essay: - SS-Wölfe im SA-Pelz in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard.

There is more literature on that. Schafranek edited Vom NS-Verbot zum »Anschluss« : Steirische Nationalsozialisten 1933 – 1938 (2015). An important and award winning work is by Christiane Rothländer, Die Anfänge der Wiener SS (2012). As interesting as that issue is, however, that may lead too far in the context of a Wikipedia article. Thus I would only say, that "the July Putsch was launched" (without names) and hint to Schafranek's research (either referenced to the Standard-article or I can provide a citation to Schafranek's book Sommerfest mit Preisschiessen if needed), because that helps to explain Meyszner's later career.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a bit, please check that I have understood Schafranek correctly. I didn't want to get into too much detail, and there are only a couple of direct references to Meyszner in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I have added the SS and Rauter. There is one more thing, however: The Steirischer Heimatschutz was part of the Heimwehr, but not pars pro toto. The Heimwehr was led by Ernst Rüdiger Starhemberg who actively supported Dollfuß and integrated the Heimwehr into the Fatherland Front. The Styrian Home Guard, however, joined forces with the Nazis. Thus Steirischer Heimatschutz should not link to the Heimwehr article, unless that article elaborates the differences, which is (so far) not the case.--Assayer (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I've redlinked it for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• It is noted the Meyszner became a member of the Austrian Nazi party as early as 1925. But it is also claimed that his conversion to Nazi thinking was demonstrated by an anti-Jewish diatribe in the Landestag in April 1933. How can someone demonstrate his "conversion" in 1933, when he has been a Nazi since 1925? A "conversion" from what? At the same time the Heimatblock for which Meyszner was a deputy is not mentioned. Let me know if I should help out with some special literature. One thing is for sure, however, not only the Nazi party, but also the Heimatblock were declared illegal in 1933.

• Added that he was a deputy on the Heimatblock list, it was on p. 245 of Moll. No idea how I missed it, but perhaps because I had already linked Heimwehr. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Moll says "Meyszner war vollständig auf die NS-Linie eingeschwenkt; dies äußerte sich etwa in seiner im April 1933 im Landtag gehaltenen Brandrede gegen die angebliche jüdische Überflutung Wiens." You can demonstrate your views at any time, it doesn't have to be at the time you were converted. I've seen no source that says he was anti-Semitic prior to that speech, although he may well have been. Do you have a suggested alternative wording based on the German? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  As Moll noted on p. 255, for reasons unknown Meyszner's early membership in the Austrian Nazi party had been terminated at some point. He was not transferred into the NSDAP in 1938. According to Lilla, Meyszner joined the Nazi party in 1943. The speech, quoted by Moll on p. 258, is put into context by Pauley, Hahnenschwanz und Hakenkreuz (Wien, 1972), p. 156f.. Pauley explains that the Styrian Heimatschutz under Kammerhofer posited itself against Nazism as late as January 1933, whether for tactical reasons or not, to keep his organization intact. Once Kammerhofer announced a closer cooperation between the Styrian Heimatschutz and the Nazis, Meyszner held his antisemitic speech (that he was an antisemite anyway goes without saying, given his pangerman outlook and his membership in völkisch organizations). I would translate it as if Meyszner had completely switched to the approach [or: the path] of the National Socialists.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Reworded. See what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Also, I'm not sure what you are saying about his Nazi Party membership. I understand Moll says that he joined the Austrian Nazi Party in September 1925, and that he believed that due to the Venice Agreement, he had a low (pre-Hitler's seizure of power) pan-German Nazi Party number from when the Styrian Home Guard was absorbed by the Nazi Party. Bormann disagreed and Himmler had to intervene to ensure Meyszner received the Golden Party Badge. If Lilla disagrees with Moll regarding this, I'll compare and contrast the two sources, as we would usually do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done. There is no disagreement between Lilla and Moll. Meyszner and other leaders of the Styrian Home Guard insisted that they had been members of the NSDAP since the Venice agreement, but the Nazi Party did not accept that. The conflict is also described by Pauley. Walter Oberhaidacher, Gauleiter of the Styrian Nazi party, and Franz Xaver Schwarz. Schatzmeister of the NSDAP, decided to ignore the agreement. In 1943 Meyszner agreed to receive membership as of June 1938 and thus received the (honorary) Golden Party Badge. Would he have had a low party membership number (under 100.000), he would have been entitled to the regular Golden Party Badge and there were more benefits for "Alte Kämpfer". On the other hand, the honorary Badge brought automatic membership with it. So Meyszner joined the Nazi party in 1943. It is unclear, however, when Meyszner lost his membership in the Austrian Nazi Party. Maybe because of the split of the Austrian Nazi Party in 1926? But I am just guessing. --Assayer (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is no website "Der deutsche Reichstag, 1936: 3. Wahlperiode nach d. 30. Jan. 1933" [The German Reichstag, 1936 Third Legislature from 30 January 1933]. Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum [Munich Digitization Centre] (in German). Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek [Bavarian State Library]. 1936. Retrieved 16 May 2015. The publication being cited (in digitized version) is Ernst Kienast, ed.: Der Großdeutsche Reichstag 1938: IV. Wahlperiode (nach dem 30. Januar 1933). Berlin: R. v. Decker's Verlag, G.Schenck, 1938, p. 316. As a reference work this primary source has been superseded very much by Joachim Lilla et al., ed., Statisten in Uniform: Die Mitglieder des Reichstags 1933-1945. Ein biographisches Handbuch. Düsseldorf: Droste, 2004. I can look that up next week also and provide a scan if desired.

• Thanks for that. I've fixed the citation, but the material cited to it is pretty pedestrian biographical information, so an exceptional source is not needed, even assuming that you have a source for your statement that it has been superseded by Lilla et al. If Lilla et al has more detail, of course I would welcome access to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lilla's book is a standard reference book with more details. If you drop me a note by email, I will mail you the text (two pages in pdf-format). It's not in prose, but mainly consists of dates.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'll start adding material from Lilla shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Assayer I have now added the unique material from Lilla, thanks for that. Can you clarify if there is anything outstanding from your review? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There are some issues which can be dealt with immediately, because the literature has already been used:

• The article follows Christopher Browning's discussion of the murder of the Jews in Serbia with the help of a gas van, but skips the discussion of the same sources by Menachem Shelach: Sajmiste - An extermination Camp in Serbia in: Holocaust Genocide Stud. 1987;2(2):243-60. and Manoschek, p. 170f. In the closing section it is: According to Moll that Schäfer had claimed that he had received the orders and gas van directly from Berlin and had carried out the killings with little reference to Meyszner.[73] Manoschek accepts Schäfer's assertion, stating that Schäfer also had an independent Gestapo chain of command, over which Meyszner had very limited control. But Schäfer's claims, which he made during a trial, are also cited by Manoschek, so why is it According to Moll, whereas Moll also must have known what is referenced to Manoschek? Moll has written about 15 years later than Manoschek. Doesn't he discuss the evidence?

• Perhaps it is not a contentious point given that both authors agree, so would be better not to attribute in-text to the sources, but to reword it in WP's voice as "Schäfer claimed that he had received the orders and gas van directly from Berlin, and had carried out the killings with little reference to Meyszner. Schäfer also had an independent Gestapo chain of command, over which Meyszner had very limited control." What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Moll devoted the larger part of his essay on Meyszner as HSSPF in occupied Serbia. I will have to work with Moll's text more closely, but he notes that there is some historiographical debate, whether Turner described his own role in organizing the murder of the Serbian Jews correctly. (p.313) So the question is: What was Meyszner's role and responsibility? And that is answered differently by historians.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Germany and the Second World War is a collection of essays/studies and should be cited as such. The contribution that is cited here is by Hans Umbreit: Towards Continental Dominion.

• Fair enough. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The prose at times seems odd, particularly when the article deals with the complicated situation in former Yugoslavia/occupied Serbia: inserted into a political maelstrom of conflicting lines of command and authority. or Meyszner's appointment further complicated an already complex situation. At the same time the different concepts of occupation rule like "supervisory administration" (see Marzower) vs. Himmler's (and Hitler's) distrust of the Serbs as a Slav people is not pointed out.

• I'm not sure what you mean here. It is well-established in the literature that the lines of command, control and communication in occupied Serbia were among the most convoluted in occupied Europe, and I have attempted to reflect that in the prose. I don't think it is necessary in biographical article to fully explain the administrative set-up in Serbia and the various conflicting currents among the security and police, military, diplomatic and economic sections of the German administration in order to understand how Meyszner fitted into it and how he eventually came unstuck. The place for the full explanation of all of that is the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article, which makes a fair attempt at explaining it all in some detail. Meyszner's rivalry with Turner, double-dealing with Bader, and implacable opposition to empowering the Serbian puppet regime are all explained in this article, as they are all germane to his biography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• If I understand Marzower and Umbreit correctly, Meyszner was sent to Serbia by Himmler for a reason, namely to enforce a different kind of occupation regime, that is, different from what was Turner's idea. Thus this is less about a "political maelstrom" or further complications, but about a power struggle which of course gets complicated, not at least, because Himmler and Hitler apparently changed their minds here and then. --Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would be more accurate to say that he was sent to reinforce the existing military occupation regime, which was at odds with what Turner wanted to do (ie create a civilian-led Reichskommissariat with himself at the helm, or later, to empower the Serb puppet regime, which Neubacher later continued even after Turner's removal). According to Mazower, Himmler argued Turner and the Wehrmacht weren't being tough enough. I've added that in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• He travelled widely, meeting Nazi leaders in Hungary and Yugoslavia.[10] Consequently, in February 1934 he was interned in Wöllersdorf camp for three-and-a-half months for Nazi activities. I do not think, that it was because of his travels that Meyszner was interned at Wöllersdorf, which was, btw, a concentration camp rather than a detention centre.

• Poor prose. Fixed by removing "Consequently". I had called it a detention camp (Anhaltelager), which I believe is what the source says, but you are right, in English sources it is commonly known as Wöllersdorf concentration camp. Addressed in the lead and body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In general I think that these issues can be dealt with and it is nice to see that a rather rare academic work by a specialist of Styrian Nazism like Martin Moll is being used. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm always happy to improve the article where possible with additional sources. There are probably prose fixes that will address a couple of the points. I'll work through them one at a time, and look forward to seeing any additional sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but now I have access to most of the sources. Most serious issue: Moll's essay is pp. 249-318 of Danubiana Carpathica. There is something wrong with the footnotes.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you are looking at, but I got a PDF copy from someone at WP:RX that has the article beginning on p. 239 and finishing on p. 308, it has the journal title and volume etc at the bottom of the first page. I'll email you what I'm working off, so we are looking at the same thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Assayer I've emailed you the version of Moll I'm using, so you can see where the citations come from. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank's. It seems as if you used an advance or proof copy. The ToC can be found on the website of the journal.(PDF) I sent you my copy and a copy of the Meyszner entry in Lilla's handbook. Let me know what you think of it. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've now fixed the pagination for Moll. I'll give my eyes a rest and finish up with adding what there is from Lilla. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Assayer please advise if you have anything further. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I will have access to some further sources by tomorrow and will work myself through the article again by the end of the week. Thank you for your patience. --Assayer (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Assayer, how are things looking for you at the moment? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I am currently working on it by rewriting de:August Meyszner based upon the same sources and checking it against this article during the process. So we are talking about days.--Assayer (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day Assayer, I don't believe there are grounds for maintaining your opposition to this article's promotion just because you are writing an article on another wiki and wish to check it against this one. I believe all the substantive comments you have made have been addressed and your opposition should be dropped. If not, I believe the @FAC coordinators: should consider promoting it despite your opposing !vote. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was not able to edit in the Wikipedia due to much more urgent and pressing obligations. But you are right, that I already took too much time in reviewing this. My only excuse is that a thorough review takes its time. So I did a final review, during which the following came up:

• According to the German historian Martin Moll, Meyszner's attendance at this conference highlighted his suitability for working in the German-occupied territory of Serbia due to his relevant language skills. Martin Moll is an Austrian historian and he does not mention Meyszner's "relevant language skills" which are dubious anyway. Maybe this is a misunderstanding of the term "kam zur Sprache" = i.e., was discussed?
  • My mistake with the translation. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• The Military Commander in Serbia was responsible for the military administration and the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia was responsible for military operations against the insurgents. That's not quite correct. The Bevollmächtigter Kommandierender General und Befehlshaber Serbien Franz Böhme was superior to the Befehlshaber Serbien Heinrich Danckelmann. After Danckelmann left in October 1941, Böhme also filled the office of Befehlshaber Serbien, but when Meyszner arrived in Serbia, he had already been replaced (December 1941) by the Kommandierender General Höheres Kommando z.b.V. LXV Paul Bader, who became Kommandierender General und Befehlshaber Serbien by March 1942.
  • Sources appear to conflict on this, so I have simplified it by stating that one branch was responsible for the administration of the occupied territory and another was responsible for operations against the insurgents. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• A decisive factor in Himmler's final decision was undoubtedly the fact... it should be added that this is Moll's interpretation.
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• On 8 November 1942, Turner and his deputy Georg Kiessel were finally forced out - Moll gives the date 7 November 1942 (p. 286) Umbreit gives the date 5 January 1943 (Germany & the Second World War, Vol5/2, p. 39) I believe the latter to be a mistake.
  • Clarified and added citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Turner was succeeded by his legal department chief, Walter Uppenkamp contradicts, when Neuhausen was appointed as chief of the military administration staff, replacing Turner In fact, Uppenkamp was replaced by Egon Bönner of whom Neuhausen took over. (Tomasevich 2001, p. 76)
  • Removed the "replacing Turner" phrase. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• It should be mentioned that the former Styrian Home Guard members had not been accepted as members by the NSDAP party office (i.e. Reichsschatzmeister Franz Xaver Schwarz, not Bormann) after the Munich agreement of March 1934 (here Moll is not precise; see Pauley) and thus technically were not members of the party. It was Schwarz who determined the membership even in 1943, not Bormann, to whom Himmler wrote for help.
  • Assayer can you clarify what the source is for this? Pauley? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It's Moll. Take a closer look: Moll talks about the "Reichsschatzmeister der NSDAP", which was Schwarz and about Himmler writing to Bormann. The latter was Leiter der Partei-Kanzlei and may have intervened. It is not at all clear, however, if Bormann really did intervene. Moll writes, that Meyszner, in contrast to Rauter, acquiesced, but doesn't mention Bormann any further. For the background of this conflict one has to turn to Pauley, cited above, pp. 181-184. There is an English edition, but I didn't have access to that.--Assayer (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Assayer I've attempted to better reflect this in the article, see what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I did some work on the wording and switched two sentences. Please check upon spelling and grammar. There is no disagreement between Moll and Lilla: Meyszner effectively joined the Nazi party in 1943. His date of entry was retrospectively set to 1938. It seems as if Rauter neither joined the Nazi party nor received the Golden Party Badge, for whom Himmler had recommended him as well.--Assayer (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Looks good. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• The whole paragraph dealing with Neubacher's policies is based upon Tomasevich 1975. It is contradicted by Moll, pp. 304-310. For example, Tomasevich follows Neubacher's claim that he was responsible for a drastic reduction on the policy of mass reprisals. Moll is critical of that. (p. 308)
  • Ok. I've contrasted them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Except for the last issue, on which you might want to comment, these are minor points which can be dealt with quickly. Thus I struck out my opposing vote already.--Assayer (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC) @FAC coordinators: I think this is ready for promotion now. All of Assayer's points have been addressed. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2017 [54].

---

Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... I think the title speaks for itself. It's a coin, issued for the 300th anniversary of the Pilgrims' landing. It did start a trend of ripping off coin collectors by being issued in multiple years, so that's not exactly in its favor. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Usual impeccable stuff, although I'll never get used to "harbor", Just a couple of thoughts

• I'd suggest linking to Definitions of Puritanism#Separatist groups instead of Definitions of Puritanism
• men signed the Mayflower Compact, whereby all agreed to submit themselves to the will of the majority, and one of the foundation documents of American democracy.— I don't think that quite makes sense as written, although it's clear what you intend, perhaps split off the importance of the doc as a separate sentence
• Plymouth (today Plymouth, Massachusetts). It think the point of this is clearer if you skip the pipe Plymouth Colony (today Plymouth, Massachusetts)

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged for the support and the review. I've made those changes, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from HalfGig

@Jimfbleak: I'll never get used to "harbour", "colour", etc. HAHA

I just reviewed User:Casliber's Yellow-faced honeyeater FAC and this looks like the same high quality.

• Copyvio check Earwig's tool shows no issues; in fact the score is 0.0% !!! mostly offline sources
• Source check impeccable quality and consistently formatted. My only question is in the two Congressional Record refs is "page" spelled out and in the rest it's "p." Why is that?

It's as generated by the template. I could, I suppose, do it manually but I imagine the templates are there to be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• I find no issues with the writing
• Image check

1) The two photos in the infobox could use better formatting/info

Not sure what you are looking for. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Could add the "Information" template so they have full info like date, author, source, etc? HalfGig talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

2) On the Landing-Bacon photo, the link goes to a photo of modern boston

This?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes but go to that file, click on the source\photographer link, and the photo that comes up is in no way the source for that painting. HalfGig talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've cut that image and re-arranged them. The one illustrated on the Plymouth museum site has somewhat different colors and I think we can make do without this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

3) Bradford and Springfield photos....I can't recall the law on statue photos, I posted a question here: [55]; the answer was pre-1923 is fine.

4) no issues with other photos

HalfGig talk 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support now. Very nice article. HalfGig talk 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Support

• I caught one typo, but I just fixed it myself. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth

• Infobox

It might be more clear to say, "(This side of the coins struck in 1920 does not include the date.)"

• Lede

"Some aspects of the design were criticized by James Earle Fraser," – I'd flip this to active voice and add a descriptive adjective for Fraser, thus: "Sculptor James Earle Fraser criticized some aspects of the design,"

• Background

Link guilds' in the second paragraph?

Maybe "who spoke limited English" instead of "who spoke at least some English".

I'd recast the fourth paragraph by flipping two passive-voice constructions and making a few other tweaks, as follows: "In 1920, the government did not sell commemorative coins—Congress, in authorizing legislation, usually designated a specific organization to buy them at face value and to vend them to the public at a premium. In the case of the Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar, the enabling legislation did not name an organization, but it was the Pilgrim Tercentenary Commission; profits from the coin were to go towards financing the observances in honor of the 300th anniversary of the Pilgrims' arrival."

If Congress did not designate a vendor, who did?

Good question. Although most bills designated an approved purchaser, for several years from 1918 to 1922, commemorative coin bills copied from each other, basically, and did not state who was to buy them from the mint. I haven't been able to trace specifically what event caused this to change. I've revised this a bit and added another source.

• Legislation

"Missouri's William L. Nelson moved that the committee approve the amended bill, and this was carried" – Maybe "this carried"? Is "was" really needed?

"Smoot, however, stated if the bills had not been reached by" – This phrase uses "reached" in a way unfamiliar to me. Is it a legal term? Are some words missing?

Reached is the word Smoot used. I've changed it to "considered".

"Smoot's attempt to bring up an anti-dumping trade bill" – Link to Dumping (pricing policy)?

• Preparation

"referred the designs to sculptor member James Earle Fraser" – Perhaps "sculptor James Earle Fraser, a CFA member"?

"sculptor member" seems to be terminology used by the CFA to designate the member representing sculptors, and I'm reluctant to alter it.-Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Finetooth (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Design

I'd suggest tinkering with the layout to place The Puritan by Augustus Saint-Gaudens on the right so that Bradford looks into the page instead of away from it.

Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I've caught all of what you suggested, though I in a couple of cases used my own words. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2017 [56].

---

North Eastern Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, another war memorial. This is the fourth article in the series to reach FAC and an unusual intersection of topics: architecture, military history, and railways! My last nomination was a memorial for a Lincolnshire town, commemorating some 200 casualties; this one commemorates over 2,000, all of them employees of one railway company. Fittingly, it is a large and imposing monument, even for a city as historic as York—you would struggle to walk from the station to the city centre without noticing it.

As ever, I'm very much obliged for any feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

John

Nice article.

• All caps should be translated to either sentence case or title case. (MOS:ALLCAPS)
  • I'm aware of that bit of the MoS, but no style guide can cover every possibility and I think sentence case or title case would look out of place here, and all caps is appropriate for two short dedications. Some memorials have entire essays inscribed on them, in which case "normalising" the case would make sense but here I do't think it does.
• Dislike "fallen". Prefer "dead" per WP:EUPH.
  • Fair enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

More to come. --John (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John, I'll look forward to it.

Comments from Davidvaughanwells

Background

Was there really a coal depot on the site originally. I always thought the early coal sidings were outside the city walls.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the OS 1:1056 scale plan of 1856 shows what appears to be a coal yard inside the city wall - it was in two parts. The western part, between the wall (and parallel to it) and York old railway station, was a group of sidings; the central ones continued through what is now the War Memorial, and across the road, continuing along what is now Station Road, where the eastern part comprised about a dozen staithes and six coal drops, parallel to Tanner's Moat. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks#Redrose64 --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You learn something new every day! Thanks Redrose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Looks pretty good. I would have preferred international units before US/UK, but your choice is clearly acceptable for UK topic. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Grade II* could do with a gloss somewhere, perhaps its formal definition "particularly important buildings of more than special interest".
  • Done.
• Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby even though it's capped in the linked article, "Raid" looks odd to me, prefer "raid"
  • I have no strong feelings on this either way so done, though if that turns out to be its proper name I'll probably revert.
• Conversely, "zeppelin" should be capped
  • Done (by OotR).
• "abutting against"; "against" is redundant
  • Done.
• idea in a cable sound American to me, why not telegram?
  • Confession: I'm far too young to have any idea about such things! I went with cable because that's the term Skelton uses (he's a Brit) but if other reviewers feel that telegram is more appropriate, I'm happy to change it.

I forgot I'd reviewed this, I'm happy with the responses, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Images are correctly licensed and appropriate

Thank you very much for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Optimist on the run

I've known this monument since childhood, as my father, and later myself, worked in the railway offices behind it. Good to see an article about it, and thanks to HJ Mitchell for his hard work. I've got a few suggestions for minor improvements:-

• Lede: coincidentally at end of the first paragraph seems a bit editorial.
  • I think it's fine; it is a coincidence that the city memorial was built on NER land (this wasn't a factor in the decision). And I didn't use Skelton's phrase, "a curious twist of fate"! ;)
• Background: one of the largest employers in the north of England needs a citation.
  • I'm pretty sure this is just an extrapolation from Langham, but either way there weren't (and aren't) many firms employing tens of thousands of people.
• Background: The second paragraph also needs more citations, in particularly the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world, The NER's memorial is also the second of two memorials Lutyens designed for railway companies, the first was the Midland Railway War Memorial and The design resembles that of Lutyens' Southend-on-Sea War Memorial which aren't in the Historic England page.
  • Thiepval is mentioned in the listing but its size isn't; leave the with me, it'll be an easy fix (seriously, the thing is massive).
• Inception: Perhaps a map could be added to show the relative locations of the NER and city memorials (including the originally proposed site), the city walls and the old and new stations.
  • I don't have the skills to make something like this, and I worry abut how useful it would be given that these things are just a few metres apart, but I wouldn't rule out including it if someone was to make one.
• Design: The close-up of the remembrance stone isn't really that close. I'll be in York next weekend, and if possible I'll see if I can get some more photos of it.
  • Yes please! The photos in the article are the only photos we have of it. I live at the opposite end of the country so wouldn't be able to get there any time soon.
• See also - perhaps the railway memorials could be linked in a navbox instead of see also.
  • I think the connection is a bit tangential for a navbox and navboxes are clutter, but I suppose someone could create one if they wanted.
• General - agree with above comments about "Zeppelin" and "fallen" - I've fixed these.
  • Thank you.

Optimist on the run (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the article interesting, especially given your personal knowledge of the memorial; I enjoyed writing it. Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose. I'm not convinced that "embroiled in controversy" is an encyclopaedic term, but I'll leave that to your discretion. In terms of cable v telegram (above), I was under the impression that cables were between the US and Britain (from the Transatlantic Cable), while telegrams were elsewhere, particularly within Britain. I may be wrong on that, but I don't think "cable" is a US variant per se. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: With two supports, this isn't in immediate danger of archiving, but I wonder if it would be worth pinging either those who have commented already or other editors who might be interested, in an attempt to revive this FAC a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps @Euryalus, Ian Rose, Thryduulf, and AustralianRupert:, who commented on the A-class review, might be interested in revisiting? (The Bounder has already commented here). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support -- Tks for the reminder, I did review, copyedit and support at MilHist ACR not long ago and, having checked the changes since then, I'm happy to support here as well. I think the prose, structure, level of detail, images and referencing are all up to FA standard. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. I've had a look at the changes since I supported this for A class, and I don't see anything else that requires changing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Well that moved quickly in the end. I think that Ian's review included a source review, but I've checked myself just in case and there are no problems on that score, so I think we can promote this now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2017 [57].

---

Rodrigues parrot

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the last article about an extinct species of parrot from the Mascarene islands yet to be nominated here, so I thought it was time to put it up. Very little is known about the bird, but most of what has ever been written about it is summarised here. The article also covers two supposedly congeneric, but dubious, species. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

The usual nitpicking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• it has been classified as a member of the tribe Psittaculini—"it is…"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• to avoid introduced rats—makes it sound like a decision, perhaps where introduced rats were absent

Sources say avoid, but changed anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Parrots thought to be the Rodrigues parrot—perhaps replace "parrots" with "birds" or "specimens"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Greek words necros, which means dead, and psittakos, which means parrot— personally I'd omit the second which means

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• perched in parlors— reads oddly, "in captivity"?

I said "presumably in captivity", since it isn't stated specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• correlated, mentioned are repeated in consecutive sentences

Rewrote. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

All should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

This is a short article, at least compared to the other bird articles I have been reviewing, so I should be able to do my initial comments in one fell swoop.

• In the sentence "The Rodrigues parrot was scientifically described and named as Psittacus rodricanus in 1867 by the French ornithologist Alphonse Milne-Edwards, based on a subfossil partial beak," Psittacus should not be linked in the binomial name.

Why? The genus name isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, then possibly mention the original genus when talking about the move, so you can link to it there. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is necessary, though? As far as I know, there are no guidelines for this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that it is particularly necessary, but it is just kind of odd to link only one thing in a scientific name. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see why one might have an aversion towards it, but I don't think it's worth stating the name again just to make room for a link. There is a FAC precedence for linking the genus name in in a binomial at Broad-billed parrot, for one. There are probably more. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok then, sounds good. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Milne-Edwards corrected the spelling of the specific name to rodericanus in 1873 (in a compilation of his articles about extinct birds), a spelling which was used in the literature henceforward, but it was changed back to rodricanus by the IOC World Bird List in 2014," it should probably be something like "changed the spelling" instead of "corrected the spelling", WP:NPOV.

He specifically stated the original spelling was an error, see the footnote here:[58] FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, well then why don't we see what other reviewers say about it? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume they've accepted it, since they haven't objected in their own reviews? Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure what the supposed problem is? Milne-Edwards stated his first name was an error, he proposed a corrected spelling. This is what the sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly change the sentence "Milne-Edwards moved the species to its own genus Necropsittacus in 1874; the name is derived from the Greek words necros, which means dead, and psittakos, parrot, in reference to the bird being extinct," to "Milne-Edwards moved the species to its own genus Necropsittacus in 1874; the name is derived from the Greek words necros, which means dead, in reference to the bird being extinct, and psittakos, parrot." This would be to make it a bit more clear that necros is referring to the extinction of the bird, not psittkos.

Well, it is the entire name, "dead parrot" (not only "dead") that refers to its extinction. This order is also the one given in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well then possibly rephrase the last part to say something like "in reference to it being an extinct parrot." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Other reviewers have recommended not repeating the word parrot twice in a sentence, so why should we do it here? It should be pretty clear that the current word "bird" refers to the parrot. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok then, sounds good. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps modify the sentence "It may be specimen UMZC 575, a rostrum that was sent from Milne-Edwards to A. Newton after 1880, which matches the drawing and description in Milne-Edwards' paper, but this cannot be confirmed," to get rid of "may" and instead say "it has been suggested to be", just because it sounds a bit like editorializing.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the behaviour and ecology section, the first quote starts out sounding like it should be in the description section, not to mention the text before it. I think that you should probably split the different sections of the quote into different sections, it should be short enough that you don't have to do another indented quote.

Hmm, I'd prefer not, that quote includes all Tafforet said about the bird, so it's nice to keep it in one place. In any case, the descriptive part is already summarised in the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe just remove the quote and summarize it? I mean, it starts out looking like it should be in the description section, and then ends up looking like it is in the correct section. Either split the quote so the sections aren't going all over the place, or summarize it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, since no one else has objected to the quote, and the sources give them in this way, I'm not sure if it's really a problem. The account isn't neatly divided into description and behaviour either; it starts out with description, then behaviour, then mentions the colour, and then behaviour again. Better have the full quote for completeness than a truncated quote, as we're not exactly low on space here. It's little different from several prior FACs about similar subjects. FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oxford comma(s) are needed in the behaviour and ecology section.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• You should probably specify the actual number of parrots in the sentence "Of the eight or so parrot species endemic to the Mascarenes, only the echo parakeet (Psittacula eques echo) of Mauritius has survived."

"Eight or so" is because there's no consensus yet on the status of the Réunion parakeet (could be a subspecies, species, or a synonym) and the hypothetical N. borbonicus (which could theoretically be confirmed if remains of a distinct parrot were found). FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "The others were likely all made extinct by a combination of excessive hunting and deforestation," it might be good to specify if it was humans, introduced animals, or a combination of both that did the excessive hunting.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That's all, this is a nicely prepared article. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed some, added comments to some. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good, really well prepared article. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry if I seemed dismissive to some suggestions above, but some issues are more a matter of individual taste than FAC criteria, I guess... FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fine! You provided adequate reasoning for your comments, so it is all good. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

• From lead It frequented and nested on islets off southern Rodrigues where introduced rats were absent, and fed on the seeds of the Fernelia buxifolia shrub. - This describes a (presumably) narrow historical state in a way that doesn't make it clear to the average reader that it only represented the historical distribution. The species would have had at one time a wider distribution across the island.

Added "By the time it was discovered". FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, support Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• Images are Creative Commons-licensed or Public Domain - OK.
• Sufficient source and author information (one author is unknown/unclear, but the work is old enough to ascertain Public Domain status) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

I've made some small edits.

• Ref 3 Leguat, F. (1891) - This should be volume 1 not volume 2. Also available from BHL here. (My preference is to use "volume=Volume 1" in the template for books which avoids the bold 1.)

Changed to 2 and added "volume". FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• "sent from Milne-Edwards to A. Newton" - need to introduce and link Alfred Newton here rather than in the next paragraph. Perhaps point out that the two Newtons were brothers.

Right, I recently swapped the position of two paragraphs, so the link was moved down. Noted they were brothers. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• The quote from Tafforet in the Behaviour and ecology section is misleading as it joins two separate portions of text. The sentence "The "Bois de buis"... actually comes a few pages earlier in the text (in the transcription by Milne Edwards 1875 on page 12)

Summarised in-text instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• An observation - no action necessary: The article correctly quotes Hume's translation of Tafforet's text but Hume bizarrely translates "citronnier" as "orange tree" instead of "lemon tree". In French an orange tree is "oranger". Both Newton 1874 on page 41 and Milne Edwards 1875 on page 15 have "citronnier". - Aa77zz (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It is translated as "orange-tree" in three different Hume sources (2007, 2008, 2012), and they're the only translations I know of, so not sure what could be done... FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I just remembered Tafforet's text is translated in an appendix to volume 2 of Leguat's book, and it is here the "orange tree" translation is taken from:[59] So Hume has just quoted that translation, and it seems there has been no other attempt at translation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

All good. I've supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I like when reviews scrutinise the old sources... FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Source review Aa77zz has done half the work for this already, but I've formally checked 1,7, 10, 17 (including the book ref) and there are no problems with content or use Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment

This hasn't been open too long but as it garnered expert commentary very quickly, and there have been no new reviews for the best part of a week, I think we can safely wrap it up. I gave it a reasonably close look myself to see how it read to a layman and had no concerns there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2017 [60].

---

Interstate 675 (Michigan)

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 20:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about another Interstate Highway in Michigan. In the wake of the promotion of my last nomination, this article, should it also be promoted, would elevate the Interstate Highways in Michigan topic from GT to FT status. Overall, this is a compact little article and should be easy to review. It would also fall numerically into a cluster of the highest numbered highways in Michigan, all of which are FAs already (I-496, Capitol Loop [CL I-496], M-553, I-696). The article had a recent ACR that included image and source reviews. Since that promotion a month ago, the traffic counts have been updated, and a photo has been added (licensed CC-BY-SA 2.0 on Flickr and transferred as part of a larger set of photos at commons:Category:Interstate 675 (Michigan). Imzadi 1979 → 20:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per my review at the ACR. --Rschen7754 20:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and believe it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 23:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comments - I was waiting for the day you might nominate this highway because of my love/hate relationship with it. I lived in the tri-cities area for many years and remember the Zilwaukee Bridge debacle and numerous other times when I-75 traffic was routed through 675 for extended periods of time. I think you've covered the highway about as well as can be expected, but overall I think there is some room for refinement as follows:

• You haven't adequately explained why 275 was proposed but 675 was chosen.
• I think we have an opportunity to explain why there is relatively little traffic north of the Tittabawassee interchange. There is a narrative missing here about 675 being the primary commuting route for people living in places like Birch Run, Bridgeport, Frankenmuth, and Buena Vista going into Saginaw for work or to visit the mall area. However, people don't generally come to Saginaw from places like Midland and Bay City where they would use that segment of 675.
• In the History section, I think you could write quite a bit more about the period of time when the new Zilwaukee Bridge was being constructed. The text is confusing there. Was traffic being routed through 675 during that period, and if so, was it the whole time or during certain periods?
• We jump from 1988 to 2008 but I know there were other significant periods when all I-75 traffic was being routed through 675, for weeks or months at a time. You might need to do some more research and find out when and why. Everyone in the area would be disgruntled and there would be articles about it in the Saginaw News and other local papers.

Overall nicely done. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: thank you! Now, let me pick your brain (pun not quite intended) here for a moment. I clarified a little about the numbering based on the source. As for the rest, if you can point me to any sources, I'll be glad to expand the article. As for the period when the current Zilwaukee was built, as I recall, sources don't really say if I-75 traffic was diverted up I-675 for any significant periods of time. I can run through the newspaper archives again to see if anything pops up once I'm back on my primary computer. A trip to Saginaw for research wouldn't be in the cards though. Imzadi 1979 → 15:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll do some checking around. My anecdotal memory doesn't necessarily translate into real sources, in which case we've taken it as far as we can. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Have you seen these:

• The Zilwaukee Report
• The Zilwaukee Bridge

Might be a place to mine for information on sources on the bridge construction and how it might have affected 675. --Laser brain (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I've seen both. The former is originally an MDOT report that's been republished, and I already cite the section that has some information regarding I-675. The other is a self-published webpage that also has the same 20-year jump from the completion of the Zilwaukee in 1988 to the 2008 work. I mined it for information, and then found other sources we can cite to verify that information. Imzadi 1979 → 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in returning to this, but I had a few inquiries out in the Saginaw area for newspaper scans. Unfortunately I didn't turn anything up that would add to what you already have. I'm satisfied that the article is as comprehensive as we can make it with the available sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laser brain: thanks to Juliancolton, who provided me with a few clippings to some premium-sourced items through Newspapers.com, I've added a little more detail, including 1989 and 2002 closures on the Zilwaukee that diverted traffic onto I-675. Imzadi 1979 → 05:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - With the inclusion of those last few sources, I think the article is comprehensive enough for promotion. Prose is clear and presentation is good... no issues that I can see. Nice work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2017 [61].

---

CMLL World Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, promoted by the oldest professional wrestling promotion in the world. It was an FAC in April 2016 but unfortunately died on the vine due to lack of input from reviewers. I have created a lot of Good or Featured content on Wikipedia and I am always willing to listed to suggestions and made adjustments to help improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Resolved

I've done copy-editing throughout the article. There was a bit more than what I expected for an FAC and I feel that this should have been taken through a copy-editing process before nomination. I noticed your work and I am grateful for it as well, there was more than I was aware of for sure and I apologize. Question - is it normal to spell out all "15th" etc.? I followed the convention of anything under 10 is spelled out but left the rest as numbers.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC) It depends on what style guide you go by. If you prefer the numbers above 10 to be written as numbers, you can change those back if you want. --JDC808 ♫ 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Nah I'm good with the change, I was just wondering if it was one of the things to put on my personal "checklist" to always spell them out.  MPJ-DK  02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Anyways, I'm mainly familiar with WWE's championship articles, so I have a question as WWE only recognizes title changes, does CMLL also recognize title defenses in their titles' histories? Well with CMLL it's inconsistent - TV announcers will often mention that it's the "fourth defense" etc. but it's hardly ever referred to in writing. Since championship matches are much rarer in CMLL it is totally possible to provide a list of defenses, I am just not sure when to included them and when not to, I went with "not" in this case.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I was mainly asking because in some spots of the article, defenses were noted (e.g., Último Guerrero is officially credited with 20 successful title defenses by CMLL,..."). --JDC808 ♫ 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC) So for Guerrero they specifically mentioned 20 and that it was a record, a comment I stumbled and figured it would make an interestig addition to the reigns section. Since I had a "most defenses" I researched the "least" defenses too and noted the oddities to kinda cover all bases. I think it makes for good info in the article, but I probably would not want to put it in list form.  MPJ-DK  02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC) For the tournaments, does their happen to be specific dates (and specific shows) for when each round occurred? --JDC808 ♫ 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC) I will look around, the second tournament definitely needs dates as the matches were spread out over several shows and I can find show names etc. MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I added some information on the 1992 tournament, that one had the least amount of detail that has now been added. I think the other two have all the information I know of.  MPJ-DK  03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Thank you for all your input so far JDC808, and the help with the copyediting, definitly helping make this a stronger article.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Meant to come back to this earlier today (technically yesterday in my time zone). I'm gonna look over the article more tomorrow (or rather later today). Also, if you have some free time, I also have an FAC up. It's of the 2013 video game God of War: Ascension. --JDC808 ♫ 05:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC) One comment before I'm off for the night. I happened to look at the article history and noticed this edit you made. I had added "respectively" because the way it was worded sounded like that was the order. I'll have a follow up on this when I return later. --JDC808 ♫ 05:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Gonna breakdown the article section by section: Lead Possible way to rewrite the first paragraph: The CMLL World Heavyweight Championship (Spanish: Campeonato Mundial de Peso Completo del CMLL) is a professional wrestling world heavyweight championship that was established in 1991. Promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), the promotion introduced the championship to signal their independence from the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). As part of the move away from the NWA, CMLL established a number of other championships also designated as "world championships" for a variety of divisions, such as the [link one or two of the others here]. The World Heavyweight Championship was the first CMLL title to be created, and the inaugural champion was Konnan el Bárbaro, who won the title by defeating Cien Caras in the finals of a tournament on June 9, 1991. The current champion is Máximo Sexy, who is in his [#] reign. He is the fifteenth person to hold the championship and the eighteenth overall champion. The italicized part could be omitted as the body of the article covers who Konnan defeated. I'll leave that decision to you. True it's a detail better saved for the detailed section, I will remove.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC) The last sentence is not entirely necessary for the lead (as it is covered in Reigns). Again, I'll leave that decision to you. Well technially everything in the lead should be covered in main body ;-) so in this case I disagree.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I guess I should have said let the Reigns section go into this detail (similar to the above point). To me, it kinda seemed trivial for the lead. But it's fine if you wanna keep it. --JDC808 ♫ 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC) The second paragraph is fine, aside from me linking "Mexican wrestling". --JDC808 ♫ 23:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Did a little copy-editing on the lead, as seen here with the edit summary. Something else I meant to ask sooner on, is there a picture of the actual championship? I think that would be better for the infobox picture, and the picture of the current champion can go in the Reigns section. --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I have not found one with a proper licese unfortunately.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Take this, download it, and then upload it to Wikipedia with the proper rationale. It's from cmll.com. --JDC808 ♫ 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Added, I used the same basic rational as several WWE championship belt images. Hopefully it does not get deleted. Thank you for the generic image, that's a great find.  MPJ-DK  01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Should be good. I just went to their website and found it lol also, I cropped it a little bit to get ride of the excess white on the sides. One last question, so not all of CMLL's world titles use this design? --JDC808 ♫ 04:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC) No the CMLL World Mini-Estrella Championship, CMLL World Lightweight Championship and CMLL World Women's Championship has a totally different design.  MPJ-DK  16:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Okay, I was just wanted to clear that up because I had an idea for a rewording of the caption, but what's there is fine since not all use it. --JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC) History Did CMLL leave the NWA in 1991 or in the late-1980s? In the lead, I was under the impression that they left the NWA in 1991 with the creation of this championship. However, in the History section, it says that the EMLL left the NWA in the late-1980s and became CMLL. Left in late 1980s, renamed to CMLL in 1991 where they introduced the championship.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Okay....so they left the NWA in the late-1980s. Did they still have a working relationship with them until 1991, or did they just not have a championship for a few years until they introduced this title? --JDC808 ♫ 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Alright so this gets a little convoluted here. They left the NWA, but still used the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship, NWA World Middleweight Championship and the NWA World Welterweight Championship as well as a slew of "Mexican National" championships, so they had PLENTY of championships. In 1991 they rebranded to make it obvious they were not with the NWA any more - fans were confused since they promoted three NWA championships etc. So they created a number of "CMLL World" titles and downplayed the NWA ones (but still promoted them). Of course they actually still promote three NWA labelled championships today, almost 30 years after leaving - CMLL, they're that weird relative that you love despite of them being weird (or maybe because they are).  MPJ-DK  15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Okay, that helps in clarifying this. I made these two edits, 1 and 2, for clarification. This article doesn't need to get into the detail of CMLL still promoting three of NWA's titles. --JDC808 ♫ 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC) "On April 2, 2009, Último Guerrero successfully defended the title against Rey Mendoza Jr. on an independent wrestling promotion show in Gomez Palacio, marking the first time the CMLL World title was defended on a non-CMLL promoted show." Was this the first time that a CMLL World Championship was defended on a non-CMLL show, or the first time that the Heavyweight Championship was defended on a non-CMLL show? If it is the former, that sentence should be reworded as "marking the first time that a CMLL World title....."; if it was the latter, then change "CMLL World title" to "Heavyweight Championship" or "Heavyweight title". I ask this because there are other CMLL World titles, and I don't know if any of those had been defended on a non-CMLL show before the Heavyweight. I am not sure if others were defended prior, the source spoke only of the cmll heavy. I left it at that to not goo into OR territory.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) In that case, reword it to Heavyweight, because that would still be correct. --JDC808 ♫ 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Rules State what Garza's weight division was when he won the championship. It can be stated as "The Heavyweight Championship was no exception as several champions were under the weight limit, for example, Héctor Garza, who is classified as a [weight division and link it]." --JDC808 ♫ 02:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I will get that added.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I added in that he would be in the "Junior Light Heavyweight" at his weight and threw in a source for Garza's billed weight as well to make sure it's got all bases covered.  MPJ-DK  02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC) 1991 tournament This is the follow up from earlier that I had mentioned. To avoid ambiguity, for the first two battle royals, I would suggest only mentioning those who were eliminated. Before doing that, however, how were there multiple winners for the battle royals? For example, the first one. Was it an 8-man battle royal and the match ended when only four wrestlers were left in the ring? --JDC808 ♫ 03:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC) It ended with four people still in the ring. And I will look at the wording to tighten it up.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Okay, this could be reworded to something like: "The first round of the tournament saw two eight-man battle royals, with each ending when four wrestlers were left in the ring. This was used to cut the field in half with the remaining wrestlers from each match advancing to the next round. The first battle royal featured Konnan, Rayo de Jalisco Jr., Black Magic, and Mascara Ano 2000 advancing, while Brazo de Plata, Vampiro Canadiense, Universo 2000, and El Egipcio were eliminated. The second battle royal saw Nitron, Pierroth Jr., Pirata Morgan, and Cien Caras progress to the next round, with Fabulous Blondie, Gran Markus Jr., Máscara Sagrada, and El Egipcio being eliminated. The second round saw another pair of battle royals, this time with four men in each and ending when two wrestlers were left in the ring. This narrowed down the tournament to the final four wrestlers, who faced off in traditional semifinals matches." "finals" can be omitted as it is shown in the bracket, and this paragraph shows how they got to the semifinals in the bracket. Also, just noticed something, how was El Egipcio in both battle royals? --JDC808 ♫ 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Ah if you recall I called CMLL "weird" earlier? Yeah this is one of those cases, from all sources I have seen on the tournament they had Egipico in both blocks - Not sure why they did that other than some sort of massivly disorganized planning snafu.  MPJ-DK  15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Did not even read my own note that's in the article - Apparently he was a last minute replacement for someone who did not show up.  MPJ-DK  15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I am also at fault for not looking at the note lol I had copy-pasted the paragraph and did reworking here so I didn't look at the note as I was concerned with how the paragraph was worded. The wording above (with that note) should suffice. --JDC808 ♫ 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I believe I have addressed the last couple of concerns you raised JDC808. Once again thank you for your contributions, it's a stronger article now.  MPJ-DK  02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: This has been the most extensive FAC review I've done (not saying that's a bad thing; usually an extensive review is done by the time I get to an FAC). I read over the article again and I feel comfortable in giving my support for this FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I did not do a source review. I will let someone else take care of that. I did glance over the ref list and the sources appear to be okay (I do like that there are a good number of print sources). Check the format on the sources and make sure that they all match (for example, ref 28 is "Cagematch.net" where the others from that site are "CageMatch"). --JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

• "...established in 1991 and promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL). The promotion introduced the championship to signal their independence from the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)...": the use of "The promotion" here surprised me; "their independence" seems to mean "the promotion's independence". After checking a couple of links I realized that in pro wrestling a promotion is a company, not a marketing initiative, but this isn't going to be clear to readers new to the subject. At a minimum, link "promotion" to professional wrestling promotion, but I think it would be better to join the two sentences: "...established in 1991 and promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), who introduced the championship to signal their independence from the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)..."

• Done, thanks for catching that one, to me "Promotion" is clear, but that's also because I'm a lifelong fan.

• Suggest linking "scripted ending" to kayfabe in the lead.

• Done

• "EMLL left the NWA to avoid their politics": a bit vague; can you be more specific? Do you mean internal politicking, or something to do with national politics?

• Internal NWA politics, I will try to clarify when I find a source to support the clarification.

• "making him one of only two champions without a single successful title defense": later in the article you say "Three champions never had a successful title defense" -- can you explain?

• The "two" is a mistake, or more likely it's outdated information since it was written prior to Garza leaving CMLL making him the third champion without a defense, I updated it to "three"

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, I appreciate it.  MPJ-DK  12:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. The remaining point, about NWA politics, can be addressed when you find a source, and isn't worth holding up the FAC for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Have I missed an image or source review? If not, these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• You did not miss it, I had not put the request in yet, just added it now. Last review kinda petered out so I did not want to put it on the list until I had some feedback going out of respect for people's time. Thank you for the reminder.  MPJ-DK  22:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Image review - licensing and sources of the images are fine, but this image[62] does not list the actual source in the description, only the Commons file it was cropped from. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• FunkMonk thank you for the review. I have removed the Norman Smiley image from the article.  MPJ-DK  23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It can be kept, it just needs a link to the Flickr page on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I updated the license to refer to the same link as the original image. The link is dead and I cannot find it on Archive.org either - is that still acceptable FunkMonk? I am going to hold of on adding the pic back until the licensing is 100% okay.  MPJ-DK  11:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have a reason to doubt it was once on that site. But of course, if some archived version could be found and linked to, it would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Source review:

• Fn 3 - Why is this written/cited in the lead but not in the article body?

• Done MPJ-DK  21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fn 5 - This doesn't provide enough information for me to know what Lucha 2000 is. Is it a magazine? A newspaper? What is the publisher, ISSN, etc.

• It is a magazine, I will dig it out of whatever box I put it in when I moved and find that information. MPJ-DK  21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• I got the information on this one take care of

• Fn 6 - I don't understand the what the information in parens is supposed to be. Is that part of the chapter name? What page numbers?

• I was trying to illustrate how the book is broken down into sections with chapters, kinda link the wiki headers and sub headers. The section is called "United States: 19th Century & widely defended titles – NWA, WWF, AWA, IW, ECW, NWA" and the chapter is named "National Wrestling Alliance World Heavyweight Title". Would it be okay to just go with the chapter name? And I'll find the page number and add it in.  MPJ-DK  21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fn 12 - Seems to be missing information about the work/publisher.

• Added in more details  MPJ-DK  21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Several citations to SuperLuchas are inconsistent. In one place you call it "SuperLuchas Magazine" and in other places just "SuperLuchas". Is it all the same thing? Also is this the same publication I've seen referred to on the Spanish Wikipedia as Súper Luchas? Why is it written differently there? Also need information on the publisher.

• That is a heck of a good catch on the "Súper Luchas" name, I have been writing it as one word out of habit I guess, it has been fixed. The logo on the website does not have the accent, but looking at the magazines it does have the accent mark in the logo so I have updated source information to match. And I did not even realize we had a Spanish language article on it, Interesting. I will dig out a magazine and get the publisher information. MPJ-DK  21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• I believe I have added all necessary information. It took me a bit to figure out the ISSN since it was not printed on the inside of the magazine with the rest of the information, had to figure out how to read it from the barcode on the cover.  MPJ-DK  22:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Publishers and ISSNs missing for other web sites and magazines. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Laser_brain thank you for your thorough source review, I will have to track some of that information down to add it to the article.  MPJ-DK  21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I believe I have addressed all the source items?? Please let me know if there are other sources that need more detail.  MPJ-DK  23:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we can afford to close this now, if there any further details required I think they can be discussed/finalised via the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2017 [63].

---

Archie vs. Predator

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the four-issue comic book miniseries Archie vs Predator. The format follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba I am not sure the bolded text for “meets” in the “Development” subsection is really necessary as the difference in the titles is made clear in the context of the sentence. addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Shouldn’t the first reference be at the end of the sentence for the first sentence of the “Development” subsection? The placement seems somewhat awkward. I originally put it there because the ref sourced that half of the sentence, and the second half was sourced by the ref at the end of the second sentence following. I've moved it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) The “Publication” subsection is composed of rather short paragraphs. It would greatly benefit this section and the article as a whole to somehow combine all of these smaller paragraphs into a single and make it a cohesive narrative. Done Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) I would combine the first and second paragraphs and the third and fourth paragraphs of the “Plot” section as the paragraphs as it currently stands are rather short and choppy. Done Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) There are a lot of red links. That is not a problem as I understand the importance of red links, but make sure that all of the red links are subjects that may lead to articles in the future. I removed links for the individuals/websites that are least likely to have articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) I would recommend revising the second paragraph of the “Reception” section with this resource in mind here. You want the reception sections to read like a narrative informing the reader about the critical response to the material. Also, are there any more reviews for this series? This section seems rather short. You might also want to expand on the reviews you already have in the section. I am not sure what you mean by “After Archie proposed the crossover”? Who is the Archie in this context? It makes me think of the fictional character, which is obviously not correct. Could you make this clearer for an unfamiliar reader? Clarified that it was Archie Comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Could you expand on the sentence about the editorial pushback for the story arc? Do you know what the story arc was and what the final version turned out to be? And could expand on what depth she added to Dilton Doiley? I know this may not be possible, but I want to clarify on these points. I would really like to expand on the pushback, but the writer was vague in the interview. I suspect she had to be coy, since she was talking about a development the copyright holder did not approve. I can expand on the depth she added, but I don't have a source to support anything specific. Is the work itself sufficient to support Dilton's additional motivation, or would that be OR? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your response! I was more so curious if there is more information about this. These sentences look fine as there are right now, and I think that all of the references are appropriate for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC) It seems that “Synopsis” is a more appropriate section title than “Plot” as I have seen this wording used more in the comic-related FAs. However, this may be more of a stylistic choice so this is up to you on this one. The project MOS is oddly silent on this, since it's geared more toward articles about creators and characters. I've changed this to reflect your observation. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Argento Surfer:Good job with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will give another look and most likely support this FAC. Good luck with getting this promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: I have made changes based on your suggestions. Thank you for the input. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thank you for your quick responses. You have done a wonderful job with this article. I support this nomination. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my FAC for Russell family (Passions)? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

By chance, I just finished reading this comic. There is quite an extensive afterword (and foreword) in the hard-cover version I have (along with other "behind the scenes" extras), and it seems like an oversight that much of this detail is left out, as it could provide much more context in most of the sections here. I assume you don't have these pages? If not, I can perhaps send some of them to you. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're correct - I have not looked through the hardcover. I'm going to my LCS later today, I'll see if they have a copy I can peruse. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I found a copy in the shop yesterday, but it was still shrink wrapped. Any access you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you enable email or send me one? Then I can send you some mobile photos, if they turn out good. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I have added additional material. Thanks for sending the images of those pages! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I'll review this after the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Seems when the Predator character is mentioned, Predator (alien) should be linked to, rather than the franchise page?
• "1994 one-shot Archie Meets the Punisher" I'd maybe put "issue" or "comic" after one shot, just to break up the continuous blue link.
• I think the roles of people involved should be stated at first mention. Such as "the artist Fernando Ruiz", etc.
• "or that he would be get to be involved" Something seems wrong.
• "Soon after, many media outlets carrying the news used a headline indicating it was not a joke." Wouldn't this sentence make more sense if it was explained before whether the announcement had been seen as a joke earlier?
• Shouldn't it be mentioned in the synopsis that the predator only attacks the characters when they are armed? Seems to be a pretty important point.
• "best selling comic book among other release that month" Releases?
• "The book received positive review" Reviews?
• "him meeting the galaxy's deadliest hunter, the Predator" Only stated in the intro. I think the Predator character needs more presentation in the article body. Unfamiliar readers would hardly know that it is an alien from a movie from just reading this article.
• It seems it would be interesting to go into a bit more depth about the art style? The hardcover extras explain why they went for the "classic" Archie style (rather than more realistic, as in other recent Archie comics), and that they had to simplify the Predator a great deal, and that all the artists worked on the same physical papers, which isn't done much anymore.
• Image review - there is a single fair use image in low res with an appropriate rationale.

I have addressed these points. I expanded on the not-a-joke headline to clarify why readers may have thought it was a joke, but as far as I know all those headlines were to avoid the idea, not dispel it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, but seems the last point about art style wasn't addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I also think the intro should have a very short synopsis of the story. It is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't hit the save button on the last point before I edited this. Both points have been addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - everything addressed nicely, and it was good to see some more content added for comprehensiveness. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looks good - I am not much of a comic reader so this might sound dumb, but how does this comic slot in with Archie canon if Archie and main characters are killed? Is it an alternate timeline and if so are there others in it or is it standalone?

Archie has pretty loose cannon and the stories don't usually reference each other, similar to The Simpsons. An alternate timeline would probably be the best way to describe this particular miniseries. So far, there have been no follow up stories to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ok then. Would a note to this effect be helpful? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added the non-canon status to the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it stated specifically in the sources that it is non-canonical? Also, there should be no info in the intro not found in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well...it seemed WP:BLUE to me. Characters die here, but they're alive in all the other Archie material (except maybe Afterlife with Archie). I'm happy to move it from the lead to the PH section, or remove it entirely. Whichever will satisfy both you and @Casliber:. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but to play Devil's advocate, it could also just be another "universe", since multiverses aren't entirely unknown in comics... Especially since there seem to be various parallel Archie runs in different styles as well. My point being that if it isn't stated specifically in a source, it can be hard to make the judgement here... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, but I see your point. That line has been removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily have to be removed; if others are for it, I have no problem,. But if a source could be found, it would of course be nicer. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This has a couple of supports, but nothing has happened for quite a while and we are in danger of stalling now. If nothing happens in the next week, we might have to consider archiving. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps ping some editors you think may be interested, Argento Surfer? Notify relevant projects? I've been told this doesn't count as WP:Canvassing. Pinging has saved my nominations before. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine as long as the notices are neutrally worded and don't ask for support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have notified the comics and alien projects. If no one responds in the next couple days, I will try pinging specific editors. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

Please revert my copyedits if I've messed anything up.

• Is it possible to clarify the licensing relationship when Dark Horse and Fox are first mentioned? A reader who's never heard of either won't know that Dark Horse produce the Predator comic and Fox produce the movie.
• A related point: you say that "Dark Horse and Fox quickly agreed", but later refer to only two licensors when talking about de Campi's script, implying that Dark Horse had no say at that stage. I would have thought Fox were the real licensor, so did Dark Horse really have a say? Or did they just have to release comic book rights?
• Are the Ghastly Awards worth a redlink?

Other than these minor points it looks in good shape and I expect to support once these are settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have clarified the first point in the lead. To the second point, I assume that since the book was being edited by a Dark Horse employee, Dark Horse's concerns were addressed at an earlier stage and therefore in a different category from Archie and Fox's concerns. That's just speculation on my part - the sources unfortunately don't provide more clarity. To the third, I suppose it wouldn't hurt. A search shows other articles have mentioned these awards as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK -- can you mention (and cite) the info about Dark Horse and Fox in the body as well as the lead? Everything in the lead should also be in the body, and of course we need a cite in the body. That's the only remaining point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. That last fix does it for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp

• The lead mentions that "Dark Horse ... holds the license to comics featuring the Predator character owned by 20th Century Fox." But I didn't seem to see that in the main text. It just jumps directly into saying that Dark Horse and 20th Century Fox agreed to the idea, without any introduction of their role as stakeholders. Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• done.

• A small point, but the article says that Dark Horse had published the Archie Archives reprints. So did Archie Comics and Dark Horse have previous business dealings, and if so is it worthwhile mentioning more explicitly?

• I expanded on this a bit to clarify Wright had coordinated with Archie before.

• Possible consistency issues: Archie Andrews and Betty Cooper are wiki-linked and called by their full names in the lead, and given mini-introductions ("all-American teenager", "high school student"—are two intros required for Archie?—and "one of Archie's girlfriends"); in the main text for the first mention of Betty and Veronica ("She drew inspiration for the story from the 1940s era of Archie, when Betty and Veronica...") are only called by their first names, with no wiki-links or introductions; in the Synopsis section there are wiki-links for everyone but Archie, but again only first names are used, and no introductions (except Kevin Keller)—it may assume that all readers already know who Betty, Veronica, and Jughead are. Moisejp (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have linked full names for all characters in the synopsis except for Dilton, who was linked in the PH section.

• "In one case, editorial pushback led her to rewrite a story arc, and she was much happier with the final version.[7] She was pleased when she got to add depth to Dilton Doiley, a character she feels is often overlooked in regular Archie comics." I wasn't sure (and didn't look at the sources), but are the two sentences talking about the same story arc? My guess is they probably are, but if so, maybe it would be possible to make the transition clearer between the two sentences?

• I couldn't find any additional information on the altered storyline. Campi was rather coy in the interview, I'm guessing because she can't discuss ideas that weren't approved by the licensors.

• "Archie Comics and Dark Horse Comics jointly announced Archie vs. Predator and the creative team at the 2014 New York Comic Con." I was wondering whether "and the creative team" could be cut from this sentence—it seems like a less important point, and doesn't flow very well for me. It means they announced both the comic and the team that had made it? If you would like to keep it in, may I suggest "...and its creative team"? Moisejp (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I changed it to your suggestion. New comic titles are sometimes announced before the writer and/or artist are determined. It happens often enough that I think it deserves a mention.

• "A 128-page hardcover collecting the series was released November 4, 2015." FunkMonk mentioned above that there were "behind the scenes extras" included. Would it be worthwhile to briefly mention this?

• I added that it includes "bonus content". I can be more specific if you would like.

• "Betty and Veronica take refuge at Lodge Manor." I believe this is so called because Veronica's family are the Lodges? But Veronica's last name has not been given yet in the article. Moisejp (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Veronica is now introduced with first and last name.

• The Synopsis section feels like it has a lot of subject-verb-object sentences. May I suggest varying the structure of a couple more sentences in the section for better overall flow?

• I have not fixed this yet, but am currently working on the best places to make changes.

• "praised it for remaining true to both properties". I think that means true to both Archie and the Predator, but would it be better to spell these out for extra clarity? Moisejp (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• done

In general, a very interesting article, and I expect to support if you address the comments above. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Your changes look good. I made several additional copy-edits just now. One other little point, the sales figures in the Reception section are for all of the USA? Not worldwide sales, right? It could be good to specify this. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• The sales numbers are... complicated. The numbers provided are estimates from Diamond Comic Distributors, which is virtual monopoly on comic sales to comic specialty shops in North America. It also operates worldwide with competing distributors. Precise numbers that include other distributors and "newsstand sales" (such as grocery stores, supermarkets, Barnes & Noble) are not available. Industry insiders often comment that the reported numbers are inaccurate, and that's backed up by the discrepancy between the best sellers as reported by Diamond and the New York Times (The NYT uses bookscan data from non-specialty stores). However, the error in the numbers are typically consistent, which does allow for accurate month-to-month comparison and relative rankings. This is why I didn't list any specific numbers for the individual sales, just the sales decline and rankings. Most of this is tangential to this specific book, but I've specified that it was Diamond who ranked the HC 36th for the month. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Coord note

Just a reminder that as well as addressing the comments above, I think we still need 1) a source review for formatting and reliability, and 2) if I'm correct in assuming this is the nominator's first FAC, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This is my first FAC. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

I started looking at the sources, so I might as well do a source review. Just on first glance:

• Some refs are missing names. I added a few for you already. Refs #19 and #31 are still missing names.
• In refs #21–24 should Alex de Campi's name be last name first? That's what I would have thought.
• You have a wiki-link for Alex de Campi in ref #21 but the first appearance of her name is in ref #2.

I'll continue looking tomorrow or soon, and try to spotcheck some sources too. By the way, it's not a requirement for FA, but have you thought of archiving all of your online sources? It's a good idea for preserving access to the sources in the future (i.e., reducing linkrot). Moisejp (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It may take a day or two for me to locate the names for those two sources. Most of my work is done through an internet filter, and I'll need to make a special trip to re-access those two sites. I'll fix the de Campi link and name order. I don't have any experience archiving sources. I don't suppose there's a handy how-to link? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'll try to hunt down some info for you about archiving, or type up a little explanation. It's pretty straightforward once you get the hang of it. Another thing I noticed is that your references are inconsistent about whether they use a template—for example, your Sunu, Steve and Emm, Fox ones don't, but there are others. It's a good idea to have a clean, consistent structure to your referencing. This also helps when other editors want to assist in maintaining an article in the future. In case you need them, here is a list of templates you can use. I wasn't sure what you meant about an internet filter limiting your online access, but if you need help quickly getting names or other parameters for your references, I could maybe help. I have to run right now, but will follow up again soon. Moisejp (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Most of my editing is done while I'm at work and most of the internet is blocked for not being work related. I don't have the internet at home, either. My normal method for page creation is to Google relevant (blocked) sites, email the links to myself, then open the pages on my laptop at a library. I take the laptop home and review the content at my leisure. Once the page is mostly done, I email to myself and tweak it in my sandbox while I'm at work. Hence, I can't review the two sources you mentioned right now, but I should be able to get them corrected in a day or two.

I'll start reformatting the citations today. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I'll try this weekend to continue the source review and get you that info about archiving refs. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Argento Surfer, please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Pre-emptive_archiving regarding archiving refs. Let me know if anything is not clear and I could explain further. I believe if you read the little introduction and then the sub-sections Internet Archive and Templates, that should be all you need to know. Moisejp (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've added names for you to refs #19 and 31, but please do still add proper templates to these. I've also done a few other bits of formatting clean-up. My next step will be to check for the suitability of all the sources, and to spot check some of them to make sure the info cited is good. Once you have finished all of your template fixing up (including adding archived refs, if you choose to do so), I'll have another final look at the ref formatting as well. Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• For ref #11 when you use a proper template and use the parameter deadurl=yes, the archived link will become the main, prominent link, which is more user-friendly. Just now I clicked on the non-archived link, which was a dead link, and didn't realize under after that there was an archived link to click. Anyway, I guess that'll be fixed in due process as you add templates. I'm just mentioning just in case.
• I have spot-checked a number of refs and so far everything looks good. For the sentence "Dark Horse approached Alex de Campi to write based on her work on the horror comic book Grindhouse and the humorous comic book My Little Pony: Friends Forever.[3][5][7]" I see that My Little Pony is not mentioned in the online refs #3 or #7, so I can only guess it is covered in book ref #5. Would it be worthwhile to attribute the first part of the sentence (Grindhouse) to refs #3 and #7 and then the second part (My Little Pony) to #5? It's just a little thing but it arguably makes for cleaner referencing. Moisejp (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• I've checked the reliability of all the sources, and they all seem to be good.

I may have one or two minor suggestions for the ref formatting, but I'll wait until you have finished adding the templates, etc. Moisejp (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

RE the My Little Pony source - I was once told in a GAR that it's more reader-friendly to put all sources at the end of a sentence. I'm ok with moving it if you think that would be better. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe it's a matter of preference, I'm not sure. For me, clumping them all at the end requires the reader to do extra mental work—if they want to verify what is in the article—by having to figure out which source relates to each point. I prefer separating them. Just looking quickly in the style guide, the example about the sun and the moon in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Parenthetical_referencing does separate them (doesn't put them all at the end)—although I'm not sure if there is a longer discussion about the question somewhere. Moisejp (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking around, it to be a judgment call. The FA Rhodotus has lots of midsentence citations, particularly in the 2nd paragraph of Habitat and distribution. I believe Wikipedia:Inline citation#Text–source integrity is saying midsentence is appropriate for "particularly contentious" content, but end of sentence is otherwise fine. It does emphasize caution when material gets rearranged to ensure the right citation stays with the content. If you think this particular material calls for midsentence, I'm ok with doing so. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• OK, no worries. Whatever makes the most sense to you. It seems the way you have is considered acceptable. Moisejp (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Moisejp, can I just check that you've completed the spotcheck to your satisfaction? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ian Rose: Yes, Spotcheck of several sources complete and good, as well as reliability of the sources. The only outstanding issue is that some of the references don't use a template while some do, and my understanding is that Argento Surfer is in the process of working on that per [[64]]. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  (Drive-by comment): Just FYI, I don't think there's an FA requirement to use templates. Generally if you use them for one reference it makes sense to use them for all references, because it makes consistency much easier to accomplish, but it's the consistency that's the FA requirement, not the means of accomplishing it. There are some editors who use formats that can't be achieved with templates, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification, Mike. If I implied that the templates in themselves were required for the FAC then that was a mistake on my part. I partially meant that it was important to be consistent, and adding templates to the template-less ones seemed like the best approach. But if it happens there are sources that don't fit any templates in this case, that would be a consideration as well, as you suggest. Moisejp (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed; I wasn't criticizing, just making sure it was clear. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I believe I have all the citations in templates now. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

How the cites are formetted in the source is irrelevant to FAC—only how they're displayed needs to be consistent. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ian Rose: The formatting of the references is now the same throughout thanks to consistent use of templates. For example, while this version [[65]] contains a mixture of "(accessed... )" and "Retrieved..." the current version uses only "Retrieved..." I am now satisfied with all aspects of the sources, including the spotcheck and reliability check I mentioned above. Moisejp (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

Archie vs. Predator has appeared as a comic book and a collected volume. It wouldn't be correct to define it as "a four-issue limited series comic book"—this confuses content and format, like defining a pop song as "a 7-inch 45 RPM vinyl single". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have revised the lead to clarify. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. I've done some light copyediting, and I think the article meets the FA criteria. The article could use some tweaks, though:

"In one case, editorial pushback led her to rewrite a story arc, and she was much happier with the final version."—this doesn't really tell us anything. it tantalizes the reader without giving any details, and really doesn't say anything that wouldn't be expected from any other such project, but in the vaguest terms. This kind of thing just drags down the prose by avoiding "getting to the point". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right - That line has been questioned multiple times, both here and in the GAR review. I've removed it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2017 [66].

---

Operation Pamphlet

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Operation Pamphlet was a World War II convoy operation conducted in early 1943 to transport an Australian Army division home from the Middle East. While many such operations were conducted during the war, this one was particularly dramatic. It was preceded by a high-level diplomatic argument, with the Australian Government and US Army General Douglas MacArthur seeking to have the division returned, while Winston Churchill and FDR tried to persuade them otherwise. Once grudging agreement was given to return the unit, an extraordinary convoy made up of four huge ocean liners was assembled. These ships were escorted across the Indian Ocean by much of the British fleet in the region, and then through Australian Waters by much of the Allied forces there. Happily, no fighting occurred, and after enduring difficult conditions on board the ships the men of the 9th Division made it home without loss. Despite the strict secrecy which surrounded the operation, it ended with crowds gathering to watch the ships arrive in Sydney Harbour on 27 February 1943.

I've been working on this article for a while. It passed a GA review in November 2014, and an A-class review in May 2015. I've since expanded and copy edited it (with User:Anotherclown contributing the excellent map), and am hopeful that it now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up both maps and including a colour legend in the caption for the first. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikki, I've just made that change Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support -- recusing from coord duties, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist ACR...

• I've tweaked prose and formatting a bit but generally see no probs with the improvements since ACR -- pls let me know any concerns with my changes.
• The only thing I'd question is that in the lead it says "After its return to Australia, the 9th Division was retrained for jungle warfare" but in the main body it says the division began its jungle war training before leaving the Middle East (and continued on the voyage and after returning to Australia). Perhaps if we just said "The 9th Division was retrained for jungle warfare" in the lead it'll do the trick...
  • That's a good point. The retraining is fairly marginal to the subject of the article, so I've removed it from the lead. I've tweaked the final para of the article to also avoid this wording problem. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Structure and level of detail seem fine.
• I'll take Nikki's image review as read.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review -- all sources appear reliable, external links check out, and couldn't spot any formatting issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- I really appreciated reading this history, thanks Nick

• 'West Australian port of Fremantle' and 'West Australian coast'. These 2 should be either Western or west?
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• 'South-West Pacific' v. 'South West Pacific'. Hyphen?
  • None per the South West Pacific Area (command) GA, which opens with a helpful note on terminology, so I've standardised on that. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• wlink? James Gordon Partridge Bisset
  • What a splendid name! Linked. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review Jenny Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @JennyOz: Have I now addressed your comments? Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, thank you Nick. JennyOz (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Bounder

Just missed you before your break, but these can all wait. Excellent article, and a highly polished one too, so the few comments that follow are nit-picky in the extreme.

• Is Operation Stepsister worthy of a red link? (Given the standard of this article, I presume you may turn it blue at some point in the future, but I have to ask);
  • Yes, very much so: the convoy is extensively covered in reliable sources, and the heated debate between the British and Australian Governments over its destination (the British wanted to send it to Burma, the Australians wanted to bring the troops home and eventually prevailed) remains a major incident in Australian-British relations. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Other factors influencing the Government's decision" you were talking about two governments in the previous sentence, which could lead to confusion;
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• In rather formal structure it should be "specify of what it should comprise", but I know AusEng is less stuffy than BritEng, so I'll leave it to your discretion.
  • That does seem rather over-formal to my Australian eyes Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Surely the "Queen of Bermuda left for the United Kingdom"?
  • Oops, yes. Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• We could shorten the two references in this section to the UK, rather than the full name.
  • I've used the full version of US state names (as the abbreviations for most are rarely used outside the US), so for consistency would rather leave it as the full version Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

All rather minor points is a very readable piece. I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review. I'll follow up on the other points once I'm less jet lagged than I am at the moment ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Bounder: Sorry for the delay in responding: I think that I've now responded to all your comments, and thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Support – great article and I'm happy to support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sturmvogel_66, includes source review

• No DABs or duplicate links
• External links OK
• east Africa capitalize and link
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• March 1943 we already know the year
  • As this occurred after Operation Pamphlet saying only "March" would be confusing as the Australian military continued to be present in significant numbers in the Middle East and Europe until the end of the war, meaning that the final significant reduction of Army strength could have occurred at any time. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Link destroyer, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, battleship
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Might be worthwhile to use troop ship in lieu of converted liner at some point
  • Is there a particular instance? I use both terms Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Sources look good.
• Nicely done, Nick--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• A very polished article it seems, so I only have few questions. Exciting read, though no combat occurred. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Bisset was frustrated by the decision to sail the transports in convoy" Convoy as opposed to what?
  • Individually, where the four liners (and especially his very fast Queen Mary) would have completed the journey much more quickly. I've tweaked the wording so it follows on more clearly from the previous sentence where this is discussed. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• You only give the name of the operation almost by the end in the article body. I'd think this would be mentioned much earlier? And perhaps when it was named such, and what the name means?
  • The sources don't discuss the operation's name. As remains the case today, most World War II military operation names were selected at random to be deliberately meaningless so that the enemy couldn't learn anything useful if they discovered what the operation was called: I believe that planners of this era were issued with lists of random words for this purpose which they then selected at random, and computer programs now do the job. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, could the name be mentioned earlier in the article body, though? Seems a bit odd it is only mentioned twice by the very end of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• One additional issue with the images: The two maps[67][68] need sources on their Commons pages that support the information conveyed by them. I assume Nikkimaria would agree. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a reference at Commons for the map of Operation Pamphlet. I'm not sure how the other map could be sourced, and don't think that it's a requirement for general maps such as this? I certainly studied it closely (as a WW2 nerd) before adding it, and couldn't see any errors though doubtless some bumps on the front lines are slightly out of place. Thank you for your review. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's ok now, but I've been told many times during FAC reviews to add sources to support any information shown in user-made diagrams. I won't push this further, but here it could for example be any source that confirms that these countries belonged to the listed factions at this time. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm ready to support once the last question is answered. FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @FunkMonk: Sorry for the slow response - I've just added a sentence clarifying what the operation name referred to. As noted, the name of the operation isn't discussed in any detail in any of the sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - looks great. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - excellent work from Nick, as usual. No nitpicks from me. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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