Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2014

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 not promoted by Graham Colm 16:57, 29 March 2014 [1].

---

Adam Levine

Nominator(s): GinaJay (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about singer-songwriter and Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine. I think the article gives a fair, detailed idea of him and his work. It passed GA criteria in April and since then it's been edited frequently so that it now meets FA criteria, or so I fervently hope. GinaJay (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to the talk page

• Images look solid. I would like to see another review of prose/references before I support. I'm still not quite certain the article is up to par. Thank you for your patience. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for your time. GinaJay (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Solid article. Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! GinaJay (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments - taking a look now (I did look over it a couple of days ago and it doesn't look too bad). Will jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The group played their first gig at the Whisky a Go Go, a nightclub in West Hollywood, California, with Levine performing both the vocals and the guitar - one doesn't perform the guitar, would suggest just, "The group played their first gig at the Whisky a Go Go, a nightclub in West Hollywood, California, with Levine on vocals and guitar"

Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We wouldn't have the "the" here - so removed two of them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Its title is supposedly an allusion to Levine's ubiquity. - I guess that would be public ubiquity - presuming it refers to his appearances on media?...or....what?

Just his general all-over-the-place-ness ... which would be public ubiquity, yes. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Musical collaborations segment comes across as a bit listy - if there are any comments about any of these collaborations Levine particularly enjoyed..or didn't...or any that were particularly cirtically praised, inserting this material will break up the listiness of it a little and improve the flow.

Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The same is true of the Early life section - any colorful stories would liven up this bit a little.

Drugs, religion and little brothers aren't colorful enough? I suppose I could find something along the lines of "I hated school, I wanted to do music" ... like the first few sentences of artistry? Will get to it soon.

Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice - gives it some colour. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ditto TV and media section.

Done. GinaJay (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The ADHD material is interesting- does he mention anything else in sources?

Added. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cautious supportOther than that, reads quite nicely. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and support. GinaJay (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Image Check and my Support: I didn't realize there already was an image truck, but a second one never hurts, I suppose. I was the user who passed the GAN and I have kept this article on my watchlist. It meets the criteria now and, due to the tireless work of the Nom, likely will continue to be built and stay up to date. PrairieKid (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support PrairieKid! GinaJay (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Notes
  • Hi GinaJay, is this your first FAC? If so I'll want someone to spotcheck sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we promote (unless someone's done that and I missed it).
  • Also, as a general rule, all paragraphs should end with a citation -- Musical collaborations and the third para of Artistry do not as yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Added the citation for those two paras. GinaJay (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Spotchecking:

Cite 2 (this article) may not be RS and does not contain Levine's middle name.

Replaced that with another [2], though I'm not sure it's RS. It obviously takes after his wikipedia article, but there's a copyright at the end .... GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cites 1 and 6 lead to specific pages in the article, but neither of those pages actually contain the information in the article.

The info in the first one is there in the article- I've linked it to the one-page view. The other article has the information in the next page, but there is no option showing it in a single view. Changing the page wouldn't help since there are other sentences that refer to that particular page. Separate refs for the same article, then? GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In Kara's Flowers, it is said that they were discovered at a beach party in Malibu. Can't find that in the citation. Really, most of that is not cited.

I also don't see anything saying the album The Fourth World had higher expectations for sales.

Most of the Kara's Flowers section comes from here. I've added that ref wherever it's cited. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done up to Kara's Flowers. Will continue soon. PrairieKid (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I should add that, to me, some of the citations don't appear to be WP:RS. I am not used to entertainment articles, so I'm not positive and I would like someone else to triple check that for us. PrairieKid (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm very sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner. The Internet is down at my house and I don't have regular internet access. I am writing this from school but I won't be able to finish the spotcheck for a day or two. Huge apologies. I will finish ASAP unless someone else wants to take over. Thanks for the understanding. PrairieKid (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose at this time, pending significant cleanup on sources and MOS issues. There are many inconsistencies in how sources are presented, and many citations that are incomplete. There are also some questionable sources in use, such as the Daily Mail, and a "clarify" tag to be addressed. In terms of MOS concerns, I see hyphen/dash confusion, inconsistent treatment of ellipses, repeated wikilinks, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Brought all references to cite web form, addressed the tag and the ellipses. Also, it's all en dashes in the article now, except in the quote box and the chart tables.

Whatever's been linked in the lede and infobox can be linked again (once) in the later sections, right? Outside of that, I think I removed all the other repeating links.

I'm surprised to know Daily Mail is a questionable source. Why so? And could you tell me the other unreliable sources in this article? I'm a little clueless when it comes to reliability of sources. GinaJay (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Looked over the citations. They're incomplete because some information just isn't given - date issued, name etc. GinaJay (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes information isn't given by the source, but other times it is: for example, the link for FN48 clearly identifies the publisher. There are still inconsistencies in the citations beyond missing info: for example, Daily Telegraph is not italicized in FN4 but is in FN91. MOS issues too have been partially but not completely addressed: for example, it's fine to link in both the lede and the body, but you've got Stevie Wonder linked twice within a few paragraphs.

In terms of questionable sourcing, Daily Mail has been discussed extensively at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN ([Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Mail|recent example]]), where the consensus has generally been that it is not a high-quality source, particularly for BLP-related material. Other questionable sources would include 411mania and Reality Nation, and I'd suggest checking whether there were independent sources to supplant some of the press releases currently being cited.

In some cases, you should also look at citing the original source, as with this (the source is the show, not that site). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

All done, except that one press release on his ADHD project is still cited - I can't find anything else that gives as much infromation about it as the PR, other than articles that directly quote the PR itself. GinaJay (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the status of this now? I notice the article's been edited since Nikki's last comment here; the concerns need to be resolved ASAP if the article is to be promoted. The nom's been running for over two months now -- a long time at FAC even these days -- but if we're close to fixing outstanding issues I'll let go a bit longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Long time indeed. I've addressed the issues Nikkimaria's raised so far. If she does have more to add, I'll try resolving it ASAP. But I think they're mostly technical in nature, so that shouldn't be a problem. Is a week too much to ask? GinaJay (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, about that spotcheck: PrairieKid is apparently unable to complete it. Could you please put in a word for it at the WT:FAC? GinaJay (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The sources used aren't the best. Should an academic resource like Wikipedia cite a tabloid like The Hollywood Reporter—seven times? A scan through the references reveal several other such low-quality sources—People, Glamour, Cosmopolitan...

Since Levine is an entertainment figure (and hasn't exactly reached the sort of global icon status that would make The New York Times regularly publish articles on him), the primary sources will have to be magazines like THR and People - both of which are quite reliable in entertainment news and are regularly used in wikipedia's media-related articles, including FAs (this, this this etc.) As for Glamour, it's used only to cite one of its own celebrity list. Deleted the cosmo ref. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The other major source for the article, used five times, is a book published by the Hal Leonard Corporation, a music publishing company. They publish Maroon 5's music too, so I doubt they are a neutral source.

They may not be netural, but the book is used to cite only some basic facts about Kara's Flowers (when, where, who) and a direct quote by Levine, both of which are probably not affected by the neutrality of the book. The way I see it, it's like citing Maroon 5's website - it's a bad ref for things like their global impact or level of success, but facts (like when they were formed) would be correct. This is the only ref I could find that gives this level of details and IMO the article would suffer from its removal. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Further, the prose could do with some polish. It is often ungrammatical, 'While earlier work was deemed "vaguely funky white-soul" and "rock", recent ones have been judged to have a more reggae, anthemic pop sound, and being "top shelf radio sucrose", evoking comparisons to Coldplay" or repetitive:

The project targets young adults and adults who were previously diagnosed with ADHD, focusing on how ADHD may continue into adulthood. Levine, who himself was diagnosed with ADHD as a teenager, said, "This campaign is important to me because it can help young adults and adults realize that there's a chance they may still have ADHD if they had it as a kid". In connection to this, he wrote an article in ADDitude Magazine about his personal experience with ADHD.

—indopug (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewrote the two. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Graham Colm 16:57, 29 March 2014 [3].

---

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of Australia's greatest sporting teams, and their campaign at the London Paralympic Games in 2012. It had a previous review, but did not make it due to lack of reviewers. Now that the holidays are over, I hope it will be promoted this time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I'm comically inexpert when it comes to sports topics. Feel free to disagree with any of the nerdish gibberish I may waste your time with below (some of which may not affect FA eligibility at all):

• Overall well written, by the tone at times makes it sound more like a sports broadcast than an encyclopaedia
• Alt text would be a nice, handicapped-friendly addition to the images

Prose

• "[[Round-robin tournament|round robin]] tournament": is there some reason you do this, instead of "[[round-robin tournament]]"?
• "Canada and the Netherlands, two of which, Canada and the Netherlands, had recently beaten them.": I might reword this to "Canada and the Netherlands, the last two of which had recently beaten them.", which sounds less repetitious and avoids some commas.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "semi final against": not "semi-final" or "semifinal"?

  Too right. The article is written in Australian English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Sydney and the 2004 Summer Paralympics in Athens, and bronze at the 2008 Summer Paralympics in Beijing": "Sydney", "Athens", and "Beijing" may be overlinking

  Unlinked the city names. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "team mate Merritt": not "team-mate" or "teammate"?

  Bloody oath. The article is written in Australian English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "John Triscari acknowledged that Canada "will be a tough side to beat, as will the Netherlands, who historically have beaten us by just a few points on a few occasions"."; "Crispin told the media that "We will go out": a style I dislike—when read aloud, there's no indication where the quote begins, so the switch from third- to first-person is jarring

  I like it. I can hear their voices. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well, you would expect the author to. Imagine this going through a screenreader. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "also known at the "Marshmallow" ": I get the feeling the "the" should be within the quotemarks

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "from watching some video tapes": "some" could safely be dropped

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "the score was 45–43": for who? It's not obvious until the next sentence

  Add a bit to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• We might want to avoid words like "acknowledged" and "admitted"
  • Replaced with "said". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• "We can work on a few things"."; "It really was bad"."; "that was the key statistic".": in these cases, the period would go inside the quotemarks, even with the "logical quote" style.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Australia's top players were Crispin, who had 13 points and 15 rebounds, Merritt, who earned 16 points, and Chaplin, with eight points, five rebounds and seven assists.": this might be easier to parse with some semicolons before "Merritt" and "and Charlie"

  Shelley, not Charlie! Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "in her British accent,": why are we being told this? Does the accent make the remark sarcastic or something?

  This came up during the GA review, and Christine had me insert it. To me, the quote is subtly ironic, but she thought that readers would not get this unless they remembered the player bios at the top of the page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "but Kean soon equalised,": is "equalised" a common way to say someone's tied the score?

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The Dutch team threw everything they had": I'd expect to see this in news reports, but is this really encyclopaedic wording?

  Re-worded. Sigh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "improved 9/14 accuracy": what does "9/14 accuracy" mean?

  Basketball speak. Nine scoring shots from 14 attempts. Which, incidentally, is pretty good. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "key play maker": key maker of plays or maker of key plays?

  Key maker of plays. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  Then you'll want either "play-maker" or "playmaker" to kill the ambiguity. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The loss to Canada meant that the Gliders had won three out of four games, the same number as Canada and the Netherlands, but they were placed ahead of the Netherlands based on defeating them, while Canada failed to defeat Great Britain by a sufficient margin, and therefore finished third.": an awfully long sentence. Consider splitting it up?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "biggest of the entire game": you could safely drop "entire"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Gauci then put points on the scoreboard for the Gliders.": not literally, I assume

  Close though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "who racked up twelve points"; "ultimately rack up": "rack up" may be too informal for an encyclopaedia

  Very well. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "the score at 50 to 27": until now I think you've unsistenlty been using the "50–27" style

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "by Stewart missed; but": I think if you're using "but" a comma would be more appropriate than a semicolon

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "In the semi final": not "semifinal" or "semi-final"?

  Fair dinkum. |Dominant Gliders cruise into Semi Final v USA Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "down to the last second, with Team USA's Rose Hollermann missing one from inside the paint": I'm not sure it applies, but you may want to read WP:PLUSING

  Eeek! Tony1! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  It apears you can summon him by invoking his name. ;) Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the "wikinews" links go in "exteranl links"?

  The MOS says: More precisely, box-type templates such as {{Commons}} shown at right have to be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section) so that boxes will appear next to, rather than below, the list items. Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I totally forgot to come back to this article. I'm leaning towards support (especially since you've given into "the Man" with those hyphens), but I still don't like the "admitted" and "acknowledged"—they seem to give these opinions the weight of truth. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. I've switched "admitted" and "acknowledged" to "said". I've also switched to the compound (British) form, having figured out the Round8 template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Third sentence: could the names be within parentheses to avoid the colon semicolon colon jumble?

  Split the sentence in two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Any reason for the capped R in "Round robin"?

  Nope, De-capped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest semicolon after "Canada", given the shortness of the subsequent sentence and its close follow-on.
• "However, they won their final match against the Netherlands to finish at the top of their pool. They went on ..."—second "they" might better as "the Gliders", or "Australia".

  Your edit could drop the "they". Tony (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "the Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team, known as the Gliders"—what a clunky title, not use "Australian". I suppose nothing can be done about it now. But this string is almost exactly how the very opening starts. Do we need to be explicitly told so soon? Just "the Gliders" would do. "Prior to" -> "Until" might work, unsure.

  Yes, per BEGIN. If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  I fought against the clunky naming standard, but it is wiki-wide.

  So why repeat this long clunky title so that the lead and first section start almost the same way? Do we need to be told again, soon after the opening, about the naming equivalence? Tony (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I introduce the team and its name quickly so I can use "Gliders" thereafter instead of the cumbersome (on Wiki) official form. That the team has a name was queried, and I had to prove reliable sources. The lead is no more than a summary of the article. The MOS requires that the article and the lead have to be able to be split up and run separately. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The official announcement of the 2011–12 team"—it's the membership or composition of the team, not the team, I think.

  Yes, done. We had some problems with editors from other countries here. Unlike other countries, the team is not thrown together for the Paralympics; it exists all the time, with the players and coaches in constant contact with each other. I have prepared articles on the new players, but am waiting for the World Championships before moving them to the main space. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• " The team of twelve included nine veterans with 15 Paralympic Games between them"—mixed formats. I myself would write 12 nine 15, even though MOS suggests expanding all or none in a clutch. But no one is satisfied at the moment.
• team-mate

  Changed to "fifteen". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "games, having"—try without comma ... might be smoother?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't like the prominence of the boxes advertising Wikinews down the side. Is there a reason they can't be put into an "External links" section? And in any case why the ugly bold-plus-italics.

  Because there isn't an External links section and the MOS forbids creating one just to hold the boxes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Even so, the lewd boxes, italicised, bolded, and far larger than necessary, need to be toned down a lot. Why are there multiple boxes? I'm opposing this FAC until something is done about them. And remember that WMF sites are not RSs. Tony (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  The article is not sourced from WMF sites. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• The line you gave to Curly Turkey above about Australian English is ... to be polite ... false. Teammate or team-mate, please. Same for semifinal.

  Those forms are deprecated, as far as I know... The Commonwealth Style Guide says not to use the hyphenated forms any more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Commonwealth Style Guide being some new Tory monarchist/colonial code for what used to be the Australian Govt Publishing Manual? I'm appalled if so, and disbelieving that it would suddenly deprecate hyphenation. In any case, I'm afraid the AGPM carries absolutely no weight in the language, and just as well. Please use normal forms—either closed or hyphenated, as CT suggested. Tony (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, it's just called the style guide now. It's an "an outstanding Australian reference standard for all those who understand the value of effective communication." Buy your copy here. Anyhow, all you have to do to convince a tin hat wearing, tree hugging leftie like me is produce a reliable source WP:RS to back up what you're saying. Unfortunately "Tony on the talk page" doesn't usually pass muster. Sorry bout that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until the hyphens are fixed to comply with WP:MOS. Tony (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The spelling complies with the MOS per WP:ENGVAR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not accepting it. It's weird and unusual, and en.WP is not for Australian followers of that styleguide (of whom there are few). It's for all English-speakers, and needs to make the reading experience as easy as possible. Tony (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Your argument that articles must be written in American English is not accepted. However, I have made the change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
        • AmEng tend to hyphenate less than BrEng and AusEng—let's get it around the right way. But Americans would always hyphenate those compounds. Please disregard whatever seems to be coming out of AGPM, if indeed that is what is actually coming out. Tony (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I tried, but couldn't get beyond the opening paragraph. The title states that the article is about the 2012 Paralympic team. Fine, but the structure of sentence 1 implies that the article is actually about the 2011–12 team, which happened to play at the 2012 Paralympics. Sentence 2 ("The official announcement confirming the 2011–12 team was made in July 2012"): how could a team for (part of?) 2011 be announced more than six months after that year had ended? I sneaked a look at the main text, but found no explanation there either. Sentence 3 ("The team of twelve included nine veterans"...): What is a veteran? It's a vague term. The sentence implies that it's based on previous Paralympic participation, but it's not clear. Sentence 4 ("There were three newcomers"...): What is a newcomer? New to the team is what I thought of first. Sentence 5 ("The Gliders had won silver at the 2000 Summer Paralympics"): But sentence 1 tells us that the 2011–12 team was the Gliders.

Too much is required of the reader, who is likely to be confused by the opening and put off from continuing. It looks like it's been spun out of a broader article, without enough changes to compensate for the loss of context. EddieHugh (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The article has not been spun off from the broader article. I've made some slight rewording to try and make these points clearer. "Veteran" and "newcomer" means "to the Paralympics". In wheelchair basketball, the Paralympics is the Big Show.

Unlike teams from some other countries, the Gliders exist on a permanent basis. They have a full time coach (Tom Kyle) and assistant coach (David Gould). The players are scattered about the country and the world, but are in constant contact with the coaches. The team comes together for regular training camps and tournaments. And of course for a Paralympic year when they will be full-time players for the preceding year. However, the Paralympic rules (and those of some other tournaments) allow for only twelve players. So the team has to be whittled down. (This occurs in other sports too.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from John

I will mainly focus on prose at first look.

• Quarterfinal, quarter-final or quarter final?
• We have two superfluous howevers in the Gold medal section.
• "took a rebound and finally scored" would be just as good without the "finally"

More to come I am sure. --John (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we've decided to use the hyphenated form. The British sources consistently use "quarterfinal" while the Australian ones use "quarter final".

Remove the "finally" and two "howevers". This is one of my favourite parts of the MOS. It says: However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions... editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Mine too. Could we get a better source than The Sun for the Marshmallow nickname if it is important? Does Australian English use "tie" or something else for being level on points? --John (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The original source decayed so I used the Sun source. I've added a second source. I was rebuked by FIBA for calling it the Marshmallow, but I've kept the names as they were during the Games. So what Londoners call the O2 is consistently the North Greenwich Arena in the article. Australian English is heavily influenced by cricket, so a sharp distinction is made between a tie and a draw. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Lead caption: probably worthwhile to explicitly state which of the two teams shown are the Gliders
• File:IPC_logo_(2004).svg (in the portal bar) is based on File:Chinese_Taipei_Paralympic_Flag.svg, which is tagged as missing info and which has a licensing tag that does not make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Graham Colm 16:57, 29 March 2014 [4].

---

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC) and Binksternet (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of history's best known events. It also ranks 282 in traffic on the English wikipedia. About 2.4 million times per annum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The article made GA three months ago, in a thorough review conducted by Anotherclown who is a veteran editor in the military field. A week ago, the article passed the tough A-Class review conducted by the WikiProject Military history. Here's the A-Class version of the article from 18 January 2014. Of course, the topic is of much wider interest than a purely military audience. I think now is a good time to see that the article satisfies the needs of the English-speaking world. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado

Comments after reading through the article (not yet really "a review")

• Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation: ... Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration "does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler." "compromise" is wrong here. The word "comprise" was probably intended, but "include" is quite likely to be the best translation of the original as it refers to only a part of the whole. If this is a mistranslation from the Japanese you can correct it, otherwise it needs a [sic].
• Japanese-language references (I noticed Kido & Yoshitake 1966 which is presumably in Japanese) need |trans_title=... and |language=Japanese parameters (similar if there are any other foreign-language refs).

--Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! There's no need to post a New York Review of Books review at FAC. A few comments here and source check there are most welcome. I've checked this source and it seems that "comprise" is correct. (But Wainstock p. 176 says "compromise")

Yes, "comprise" looks correct based on the text provided by Hoshina (which is very interesting to read). Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've translated 木戶幸一日記 (Kido Kōichi nikki) as ("Kido Kōichi diary". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Background / Air raids on Japan: In the large scale industrial warfare ..., the primary aim of the USAAF was ...: "In this large scale ..." will read better.
  • Reworded Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Background / Atomic bomb development: scientists and technicians at the Los Alamos under ...: Remove "the".
  • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Preparations / Organisation and training:
  • civilian and military personnel of Project Alberta: "from Project Alberta" (which also appears later in the article) will be better here.
    • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • SS Cape Victory should be "SS Cape Victory" (no italics for SS)
    • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Preparations / Bombs: "tamper" has a specific technical meaning in the context of atomic weapons, which I had to look up. Please clarify the article text (for printed versions) and add a wikilink, thus: "Magnesium was chosen because it does not act as a tamper (neutron reflector)."
  • Linked. This is the sort of thing I never notice, because I've spent two years now working on Manhattan Project articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Preparations / Choice of targets: In the list of criteria, the quote is misplaced: it is relevant to the first and second items but not to the third.
  • Removed the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Hiroshima / Hiroshima during World War II: the [[5th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)|5th Division]] and the [[IJA 224th Division|224th Division]], a recently formed mobile unit.: The redlink target is inconsistent with the naming of the existing article. It looks as if [[224th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)|224th Division]] would be a better redlink definition here.
  • Either way it is still a red link, but the MILHIST naming standard changed in 2007, so .. done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hiroshima / The bombing:
  • Some times for the aircraft themselves may be helpful: when did they take off from Tinian, when did they rendezvous over Iwo Jima? (corresponding information is given for the flight to Nagasaki).
    • Added from the navigator's account. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Japanese early warning radar detected ...: The timing will be clearer to the reader if this sentence begins something like "During the night of August 5–6, Japanese early warning radar detected ..."
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The all-clear was sounded in Hiroshima at 12:05.[117] About an hour before the bombing, the air raid alert was sounded again, as Straight Flush flew over the city. ... The all-clear was sounded over Hiroshima again at 07:09.[119] Something wrong with the timings here. All-clear at 12:05 and again at 07:05. If the other raids were night bombing (mentioned elswhere in the article), five minutes after midnight is 00:05.
    • Changed to 00:05 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Hiroshima / Japanese realization of the bombing: do we know the name of the staff officer who flew to the city, gave the first comprehensive report and started to organise relief measures? If so, please add it.
  • No, I could not find that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    Not an issue, but I'll leave it open in case anyone else can find it. --Mirokado (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Nagasaki / The bombing:
  • "Sweeney continued to wait for The Big Stink, ...": The aircraft name seems to be just Big Stink according to other occurrences here and in Big Stink. Replace by "Sweeney continued to wait for Big Stink, ..." or change the others to include "The".
    • That's correct. Removed "The" Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Big Stink's absence seems to have had a significant effect on the mission. Can we add a sentence saying what it was in fact doing? (the plane article says it arrived late at Nagasaki to take photos of the blast effects and then joined the other aircraft at Okinawa, but I'm not seeing sources there suitable for an FA to confirm that).
    • General Groves knows the answer. Interesting how this incident was swept under the carpet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

-- Mirokado (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you've addressed all my concerns with the text. I'll try to have another look round on Sunday. -- Mirokado (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Post-attack casualties:
  • People opposed to the atomic bombings have claimed that birth defects and deformities were common among the children of survivors who were pregnant at the time of the bombings. We need an example ([who?]) of such a claim and a reference for this sentence. I'm not at all trying to encourage you to remove the sentence which provides balance but we need to know, for example, whether these were claims based on studies on people or "just" the fears or studies on mice mentioned in Voosen 2011 (if so, the Voosen ref repeated here with a brief clarification would be OK)
  • James Crow expressed that they could still find the likelihood of birth defects or other causes among the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.: I'm pretty sure this should read "James Crow expressed doubt that they could still find ...".
  • Twice in this paragraph we refer to "birth defects or other causes". I would think of birth defects etc as "effects" of the radiation rather than "causes", but "birth defects or other effects" would not read well...
  • Many members of the ABCC and, later the RERF, were still looking for possible birth defects or other causes among the survivors decades later, but found no evidence that they were common among the survivors. This sentence is problematical from the point of view of formulation, here are some suggestions:
    • repetition of "birth defects or other causes" (or whatever if that is changed) from earlier in the paragraph, perhaps we can say "these problems" or similar the second time?
    • repetition of "the survivors": can we omit "among the survivors" as it is implied by context?
    • "common" is a rather imprecise summary of medical study results: it depends a bit on what the references actually say of course, but "... found no evidence that they were significantly more common than in the general population." is an example of how the results might have been expressed. -- Mirokado (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding those who say that birth defects were significant after the bombings: I have found by searching the literature that ignorance[5][6][7] is apparently the main driver in writing that birth defects were high, rather than just "People opposed to the atomic bombings". More reasonable criticisms of the Hardin Jones research of 1957 which found no significant birth defects, were given by the National Academy of Sciences which pointed out that the control population in Kobe, 18 miles from the blast, also received some radiation exposure. This same criticism was leveled at the James Neel study from 1960.The Consequential Damages of Nuclear War: THE RONGELAP REPORT Many writers clearly understand that birth defects were not significant, even among those who find it does not help them make their point about how nuclear war is bad.[8][9][10][11] Perhaps we can simply attribute the authors who say the birth defects were high, for instance historian Ronald E. Powaski who writes "an increase in stillbirths, birth defects, and infant mortality was also clear in the 70,000 pregnancies examined in the study." This is found in March to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1939 to the Present (1987) Oxford University Press, page 27, ISBN 0195364546.

Note that several books discuss the greater incidence of neurological abnormalities such as microencephaly and anencephaly found within the Hiroshima/Nagasaki subjects.[12][13][14]

I think we need to recast these few sentences so as to avoid accusing "People opposed to the atomic bombings". Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I rewrote the paragraph about birth defects, giving it a broader perspective in accordance with my notes above. Of course, Kobe is not 18 miles from Hiroshima; it is 184 miles by car according to Google Maps. I wrote "approximately 180 miles" in the text. Kobe is much farther from Nagasaki. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that rewrite, which has covered most of the above points. Please have another look at the "expressed that they could still find" phrase which looks wrong. --Mirokado (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

After looking at further sources, I came to the realization that Johnston (or her editors) makes the mistake of confusing Kobe with Kure. The distance of Kure is accurately said to be 18 miles from Hiroshima. Kure is the control city, not Kobe. Thus I had to rework the section for that, and also for the James Crow bit where he says he thinks he "could still find" birth defects. Instead, the book says Crow studied the data in 1985 and confirmed the earlier finding by Neel. The book follows the Crow bit with something about possibly finding birth defects in later studies, but it is inconclusive and not worthy of relaying to the reader. I corrected the Crow bit per the source. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, well done. --Mirokado (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• alt text for pictures: where present, the alt text is fine, describing what we can see in the picture as opposed to the caption which gives details of what is depicted. Please add alt text for the rest of the pictures, or ask me to do so if you prefer.
  • for the lead photos, the alt text could say "Two aerial photos ..." to distinguish them from the ground-witness photos presented later
    • Tweaked the ALT text as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

      Thanks, also well done. --Mirokado (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I try not to make requests in dribs and drabs, but I like to look through an article once more if I am still finding typos, so I'll try to look through it again during the week when I get time. -- Mirokado (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) (updated 12:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

I still hope to have one more look through this article and expect to support it, but it is certainly too late tonight! --Mirokado (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Preparations to invade Japan: we could wikilink Operation Ketsugō. This is currently a redirect to a section of Operation Downfall but is potentally its own article.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Air raids on Japan: and ultimately enemy action. My attention was caught by "ultimately", since elsewhere in the article we are told that Japanese air defence was largely ineffective over the targets. Craven & Cate (1953) mention air defences, but don't seem to support a special emphasis on them as the cause of the lack of success, but that account is so detailed I may have missed something (thus, remove "ultimately" or otherwise clarify).
  • In military terms, this means something rather different. The AA defences are effective up to a certain height, but the B-29 bombers could fly higher so that they are not affected. The result was that no bombers were shot down, but their bomb load and accuracy was greatly reduced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• units and values: sometimes the article uses metric units (with imperial conversion), other times imperial (with metric conversion). I would think that imperial first is better here, as that is what was current at the time and what is used in quoted or referenced contemporaneous documents
  • Hiroshima / The bombing: the predetermined detonation height about 1,968 feet (600 m) above the city: The value given is far too precise to be "about" and an implausible value for a predetermined setting. This is the exact equivalent of 600m and the predetermined height would have been in feet. Can we provide a reliably sourced value? (The Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Explosions p. 33 gives 1885 ± 50ft as the estimated height of the explosion.)
  • Nagasaki / The bombing: similarly here, I doubt whether the precision of 469 m (1,539 ft) is justified and this is inconsistent with the units used for Hiroshima
    • As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Manhattan Project largely used metric, while the USAAF used imperial. I'm a bit iffy about reversing conversions for precisely the reason that they tend to exaggerate the accuracy. I'll look at these bits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Alex Wellerstein of the Center for History of Physics, American Institute of Physics, writes in his blog that William Penney, Baron Penney determined the proper height to be 500 feet for a 1 kiloton bomb used on Germany, higher for larger bombs, and higher for flimsy houses as seen in Japan. Penney cites previous altitude prediction work by Bernard Waldman. The point is that Penney worked in feet, acres, yards, pounds, etc. Several books describe how various altitudes were under discussion by Oppenheimer. This page hosted by Cryptome reproduces info taken from a 1995 CD-ROM publication by Chuck Hansen. Explosion altitudes are in feet. Historian Lillian Hoddeson's book Critical Assebly describes the altitudes in feet on page 261, saying that Oppenheimer directed that Little Boy be exploded at 1850 feet plus or minus 100 feet. The actual device which determined the altitude during the combat drop was a parallel set of four "Archie" radar units, originally a British design but subsequently modified by the US and manufactured by RCA. The Archies were calibrated in feet. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan: the article linked in third core does not mention that this "demon core" was the third core. If it was, we probably need a phrase of context here (can that be sourced to Hoddeson et al. (1993)? The other article could in that case also be updated.
• reference author "Hart, Basil Liddell" should be "Lidell Hart, B. H." (as he was normally known and as the article B. H. Liddell Hart or "Liddell Hart, Basil" if you want to use first names where known. This occurs twice.

I have been thinking about some of the points raised by other reviewers:

The title Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is I think OK, "atomic bomb" being by far the most familiar usage in connection with these events.

"Atomic bomb" was a popular term, in use with the general public in 1945 due to the writings of H. G. Wells and others. Groves decided to use it because it was more familiar. The scientists wanted "nuclear". We say "weapon" rather than "bomb" today because they are in warheads, artillery rounds, demolition charges, depth charges, etc. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not on any reading notice a lack of balance or excessive American viewpoint in the article, which is about a military operation carried out by the USAAF. Many of the background and analysis sections have hatnotes to main articles which cover the related content in more detail. The last word goes to the Tokyo District Court.

This will be my last set of issues, honest. --Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is my pleasure to support this article now. Heights are being addressed carefully here and on the article talk page and the remaining points above are easily dealt with one way or the other. --Mirokado (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from John

At first glance I see the infobox flag issue we have been discussing for weeks has still not been resolved. I also see "atomic" used instead of the more correct "nuclear" and a tendency to focus on the US experience rather than the Japanese (in the run-up section). There are some fairly major infelicities (howevers, WP:SEASON, etc) which will need a bit of copyediting. I see one sentence which isn't. The sourcing looks good and the pictures. Let me come back to this. --John (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I will handle the infobox. I spent some time fiddling with it. The terms "atomic" and "nuclear" are generally interchangeable in the context of this article. See here for an explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have to move to oppose. Notwithstanding the sterling work that has been done and is being done on this article, the little UK flag is still giving way undue weight to the two (2) UK observers who sat in on one plane on one of the two attacks. We discussed a solution back in December, but it seemingly has still not been implemented. More importantly, as the reviewer below has noted, the story has been told largely from a US military point of view, neglecting the Japanese military and Japanese civilian points of view. I know sources exist which could be used to balance the article. It's a shame this has not been done. Roughly 50 times as many civilians died in these attacks as in the September 11 attacks; without getting all weepy about it, we should give that some weight, imagine if our article on those attacks focused mainly on the Al Qaeda methods and personnel. It wouldn't work, and neither does this. I don't like the nuclear-atomic thing either; I obviously get the point that terminology has shifted over the years, but as a scientist, I feel strongly that the "atomic" terminology is just plain wrong. Rethink required, on several fronts. --John (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. The solution was implemented; the strengths are in the infobox. The British contribution was significant. The US and British governments intended that it be seen as an Allied effort. Most of the servicemen of the 509th CG were enlisted air and ground crew. Of them, only Tibbets would still be notable if the bombing had not occurred. Their contribution was outweighed by those of the 51 scientists and technicians of Project Alberta, many of whom are notable in their own right. Penney's contribution goes deeper than that, in that he was a close confidant of Groves, and also one of the people who chose Hiroshima as a target.
  2. As noted below, if you can suggest a good book on the relief efforts, I will obtain it and incorporate it.
  3. The title of the article represents substantial consensus over a long period of time. Your point is noted, but I will require a clear consensus before I rename the article to Nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The terminology isn't a show-stopper. The infobox slightly is. The slanted coverage very much is. I'm not sure what you mean by "relief efforts". I recommend Retribution by Max Hastings (ISBN 0307275361) as a source for the Japanese side of things. Do you know it? --John (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, I am very much aware of the controversy surrounding that book, and that is why we are not using it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

    • Interesting. Do you think controversy is always a bad thing? Do you think this is a controversial subject? Should controversy be avoided in talking about controversial things? Maybe if "we" had better answers to these questions than we do at present, this would be a better and more complete article. As it is, it's a long way off FA. It fails, in my strongly-held opinion, on 1b, 1c and 1d. Probably 1a too (it did the last time I looked) but that is a lot easier to fix. These three are hard to fix and I don't think, judging by your responses here, that they will be. --John (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

      Depends on what sort of controversy we are talking about. When the controversy is about the gross misuse of sources, it runs afoul of our requirement for reliable sources. The article is about a controversial subject, and I think it handles that well. I regard the work done on the leaflet campaign as one of Wikipedia's finest pieces of scholarship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

      Gross misuse of sources? --John (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

      [15] Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

      I see he has courted controversy with his comments about Australian troops but I am struggling to see "gross misuse of sources" from that link. I'd be sad to think you have allowed this nationalistic opinion you hold to neglect an excellent source without any real reason. I hope that is not the case. --John (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Having now read a few book reviews of Retribution, I find myself having to agree with John that it appears to be a fairly well-written book with that suffers from some minor factual errors here and there, but nothing that would disqualify it from being a reliable source. That being said, if its use in the article is unacceptable to you, Hawkeye7, I'm sure other books could be found that would help balance the article's coverage of the events (maybe some of the resources I have linked below?). Enough books have been written on the subject that it shouldn't be too hard to find ones that would better represent the Japanese perspective. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hastings performs very poor research for his book, one glaring instance in a subsequent book detailed at Talk:Max_Hastings#Wikipedia_vandalism_copied_into_Hastings.27_new_book, which shows that the later book violates WP:CIRCULAR since it uses Wikipedia as a source. Each statement used by Hastings about the atomic bombings should be examined extremely carefully to make sure it is usable. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Intriguing. If that's how he does all his research, then we do need to tread carefully. I'm really not familiar enough with either the subject matter or Max Hastings to comment on the quality of his work one way or another, so I won't. But Hawkeye7's rationale for not using the book still leaves me confused: does controversy over one chapter in a book necessarily cast the rest into doubt? The book reviews I read were quite positive. And does misusing a sentence from Wikipedia once cast the quality of all of one's work into doubt? I'm not defending Max Hastings; I'm just wondering if we have systematic evidence of poor research and "gross misuse" of sources? If so, then we should surely treat him as a questionable source, at best. If not, then I see no reason why we can't use his work in this article. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• That is indeed very interesting. Do we have evidence of other errors (as opposed to saying things a few Australians don't like)? Has this been raised at WP:RSN? I think we would want to see much wider evidence and consensus before labelling a source (or an author) as unreliable like this. --John (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Because otherwise, apart from that one careless error which was promptly corrected, this looks like the "controversy" around Antony Beevor's depiction of rape by the Red Army. Some Russian critics (who it later turned out had not even read the book) were upset that this traduced their proud nation etc etc. We should not confuse nationalistic amour-propre with academic dishonesty or "gross misuse of sources". There is a huge gap between them. --John (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• John, I have read Retribution, enjoying despite questions about its scholarship. I think it is a valid source for the general conclusions made by Hastings. I'm lost, though; can you give some indication here about what material you think we should incorporate from Retribution? Hastings says a lot of things about the atomic bombings, some which are contradictory because he explains opposing views. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Funny you should say that, I have been rereading the relevant chapters since the start of this conversation. I will have an answer to this question by the end of the week. --John (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible suggestion from AmericanLemming

I don't mean to jumping into a conversation here, but if the book suggested by John is unacceptable to Hawkeye7, then perhaps I could suggest a few alternatives? I haven't read any of these books, but a quick Google search for "japanese historians atomic bomb" lead me to this American history textbook website page discussing the historiography of (and controversy surrounding) the bombings [16]

It gives several examples of books written by Western historians that oppose the decision to drop the atomic bombs: Fear, War and the Bomb (Blackett, 1948), Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (Alperovitz, 1965), The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Alperovitz, 1995), and Without Mercy (Downer, 1986). It also lists several links to articles for and against the bombings.

In doing that Google search I also found a book by a Japanese-American historian that takes a different view on the bombings: Racing the Enemy (Hasegawa, 2005).

I'll also throw out this link from the "American History for Australasian Schools" website: it seems to do a nice job summarizing the historiography on the issue: [17]

There's also this nice summary of the historiography from The Historical Society: [18]

And here's yet another succinct summary of the historiography from The New England Journal of History: [19]

I'm not sure if any of these will address John's concerns that the article does not do justice to the Japanese point of view, but I'd thought I'd try to steer the conversation away from the disagreement over Retribution, as that will probably not be very conducive to the improvement of the article, as I don't think John and Hawkeye7 are going to come to see things eye to eye on the issue of whether or not to use it as a source. Anyway, I hope these resources are somewhat helpful. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

These books are all on my shelf, and I've already used Alperovitz and Hasegawa in the article. Alperovitz covers the decision making in the United States, which I think is already well covered in the article. Hasegawa writes (a ground-breaking account) about the diplomatic manoeuvring in the US, Japan and the Soviet Union. And I highly recommend them both. (I'm also recommending Frank's Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.) In fact, if you compare the historiography article you cite with the Wikipedia article, you'll find all the books there. However, these are not what we want. What we're looking for is an account of events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'll keep looking. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7: It's been nearly a week. Any success finding Japanese accounts of the events on the ground? There seems to be a large number of primary accounts in English, but I don't know if there are any secondary summaries of those primary accounts, at least not in English. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've found some. I'll add the extra material on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EddieHugh

I'm interested in certain aspects of this, so will comment as I notice things.

• "Although some Japanese were taken prisoner,[232] most fought until they were killed or committed suicide.[233]". The paragraph contents before this sentence mean that this implies civilians & military. The source is specifically about the military, and even then is really only about PoWs at one camp in New Zealand. "most" requires statistical back up for total war casualties, not just a few extreme examples.

• There seems to be no mention of the idea that the bombs were dropped by the US in order to influence Russia – in part to end the war before Russia could gain Japanese territory, and in part as a demonstration of the weapon's effects. These may be minority views, but they are seriously discussed.

• There's vast detail on the process of bombing (especially for Nagasaki – a paragraph on a seemingly irrelevant letter; a paragraph on a plane landing; a paragraph on a confused journalist...), and comparatively little on what the bombs did, physically and otherwise. I suspect that this is a symptom of a strong lean towards an Allied/Western/Anglophone perspective in the article. Further examples: "Depiction, public response and censorship" is almost all about the UK and the US (surely the reaction in Japan is at least as important, and what about in China, Korea...); the more than 600,000 (?) survivors get 3.5 lines on my screen, the same as the quirky trivia story of one 'double survivor' (the consequences, including societal, for the survivors were great, but are they mentioned?); there's detailed information on damage to Mitsubishi plants, but things such as Urakami Cathedral are not mentioned; the first thing written about the Hiroshima Peace Memorial is that it was designed and built by a Czech man; "Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000" (is there a description of why? The next paragraph has lots of detail on Allied PoWs, but the 5,000–40,000 Japanese get nothing that I can find, except in the lead, which should be a summary).

• There aren't many sources from Japanese writers, but there is lots available, including in English.

• Linked to my third bullet point, the article does show the signs of coming from those with a military interest, as indicated by the nominator. As a military article, it is detailed if still too close to one-sided, but the events are about far more than decisions, orders and actions. Considering the readers: are the 2.4M looking for detail on military hardware and action, or on broader matters? Both, perhaps, but more of the latter, I suggest.

Even for "the needs of the English-speaking world", then, I feel that the current incarnation leans very strongly to one perspective and that it concentrates excessively on military aspects of what is a much more nuanced topic.

I didn't start writing with this intention, but I have to put myself down as oppose. EddieHugh (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1. I have removed this.
2. The Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has its own article. There is only a summary here. Same goes for the Surrender of Japan and Hibakusha. The article's focus is on the bombing, which is only covered in this article.
3. Do you have a recommended source? The editors were particularly interested in locating details about the relief efforts.
4. The former by a long shot actually if article traffic analysis is anything to go by. The article needs to cover both.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN61: formatting
• FN83: need full citation info
• FN88: possible to provide translation of title and publisher?
• Be consistent in how website names are formatted - compare for example FNs 35 and 123 and 125
• FN133: missing publisher
• FN138: formatting, and publication wikilink goes to the wrong place
• FN143: publisher? Check for other cites that are missing info
• Why is the Truman Library linked in FN145 but not 132? Check for consistency
• Fn194: page formatting
• FN214: page?
• Compare FN216 and 217 and 228
• FN221: location?
• Fn227, 245: formatting
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• FN233: pages?
• Why does Ward come after Williams?
• More specific location for Coster-Mullen?
• Gruhl: which New Brunswick?
• Lifton appears to be combining info from two different editions - the one in New York was published by Random House, and UNC is in North Carolina
• Be consistent in whether you use D.C. or DC
• Kanabun: date formatting
• FN66/67 appear to be referring to a source in Further reading - if so, that should be moved. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Nikkimaria. I think I have made all the required changes. I've added translations, but the templates do not have a field for a translation of the publisher, so I put it in with the publisher. The neatorama appeares to be sourced from this book. Given the comments on the page by the publisher (not to mention Coster-Mullin and Krauss's comments) I have removed the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I live in a city near Mt Fuji that was firebombed ten times during the war. Not that that makes me an expert or anything ... anyways, not all the following is necessarily required to meet FA standards, so feel free to strike back at any of my carpet bombing———

• I realize there are strong ties to the US here, but at the same time it is an article that involves quite a number of nations, so wouldn't it make sense to privilege metric over imperial measures (e.g. with "{{convert|16|sqmi}} of the city and 267,000 buildings")? (Yes, yes, that's an awful fine hairsplit)

  You won't get any disagreement from me about measurements. Everyone understands metric, but few people remember the old measurements. But conversions have to be handled with great care. On a recent book of mine, the copy editors wanted to convert tons to tonnes, but of course tons were a unit of volume in the old (40 cubic feet to be exact). As a historian I have a strong preference for the original measurements. FWIW, the Manhattan Project largely used metric, but the USAAF used imperial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Sometimes you use "U.S.", and sometimes "US" (and "UK")

  Per WP:NOTUSA, I have standardised on "U.S." Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "[[mokusatsu|ignored]] this ultimatum.": I'd format this "[[mokusatsu|ignored this ultimatum]]."—you're not linking to the word "ignore"

  I've removed it. The article is correct, but this was not the Japanese response. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "the U.S. Army Air Forces 509th Composite Group": I might word this "the 509th Composite Group of the U.S. Army Air Forces" to avoid two links appearing as one (I don't know what to do about "Silverplate Boeing B-29 Superfortress")

  A good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated.": it would be nice to enumerate briefly some of the most common arguments

  Well, it is only one short section of the article. But the sentience sums it up well. There are actually two debates. One is about the role that the atomic bombs played in Japan's decision to surrender, as compared with other factors (namely the blockade, conventional bombing, the threat of invasion and the the Soviet Union joining the war). The other is about the ethics of using nuclear weapons.

Background

• "had entered its fourth year": I think you can safely drop "had"
• "1.25 million battle casualties": is "1.25" a translation of "one and a quarter", or does it just happen to be such a "round" number?

  It's rounded to the nearest 10,000. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "in the Philippines to 2:1 on Okinawa": "in" the Philippines, but "on" Okinawa?

  Because the Philippines is a collection of islands, whereas Okinawa is just one. It would be more historically and geographically accurate to say "the Ryukyus" (as us military historians do), as there was fighting on Ie Shima and the Kerama Islands, but we run the risk of the readers not knowing what we're talking about. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, "Okinawa Prefecture" has been the name of the administrative district that includes the Ryukyus since 1879. If the historians insist on using "Ryukyus" to refer to the area, I suppose we have to defer to them, but anyone who's lived in Japan long enough will associate "Okinawa" with the prefecture before the island. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "two parts: Operations Olympic and Coronet", "Operation Ketsugō": worth redlinks?

  Alas, they all redirect to to Operation Downfall. So the links would be blue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Vice Admiral Takijirō Ōnishi", "General of the Army George Marshall", "Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson", "Brigadier General Haywood S. Hansell", "Major General Curtis LeMay", "Major General Leslie R. Groves, Jr.": are "Vice Admiral", "General of the Army", "Secretary of War", "Brigadier General", "Major General" overlinking (and some duplinks)?

  Only one duplicated. Removed it. Otherwise they are all fine. Military ranks are not widely understood. And the Secretary of War is a post that no longer exists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• File:Tokyo 1945-3-10-1.jpg: you've got some cited material in here—isn't it best to have this (and the cites) in the body?

  Not sure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Japan's six largest cities had been devastated.": I could've sworn I read that Kyoto was spared—am I wrong, or was it not in the top six?

  It wasn't one of the largest six. Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Kawasaki, Yokohama and Kobe. In that order.

  Surprising—today it's the sixth. I was under the impression it's growth was on the decline, not the rise. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  Sounds right. From the Kyoyo article: In 1947, it went back to being 3rd, but its population has gradually declined ever since. By 1960 it had fallen to 5th again, and by 1990 it had fallen to 7th, in 2012 it is now 8th. If current trends continue it could fall to 9th after Kawasaki. I think the bombings may have had something to do with its sudden rise to 3rd. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "escorts based on Iwo Jima and Okinawa": this is the first appearance of Iwo Jima, so could you give it a link?

  Done. It used to be mentioned earlier byt we cut that stuff back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• "under American physicist": definitely overlinking

  Removed a duplicate link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll find time to continue before long ...

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! It's great to see some reviewers I haven't seen before. (Could also use a few of you on this article hint. hint.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, I actually had my eye on that one. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

More from Curly Turkey

• The dates are sometimes MD, sometimes DM (particularly later in the article).
• surprised to see no mention of the word "pikadon". Do English sources never mention it?
  • It looks like it's mentioned in at least Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima, which you're already using as a source. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

    Not me, but I have a source for it. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

    Well, that's not really what I was aiming at. "Pikadon" is a word used to describe the two bombings—there are books and films named Pikadon. When my father-in-law talks to me about the bombings, he uses the word pikadon. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Preparations

• "then approached President": is definitely overlinking

  Many people have not heard of him. Also, the role of the President is not widely understood. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  The president himself certainly needs to be linked, but President is without a doubt overlinking. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "saying that "we can propose no technical demonstration": not a fan of this style; when read aloud, the unannounced switch from third to first person is jarring
• "some even 97% destruction": were there several that suffered "97%" destruction, or was there one extreme case? If the former, I'd reword to "up to"; if the latter, I'd name the place

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Japanese opposition to the war": this makes it sound like Japanese were generally opposed to the war. Is Japanese resistance to the Empire of Japan in World War II related to this?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't just mean it should be linked—the wording tiself could be interpreted as there being a general opposition to the war by Japanese people in general. I was thinking something along the lines of "those Japanese opposed to the war". Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Various sources give conflicting information about when the last leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima prior to the atomic bomb. Robert Jay Lifton writes that it was July 27, and Theodore H. McNelly that it was July 3. The USAAF history notes eleven cities were targeted with leaflets on July 27, but Hiroshima was not one of them, and there were no leaflet sorties on July 30.": this seems to me overly detailed, dragging down the flow of the text. I'd relegate it to a footnote.

  The text is the result of long and protracted discussion, and I'm not changing it. It actually sparked some scholarly research. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  That's unfortunate. I really think it drags down the text with what is serously tangential to the point—in other words, footnote material. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga.": you don't want to link any of those?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Prime Minister Suzuki Kantarō": WP:MOS-JA specifies that names of those born since the Meiji era are to be SURNAME-GIVEN NAME. I've had the page moved.
• "than a rehash (yakinaoshi)": is there some reason to provide the Japanese here?

  The wording is controversial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  Can we get a note on that then? Otherwise it just seems random—out of all the Japanese words that could be in the article, which this one? Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Sir Henry Maitland Wilson,": I can't remember where in the MOS it is, but I'm pretty sure we're supposed to drop the "Sir"

  Per WP:HONORIFIC: The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "a strongly worded signal": what is this? A telegraph?

  Radiogram. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  Could it be explicated? I think most readers will be left scratching their heads over this one. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  It would drag the reader off into a tangent if we explain a radiogram here. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hiroshima

• "in the Hiroshima Castle": is that "the" supposed to be there?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "and extended, right up to the morning": you could safely drop ", right"

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "armed the bomb during the flight to minimize the risks during takeoff": can this be clarified? It sure sounds to me like maximizing risk!

  Added explanation: Parsons had witnessed four B-29s crash and burn of takeoff, and feared that a nuclear explosion would occur if a B-29 crashed with an armed Little Boy on board. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• inconsistent formatting: earlier "on the night of 9/10", now "During the night of August 5–6,"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• very nitpicky, but while "one mile" does convert to "1.6 km", that would assume it were quite precisely a mile, and not rounded. Can you confirm if this is so? 1.5 or 1.7 km would round pretty nicely to a mile.

  "about 1 mile" Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "where they were stoned to death": before, during, after, as a result of the bombing?

• Re-worded to make it clear that it was after the bombing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "operator of the Broadcasting Corporation of Japan noticed": the official English name of the NHK is "Japan Broadcasting Corporation"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "as the Genbaku, or A-bomb Dome": "Genbaku" tranlsates as "A-bomb", whereas this wording seems to imply it translates as "A-bomb Dome"

  Re-woeded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "{{Nihongo|Eizo Nomura|野村 英三|Nomura Eizō}}": I'm pretty sure this is not how the {{Nihongo}} template was meant to be used—it's a translation template, but this isn't a translation, it's a name. I don't think we're doning the reading any favours by showing them the Japanese names in Japanese style and English style, either. Personally, I'd drop the whole thing (including the kanji) and just go with "Eizō Nomura" (GIVEN NAME-SURNAME, with the macron as per MOS-JA)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "who was in the basement of": definitely overlinking

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

More later ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc

• Oppose - I've been watching this for a couple of weeks and I think that the best thing to do at this point would be to close the nom and open a peer review. After an extensive peer review it could be renomed. The prose is quite clunky at spots: "officially bringing an end to World War II", "In the Pacific during this period", "Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well", "the defeat of Germany caused the focus to turn to use against Japan", and the article's organization at times seems haphazard. The bottom line is that the prose is not at all brilliant, in fact many sections make for some painful and confusing reading. In the nominators defense this is a monumental topic, but I fear it might be a bit over their heads. I strongly suggest that during said peer review the nominators make an effort to introduce balance through the application of Japanese sources, as this article is decidedly US-centric, which is the other reason why I've opposed its promotion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  Tweaked the wording in the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, this diff shows the changes made to the wording problems identified by GabeMc. His complaint that the topic is over the heads of the nominators is not actionable and should be disregarded. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  All I meant was that this massive topic could use an extensive peer review and that the two of you, no matter how dedicated, could use a little help from your friends on this one. My oppose is based almost entirely on the prose and as such its very much actionable. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  Let's concentrate on prose issues that you can identify explicitly, and not try to determine whether myself, Hawkeye7, Anotherclown, Oda Mari, Nick-D, Peacemaker67, AustralianRupert, XXzoonamiXX, Mr Stephen, Boundarylayer, Tn9005 Duffit5, Postdlf, Mr305worldwide, Factory, MaGioZal, JByrd, Wikiuser100, David Fuchs, Trappist the monk, TwoTwoHello, Martarius, Curly Turkey, THEMICK, Zedshort, CombatWombat42, Chris857, Indopug, Lightlowemon, John, Lacrimosus and yourself are not up to this "monumental" task. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  Well, to be honest I tried to put together a detailed review, but I abandoned the effort after identifying a large number of issues that quite frankly were exhausting. FTR, I am the third editor to oppose promotion while only one has supported, so its not like the article is almost there and I'm being difficult. I am glad to provide a detailed review most of the time, but this seemed like too much work for FAC, which is not a workshop like peer review is, hence my suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  Well, to be honest, the opinion of an editor who can't be bothered detailing what issues he has found, if any, must be disregarded by the delegates. I therefore expected the article to be promoted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Promoted? With three opposes and only one support? I advise against making this personal, but I "can't be bothered" to detail the issues because they are too numerous and FAC is not a workshop. FTR, the main reason why this article won't be promoted this time around is due to the complete lack of objective balance; i.e. its written from an entirely US-centric POV with little to no mention of the numerous Japanese sources that should be brought in during the peer review that the article so badly needs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  The nominators are knowledgeable and diligent and will work through lists of issues. FAC is the appropriate place for review and comment. The article will be promoted in the absence of specific issues. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Well, if after almost two months at FAC you've only earned one support and three opposes, then I'm not sure why you think that the delegates will pass it this time around. FWIW, if you do take my advice and open a peer review, then I'd be happy to take a look at the article there. My specific issues are that the prose is not FA quality and the POV is not neutral, having been written almost entirely from a US-centric POV. Per reviewers EddieHugh, John, and me, you need to bring-in some of the more respected Japanese sources so that the story reflects the side of the victims and not just the Allies. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  What specific incidents should be covered? What specific prose is not up to standard? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  I'll say it again: the issues are too numerous to mention and FAC is not a workshop. Why don't you ask Curly Turkey to finish the review they abandoned 6 weeks ago? Please don't make this personal; I don't oppose many FAC noms, but I feel like this was one that justified the opposition. Anyway, if you get John and EddieHugh to strike their opposes I'll do the same. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 13:23, 28 March 2014 [20].

---

Proteus (video game)

Nominator(s): Samwalton9 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 video game Proteus. The game received a large amount of coverage as it is quite different in gameplay from most other games and is frequently discussed as an example of a non-game. I think it's at least close to ready for FA though my writing isn't superb and expect that most comments will be regarding criteria 1a. Thanks in advance for taking the time to look at it. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Samwalton9. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I am unlikely to submit this for the WikiCup as I haven't done much to it this year, and am in no rush either way. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Really interesting looking topic.

• "though the length and replayability were not received so well." Could this be rephrased? The following sentence, too, is a little odd.
  • I've reworded these sentences, which I think read better now. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• "in-house engine" Jargon?
  • Reworded in both places. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• "and Key has expressed interest in allowing player created mods of the game." But we're yet to see this?
  • Nope. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• "less smooth 16 bit graphics, before being improved to the current graphical level" Which is?
  • I've actually removed this, I don't think it really adds much to the section. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• "After David Kanaga joined as audio composer the audio mechanics were refined through many different ideas such as allowing players to make music within the game. This idea was not developed further because the developers felt it would take away from the exploration of the game's world and make it too much like a creative tool and so Key and Kanaga settled on final audio mechanic early in development." This prose needs massaging, I feel
  • Hopefully improved. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• "When Proteus pre-orders were open in 2012, a $40 USD Artifact Edition was available which included a boxed version of the game with artwork, soundtrack, and extra development notes.[20] In December 2013, Key apologised that this edition had still not shipped, saying that it was still in development and offered refunds for customers requesting them.[21]" You here jump from pre-release information to many months after the release. This doesn't read well. You seem to have several sentences about the actual release in the lead, but nowhere else.
  • I've added mention of the game's release to the Development section but I think it could do with better wording, will have a think about it. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Is Curve Studios worth a redlink?
  • Yes, good point. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Something that's bugging me- if this is a game made by a Brit, why do we have American spelling and mdy dates? Surely, better to go with BritEng?
  • I write in British spelling by default but bits must have been altered here and there, I'll go through and change to British spellings wherever I see them. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, great- if this is British English, the dates should be in the format of 27 February 2014, rather than February 27, 2014. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Does that apply to references too? Samwalton9 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, preferably! J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I've been putting this off, thanks for doing it! Samwalton9 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Why do you italicise award names?
  • I'm not sure. Do you think different would be better? Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • There's nothing at WP:ITALICS, and we don't italicise BAFTA or Academy Award, not have I seen another publication do so. I'd recommend not italicising. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok done, pretty sure I got them all. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm yet to take a look at the sources, but I feel that the prose is a little below the line currently. I've made some edits- please double check them. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking through! I've addressed the above points where I can. Your edits all seem sensible too. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to support this, but I feel that the article still isn't quite there. You may want to contact Masem (talk · contribs) and especially PresN (talk · contribs) who have had experience bringing games like this through FAC. I've done some more copyediting, and fixed the dates. Here are a few more bits to look at:

• "Proteus was a winner of the Best Audio category in the 2011 Indiecade awards" a winner or the winner? If the former, perhaps say "one of three [or whatever] winners of the..."
  • Must have been bad wording, as written in the reception section it was the winner; changed. I also noticed that it was featured in the Museum of Modern Art while looking this up, so will add that to the reception section too. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Why do you give the price in US$ if this is an English game and this article's in BritEng? Do you have a GB£ price for the game?
  • I gave the price in US$ because that's all the secondary sources gave it as; a primary source added to this so that we can change to £ might be a good idea though the developers quote it in US$ too. Will keep looking for a £ source. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • If that's what the sources say, you could just add a £ value in brackets to keep it BritEng friendly? I'm not sure. It's not a massive deal either way. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep it up! J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• As J Milburn flagged me, one thing to look at is the gameplay section. I haven't played this game though am aware of it, so can appreciate you will not likely have a plot section (such would be incorporated into gameplay). But that said, I feel it needs a bit more distinguishing between plot and gameplay, even if the game itself is super vague about what is going on. For example, you describe how the game ranges through 4 seasons, starting in spring, ending in winter. Is the player given any idea of story or purpose? Maybe that could be explained better as a intro to the section, if that's possible. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sharing your thoughts Masem. The gameplay section is tough because of the nature of the game. You're given essentially zero context, the game starts, you progress through the seasons which are only made apparent visually, and then the game ends; no readily apparent purpose, no story, no plot. That said, I think I'll play through the game again and see if I pick up on anything that could be used to expand/re-organise the section. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I would make this a point then in the section - "The player is given nearly no context or instructions as they play the game, nor given ideas of what goals they need to complete" (not this exactly language). Explain what is not there, perhaps taking some language from reviews (eg the Gamespot review has a line "However, Proteus is even more open in its design than Dear Esther because there's no straightforward narrative. There are plenty of events to witness and things to see, but it's only the strength of your own curiosity that pulls you through" that you might borrow language from. It's the absence of such things that, looking at reviews, what makes this more notable. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Comments from Tezero:

• "The soundtrack changes depending on players' movements. Different sounds are played when players are close to different objects or in certain locations.": Can you elaborate on this, particularly the second sentence?
  • I'm going to reword the gameplay section, will take this into account. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think I've elaborated on this better, though I'm honestly a little stuck on how to explain the soundtrack mechanic accurately without too many examples. If anyone else fancies rewording it feel free. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• "The game is developed" --> "The game was developed"
  • Changed. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• "contained extra features which allowed" --> "contains extra features that allow"
  • Changed. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• "weekends with the" --> "weekends, with the"
  • Changed. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• "current form" --> "final form"
  • Changed. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• "RPG": link to Role-playing video game, not Role-playing game.
  • Good catch, changed. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Curve Studios" is still redlinked in the prose.
  • Do you not think it should be? J Milburn suggested redlinking it, or do you mean that one redlink is sufficient? Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• "player created" --> "player-created"
  • Changed. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• "This description was debated by many;" --> "This description, however, was controversial:"
  • Changed. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• The infobox should probably have at least one genre. I'd suggest "Open world adventure". Tezero (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable, though I could understand others disagreeing. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that having remained open over a month without attracting any support for promotion, and in fact any comments at all for two weeks, this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel terrible about this. Samwalton fixed all of my issues, and I didn't have this on my watchlist so I forgot to come back and support it. Is it too late?

Support, at any rate. This is a very well-crafted article. Tezero (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There would need to have been additional comprehensive reviews/support in any case for it to be promoted or even to remain open, Tezero. The nominator can bring it back to FAC after two weeks and ping you and other previous reviewers that it's again available for comment, and see how it goes then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 11:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC) [21].

---

Pather Panchali

Nominator(s): Dwaipayan (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the first feature film directed by Satyajit Ray. This film is the first from India to enjoy international critical success and features in several lists of great films. The article has undergone a productive peer review, and then copyedit by User:stfg. I believe the article meets FA criteria. Dwaipayan (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Note - It's a shame that this nomination is getting no attention from reviewers. I have listed it as "urgent" on the FAC talk page. Let's hope we attract more interest. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90 A nice article on one of the best films to have ever been made. I have made a few tweaks myself, and am listing a few other points here: Lead As most readers will be unfamiliar with him, I would say "the author Darius Cooper". Added the words "the author" "Launched" sounds better than "heralded" in "..as it was among the films that heralded the Parallel Cinema movement". Unsure which one is more appropriate, but changed it to launched. They mean slightly different things. "Launched" means got it started; "heralded" implies it's imminent but hasn't yet started. --Stfg (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Well, cinema literature does not exactly define which exact film started the Parallel cinema movement. Obviously it is difficult to do so. Some traits of the movement were identified in films prior to Pather Panchali, but films that followed it were more notable for such traits (authenticity, realism). The source by Chidananda Dasgupta [22] (cited in the legacy section) uses the word "pioneer" for a set on Bengali films that pioneered the Parallel cinema movement. So, what do you suggest stfg is the most appropriate word in this case? Shall we use pioneer? Or, as in the legacy section, "helped to introduce"? Or, may be, "one of the first examples of"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Pioneered" is good, and so is "one of the first examples of". Maybe use one in the lead and the other in Legacy? "Helped to introduce" feels less crisp, now it's under the microscope. --Stfg (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Used "pioneered" in the lead. Used "one of the first examples of" in the legacy section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Production "The realist narrative style of Pather Panchali is indebted to Italian neorealism and the works of Renoir". How about "...was highly influenced by Italian neorealism.."? Changed the construction to "influenced by"; did not use the adverb "highly". "..inspired Ray to hope that Pather Panchali also might find an international audience". This is a bit awkward. How about saying that the success of the two films "... led Ray to believe that Pather Panchali would find an international audience"? Changed. In the casting sub-section, please wikilink "red light district". Done. Make sure that all currency data are consistently formatted. Use the rupee sign in the filming sub-section, as is done in the infobox. Currency data now use ₹ (the rupee symbol) consistently.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC) In the filming sub-section: "Thanks to Huston's positive feedback.." Please change to "Due to Huston's..." Changed to due to. Soundtrack sub-section: "..but he was already familiar with the story". I presume he had read the novel. Actually the source said that Ravi Shankar did not read the novel, but was familiar with the plot. Release and reception Again, "thanks to" is not very encyclopedic. Change to "due to" or something else. Changed to due to; however, I think thanks to is not very un-encyclopedic! "It went on to great success in the US in 1958, running for eight months at the Fifth Avenue Playhouse in New York". Missing 'achieve' before 'great'. Hmmm, you are technically correct, but I think just "went on to great success" also conveys the same meaning. stfg (talk · contribs) may have some comment on this. Yes, it's the same meaning, but I think the insertion of "achieve" is an improvement. --Stfg (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Added achieve.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "one found "the magic horse of poetry ... invading the screen" Do we know who he/she was? I will try to find out this. According to the source, the "one" is Arturo Lanocita, an Italian critic. Added that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Legacy Why start legacy by mentioning the 2013 film? I would change the placement to the end of the first paragraph. This was done by stfg (talk · contribs) during copyedit. The rationale is provided in Talk:Pather_Panchali#Copy_edit.2C_December_2013 (the penultimate bullet point) Guilty as charged :) It's quite difficult to find an ideal place for this sentence, for the reason I gave, but I have no objection to Krimuk90's suggestion. --Stfg (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) You are forgiven stfg :) I changed the position of the sentence as suggested by Krimuk.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC) That's it from me. On addressing these issues, I will be happy to support. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Couple of points remains addressed, will return to deal with those.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I think all points are addressed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Very well done guys. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, support, and the valuable copyedits in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I share Graham's disappointment that this hasn't attracted more interest, but unfortunately one supportive review after almost six weeks does not a promotion make so I'll be archiving it shortly. Given the lack of review, I've no objection to a renomination in less than the usual two weeks but I'd suggest leaving it till after the weekend at least, when the FAC list should be a bit shorter after a few more imminent closures. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 13:23, 28 March 2014 [23].

---

Ike Altgens

Nominator(s): —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) (Nomination died at 1 month and 17 days)

This article is a former Featured article about Ike Altgens, one of the most famous accidental witnesses to history. For nearly one month I have been rewriting, adding, fleshing, reestablishing dead links, and finding better links. Undoubtedly, I'll find out presently if it's ready. My thanks in advance. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Quick comment: First instance of Associated Press needs to be followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

*facepalm* Guh! Of course it does. Done, and thank you. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to be a good example of an article in which multiple non-free images will be justified. File:Altgens1.jpg is obviously justified, despite being an AP photo, and we may even have a reason to prefer a larger version (however, as this is a biography, perhaps you would consider an image of the subject to lead the article). File:Altgens.jpg is far too large, and, in any case, should not be used when we have a free image- that said, the licensing on the free image is unclear- that needs looking into. The use of File:Altgens2.jpg and the crop also seem to be justified. The one thing I would say is that the images were not "released" by the AP, as the rationales suggest- they were sold by the AP. These aren't publicity photographs; they're photographs sold to newspapers for money. As these are press agency photographs, which are almost never justified on Wikipedia, you really need a tip-top, carefully crafted rationale. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Released" changed to "sold" as suggested; File:Altgens.jpg reduced as suggested (I didn't realize I'd left it that bloody big xD). I can find no evidence after a meticulous search that File:Altgens with JFK photos-large.jpg was renewed; if you have ideas for additional search avenues (such as hoping someone at AP Dallas has that information and would actually respond to an e-mail), please let me know. I can't find anything that suggests anyone having termed these "publicity" images; care to point me there? :)

Meantime, I've re-read the rationales and I believe they pass muster. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: after perusing other historical bios (something I should have done already *facepalm*), I agree with your infobox assessment. Done. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Altgens.jpg is still much too large, and, in any case, should be deprecated in favour of the free image. The free image, though, still has the implausible "author died 70 years ago" claim. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1: 385x600px is too big? 2: Guh! That was an incorrect tag; it's gone. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 11:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: My understanding of expiration dates was wrong. Suggested change made. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 12:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: AP confirms ownership of File:Altgens with JFK photos-large.jpg, now deleted. The source uploaded it under a different file name, which I failed to take into consideration during the copyright search. (Guh!) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reduced the image size again- there's no need for the portrait to be much bigger than a thumbnail. As the "free" image was not free, the portrait is justified. Thanks for taking the image policies seriously! J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Source for first para of Early life?

Same as graf 2; I've learned over the years to tend toward placing the <ref> at the end of the cited data in the spirit of avoiding clutter per WP:CITE.

• "the first snapped along Elm Street would receive the most scrutiny" and "The Warren Commission paid careful attention to the image, as did private researchers" - source?

Explained within the subsequent, cited text. Rewritten with further cites. :)

• "While these and other quotes have been cited in arguments that Kennedy was shot from somewhere other than the book depository, Altgens in all published interviews to follow would never waver from a belief that the gunfire came from "behind" the Presidential limousine" - source?

Explained in preceding and subsequent cited text. Update: Rewritten and further cited. :)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? IMDb?

First is a note, not a reference; second is non-controversial data (a very brief film career). Update: better refs found and used, both cases. :)

• FN20: what kind of source is this?

A published news article not available on the Internet, last I'd checked. I'll look into it. Wrong, it's a book. Fixed.

• FN31: page formatting

Fixed.

• External links should come after Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for your assistance. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: A free image now leads this article. My inestimable thanks to Altgens' family and estate. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after more than six weeks there's not nearly enough commentary and support for promotion here, so I'll be archiving the review shortly. Just on a quick scan, there are still too many uncited statements, which I believe was one of the things noted when it was demoted from FA. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should end with a citation, at the very least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominator's comment: Any uncited statements were due, apparently, to me misreading WP:CITE#Avoiding_clutter. At the risk of repeating myself, I did an assload of work on this article. I listed it, read the concerns, addressed the concerns, and watched as nothing happened. Literally, nothing happened. Even after spamming a few reviewers, nothing happened. Then, it's closed and archived because nothing happened. This was such a profound disappointment that I shall not go through this process again, with this article or any other. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 13:23, 28 March 2014 [24].

---

Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)

Nominator(s): User:JJARichardson and Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent American rocket scientist and occultist. A co-founder of both the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Aerojet Engineering Corporation, he was also a prominent devotee of English occultist Aleister Crowley, being a follower of the Crowleyan religion of Thelema and a prominent figure in the Californian Ordo Templi Orientis. He died in a mysterious explosion when only 37 years old. This article has recently been awarded GA status, and we are now hoping to push it that bit further, and get it to FAC, in the hope that it can be presented as Wikipedia article of the day for Parsons' centenary: October 2, 2014. Any feedback would be gratefully appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Several captions need editing for grammar. Also, when using a direction like "clockwise" to identify things in an image, be sure to specify a starting point
• File:P1-RocketBoys.jpg: source link is dead; same with File:Navaho_missile.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. I have have replaced the "Rocket Boys" image source with a working NASA link, edited the caption, and replaced the Navaho missile photo with a more striking launching photo. JJARichardson (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Update. Along with resolving the image and link problems, I have corrected some grammatical errors and expanded the detail of the article. JJARichardson (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Update. I have since expanded the article with additional detail. Any feedback? JJARichardson (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I have been following the changes to this article and am happy to support its promotion. James^x12345 23:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• had been having extramarital sex with a prostitute; - Only one prostitute? "Had been having" suggests it was an ongoing thing.

It was a number of occasions according to Pendle. I have included this detail. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• File:HPR-Flight.jpg is completely unrelated to Parsons and appears to me to be merely decorative. He did not build this rocket, after all.

Agreed. I deleted the image. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• he was so scared by the event that he ceased such activities for a number of years. - why was he scared?

He thought that the Devil really was conjured up! Added this detail. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are we really sure that the sources state that he really believed that he conjured the Devil ? I was under the impression that he was simply scared by the spooky atmosphere of the rite ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of the same thing when you're a kid with an imagination. I've reworded the sentence. JJARichardson (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• After graduating from high school - from where?

Washington Junior High. Added this detail. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Washingtong Junior High School is in the text. I thought he went to a senior high school, which I couldn't find in the text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand he went straight from junior high into University School, which essentially functioned as a prep school for privileged kids like Parsons. JJARichardson (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• The bit about Parsons' father comes out of nowhere, really disturbs the flow

Agreed. I have cut down this section, but it can be deleted outright if needs be. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • I'd personally suggest against deleting the information outright; I think that it does add something. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I cut down the sentence to simply note that Marvel was a psychiatric patient, which is succinct while implying that Jack may have been affected by mental illness genealogically. JJARichardson (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Although some Caltech scientists continued to deride them for their work on rocketry, a field still stigmatized by its association with science fiction, they became well known on campus, earning the moniker of the "Suicide Squad" for the dangerous nature of some of their experiments, also attracting attention from the local press. - two ideas are not related enough to be in one sentence

Agreed. I have deleted the first part of the sentence as the ridicule is already noted elsewhere. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• More on the morrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I will attempt to address any other issues. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, RL came up. Some more comments:

• hand-to-mouth - a bit familiar for an encyclopedia
• magical retirement - what?
• Although Parsons and Sara had always had an open relationship, she became enamored with Hubbard, causing Parsons intense jealousy. - Always? Don't think this word is warranted. They were only together for a couple years at this point.
• Although Crowley warned him of such an endeavor, Parsons was committed, and retreated to the desert, where he came to believe that a preternatural entity spoke to him, to provide him with Liber 49, which he believed to represent a fourth part of The Book of the Law, the primary sacred text of Thelema, as well as part of a new sacred text he called the Book of Babalon. - Sentence is a bit too long. I'd split it
• Are the addresses really necessary?
• You've mentioned the company Hughes above. Why is the link only showing up in #Death

• More soon-ish. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Changed to "operate informally".
• Changed sentence to "In May, Smith and Helen left for a two-room cabin in Rainbow Valley with Kwan".
• Changed to "Although Parsons and Sara were in an open relationship..."
• Changed to "Although Crowley warned him of such an endeavor, Parsons was committed and retreated to the desert. He believed that a preternatural entity spoke to him there and provided him with Liber 49..."
• I have deleted most of the addresses, but inclusion of 1003, Orange Grove references are necessary for sentence flow.
• Sorry, I'm a bit confused by this? The first reference to the Hughes Aircraft company is linked, the second not.

• JJARichardson (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• For the last one: the link to Hughes the man, not the company. But I may just be tired... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• a key hobby - Sounds strange
• Image:Crowley unicursal hexagram.svg - Does this illustrate anything, or is it purely decorative?
• The International Astronomical Union decided to name a crater on the far side of the Moon "Parsons" - what's with the quotes?
• John Carter's biography, Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons. - could be misread as a biography of Carter
• Anthony Boucher's murder mystery Rocket to the Morgue - per WP:SEAOFBLUE you should break this up a bit
• Should the stage play or the graphic novel really be mentioned here? None of the authors have articles, suggesting they may not be notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Changed to "Parsons often hunted..."
• Deleted. I originally thought it was illustrative, but I guess it's superfluous. (Another issue is that the looped central design was devised by Crowley rather than being that generally used).
• Delinked.
• Changed to "In 1999, Feral House published the biography Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons; author John Carter expressed the opinion that..."
• Delinked, as links are already provided earlier in article.
• As Parsons is an esoteric subject, and the play and graphic novel have a reasonable amount of publicity, I personally think it's worth keeping the references to them. I'm open to other opinions though.

JJARichardson (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Re: Crater: My point was not that it should be delinked (rather, by all means link it), but that names of geographical features generally don't get put in between quotation marks ("Parsons"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delink...more like dequoted. Just a typo. JJARichardson (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ẽ

• Support on prose. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. :) JJARichardson (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle

This is really a fascinating biography and I read straight through (probably thanks to Crisco's review above!) I never knew any of this, though I know about JPL, so thanks for the work here. I made a few edits as I was reading but if you disagree with anything it's fine to revert. A few comments:

1934-1938

• Date of father's death? Why was he at St. Elizabeths? The second isn't really necessary, but I'm curious.

He suffered a near-fatal heart attack, which resulted in a mental breakdown causing severe clinical depression. I did document this specifically, but the paragraph was viewed as too long and awkward admidst the text so was cut down. JJARichardson (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd not read the comments earlier but have now. I do think that mentioning the date of death might be useful, but up to you. Victoria (tk) 00:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is still a little bothersome - it gives quite a lot of information about Marvel (remarriage, etc). and yet says the meeting had little impact and ends with the comment about St. Elizabeths. I don't know how, but this needs some more tweaking. Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

1939-1942

• "On August 21, 1941, Navy Captain Homer J. Boushey, Jr. piloted the JATO-equipped Ercoupe at the March Fields Air Corps Base in Moreno Valley; watched by such figures as Clark Millikan and William F. Durand, it proved a success and reduced takeoff distance by 30%, although one of the JATOs partially exploded and damaged the fuselage in the plane's tail.[54]" > feels like this sentence should have a full stop (period) in front of "it".
• delink epiphany?

1942-1944

• "With the U.S. having joined the Second World War," > I think this can be phrased better.
• "Andrew G. Haley replaced von Kármán as Aerojet chairman and imposed payroll cuts instead of reducing JATO output.[58][59]" > might need an explanation for the cuts. Weren't they earning money?

They were earning money, but increasing salaries would have provided less money for output. JJARichardson (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense but what piqued my interest is why they'd cut salaries. Weren't they mostly government funded? Victoria (tk) 00:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The government funds were limited to an extent. JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Can this be spun out more? Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

*delink abortion?

1945-1946

• delink squall?

"Epiphany", "squall" and "abortion" all delinked. JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

1946-1952

• Link USC?

Would probably be overlinking as the university is noted as USC earlier on. JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry, missed it. Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• "As the Red Scare intensified, Parsons decided to migrate to Israel to pursue Rosenfeld's offer, but an alerted Hughes secretary Parsons had asked to type up a portfolio of technical documents reported him to the FBI, accusing Parsons of espionage and attempted theft of company documents on the basis of some of the reports that he had sought to submit to the Technion Society. Parsons denied the allegations, insisting peaceful intentions in the former and error of judgement in the latter." > I think this sentence would be better broken up.

Done. "Parsons decided to migrate to Israel to pursue Rosenfeld's offer, but an alerted Hughes secretary Parsons had asked to type up a portfolio of technical documents reported him to the FBI. She accused Parsons of espionage..." JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

General

• Try to weed out constructions like "due to" and "being" preceding a verb.
• I think I saw some inconsistency in comma usage, but needs someone better than I am with commas to advise
• Check for dupelinks, I think I noted a few as I was reading

I assume that means duplicates? I've noticed it myself and will sort it out. JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• My largest concern here is sourcing. There seems to be a large reliance on a few biographies and I'm curious whether other sources have been consulted that might have different information or points-of-view.

That's all. Nice work. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Parsons is an esoteric subject; there really isn't much biography of him, and scientific documentation of his work is threadbare. I'm pretty sure that the books cited in the article are the only ones available (I have only been able to find the Carter and Pendle works for purchase myself). Midnightblueowl deserves credit for doing as much as possible with what we have. JJARichardson (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There might be something in the LA Times - maybe an obituary or something to use. My sense is that Parsons the rocket fuel scientist gets a little lost in Parsons the occultist and I think a small amount of tweaking with sources can avoid that from happening. Anyway, unfortunately I won't be able to continue here (a RL interruption) but good luck. Oh, one more thing before I forget, did Arroyo Seco become the site where JPL was built? If so, I think that might be worth mentioning. Victoria (tk) 00:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a mention that their desert workplace became the JPL site. JJARichardson (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Update -- In the "Legacy and influence" section I have incorporated some remarks by Pendle, which I hope effectively merges together Parsons' occult and scientific identities. JJARichardson (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is my concern: it's an 8000 plus word article and is using only eight sources. Of those eight, two come from Three Essays on Freedom and the focus of six of the source is on the occult. There are a couple of inline sources which are helpful, most notably the JPL website. But my fear is that without a full search for more sources the focus of the article is skewed. I found this mention of Parsons in a history of JPL, which can be used, as can the LA Times article linked in the further reading. I also found this which might be helpful, this info from Caltech, and apparently more at Caltech. My sense is that with some searching, more sources can be found, and more sources should be used. Surely the LA Times wrote an obituary and would have other coverage? And the article mentions news articles that were written about him. It's tempting to lean on only a few sources, such as Pendle, particularly when that's what's at hand, but without a full and comprehensive search there's no way of knowing what else will be found. For instance the LA Times article linked in the further reading mentions the importance of the trial he testified at when still quite young (sorry, can't remember the name of the defendant) and hints that perhaps his death was motivated by revenge. All these angles should be weighed and if necessary added, and sources swapped out where ever possible. I'm not at all familiar with this story or this material, and truly I thought it was a fascinating read. But the dearth of sourcing is a concern for me in terms of FA quality. It's not enough to oppose, but on the other hand I can't support yet. Sorry, btw, for the absence. I'll keep this on my watch and see how you do with it. Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate you finding those references. I have incorporated Landis' article into the text and will see what I can do with the other links you've provided soon. I have tried to find an official link Parsons' LA Times obituary, but to no avail. I can incorporate references to it from one of the biographies though. JJARichardson (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have also incorporated the references from Keane and Conway, and have consulted User:Midnightblueowl on citing the others appropriately. JJARichardson (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have incorporated Rasmussen and Westwick as references. JJARichardson (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Final comment - you're welcome for the sources but I'd like to emphasize that I found them in a fairly quick search that lasted about 30 minutes or so. I have not been able to find an LA Times obit either, nor do I think it should be taking from the biographies. Instead I believe the editorial point of view from the LA Times would be helpful, and I strongly believe more sources are available given a longer search. As it is, I think as it is now, this fails the criteria 1 b and c. I have noticed the editing here, but this FAC has been open a long time, and that can't be comfortable. Furthermore, this page was brought to FAC a day after passing GA and imo comprehensiveness is one of the most important differences between GA and FA. My suggestion would be to allow this to be archived, spend adequate time out of the glare of the FAC to make the necessary fixes and to find more sources and then re-submit. It's a fine piece, but the lack of sourcing is a concern in my view. Victoria (tk) 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Update I have resolved the issue regarding Marvel's military career/second son and depression by separating them into the early life and personal life sections. And I respect the above comments. JJARichardson (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Update Just a note that I have added two more references to the bibliography (Metzger and Cashill). JJARichardson (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I've stopped by this page a couple of times in the last few weeks, hoping that it would attract more commentary but I'm afraid that with only two in-depth reviews after two months, the most recent still equivocal about promotion, it's time to archive. Also, just scanning the prose, there are some overused phrases, e.g. "a number of" (try "several" or "many", as appropriate). Per FAC instructions, pls refrain from re-nominating for a minimum two weeks, taking the time to further address Victoria's concerns, and perhaps having someone else scan the prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I take the above comments into account and hope they will be resolved in the coming months (I'll contribute to doing this, of course). I should note in the meantime that I've dealt with the "a number of" issue. JJARichardson (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 23:03, 17 March 2014 [25].

---

Imelda (film)

Nominator(s): ♥^(Theparties) 23:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the film Imelda which is about the life of Imelda Marcos. This article can be featured because of its historical significance. ♥^(Theparties) 23:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Any info on production? You can upload an image and fill the remaining parameters of the infobox. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Update - The nominator has been blocked for a week, starting on March 13th. GamerPro64 20:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose cannot possibly be comprehensive when not a single source comes from the Philippines, where the film "was considered a smash hit." Surprised this passed GAN actually.—indopug (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest withdrawal. No production section? No poster/illustrations? No sources from the Philippines? Seriously? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I agree with the concerns about sourcing raised above; a reminder also that the FAC instructions state that editors should not nominate any article for FAC within two weeks of their previous nom being archived without leave from a delegate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [26].

---

The Whistleblower

Nominator(s): 1ST7 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a 2010 thriller film inspired by Nebraska police officer Kathryn Bolkovac's account of human trafficking in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. It passed as a GA in October 2013 and underwent a copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors in December 2013, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. 1ST7 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why so many citations in the lead?
• Long quotes like "I completely understand..." should be blockquoted
• Use a consistent date format
• FN4: author?
• FN16: formatting is not consistent with other refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review. I've removed the citations from the lead, blockquoted the "I completely understand..." quote, made the dating format consistent, added the author for ref no. 4, and made ref no. 16 consistent with the other refs. --1ST7 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey 1ST7, that was just an example of a long quote - generally anything over 40 words should be blockquoted, so there's a few more to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. All quotes longer than 40 words are now blockquoted. --1ST7 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. High quality article, meticulous use of sourcing throughout. My only minor quibble would be to suggest renaming the long section name of Response from the United Nations and DynCorp International to the shorter recommendation of simply, Aftermath. Excellent effort overall. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. I've renamed the section as you suggested. --1ST7 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Great article. Just some points I felt I had to bring up. In the third paragraph of the lede:

  ...The film received mixed reviews: the performances by Weisz and her costars were praised but the intense violence depicted in several scenes was debated by critics, with some calling it exploitive. I suggest you reword this as "The film received mixed reviews. The performances by Weisz and her co-stars were praised but the intense violence depicted in several scenes was debated by critics, with some calling it exploitive."

The first sentence of the "Reviews" section could be worded better. The sentence currently reads ...Rottentomatoes.com graded the film 74 percent, with a rating of 6.5/10. Out of 109 reviews, 81 were positive." A look at Rotten Tomatoes indicates that 115 critics have reviewed the film. I suggest you change the sentence to: "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 74% approval rating based on reviews from 115 critics, with an average score of 6.5/10. The website reported the critical consensus as "Rachel Weisz puts on a compelling smoldering act though the film suffers from a literal-minded approach to the material"."

Other than that, the article looks great. I'm happy to support this for FA. 23 editor (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. I've made the changes you suggested. --1ST7 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Image review: Eight images in total. First is the film poster with a good non-free rationale. The image of Balkovac is ok despite Flickrbot never tagging it as good for whatever reason. For all the other images their free status checks out. Wizardman 04:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --1ST7 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I just wanted to stop by and reiterate my Support for promotion of this article to Featured quality. Since my original comment at the FAC, the nominator responded politely and swiftly to my recommendation, and it has had a successful Source Review and Image Review. I went over the article again and it only looks better since then. It's well-referenced, well-structured, and well-presented. Great quality improvement effort by 1ST7. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment - Sadly this nomination has stalled and I will archive it shortly. The nom has been running since Christmas but there have been no new reviews for some weeks. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC) [27].

---

Walkabout (Lost)

Nominator(s): Newyorkadam (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article as a Featured Article because I believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. This is my first FA nomination ever :D (and yes, the image is fair use :-) Newyorkadam (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Oppose given the vast literature available on Lost, this article fails WP:FA? criteria 1c, "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Further, I believe a Themes section is necessary, which involves a scholarly analysis of the various elements of the episode. Thus it also fails 1b.—indopug (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've spent a ton of time researching this specific episode and can't find much more. Information on the show in general belong on the Lost article. I used every source on this article I could find. As Lost gained popularity, it received a lot more attention in the media and that's why later episodes have moar information. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

"a ton of time researching"? You've made a dozen edits to the article, all in the past week. The article is basically what passed GAN three years ago, but for additions such as "...Kate climbed the tree herself. She loved doing it and did it again and again." As for your last sentence, that would be true for any show, but still hard-working editors have managed to create high-quality articles of episodes from the first seasons of South Park ("Cartman Gets an Anal Probe") and The X-Files ("Squeeze") among others.—indopug (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Newyorkadam. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with indopug. I appreciate your enthusiasm -- I would love for all Lost episodes to make it to at least GA eventually (I've brought a few there myself). However, this is one of Lost's most iconic episodes, and a brief search on Google Books does reveal many potential resources that are not yet incorporated into the article. I'm sure there's more that can be pulled from the bonus features and interviews, as well. I recommend this be withdrawn considering the considerable work that is needed for it to attain FA status. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [28].

---

Phoenix, Arizona

Nominator(s): Onel5969 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Phoenix, the capital city of Arizona, and one of the major cities in the United States. Phoenix has been rated as "high importance" in the WikiProject Cities, as well as WikiProject United States / American Old West / Arizona. It has undergone peer review, as well as extensive editing in recent months (special thanks to Dontreadalone, David J Johnson, Rjensen and Hamish59, all of whom made significant contributions to improving this article) and at this point I feel it meets the criteria of FA status.Onel5969 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Unaddressed {{citation needed}} tag, and several other spots lacking needed citations

Done — Onel5969 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) At least the cn tag

• MOS issues: too many unneeded citations and too many paragraphs in the lead, repeated wikilinks and overlinking, extensive problems with caption formatting, etc

Lead paragraph  —  Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking  —  Done  —  per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking

Caption formatting  —  Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I do have a question regarding the comment about too many citations in the lead paragraph. I looked at other cities which have achieved the FA ranking, and while Washington DC has not a single citation (which is actually against MOS guidelines), many others (such as Boston, Cleveland, Houston, Seattle) have comparable amount, or even more, including multiple citations in some instances. I guess I'm saying I am unsure how to correct this comment.

• Inconsistent and incomplete citations, use of questionable sources

Inconsistent citations  —  Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete citations  —  Done  — Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Problems with images and licensing: File:Phoenixcollage.jpg needs to identify which components are the uploader's work vs pre-existing Commons images, and would likely need to link all of the latter (depending on copyright status); File:Flag_of_Phoenix,_Arizona.svg needs to explicitly identify copyright holder and clarify that this is a flag not a logo; the source link for File:HohokamArea.ca1350.png identifies Commons as the source, so we would need to find the actual original source for the image; File:Phoenix1885-AerialMap_HiRes.jpg needs a US PD tag; File:Her_Secret_Is_Patience_Phoenix_Sculpture.jpg is a non-free image that really cannot be justified in this article (and currently includes no FUR for here anyways); etc

FUR usage  —  Done  —  I've removed the one image. I'm new to this, and did not know of that category of usage. Will always check for it in the future. I will go through the remaining pics and make sure all the copyright information is correct. Will take a day or so.Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Close paraphrasing concerns: compare for example "McDonald brothers actually sold their first franchise to Phoenix gasoline retailer, Neil Fox, in 1952 for a one-time fee of $1,000. The brothers anticipated no further connection with the operation. They expected Fox to call his store "Fox's". When he informed them that he wanted to call it "McDonald's", the brothers were astounded" with "McDonalds sold their first franchise license to Phoenix gasoline retailer, Neil Fox, in 1952 for a one-time fee of $1,000...the brothers anticipated no further connection with the operation...They expected Fox to call his store "Fox's". When he informed them that he wanted to call it "McDonald's", the brothers were floored", or "In 1959 alone, Phoenix saw more new construction than it had in the more than three decades from 1914 to 1946" with "In 1959 alone, Phoenix sees more new construction than in more than three decades from 1914 to 1946", etc

• Have fixed the McDonald's issue. I will slog through the rest of the citations and make sure this issue is addressed.

• Suggest withdrawal. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Support - as an excellent example of an article about an American city that brings it alive through its easy reading. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think this article would be ill-served by a speedy withdrawal. I went over prose and comprehensiveness during PR and found involved editors quite quick to make changes once they were presented; it will improve further if we work within the FA process. I did not look at refs or images, however. Perhaps Nikkimaria can present a bullet point list of concerns. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood, but unfortunately paraphrasing issues change the timeline: even if every other source in the article is clear of such issues, it takes a significant amount of time to verify that, time that is usually best taken away from FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I have to agree with Nikkimaria on this one and urge a withdrawal. Some of these systemic problems of this magnitude have to be sorted out before coming to FAC. The FAC process isn't a clean-up task force, and if you think it is, well you are entitled only to my opposition since you're not doing the article or FAC any favours. And when I see a section start with, "The history of the city of Phoenix begins with Jack Swilling, a Confederate veteran of the Civil War." I check google for copyvios and paraphrasing, since it sounds like a travel brochure...sure enough it probably was, since it's verbatim from a 2007 lowbrow history paperback called Jack Swilling: Arizona's Most Lied About Pioneer by Albert R. Bates --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Based on Nikki's and Henry's recommendations I'll be archiving this shortly. Per the FAC instructions, pls do not nominate this or any other article at FAC for at least two weeks, using the time (or more as necessary) to address their concerns. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [29].

---

Can't Hold Us Down

Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk · contribs) and Simon (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel that it meets the FA criteria. We have followed the style of other music-related FAs, so we hope it is ready for the gold star — Simon (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a good amount of scholarly literature addressing this song.

• Your references to Gendered (Re)Visions are incorrect. You're actually citing "Independent women? Feminist discourse in music videos" by Linda Besigiroha, pp. 227-52. The names you cite are the volume's editors.
• I've added a couple of sources which should be cited on the article talk page.
• The way you cite book publication locations is odd, and your publishing information seems off.

I'll hopefully give this a full review at some point, but you should look into those sources. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting on the sources you currently use, but I do recommend you look into those I've raised on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for fixing the references. — Simon (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've only just realised that I completed the GA review... In any case...

• In the lead, I'd like to see a mention of whether the track won the Grammy (if not, a link to what did wouldn't hurt) and I'd like to see more about what's been said by academics- we've got at least four separate academic works which discuss it, which is unusual for a not-so-successful pop song!

Done, those were some great sources you found!

• "However, she was dissatisfied with being marketed as a bubblegum pop singer, an effort pushed by her then-manager Steve Kurtz, because of the genre's financial lure." Comma abuse- she was dissatisfied by the financial lure? Lose comma after "Kurtz"?

Done

• "By late 2000, Aguilera parted ways with Kurtz" Either "By late 2000, A had parted..." or "In late 2000, A parted...". Your current way doesn't make sense

Done

• " Hip hop producer Scott Storch wrote and produced several tracks for the album, including "Can't Hold Us Down".[4] Aguilera and Matt Morris are additionally given writing credits for the song.[5]" Irritating tense switch

Done

• "Stylus Magazine's Todd Burns praised the dancehall-influenced melody nearing the end of the track, but opining that the production was overshadowed by underwhelming songwriting." This doesn't even make sense

Done

• "It also appeared on the same list published" Same as what? This is unclear.

Done; this whole paragraph has actually been redone.

• "In Europe, "Can't Hold Us Down" reached the top ten charts of several territories: it was a success on the Hungarian Singles Chart, where it peaked at number four.[30] The song additionally reached number five on the Irish Singles Chart and number six on the UK Singles Chart.[31][32]" This is clumsy

• "On the Danish Singles Chart, "Can't Hold Us Down" peaked at number eight, while its highest position on the German Media Control Charts was number nine.[35]" Both those claims are cited to footnote 35- is this correct?

Done

• It's such a waste that the Besigiroha source is just used for factual stuff related to the happenings in the music video and what people were wearing. Is there no proper analysis?

• "while her nose is attached with a gold piercing" What does that even mean?

Done; I rewrote that sentence to be more straight-forward.

• "The AV Club wrote" Clumsy personification

Done

• The last paragraph of the music video section is very difficult to follow. The quotes don't seem to quite fit in the sentences that support them...

Done; I removed some pieces that I didn't even know were added into the article to make the last paragraph more cohesive.

• "Aguilera performed "Can't Hold Us Down" on Justified and Stripped Tour" the tour? her tour?

Done; added "her" to complete the sentence.

• The issue with the release history section is that it doesn't include a number of countries in which the single charted- did it chart without release, or could it be that these release lists are always going to be incomplete?

This doesn't feel quite there yet, but it's certainly not a bad article, as far as pop songs go. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The writing, in places, doesn't really strike me as FA-worthy. The composition section and the music video section, for instance, don't read as well as they could; fine for GAC, but not really FAC.

I addressed some of the issues you've raised above today, and I expect that I will be able to complete the rest of them tomorrow. Even if the article is not promoted for FA, the corrections you've commented on are certainly great pointers to maintain its GA status, and I appreciate your time! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend moving the journal articles into the bibliography section and citing them in the same way as the book sources. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiRedactor has added the information, while I have reordered the article — Simon (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Support: WikiRedactor and Simon, the article is fantastic!

Suggestions:

• ""Can't Hold Us Down" is a song by American recording artist Christina Aguilera featuring rapper Lil' Kim, taken from Aguilera's fourth studio album, Stripped (2002)." I think the first sentence of the lead can be more clear and should highlight the notability – a feminist theme that criticizes gender-related double standards. I’d recommend: ""Can't Hold Us Down" is a song from the fourth studio album Stripped (2002) of the American recording artist Christina Aguilera that has a feminist theme criticizing gender-related double standards." The part "featuring rapper Lil' Kim" can come in the next sentence, I believe.

• For me the "feminist theme" belongs to the composition and should come after "featuring Lil' Kim" part

• "However, she was dissatisfied with being marketed as a bubblegum pop singer, an effort pushed by her then-manager Steve Kurtz because of the genre's financial lure." (I think it should be "then manager". I’d prefer a rephrasing similar to "However, she was dissatisfied with being marketed as a bubblegum pop singer, an effort pushed by Steve Kurtz, her manager at that time, because of the genre's financial lure.")

• Fixed — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• "In late 2000, Aguilera parted ways with Kurtz and hired a new manager Irving Azoff, in addition to announcing that her forthcoming album would have more musical and lyrical depth." (I’d recommend a rephrasing: "In late 2000, Aguilera replaced Kurtz with Irving Azoff. She also announced that her forthcoming album would have more musical and lyrical depth." The portion "parted ways with Kurtz" appears a bit euphemistic and redundant when combined with "hired a new manager" assuming that a singer doesn’t have two managers at a particular point of time. I’d also recommend, a bit tentatively, that the sentence be broken into two fragments at "in addition" to avoid giving an impression that Kurtz prevented her from giving "more musical and lyrical depth". Also this announcement appears vague to me. Was she choosing shallow lyrics and musical style in her earlier albums deliberately? Was it a result of some criticism that they were shallow? Please feel free to rephrase it differently or ignore the suggestion altogether.)
• "Aguilera and Matt Morris were additionally given writing credits for the song." (I’m not sure what "additionally" means here. In addition to what? It’s the second time I encountered some form of "addition" in an otherwise very short Background section, sounds boring. Overall I’d recommend a style conducive for the nonspecialist reader.)
• "Lyrically, "Can't Hold Us Down" has a feminist theme,[11] as it criticizes the "common" gender-related double standards, in which men are applauded for their sexual behaviors, while women who behave in a similar fashion are looked down upon." (Can we have a single word for "looked down upon"? How about "disdained" or "scorned"?)

• Changed to disdained — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• "RCA Records serviced "Can't Hold Us Down" to mainstream radio stations in the United States as the fourth single from Stripped on July 8, 2003." (I’d prefer "aired".)
• "The song was also distributed as a CD single from September to October 2003 in several countries worldwide by RCA Records and Sony Music Entertainment." (For the sake of clarity, I’d recommend a rephrasing similar to: "From September to October 2003, the song was also distributed as a CD single in several countries by RCA Records and Sony Music Entertainment." The portion "several countries worldwide" appears too broad and vague to me. Can we have few examples of countries to reinforce the fact that the distribution was "worldwide" and not restricted to a single continent?)
• I think the sentence "Stylus Magazine's Todd Burns was underwhelmed by the lyrical content of the track and felt that those shortcomings overshadowed its stronger production; however, he appreciated the dancehall-influenced melody that appeared at the end of the track. " can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow. Can we have some other word for "underwhelmed" here? Which "shortcomings"? The "lyrical content of the track" is simply lyrics. Howz it a shortcoming is not clear to me?
• "Jacqueline Hodges wring for BBC Music appreciated Lil's Kim's inclusion on the track for adding "a bit of edge"." (spelling)

• Fixed — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Josh Kun of Spin wrote a favorable review of the song, complimenting the confrontational lyrics for being more aggressive than the works of Britney Spears." (confrontational and aggressive, appear a bit repetitive to me. Can we have a rephrasing here? I’d recommend something similar to: "Josh Kun of Spin praised the song for its aggressive lyrical style which he felt was even better than the works of Britney Spears." I know it’s not good :). But, can you think of a better wording?)
• "In 2009, Nick Levine from Digital Spy and Nick Butler of Sputnikmusic shared disappointment toward the song's absence from Aguilera's greatest hits album Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits." (I think it should be "towards". Can you rephrase it without the "song’s absence" construct? I believe that the sentence can be rephrased to make it easy to follow. I’d recommend: "In 2009, Nick Levine from Digital Spy and Nick Butler of Sputnikmusic shared disappointment because the song could not make it to Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits, an album featuring Aguilera's greatest hits.")
• "In Europe, "Can't Hold Us Down" reached the top ten charts of several territories: it was a success on the Hungarian Singles Chart, where it peaked at number four." (I’d prefer "countries" over "territories". Also, the part "it was a success on the Hungarian Singles Chart, where it peaked at number four" should be in a separate sentence because there are other examples of European countries following this statement. How about a new paragraph for Europe?)
• "LaChapelle described the video's concept as his "ode to the '80s"." I’d prefer "the concept of the video".

• Fixed — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• "In the clip, Aguilera wears a pink sleeveless shirt, a sleeveless sport jacket, a pair of shorts, a mauve baseball cap embroidered with the words "Lady C", and white long socks." (Simply, embroidered with "Lady C". The use of "the words" appears superfluous to me.)

• I think that if "the words" is removed it would be misleading — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The music video received mixed reviews from critics:" (or simply, "The music video received mixed reviews:")

• Removed — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Watson felt that the video exemplified cultural appropriation, specifically noting how Aguilera conducted herself as an African-American women" (women or woman?)

• Fixed — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Andy Cohn from The Fader provided a more favorable review, and opined that Aguilera's "sass" helped to highlight her Irish and Eduadorian background. (The source says "Somehow it’s deep-rooted in Christina’s Irish-Ecuadorian roots which technically gives her a ‘hood pass, but not the John Mayer kind." Spelling of Ecuadorian.)

• Fixed — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. WikiRedactor and Simon, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am considering your comments before editing them. Thank you so much for your comments. Cheers, — Simon (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry but with relatively little commentary after a month, and in fact nil activity for a couple of weeks, I can't see consensus to promote being achieved any time soon, so I'll be archiving this shortly. I realise you've taken it through GAN and PR so you've done the right things (though PR was obviously barren), but the FAC list is so long right now that the chances of attracting drive-by reviewers is reduced -- I'm trying to address that by archiving slow reviews like this, so perhaps a re-nom down the track will have more luck. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [30].

---

all things

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is the seventeeth episode of seventh season of the American sci-fi series The X-Files. It is notably because it was written and directed by series co-star Gillian Anderson, but was also critically mauled. It was first promoted to good article status in April of 2012, and was later promoted to A-class status in September of the same year. The article has also changed substantially since it was promoted to good article in April of 2012. In addition, it has undergone two copy-edits: one by User:TBrandley in September of 2012, and another by User:JudyCS in January of 2014. I've also copy-edited while I've gone along, and the article was also unofficially peer-reviewed by User:Sarastro1. After a long trek up (about two years!), I think it is finally ready for FA review, but, as always, I am open to comments, criticism, and suggestion!.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In the picture description, "These scene". Also, how does "but the two have developed a deep friendship" contrast or relate to being able "to debunk his work". Vctrbarbieri (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoops! Minor typo. As for the "deep frienship" bit, that's just a line the project has added to a lot of the FAs and GAs, to basically condense the plot of the series into one line. Scully was originally antagonistic and dismissive of Mulder's work, but as the series went along, they became friends and confidants.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Review from Crisco

• After Waterston slips into a coma, Scully puts aside her skepticism and seeks out a medical alternative to save Waterston. - Not clear how "putting aside her skepticism" relates to medical alternatives.

  Tried to make it more clear.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  That is... completely different than what was there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• but she realizes she is no longer the same person she was those many years ago. - and thus rejects him, right?

  Yeah, that's right. I fixed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Should the flashback be in the present or past tense?

  Well, the only reason I didn't do it in the past tense is that the whole entire section would be in the past tense.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  True, but as you explicitly mention it as a flashback... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why are you citing a book in the plot section?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  It's just what the project has been doing for all the episodes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  It's not necessary, as episodes are considered cited to the actual episode (except where such episodes are lost, which happily is not an issue with The X-Files). I don't recall seeing this last time I reviewed an X-Files article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  OK. It's been removed.

• Could we try and minimize the number of times "all things" appears at the beginning of a sentence? It's always driven me insane with iPod and iPad, and I feel it working on me here.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Scully as Waterston's former mistress. - didn't they still have sex, or what exactly was the affair?

  In the final cut, they had sex I believe. In the original script, they didn't.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  The way it's phrased right now it sounds (to me, at least) like her as a mistress was cut. Perhaps rephrasing is necessary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• an episode of television before, - so what had she directed?

  Removed some words to increase clarity.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I really don't agree with McKenna about the feminism aspect (under the rationale as you've put it, you could go for postmodernism as well). Does she give anything else to support her argument, other than the multiple realities?

  She dedicates a whole book chapter on it, but honestly you're right that you could lump postmodernism in there as well (although you could argue that feminism is pretty postmodern to begin with). Anyway, I added the bit about male/female dualism to really cement that McKenna's talking about multiple realities as viewed by the female.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  That works a bit better (as for feminism being inherently postmodern... depends whose theories you believe. The earliest feminists were still more structuralist IMHO) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  Valid point. I meant with their opinions on differing realities. I guess that might be a more 'modern' feminist approach, then?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  Post-modern, but yeah. To be honest I'd be wary of applying a feminist label to this episode (a woman who is a skeptic and firm believer in rationalism [both the realm of men according to the traditional patriarchy] has to turn to mysticism, religion, and irrationality in order to save a man who used her as a sex object... one could describe it as the triumph of 19th century ideas of the feminine [women as emotional and irrational sex objects who are incomplete without a man {note that she ends up with Mulder even after rejecting Waterston}] over more modern ones), but that's very much OR. Oh well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  I think what McKenna is trying to get as it that the feminist approach, in the episode, would be the fact that Scully is thinking outside the box, and not confining herself to any set philosophy, and definitely not one set in stone by gender roles. If you want to read the chapter, its available on GoogleBooks, but the pages have disappeared. Maybe you can sort some of this out.[31] I feel it might be a wee bit rough at the moment. The more and more I read the chapter, though, the more and more I think 'post-modern' would've been a better term to use. Also, as for your very good analysis of this episode, "all things" is notorious for being a cf of ideas.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  I'll try to read it, though the lost page numbers are nasty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  Hmm... McKenna raises a decent point about the gender construction of knowledge (the sentence starting "Through most of the history of philosophy") and thus the hurdles Scully must overcome (and, although McKenna doesn't go into this, why Scully adapted traits traditionally considered "masculine" such as pants and short hair; think Hillary Clinton), but she doesn't actually expand on Scully's gender as part of recognizing a pluralistic epistemology in "all things". The "certain aspects of feminist philosophy" she is using appear to be those which are held in common with postmodernism in general. As it would be OR to call this post-modernism, since McKenna uses the term feminism, at the very least I'd link to Feminist epistemology instead of Feminist philosophy, as she's clearly focusing on epistemological elements in her analysis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  How does the change look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  Peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Has anyone else discussed the episode?

  Maybe, but one thing I've been told in preview FA nominations is to cute down my amounts of reviews, since I shouldn't put *everything* people say into them. So I tried to make this succinct but engaging.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Was not refering to reviews, but McKenna. The Themes section is all her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

    Alas, not really. :(--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

    Not even in the reviews? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

    I suppose I could pull in some stuff about the Buddhist featured in the episode. I'm not sure if there's a substantial bit other than Anderson wanting to incorporate Eastern religion into the episode, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

    It would be nice to have a preview of what you can get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

    Anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

    I'm not really finding anything other than "inspired by Buddhism". :(--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• VanDerWerff - is his proper name VanDerWerff or Van Der Werff

  It's properly spelled "VanDerWerff".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Check your punctuation. I'd generally put the commas outside of quotes (especially when you are giving an episode title) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think those got screwed up during a copyedit. Fixed now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why is it "heart chakra" in the plot but "heart chakra" later on? I'd just keep the first link targeted at anahata. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  Fixed!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images... Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry but after remaining open nearly six weeks and staying quiet for almost a month, this nom has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [32].

---

Money in the Bank (2011)

Nominator(s): starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a professional wrestling (scripted, I know) pay-per-view event, held by WWE in Chicago in 2011. Apart from the two eponymous ladder matches, the 2011 Money in the Bank event will probably be best known for the highly acclaimed (awarded 5 stars from some critics) main-event match where CM Punk defeated John Cena to capture the WWE Championship. It was promoted that Punk's WWE contract was expiring at the event and he managed to leave with the WWE Championship despite the efforts to thwart him by WWE Chairman Vince McMahon. The event and main event won Event of the Year and Match of the Year from the Wrestling Observer Newsletter and the Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine. This article just passed a stringent GA review from a Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling editor aware of my intentions of submitting this article for FA, so I'm throwing this at FAC. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned twice, including in the Lead Section, that some guy at CANOE gave the show 6.5/10 and I can't find any reference for that review. What's the deal? Feedback ^☎ 14:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference is no.21 (Hillhouse, Dave. "Money in the Bank: The WWE gets Punk’d".) Apologies, I have missed adding |publisher=Canadian Online Explorer to the reference. I have corrected that. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else? =P I have obtained more "live" pictures. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually how wrestling FAs are. Not many reviewers and when you do get a review, most criticize the article and you can't get enough done in time before it is closed. This is why I reviewed it like an FA during GA. Helped to get the process moved along in case of a low amount of reviewers.--WillC 03:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Lead caption shouldn't end in period
• Why is one caption in present tense and the rest in past?
• Suggest including {{sic}} in McNichol quote, but I'm unclear on why that quote is paired with that image? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, Nikkimaria. First two points are settled. For the third point, well, the picture depicts the Raw Money in the Bank match. Since the picture is in the Reception section, I thought I might as well put a critic's evaluation of the match as the caption. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that despite remaining open for six weeks there is not nearly enough commentary, let alone support, to justify continuing with the nom, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [33].

---

Philippines

Nominator(s): Theparties (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a country in Asia that is also one of the most populous countries in the world. Theparties (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Quick comment It says the administrative divisions are current "As of March 2010". Is it possible to confirm that these are still the same as of 2014? Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Response There is a little change. Davao Occidental became a province last year but for the most part, it's the same.--Theparties (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Are you sure? I just clicked on the cities link, and it says "as of December 29, 2013, there are 144 cities" not 138 as you have in the article. I think all these numbers must be checked. Mattximus (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Ive fixed it now. Thanks for pointing it out.--Theparties (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Talk:Philippines#FA?, with no prejudice against a renomination when the principal contributors to the article agree on nominating it at FAC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it really that unstable? It just looks like one minor issue regarding the mention of Jaime Sin. Tezero (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The was an eight month-long dispute that was only resolved this month. Its stable now.--Theparties (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support I am an editor of the Philippines article and the high degree of fact-checking and peer interaction in this article is great vis-a-vis the other the other featured articles about countries: Japan, India, Indonesia and etc. which have mostly remained static (As in India's, Japan's and Indonesia's case which reflects populations based on 2011 estimates while that of the Philippines is already at 2014). It is the activeness of the editor community behind the Philippines article which merits that the Philippines be in featured status. It has been at featured status before. And I remember that there has been 2 past failed attempts to get this back to featured status. The degree and frequency of repeated efforts expended just to have this re-featured would be one of the compelling reasons why it should finally be (re)featured. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Obvious point, but the FA star is awarded for achievement not for effort. No matter how many times, or how hard, an editor (or a group of editors) tries to get an article featured, it won't pass FA until it meets the FA criteria. Your support does not address those criteria and so I anticipate that the FAC coordinators will give it little weight. Bencherlite^Talk 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, mostly on sourcing concerns. There are multiple instances of missing citations, existing citations that are incomplete or wildly inconsistent, some unaddressed citation cleanup tags, visibly broken citations, and some apparently unreliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please point us to the exact broken and unreliable sources and we will clean that up. Because honestly, I saw only one broken link after a cursory view of all the references. Substantiate your claims with prima facie evidence. Thank You. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal - Agree with Nikkimaria. Numerous areas with missing references (just check for missing references at the ends of paragraphs and you'll find most of the spots I'm concerned about) and several places where claims such as "Likewise, Tagaytay is a favored retreat." are made without references or clarification. One citation needed tag, one citation not found tag, three dead link tags, in addition to the 37!!! dead links that Toolserver picks up (see the report). In addition, broken reference formatting, incomplete references (at least two completely bare links, plus numerous others missing various other pieces of information), and a thorough check needed for reliability/high quality of sources. Overall a decent article, but not ready for FAC at this time. Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [34].

---

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important clause of the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the war between Germany and the various Allied powers. The clause facilitated the payment of reparations and ignited controversy over if the article blamed Germany, solely, for the outbreak of the war (the war guilt question).

I have nominated the article as I feel it meets the requirements of FA, and has recently passed its Good Article review. All images contain alt text, there are not disambig links on the page, and all external links are working.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not my area of expertise, but a recent review of WW1 books suggests that Luigi Albertini's assessment is worthy of inclusion. - hahnchen 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been that long since I started my study of the ToV (several years ago), that I had forgotten about that guy (the first - iirc - to state Germany was to blame for the outbreak of the war tackle the war guilt question) as he is pretty much overshadowed by Fritz Fischer. I have quickly checked google books, his works are unavailable to preview and I don't own them. However, I have noted that several accessible sources talk about his work so I will look through them and see if there is anything I can add.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added a few sentences noting his conclusions and its place in the historiography.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

the are very serious substantive problems that greatly weaken the quality of the article. The major position of John Maynard Keynes--very widely adopted in Britain & the US -- is never mentioned, despite the large literature. Even worse the lead misrepresents the issue and confuses the technical legal issues that the authors of #231 (especially young John Foster Dulles) were trying to solve with the reading that was overwhelmingly held in the 1920s in Europe and USA that #231 ascribed "guilt" for the war to Germany without using the word. The main editor has repeatedly rejected efforts to make improvements, most recently today. Rjensen (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As this is a FA review, ambiguous wording and generalities are not helpful. You state that the article misrepresents information, please highlight specifics and if necessary provide sources that state information to the contrary.

As far as I am aware, Keynes' place in the Treaty of Versailles story is his opposition to financial side of it (where the large literature comes in): not the wording or the controversy surrounding this clause (the focus of this article). For example, his objections to the financial repercussions of the treaty are well discussed on his article and that of his book: The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Therefore, the World War I reparations and Treaty of Versailles articles would be the most appropriate place for his arguments. On the other hand, if you would care to highlight a source - since I am unaware of his proposed objection to this article or his involvement in the vast literature surrounding the war guilt question - that provides his vocal opposition to the wording of the article (or the issues surrounding war guilt), and not his overall opposition to what he perceived as the harsh financial terms, then it can be included.

As for the assertion that I have repeatedly rejected efforts to improve the article (unfounded considering the improvements made by the outside opinions raised in the GA review, the comment made here, and the inclusion of material in the article that I never added), I largely reverted todays edits as they were unsupported by the text or the sources currently used (as well removed links, inserted double spaces etc, although I did retain some of them which worded the article better and removed a mistake). The article is at GA status, and this review has been opened to advance to FA. A standard now has to be kept, inserting unsupported material or opinions is not helpful. I would also like to make any reviewers aware that RJensen and I have not seen eye to eye on much in the past. He has also only ever made minor edits to the article (most of which were retained, despite some clear misuses of what the sources stated and providing only one side to the discussion), last of which was in early December and has not made any comment on the talk page. He made no comment to the massive overhaul of the article, and did not comment during the GA review. His assertion is simply not true. The revision of most of his edits today were accompanied by a message to take his concerns to the talkpage, as I am unaware of Keynes' involvement in the war guilt discussion (diff). Instead, he immediately came here to launch a string of attacks on me and the quality of the article. Rather than attempting to improve the article, I feel like he is using this as a forum to derail the review before it has even begun.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Enigma has missed the very large literature on Keynes which indeed looks at #231. Heartfield (2012) says: "[AJP] Taylor's objection to the 'War Guilt' attached to Germany after the Second World War echoes the many protests against the 'War Guilt' clause in the Versailles settlement, Article 231, which held Germany responsible for the First World War. Two authors in particular made the case against the Versailles Treaty and its blaming of Germany for a war that all the powers had fought: John Maynard Keynes and Edward H Carr"; David Kennedy (1999) says Keynes said the Treaty "contained three lethal flaws" the last writes Kennedy: "Adding insult to injury, the treaty's Article 231—the notorious 'guilt clause'—forced the Germans to acknowledge sole responsibility for the outbreak of the war." Keynes himself said re the Reparation Chapter ("Economic Consequence" p 151) "There can have been few negotiations in history so contorted, so miserable, so utterly unsatisfactory to all parties. I doubt if any one who took much part in that debate can look back on it without shame." All RS agree that Keynes played a major role in shaping British responses to the Treaty. Leaving Keynes out is a major flaw in the article and it's a failure of research to state as Enigma does (above) that Keynes' place in the Treaty of Versailles story is his opposition to financial side of it...not the wording or the controversy surrounding this clause (the focus of this article) Rjensen (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your first source does not state what Keynes' opinion was on the matter, and is another example of you misusing sources. The source goes on to state that Keynes' focused on reparations and the impact that they could have on Europe, it says nothing on his opinion on this article or the war guilt question: link, p. 462. The only thing this source highlights is that some research should be put into finding what Carr's opinion on the article was.

Your second source is largely Kennedy's opinion on the matter, as can be seen here: link. The three flaws mentioned are: the transfer of economic property from Germany to France, the disruption of Germany's economy, and the imposition of reparations. The attack on article 231 is essentially Kennedy's position. We already have one historian in the article who states similar, are you suggesting we collect all of them that state the article forced Germany to accept sole responsibility for the war? It is interesting that, despite his use as Keynes as a source, he only provides one take on the article.

The final source is Keynes' objection to reparations, not article 231. As can be seen on the following page (link), all Keynes says about the article is what it states, and that it could be taken to be mean either an admission of moral responsibility or an admission of financial liability. Since you are hell bent, despite offering little in the way of supporting information, we could add "Keynes noted that the article could be taken ... either way" to the article.

Finally, if the literature is so vast on the issue, please present a source that outright states something to the effect that Keynes thought Article 231 was xyz, what he thought the articles (not reparations) impact on Germany was, or if Keynes thought that Germany was or was not guilty. Thus far, all we have his opinion on reparations and informing the read what the wording of article 231 states and how it could be taken to mean liability or guilty: covered in much detail throughout the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Query Why would focussing the reparations on disabled veterans and War widows have reserved the larger part of the reparations for the British empire? Of the allies France and Russia both lost more than Britain, and the other allies such as Italy and the US lost more between them than Britain did. I can see that targeting the reparations on widows and disabled servicemen would benefit Britain far more than expenditure on repairing damage in her allies territory in Belgium, France, Italy, the Balkans and even Russia. But while it would have given Britain a larger share of the reparations, I don't see that it would have given Britain the larger part i.e. the largest part of the fund. Of course if this was just about the German part then that would largely remove Italy and some of the others, but the gap between Britain and France would widen as Britain's casualties included far more casualties fighting than France suffered in those campaigns. ϢereSpielChequers 23:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources all agree that due to British civilian losses and damages being minor compared to the other powers, the inclusion of allowances to widows and military pensions was a tactic to drive up the amount of reparations Britain would get at the expense of the other Allied Powers. However, thus far, I have yet to see a source that explains it more than that. For example: link, link, link, link (oddly enough, I cannot access the various pages of the books used in the article).

As that is more of a discussion for the reparations side of things, it could be removed to avoid distraction and the sentence read as thus: "He furthermore argued that reparations should include war pensions for disabled veterans and allowances to be paid to war widows."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that the sources all agree that this was a tactic to get a larger share of the reparations for Britain. Assuming that none of them support the article saying "the larger part" I suggest we change it to "a larger share". ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just able to access Yearwood, but only via snippet view, and all that I could see was that it increased the British sum to a "substantial share". So without anything other information, I agree with your suggestion and will make the change. I guess it was a lost in translation moment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Ulrich_Graf_von_Brockdorff-Rantzau.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed both issues. The German archive website that the photo links to contains no author information that I was able to ascertain, so I have changed the file info to unknown rather than leaving it blank. I have also added in the required PD tag.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The first image still needs to be fixed. --Boson (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch, got it! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

• The Wikisource link doesn't appear to be correct, but I'm not sure what needs changing.--Boson (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Prose

• I think there is some copy-editing needed. Examples:
  • "The Allied delegation though at first Article 231 to be a mundane addition to the treaty"
  • "labelled"
  • "Stephen Shucker"
  • "the issue of Kriegsschuldfrage" (no article?)

--Boson (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice catches. Of the above, I have amended the first and third.

Labelled is not showing up as a typo on my screen, unless you are referring to rewording?

As for the final point, there is no link since the issue of war guilt is essentially this article. I could reword the sentence and place the German terminology within the parentheses?

I will give the article another run over tomorrow to see if there is anything else I have missed or anything I can word better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was ambiguous. By "no article", I meant the lack of the definite article the before Kriegsschuldfrage, which is a count noun (even if it is foreign), so should have an article. Another point is that since "-frage" is best translated as " issue" in this context, we have something like the issue of the x issue (x issue). Even if you leave "question", you have "the issue of the question". As regards "labelled", I understood this was the British spelling, but the article otherwise uses American spelling. --Boson (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about what way it translates better, all I know is that the various sources use that term and translate it roughly into "war guilt question" or variants of thereof. I have, however, reworded the sentence the issue you raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

"Germans saw this clause as taking full responsibility for the cause of the war, and a national humiliation. German politicians were vocal in their opposition to the article, in an attempt to generate international sympathy while German historians worked to undermine the article with the objective of subverting the entire treaty. On the other hand, the Allied leaders were surprised at the German reaction. They saw the article as only a legal requirement to yield German compensation."

• I think the neutrality of this summary could be improved. Legal issues may have been a factor in the final wording of the clause, but the leaders were hardly surprised, considering the discussions about moral responsibility. Take, for instance, Boemeke on Wilson's reaction to the German reaction: "Obviously, Germany was guilty, it was self-evident . . . that they were unwilling to atone for their sins, that they deserved to be punished". Consider also Steiner (p. 59 as cited): "a compromise . . . that distinguished between Germany's complete moral responsibility for the war and is consequences [i.e. Article 231] and its limited legal liability for reparations [i.e. Article 232]." It may be that the leaders did not expect the Germans to remonstrate so vociferously, but that does not suggest, as the introduction does, that the leaders had not been thinking about moral responsibility at all and were completely taken aback by the German reaction. --Boson (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We have the backstory of the drafting of the article, which ends with the diplomatic compromise between polarized Allied opinions. Considering it remained in the treaty, without being changed, could be seen - imo, without further information at hand and something not argued in the article - as acceptance by the Allies and placing the various arguments about moral responsibility on the backburner. After drafting, MacMillan indicates that there was some surprise. She writes: "no one thought there would be any difficulty over the clause...". Binkley and Mahr also note that in response to the German protests, Clemenceau (one of the people arguing for German moral responsibility prior to the drafting of the treaty) argued along legal lines rather than moral ones.

The above supports the lede (which I believe is pretty neutral considering the controversy and the article's nickname), and the article makes clear that arguments over moral responsibility did take place. So with that in mind, what refinement would you suggest?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, what page from Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years did Wilson's comment come from? It seems pretty suited to the article, but I cannot find it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)

• On Boson's questions above, "labeled" and "labelled" are both fine in AmEng per Merriam-Webster, and Kriegsschuldfrage clearly isn't a count noun in context.
• I'm close to giving up on offering punctuation advice ... punctuation is changing rapidly, and what standards remain aren't followed in any consistent way, particularly online. But if I weren't giving up, I'd change "Part VIII: the reparations section of the treaty." to "Part VIII, the reparations section of the treaty."
• "Article 231 was the opening article of Part VIII ... Other than "Article 231", there is no title for this article. However, the article is generally referred to as the "War Guilt Clause".": If you want to go that way, then tighter would be: Article 231 was the only title for the opening article of Part VIII .... But this doesn't feel right to me; Wikipedia articles generally begin with a list of commonly used names in bold, and "War Guilt Clause" is a common name. I think perceptive readers will know, if you say "Article 231, often known as the War Guilt Clause", that the document doesn't name that section the "War Guilt Clause" ... it's not necessary to explain that, at least not in the lead, where conciseness is important.

Hi Dank, thank you for the comments. I have implemented your advise on the above two points.

• Garner's recommends against mutatis mutandis, but I'm pretty permissive (even at FAC), and I know people like to sprinkle in phrases often used by historians, in part as shibboleths. It's your call. But the phrase does raise the question: which changes?

Per your advise, I have removed the jargon and replaced it with a simple explanation. However, I have retained the term in the main body of the article due to how it has been used.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Germans saw this clause as taking full responsibility for the cause": Clauses can't take responsibility, and taking "responsibility for the cause" is unclear; more likely, we're talking about assigning responsibility for the losses incurred. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence per your advise, I think that should clear up the issue. If not, please let me know. To clarify, the whole controversy surrounding Article 231 was who started the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- As there's been no support for promotion after a month and a half, nor any activity for three weeks, I'm archiving this nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [35].

---

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek is a minor tributary of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. It flows 30 miles from southern Sullivan County to Bloomsburg, and it's the main watershed in northern Columbia County. It's an interesting little stream, and an interesting article if you ask me. It's kind of obscure at first glance, but there's a wealth of information on it. That's my favorite kind of article to work on. And plenty of work has been done on it in the last 16 months. This article did fail FAC nine months ago, but many things have been fixed since then. There are now eight images instead of three, and USGS maps are used mostly instead of Google Maps for the course section. The reference formatting is somewhat better now and the lede and tributaries sections have been drastically improved. Some oppose rationales in the previous nominations are in my opinion not relevant, or information simply does not exist. Please bear this in mind. Also, it would be great for non-supporters to not come down too hard since I'm not an FA regular. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Geology image caption shouldn't end in period
• File:Stillwater,_Pennsylvania.PNG: use image creation not upload date

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, a glance through suggests that the article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Period removed from geology image. I could not find a definite date for the Stillwater image, so I replaced it with an image that has a known date. --Jakob (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I have to agree with Nikkimaria that a thorough copyedit would be in order (maybe ask at WP:GOCE?). The lead, for instance, needs some more thought for organization, and perhaps the selection of information to summarize:

• "United States"; "canoeing, birdwatching, and fishing": is overlinking
• "The creek is situated "in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains".": Quotes require inline citation—but why is this cited in the first place, rather than rephrased entirely?
• "The creek's watershed contains gravel, shale and various loams (in particular, the Albrights soil series and the Leck Kill soil).": is this the best way to close the opening paragraph—is this likely amongst the first things a reader wants to know about the subject?
• In the second paragraph, we get the monotonous "Fishing Creek" beginning nearly every sentence.
• "Fishing Creek's average discharge is 615 cubic feet per second (17.4 m³/s).": jumps randomly into the middle of the paragraph, not strongly related to the preceding or succeeding sentences. Why not put it with the stats paragraph at the end?
• There are a lot of inline citations in the lead, which should be avoided as the lead is meant to be redundant to the body (where the citations belong), unless the claims are controversial
• Both the (short) third and fourth paragraphs deal with fish—why split them up?

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey I have fixed all of these (except keeping two citations in the lead to support an extraordinary claim, per the previous FAC). I've also placed a request at the GOCE. --Jakob (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The thing is, you're not supposed to have an article up at FAC or GAN while awaiting a copyedit. It'd probably be best to withdraw the article for now and re-nominate it when the copyedit's done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
    • @Curly Turkey: I will probably do that unless there are other reasons anyone thinks this shouldn't be an FA yet. --Jakob (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This nom has been open almost six weeks without attracting any support for promotion so I'll be archiving shortly; it can be renominated after the requested copyedit and a minimum of two weeks has passed after archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [36].

---

History of macroeconomic thought

Nominator(s): Bkwillwm (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the history of macroeconomic theory. This article had previously been nominated but was rejected due to a content weight dispute that arose during the nomination. Since then, a consensus has supported the amount of attention given to heterodox economics in the article, and other disputes have been resolved. Since the last nomination, the article has passed as GA. I attempted to address some of the comments raised by the GA reviewer including adding more on economic growth. I recently went through the article to do my own CE, check links, and make other improvements. I believe this article now meets FA standards.Bkwillwm (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall the article is good. But from the get-go it has problems. Here are some examples: In the first sentence we have the pre-Keynesian mention of early theories, but then it goes into Keynes' thought without describing the pre-Keynesian ideas. Off-article, we have the WikiProject Econ talk page discussion – this suggests that issues need resolving. A third example involves neo-Keynesian v New-Keynesian theories – the lede does not explain these various progressions. I think a transition to a Class-A article review (perhaps supported by a Peer-review) is the next best step rather than going for a FA. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You make it seem like I am jumping the gun. I don't think that's the case at all. I've been working on this article literally for years, and it's been over two years since I lasted nominated it for an FA. This article already went through a previous FA where it garnered a substantial amount of support but did not pass because there was a content dispute that has since been settled. The previous FA was preceded by a peer review, and the article was recently listed as a GA. I posted my intent to nominate this article as a FA on the WP:Economics talk page. The only feedback I received was from User:EllenCT and that discussion seemed to be resolved. You had the opportunity to discuss any changes you wanted to have made when I opened the WP:Economics discussion, but you only asked that the conversation be moved from the project page. Of course the issues you raised are worthy of discussion, but I don't see them as serious problems. They are all subjective changes that can be discussed here. The fact they weren't discussed in another forum isn't on me.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The work you've done on the article is most commendable. (My one GA took a year & 1,000 edits to achieve, so I appreciate the great effort you've made!) My concern re the WikiProject talk page was the way in which the FA nomination turned into article improvement discussion. I'm glad you've posted the moved template and I don't blame anyone for the way the discussion evolved. I brought it up as an article Stability concern. As for the article, I don't think it passes FA muster at present. I'll try to raise more specific concerns in the next few days. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Why is the article title not "History of Macroeconomics?" Yes, yes, theoretically such an article could be about the actual macroeconomic history of the world rather than scholarly models, but it's perfectly clear what it means in practice. The very first sentence after the lede says "Macroeconomics descends from two areas of research: Business cycle theory and monetary theory" rather than "Macroeconomic theories and models descend from two areas of research." SnowFire (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The distinction is between theoretical and empirical macroeconomics. The inclusion of empirical macroeconomics would cover estimation methods (such as VAR models), statistics, and other such work. The current first sentences does specify "Macroeconomic theory has its origins in the study of business cycles and monetary theory," so I don't think there's an issue there. The entire subject of macroeconomics would be very broad, and it's better to focus on the development of theory.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that a theory-focused article could still rightly be called "History of Macroeconomics." Which is what {{Macroeconomics}} calls this article. And History of macroeconomics already redirects here. And as already noted the article itself just uses "Macroeconomics" several times. Even if someone were to write a "History of empirical macroeconomics" article, it could easily be linked to from the hatnote.

To put things another way, we have History of Buddhism, not History of Buddhist thought. Anyway, if you really really really think that readers would be confused by "History of macroeconomics," I suppose "History of macroeconomic theory" might be okay as well, and less pretentious than "thought", for all that I'd prefer a more succinct title. (That said, sorry to sidetrack your work on a sidenote, since the article title has little to do with the quality of the article - these comments should not be taken as an "oppose".) SnowFire (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was started as a fork of History of economic thought, and it's been focused on the scope of an "economic thought" article since then. A move to history of macroeconomics would not be appropriate. Regardless of how other subject matter is organized, focusing on history of thought is common within the field. "History of Economic Thought" (HET) is commonly used in economics and his considered a sub-discipline (see the standard JEL classifications and the New Palgrave article on HET). Even though "thought" may be more pretentious than "theory," "thought" is commonly used in the field and in other Wikipedia articles.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref formatting comment -- This article has a lot of harv errors. Using the given ISBNs, I've fixed some of them with this script, but there are more to do. Janssen (2008), Neo-Keynesianism (1999), Fischer (2008), Mankiw (2005), and Solow currently don't point anywhere. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 22:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the fixes you made and for the tip about the script. I used it to repair the remaining reference issues. Much better than going through each ref!--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! It's a great script, but I can't take credit for it. Looks like all the harv errors have now been excised from the article. Ruby 2010/2013 15:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Seppi333

• Support - Meets FA criteria with these issues addressed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• In the "External links" section, I noticed there's an awful lot of (27) external links, mostly (23) podcasts and videos, some of which are sub-categorized as part of another external link. This section seems a bit large per WP:ELPOINTS-criteria 3; perhaps cutting out the sub-categorized links would help address that criteria and WP:ELPOINTS-criteria 4.

I removed several of the links. The only sub-categorized external links that could be used as a substitute would be the the links to Nobel prizes by year. These links wouldn't give as much information about the subject matter of the material.

In addition to moving several links, I have condensed the list of Nobel prizes to one link per year. There isn't any page that collects all macro related topics, so links to individual years are appropriate.

• Per WP:IMAGELOCATION, staggered images should be placed so as to avoid text sandwiching between images. This is happening on my browser under New classical economics with the clause

  "New classical economics" evolved from monetarism[100] and presented other challenges to Keynesianism. Early

  and under Efficiency wages where this is happening: File:Macroeconomic Text Sandwich.png.

I switched most of the images to right justification. This leads to some images being rendered below their respective sections.

• DSGE is defined in Real business cycle theory and then redefined in New synthesis. It may be helpful to use DSGE, DSGETooltip dynamic stochastic general equilibrium, or DSGE for the first instance in the second section. Moreover, while I won't insist on it, using {{abbr}} for the first abbreviation in each paragraph will increase readability to those unfamiliar with the field.

I don't think there's a problem using the unabbreviated term a second time several sections later. I'm not completely opposed to using the abbreviation template when using DSGE, but I don't think it adds much and may be distracting.

• Jargon terms:

1. I would suggest cutting rephrasing this: "atheoretical[jargon] statistical models" - I have no clue what that refers to and wikt lacks a suitable definition.

I tried to explain this term parenthetically.

1. I would suggest linking this term to wiktionary: "monetary policy had effectively been contractionary.[jargon][88]" E.g., contractionary.

I disagree with this being considered jargon. The term in economics is consistent with the general definition, and it's also introduced very early in when economics is taught. The Wiktionary "economics" definition for the term was also wrong; it does not refer exclusively to money supply.

I see where their was little context for interpreting "contractionary" and what exactly it meant in this case. I reworded the section to try and clarify this and provide context. I still don't think a Wiktionary link is appropriate since the term can be understood with a general dictionary definition.

• In Financial crisis and the breakdown of consensus:

1. The italicized portion is oddly worded:

   Robert Solow testified before the U.S. Congress that DSGE models had "nothing useful to say about antirecession policy" because the conclusion that macroeconomic policy is impotent is built into the "essentially implausible assumptions" behind the model

I removed my couching and used Solow's quote in its original form.

1. Indicate which financial crisis this is in relation to (or revise section heading): "Robert Gordon criticized much of macroeconomics after 1978. Gordon called for a renewal of disequilibrium theorizing and disequilibrium modeling"
2. Similarly for: "While criticizing DSGE models, Ricardo J. Caballero argues that recent work in finance shows progress and suggests that modern macroeconomics needed to be re-centered but not scrapped.[204]"

I changed the headline. It should be very clear what financial crisis is being discussed.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- After remaining open six weeks and no commentary for a month I'm afraid this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [37].

---

Thopha saccata

Nominator(s): 99of9 and Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is small and concise - has everything the layperson could want to know about this critter. 99of9 and I will answer issues promptly - so have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

So what is it? "Thopha saccata, commonly known as the double drummer, is a species of cicada native to Queensland and New South Wales." That's what. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh - I guess easter egg links are lousy at attracting reviewers... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did you drop them? I guess we could ask those that reviewed the Floury Baker? --99of9 (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

Feel free to disagree with any of the silly comments this non-expert may make.

• Why the parentheses for "Cicada saccata (Fabricius, 1803)" but not for "Tettigonia saccata Fabricius, 1803"

As per Author citation (zoology), the unparenthesed combination was the original, while all subsequent ones need the brackets Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the ‘double drums’—that": should that not be in double quotes? (MOS:QUOTEMARKS)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The genus name is derived from thoph (Hebrew: תּוֹף) "drum".": does this mean they gave it the genus name?

They are all drummers of some kind, and all males have big tymbal covers [38]. But yes it was one of the first in the genus, as is mentioned in the previous sentence. --99of9 (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "of any insect on earth": "on earth" can be taken for granted

removed. --99of9 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• ""almost unbearable"": can this not be rephrased rather than quoted?

For this and the strident shrieking, I think quotes are quite a good way to relate qualitative observations without imposing our own adjectives. But I'd be happy to see a suggestion - perhaps I don't properly understand your suggestion. --99of9 (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought the original wording was pretty vivid and memorable, which is why I left it in quoted. Happy to hear if anyone thinks of some other wording. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but quotations are supposed to be attributed, and I thought a rewording might be better than an "according to" in this case. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

aah ok, point taken...will get out my trusty thesaurus...changed first to "earsplitting" which carries the same connotation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "While underground the nymphs are susceptible to fungal disease.": I had to read this three or four times before I could parse it—move "while underground" to the end?

agreed. --99of9 (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "in an often extensive 'catacomb',": again, shouldn't this be double quotes?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "class with their "strident shrieking"": again, can this not be rephrased to avoid the quotation?

see above. "piercing sound"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• All the images are on Commons and appear to be appropriately tagged and licenced, including one from 1885 that has fallen into the public domain and another created by one of the nominators. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Alt text would be nice, but not an FAC requirement apparently.

done --99of9 (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• MOS:IMAGELOCATION says left-aligned images that start a section can cause readers problems, though apparently some editors disagree.

The long taxobox gives little scope for images if we have to make them all right-aligned. I have problems now in that we all edit from different-sized/shaped screens so is becoming harder to lay out images that work in all settings. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref check

I've only checked formatting—haven't visited the sources themselves.

• Inconsistency in page range formatting: "227–233" for Ref#2, "225–38" for Ref #6 & all others

Fixed ref 2. --99of9 (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• The natural history of Sydney, On biomimetics, Australian insects: a natural history should be in title case

done --99of9 (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "(Sydney, NSW : 1895 – 1930)", "The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954)", "The Mail (Adelaide, SA : 1912 – 1954)", "(Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878 – 1954)", "The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 – 1933)", "The Catholic Press (NSW : 1895 – 1942)": drop the spaces around the endash and before the colon. Why these date ranges?

date ranges removed - they were reference ranges as to what the national library of Australia holds - but is unnecessary for reader to know Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. It looks like all my concerns have be taken care of. Sorry it took me a while to return to the review. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for the support :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry Cas, but with only one in-depth review in a month and a half, we'll have to call it a day and try again some other time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - was taken aback at lack of input, but I guess something about it just looked unpolished to passers-by. Will get a peer review. I am guessing that the prose could do with a bit of buffingCas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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