Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2016

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2016 [1].

Battle of the Bastards[edit]

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ninth episode of the sixth season of Game of Thrones. I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the criteria and because I have worked on this article for a while and being that this is the biggest episode of the biggest series of all time has inspired me to continue and push to get this article to FA. I am willing to work and put time on this article to make that happen. I just need someone to review it and tell me what to do, to make it a Featured article. AffeL (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose. I confess I'm a little nervous about supporting an article about such a recent TV episode at FAC; in the short term, what about the year-end reviews? What about awards season? (More things might come around in the medium or long term, such as academic analysis, retrospective reviews, etc., but I wouldn't oppose on that basis.) There is also some clumsy writing:

  • "Bolton army surrounding Jon Snow's army, The battle required 25 days to shoot."
  • "where Jon beats him into the mud, locks him up in the kennels, and Sansa feeds him to his own hounds"
  • "and swear loyalty to help her take the Seven Kingdoms"
  • ""Battle of the Bastards" received widespread critical acclaim, praising it as one of the series' best episodes"
  • "and with one critic describing it as a "masterpiece." Critics described" MOS:LQ, uncited quote, repetition.
  • "gigantic battle" Colloquial
  • "as "terrifying, gripping and exhilarating,"" As above
  • "it "thrilling." Filming" Again
  • "25 shooting days, along with 500 extras, 600 crew members and 70 horses" I don't know if this has a name in grammar, but I'd call it a category mistake. It doesn't require days and extras in the same way; "arrived in a carriage and a foul mood" is a joke, not an example of good documentary writing.
  • "the episode achieved a viewership of 7.66 million in its initial broadcast. The episode" Repetition.
  • The Masters or the masters?

That's just what jumps out at me from the lead and a very quick skim of the plot (which is both quite long and pretty heavy-going for someone who doesn't watch the programme). I don't think this is ready for FAC at this time. Sorry- I know this probably isn't want you want to hear. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at and fixed almost all of the things you mentioned above. You said "uncited quote".. The ref is in the body of the text(Battle of the Bastards#Reception). I thought there should not be no reference in the lead.
And about the plot.. don't know what to say there but if you are familiar to "Game of Thrones" you know that it's a very big, complicated show. Every episode is basically a movie.. kinda hard to simplify it then. Besides there is already quite a short part about the plot in the Lead. About the award season, all the nominations and wins will be added on the list in the award section(Battle of the Bastards#Accolades), nothing more. The article will stay as it is.. no new things is likely to be added. just awards or maybe something else, but it be minor.
I have asked for a peer review(Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Bastards/archive1) and i'm ready to put as much time as possible for this article. If you have the time.. I would truly appreciate it if you would review it so I would know what to improve on. AffeL (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes always have to be cited, no matter where they appear. If you're keen on keeping refs out of the lead, you could just avoid using quotes there. I do think that peer review is the right way to go, and I'm pleased to hear that you're committed to improving the article. However, peer review and FAC are not allowed to be run concurrently; I'd recommend that this nomination is closed at this time, and you seek input from people at PR; a mix of people familiar and unfamiliar with the show, and especially some people familiar with taking articles (especially articles about TV programmes/episodes) through FAC may be best. I'll do my best to drop by, and I might be able to think of some people you could try contacting. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- As Josh says, an article shouldn't be listed at PR and FAC simultaneously. Based on what Josh has noted above, and indeed on AffeL's nomination statement, I think PR is the better venue for the article at this stage, so I'll archive this and encourage you to continue with the PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2016 [2].

Gog and Magog[edit]

Nominator(s): JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about two subjects known through out not just religious views, but recognized as actual historical figures presented differently through out the world from different eras. I barely edited the article. All the credit goes to PiCo, who overhauled the article from this to it's current version. On a personal note, I have seen PiCo's edits since my registration on Wikipedia, and I'll say this, I have never felt more confident in an editor's skill to edit and overhaul articles such as PiCo. Anyways, this is a very interesting subject studied in different academics, but mainly biblical studies. This is my first nom. for FA, so I hope this process is successful. Thank you and Happy editing! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

  • '"Magog" might refer to Babylon, by turning BBL ("Babylon" in Hebrew script, which originally had no vowel-signs) into MGG (Magog).' This should probably be explained. Why do we think that BBL could be turned into MGG. By what process?
 Done I clarified that the encryption technique is called atbash ('atbaš), mentioned in inline source (Lust).--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was enduring exile in Babylon": I'd cut the "enduring", and have simply "was in exile in Babylon"
  • The two final paragraphs of the subsection on "Ezekiel and the Old Testament" seem to contradict each other: in the penultimate paragraph, we are told that Gog's allies may have been chosen for their "remoteness and reputation for violence", but in the final paragraph we are told that the names are simply taken from lists of nations elsewhere in the OT.
  • In the bibliography, citation formatting needs to be consistent. For example, make sure all the books have their ISBNs. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto, I have added all ISBNs and fixed citation formats. Currently I am redirecting links. I will clarify the suggestions you posted when I get time. Thank you & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I modifed the part on MGG->BBL, but it appears to me the other issues brought by Caeciliusinhorto's have already been addressed? Or am I mistaken?--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • The instructions at the top say "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Is PiCo happy to see it here? Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod I'm very aware of the recommendations, but I'm more than confident about nominating this article. If there are any questions or concerns, I'd be happy to answer. Also, I already informed PiCo about the nom. before questioning had begun. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kiyoweap[edit]

  • Choice of main image which doesnt feature Gog and Magog. Find some other? features Islamic Yājūj and Mājūj but I doubt people are familiar with Dhul-Qarnayn as nickname for Alexander the Great. For main I think we should use a European version such as one I uploaded (see Talk:Gog and Magog/Archive 2#Alternate images), which is more self-explanatory.
 Done I have replaced the main image with a miniature painting from a French/Belgian manuscript. It shows Gog and Magog people as more or less human-like, which seems to be typical. As for the Persian master painting that depicts them as demons, I added additional commentary and relocated it under the Islamic section. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Dont know much about "Red Jews". It is namedropped in the lede, but not explained in the body. Gog and Magog conflates Red Jews, says here, but Red Jews says it is conflates Gog and Magog, so which is it, reader may wonder.  DoneTackled by User:JudeccaXIII as per his comments below --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC) * If you read s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gog half of that article is devoted Gog and Magog statues in London. So someone might think this an omission. This topic is currently covered under Gogmagog (giant) but some bridging prose is probably necessary. * So I actually came with the preconceived notion that Gog and Magog were individual giants, and the current way of organizing information is confusing to me. I think it is better to say Gog or Magog is the name of the individual in the Old Testment, but that John in Revelation used these names for the forces of evil. Then state that in later medieval writings began referring to the people of "Gog and Magog" (as a stock phrase, please use quotation marks) localized to the land of "Gog and Magog" localized to areas of Asia, etc. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) edited 08:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Green tickYKind of subtle but Gog and Magog is now used instead of Gog and Magog'. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap, I'll clarify the connection of "Red Jews" in the article as you suggested. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kiyoweap PiCo did explain who the "Red Jews" are: Some time before the 12th century the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel became identified with Gog and Magog.[41] The Franciscan traveller William of Rubric reported that he had seen Alexander's wall in Derwent on the shores of the Caspian Sea in 1254, and that there were other walls holding back Jews that he been unable to visit; William shared his information with Roger Bacon, who urged the study of geography to discover where the Antichrist and Gog and Magog might be found.[42]... but he didn't mention "Red Jews" specifically though that's what he meant. I'll clarify simply by adding Red Jews to the sentence per source already there. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point here rather was that "Red Jews" being a rather obscure term it did not merit mention in the lede. And "Red Jews" (rothe Juden) is described as a strictly German vernacular term for "confined Jews". It wasnt coined til ca. 1270 (Gow, p. 70) Thus not ascribable to William of Rubruck, a Frenchman (or Fleming) who wrote his Itinerarium in Latin, about a visit to the Iron Gate of Alexander in 1254.[3] --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY I tweaked it to show Rubruck does not explicitly mentions "Gog and Magog" or Jews as confined by Alexander's Gate explicitly, and that saying Rubruck's relevance to Gog Magog is largely inference (by Westrem). Also clarified "Red Jews" as being used strictly in Germany, and first used 1270.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kiyoweap 2[edit]

  • #The names Gog and Magog I have found to be verifiable against cited sources. It relies primarily on encyclopedia entries for Gog and Magog written by Johan Lust, who is a biblical lexicographer.
  • However, Chronicles does not state that Gog is a "descendant of Reuben", and even less "son of Reuben". It states Gog is a grandson of Joel (prophet) (See Britannica on Gog) and several generations down this line a person emerged who became the leader of the Reubenites.
  • I also don't think Chronicles need be mentioned a second time if the Gog mentioned in it is an irrelevant personage. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I concluded Britannica online "Gog" to be erroneous in identifying Joel the Reubenite with Joel the Prophet (e.g. Eerdman's Dict David Noel Freedman ed., Joel, p. 719 lists the two Joels as separate). It is pointed out in several sources that it is not clear what familial relationship the Joel--Gog line has with Reuben, so Gog being "son of Reuben" was corrected. I also replaced "descendant of Reuben" with "Reubenite", since latter is looser term (although synonymous in some views).--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the most important legends associated with Gog and Magog was that of Alexander’s Gate" according to to the Britannica link, but you have to piece this "important legend" in pieces since the article is organized by sources, sort of chronolgical, and sort of scriptural vs. secular. Since you probably dont want to reorganize this completely, maybe a spinoff article on "Alexander's Gate" is needed.
 Done I now expand on Josephus Syriac Christian legend, the early sources on Alexander's Gate, and made it into a subsection, with a {{More}} tag pointing to the daughter article Gates of Alexander which already existed.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article passes silently from "Alexander's Gate" to "Alexander's wall" and assume readers will immediately realize they are equivalent, but is this okay?
  • The fact that Magog is son of Japheth / grandson of Noah according to Genesis 10 isn't stated until way down in the article. And I'm not sure it is all that significant to point out that Book of Jubilees aka "lesser Genesis" should echo the content of Genesis. Whereas it deserves to be pointed out that Josephus's Magog is in fact Magog son of Japheth, the same as the person in Genesis.[4] --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kiyoweap I think its very important that the extra mentioning from biblical works outside the Bible be mentioned. There is no consensus on "who" or "what" Gog and Magog might be. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A minor scriptural source is not automatically important over various secular works. A crude metric for importance to this topic is to use books.google search the keywords: "Gog and Magog" vs. "Alexander the Great" gets 3890 hits, vs. "Josephus" 2130, vs. "Jubilees" 295. So the action i suggest is some combination of 1) notice to Jubilees be condensed, 2) Josephus be expanded 3) Jubilees etc. referred to in a later section as in , even if not chronological. The article isn't chronological anyways. It launches into a mini-lecture on the Jewish messiah-concept based on midrashic etc. writings, dating to much later than Josephus. And stuff about Napoleon. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overall parity now between ecclesiastic writings vs. secular/epic writing now, especially with additional material now added that elaborates on which of the Alexander Romance fail to mention Gog/Magog, a topic of some complexity. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am going to support promotion of this FAC at this point. The page has undergone considerable expansions and reorganization, addressing coverage and cohesion issues. Not many reviewers have participated thus far, but I've done more fact-checking on this than is evidenced by multiple reviewers in other FAC reviews and given passing marks.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I was first hesitant to review this, since it is never ideal when a nominator had no hand in writing an article (makes for example checking sources and elaborating on text difficult for them, and they may not be as familiar with the subject and relevant literature), but since the above review seems to have gone well, and because the subject is interesting, I'll go ahead. Any reason why the main writer isn't a co-nominator? FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro seems short for an article this length. It should be a summary of the entire article.
  • It appears that Gogmagog (giant) has been connected with this subject, and even though this is probably incorrect, there should probably be some explanation here (why they have been connected, and why they are not connected).
FunkMonk The story of the giant or giants in London have nothing to do with the subject of biblical Gog and Magog. Even online academic sources suggest Gogmagog is entirely separate and should not be confused based on the name of the subject. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, which should be very clear form my comment. The fact that they have been historically confused, and that some writers have argued that they are connected, warrants mention, for the sake of comprehensiveness and historical context. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk I think it would be better to explain this information entirely at Gogmagog (giant) rather than trying to create an entire section or sub-section on Gog and Magog as the British folklore really has no affiliation with the biblical Gog and Magog other than the name. There is already a "See also" suggestion on top of the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for context and comprehensiveness (which are FA criteria), it should be mentioned in both, but more briefly here, of course. Doesn't have to be a new section, a mere footnote would be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kiyoweap, FunkMonk I'v added the note as you suggested, though I'm not quite enthusiastic about my edit. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did initially write the same thing as FunkMonk, that some connection should be made to the Gog and Magog (statues) page (which is currently just a Gogmagog (giant)#Guardians of London section).

But having looked into the matter, I now think it's a rather minor point from the Gog and Magog article end of it, and agree with JudeccaXIII that it should mostly be written up in the other page. So maybe just a 1-liner in the etymology section. Done has been added.

Judecca made a lengthy addition, but it's not really visible when you put it in {{efn}} footnote; I think the lengthy bit you can transfer it to the other article; meanwhile I'll replace it with a short but visible 1-liner out of footnote.--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC) The {{efn}} now serves as supplementary reading following the 1-liner.--Kiyoweap (talk)[reply]

Great, I'll continue my review shortly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first mention of the two names occurs in the Book of Ezekiel" Make clear this is in the old testament of the bible. All readers may not be familiar with biblical subjects.
  • It seems many of the footnotes lack citations. If citations can't be found, they should be removed.
  • "; and in Revelation" I don't think an "and" is needed after a semiciolon.
  • Everything linked and spelled out in the intro should also be linked and spelled out in the article body, which it isn't now.


Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I see six sources that are listed in the bibliography but never cited. Please get User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, find those six, and either (and very strongly preferably) delete them or (an alternative grudgingly offered) put them within a "Further reading" section.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: I do not see these warnings for 6 citations, and having checked my User:Kiyoweap/common.js I believe I do already have that javascript loaded. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kiyoweap Just notice you haven't been using the bibliography format, i'll fix it. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added 2 book and 1 web source to the caption to the new image showing "Gog i Magog" land on the Catalan map. Since the books are sources about the Catalan Atlas mostly, and dont write primarily or extensively on Gog and Magog, I dont think it merits listing under Bibliography. The web source does devote a large portion to the topic, but being a website it doesn't belong under Bibliography either.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kiyoweap I saw, just getting the Google Book links is all. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's done ...I'll do clean-ups tomorrow, adding ISBN#s etc. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out why the Unused CITE errors werent showing. My script was followed by the statement "window.checkLinksToCitations = false;" which was suppressing it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated most of the books "not used in article" warning (kept and used Buitenwerf).
The Bibliography is now a lot shorter, making it more user-unfriendly, because I moved books that are not primarily about Gog and Magog and used marginally (cited for 1 passage 1 time etc.) out of Biblio into reflist.

I also categorized the Bibliography, which I think is useful, because it lists 'books primarily about Gog and Mago' first, as important sources. You may disagree and preffer a robotically alphabetized list though, idk.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jfhutson[edit]

  • The article needs to be about a particular topic, but the lead says Gog and Magog has several unrelated meanings without immediately choosing one. The article should start out saying that Gog and Magog has an apocalyptic meaning in Ezekiel and Revelation and then limit the article scope there (it looks like the article only addresses that one in depth). You can mention the other meanings while making it clear they are unrelated to the apocalyptic one. Right now the lead says "sometimes" it's eschatalogical, but then you read the article and it's all about the apocalpytic meaning.
  • "end time" needs a definite article
  • Don't abbreviate OT and NT and they need definite articles
  • "The legend also appeared in the Alexander Romance, in some versions, as an encounter with the Unclean Nations that engaged in human cannibalism; Goth and Magoth named among their kings." no independent clause follows the semicolon.
  • "These Gog and Magog people" sounds informal and maybe ungrammatical. Maybe "people identified as Gog and Magog"?
  • "Medieval cosmological maps or Mappa mundi" if these are the same thing add a comma after maps
  • "They appear in the Quran" prob need to specify antecedent of "they"
  • "as Yajuj and Majuj (Arabic: يأجوج ومأجوج‎‎ Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj), as" get rid of second "as"
  • "The first mention of the two names..." this sentence starts off as if it's about the first mention of the two names, but lists the Revelation mention in addition. I'd split the sentence.
  • "by Brutus's crew" if you're going to name Brutus I need to know something about who he is. It's probably sufficient to just say Gogmagog is a giant in British legend.
  • "(chapbook version)" unclear on what this means. chapbook version of the legend?
  • "6th century BC prophet" adjectival century needs a hyphen
  • "chapters 38–39" I expected the link to take me to chapter 38, but it took me to Ezekiel. If you're going to convenience link Bible passages, do it for all of them.
  • The footnote for the Ezekiel quote should specify the verse numbers and version. I believe the NRSV is preferred by academics.
  • "In all the books of the Old Testament" get rid of "all the books of", unnecessary
  • ""Why the prophet's gaze..." attribute quotations in text

--JFH (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Bibliography issues
  • Note the difference between monograms and monographs.
  • Why specify "on-topic", hopefully everything is.
  • None of the reference works are "General references", they are specialized.
  • There are two categorization schemes: type of work and topic. I've never seen a WP bibliography topically organized, but you need to pick a scheme.
  • The "Religious" sources are not religious, they are works of biblical scholarship.
  • Some sentence case titles, some title case, and not following the original publication case (e.g. Block's commentary)
  • Place of publication is expected for books.

That's all for now.--JFH (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

Sorry, but after six weeks or so I'd expect this to be closer to consensus to promote than it is, so I'm going to archive this and ask the nominator to please work on resolving outstanding issues outside the pressure of the FAC process. Judecca, you're welcome to re-nominate the article after two weeks, per FAC instructions -- in the meantime, as well as dealing with the points raised above, I'd recommend seeking input (including from the above reviewers if they can manage it) at Peer Review, to help get things in the best shape possible before trying again at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2016 [5].

Ellie (The Last of Us)[edit]

Nominator(s): – Rhain ☔ 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie is the deuteragonist and secondary playable character in Naughty Dog's 2013 video game The Last of Us. The character of Ellie underwent numerous iterations throughout development, and was very highly praised after the game's launch, particularly due to the rarity of such strong female characters in video games. After several changes and a great amount of feedback—including the first FA nomination—I feel satisfied that the article meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain ☔ 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As per my review on the first nomination. --JDC808 ♫ 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a very comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. It is great to see such a well-written article on a fictional character. The only note that I have to add is the image in the infobox requires an alt. Otherwise, good job! Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great looking article, don't see any reason why it shouldn't become FA. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Seem like an example to follow for every character GA. I can't find any flaw except for the final sentence from the appearances section which could be merged with the previous one unless it has a big impact in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose I think the prose needs work here. The lead is pretty clean, but I ran into problems in the first couple of paragraphs. Here are some points just from that paragraph; glancing further down I see a couple of similar issues.

  • "suitably fit" is redundant (and is clunky phrasing in any case).
  • "Johnson contributed greatly to the development of the character, convincing Druckmann to re-write Ellie in a stronger manner, and able to fight off hostile enemies": "able" has no subject; "in a stronger manner" and "greatly" are vague, and "in a stronger manner" is syntactically attached to the re-write, not the character. Something like "Johnson made important contributions to the development of Ellie's character; she convinced Druckmann to give Ellie a more independent personality, and to make Ellie more successful in combat" would be more straightforward.
  • "Johnson faced challenges in performing "disturbing" scenes that made her feel uncomfortable": again, this is vague and redundant phrasing. What does "challenges" tell us that "made her feel uncomfortable" doesn't?
  • "Johnson felt that video games rarely feature strong female characters such as Ellie, and expressed her excitement to portray the role for this reason": contorted phrasing, and "portray a role" is imprecise; one plays a role, but portrays a character. More natural would be to give the reaction and then the reason: "Johnson was excited to play the role, which she felt was a rare example of a strong female video game character".

Skimming further down, just to confirm the list above is representative:

  • "The addition of Ellie as artificial intelligence was a major contributor to the game engine": saying "the addition" was a "contributor" to the game engine is surely wrong; did you mean "contribution"? And contribution is vague; do you really mean something like "was a significant improvement to"?
  • "Ellie also feels worthless, to a suicidal extent in which": needs rephrasing.
  • "Marlene is later wounded, and early in The Last of Us, tasks smugglers Joel and Tess to escort Ellie; Tess dies early on during the journey": "tasks" is jargony and "early on during" is redundant.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your comments and suggestions! I went through and addressed all of your comments specifically (all of which I agree with), though I'm struggling to identify any more issues requiring attention. Additional examples or suggestions would be very useful, should you find the time. Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ 06:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • The writing is a bit weak; see forex "In the comic book series American Dreams, it is told that...". Suggest a copy edit.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all my years on Wikipedia, I do not recall having seen an image that scrolled down in an FA... I could imagine such as case if the img was obviously larger than the frame, but this is a single head shot (and so it is not at all obvious that the reader should scroll down). I am hesitant about this img style.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Thanks for your comments. The image was previously larger, which made it more obvious to scroll down, but this was changed for some reason, with little explanation. If you feel it's necessary, the image border can be enlarged to make it more obvious (à la Guardians of the Galaxy), or even edited to be horizontal instead (similar to 1979 Revolution: Black Friday or Fez). Let me know. – Rhain ☔ 09:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an image guy. I just know I completely did not see this, and I imagine others will miss it too. If anything, you should be eager to display your visual information in a perspicuous manner... Yes I think it needs altering, but I leave it to you to alter it in the clearest possible manner (probably from among those possibilities you just cited) [ps you still need a top-down copy edit]..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: I agree—I enlarged the border height to make it more obvious (any larger will likely be disruptive). Any suggestions on the copy edit? Should I try to perform this myself, or make a request for someone else to take a look? – Rhain ☔ 10:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I think putting in a request to GOCE might not be considered kosher during a FAC, so I wouldn't advise that. You could do it yourself or ask a trusted ce editor to slip in and do it. I can't promise I can do it, tho I may have time tomorrow night.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain, I'm in the middle of a move right now but ping me early this weekend if you still need a ce and I'll give it a look-see. (By the way, I didn't know the image scrolled down either until Lingzhi mentioned it. I'm partial to the horizontal proposal.) czar 15:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Tks Czar and Lingzhi for the offers but for an article to be open more than six weeks and still need top-down copyediting is a concern, and I'd prefer to archive this and allow further work to take place away from the pressure of FAC. Rhain, as well as seeking a copyedit, I think it would be good if you could engage Nick-D, if he has time, to look over the article -- after the ce but before you renominate at FAC -- as I know he raised some points at the previous nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four supports and not a single oppose until less than a week before its closure—how convenient. Thanks for the suggestions, Ian. – Rhain ☔ 13:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 [6].

Jane Austen[edit]

Nominator(s): Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jane Austen, as the article of her biography, which now has been expanded to include a Themes section and a Novels section as requested by editors. I tried to have the article assessed without the Themes section and the Novels sections, but failed, compare Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive1. Afterwards, the article received copy-editing by J Milburn, Rothorpe and (for GOCE) by Miniapolis, who were attentive to a precise reading of details in the article. Users Bishonen and Johnbod also made helpful comments on improving the lead section. The two added new sections are now complete. With thanks for all helpful comments and improvements, I am submitting the article once again for assessment, in the attempt to participate in the nomination process in time for the completion of the six-volume Harvard critical edition of Jane Austen's works due in its fully completed form in October 2016. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:CassandraAusten-JaneAusten(c.1810)_hires.jpg: source link is dead and the given tag does not make sense - what is the copyright status of the original work?
  • File:CassandraAustenSilhouette.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:SteventonRectory.jpg, File:Jane_Austen,_from_A_Memoir_of_Jane_Austen_(1870).jpg, File:Henry_James_by_John_Singer_Sargent_cleaned.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first one appears to have been the subject of revert-warring between the initial upload and retouched versions; the CC licence pertains to one of the derivatives. IMO it should be changed back to PD-Art, as the artist died over 170 years ago—the licensing just seems to have been missed when the relevant over-write was reverted. The original is in the NPG, so I don’t think it’s very important where the particular reproduction came from (pace the perennial legal question regarding reuse outside the US). At any rate the source document is still on the Austen website, at a different URL.—Odysseus1479 18:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don’t think the above PDF can actually have been the source of our file: the embedded image there has only about one-sixth the resolution, less than 3% as many pixels.—Odysseus1479 20:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tags ammended and updated by User:RexxS this morning. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility comments

I don't believe there is an easy solution at present for the information in the family trees being inaccessible to a blind visitor, at some point the long description attribute may be usable. --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Oppose. The nominator dragged this nom in with massively messed up refs; the reviewers then took it upon themselves to disavow the existing format despite its long-standing presence and explicit request in the refs section to retain it ("LISTS OF WORKS ARE IN MLA — PLEASE FOLLOW — THANKS"), change it overnight without consulting previous editors, and while doing so, toss WP:Consensus into the trash bin.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Editors are not free to dictate the format of an article indefinitely. The difference between "MLA" and the present reference style is so minor that only a pedant could possibly claim that it significantly altered the previous format - particularly as the citations did not adhere to a single format. Using templates reduces the opportunity for editors to make mistakes and shows up problems/errors more readily - there are even scripts to rigorously check templated citations for errors. I showed that the principal authors of this article are no longer active on Wikipedia, except for Fountains-of-Paris, the nominator, who has endorsed the reference clean-up. It is sad that a reviewer without any contributions to the article should criticise the stated preference of a major contributor, especially when a consensus of editors has agreed to that. Allowing one single editor who dislikes change through no more than person preference to block reasoned consensus between multiple other editors would indeed "toss WP:Consensus into the trash bin". --RexxS (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notes and refs are very inconsistent and will require large amounts of manual labor to check. This is partially due to Wikipedia's wholly indefensible lack of an MLA standard template that would make it easy-peasy to keep track of consistency issues. Please do feel free to complain to Those Higher Beings Who Deign to Maintain Templates and Dictate All Matters Thereupon (with benevolent disdain for lesser beings). I will add things one by one as I find them:

  • Why is this in Notes instead of in the Monographs and articles of Secondary Works: Aiken, Joan (1985). "How Might Jane Austen Have Revised Northanger Abbey?". Persuasions, a publication of the Jane Austen Society of North America. Retrieved 18 April 2016.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar question for: Beer, Gillian (1998). "Introduction". Persuasion....  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doody, "The Short Fiction", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 85–86.
  • Doody, "The Shorter Fiction", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 87.
  • Correct title of essay is the first one "The Short Fiction". Updating article to correct title. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are these formatted inconsistently, and why are they in Notes instead of References: Claire Tomalin, (1997) Jane Austen: A Life, New York: Random House, Inc., p.155. ISBN 0-679-44628-1; Claire Tomalin, Jane Austen: A Life (New York: Vintage, 1997), p. 230.; Claire Tomalin, Jane Austen: A Life (New York: Vintage, 1997), p. 231.
  • Why are these formatted inconsistently: Duffy, "Criticism, 1814–1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 94–96.; Duffy, "Criticism, 1814–1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 97; Duffy, "Criticism, 1814–1870", The Jane Austen Companion, 98–99; Duffy, 94–96.; Duffy, 94–96.; Duffy, 97; Duffy, 98–99.
  • What is this? In the Notes we have multiple cites of Fergus, "Biography" and Fergus, "The Professional Woman Writer" and one cite of simply Fergus, 18–19 and one of Fergus, Jan (1997). "The professional woman writer". In E Copeland and J McMaster. The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-49867-8. BUT in the references we have "Fergus, Jan. Jane Austen and the Didactic Novel." and "Fergus, Jan. Jane Austen: A Literary Life.". What refers to what, and why are there expanded references in the notes sometimes but sometimes abbreviated, and why are the two Fergus sources in the ref section apparently never cited?
  • Why do we have three sources by Fullerton in the references which are nowhere cited in the Notes?
  • Why are these formatted inconsistently: Honan, 93.; Honan, Jane Austen, 287–289, 316–317, 372–373; Honan, Jane Austen, 289–290.
  • Two Gilson sources in Notes but not in Refs. Also Grundy.
  • Why are these formatted inconsistently: Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", 218.; Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", 219; Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", 219; Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 211; Johnson, "Austen cults and cultures", The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, 213.; Johnson, 211; Johnson, 211.; Johnson, 213.; Johnson, 218.;; Johnson, 219.
  • Koppel, Kordich, Kozaczka in refs but never cited. Ditto Page, Poovey and Said. Ditto Miller, Mudrick and Myer. Ditto Sedgwick, Wiltshire.
  • In both sections, Le Faye is a huge mess in multiple ways.
  • Correct spelling of "Le Faye" is with an 'e' at the end and not "Le Fay". Current version should be now correct. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lewes, 158. in Notes but not Refs.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The references and bibliography desperately need to be converted to use templates (e.g. {{cite book}}) and links (e.g. {{sfn}}). Doing so would have turned up many of the inconsistencies and omissions noted above. I am willing to do the conversion if there is consensus that it should be done. For an example of a previous conversion that I have done, see these diffs for Euthyphro dilemma. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Jonesey95 that an appropriate mix of CS1 templates and {{sfn}} would force consistency on the citations and allow the short notes to be directly associated with the corresponding full book citation. I must add that that Lingzhi's inability to work out which section is which between Notes, References and Bibliography makes his comments very difficult to decipher. --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreement with these last two comments and I have left a message on Jonesey95 page that we are in support of his offer on the references. @Prairieplant: has also offered to join in as needed for the references for further enhancement. Jonesey95, I think, can start in whenever its convenient to start. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jonesey95:, @RexxS:, @Prairieplant:, @Fountains-of-Paris:, I agree with the general desired results of consistency and of linking the inline citations to the reflist. However, I very strongly disagree that {{cite book}} must be used. I am very very, very, happy to see someone resisting the dull tyranny of standardization that is being implicitly enforced by the template maintainers. I am very very very happy to see MLA here. The desired goals can be accomplished using using the wikicite template.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency of citation format, both now and going forward, using wikitext or visual editor, can be conveniently implemented by the use of CS1 templates. Manually-crafted citations produce exactly the sort of inconsistencies that you complain of above, so it does not seem logical to reject a scheme that addresses your concerns, without supplying a good reason. Template:Wikicite is an archaic kludge that is only needed to create the links for handwritten citations; it does absolutely nothing to address the many inconsistencies in formatting that you itemise above. If @Jonesey95: hasn't had time, I'll make a start on upgrading to CS1/sfn citations tomorrow. --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. And NO.Consistency is created by careful editing. Cite Book is a wikipedia-only standard that is in practice shoved down everyone's throats because the template maintainers flatly refuse to make MLA and APA templates. They are in fact disctating style by default. No No.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Consistency is created by careful editing." But you showed in the section above that this well researched, well written article has wildly inconsistent citations, missing citations, and unclear citations. Using templates is the best way I know to resolve these inconsistencies. What is your proposal for making the article's citations and references consistent, easy to maintain, and verifiable? Manual (mostly) MLA-style citations are clearly not getting the job done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The heroic volunteers who began and expanded this article selected MLA because that is the format that is most commonly used outside of Wikipedia for literature articles. We should honor this. The proposal is two-step, but one is beyond the scope of this FAC. I'll mention that one first, just to get it out of the way: we need templates that do MLA and APA and Chicago [insert multiple exclamation points and a "highlight" template here]. The second one, more relevant for this forum is: use wikicite, and fix the damn MLA.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm confused. If I go back a few days and look at the references in the version of the article from 26 July 2016, I see inconsistent citations and can discern no particular dominant style. Here are a few:
  • Kordich, Catherine. How to Write about Jane Austen (How to Write About Literature Series), Chelsea House Publications, Oct 31, 2008. ASIN: B00CZ2GOCO. (where do the italics end?)
  • Austen, Jane. The History of England. Ed. David Starkey. Icon Books, HarperCollins Publishers, 2006. ISBN 0-06-135195-4. (editor after title)
  • Le Faye, Deirdre, ed. Jane Austen's Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-19-283297-2. (editor before title)
  • A Truth Universally Acknowledged: 33 Great Writers on Why We Read Jane Austen. Random House Publishers. 2009. 320 pages. Edited by Susannah Carson. ISBN 1-4000-6805-3. (total page count?!?, and editor after date, shown as "Edited by" rather than "Ed.")
  • Elizabeth Bennett: Major Literary Characters, Chelsea House Publications; 2004. ISBN 0-7910-7672-5. (no italics for the title? no author? comma before publisher? semicolon between publisher and date?)
  • Emma: Modern Critical Views, 142 pages, Chelsea House Publications; New edition (2010). ISBN 1-60413-816-5. (page count, comma/semicolon separators, date in parentheses)
  • Austen-Leigh, James Edward. A Memoir of Jane Austen. 1926. Ed. R. W. Chapman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. (one way of showing the original publication year)
  • Lascelles, Mary. Jane Austen and Her Art. Original publication 1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. (a different way of showing the original publication year)
  • Footnote 112: Le Faye, Deirdre (2003). Jane Austen: The World of Her Novels. London: Francis Lincoln. p. 278. ISBN 978-0711222786. (cite book template - I count 24 cite templates, none of which match the rough mix of styles in the Bibliography)
Can you see our confusion? Again, what is your proposal for fixing this mess and making it so that future editors can easily add and maintain sources? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal: It looks like Lingzhi's proposal of using {{Wikicite}} is compatible with using {{sfnref}} within the body of the article. Can we continue adding {{sfnref}} templates to the body of the article? This will help standardize the References section while leaving the ultimate formatting of the Bibliography for later. It will also help reveal missing targets for existing short References, like Bronte and others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Yes, the sole and only reason to add {{wikicite}} would be its option to add the ability to link body text to references.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: I reject the proposal of using {{Wikicite}}. Its documentation states "This template is only needed for handwritten citations, or citations using non-standard citation templates, that are linked to by a shortened footnote or a parenthetical reference. If you don't mind using a citation template, it is more standard to use {{sfn}} or {{harv}} with a template such as {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. The way to reduce inconsistency is via {{cite book}}, at which point you should use {{sfn}} (and {{SfnRef}} within the cite book if needed). I'll make a start. --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey RexxS, I didn't know there were super-users who can say "I'll do this, screw you." I am very honored to have met one.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi, no personal attacks please. Let's talk about improving the article's formatting, content, and verifiability.
RexxS, if following the WP:CITEVAR guideline means that the article should have MLA style in the citations, hand-written full citations are the only way to achieve that, as far as I know. The CS1 (cite book, cite web, etc.) citation templates do not implement MLA style. Happily, the change to using sfn templates for short citations, as Lingzhi agreed above, is compatible with using the wikicite template to implement the MLA style for full citations. The format of the Bibliography citations can easily be changed to a consistent MLA format, with CITEREF identifiers for the sfn templates, if it makes sense to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following the WP:CITEVAR guideline ("Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.) means that you have to seek consensus for a change. In addition, removing inconsistencies that have arisen through hand-written citations is not merely on the grounds of personal preference. The remaining principal author, Fountains-of-Paris, has indicated agreement with the clean-up. A single dissenter does not have a blocking veto on consensus. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There appears to be FULL CONSENSUS among all 5 participating editors (@Jonesey95:, @RexxS:, @Prairieplant:, @Clpo13:, and myself) that Jonesey95 should continue with the reformatting of the citations throughout the article as was started yesterday with multiple supporting editors opposed by one hold-out editor named User:Lingzhi. The format being used by Jonesey95 is identical to one which is used in dozens and dozens of peer reviewed articles at Wikipedia for years now and has in no way detracted from those peer review articles in their current FA and GA status even though User:Lingzhi is opposed to this well established standard. Further, User:RexxS has made a generous offer to switch the article to an alternate cite style in trying to bring the one hold-out editor towards consensus, and was immediately turned down by User:Lingzhi. User:Lingzhi apparently is opposed to the general Wikipedia policy as written in WP:CITEVAR and is using this article's assessment as a forum for pressing his old preference for MLA formatting which is only one option at Wikipedia (WP:Forumshop). It is suggested that User:Lingzhi recognize that there is a full consensus for supporting Jonesey95 on the reformatting which was started yesterday and that when there is full consensus then it is up to User:Lingzhi to start to move closer to the consensus of five editors rather than remain a single hold-out. User:Lingzhi may move his discussion to the Village Pump policy discussion board if needed, and his Talk page is notified as to WP:Forumshop. User:Jonesey95 is free to continue the reformatting of the Jane Austen article given the FULL CONSENSUS of the five participating editors, with Lingzhi the sole hold-out. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: I do not wish to be counted as a contributor to the article for CITEVAR purposes. I will abide by the consensus of other contributing editors. I am happy to implement the consensus using my technical and analytical skills, and I am always willing to engage in constructive discussions.
I also want to point out that while Lingzhi appears to be frustrated, that editor has been engaging in discussion and has not reverted any of our edits. I greatly appreciate this show of good faith. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's well put. Since there is full consensus from the others we hope you can apply your technical skills with our constructive support for reformatting the references and citations in Austen. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many statements above are genuinely unfair characterizations of me and my position. An apology would be appreciated (but alas wouldn't alter my oppose). I am definitely not forum-shopping; I am responding solely to what I see here. I actually do not love MLA; my discipline(s) work solely and only in APA and I am tremendously more comfortable APA than MLA. I am not sure which laundry list of policies Fountains-of-Paris thinks I am opposing (and shopping my opposition). [I DO think that the template maintainers of cite book are massively remiss for flatly refusing to produce MLA, APA and Chicago flavors of cite book; they have an untouchable cast-iron WP:OWN on the issue, in flagrant violation of policy at WP:OWN.] I Opposed before I went to sleep based solely and only on one: WP:CONSENSUS. There was a huge note to retain MLA in the refs; editors disregarded in the space of only a few hours with zero-point-zero attempts to find out who had written it, when, and why it had stood for so very very long. Consensus doesn't mean "a pack of editors show up overnight and rapidly erase what's been standing for a long time." having said that, I now oppose for an additional reason: Do you have the sources, and are you (at least to a working degree) familiar with their contents??  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SarahSV[edit]

  • Comment. There are a few citation mistakes/inconsistencies. For example, Tomalin 1997, pp. 47; Todd 2005, p. 256–257; Jenkyns, 31. There are several others like it. I would say better to leave out p. and pp. If you're using templates, you can do this by using "at =" instead of "page =". SarahSV (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The p and the pps have been added recently. This version from February 2016 doesn't use them. It might be faster to remove them than make them consistent. (This is just my opinion; the main authors can choose p and pp if they prefer them.) SarahSV (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sarah. I'm sorting those out now. I can use a regex to (hopefully) find most of the problems. Perhaps you could have another look in an hour or so? --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's using {{Harvnb}}, so forget what I said about "at =". I think that's {{Cite book}}. Perhaps no pp can be achieved with "loc = ". SarahSV (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These differences are being standardized. See the whole discussion above and the discussion on the article's talk page (and the note I made yesterday on the talk page about this very issue). If you see inconsistency right now, don't worry about it. We are working on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are problems in the lead.
  • First paragraph: "Her most highly praised novel during her lifetime was Pride and Prejudice, her second published novel." The second paragraph repeats this: "Austen's most successful novel during her lifetime was Pride and Prejudice, which went through two editions at the time." No need to mention it twice.
  • The next sentence seems to introduce an inconsistency: "Her third published novel was Mansfield Park, which (despite being largely overlooked by reviewers) was successful during her lifetime", which suggests that others weren't.
  • All of Austen's --> "All Austen's
  • And again with the success issue: "From 1811 to 1816, with the publication of Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814) and Emma (1815), she achieved success as a published author."
  • "Austen wrote two additional ..." --> "Austen completed two additional ..." (or two other).
  • "establishing her as a British author of international fame": I would leave out British. The response to her work did not establish her as British.
  • The lead mentions Pride and Prejudice four times (the book three times and the film once), and links to the book twice.
  • I would consider using Wadewitz's lead. [7]
SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Tim Riley at GA had rather strong comments to make on the old Lede which you might want to glance at which are still on the Austen Talk page (Tim Riley's GA review is here [8]). After you see it please add further relevant comments on the lead section for comment. The current version was also proofed by Miniapolis for GOCE after Tim Riley's concerns were voiced. I'll look in later today or tomorrow for your comments. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim seemed to be saying that some items in the lead weren't mentioned in the text. First, that doesn't necessarily matter. If it does matter, the solution is to add them to the text. The writing in the previous lead was better. If I were working on this, I would restore it. SarahSV (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first section is an introduction to her life and career (it needs a sub-heading, e.g. "Overview"). It is good until "Scholars have unearthed little information since," which is how it was left in the version last edited by Wadewitz.
Two sentences were then added: "Austen wrote during the period of British Romanticism leading to British Idealism. She admired a number of British Romantic poets, including William Wordsworth (1770–1850), Samuel Coleridge (1772–1834) and Lord Byron (1788–1824), whose influence on her novels has been studied." Those sentences would benefit from being rewritten, but they break the flow, so it would be better to remove them. SarahSV (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall these two sentences were added with the GA review and the GOCE review in order to make an accurate placement of Austen in her particular literary historical context. Previously there was ambiguity about whether to call her Modern or Romantic, though the citations clearly identify her in the context of Wordsworth and the Romantics with the citations added for clarity. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fountains-of-Paris, how would you assess your own familiarity with the scholarship and the sources in the article? It's a tricky article to get right because there is so much work to cover. SarahSV (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the current Lede matches the contents of the article following the peer review by @Tim riley:. The Lede was rewritten based on the concerns which he listed for the Lede and were satisfied to his requirements. The discussion of Jane Austen as a Modernist or a Romantic was taken up with @J Milburn: during the expansion of the article with my adding the new Themes section and the new Novels section to the article which the late Wadewitz had not included in the old version of the article. Possibly Tim Riley or Josh M can add something further. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fountains-of-Paris, you didn't answer the question. To what extent are you familiar with the scholarship? The article needs to be written by people who know how to build on Wadewitz's work and who have read the sources she used (or know what to replace them with). SarahSV (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully familiar with it, I have been editing the article for the past six months and added nearly half of its content bringing it to GA peer review quality. Possibly it will help for your to read comments by other editors also [9]. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dangling modifier alert: "His sister's literary agent,[21] Henry's large circle of friends ... included bankers ...". SarahSV (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see two other editors objected to the new lead after the GA nomination in April. They were right. The previous lead was significantly better. There are problems throughout the article with choppy prose where people have copy-edited Wadewitz's work. (In fairness, some of those editors may not have been working with Wadewitz's text.) Victoria has pointed out below that the themes section was added in one diff in April, and bits (perhaps all) seem to have been copied, without attribution in the edit summary, from Reception history of Jane Austen. That explains why the long refs were missing; only the text and short refs were copied over. SarahSV (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Victoriaearle[edit]

Strongly oppose changing from MLA style. I can do it in my sleep, (well practically), but this article (which borrows text heavily from Awadewit's other articles in her Jane Austen suite of articles) should respect the style originally introduced per citevar. The citation clean up is outside the purview of the FAC and should be discussed on the article talk page. Until it's sorted and consensus achieved there suggest withdrawal. Victoria (tk) 17:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us continue to have respect for the edits of the late Wadewitz to this day. The current article has now had 6 different editors contributing substantially to the article over the past five years which has had an effect on the references and citations in the article. The current suggestion to move forward with support for Jonesey is a highly respected form of citevar used successfully in dozens and dozens of peer reviewed articles at Wikipedia. The discussion you wish to defend concerning WP:Citevar can be taken to the policy discussion at the Village Pump for a fair hearing of all sides. At present, we are fully supporting Jonesey in his widely used and successful approach to making the citations and references consistent in the Jane Austen article fully in accord with WP:Citevar and following many years and many editors making contributions after the early editors of the article years ago. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm oppposing on the basis that as an literature article, the citations are being changed incorrectly. Victoria (tk) 17:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said multiple times here and on the article's talk page, the full citations before I started my work yesterday were highly inconsistent, some full citations were missing, and many short citations were ambiguous as to what source the short citations were referring to. Fixing these errors is imperative for verifiability. Changing the full citation format after the verifiability work is done is easy to do, if that is the consensus that emerges. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It was not previously in MLA style. Perhaps if editors were not asleep when they added cites, we wouldn't have had the muddled mix that was complained about. Please explain how you reach the conclusion that "the citations are being changed incorrectly", as I see a consensus to update to a consistent format. Please cite the Featured Article criterion that your oppose is based on, because I can't find it. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RexxS, they were very close to MLA style but a lot of text was copied from other articles using only the short cites without also copying over the proper bibliographic entry. Cross posting this comment: [10]:

::This work cannot be done during a FAC nor should these citation be put in templates because Wikipedia templates don't support MLA style, yet most of our literature FAs follow MLA. I only stopped in for a moment, had the page on watch and am very disturbed to see how this unfolding, would love to help but this is a huge task. A small example is that MLA no longer uses pp. or even p. They simply give the page number. Beyond that, it's impossible to sort these out without being immersed in the sources and having them all available. If the nominators don't have the sources available, how can they respond to comments? Will crosspost to the FAC. Victoria (tk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Opposing per WP:WIAFA 2. c. If changed, please use MLA as Lingzhi explained above and achieve consensus for the change on the article talk. I'm willing to show you all how to do this, but won't do it in a flurry. It takes time and shouldn't be done during FAC. Victoria (tk) 17:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article as nominated, and as currently written, fails both 1.c (verifiability, because some short citations do not have corresponding full citations) and 2.c (the citation format is inconsistent). I am working on both, but it will take at least a few days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to give more of an explanation/reason for my oppose. Because the article is on my watchlist, I noticed when this edit was made. One issue is that from a quick dip, "The Regency period" is an exact match to the second and fourth paragraphs in "1812–1821: Individual reactions and contemporary reviews" of Reception history of Jane Austen (it's probably since been copyedited and now the refs have been changed). Except for the very beginning, "The Victorian Period" was an exact match to the Reception history's "1821–1870: Cultured few" section (again, probably copyedited and now the refs have been changed). I've not gone beyond those two sections, but pinging Laser brain whether this is ok or not? (Frankly I'm not sure). However, I am sure that it's not a "Themes" or a "Style" section as I'd expect to see in an article about a writer, therefore also opposing per WP:WIAFA 2.b. In my view the citation work should cease until this situation can be sorted. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I knew that the integrity between the text and the sources had been lost, and when I saw this nominated I intended to address the issue, but in a more kind and gentle manner. We have a mentoring proposal on the FAC talk page, we have Maunus's suggestions about reviewing, and I would have wanted to help, in fact offered help above. I'm familiar with Awadewit's citation style, with the material, with the article, yet comments such as these are counterproductive when help is being offered, when mentoring is being offered. This is not a situation about templates vs. no templates, it goes deeper and should have been sorted without pushback. Likewise, Lingzhi's comments were meant to be constructive and should have been taken in that spirit. Anyway at this point punting to the coords to sort out. Victoria (tk) 02:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: Copying text from one article to another is allowed assuming proper attribution is given (usually via an edit summary like "copied from Reception history of Jane Austen" so readers can go see who wrote the source text). Those familiar with the subject and sources should determine whether it's advisable or appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I would like to request that everyone keep their comments here focused on WP:WIAFA and move the extended debates about citation style elsewhere. Consistently formatted citations are a requirement, and stability is a requirement. @Fountains-of-Paris:, please remove your bolded "support" statement above, as it has the appearance of a support statement from a reviewer. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now appears to be fully converted into a consistent format following the Jonesey and @RexxS: edits of the past two days carried over from the Talk page of @Bishonen:. FA refinements and critiques are now being added by various editors to address the concerns and critiques regarding peer review standards for assessment. The bolded sentence you refer to has been removed for assessment to continue. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not nearly done with the citation conversion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, I think you need to stop and gain consensus, mainly because of WP:CITEVAR and that literature articles normally use MLA, and because you're converting them without access to the sources, which isn't ideal. Fountain's responses to Lingzhi and Victoria have not been okay. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment all have been following Citevar as presenting alternative citation standards, of which @Jonesey95: has chosen the one which @RexxS: is also comfortable with, as well as @Prairieplant:. If there is something in Citevar which requires the use of only the MLA standard then this needs to be articulated. At present there are dozens and dozens of peer reviewed article which apply the same citation standard which Jonesey is using here and which the other contributing editors are in agreement with. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fountains-of-Paris and Jonesey95: WP:CITEVAR cautions against adding templates to well-formed references (and Wadewitz's version seemed fine) and against "replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's." I'll elaborate on the talk page. SarahSV (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Fountains-of-Paris: I'm of a mind to close this soon. Two things are happening that concern me in having this nomination open any longer. First, the citation style being blown up and rebuilt during an active nomination is causing stability issues. Second, I am awaiting your answer to a critical question posed by SlimVirgin above regarding your access to and understanding of the sources used to write this article. If you have not read the sources used to write the article, you should not be nominating it for Featured status because you lack the ability to respond to questions about the content. Please clarify this ASAP. --Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, please read my detailed comments above and on the article's talk page. As I have stated, I am fully in support of CITEVAR, but WP's verifiability policy is more important, and the citations were highly inconsistent when I started work (see examples above). The short and full citations were very much not "well-formed references" when I started work on the page. They are much better now, and they will be better still when I am done. Once verifiability is established through consistent formatting and verification of citations, we can easily reformat the citations to any desired format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much as many of us still have much respect for the late Wadewitz, she never got around to nominating the article herself when she was still here. Both @Johnbod: and @J Milburn: stated very directly that the late Wadewitz did not complete a Novels section or a Themes section for the article which would be needed by today's standards at Wikipedia for a peer review nomination. Wikipedia peer review standards have moved forward and many of the late Wadewitz edits have had to be updated in the process of time moving forwards. The old version of the article by the late Wadewitz was not a peer reviewed article since she did not get around to making all the edits which the current editors of the article for Jane Austen have sucessfully implemented to improve and substantially expand the article based on current Wikipedia standards for peer review quality (@Rothorpe: is another one of the top editors of the Jane Austen page who is familiar with this). Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been tagged a few times: I fully support the guideline on not changing citation formats, and I don't think that the fact that an article has been expanded can, alone, be used to justify changing the citation format. A clear consensus to change the format can, of course, justify change. While I have not looked in detail, my initial response to the above discussion is that there is not consensus for a change, which means that the article's original style should be favoured (assuming it is a recognised, consistent style which provides enough information to be meaningful/usable). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Whatever the intended original style was, CITEVAR says we should use it. When the article was nominated, the citations had many problems, including inconsistency and verifiability problems. As I have said many times, once the citations are consistent and verifiable, they can easily be formatted to consistently use the intended original style. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Substantial and legitimate concerns have been raised about the content, text/source integrity, and citation style. Issues should be worked out on the article talk page and not during the FAC process. —Laser brain (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2016 [11].

This Is What the Truth Feels Like[edit]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gwen Stefani's third and most recent studio album. I believe I have expanded it to its fullest potential and also believe it contains everything a featured article should have. I am unable to produce any changes for the page until later next week, as it is currently only edit-accessible to admins. However, I would gladly make any recommended changes to it once the temp is up. Thank you to all! Carbrera (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal/closure Hi Carbrera, I don't think that this nomination is well timed. As the article is currently fully protected due to a content dispute and even a quick look at the edit history shows that it's been going through an intensive edit war, FA criterion 1e is clearly not met as the article is not stable. I also wonder whether there's consensus among editors involved in this article on whether it is in fact of FA standard? More generally, it's not a good practice to start a FAC when the nominator and other editors with an interest in the article are unable to respond to comments left by reviewers in a timely way. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I really do appreciate your concern with the article. However, I feel the edit war was justified as the user Chevyoncé was identified as a sockpuppet of a heavy vandal on Gwen Stefani-related topics and articles. Additionally, I think you may see that I am the main contributor of the article ([12], [13]) and I am the one who brought it to GA status. I'd go as far as saying I was the sole user who brought it to GA status, as the article was almost entirely rewritten for GA standard. That leaves the only concern being its temp protection, and I guarantee you the minute the article returned to normal, I would be there in a heartbeat to provide changes. Carbrera (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may or may not be the case, but the basic facts are that the article does not presently meet the FA criteria and you are not able to respond to any comments left in this review. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: The article was recently removed from the block, as of today. Just thought I'd let you know. Carbrera (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this nomination? I'd like to withdraw it so it can receive a peer review and perhaps a copyedit after that. Carbrera (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2016 [14].

2006 Bank of America 500[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 Bank of America was the 31st stock car race of the 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and marked the half-way point in that year's Chase for the Nextel Cup. The event was won by Evernham Motorsports driver Kasey Kahne who started from second position. All teams who took part in the race were mandated by NASCAR to use a 13.8 gallon fuel cell, and a new right-hand tire compound was introduced in an effort to produce better racing. However, drivers reported they drove cautiously, and were unable to achieve a normal driving rhythm. This article passed its GA review in April and underwent a copy-edit from the GOCE in June. I am also going for the Four Award achievement. All comments are welcome. MWright96 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this nom seems to be a non-starter; as there's been no commentary at all, feel free to re-nominate without waiting the usual two weeks following the archive, getting it to the top of the FAC list again may generate fresh interest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2016 [15].

Community Transit[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 22:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the culmination of two years of off-and-on editing and research, all for the local bus transit system I use for my daily commute. This is my first go at a featured content review, so I expect to overhaul and rewrite this article many times. I'm hoping to see this article at TFA for the agency's 40th anniversary on October 4, 2016. SounderBruce 22:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments taking a look now. I will jot down questions below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to Community Transit in 1979 - the "to" here strikes me as redundant and odd-sounding
Fixed.
SCPTBA Public Transit, nicknamed the "Blue Bus" for its blue livery - is the service nicknamed the blue bus or are the buses of the service nicknamed blue buses..?
The service was nicknamed, so I've clarified it.
Among the most popular lines was Route R14.. - makes it sound like folks are riding buses for fun - would not "Among the busiest lines was Route R14" be more accurate?
Reworded.
Any notable major accidents with this company's buses?
There have been several accidents, but all were minor (with at most 1 or 2 fatalities). There is one that attracted a bit of controversy and led to possible charges for the driver, but it was a Sound Transit bus that was operated by Community Transit's subcontractor First Transit. Not really worth mentioning here.
Agreed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that cleared up things for you, Casliber. SounderBruce 03:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok then, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but with no comments for almost a fortnight this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. I know you didn't have much luck with PR last time so I'd understand if you didn't feel like trying it again; perhaps seek input on the article talk page from transport-related projects/editors and then, if you choose to renominate here after the standard two-week hiatus, you can ping any who did comment (as well as Cas, as the sole reviewer here) to stop by the new FAC nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2016 [16].

Dota 2[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC), DARTHBOTTO talk 02:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dota 2 is a very popular video game that is played globally, with professional tournaments that often have prize pools with millions of dollars. The article originally had a failed FA nomination in July 2014, but after working myself on it for the past year or so, fixing many of the issues raised, I believe it's reached a stage where it could be nominated again. First time I've ever done this though, so tell me if I did anything wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "Two five-player teams, referred to as the Radiant and Dire, compete in matches on an asymmetrical playing field." Is it actually asymmetrical? (I have not played Dota 2, although I do play League of Legends, which has a rotationally symmetrical map.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has a general symmetrical shape, but there are a number of features, such as Roshan's pit, that make it asymmetrical. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, actually. Rosh pit exists on Dire side, and pathways leading into the river aren't the same on both sides, among other various differences. It's not big enough to make it unbalanced though, and you could even make the case that it shouldn't belong in the article anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. (It could be claimed that a reliable source is required for the statement, but in this case we may get away with it.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N[edit]

  • Article is missing two major pieces of data: highest watched Dota2 game; and how much money it generates for Valve. Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the most watched game matter, and how would you even source that? And the article does have some info on what the game has made for Valve. That info isn't public until being directly announced by Valve however, so I don't believe a lot of articles reported on that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this reference by Kotaku, 2015's revenue from the game was ~$238MM. However, I don't believe that is a major piece of information, much less so while concerning the highest viewership for a game of Dota 2. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article could be used, still, as I don't see why not. A single sentence should suffice. EDIT: just added it as "By January 2016, sales of in-game cosmetics had earned Valve over $238 million in revenue, according to the digital game market research group SuperData". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is relevant to show the impact of the game. If you say esports to a regular folk he will ignore you, but if oyu say x million viewers is a different thing. I know for LoL the finals have had over 20M, so I assume there must have been one with millions in Dota2. Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found this, but this is not something you'd want to add as a reliable source. Also found this, but I think this fits better in TI4's article than in this one, but it could be added. There are eSport specific websites that give relevant info, but I thought they would be challenged here and eventually removed, so I didn't bother. EDIT: I just added "Concurrent viewership numbers of professional Dota 2 matches have reached upwards of two million." in the reception section, as it seemed more relevant there. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Second one seems good for both articles. For somebody outside the area it is much easier to gauge the impact if you say sometimes 20M ppl watch a game. Outside of a very few select sports events, that figure is impressive. Nergaal (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Agreed, however the same article states only 2 million watched it at it's peak, with 20 million across the entire tournament (doesn't seem to be unique viewers). However, that's still pretty impressive. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the player base? How many concurrent players have there been? Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Player base is shown on the official website. 13 million active players as of July 2016. For concurrent players, it broke 1 million last year (source). CurlyWi (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The concurrent player base was more notable (and easier to find articles on) than the overall total. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dota 2 player here, there are a couple of minor errors in the gameplay section. Destroying all six of the enemy team's barracks allows for special creeps for the attacking side to spawn more frequently with significantly enhanced health and damage, known as "mega creeps." Destroying barracks has no effect on the frequency of lane creep spawn, they spawn every 30 seconds regardless of whether they're mega or normal. Roshan will respawn 10 minutes after being killed. This was changed in gameplay update 6.79 in October 2013 to the following: Roshan will respawn at a random time between 8 and 11 minutes after death. One other thing, from the release section, In March 2016, a large update fixed many long-standing bugs and issues with the game, while also adding many community requested features. The game receives a major update every 2-4 months, fixing bugs and adding new content/features. I'm not sure why this specific update is worth mentioning over all of the others. There was nothing particularly revolutionary added in it. It might be better to just mention the fact that the game is continuously in development and gets regular content updates. Other than that everything looks good to me. CurlyWi (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be thinking of super creeps, because I'm 95% sure mega creeps do spawn more frequently than normal creeps. It's how they overrun the base so quickly, excluding their enhanced stats. Not sure on the exact numbers however, but maybe this shouldn't be mentioned anyway. Also, I'll could change the Roshan thing to say around every 10 minutes. And I added the update article because it was a large, named update that was reported on by a reliable source. 99% of the other updates do not get the same treatment, unless they add a new hero or something, and at that point it should be added to the article. If more people have issues with this though, I'll remove it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

***I tested it in game to make sure. In all 3 scenarios, no barracks destroyed (normal creeps), some barracks destroyed (super creeps), and all barracks destroyed (mega creeps), lane creeps spawn exactly every 30 seconds. It's possible that it worked differently in an older version of the game (I started playing in 2012), but in the current version it 100% does not effect spawn frequency. The creeps pressure the base simply by being much stronger than their normal counterparts. They also give much less gold/experience when killed allowing you to gain a gold/experience lead over the other team. As far as the update goes, from a player perspective I would consider it to be fairly trivial, but if the reliable source thought it was important then fine. I don't feel strongly about removing it, its inclusion just seemed odd to me. CurlyWi (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? I'll remove it then, but I could have sworn they spawned more frequently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

czar drive-by[edit]

MOBAs are infamously hard to explain, so I suppose you have some idea of what lies ahead. Here are some assorted thoughts, most from my usual readability advice:

  • Gameplay should scaffold to sufficiently explain what's happening. First, the overall objective and subgoals (overview), then description of the play field in which this happens, description of the intricacies of the main game, and when finished, those of the subgoals. Can't launch into the minutiae without an understanding of the base objectives and mechanics.
    • Yeah, but how well do you think the article currently does this? I could have added a lot more detail regarding the gameplay (or alot less), and I also debated whether I compare the features of gameplay to LoL, while also keeping it accessible for those new to MOBAs in general. In the end, it's written like the reader is completely new to MOBAs, without any direct comparison to any other game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dota 2 can be explained without comparison to LoL, so a good decision on your part. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay still launches into the nitty gritty without explaining the point of the game. It puts the description of the field and the characters before the explanation of the goals. I'd revisit the scaffolding—every sentence should necessitate the next
  • I'll take a look at it then. It all makes sense to me, but I have hundreds of hours with the game, so it helps to have somehow unfamiliar with the game state their opinions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added some atop [17] with comments. I wouldn't look to other FACs as being great models for Gameplay, especially since Dota 2's gameplay will lose readers a lot faster than most articles. Radiant and Dire = jargon. No need to mention it more than once. Readers will know them as the "teams". czar 07:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, they are only relevant to mention once and have no real effect on gameplay (does in the pro scene, but that doesn't need to be mentioned). Some of your edits made things less clear, but hopefully now it's better than it was yesterday? And comments on readers not understanding what a "player" and "base" are, should we assume they have zero knowledge of any terms? There should be a point where somebody who is new to gaming and never heard of Dota before can still understand what a base and player is. I mean, these are not even gaming terms specifically. If you can improve it, go ahead, but I can't think of a way myself. Also, I was thinking about adding a screenshot showing the Ancient, which would help readers understand the significance of it. And yes, the map is asymmetrical. I would have added this to the article, but I didn't think that would be fair use (I don't upload media often). This image from the MOBA article can also be used, perhaps edited to state Radiant and Dire instead of Team 1 or Team 2, as to show that Dire is always top right and Radiant is bottom left (which can't be changed). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* "the latter of which being an act called" – concision here

  • Dateline in the dev section: dates should be generalized (not specific) when the date/month doesn't have any significant import on the sentence. But even in general: don't provide more detail than necessary for a broad understanding or else risk losing your readers.
    • Any specific examples? You could say the exact date for all them isn't that important, besides the announcement and release dates. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. When does including the date help the sentence? It's a WP trope to use "On Jan X, 2016, Z happened" but it's also unhelpful. Needs to tell the overall narrative, not serve as an almanac of announcements
  • Fair enough, but we should still list the exact day of announcement and release, correct? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If appropriate. Usually I mention the event's name and month if it was part of something, otherwise the announce date isn't that important (people can look it up if they want). Release date is a bit more consequential, but I even relegate those details to footnotes (if different across regions) because it makes for boring prose. czar 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the only exact dates in the article now are the annoucement and release dates. All others have been generalized, and I don't think people should have an issue with that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Very hard to follow the different Dotas in the dev section. Think about someone unfamiliar with Dota reading this, and if you wouldn't change anything, see what a copy editor thinks

    • They could be written in full to avoid confusion (Defense of the Ancients), not a bad idea. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain jargon on first usage, especially technical terms like "mod"
    • I'd agree, but modification isn't even a used term for the word, so would it really need this? Even kids (due to Minecraft) know what mods are, but maybe not "modifications". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a definition of terms can also be sufficient
I don't recall it doing so when I first made this comment, but anyway that's the general advice czar 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Summarize the aggregate opinion with human-friendly context, e.g.,

The game received "mixed" reviews, according to video game review aggregator Metacritic

rather than

The game was met with very mixed reception. GameRankings and Metacritic gave it a score of 57.52% and 59 out of 100 for the PlayStation 2 version, and 55.25% and 58 out of 100 for the PSP version

* Most of the level 3 headers are superfluous and can be struck

    • Which ones? I think they all fit and are needed to provide section breaks. Cramming them all under one section would be going backwards, but that just my opinion ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them. For instance, if the does the documentary section need to be on its own and can it meld into the other sections more fluently?
  • I already merged it with the development section, per another user's comment. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Group statements, such as "Reviewers praised X" in the Reception, are challengeable and require immediate citations. If no single source summarized it as stated, you need multiple citations to show that some reviewers indeed praised X.

    • I'll go through the reception part in a bit, I've focused more on the other sections as they've needed more work. But it does look like everything is properly sourced. A claim and then 2-3 sentences after that state the same thing with sources should be fine? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ya
  • I would think that there's plenty more to say on Reception and Legacy, like pages more and certainly enough to split the two. Most pertinent is where are all of the sources that place Dota 2 in comparison to Heroes of the Storm and League of Legends? There are reams written on the merits of each written in comparison with the other.
    • There should be, but I've tried to look for articles discussing the game's legacy and worldwide popularity, but couldn't find much. Nearly all of the recent articles written on Dota 2 are about the eSports scene, which would fit in the pro competition section instead. And regarding the articles comparing various MOBAs, I debated if they should be put into the gameplay section, but didn't think of putting them here. Not against it, but couldn't find the best way to write it in. An article like Starcraft has a better legacy section, but only because articles were written about it a decade after the game first released, which isn't the case with Dota 2 currently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a legacy by the history books but its standing in comparison to the genre and industry in the years following its release
  • Well I could try, but the article doesn't even mention League of Legends, so it would be somewhat odd to have a section with strong comparisons all of a sudden. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article would be complete without discussing its role and competitors in the MOBA, or as I prefer dotalike, genre—especially with how it's been covered in the press czar 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I could try, I guess. You have any articles I could start with? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some stuff between Reception and Legacy: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] eh [31] czar 07:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I have no idea how to start off with this. If you could start with single sentence, please do. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May not have time for a full review, but I think these points are a place to start. czar 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Czar: after further edits. Hopefully now most of your issues have been addressed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have time for a full review at the moment, so these are just passing comments. Feel free to do as you wish with them czar 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar: Would the article be close to FA once the issues (mainly gameplay introduction) are settled? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be able to tell without reading more meticulously (1a being the hardest part of FAC)—by the way, I think I saw you mention somewhere that you would prefer to give FAC reviews through direct edits and there's nothing wrong with that. Offhand, with this drive-by, I think the reception still looks short at first glance for a major game and I see inconsistencies with the work/publisher fields in the sources. Most online sources doing creative work and regular original reporting are italicized, but at the very least the work/publisher params should be consistent between citations. Also I'd be surprised if there haven't been a number of sources written on highlight heroes and/or the game's fanbase besides the direct professional competition (online communities, fan action around The International, etc.) And the lede: what would you do if you asked me what Dota 2 was and I told you about its release dates? The first paragraph of the lede should introduce to the topic, its gameplay, perhaps hint at its importance/notability. Save release info for the Release section of the lede and so on. czar 03:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I normally just go with website these days, is that fine if I make them all list that instead of work/publisher? And surprisingly, articles on specific heroes don't actually exist from what I've seen. Not to the affect of something like Overwatch, at least. There are articles written on things like cosplay though, which has also been getting officially sponsored by Valve at recent events. However, I didn't include this due to debate over how notable it really was, as well as the sources that reporting on it weren't considered reliable. (I tried to only use sources listed at WP:VG/RS) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Website" is the equivalent of "work", for creative sites. You'll want to use "publisher" for Metacritic and non-creative sites. I see a fair amount of sources on "how to play Dota 2" in the video game reliable sources custom Google search. That type of stuff makes for good examples. "Popular characters for new players included X, Y, because they Z." There's a bunch on community in my links above but also [32] czar 07:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Alright, I'll get around to it later. Also, do FACs have a time limit in which they must have a verdict before it's removed due to a lack of one? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinators are pretty generous as long as there is continued activity, but if there is insufficient support and little interest 4–6 weeks in, they'll be itching to close czar 09:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Famous Hobo[edit]

As someone who knows nothing about how this game works, I feel I'll be able to properly gauge whether this article makes sense or not

My biggest problem with this article is that it seems to suffer from a lot of "In 20XX, this happened, and in 20XX, another thing happened. The professional competition is the biggest offender of this. I would like to see your opinion on the matter, as it does become a bit tiresome reading through the same type of in 20XX over and over again.

  • Do we just remove dates then? I agree that it's a lot, but it would be worse stating everything without them, wouldn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't have to be completely removed. Rereading through the article, I suppose they're fine, but just know that I may not be the only editor who brings up this issue

Lead

Solid for the most part, but the structuring is a bit all over the place. The development is spliced by the games reception, and the professional competition section comes afterwards, when it appears before the reception section in the article

  • Do they have to be placed in the same exact order? I think the last edit I did fixes one half of your problem. 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no exact order that the information needs to be in for the lead, it's just a bit different from other video game article leads. Anyway, the lead is well written, and it's solid the way it is.

Gameplay

For the most part, I completely understand how the game works, but thre are a few points that kind of confused me

  • Is there only one map? I feel this should be mentioned early on.
  • Players are also able to "deny" allied units and structures by destroying them, which then prevents their opponents from getting full experience. I really don't understand this sentence. Does one team benefit from the other team's allied units? That doesn't make sense. Also, why mention "deny"? That word, unlike "lane", "creep", and "barracks", is not mentioned again. Why not just simply say "Players are also able to destroy allied units and structures, which then prevents their opponents from getting full experience."
    • There is only one map, not sure if other MOBAs are the same, but I didn't think to mention the possibility of it not being that way. And I thought the "deny" part was clear enough. By doing that, you only allow the other team's player (in lane) to get half experience, which is always beneficial for the player, as it slows their progress. I could have written way more info, going into greater detail, but I tried to keep it accessible for people reading on the game for the first time. I'm not sure on the best way to re-write this part if it doesn't make sense, hmm. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I think I get it. Sorry, the sentence at first seemed a bit contradictory, but I understand it now.

Development

  • An expansion pack for Warcraft III, entitled The Frozen Throne, was released later that year; and a series of Defense of the Ancients clone mods for the new game competed for popularity. Just want to clarify, these clone mods were made specifically for The Frozen Throne?

*MMR is updated based on if a player's team won or loss, which will then increase or decrease, respectively. Shouldn't it be "if a player's team won or lost"? You use to past tense for win, but the present tense for loss

  • I'm not 100% sure, but I think all later versions of DotA required the expansion pack, due to assets being used from it. And yeah, that was just a typo I didn't catch, going to fix it now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release *On June 12, 2015, Valve announced that the entirety of Dota 2 would be ported over to the Source 2 game engine in an update called Dota 2 Reborn.[75] The beta was released to the public on June 17, 2015.[76] On September 9, 2015, Reborn was officially released out of beta... It's odd to say the exact days, when the rest of the article just says the month and the year, such as "However, after various updates and patches, over a million concurrent players were playing again in January 2016, with that being the largest amount of users since March 2015."

    • The move to a new engine/complete re-write of the game's code should be deemed more notable than a playerbase milestone. I guess they could be generalized, but I don't see why we have to do that to every single date. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not, just reading the full dates as opposed to just the month and the year seemed a bit odd. If I'm the only reviewer to bring up this issue, then I'd say it's fine to just leave it as is.
  • Czar brought it up too, but I think the move to a completely new engine (and first game to use it) is notable enough to state the exact day it was released out of beta. I generalized the dates in the rest of the section though, as they aren't that important. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional competition *To ensure that enough Defense of the Ancients players would take up Dota 2 and to showcase the game's capabilities, Valve sponsored sixteen accomplished Defense of the Ancients teams to compete at The International, a Dota 2 specific eSports tournament, for a $1 million prize in 2011. The International was already mentioned as a Dota 2 eSports tournament in the previous section.

  • After the introduction of the Majors, the biggest annual Dota 2 tournament, The International, was then considered to be the cumulative "Summer Major", with the 2016 iteration being the first one under the new format. Once again, the International was already mentioned in the previous section
  • I'm sorry, but is the Documentary section really necessary? That section has no relevance to the rest of the article. Tons of documentaries are made about major events, so what makes the Dota 2 documentary so unique. Honestly, if you can't establish greater notability, I would like to see this section removed.
    • Not against moving it, but it could also be merged with the development section. The documentary apparently brought in a lot of new players who weren't interested/aware of it before, so it's not something 100% trivial either. Also about TI, I tried to mention what it was in case readers skipped another section of the article, but I'm not sure how WP:MOS handles this, so I just went with the safe way. Do we write entire articles assuming the reader will read every part of it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the documentary was that important, then it's notability certainly wasn't expanded upon. All that section was was just discussing what the documentary was about, when it was announced, and when it was released. I'm not completely opposed to removing it, but I'd like to see an article mentioning it's importance in broadening the fan-base. As for your second point, I actually have no idea. I always thought you edited the article thinking everyone will read the entire thing, but now that you mention it, that's kind of stupid, especially for really long articles. I'll ask czar about that
  • True, I suppose I could try to find articles on that, and if they don't, maybe trim the section simply stating that a documentary was made and that it exists. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception *Are the awards listed in the review box really necessary? There's already an entire section dedicated to the awards the game won.

    • Maybe not, but the template supports it, so it's not like they don't belong either. I'll remove them anyway, though, due to it looking cleaner. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, overall a very well researched article that definitely has the makings of featured status. Just some issues that need to be fixed before I can support. Also, would you mind returning the favor and reviewing the Virtue's Last Reward FAC? Famous Hobo (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is my first time ever nominating an article, so I've never been asked to do something like this. I personally prefer to just directly edit articles myself, but since you took the time to review this, I could try, sure. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Czar part 2[edit]

The above section has gotten sloppy and hard to read, so I hope this is fine to do. Anyway, @Czar: how would you rate the gameplay section now? I tried to make the very first paragraph make more sense to somebody who has no idea what Dota 2/MOBA games are. I guess I should also ping @Axl:, @Nergaal:, @CurlyWi:, and @DarthBotto: to see if they have any suggestions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I am on personal leave right now for the next week, so my input has and will be severely limited. Unforeseen circumstances, so I apologize for being out of the game until then. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better but there's a lot jammed into each sentence—need to give them room to breathe. For example, if the word "Ancient" is really needed instead of "base", the objective of the game should be linked to "defending the ancients". Several sentences running-on with comma + gerund constructions. It's fine to just state the concepts simply and to add the vocabulary later—that's the scaffolding. Also some verbosity, like isn't "while defending their own" implied? Are they all "human" players? Never any AI? Do you need to know about the 111 avatars while introducing the basic concepts of the game? "Every hero also has a basic, non-ability attack, which doesn't have a cooldown." Wouldn't it be better to explain all the attacks at once? E.g., Each hero has several attacks: an infrequent "ultimate", normal attacks, etc. (And then explain each, using the topic sentence as the scaffold.) Can't say much more for the near future but another copy editor can comment czar 09:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence 2: players control one of the 111 avatars, known as "heroes", with each having their own design, benefits, and trade-offs, existing in various character classes and roles, including "tanks" and "healers". Tank and Healer aren't really roles in dota. There are heroes with healing abilities, but just having one doesn't really make you a "healer." For example, one of the best healing spells in the game is on juggernaut who is a carry hero, so calling him a healer is kind of silly. Similar story with tanks. In fact, the source you cite for this sentence (the official website) doesn't even list healer and tank as roles on there. I would use support and carry as your two examples instead. CurlyWi (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, guess that doesn't need to be stated (but these type of roles roles do exist in Dota, it's just more flexible than most other MOBAs/games). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does seem better. However, the sole objective of the game is the destroy the other team's ancient, not any other part of the base (except for the two towers right near it that render the ancient invulnerable until they are destroyed), so I don't think we should generalize that. Also, a reader could assume the map only has one ancient, and that one team is the attacking side, while the other is the defending side. Honestly, trying to describe this game in generalized terms to a potential reader who's never heard/played a MOBA before is damn difficult. The entire size of this article could be written just about gameplay mechanics alone, and trying to decide the stuff to include versus the stuff to omit for it is the hardest part. Many longtime/professional players don't even fully understand every mechanic in the game, either due to its obscurity or the fact patches are fairly frequent that change them, but that's beside the point. @Czar: Outside of the gameplay edits, I've created a new "Legacy" sub-section, which uses some of those sources you provided above. However, I'm still not sure what to populate it with. Anything reception wise, belongs above, and anything professional/eSports wise belongs in that section too. There are a lot of Dota 2/eSports specific websites that have good info we could use, but are probably not considered WP:VG/RS enough for a potential FA article. There are probably tons of foreign language (mainly Russian and Chinese) articles that could be used, but those should be limited too. Also, if anybody feels the need to fix something, please do, as it's been mainly me for the past year working on the article, and I often have trouble starting off new sections.
@DarthBotto: that's fine, this FAC should still be up by then (it's been active and article has improved since then, so they shouldn't close this yet). Also, I forgot to ping @Famous Hobo: and @JimmyBlackwing: to see if they have any suggestions of their own. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm back, so I should be able to be on the ball with this FAN. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Did some more work since then if you haven't noticed. A new legacy section exists, with stuff that didn't really fit in other sections now belonging there. And does the gameplay section still need more work?
  • Unfortunately I haven't had time to check this article recently. I should have a little more time this week. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "All heroes have at least four of them, although certain ones have up to six or more." This should be either "up to six" or "more than six". If more than six, what is the maximum? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider Invoker to have more than six? Or would you consider a hero like Keeper of the Light (who technically has nine, but two of them simply stop his channeled abilities.) I attempted to keep all of this simple for the reader, as the exact details don't belong here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would say "upwards of four". I think that otherwise we will find ourselves with a weaseley sentence. Let's keep it simple DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not played Dota 2; I know nothing about Invoker or Keeper of the Light. Darth, please go ahead and change the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 2: "Non-ability damage scales throughout the game, and is influenced by one of the hero's primary attribute: strength, intelligence, and agility." Apart from the syntax error here, does each hero have a single primary attribute, or more than one primary attribute? (It seems odd that a hero might have more than one primary attribute when there are only three in total.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each hero has one primary attribute. Although they still benefit from the basic bonuses on each of the three attributes they increase, the only way to increase base right click damage is to increase their primary one. These are indicated in game, and are highlighted with a gold outline, as seen here. If you can find a better way to state that, go ahead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have changed the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 3: "Also present on the map are "neutral creeps"... Neutral creeps do not attack unless provoked, and will respawn over time if killed. The most powerful neutral creep is named "Roshan"." I am not sure that neutral targets are called "creeps", although the reference does mention "neutral creeps". (In League of Legends, neutrals are called "monsters".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The game just calls them "neutrals", if that's what you mean. Despite that, the community and reliable sources (and the semi-official Wiki) all call them neutral creeps instead, so unless this really bothers you and needs to change, I'd just keep it how it is for now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're happy with the reliability of the references so let's leave it as "neutral creeps". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Development", paragraph 4: "The appearances of each side's heroes were adjusted to be more individualized, with fewer traits specific to either faction." The two parts of this sentence have a disconnect. The latter half seems to imply that some traits were made more generalized for both factions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this means that unlike in DotA, them being a "faction" doesn't matter anymore. I don't even think the second half needs to be said anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I went to Wikidata to remove the series qualifier in the infobox, as the franchise is registered as "Dota", but thus far on Wikipedia, we've abstained from creating a series article, as there is only a mod and a stand-alone title. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Gameplay", paragraph 2, is "non-ability damage" the same as "basic damage-dealing attack"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's just commonly called a "right click", but I tried to avoid that as it's not official and could be confusing to new readers. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the basic damage-dealing attack is mentioned at the start of the paragraph. By the way, League of Legends does have other ways to injure an enemy champion—items with effects such as blade of the ruined king's active & sunfire cape's passive, and summoner spells such as ignite & chilling smite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Development", paragraph 4: "In addition to that, Valve also had all of the heroes' voice acting completely redone from Defense of the Ancients." This statement requires a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is in the game, where it credits people that did not work in Warcraft III. (I don't think the mod had custom voices, but I could be wrong). Shouldn't WP:COMMONSENSE also apply here? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The mod doesn't have custom voices, only voices of characters switched out and what-not, which is very standard for custom maps. I'd argue that, in the same vein of COMMONSENSE, it's not even necessary to include that sentence. Acknowledging voice actors is kosher, but saying that they're using fresh assets for their IP goes without saying... DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I removed it then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Development", paragraph 4: "Notable voice actors for the English version include Nolan North, Dave Fennoy, Jon St. John, Ellen McLain, Fred Tatasciore, Merle Dandridge, Jen Taylor, and John Patrick Lowrie." The reference is currently commented out. Could an inline citation be applied, perhaps using the "cite video game" template? Alternatively, could a "Note" be applied? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

I can see the nominators have done the right thing since the previous FAC was archived, putting the article through PR and seeking comments on its talk page, but with no support for promotion after more than a month I think we need to archive this nom, take care of any outstanding points, and then by all means make a fresh start here after the standard two-week break. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What?! There were absolutely no outstanding points! We didn't get it because the people giving input didn't vote? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't agree with this. 95% of the issues raised here were fixed, and I pinged various others to give their options and they failed to respond in time. I'm just going to renominate this as soon as it's eligible again. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to question the use of the word simulcasted, as it doesn't seem to be a valid derivation or past tense of simulcast.

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2016 [33].

St. Peter's Basilica[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... St. Peter's Basilica, arguably the most famous Catholic church building in the world. It is located in Vatican City and is one of the largest churches in the world (the largest by certain metrics) and one of the oldest. Its interior and exterior were designed and adorned by some of the most famous architects, painters, and sculptors of all time, including Michelangelo, Donato Bramante, and Gian Lorenzo Bernini. I believe it should be promoted to Featured Article status for several reasons. The article gives a detailed description of the architectural and aesthetic aspects of the interior and exterior, accompanied by numerous appropriate images. It also details the historical circumstances and signifance of the building in relation to the political and religious environments throughout its history. It also describes the ecclesiastical status of the basilica within the Catholic Church amply. Lastly, it meets the basic Featured Article criteria, including sufficient citations, alternative text, no dead links, no disambiguation links, and has many (but not too many) redirects. Ergo Sum 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal for further work -- Hi and welcome to FAC! Sorry but while this article appears to have many qualities at first glance, not least its detail and illustrations, I don't think it's ready for FAC, if only because there are too many uncited passages (and at least one request for clarification). As a general rule Featured Articles require at least one citation per paragraph, at the end (indicating the entire para is cited to that source -- more granular referencing may well be required). For that reason I have to oppose promotion and recommend withdrawal, to allow for improvements outside the FAC process. I'd then suggest putting the article through Peer Review and seeking comment from relevant Wikiprojects and/or individual editors, before re-nominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Is there anything in particular you see as lacking a proper citation? And, is there a way to withdraw without going through the whole process of updating the article history? Ergo Sum 02:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, from Overview up to and including Tombs and relics, I see twenty paragraphs that don't end with citations. If this FAC is withdrawn or otherwise archived then the article history will be updated but it happens automatically -- a bot takes care of it with 24 hours or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal for further work I agree with Ian. I note the nominator has only edited the article 25 times, all this week, and his user page only notes 1 DYK credit. I think it would be better if he took this to GA or peer review first - I'm not sure he realizes what is involved in an FAC. Has he done any reviewing? The references need upgrading - many are very old, and not the key works, and some have tags for "clarification". With over 2,000 views per day, it would be great to have this as an FA, but it needs an overhaul first. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Point taken; no need to deride the nominator. I don't typically work with the FA process, but I was under the impression that any editor could propose one that seemed worthy. I thought I would try to promote what was mostly other people's work, not my own; my edits were to try to clear up the article. Ergo Sum 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's analysis, not derision. Posting an FAC is inviting reviewers to use a lot of their time looking at an article. Your process of judging what 'seems worthy' seems incorrect. I suggest you look at the FA criteria, and get some experience of the process by reviewing here, and trying a GA nom. Your list of the basic criteria above is very different from the actual Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing your opinion on whether this article should be promoted or not. I'm simply suggesting that rather than one for deeming my judgement deleterious, this might more properly be a forum for commenting on whether and why this article should or should not be promoted. No one is compelled to comment on the matter, but I certainly appreciate those who do offer comments pertaining to the relevant issue. For the record, my intention above was not to restate the FAC criteria, which I had indeed read. Ergo Sum 15:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal of good-faith nomination per Ian Rose. The article doesn't meet criterion 1(c), but it's certainly on it's way to GA status. A peer review might be a worthwhile next step. Cheers, Graham (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham11: Could you kindly direct me to the procedure for withdrawal? Ergo Sum 18:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a regular around FAC, so I'm not sure if there's a procedure and, if so, what it is. Pinging the WP:FAC coordinators for advice. Graham (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2016 [34].

Valley View (Romney, West Virginia)[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article illustrates the architecture and history of the locally-notable historic residence of Valley View in Romney, West Virginia. The article is written in the same style and layout used in other successful Featured Articles written about places and organizations in Hampshire County, West Virginia: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Romney Literary Society. I welcome your guidance and suggestions, and I look forward to working with you throughout this process to improve and promote this article to Featured Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, West Virginian.

Lead

  • Remove the comma preceding Jr. per MOS:JR
  • Remove the word spacious as that is a weasel word.
  • Checkingfax, thank you for beginning this review, I've removed the comma preceding junior, and I have changed spacious to large. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briefly interjecting here – a "weasel word" is one that is either vague, ambiguous or potentially misleading; "spacious" is none of these, any more than its replacement "large" is. It's a simple unexaggerated term, and there can be no reasonable objection to it. While we have to avoid overdrawn and hyperbolic words ("magnificent", "tremendous", "fantastic", etc), that doesn't mean we are confined to only the most monochrome of prose expression. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brianboulton, thank you for weighing in here. I hope you'll be able to find time to give the article a quick glance to offer any guidance or suggestions for its further improvement. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try – I generally enjoy these gently untopical articles that deal with architecture, topography and a little history. I should have some time available next week to take a closer look. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

Geography

Architecture

See also

References

Bibliography

External links

  • Per MOS:LAYOUT, Portals should be in the See also section, if there is one, which there is. More later. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've started to read through, and will in due course post a list of comments on prose etc.. In the meantime, there is a slight issue concerning the initial grant of land in 1649. Your Zimmerman source (p.8) says that the grant in 1649 was made by "King George III", an obvious error (George didn't become king until 1760), so I'd be inclined not to cite this fact to that source. There is a further problem in stating that the 1649 grant was made by "Charles II of England", as Charles was not recognised as England's king until the Restoration in 1660. Any grant of land made by him as a putative king in 1649 would have had no legal basis, a fact recognised in your William and Mary Quarterly source, which states "the grant remained without force till 1662" when Charles renewed it. The complex history of the grant between 1662 and 1688 is somewhat glossed over in the article, as the W&M source indicates, and I would recommend some rewriting of the first History paragraph, to clarify the picture. (Do you have JSTOR access to the full W&M article: If not, I'll help you out). Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thank you tremendously for your thoughtful comment and for your suggestions. I've removed the Zimmerman source due to the obvious error, and I thank you for pointing this out. While Charles II was not yet King of England during this time, he was the King of Scotland from January 1649 on. Although, you are correct that the land grants were made as the claimant to the English throne. I concur with you that this should be illustrated more clearly in this article. I used to have access to JSTOR when I originally wrote this article, but my access has since lapsed. Any assistance you could provide me in reacquiring content from that article for a better illustration of the grant's history would be very very appreciated indeed! As you can see, this rewrite would also be incorporated into several other articles that discuss the grant's origins. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post something on your talk in a few days (I'll enjoy doing a bit of historical research!) Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See article talk. I'll be resuming my general review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, thank you for sharing this information with me here. I will finish drafting this paragraph over the next few days. As you know, this will affect at least ten other articles as well, so I look forward to your input and further review. Once again, thank you for bringing over this information from the W&M Quarterly! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nine days on, and I see no further work on the article. Can you update, please? Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59: I was going to mentioned the issue with Charles II that Brian has pointed out above, but I see I have been beaten to it! I do have a few other qualms:

  • I think a bit more care needs to be taken with primary sources. The birth-death dates for Elizabeth "Bettie" Ann Smith in the first paragraph of the Harmison family ownership section are not supported by the source, nor is the fact that she was actually called Elizabeth; I also could not see where her mother's name is found in that source.
  • At the end of the third paragraph in the same section, the article states that Harmison lived at Valley View until his death; however, the source (currently no. 21) doesn't seem to say that. Maybe I am not reading it correctly, but it doesn't seem to be there to me.
  • "board-and-batten 1961–1962 kitchen" –> should be 1961–62 as per MOS (the full years are only used for birth-death dates, or when we are dealing with different centuries). I think you repeat this date format elsewhere.
  • I notice that in the 'see also' section, "List of Plantations in West Virginia" is given. I hadn't appreciated until that point that this was a plantation – in what sense is this word used?

As an overall comment, the history section seems very thorough. I wish I had the sources to provide such a detail and comprehensive overview of land ownership on my side of the pond. The prose was clear and engaging, and I felt that the odd biographical detail did not detract from the narrative. I have not had such a detailed look at the other sections, but they also appear to be high-quality. I am leaning support pending the resolution of the Charles II issue and replies to my comments above. I will need to check the other sections more thoroughly as well. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Closing comment -- having seen no activity from the nominator here or on WP in general for a couple of weeks, I'm going to archive this review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2016 [35].

Kiss & Cry (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song recorded by Japanese–American singer-songwriter Hikaru Utada. This is one of Utada's well known tracks post-Deep River, and I believe the article is well written and well researched. I would like to ask Wikipedia editors and reviewers to give reason of their decisions/opinions so I can improve this article, if it does not get promoted. If there are any inquiries, please ping or post to my page. Thanks, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Update; I had forgotten to link this to the Featured article nomination page. My apologies for this inconvenience. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 06:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk)
  • Information about the management and recording locations should be included in the “Credits and personnel” section. The recording location may be in the infobox, but it also needs to be in this section as well.
  • Done
  • If “Kiss & Cry” was released alongside “Beautiful World,” wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say it was released as a double A-side single?
  • Done
  • Put that “Beautiful World” was an A-side in the infobox.
  • Done
  • Include a reference for the final sentence of the first paragraph in the “Background and release” paragraph.
  • Done
  • Eliminate the “finally” in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the same section. It serves no purpose, as the practice of upgrading a promotional single release to a proper single release is common and ten days between the release on radio and its single release is not that long.
  • Done
  • Change “Both single” to “Both singles”.
  • Done
  • Do you have any information on the song’s harmonic structure? The key, the beats per minute, the vocal range, the chord progression? This article needs this information before it can be passed to the FA level.
  • Added information about the harmonic structure (chord progression), but nothing about beats per minute.
  • The long quote from Utada in the “Composition” section is good, but it doesn't really support the entire quote does not really support the previous sentence about the composition of the song being done before the lyrics. Why does she say the song sounds better on the album than as a single? Her opinion on the song's energy would work better with the previous paragraph on the instrumental/sound of the song, in my opinion.
  • Removed the part about "sounding better on the album than a single"; slightly tedious add on my behalf. Changed it up and moved.
  • You use several quotes from Utada in this paragraph. I would recommend paraphrasing some of these.
  • Done
  • More detailed information about how Utada sings this song would improve this section like how does she sing on the chorus or in the verses or on the bridge. Do any critics or does anyone involved with the track talk about the lyrics on the verses, chorus, or bridge? This kind of information is very important to add before the article can be promoted to the FA level.
  • I've added as much information and edited some info to the best of my abilitie (and sources); will do a little bit more.
  • Eliminate “most” in front of “music critics”. You only include positive reviews so this qualification is not necessary.
  • Done
  • I was told to not use the reviews from Amazon.com, so I would recommend removing this one. A promotional review cannot be a reliable source.
  • I understand your point about the reliability, but the review is handled by a staff member (not one of those unanimous or complementary reviews). I will leave it just for now until a further consensus is settled.
  • Were there any more critical reviews on the single? I would imagine there would be a lot more since Utada is a pretty major artist in Japan and this was a major release.
  • Added a couple more reviews, and merged accolades section together; makes more sense without adding too many sub-sections.
  • Change “A reviewer from Halcyin Realms was negative towards…" to a "A review from Halcyin Realms criticized…” to avoid the repetition of negative in this sentence and the previous one.
  • Done
  • Is there any information about why the music video was done in the style of Nissin’s Freedom OVA and commercials? Was it some sort of sponsorship? Has Utada ever talked about in an interview or anything?
  • Done; Added information.
  • The information about the song being used to for the Nissin Noodle Cup seems more appropriate for the “Background and release” section, and the part about the second chorus would work better in the “Composition” section.
  • Done
  • I am assuming you mean “Noodle” and not “Noddle” and change “Noddle Cup” to “Cup Noodles” with a wikilink.
  • Done
  • I would recommend removing “Beautiful World” from the “See also” section as it is not necessary. It was already clearly stated throughout the article that "Beautiful World" is an A-side along with the appropriate wikilink.
  • Done
  • Reference 2 is dead and needs to either be archived or replaced with a link leading directly to the article.
  • Done
@CaliforniaDreamsFan: While I can see that a lot of great work has been put into this article, it requires expansion in the “Composition” section and several other changes before it can be promoted to a FA. Let me know if you have any questions about my review.
@Aoba47: Done the best I can to improve the article for FA; please notify me by any means if there needs to be any further improvement.
@CaliforniaDreamsFan: Great job with the improvements to the article. While I understand your decision to wait until a further consensus is reached about the Amazon review, I still highly recommend removing it as I have been previously flagged by a user for this during a GA review for an album. The user was very explicit that Amazon reviews should not be used for the review, but I respect your decision to wait and see what other people say about this.
I personally do not have a major problem with the source. I believe you had done as comprehensive work on this as you can so I'm now willing support to this FAC. Good luck with getting this promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. It may be worth putting it through Peer Review, requesting input from relevant projects and any editors you can think of, before looking at any re-nomination here, at which point you can leave neutrally worded notices with any who have commented along the way that the article is back at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2016&oldid=735853799"