Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2016

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2016 [1].

---

Ancient Trader

Nominator(s): → Call me Razr Nation 18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Trader is a turn-based strategy video game developed by Slovakia-based studio 4Kids Games. It was released on 27 June 2010 for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox 360, and on 17 December 2010 for iOS. The game was designed using Microsoft XNA, and its year long development cycle was executed by six individuals. The game consists of a player exploring and trading in a sixteenth century cartography-influenced map with the ultimate goal to collect three artifacts to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian. → Call me Razr Nation 18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks. → Call me Razr Nation 22:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• File:Ancient Trader gameplay elements.png -- do we allow double-screenshots? This is derivative work when arranging items in a collage. For an article of this size, two similar screenshots may not pass NFCC.
  • I used two images to give an example of the two main core gameplay elements of the game, specially the card game. I am fine if only one is allowed. Though I've seen some FAs use two or three in the same line of thought without issue. → Call me Razr Nation 03:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I think the other FAs are way longer, which allows more leeway for NFCC "minimal use". But it still (probably) remains derived work, even if a very simple one -- you cannot naturally acquire the double screenshot like that from the game, so you have taken two copyrighted images and created a third one from them. I have no idea what our fair use interpretation says about this or if other FAs have done this. And--as far as I understand--you need to have NFUR for both screenshots, especially since collage is yours, each individually explaining how it is minimal use, contextually significant, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• File:Ancient Trader logo.png -- I'm not sure why this isn't non-free? Are you the copyright holder for the game's logo? Or are we saying it's text and basic design that cannot be copyrighted? The file needs to be tagged to explain this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Logos comprised of pure text cannot be copyrighted. I'll change the license to use the correct one. → Call me Razr Nation 03:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything outstanding wrong with this article. In fact, I've seen other FACs in rockier shape when they got that golden star. This may not count for as much as a review that tears the article to shreds, but I'll Support this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Prose

(since there were a couple copyedits already, will leave comments here rather than editing some of this directly)

• Infobox says "strategy game", lead say "turn-based strategy game".
  • Done
• "Single-player" -- gameplay says it has multiplayer
  • Done
• "designed using Microsoft XNA" -- "developed", you can't design with XNA
  • True, fixed.
• Any reason "turn-based strategy video game" linking is different between lead and gameplay?
  • Fixed.
• "Piloting a ship, the player explores.." - passive voice, something like "The player pilots an ship and explores..."
  • Changed to "The player controls a ship, exploring"
• "explores a large map" -- it doesn't say anything about size or "large" in later prose
  • Changed to "exploring and makes trades" since map size is selected by the player.
• "gameplay structure of the game" -- what is a "gameplay structure"?
  • Eh, no idea, oops. Removed.
• "two-dimensional perspective" -- a link to 2D perspective, since this is fairly technical
  • Added a link to 2d computer graphics
• "gather tea, spices, and fruit." -- gather how, from wreckage?
  • Yes, it is explained later in the prose. "Commodities can be found in wreckages." Changed the prose to have this information together.
• "game's main antagonist" -- I don't see the AG described as antagonist in the source, though it might be fine to call it that
  • Changed it to "final boss" with a link to Boss (video gaming)
• "These can be exchanged for gold" and "sell their ship's cargo for gold" both say the same thing
  • True, changed.
• "Ports (called puertos)" -- is this the only word in the game that is non-English (no other term has one mentioned)? In other words, why do we need the in-game name?
  • Removed.
• "Whirlpools teleport" -- I assume the player has to actually choose to enter a whirlpool, they don't just do this randomly?
  • I don't actually remember but I think that's how it works. I'll have to find the game again.
• "sometimes encounters message bottles" - encounters how? The previous list of things in water didn't mention this. If this is wreckage, it should be mentioned.
  • Moved that sentence to be next to the one listing the things that appear on water
• "At the beginning of the game, the entire map is obscured until explored by the player." -- this is more of an introduction to maps and should probably be in 2nd paragraph, before all the details about the map.
  • Moved.
• "artificial intelligence (AI)" -- "AI" is never used again.
  • Fixed.
• "a card game is triggered to decide if the player loses gold to a rival ship or cargo to a sea creature" -- this makes it sound like there is no other option but to either lose gold or cargo?
  • If you lose the game, you lose gold or cargo. If you win, you can continue without losing anything. So yeah.
• "card game" -- should probably say "minigame" as this is the first mention.
  • Fixed.
• "a card game is triggered to decide if..." -- a bit clumsy passive tense. The game can just "start" and "decide" or similar.
• "powerful color" and "strongest hue" -- while "highest-numbered" is self-explanatory, colors don't have any standard "strengths", so this needs some explanations or at least mention that game's rules determine color "strength" somehow.
  • True. I'll have to play it again cuz I don't remember which one is strongest. I think it was blue-->red-->green
• "two-point attack bonus" -- the points are never discussed before this and never again. Either they need to be introduced properly or omitted.
  • Ommitted.
• "following turn" - may be just "next turn"
• "at the end of the minigame" -- I assume after the minigame, not when it is ending.
  • Changed wording.
• "allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts" -- allowed by whom and buy where? I suppose this implies "game's rules" and "port", but it reads a bit ambiguously.
  • Yes, the game's rules are the ones allowing you to buy the artifacts at random ports. However, I think the first part "the player is allowed to" makes it quite clear that we are referring to the game (who else is going to allow the player to do things if not the game itself?). The second part, yeah I made it clear that you buy them at ports.
• It says "seeking three artifacts" and "seeks out three powerful artifacts", but the above sentence says "buy" -- where does the "seeking" come in?
  • I think my new wording makes it clear. The artifacts spawn at random ports, so you have to find which ports have the artifacts (thus, "seek them"), then buy them because they cost gold.
• "Defeating the Ancient Guardian in a card minigame" -- how did the card minigame suddenly start with AG?
  • Same as with the rest of foes, only that now you go to where the AG is. In the rest of the game, the sea creatures and enemy ships walk to where you are.
• "awards the player additional loot and previously unavailable upgrades" -- the goal of the game was to defeat AG, so how come there are post-defeat loot and upgrades?
• "chase the artifacts" -- I guess this is stylistic choice, but--in context of writing for encyclopaedia--the player doesn't actually "chase" artifacts.
• "defeat the Guardian" -- inconsistent naming, either full one every time, or short one after first use.
• Inconsistent inline citations -- some sentences are cited, some aren't, but the same citation is used, such as 3rd para of Gameplay. Is this because some stuff isn't sourced (i.e. sourced directly to the game)?

Development

• "designed and animated the graphics" -- common VG jargon, but technically you cannot "design" or "animate" graphics.
• "a set of game development tools"
• """most of our team..."" -- can we not paraphrase? the quote seems simple enough and his original words don't seem unique, many indies have other projects
• "submitted for XNA approval" -- what is that?
• "by that of board games and of the video games Elite and Advance Wars" -- lots of extra words, e.g. "was influenced by board games and video games Elite and Advance Wars"
• "Elite and Advance Wars" -- might include release dates (I don't really know if it's standard, but I've seen it done in better articles)
• ""without explaining..."" -- another paraphrase quote, nothing unique here, many devs/indies do this
• "design Ancient Trader's appearance" - probably okay, but "design appearance" reads weird to me... you don't really design appearance, you can create appearance or design elements for a certain appearance or something like that
• "paper textures and clouds" -- what does this mean "paper"? They look like paper or they were made as paper and scanned/photoed?
• "reduce the color saturation in the game and allow players to decide how much color they wanted to have" -- is this not saying the same thing twice?
• ""is a big thing for me..."" -- long quote again without any unique phrasing

Reception

• Reviews use way too many quotes some, very long. Almost no wording there is unique phrasing that we cannot paraphrase.
• "British magazine Edge" -- is it important that it's British? Others are not mentioned by country of origin.
• "Xbox Live Marketplace" -- first mention, link may be good
• ""ambitious, devious and surprisingly hard to fault."" -- of any quotes to keep, this is probably a good one
• "IGN called it..." -- can't have info from reviewer purely a quote. (Also see ref review below)
• "to video games such as Seven Cities of Gold and Pirates", "Strange Adventures in Infinite Space and Flotilla" -- might include release dates
• "However, he also mentioned" -- "mention" is not a counter-point to "highly praised", so "however" is out of place
• "he also mentioned" -- what does this mean by "mentioned", surely not just said that those things exist, in which case it's not really reception material
• Not quite a thorough review of reception, because majority is quotations.
• Not sure what we do about Eurogamer and IGN for italics -- they are both websites, yet one article uses italics, the other doesn't. As far as I know, we are supposed to italicize websites with original article-type content per MOS:ITALIC and MOS:TITLE.

Source review

• [2] -- this is a press release, it is not by IGN themselves, nothing from it can be used that wouldn't otherwise be usable from a primary source. "a simple, easy entry" is thus quoting the primary source and not IGN. (here's some of their PR stuff for comparing.)
• [3] -- what makes the source reliable (WP:VG/RS)
• [4] -- what makes the source reliable? Also "Developer Summary" is from developer.
• [5] is 404; and what makes the source reliable?
• [6] -- what makes the source reliable?
• [7] -- we don't use MetaCritic for any content information, they don't write it themselves anyway, it's just taken from [8].

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• • @Hellknowz. Thanks for the review. I already took care os some and will take care of the rest soon. → Call me Razr Nation 20:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hellknowz: About the sources: FidGit is considered an acceptable source for indie games, and I've had no problems with it in previous FAs. Same with Indie Game Reviewer. One must understand that obscure games such as Ancient Trader don't enjoy coverage from the standard sources (IGN, GameInformer, etc.). Although this game did receive some coverage from these sources, I had to dig a bit deeper to find substantial information about the game itself, and I think such information is necessary for the article to be complete. → Call me Razr Nation 04:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've no issue with sources not explicitly listed as reliable, I would just ask justification for considering them so. Other FAs may not have done a detailed source check. For example, [9] says "collective of independent gamers and developers" and points to Wikipedia article for further details, while the author has no journalism experience/credentials. On WP:VG/RS, this source would likely be deemed unreliable. If such sources are used in a FA, we have to be well-justified in doing so. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'm afraid I have to oppose remain without supporting on the grounds of sourcing. Only 11 sources are about the game itself, there are only 7 in-depth sources, of which only 3 are currently vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS. The rest are about sequel, are primary, PR information, or brief entries. While I can support a short article with few sources for GA, I don't believe it reaches the FA sourcing standard we wish to maintain. Especially compared to some other video game FAs with exhaustive sourcing. It's unfortunate, but some topics simply do not have many quality sources, such as lesser-known indie games. I went on a content review before really checking the sourcing, so apologies for a somewhat backwards review. I still think it can be a really good article, but I don't believe it can be of is FA standard simply because there isn't sufficient quality sourcing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing "oppose" to "neutral" because FA criteria don't really require a minimum number of sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• The Indie Game Reviewer source has no hallmarks of reliability and should be removed. czar 14:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808

Went through and done some copy-editing. If you have any questions or concerns about my copy-edits, let me know.

Support - This is a nice short article that covers a game of this size as much as it can with what's available in terms of sources. I disagree with Hellknowz, though more sources would not hurt, if they can be found. --JDC808 ♫ 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The player controls a ship, allowing them to explore the world and make trades.." -- I feel we are still using passive wording where a simpler form would suffice, for example, "The player explores the world in a ship and makes trades..." or some such. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM

This is a nice little article. A few comments:

• Are you italicising "Eurogamer" or not?
• "Ancient Trader received positive responses from several video game journalists upon its release. Most critics praised the game's art design and gameplay, but criticized the lack of key elements such as a saving feature and scoreboards." What's your reference for this? It sounds like synthesis.
• Is the sequel notable?
  • No, as far as I can tell. I've tried to gather enough sources but most of them just say it's basically AT with some improvements and don't go into detail. → Call me Razr Nation 16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: Eurogamer should be italicized. --JDC808 ♫ 05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
      • It should? Oh okay. → Call me Razr Nation 03:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• I wouldn't bother including the publishers for the magazines and ezines. If you're going to, though, be consistent.
• What is Gaming Union? Are you convinced it's reliable?
  • Yes, I did some research and I am convinced they are.
    • The author is "Lee" with no further information or credentials. The article makes claims about Levius, but provides no source, this is 101 of journalism. None of the staff, including editors, have other journalism experience/credentials to justify an essentially anonymous article. Can you elaborate what your research revealed that we would consider this a reliable article (reliable author, editorial oversight, fact checking, etc.)? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• What's your reference for the claim that this is an art game?
  • Where does it say this is an art game? I never implied it was, if I remember correctly.
    • It's a category. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Would Category:Fantasy video games or a subset be appropriate? Category:Trade simulation games and perhaps Category:Naval video games (or a subcategory) would surely definitely be appropriate.
  • I am adding the latter two. I am making up my mind about the first.
• It looks like there are other decent enough sources out there which you are not citing. PopMatters, Metro and GamesIndustry.biz, for example, may well be worth citing. Given that this is a very short article, I'm not seeing much advantage to excluding them. See the talk page of this review (I'll save it in a few minutes) for more sources.

  Ok, now I've added two articles from the Daily Record, one from The Observer, one from The Independent and one from the Charleston Gazette. They're all on the talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on the composite image- I always get the impression (likely unfairly) that two images in one like this are an attempt to make it look like there's less NFC than there is. You should really separate them so that you can provide clear and specific rationales for each (that's assuming that both are absolutely needed).
  • I guess I'll get rid of it and only use one.

I've done some copyediting (I'm assuming this is meant to be in British English? It uses dmy dates, and it's a European topic?)- please double-check. This makes for a great GA, but I wonder if it is a little short of FA quality right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Based on the above, I think there are some issues with the article, but the key problem is that this is a very short article which does not incorporate all of the available sources, and in fact misses out some very good sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The length of the article shouldn't be a reason for opposing. --JDC808 ♫ 05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• I did not oppose based on length; I opposed based on length and a failure to incorporate all available sources. A short but comprehensive article would be something I was potentially willing to support, as my previous actions at FAC show. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, thank you for finding these sources! I'll incorporate them as soon as I can. → Call me Razr Nation 16:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry for the long delay. Some opening comments:
• Images:
  • For File:Ancient Trader gameplay elements.png I'm not sure there's enough of a rationale to use two non-free images in comparison to one; the arguments for its inclusion is development and critical commentary about its art style, while the card game elements are not clear in the size available anyhow. I'd axe one of the images and make the remaining one a little larger to resolve details.
• References:
  • I spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, and 13.
    • I found several unsupported statements: The ship can be moved horizontally and vertically, but not diagonally. The player makes a set number of steps each turn, after which the artificial intelligence does the same for non-playable characters (NPCs). is not supported by ref 1; the player is allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts, which then spawn at random ports. is not supported by ref 4. I would recheck all the content in the gameplay section for proper sourcing.
    • Ref 5 is a dealing, with no archive provided, and does not appear to be a high-quality reliable source anyhow.
  • I echo concerns above that Indie Game Reviewer and Gaming Union don't meet requirements.

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Coord note

This review has been open over two months and it looks to me that there are still unaddressed concerns -- Josh and David, can you confirm pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ian: Thanks- some of my comments have gone unaddressed, and my opposition to promotion stands. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've ran out of much time and I won't be able to address them soon. So please proceed and close it. Thanks. → Call me Razr Nation 23:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

All right, tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2016 (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) 00:05, 28 March 2016 (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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 [10].

---

Ride the Lightning

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's second studio album, and the fourth one I'll attempt to improve to FA standards. The good article review went smoothly, and hope to receive support from my peers.--Retrohead (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Media check - all OK

• Lead image and 2 song samples with valid fair-use rationale - OK.
• Please make sure to mention the original song length in rationales for audio samples to allow verification of minimal usage (just fyi, fixed already for both) - OK.
• Flickr image (CC BY 2.0) shows no signs of problems, source and author provided - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review - all OK

• All sources are correctly formatted
• Sources are reliable
• Verified footnotes 1,7,37,39,47 and 55
• had a problem with footnote 31: The name was taken from one of Lovecraft's main stories featuring Cthulhu, The Call of Cthulhu, although the original name was modified to "Ktulu" for easier pronunciation. The song begins with D minor chord progression in the intro, followed by a two-minute bass solo over a rhythmic riff pattern. Michael Kamen rearranged the song for Metallica's 1999 S&M project and won a Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance in 2001. Footnote only covers the last sentence.

The first two sentences from your passage are cited from McIver's book (footnote 30). I moved ref 30 a bit down to cover all three sentences. Thanks for the review.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries. All good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by DannyMusicEditor

Note: I don't have any of the book sources here, so reviewing this may be difficult for me.

• I'm not liking the first section. Not every sentence is cited, which I believe is encouraged although not required. It would be nice to have a few more citations there. For example, Frontman James Hetfield felt uneasy about performing vocals and the band offered the job to Armored Saint singer John Bush, who turned down the offer because Armored Saint was doing well at the time. I'd like a citation for the uneasiness, and about John Bush. I would've thought this needed to be fixed for GA.

One citation can cover more than a sentence, so I think it wouldn't be necessary to have a ref at the end of every single sentence. The couple of sentences you're concerned about are referenced with the fourth chapter of Winwood and Brannigan's biography about Metallica.

I agree with the nominator here; not every sentence needs to be cited, unless each sentence comes from a different source. To simply repeat the same citation after every sentence is plain stupid. Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Might want to specify that Bush was the one who claimed the band was doing well in that sentence. You also need a comma after "vocals."

Actually, the book's author was the one who thought Armored Saint was doing well at the time, not Bush.

• After finishing its promotional tour, Metallica began composing new material and during the autumn began performing the songs that were to make up Ride the Lightning at concerts. Put a period after "material", delete "and", and just start off again with "During the autumn, the band...".
• If that whole swath of text from "Frontman James Hetfield..." to "the band's following two albums" is in fact cited only at the end of the next sentence, you need to make the citations more clear. Put tags to the same citation in so it doesn't look like an unreferenced chunk. Next paragraph!

The book's chapter that's cited is over 20 pages, and all of the material you've mentioned is from there. If you insist, I can add the same reference at the end of each sentence, but I don't think it would be much of a help.

No, this is incorrect. Please see my comment above. Cassianto^Talk 19:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I can't tell if the riff tape info is sourced or not; was citation number 7 supposed to cover it? If so, repeat it at the end of the second sentence. If that's not the case, .

Those two sentences are backed with ref number 7. Both are mentioned in the chapter about Hammett and Hetfield in the book Legends of Rock Guitar: The Essential Reference of Rock's Greatest Guitarists.

The reviewer may think it's a great idea to plaster unsightly {{cn}} tags all over the place, but frankly, I don't and this should be discouraged on an article heading for FA. Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record I didn't mean add a tag, I just meant that I wanted a citation '^^ dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 02:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Although four tracks were already arranged, the band members worried that the album featured songs created in the studio, unlike Kill 'Em All. It doesn't even look like this was attempted to be referenced.

They are referenced, with the Rolling Stone article, which has a link to it!

• Because the group was looking for a major label deal, a number of A&R people were visiting the studio. were visiting visited. On to the next one.

Those visits lasted a bit longer, so I want to emphasize that by using past continuous.

• Recording finished on March 14 and Megaforce released the album on July 27. Comma after the first date.
• How about adding "only" before "$20,000"? Feel free to reject this one if you don't like it.

I think it would be a bit vague if we put that, so I'll skip this one if you don't mind.

Quite wise; $20,000 to some, is not "just", it's a lot of money. Best to state the fact here, and nothing else. Cassianto^Talk 19:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Metallica was unhappy with the lack of promotion by Megaforce, and decided to sever ties with Zazula. Source?

Page 52 from Martin Popoff's book on Metallica, reference 13 in the article.

• Major label Elektra Records employee Michael Alago noticed Metallica at The Stone gig in San Francisco and invited Elektra's chairman and the head of promotion to see Metallica's August show in New York. I think you might've tried to reference this with ref number 13, but please add it again here.

It is covered with the excerpt from the book by Popoff. I can add it at the end of every sentence, but I think that a reference stands for every sentence before the ref that is not covered by any other source.

That's all for the first section. I'll get to the rest later. Jeez, Retro, I'm sorry, I love this band, but this might take an awful lot to fix in one FAC. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 23:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, if you have other work to do here on Wiki, I totally understand. Cassianto's input might be needed here to resolve the misunderstanding about the use of references. Thanks for the input so far Danny.--Retrohead (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, please familiarise yourself with WP:CITE and all the other essays before reviewing anymore FAC's. If I saw an article using the same cite after every sentence, which appears to be something you are keen on, I would oppose. Having said that, I think the nominator, although he is right here, should check to make sure all references refer to each piece of information. Cassianto^Talk 19:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Welp, I tried. At least I noticed some things. :/ dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 02:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Kudos for trying, but you're wrong to think that every sentence should finish with a cite from the same source. The only times a cite should be repeated repetitively is after a quote, and if an intervening cite from a different source is used and you then need to continue from the initial source. Cassianto^Talk 08:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Where in WP:CITE does it state that consecutive sentences based on the same source should not both have the same cite added? Essays are just opinions and there are plenty of people who support the one-sentence-one-cite notion. Everyone needs some familiarity with policies and guidelines, but I think you're doing fine, DannyMusicEditor. A brief comment on the article: it could do with a Releases section, as most of the relevant info is currently in the Background and recording section, when neither background nor recording applies. EddieHugh (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by 3family6

• "Although four tracks were already arranged, the band members worried that the album featured songs created in the studio, unlike Kill 'Em All." And? How was this resolved? This sentence primes the reader to see how this worry was sated, if indeed it was, but the article just drops it there.

They worried in a way that they found it odd to write songs in the studio. There was nothing to resolve, the members simply weren't used to compose in that manner.

I'd recommend re-wording the sentence so it is clear that they were just unused to the circumstances.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reworded.

• "'Fade to Black' was released as a promotional single in 1984, in glow in the dark green." I found this in the "Music and lyrics" section, in which it is very out of place. I also found the following two sentences in the same section: "Metallica performed 'Escape' live only once, at the 2012 Orion Music + More festival while performing Ride the Lightning in its entirety." "'Creeping Death' was released as a single with a B-side titled Garage Days Revisited made up of covers of Diamond Head's 'Am I Evil?' and Blitzkrieg's 'Blitzkrieg'." I would change the "Touring" section to "Promotion and touring", and move those three sentences to there.

How about renaming the "Music and lyrics" section to "Songs"? That way the information about the "Escape" live performances and "Fade to Black" single issue can stay in the same section.

That could work as well, yes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Renamed.

• "Hammett wrote the bridge with its chant "Die, by my hand!" while in Exodus for the song "Die by His Hand", which Exodus recorded on a demo but which did not feature on a studio album." - link to Exodus

Exodus is linked in the previous section: "It was inspired by one Hammett's former band Exodus".

Sorry, I thought I might have just missed the link (I did a CTRL+F search, which doesn't always go to the first entry.)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Michael Kamen rearranged the song for Metallica's 1999 S&M project and won a Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance in 2001." - While this factoid is interesting, I don't know if it's relevant to this article.

Since the song "The Call of Ktulu" doesn't have an article of its own, I thought this would be the right place for the information.

Wouldn't the S&M article be a better location?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It could work I guess, but that article's a mess and I don't know where to put the sentence. I'll remove it if you insist, but I don't think it's a big deviation from the topic. After all, this is where the track has originally appeared.

I just really don't think that it fits in with the discussion, since this article is about the Ride the Lightning album, not the S&M album.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Should note that the AllMusic review is retrospective, or else remove that note from the mention of the Sputnikmusic review.

Corrected, I've put Allmusic after Sputnik.

• "Kerrang! implied that the album's maturity and musical intelligence helped Metallica expand heavy metal's boundaries." - Kerrang! did more than imply, it stated this.

Corrected.

• "Many rock publications has ranked Ride the Lightning on their best album lists." - should be "have ranked"

Corrected.

• I'm not sure why that picture is given in the touring section, since it's from decades later.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No special meaning, only to break the monotony of having just walls of text. Unfortunately we don't have images from this period on Commons, and this was the most appropriate I've found from those available.

Okay, I'll accept that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey 3family6, many thanks for the review. If you can give feedback on the unresolved points it would be great.--Retrohead (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nergaal

• The article seems fine but I don't understand why there is essentially no coverage of performances after the initial tour. A few of the songs became stables in their later concerts, and were featured in other audio or video albums. Nergaal (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Regarding the expansion on later live performances, there isn't much to be said about it except that three songs became live staples. There isn't choreography, special occasions they were performed at, etc. After all, anything regarding a certain song can be written at its own page.--Retrohead (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey

• I would have expected a little more to be said about the actual music on the album in the lead, and perhaps a little less on touring, etc. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I can elaborate on that in the lead, but can you please return the information about the payment of the recording cost? I think it's one of the more important aspects from the album's background.--Retrohead (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I added something about the implementation of acoustic guitars and slower tempos in the lead. Going deeper would require describing each song, and I don't think that should be elaborated in the introduction. Hope you don't mind that I've returned the sentence about the recording cost.--Retrohead (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Ian Rose

Recusing from coord duties, I was asked to review for prose and, not being a Metallica fan (though nothing against heavy metal per se) I can hopefully be severely objective. Copyedited throughout so pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning. Outstanding points:

• "during the autumn" and “By the autumn of 1984” -- can we reword, as not all readers live in the northern hemisphere?

Changed with "from September".

• The Songs section seems a tad jargon-heavy -- even I'm not sure what a "standard down-stroked riff" is, so it may benefit from some re-wording on Retrohead's part, or failing that another pair of eyes. For that reason I'm not really comfortable with registering outright support for promotion, but nor am I opposing.

I think it is about riff in a downstroke pattern, I'll see if some other modifications are possible. Thanks for the c/e and the review.

I've linked to downpicking. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Hurricanehink

Stumbling here from my FAC, looking at it strictly as a trained musician.

• "Metallica promoted the album on the Bang That Head That Doesn't Bang European tour in late 1984" - considering the tour name is a little unusual, I think you should change the sentence structure. Something like - "Metallica promoted the album in late 1984 with a European tour of the name Bang That Head That Doesn't Bang. IDK, something that makes it clearer.

I could, but it will sacrifice the sentence's conciseness. The "European tour" tag afterward disclaims suspicions that the name might be something other than a tour name.

• "Frontman James Hetfield felt uneasy about performing vocals so the band offered the job to Armored Saint singer John Bush, who turned down the offer because Armored Saint was doing well at the time." - you should clarify that Hetfield did end up doing the vocals. The article doesn't say that specifically, just inferred based on the "Personnel" section
• Here's something I noticed, but you treat "Metallica" like it's a singular unit. Is that proper? For example - "Metallica initially had sound problems because its gear". Is Metallica a single unit, or is it a collective term for the members therein? Is there policy that agrees with this approach?

In American English, bands are treated as singular entities if the collective noun is not plural. See Comparison of American and British English#Nouns.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't either for a long time. I forget who pointed it out to me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that—there are contexts in which NAmEng treats groups as plural, but Wikipedia requires more uniformity than reflected in actual use. In most cases groups are singular, though, so to a North American "the government are" sounds like broken English. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• You should probably explain what "several A&R people" means. It's fairly jargon-y (as Ian Rose mentioned before, that's a bit of a problem in the article).

I can write the full term "artists and repertoire", but since the term is wikilinked, I think the reader will figure it out, if not from the context, then from the article linked.

• "Ride the Lightning exhibited greater musical maturity, with sonically broader songs, than Metallica's debut Kill 'Em All, which was noted for its one-dimensional sound." - this is part of the problem with the article. Who noted the one-dimensional sound? Who believed that it had more maturity? Music is an art form, so there are some things you can talk about objectively (length, recording, promotion) and some that you need authoritative sources to back up things like maturity, style, complexity, whatnot. I'm going to stop at the "Songs" section, because I don't feel the article is quite ready for FA status. Foe example, this sentence seems a bit dramatic - "The extended solo section at the end dissolves in a sound effect of a vast nuclear explosion." Unless there's a quote for this, I think there is a better, more encyclopediac way to say it. This is a problem for many music articles, especially for albums for big artists. I think the article could be featured without a huge amount of effort, but I don't think it's there now. It needs to be a bit more objective. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

From the books I've consulted, every author thinks that Lightning is an upgrade in style, complexity, etc. compared to the previous album. I can write "critics" or "scholars", but I think there is consensus among music biographers regarding that question. I agree there's a certain amount of fancruft in the article, and I'll get to cleaning it up. Thanks for the review, and if you have time, please write back at the unresolved points for ideas.--Retrohead (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

From all being said above, I think there's consensus among the reviewers and the nominator that the article needs more work to get to FA level. Therefore, Ian Rose, if you could please close the nomination. Thanks to the reviewers for their effort and time.--Retrohead (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Tks Retrohead. Although I doubt it would be controversial since you've asked to withdraw, as I recused to review I might invite Andy to do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2016 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2016 [11].

---

Partick Thistle F.C.

Nominator(s): Andrew Henderson 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Partick Thistle Football Club, a professional Association Football team based in the Maryhill district of Glasgow, Scotland. I believe that this article, at the moment, is good enough to be considered for "Featured Article" standard. It has already achieved "Good Article" status, and has remained so for more than a year. Any constructive comments are welcome. Thanks, Andrew Henderson 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – Welcome to FAC, Andrew. While I don't have time at the moment for a full reading of the article, a quick scan revealed several problems that cause the article to not meet the demanding FA criteria.

• There are several uncited sentences and paragraphs sprinkled throughout the article. For example, there are a couple of uncited paragraphs in the Stadium section. Frankly, I'm surprised the GA reviewer didn't make an issue of this.
• Some of the paragraphs are one or two sentences, which leaves the impression that they are stubby. The Stadium and Community Trust sections seem to have a bunch of these at a glance.
• What is meant to be sourcing the majority of the tables in the latter part of the article. This content needs to be verifiable as well as the text.
• Some of the references are bare links that require further formatting.

Best of luck with the FAC, but please do ensure that these issues are fixed, and take a careful look at the article for any problems that might pop up in a more thorough, sentence-by-sentence review of the writing. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• A few issues I have spotted:
  • "History" section is disproportionately weighted towards recent events, for example why do we need to know that Thistle finished 8th last year?
  • "Stadium" section is largely unsourced
  • "Full internationalists" section is almost completely unsourced
  • "Honours" section is almost completely unsourced
  • "Kit suppliers" table is completely unsourced, I also don't see why this information is needed
  • Long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY is that "famous supporters" sections are not encyclopedic and should not be included in articles. It is in no way a significant aspect of the club that Paul Pogba "keeps track of Thistle's results", or that David Hasselhoff once made a throwaway quip about supporting the club (which I doubt very much he was even remotely serious about)
• I think there's quite a bit of work to be done to get the article up to FA standard...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- The above points, with which I concur having scanned the article myself, suggest the article is underprepared for FAC, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls don't be discouraged but address the issues raised and then you can renominate, as long as a minimum of two weeks has passed per FAC instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2016 (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) 13:37, 11 March 2016 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2016 [12].

---

Briarcliff Farms

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I wrote this article out of interest for what preceded Briarcliff Manor, New York, and what Walter William Law was so devoted to for much of his life. I was very surprised to find more information on the farm than I probably had about the village itself; the farm was incredibly well documented in its time. I found plenty of photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of the farm and its history. After reaching Good Article status, going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, and having key members and the president of the BMSHS review this, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my sixth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19, 2014 TFA Briarcliff Manor, the next two were for the July 25, 2015 TFA Elliott Fitch Shepard. The last was for this article, I can never seem to get enough attention to these FACs. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Starting my review of the article, I will add in comments as I go and you can feel free to address it when you get a chance, I will check in now and then to see how it's going. At first glance it looks like it's close to FA status already.

• Images - License etc. checks out and are appropriate, alt text are in order.
• External links - All active and okay
• References - Looks like they're reliable sources
• Check the suggestions by the peer review bot (link at the top) it has a couple of comments around Galleries, numbers and footnote placements that you can look into addressing
• Lead - there is a citation in the lead, made me think it sourced something not in the main body of the text and I was right I found nothing about a "European country seat" in the body of the text. per WP:LEAD the lead should not be the only place something is mentioned.

More to come as I go through the article.  MPJ-US  03:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Thank you. I did look through the peer review suggestions, and although I would generally agree with all of them, I don't believe they exactly apply in the cases that exist here. The lead has that paragraph that's largely summarizing the operation, and is thus suitable for the lead. A few of the points may be later mentioned in the article, but are probably scattered... I believe the "European country seat" part can be cited to other works if necessary; I didn't find it really necessary however. The source given provides all the details that are key elements of a European manor or country seat. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Alright so after a few days with stuff going on I am back to continue my review of this article. So I am not sure I get the whole "it's summarizing the operation" comment. The lead should summarize the article, the operation should be described more in depth in the article. The lead should not be the only place something is mentioned, it is okay that points are scattered in the article as long as they are there. MPJ-US  00:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure theoretically the main importance of the lead is to summarize the article. That doesn't mean it can't do other things, and there will always be exceptions that apply. I can't find a way to duplicate the country seat information without repeating it too obviously, and the various aspects of that statement are covered throughout the article, making any such addition very difficult to place, as it actually does summarize points all around the article.ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree on that thought in general, nothing should just be in the lead. And I understand it's hard to not repeat it, but that is less of a concern, to me I treat the lead and the main article as two separate entities, there will be some repetition between them, it's kinda by design.  MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Lead

• "And also" in the first paragraph is redundant

No? I describe what the farm was known for, and then use the "and also" to separate that from the farm's other notable products. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• History

• I am seeing the (pp2) etc. but I am not sure what this refers to, is that the pages of the specific citation or is there a general source that's referred to as such? I am not seeing a general source? If it's for the specific citation it should be in the citation, not next to it.

This is Template:Rp, which is an acceptable citation style. The 'pp' should make it clear that it's listing page numbers. I wouldn't include that in the actual citation because those citations are used many times in the article, and most times cite to a different page. The only way around that is a notes section, which would include a lot more code and probably be as long as the references section. Far from ideal. I use Rp in other articles, a few of which have recently reached FA. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a source on all the work he did on the soil? the paragraph starting with "Law found the soil poor..."

Yes, that paragraph is (for the most part) cited to reference 6. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Covered then. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Citation [22] should be at the end of the sentence, not in the middle of it.

It is actually acceptable, and in common use. Please see WP:CITEDENSE. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not know CITEDENSE, good to know. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "A larger dairy building was planned", makes it seem like it was never built?

The history books are too murky on this, and the current living authorities aren't sure; regardless there's no reference to attribute to its actual construction. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, it's better to state what we know than to move into OR territory so I am good with this. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "In 1909 Law formed the Briarcliff Realty Company to sell the original Briarcliff Manor property." - Does not actually state it was sold?

Obviously the property changed hands, but I don't have records of any sale, including the date sold or to whom it was sold. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As right above this. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Thorne and W. Alan McGregor began the herd, and were determined to enlarge it by breeding", not sure exactly what information you wanted to convey in that sentence? I take it the later mention of importing was for further breeding?

I fixed these sentences. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am good with the reworded sentence. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• " (when Thorne became the first to win a grand championship twice)." looks like an "interesting factoid" that's tacked onto a sentence, you may want to consider revising that sentence.

Good point, reworded. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• What year was the Dutchess County Fair? where Briarcliff Aristocrat was shown?

Added, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent

• The article goes into very little detail on the history from 1935 on, 35 to 79 in a short sentence

The farm didn't really exist after 1935. However I describe its turning hands and eventual fate in as much detail as possible. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah my mistake, the buildings etc. existed but it ceased being Briarcliff Farms? Then the level of detail is appropriate. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Last bit of history is that the farm was for sale in 1984.... so is it still for sale? Article makes it seem so.

The farm fell out of national and even local news. I'm fairly sure all of the property is now split between Mashomack and Berkshire Stud, which I mention in the Farm status section. No sources indicate Stockbriar's actual change of hands or replacement of any sort. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well then once again this is the best information we can source, no issue here. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Location

• Section seems to go into needless details at time such as "Law frequently joined the men at meals", which is not really relevant to the "Location" is it?

Not every detail within a paragraph has to be directly relevant to the section title, does it? I included it as it describes an aspect of the boarding house that makes it seem like more than just a men's boarding house. As well, having the proprietor dine with his workers shows an aspect of him that was reflected in his business. I'm not sure, perhaps it's better in his own article? I just tried to have everything relevant to Dalmeny that's within Portal:Briarcliff Manor fall in this one section. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That one sentence is just a personal prefernce, not a deal breaker in any way. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Operations

• Is there no article to link to for the term Certified Milk?

I address this difficulty below. What are your thoughts on it? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand the challenges, totally do. Different standards in different locations, over time etc. how about you put in a footnote that does a high level definition of what it means in this particular case? Just a suggestion, not a deal breaker. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure if the note on the Walker-Gordon Laboratories is really relevant?

Well, I was listing the largest farms in the East, and naturally one would want to know their locations, so I stated NJ, but the best I could do for Walker-Gordon was that. I'm borderline, do you still think it should be removed? !!!!

Keeping it the way it is is okay with me. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Citation [30] is in the middle of the sentence after "twice a day"

• More to come MPJ-US  01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments so far! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ɱ: - I have addressed the feedback, not much left to deal with.  MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Going through this now, I'll just pull out some of the key points I find:

• The farm combined a practical American business model with the concept of a European country seat; this is only mentioned in the lead... if it is important enough to put this in the lead it should be covered in more detail in the article (many readers will not understand what a European country seat consists of).
• with cows being milked constantly, and with milk promptly chilled and bottled within five minutes, and shipped to stores in New York City each night; apart from being framentary, this second portion of the sentence seems to bear no correlation to the first. It's really just a new sentence.
• The article is very long (which is great) but the lead does not adequately summarise the whole thing. It needs tightening up on the existing content and coverage increased on other areas.
• The lead also makes several claims (such as being known for certain produce) that I can't quite pull out of the article...
• Farm status; this sentence threw mean. You're talking about the modern land?
• Many of the sentences in the article are very long and run on through commas. Some of the main culprits get quite confusing. One of the most common problems is inserting unrelated factoids into a sentence, which loses me as a reader.
• You fail to explain some terms (what is "certified milk")?

Unfortunately I can't support this at the current time; it's not too far off what I'd consider a FA but there are some style issues running throughout that I can't get round. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@ErrantX: I merely requested comments, I wasn't asking for any sort of support. I knew it's at a stage where a few people here and again may have comments, and I'll be happy to work through them.

• I described to MPJ-DK about the country seat element above. I suppose I could find a source and input information about the aspects of a country seat, however I thought that was too off-topic for this already voluminous article. What do you think?
• As for the second bullet: it's really just a list of relevant aspects of the farm's operations. The aspects may cover different parts of the operation and therefore might not seem to correlate, but they're all aspects of how the farm operated.
• As for the third bullet, it's hard for me to see how the lead doesn't adequately summarize. Perhaps explain a few key points it misses?
• The fourth bullet - which produce? However I can easily find a citation for any goods produced that are listed there.
• The fifth bullet - yes. Admittedly it's not the best wording for that section title. I couldn't and can't think of anything better. Do you have a suggested alternative title?
• The sixth bullet - please provide specific cases.
• The seventh bullet - Again, this isn't too relevant to the article, however if an article (or section of the "Milk" article) is created on the topic of certified milk, I will link to it. The topic itself likely cannot be described succinctly in the Farms article, as the definition of "certified milk" not only has changed historically, but also has different definitions depending on your location.

Thank you for your comments. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your reply!

• I think the issue is twofold on this segment; the featured article criteria is quite firm about meeting the guidelines of WP:LEAD which is itself firm that content in the lead must appear in the article body. Secondly I'm no copyright expert but the source material and that sentence look so close as to risk being close paraphrasing combined a practical American business model with the concept of a European country sea vs. combines the idea of a European country seat with a very practical American business end. I'm not sure. It's possibly okay? I know how hard it can be to re-construct information from sources.
• The article lead claims the farm was known for milk etc. but I can find nothing in the article body that says this? So it's not so much about that the farm did produce it but that it "was known for its milk, butter, and cream" (i.e. those specific products). I might be nitpicking.
• I'm at work so when I get home I'll add some more context and examples on the remainder of my comments :) --08:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@ErrantX: I'll attempt some way to input some more information in the body about the country seat aspect. I do not think you should be worried about paraphrasing there. I use a few similar terms because they are the acceptable terms to use. I reword pretty much every other word in that sentence, and actually parts of those terms as well. This is the farthest-out paraphrasing concern I've seen, and I've seen many; most are far, far worse. And I'm sorry, but you really are nitpicking about the 'known for/did produce' aspect. I remember seeing it in one of the sources I've used, but it was far too long ago for me to recall. However, it's evident that it was primarily a dairy farm producing milk and butter, and those three products were the only ones sent to the Paris Exhibition, where they received prizes. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree; merely rewording words isn't quite enough. Per the guidance on this topic it is not just word choice but word ordering and sentence structure that speak to this piece. Either way; I fairly exhaustively checked the rest of the article and can't see any other issues.
• was known for its milk, butter, and cream and also produced other; not to beat a dead horse but I suggest primarily produced milk, butter, and cream and also other might better suit what you (from above comments) are trying to communicate. My reading of that sentence seems to imply that the farm was e.g. widely known in the public eye for quality milk etc. the extent that people would be talking about "Briarcliffe Milk" (that might be true; but I can't see anything in the article that fits).
• Regarding the country seat aspect; I still think that it needs to be in the article body & that it would be worth expanding on what is meant by "country seat" (the American enterprise of it seems well described). Is it referring to the layout for example, or the house, or how people lived there? I've read through the rest of the article several times now, in detail, and I can't pull up too many more issues;
• School of Practical Agriculture; this section, second paragraph has a quotation that does not have an in-line citation?
• The school's progress was followed by members of the public interested in agricultural education.; what is that trying to say? That it was important in the public consciousness? Why?
• This is merely a style thing; but there are a lot of citations inside a sentence. This coupled with many commas has made it difficult for me as a reader to follow the flow of the article.
• Revisiting the certified milk thing; the article makes a novel claim (that this was one of the first farms to produce certified milk); the reader is effectively missing a trick in the absence of an article. For now (to be complete) I think this article would need a clarification (like, literally a sentence) to explain it.*
• US vs. U.S. - suggest being consistent in choosing one or other
• In a 1900 publication; is it worth being explicit about which publications you refer to in these sentences. Rather than hiding it from the reader?
• Particularly the Operations section comes across as a list of facts about the farm. Which is okay but for the reader kind of exhausting and sometimes lacking context. For example, the paragraph Briarcliff Farms operated a printing press... seems to list various diversifications of the farm or other but you don't introduce that. It's not much change, just a little extra framework to the content would help contextualise the reader :)

--Errant ^(chat!) 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- sorry but with this depth of commentary and no clear support for promotion after a month, this is looking more like a PR than anything, so I'll archive it and ask you to work on improvements outside the FAC process, after which you can renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2016 (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) 14:25, 11 March 2016 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2016 [13].

---

Canadian National Vimy Memorial

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Canadian war memorial located in France. It failed an FAC in 2010 but has since been edited and is submitted for FAC in advance of the July 80th anniversary of the monument's unveiling. Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I enjoyed this and found it readable, but copyediting it was kind of a tough job, so I stopped reading a little more than halfway through, at Second World War. I'm hoping another reviewer will pick it up from there and make a call on supporting or opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

What MOS guideline or style guide provides this direction? I don't actually care one way or the other. Rather, it is seems more important to be consistent across articles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS:CAPTION. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Missed that one. Thanks for pointing that one out. Done.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest scaling up both maps

I've scaled up the battle image but I don't personalty think the memorial map needs it. If you want to scale that image as well I won't oppose, I just don't myself see a need. I don't personally like the battle map image scaled up but if someone will find it useful I'll jump aon board with the idea.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Since France does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the monument there?

The Canadian government firmly believes that the memorial is in the public domain. Every historical photo of the memorial at Library and Archives Canada is published as copyright expired, as shown by the links in at least every image I've cited. The memorial was commissioned and paid for by Canada, this much is well documented. Where members of the wikicommons have shown concerns in the past is that the contract between Canada and Allward has never been produced to show that that the Canadian Crown retains copyright eventhough the Canadian government both commissioned and paid for the memorial. From a Wikipedia EN point of view there is no concern as FOP does not apply in US copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

However, since we're using images of the memorial hosted on Commons, we do have to be concerned about FOP. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I could move the image File:Vimy_Memorial_(September_2010)_cropped.jpg and File:The_British_Army_in_North-west_Europe_1944-45_BU760.jpg to the Wikipedia EN side in the mean time. I personally find that unnecessary but will do so if it alleviates concerns. I don't see there being an FOP issue, rather just an overaggressive approach by some. I've seen free use images of the memorial from the archives/national museums of at least France, Canada and the UK. So I am left with the distinct impression that there is a collective conclusion from a number of sources that the memorial is PD.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you can source that consensus (or otherwise address the issue), then we should be able to keep it where it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• File:Vimy Memorial (September 2010) cropped.jpg was already on the Wiki-EN side. It was my mistaken belief that it was in the commons.
• The copyright status of the memorial is not something that's ever been tested. It's simply an observation that if the French and Canadian governments each freely publishes images of the memorial for the last 80 years, a reasonable person would conclude that it's PD.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately such a conclusion would not necessarily be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'll leave this academic discussion of FOP for another day. In the mean time, the lead image changed to design competition drawing, which I believe now addressed any US PD concerns.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg: I'm confused by the licensing here. If the image was "migrated from the Victoria Cross Reference site with permission. Photo submitted by Martin Hornby", on what basis does the uploader claim a copyright?

I didn't upload this image but I did some digging anyway and the image is a cigarette card from approx 1916 by Gallaher Ltd of Belfast & London. Licensing is correct that it's an item published before 1923. I'm not seeing the issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The image currently includes a GFDL/CC license, which appears to be baseless. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleted GFDL and replace it with PD UK Unkown tag as it has no identified artist and was published over 70 years ago.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• File:Canadian_Battlefields_Memorials_Commission_-_Design_Comp.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Vimy_Memorial_-_Design_model.jpg

Question is irrelevant. Both are PD Canada, and the photograph was created before 1949, likely taken in 1922. The location of publcation is unimporant, just date of creation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Both images include a tag that states "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923". We need to verify whether this tag is accurate or not, which requires knowing the details of its original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the PD US 1923 tag for the time being. It's possible that the Journal of the American Institute of Architects published one or the other it in it's 1921 review but I'll have to look into it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• File:Vimy_Memorial_-_Foundation_construction.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Vimy_Memorial_-_half_finished_statue_and_plaster_models.jpg, File:HM_King_Edward_VIII_unveiling_the_figure_of_Canada_on_the_Vimy_Ridge_Memorial.jpg

Why do they require PD US tags? US recognizes PD Canada, on the topic of photographs so I'm not seeing the issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It is quite possible for a work to be PD in Canada but not PD in the US, and since Wikipedia follows US law we need to need if and why it is PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

All three images are expired Canadian crown copyright have been tagged as such.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that, but as the US supports copyright restoration a work that is PD in Canada may not be PD in the US, and thus we need to explicitly account for whether it is or isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Architectural works constructed before 1 December 1990, are not copyrightable in the US.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Photos of same are. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I must be missing something here because these three images seem clear-cut. All are published in source country in or before 1936, making them PD in Canada no later than 1986. There's no US PD issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that these three images, and the three in the point immediately above, were created in or before 1936. As far as I can tell, there is currently no indication of if/when they were published. If we are arguing that they were subject to Crown copyright, publication date will have a significant impact on their current status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

How so? The images are photographer unknown, were created by the Canadian Crown, Crown has classified all three as having expired copyright with no restriction and has separately made clear it has no intention of renewing expired Crown Copyright works in any country so URAA doesn't apply. Chasing down location of first publication is not necessary. If it's more favorable, they could be tagged as Open Government Licence - Canada 2.0.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't however clear when the copyright would have expired, which impacts the status in the US. And if the Crown copyright has indeed expired, there would be no basis for an Open Government License tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how this could possibly not be PD in the US. This is not simply a case of expired, the records at Library and Archives Canada clearly noted that restrictions are nil which means that any rights (other than attribution) have been waived. Even if it were unpublished it would be PD in the US as the Canadian Crown is the rights holder and Canada as through an OTRS ticket confirmed it is not renewing expired Crown Copyright works in any country.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If the Canadian copyright expired after 1996, then the US copyright would persist regardless of whether Canada wants to renew Crown copyright or not. "Restrictions: nil" doesn't "clearly note" that anything has been waived worldwide. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to allows a commons deletion request to make the determination one way or the other as I don't believe we are going to find ourselves on the same page with regards to this outstanding point.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I had sent a request to Library and Archives Canada who confirmed that the images "may be used freely without seeking permissions from the Government of Canada" just waiting on the OTRS confirmation for File:Vimy_Memorial_-_Foundation_construction.jpg and File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg. If confirmed I hope that resolves any concerns.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• File:Hitler_touring_Vimy_Memorial_in_1940.jpg: can you explain the licensing here? Neither the source nor the attributed author is likely to have published under that license

The Nazi German Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda published the image in 1940 in publications known to the Allied forces to demonstrate that they was not destroyed. See Durflinger source in article regarding the site being used as a propaganda tool. The 1964 article from the Legionary is the first case that I'd seen with my own eyes. My understanding, is that any potential copyright would fall to the German state. Do please modify if you interpret otherwise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That explanation does not appear to be compatible with the current licensing, but I'm not sure what the correct licensing would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

My initial impression was this image was anonymous but I did some digging and found the image was taken by Heinrich Hoffmann. The image was published in June 1940 in Germany and then subsequently 4-5 days later in the US (obviously unauthorized). The US considers official photographs by the Nazi German government to be PD by the nature of them being war booty but the status in Germany is hazy. For Lichtbilder photographs Germany assigns 50 years copyright after publication but I'm not sure this image would qualify under that basis. I've nominated the commons image for deletion and uploaded it Wiki-EN where it is in the company of a number off Hoffmann images--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg: this work is of Canadian origin, not Australian - the given tag does not apply.

Work is of Australian origin (artist is Australian) but owned by the Canadian government. PD Canada may apply because it was likely commissioned by Canada but in the end its the same different, published in 1931 and artist died in 1953 (Before 1955 PD deadline) thus in public domain.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

For our purposes country of origin is the location of first publication or public display, which appears to be Canada rather than Australia. Do you have any source suggesting that under this definition country of origin is Australia? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. Location of first showing is not known with certainty and may very well have been the UK. My personal guess would be the UK as Will Longstaff painted his famous Menin Gate at midnight in the UK in 1927[14] and Immortal shrine in the UK in 1928[15]. Further, Captain John Arthur Dewar, of Dewar's whiskey fame is the one who purchased the painting and donated it to the "people of Canada".[16] Shall we go with UK than?--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hard to say without more information, but if it's UK the image is likely not free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've found no record of public display in the UK for any of the above. Since Canada claims Ghosts of Vimy Ridge is PD and Australia claims Menin Gate at midnight and Menin Gate at midnight as PD it would seem to be that purchases were made direct from artist. This seems most probable as that is what happened for Longstaff's The rearguard (The spirit of ANZAC)[17]. I've changed the tag to reflect the first cited exhibition as being in Canada in 1932.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

But not under Crown copyright, correct? That would mean it isn't PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct not crown copyright. For US PD, as it was first published abroad before 1978 it's status in the US comes down to whether it was in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996, correct? If so, you are correct that it is not PD is the US. Longstaff died in 1953 meaning Ghosts of Vimy Ridge was under potential copyright until 2003. I see nothing to indicate that Longstaff waved copyright before 1996 so PD in the US is 95 years after first publication, or 2027. Agreed?--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ghosts of Vimy Ridge.jpeg is nominated for deletion in the commons and has been replaced by a WWII war recruitment poster.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Regretful oppose until some of the image issues are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review—I popped in here from my current FAC, and I figure that we can leave the image questions to others, but in the meantime we can get other items else sorted while we wait.

• fn 91: "Tom Kennedy, CTV National News, 9 April 2007." That's both incomplete, and inconsistently formatted compared to the other footnotes.

Formatting standardized. There is no longer a URL link to provide so it will need to stand without one.-Labattblueboy (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• fn 114 needs some polishing.
  • The date is in an inconsistent format compared to the rest of the citations. It's also ambiguous.
  • The author's last name should not be rendered in all caps.
  • It would be nice if we could get a |trans-title= added to list an English translation of the source title. (Nice, but not required, and if it's possible to add to other sources, please do.)
  • I have all of the error messages enabled, and I'm getting the "Missing or empty |url=" error.
    • Continental Europe often uses all caps for last names, nevertheless I've removed it. URL has been added and date fixed. There is no official translation of the title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Trans titles added for a number of french articles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• fn 115 is using {{citation}}, which is Citation Style 2, while the rest of the article's footnotes use Citation Style 1 templates. Either style is fine, but they shouldn't be mixed (unless you're going to add |mode=CS1 or |mode=CS2 as appropriate to flip the style from one to the other.)
• fn 122 should have the all caps reduced per the MOS.
  • Any titles with all caps have been corrected.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• fn 128 has an ISO-style date while the rest is in DD Month YYYY format.
  • Made sure all the refs fallowed DMY, a number beyond 128 were also corrected.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• A quick thought regarding fn 3 and fn 129, but it looks a little weird to have a capitalized word or abbreviation for an in-source location. I'd use "fig." and "ch." respectively.

Looking at the References section

• You might want to quickly audit the titles for capitalization consistency. It appears that you're pretty much consistently using title case, and there are a few examples where words would need to be capitalized, like "memorial" in Art or memorial? : The Forgotten History of Canada's War Art, "before" in "The Battlefield before the Canadians, 1914–1916" or "are" in "The Gunners of Vimy Ridge: 'We are Hammering Fritz to Pieces'". A common rule of thumb is that the first word and the last word in a title and a subtitle get capitalized as well as all nouns, all verbs and words over five letters in length. In any event, just do a quick audit to make sure you're consistent across the titles.

Art or memorial should me Art or Memorial, Correction made.

The Battlefield before the Canadians, 1914–1916 was titled exactly as such. no correction made.

he Gunners of Vimy Ridge: 'We are Hammering Fritz to Pieces was titled exactly as such. no correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• ""Old Wine in New Bottles": A Comparison of British and Canadian Preparations for the Battle of Arras" should really have the double quotation marks around "Old Wine in New Bottles" changed to single quotation marks for better nesting.

For "'Old Wine in New Bottles': A Comparison of British and Canadian Preparations for the Battle of Arras" I've changed the nesting but do note that that is not how the source is presented.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• "NOT A MAN FELL OUT AND THE PARTY MARCHED INTO ARRAS SINGING": THE ROYAL GUARD AT THE UNVEILING OF THE VIMY MEMORIAL, 1936" needs to be reduced from all caps, and it looks like there's a quotation mark mismatch in there.

"Not A Man Fell Out and the Party Marched Into Arras Singing": The Royal Guard and the Unveiling of the Vimy Memorial, 1936 Correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The second part of any source is review is related to the quality and reliability of the sources used and not just the formatting and presentation of those sources in citations. I've looked over everything, and I can't identify any that would fail to meet the requirements of a Featured Article. Imzadi 1979 → 12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Following up with the above Labattblueboy, but it doesn't have to be an "official translation", just an accurate one, to be useful.

I've translated a number of the titles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Image and source reviews are vital and necessary for any FAC but with little commentary on the other aspects of the article after a month it looks like consensus to promote will be a long time coming, so I'll be archiving this shortly. I'd like to see any outstanding image questions resolved before renominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2016 (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) 14:38, 11 March 2016 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2016 [18].

---

Ben Crosby

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My second FAC for a late nineteenth-century American football coach, Ben Crosby is a man who died before he could really become notable. He is pretty much only remembered for being the first real coach of the Navy Midshipmen, although a few things from his time in college came up. He died just a few weeks after completing his big event, falling to typhoid fever at just 24. Up until recently, I did not expect to bring this article to FAC. Crosby is the second-least known of the Navy coaches (aside from Mr. "disappeared from the historical record") and for the longest time, his article was barely 11,000 bytes. A recent expansion effort from me, my first real Wikipedia editing in months (stupid IB) has doubled the size of the article, and it now rests at a comfortable eight paragraphs. As usual for me, there are probably dozens of little mistakes littered throughout the brief article. I'm looking forward to it. Also, this is a WikiCup nomination. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ben_Crosby_1891.png: suggest using the {{non-free biog-pic}} tag instead, but what steps have you taken to try to determine the copyright status of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Researching the image, just like researching Crosby himself, has been a difficult process. No image of Crosby was in any of the books I have. This image did not turn up in Yale records; the only picture with Crosby in it from Yale is this one, where he is barely visible and which is also of unknown copyright status. The only place I have found the image is from the blog, and it implies that it is an unpublished image from a personal collection. The one place where there is a possibility of a free image of Crosby is in the 1891 edition of The Yale Banner, which I do not have access to. Unless/until that proves successful, this current image is the best version we have. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry but with only the image review after a month this nom is a bit of a non-starter; given the lack of commentary you can renominate without waiting the usual two weeks if you choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2016 (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) 14:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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