Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2016

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2016 [1].

Nelson's Pillar[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC) and Carcharoth (talk)[reply]

Nelson's Pillar, erected in 1809 to honour the British hero of Trafalgar, was a feature of Dublin for more than 150 years until, suddenly, it wasn't. Before its sudden demise it was both loved and resented by Dubliners, and survived numerous schemes for its removal or replacement with something specifically Irish. A mixture of bureacracy, sentiment – and the sense that there were more urgent priorities – kept the "one-handled adulterer" on his pedestal for far longer than perhaps even he would have expected. Opinion is divided as to whether his eventual replacement in the city centre, the Spire of Dublin, is a worthy successor. After a pretty thorough peer review and some excellent suggestions for improvements, we feel it is ready for FAC. Further comments and criticisms are welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Could find very little to complain about at the PR. This looks to be a sound, FA quality article on the subject which meets the critieria. Only thing worth mentioning is that I wouldn't mind seeing a pin map of Dublin in the infobox showing where it was in the city. It would be of limited use I guess given that we can't see the streets when it's small in the infobox. You can click it though to make out features and roughly where the pin marker would be. If you look at the one in Smalls Paradise for instance, I think it helps the reader.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I have no objection to adding the location map, but you will have to tell me how to add the pin, which in this case should go where the "n" of "Dublin" is now placed in the map. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also had my say at the PR, where my minor points were addressed. This is an excellent overview of a monument that is fading from memory. It fits the FA criteria in my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Image review: None of the images have alt text, so you should fix that. I have my doubts about File:A half-demolished Nelsons Pillar on OConnell Street, Dublin.jpg which has a PD claim added by an editor not provided or verified by the NLI. Despite being an iconic historical image I think it is actually still in copyright because the NLI's catalogue lists the author as Michael S. Walker. A search of their holding shows he was still active in 1988 and maybe even later, so its copyright status is actually unclear. I've asked the editor who added the PD claim what he based that on. The "no known copyright restrictions" tag states that one should add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined which puts the onus on us and not on the institution. Nice job on the article which I will read and comment on later. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took a look at this before the nomination. The Library "is not aware of any current copyright restrictions on the photographs, usually because the Library owns the copyright or the term of copyright has expired". Based on the age of the image, one would think the library had purchased the copyright. However, it would perhaps be best to confirm with them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will email the library on Tuesday - not much point contacting them before then. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have been through this type of situation previously and the NLI usually does not have any additional information, but just don't know of any restriction but cannot verify this image is freely licenced. Some time ago an NLI image of Michael Collins was eventually deleted when we found out the photographer was alive more recently than was thought. That seems to be the case here as the photographer was still alive in 1988. The Library don't often buy the copyright but are given collections. I'll be happy to hear their reply to your request. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting to know. I realize that, for this current image, there's no way it can be PD under Irish law unless released as PD by the copyright holder. Even if the photographer died the day after taking this image, it hasn't been seventy years since the image was taken. I'm hoping that the copyright was purchased by the library, but if it wasn't, I'd argue to keep this as fair use, owing to its significance to the subject. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris, I think that one fair-use historical image would be acceptable. I was going to nominate it for deletion on the commons but will wait to see what the NLI reply is. ww2censor (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard directly from the library, but independent information leads me to believe that it is highly improbable that the library owns the copyright; the "no known restrictions" tag is, as Ww2 suggests, likely a means of placing the onus on users to determine the copyright status. If the library does come up trumps, then fair enough, but the small likelihood and the time factor lead me to think that a fair use rationale for a copyrighted image is the best way forward. I have therefore reloaded the image on Wikipedia as File:Nelson's Pillar destroyed.jpg, with a fair use rationale, and placed this in the article instead of the Commons version. I would withhold deleting the Commons one for a while, to give the NLI time, but assuming the fair use rationale is accepted, that's no longer an issue for this article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support on determining the status of the image mentioned. Nice job on the prose; Easter Sunday seems like an appropriate day to finally read this highly improved article. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Ww2, for your image comments. On the matter of alt text, this is not a FAC requirement. There is a division of view in WP as to its usefulness; based on discussions over the years I am unconvinced, and do not generally add it. If, however, my conom feels differently, I will defer to him. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some previous FACs I've read or been involved in have suggested alt text is used, so that's where I'm coming from. I have not seen any discussion on the topic and I have no idea how many readers could benefit from it. It seems better to be inclusive rather than exclusive. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think alt text should be added to improve accessibility. I'll do this now, though as has been noted this is not a FAC requirement. Everything else raised so far in this FAC looks fine (I've been otherwise occupied over the holiday period, but have been following the nomination). Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per SchroCat, basically. And I think the spire or whatever it is that now towers in its place is an abomination, and if whoever it was is game for a double, I'd be deeply grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can arrange. Meanwhile, thank you for your help and support.

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the online works are missing italicization - eg. BBC Magazine in Sources, Irish Times in External links
  • "BBC Magazine" is not a print source, it's a news website. My understanding is that as such, it should not be italicised. The Irish Times in the ext links was an oversight, now corrected.
  • I'm a little confused by your organization - some of the entries under Newspapers have external links, and some of the entries under Online are newspapers. How are you deciding what goes where? Also, formatting of newspaper names changes between the two, as does short-cite form (citing by article title vs by work title) - why?
  • Print newspapers and journals are listed in that section, all else is under Online. TheJournal.ie and Independent.ie are not print newspapers, they are news websites like BBC Magazine.
  • Is there a problem in linking to newspaper articles whenever possible? I have always done this.
  • "formatting of newspaper names changes between the two" – can you give an example of what you mean?
  • citing by article title vs by work title: I believe I have fixed these - please indicate any you still find dodgy.
  • Be consistent in whether your locations include states and if so how those are formatted
  • Unless I'm missing something, the only U.S. location missing a state is New York, and I don't think we write "New York, NY" (at least, I never have).
  • Be consistent in whether you provide accessdates for newspapers
  • If the link goes to a facsimile of the print edition I do not include access dates - the print version is the source. If the newspaper article has been hosted on a website in a different format, then I give the access date. I think this has been done consistently, but I'll check.
  • Why does Henchy include publisher but Garnett does not?
  • Fixed
  • "Anna Livia Moves To The Croppies" - I'm guessing there's a typo somewhere here, as you're currently retrieving the work before it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in access date fixed. Thanks for the review - all issues now addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Singora

  • 1. The above comments from Nikkimaria are correct. The sources section is a mess.
  • 2. This sentence contains three errors: in 1842 the writer William Makepeace Thackeray noted Nelson "upon a stone-pillar in the middle of the "exceedingly broad and handsome" Sackville Street: "The Post Office is on his right hand (only it is cut off); and on his left, 'Gresham's' and the 'Imperial Hotel' ".[41]
    • 3.1 Error #1: Nelson stands ...
    • 3.2 Error #2: close the quotation marks about the word pillar.
    • 3.3 Error #3: the phrase "exceedingly broad and handsome" is mentioned on page 23, not 22. The ref should be: Thackeray 1911, pp. 22–23.
Off-topic personal attacks from Singora --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • 4. There are lots of other errors. I shan't bother to detail them as to do so would mean getting another suspension from a pipsqueak administrator who has zero interest in eradicating Brian's pathetic clique of so-called "reviewers" and is happy to watch as standards continue to plummet.

Note to co-ordinators: @FAC coordinators: In view of past history (see here and here), the above comments look to me like an attempt by this editor to disrupt the process, rather than to carry out a serious review. I have made the punctuation and page range changes he requests, but in view of the repeated personal attacks I don't intend to engage with him further. Personal vendettas or childish name-calling should have no place here. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by Johnbod "No specifications were provided, but the current European vogue in commemorative architecture suggested a classical form, typified by Trajan's Column in Rome.[17] Monumental columns, or "pillars of victory", were uncommon in Ireland at the time; the Cumberland Column in Birr, County Offaly, erected in 1747, was a rare exception." - they weren't that common anywhere, and most recent ones were religious, in Catholic central Europe. The list only gives 5 earlier examples in Great Britain, most in the middle of the countryside, like Birr. Dublin was in advance of the fashion in France, Russia etc, not to mention London. Nelson's Column, Montreal, the very near-contemporary one in Montreal might be mentioned; that has attracted comparable controversy in recent years, though at the time it seems the French Quebecers were very anti-Revolutionary & didn't mind. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've added a footnote about the near-contemporaneous Montral monument. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Had my say at the PR. Living history, and underpinning a very delicate and controversial century. The telling is first rate, and to my Irish mind very fair. Thanks Brianboulton for taking this on. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your thoughtful contributions and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Another peer reviewer. My handful of minor quibbles were dealt with there, and I agree with Ceoil that this is a first rate article. It was a pleasure to reread it for present purposes, and in my view it meets all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I had a read through and made a couple of tweaks here and there. Overall, it seems quite well done and I believe it meets the FAC criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2016 [2].

Typhoon Nabi[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a powerful and damaging typhoon over 10 years ago. Its FAC failed last summer because I was too busy, and there weren't enough comments, so I'm trying again. Other hurricane editors agree it's likely the best source of information for this particular typhoon, which I believe is one of the most important criteria for an FAC. Hope you still enjoy the article! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from edwininlondon[edit]

Shame it didn't pass last July. Prose looks fine. I haven't done a source or image review. A few comments:

  • Inconsistent date format used for retrieval dates in references. I'm not sure if the date format here needs to match what is in the body of the article, but at least internal consistency here is needed.
  • It puzzled me a bit when reading the lead why Phillippines's name is mentioned. No other reference to it in the lead. But I think explaining it makes too much of a deal out of it for a storm that didn't even get there.
    • The presence of the Philippine name is admittedly a comprise within the project on PAGASA's naming scheme. They apply their own names to storms within their AoR, regardless of whether or not an official international name has been given. People in the Philippines, who largely speak English as a primary or secondary language, know the storm primarily by the PAGASA name. To avoid confusion we've opted to include the local designation upfront but put very little emphasis on it elsewhere as the international name is the most recognized one. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a source for the rainfall table as a whole? Just in case there is another storm ranking higher.
  • Sadly no. It's a table that's based on the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country. It's annoying when lists don't exist for such a question as "what are the wettest storms to affect Japan", especially when we have sources to back up such a list. If you have objection to its inclusion, I'll remove it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the category "2005 disasters in the Philippines" applies. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Gets my support. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cyclonebiskit[edit]

Image review

Images are all clear, will give a prose review when I have time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Cyclonebiskit
Prose/content
  • General comments
    • References need reformatting for consistency, Auree's guide should be more than enough to help you with this.
    • Made copyedits here and there. Please double check these to make sure I didn't inadvertently introduce errors.
  • Lede
    • Brief summary on preparations is needed
  • Added more about Japan, since that was the most important bit of preps. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brief summary on aftermath is needed
    • After affecting Japan, the typhoon dropped the equivalent of the monthly precipitation in the Kuril Islands of Russia, causing road damage there. – This implies the damage was caused by rain, but in the body of the article the damage is stated to be from high waves.
  • Changed to - After affecting Japan, the typhoon dropped the equivalent of the monthly precipitation in the Kuril Islands of Russia, while also causing road damage due to high waves. Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meteorological history
    • When did the JMA classify it as a tropical depression?
  • I tried something for this article. Since JMA is the official RSMC, we should treat whatever they say as official, meaning we don't need to give too much extra explanation, IMO. I wrote - At 00:00 UTC on August 29, a tropical depression formed from the system, which is when the JMA classified it, but if you feel I should emphasize that it was the JMA, I can do that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe add the meaning of "Nabi" as a note (provided in GP summary)? (ex: Typhoon Longwang)
    • On September 5, Nabi passed near Minamidaitōjima and Yakushima. – Some geographic context would be useful here; "Ryukyu Islands of Japan", or something to that effect
  • Since people might not know Ryukyu either, I said part of the Daitō and Ōsumi island groups offshore southern Japan. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • JMA track has it passing directly over Kuchinoerabu-jima between 18:00 and 21:00 UTC on September 5, might be worth noting this.
  • I don't think it's worth mentioning this small island of only a few hundred people, considering it's only inferred by the track, and the annual summary - [3] - didn't mention it. I'll still add it if you want, but I don't want to bloat the MH too much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talked about this off-wiki. There are conflicts in the sources, and we'll resolve this later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had it backwards...the linked file is in local Japan time (UTC +9), the times I listed are the converted ones via the best track. The landfall in Isahaya is explicitly stated so you should definitely add that; however, they don't explicitly state a landfall in Izumi, they merely refer to it as "passed through the vicinity of Amakusa-shimoshima, Kumamoto Prefecture" at 04 UTC. The issue here is that the track clearly shows a brief period over land during this time which constitutes a landfall but the summary text doesn't jive properly... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the third paragraph, you use a variation of "evacuation" in five consecutive sentences. Any way this could be reworked to avoid that?
  • Impact
    • The storm left over 270,000 residences without power, mostly near Kagoshima on Kyushu. – Does this refer to Kagoshima (the city) or Kagoshima Prefecture? Near the city would make sense, but it would have to be "in" the prefecture if that's the case.
  • Damn, this is when I wish I had that Bloomberg source. I can't find it online - the closest I found said 8,800 houses without power. As I can't find it, and I'm not sure whether it was city or the prefecture, I removed the last bit, as it doesn't add terribly much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Torrential rains, falling at rates 228.6 mm (9 in) per hour or more, caused flooding and landslides throughout the country. – Redundant to the previous paragraph, though the hourly rainfall rate is different.
  • This rainfall rate was for Tokyo, so I moved it to the previous paragraph (and added where it was recorded). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third paragraph in the Japan section should be reworked so you don't have to constantly specify the locations are in Kyushu.
  • I moved some info around, it should be clearer now that it refers to Kyushu, and I think it has a better flow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any information on effects in Hokkaido?
  • Aftermath
    • Closed markets and decreased supplies caused the price of beef to reach record levels in the country following the typhoon. Following the storm... – "following the typhoon. Following the storm"

Overall issues are relatively minor, nice work. Once these are handled, I'll be happy to support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the timely review! I've been a bit busy IRL, so I'm very thankful this FAC wasn't closed. I'm more active on Wiki now, so I'll be addressing any other comments in a timely manner (as well as reviewing other FAC's). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my concerns have been addressed and as such I'm happy to support this nomination. Excellent work Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Titoxd[edit]

References #17, 23, 26, 27 and 63 are dead per [4]. Titoxd(?!?) 20:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ref #17 wasn't broken, but it wasn't working with the plain url. Adding www fixed that. As ref #23 is no longer available, I converted it to a plain Cite news template and removed the URL. Ditto the other Bloomberg references. I fixed ref #63. Thanks for checking the references :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jason Rees[edit]

I went through a few minor things with Hurricanehink offline including pointing out where he was lacking a reference and the retriement of the name. As a result I am happy to support.Jason Rees (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

It sucks when an FAC times out...anyway, taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. Thanks for checking it out :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...was a powerful typhoon that struck Japan in September 2005. - worthwhile saying it was southwestern Japan (or otherwise noting something similar) here?
I think I'd put the death toll in the lead
  • Sure, I put it at the end and added that the name was retired. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After affecting Japan, the typhoon dropped the equivalent of the monthly precipitation in the Kuril Islands of Russia - this would sound more significant if you added the time period at the end.
At 00:00 UTC on August 29.. - why not say "At midnight (00:00) UTC on August 29" - which strikes me as more accessible, ditto adding "midday" a bit further along?
  • For science articles, we use UTC and not informal terms like "midnight", as midnight depends on your local time, whereas UTC is the standard timekeeping for the entire world. Should I make this clearer in the article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, not convinced, but as it's a stylistic issue it's not a deal-breaker. If it were me I would but I am not gonna make a big deal about it. Anyway looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks ok on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't. I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just using this revision as a reference point:
  • several ref titles in sentence case not title case.
  • Earwig's copyvio check clear
  • FN 30 - material faithful to source (apart from tweaking one adverb)
  • FN 11 - material faithful to source (I think...a hard paper to read...)
  • FN 62 - material faithful to source

i.e. mostly fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does any of this have to be changed? Namely several ref titles in sentence case not title case ? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where possible we try to make the footnotes look as uniform as possible, and I noticed a few were different. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I had never done it that way before. I'm happy to do that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2016 [5].

Rejoined[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC), Miyagawa[reply]

This episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine features one of the first televised lesbian kisses, and was pretty controversial back in its day. Article has gone through a pretty thorough GAN and PR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Generally a good read. Just some things that I noticed scanning through, as well as looking through the references.

  • Tim Ryan and James Noah are red links. This needs fixing: either find their articles are their current locations or remove the links.
  • I've removed those redlinks. I just did a double check to see if there was any obvious information out there which would mean that an article could be created in the future and apart from the stubbiest of stubs (a short filmography from each which even then wouldn't be simple to cite) I don't think that an article could be realistically created. So I've removed the links rather than create a stub for each. Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...where joined hosts never met anyone that they didn't already know." - Replace "didn't" with "did not" per MOS.
  • Fixed. Sorry, bad habit I'm trying to get out of. Shame we can't get Data to proof read these! ;) Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Ira Steven Behr in the context of this show's production? Never heard of them.
  • I've now linked showrunner immediately prior to his first mention, as while it was stated there, it wasn't linked. Behr was the executive producer in charge of the series (the showrunner). Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...saying that "Star Trek stood for" making statements such as seen in "Rejoined"." - The quote in this sentence seems very short. Could you explain this?
  • It is a snippet from a much larger quote from Moore regarding the clearance processes they had to go through to get a same sex romance on the show, specifically following the negative fan reaction to TNG's "The Host". The full quote is "They questioned us closely about our intentions, and why we were doing it, and how it would work in the story, and how far we were going to go, they saw that we were sincere, that it was a good story, that we could say something with the show, that it was what Star Trek stood for and that it was actually something to be proud of. They went for it." So as you can see, it is mostly a long run on sentence. But possibly we could extend the quote to be add that Moore also said that the storyline was "something to be proud of" as well. Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general thing, but it would be best to archive all online references where possible.
  • I've archived the two that were missing. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13's url needs updating.
  • I just double checked and it is linking to the right spot - the url for the clipping shouldn't link directly to the newspaper page itself, as if the indexing system is changed then it'll become a dead url. Whereas by linking to the clipping page (containing the link to the page) it'll be safer in the long term. Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6 has a "subscription required" message attached to it. Can this be resolved?
  • I just checked at the Washington Post website to see if there was a direct link that could be used instead, but there isn't. Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably have a second look through once these issues have been addressed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Pass
  • The entire "alien kiss" paragraph switches from "LGBT" to using the term "queer". Is there a special reason for this outside the one quote featuring the word?
    • It uses queer because that's what most academic sources use (it's also purposefully a bit more broad than the LGBT definition, especially how the number of letters tends to be growing). If you think it's an issue, it doesn't seem like it should be hard to reword the LGBT mentions to queer for consistency. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's alright. Now that it's been explained, it can remain as is.
  • "In using the scene in isolation, alien kisses, Bruce argues, "strips away..." - The phrasing seems a little awkward here. Maybe rephrase as "In using the scene in isolation, Bruce argues that alien kisses "strips away..."

That's all I saw this time around. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I don't see anything that stands out anymore. I'll willingly Support this article's upgrade to FA status. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "that a group of Trill scientists will be arriving soon at Deep Space Nine" - Deep Space Nine doesn't need to be italicised if it's referring to the space station.
  • "Jadzia is the eighth host of the symbiont Dax" - minor, but I'd rearrange this as the Dax symbiont, as it's referred that way in the show. Super minor point though (isn't that what FACs are for?)
  • "He added that it was an extraordinary story about losing someone you love and having that person restored to you some time afterwards" - a part of this sounds like it's from a direct quote. Can a small part of it be in quotations?
  • "two The Next Generation episodes; "The Next Phase" and Frame of Mind" - "Frame of Mind" missing quotations
  • "Instead, the symbiont was placed in a new female host called Ezri, but the prejudice against re-association first highlighted in "Rejoined" was mentioned in the seventh season episodes" - I remember reading from somewhere that they needed a female host because they didn't want Nana Visitor to be the only female main cast member. If possible, could this be mentioned? It seems relevant
  • "Visual Effect Supervisors Gary Hutzel and Glenn Neufeld" - does 'Visual Effect Supervisors' have to be capitalised? Same with Visual Effects Co-ordinator. I'm not sure, I could be wrong
  • "as it meant he did not have to attempt re-create the detail already seen in the Bajoran wormhole" - as it meant that he did not have to attempt re-create the detail already seen in the Bajoran wormhole
  • "there was a strong negative reaction from some viewers" - negative reaction from viewers isn't mentioned in the lead
  • "one channel in the Southern United States took the step of editing out" - link Southern United States for accessibility

Those were all of the prose nitpickings I could find upon my initial readthrough. The references all seem good, so I couldn't find any issues there. Once all of the above are addressed I'll take another look. JAGUAR  13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, those should all be addressed now. Mind you, I'm going to have to go through the DS9 Good Articles I've done and remove the italics now! (Already fixed the space station article itself). Thanks for raising that, I'd never noticed that stations (even if in space!) weren't in italics. Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for addressing them! Even more worrying is that Memory Alpha calls the station Deep Space 9, not 'nine'. I don't know if it's official or if they named it differently to disambiguate it from the show. I know that ships like Defiant are italicised but I knew the station wasn't! Anyway, with all of the comments out of the way, I'll be happy to lend a support. JAGUAR  12:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It must be to differentiate between the station and the series. I just double checked The Making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens as well as the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion and they both use "Nine" in relation to both the station and the series. Just to note since I mentioned it, the Making book has been checked for anything helpful to this article, but since it mostly relates to first season info, there wasn't anything to add. Thanks for the support! Miyagawa (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z105space[edit]

I enjoyed reading this. Here is a few points I noticed during my read.

  • You should say who Michael Piller is in terms of the show's production.
  • It is not compulsory, but you may want to use alt text for all images per WP:ALT.
  • "The episode was directed by main cast member Avery Brooks, who played Benjamin Sisko in the series. He later said that "Rejoined" was his favourite out of the episodes he directed. He said that the episode was about love, and the choices that result from that. He added that it was an extraordinary story about losing someone you love and having that person restored to you some time afterwards." – I feel the word "he" should be used less in this section.
  • "as the producers didn't want Kira Nerys to be the only female main character." replace the word "didn't" with "did not".

I will give my support once the above issues have been rectified. Z105space (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, those should all be dealt with now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have been indeed. I can now give my Support for this article to achieve FAC status. Z105space (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pre-empt a couple of questions on two particular sources - Jordan Hoffmann writes a column called "One Trek Mind" for the official ST website, and TrekNation has a bit of an unusual relationship with the official website. It up until recent was one of only four fan sites linked to from the official website (one of those sites, TrekWeb, has sadly gone down), and for about 18 months it's news stories were being directly linked to from the website as well. Miyagawa (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are both appropriately licensed, though I would suggest repeating a citation in the first's caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks - I've added that to the first caption. Miyagawa (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at refs and sources by Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, looking now....

  • Refs formatted consistently.
  • FN 1 - used 5 times - material faithful to source.
  • FN 22 - used 3 times - material faithful to source.
  • Kwan - used once - material faithful to source.
  • FN 14 - used once - material faithful to source.

Ok all seems in order....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian Rose[edit]

Although I often tweak the odd word in articles before promoting, I felt that with only three comprehensive reviews another look from top to bottom wouldn't hurt, so am recusing from closing this. I might add that I've never seen any of the post-original Star Trek series, so am coming to this with a completely open mind...! I'm pretty happy with the prose and comprehensiveness following my copyedit, but can't quite make out this sentence: On the one hand, the magic trick produces a "pleasurable surprise", while, on the other, it relies upon deception; this deception mirrors that necessary, due to Trill norms, in the reacquaintance of the characters. -- the particular word that jars is "necessary"; it seems to make no sense in this context, unless perhaps it's a typo for "necessity", or there's a missing word somewhere. Pls help... Other than that I think I'm happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that phrasing might be mine. "that" refers to "the [other] deception", so- "it relies upon deception; this deception mirrors the deception necessary, due to Trill norms...". Obviously, the present wording helps avoid excessive repetition. Whether or not it's mine, I've no objection to it being changed if unclear. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha, thanks Josh. I would probably use similar shorthand myself to avoid repetition but of course it's always easier to comprehend one's own shorthand... ;-) How would you feel about it reading "this mirrors the deception necessary, due to Trill norms, in the reacquaintance of the characters"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing some other edits to the article, so I've jumped in here and made this one too. Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MPJ-US[edit]

So big Star Trek fan, it's always great to see these types of articles come throgh FAC

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but we all know how hard it can be to get people to provide feedback.  MPJ-US  17:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "American Science Fiction TV" reference is dead.
  • I've removed the link. I've got an offline copy if needed. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by the reference to "Solitary" in the lead, is that a different episode?
  • I think that got removed before I made the rest of these edits. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I woud have expected "Lt Cmdr." to be spelled out the first time it's used as "Lieutenant Commander"
  • I see some Britsh terms such as "socialise" and "realisation", which may be okay - just surprised to see British English in an article about a U.S. show.
  • That's all me - British English writer doing American-centric episodes. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Storyline" is either "story line" or "Story-line"? not sure which is more appropriate
  • I've gone for the non hyphened version as suggested by some online dictionaries. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I'd have thought US style would've been to make it one un-hyphenated word ("storyline"), which was used in occasionally in the article and to which I standardised a few instances of "story line" (though admittedly I missed the "ise" words!). Not a big issue though, as long as it's consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not have to attempt re-create" should be "not have to attempt to re-create"
  • "co-ordinator" should be "coordinator"
  • "on board Defiant" should be "on board the Defiant"

Not a ton of issues, which is a good thing.  MPJ-US  17:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking a look! Much appreciated. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2016 [6].

Heterodontosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about a small dinosaur which became quite important to the study of dinosaur evolution upon its discovery. It is notable for its eponymous teeth and primitive features, and for being the basis of a family of dinosaurs. We have covered most of the scientific literature about the animal, the article has been copy-edited, and is a GA. Luckily, an article covering its family was published in a CC journal, which has provided most of our free images. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • If you're using American English, it might be best to use imperial units rather than the metric system
I think we originally wrote this in British English, but the copy-editor changed it to American for some reason. How do you feel about this, Jens Lallensack? Most of the papers about this dinosaur are in BE. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before we started editing, the article was in American English, as far as I can see. So we might have to stick with it. Regarding the papers, its often not the authors who decide whether to choose AM or BE; this is often predetermined by the journal they are publishing in. Therefore I'm not sure if this would be a good argument to switch to BE for this article. But regardless what we choose, I'm clearly against abandoning the metric system in a scientific article like this. The metric system is the standard in other dinosaur FAs, including the American dinosaurs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The editors who improve the article can decide what to write it in, the only other determining factor is whether the article's subject has some sort of connection to a spelling.[7] In this case, being South African, AE at least doesn't seem logical. Also Charig was British, and I guess SA English is closer to BE... But in any case, both measurements should always be included, I think Dunkleosteus means which one that should be displayed first? FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using American English, add the template {{American English}} to the top of the article's talk page, and use imperial units. If you're using British English, add the template {{British English}} to the article's talk page and use metric system (use the metric if you're using any dialect of English other than American). Just use the template {{<insert dialect> English}} at the talk page to avoid future confusion and make sure to stay consistent with dialect and measuring system (and of course use {{convert}}). I personally think that since the dinosaur is from South Africa you should use South African English and the metric system.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "using" a system, do you mean that the one that fits the dialect is showed first, and the conversion is shown in parenthesis? To be honest, I think it would be cool to use South African English... Not sure what that entails though, but I think it's almost identical to British English, so I think BE is the best compromise. This page states they simply use BE in SA.[8] This indicates the difference is mainly in pronunciation and having some extra borrowed words, not in spelling.[9] I can make the change quickly if we agree. FunkMonk (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I have no objections to change it to British English. Please go ahead.
@Dunkleosteus77: I had a quick look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Units of measurement, and it seems to state the opposite: Only non-scientific articles relating to the United States are to use imperial units. This article is not related to the United States (no matter if its in American English or British English), and its not non-scientific. So we have to use the metric system here (or rather, have to show it first with the imperial units in parenthesis) according to the rules, even if we keep it in American English. Do I miss something? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that and the fact that it's talking about a creature from South Africa. As stated above, it might be best to use South African English and the metric system.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now changed to BE, as is the standard for SA, and apparently all former British colonies apart from the US. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Right, here goes....

You could remove one of the "heterodontid/ae" links from the lead. I recommend the "heterodontid" in the first sentence as you can't explain it there and there are alot of bluelinks and big words already...
'Heterodontosaurus was a comparatively small dinosaur. - "comparatively" redundant here I think.
do any of the sources compare it in size to a living animal..."dog/cat/cow/etc.." to help a layreader visualise the size?
The skull of Heterodontosaurus was relatively small but robustly built. --> "The skull of Heterodontosaurus was small but robustly built." ?
differentiation of the teeth - could just say "different-shaped teeth" - more accessible
Done all but one, but none of the technical literature seems to compare the size to any extant animals. I have an older popular book[10] that compares the size to that of a turkey, but I'm not sure if the source is "authoritative" enough? FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The author is fine - I'd use that to help lay-reader visualize Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. I see that book has been used as source in other dinosaur FAs, including Styracosaurus and Compsognathus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Only slight dilemma for me is whether we need "heterodontid" in first sentence or just link further down - but can see the point of having it there too. Not a deal-breaker anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I don't have a strong opinion on that point either. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

Thanks, I added a more specific Zookeys tag afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources:
    • It appears all sources meet FA criteria for reliability and reputation.
    • For the purposes of verification I'd prefer to see scientific papers cited by page numbers, instead of linking the entire paper (ex. current ref 2, Galton, is cited repeatedly and a 44-page range is given for citation.) This might necessitate a switch to Harvard citation style with another reference section to reduce clutter, but for WP:V purposes I think it's important.
I guess that should mainly be done for the very long papers? Usually isn't necessary for shorter ones. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A 3–5 page paper isn't a major burden, and anything that's covered in the abstract itself (as were some of the spot-checks I did below) isn't particularly pressing, but for the longer articles I would say so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Will need some help from my co-nominator, Jens Lallensack, citation formatting really stresses me out... FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents: In other articles (both in the English and German Wikipedia) I've tried many different approaches allowing for citing specific page numbers. The problem is that a good and standardized technical implementation in MediaWiki is still missing. Regardless what I tried, there were always people pointing out the many disadvantages of the respective approach, asking me to switch to another approach. I'm really tired of this. For example, the implementation in Carnotaurus has recently been criticized as being to complicating, making it difficult for other editors to change something. I certainly agree here, but I have no solution. You are completely right that page numbers would be a benefit, but since most other dinosaur FAs do not have them, I would suggest we wait until an acceptable software implementation exists instead of using one of the rarely used, sub-optimal and non-standardized approaches. Having said this, including page numbers would mean a few hours of work, but should be doable as we have digitized all cited sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the style I used in Hoopoe starling? FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack: Harvard citations are really not that complicated, and are pretty widely used across a variety of disciplines; if you need to you can create anchor links and wikilink to reference to the footnote, although I don't think that's strictly needed. Carnotaurus probably rightfully got flack because you are using syntax I've never seen in any reference work and then combining that with citation templates in a non-standard way with common usage, both in the body and the refs. It frankly is a mess and unnecessarily complicated, but I'm not asking you to do something like that, I'm just asking for actual page numbers for verification. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to an exemplary article? And again, what I did at Hoopoe starling might work? FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Do you mean we should use in-text citations, having info like "Norman et al., 2004, p. 134" directly embedded in the text? I don't think that's the way to go, as it will be very different to other articles, and many people are concerned as it might disrupt the reading experience. @FunkMonk: I think yours is the best option. Although it is imho still not very convincing: We need to separate lists, only because some refs need page numbers, and others do not, which makes the whole think more complicated. The reader might think that one of the lists is more important than the other (i.e., they confuse it with a "further reading" section), which is not the case. When we cite a long paper only once, we still need to have it in both lists, as we can't use the "pages=" attribute in the cite-journal template to specify page numbers; if we would do that, the reader would not be able to distinguish between page ranges for the whole article and page ranges for the information we cited. But still, I don't see a better option. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now split Sereno 2012 in the manner I proposed. Any thoughts, David Fuchs and Jens Lallensack? Of the remaining citations I think only Norman et al. 2011, Galton 2014, and Santa Luca 1980 are long enough to warrant such detailed splitting. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, but such page-ranges have been enough for practically all other FAs I've worked on. Is there any guideline that states how short page-ranges should be? FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any explicit statements or recommendations on length; WP:V says The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) and WP:CS Specify the page number or range of page numbers. Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole. But in practical terms how are you helping either me as a reviewer or a reader with accurately verifying information if you just tell them "it's all in here somewhere"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's way more specific than that. For example, one page range covers the part of the paper related to diet, because this article's diet section contains a summary of that entire section. So if you want to verify something from the diet section here, the page range tells you exactly where to look. There may be pages of figures in between that makes it seem like there are more pages in the range, but these should be easy to skip. A range consisting of fifteen pages may include several pages of just images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spotchecked statements attributed to refs 4, 7, 12, 31, and 34. Did not spot any issues with close paraphrasing or incorrect/incomplete/synth sourcing.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Colonel Wilhelm Klink

At first glance, this article appears to be of featured article quality; upon closer scrutiny, it still holds up. In order to get an even better idea of this article's overall quality, I checked it against both the featured article criteria (as is standard) and other paleontology-related articles (e.g. Tyrannosaurus) which have already passed to FA quality. Here are my observations:

  • This article's prose is of featured quality, as it is grammatically correct, stylistically appropriate, and overall of professional quality. I did discover one minor issue:
    • From the first paragraph, the sentence
"The genus name means "different toothed lizard", in reference to its unusual, heterodont dentition, and the specific name honors G. C. Tuck, who supported the discoverers."
may be better off in terms of grammar as:
"The genus name means "different toothed lizard", in reference to its unusual, heterodont dentition; the specific name honors G. C. Tuck, who supported the discoverers."
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's lead is engaging and sufficiently summarizes the main points of the article.
  • This article is comprehensive; every topic that is dealt with is discussed in appropriate depth without bogging down the article with useless information. However, depending on what information is available (and its importance), you may consider adding information about the following aspects of the subject:
    • Neurology and Senses (e.g. Brain structure, Reliance on sight/smell, etc...)
Haven't seen anything on this mentioned, but perhaps Jens Lallensack has... FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sociology (e.g. Did the creature live in large social groups, etc...)
Not known, since only individual specimens are known, none found together. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Physiology (e.g. Was the creature warm blooded, (is it known?) etc...)
That is answered under "Locomotion and metabolism". FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depiction in popular culture (though there may not be enough concerning this particular creature)
Though it is a fairly well-known genus, which appears in most popular dinosaur books, it has never appeared in any films or those animated dinosaur "documentaries" to my knowledge... FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are just rough suggestions; I'm not sure how much literature there is out there concerning these aspects of the creature. If reliable content is found, its addition may help improve the article.
Other than this, the article covers all areas of the topic well.
  • This article's structure is appropriate, and it closely follows the structure of other FA's; the organization is both logical and convenient.
  • This article follows and fulfills WP:STYLE. It does not appear sloppy, contains numerous links to other articles, and lists measurement conversions. All images are appropriate and legal, and the videos are a nice touch.
  • This article is stable, with mostly non-IP edits and no edit warring.
  • This article is reliably sourced.

In conclusion, this article goes appropriately in-depth to its subject in all the necessary categories. While it could be expanded, such expansion is by no means necessary; this article is, in my opinion, a featured article as-is: I support promotion. Any additions would only make it better. Good work, good luck, and farewell. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will go over these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if there's no major coverage of those topics from third party sources, it can't be included in the article. Thanks for checking though. Additionally, while looking in the "Locomotion and Metabolism" section, which I somehow inexplicably overlooked before, I found a minor typo and corrected it myself:

"Even at moderate running speeds, Heterodontosaurus would had exceeded the maximum aerobic capabilities possible for an ectotherm (cold-blooded) animal, indicating endothermy in this genus."

was changed to

"Even at moderate running speeds, Heterodontosaurus would have exceeded the maximum aerobic capabilities possible for an ectotherm (cold-blooded) animal, indicating endothermy in this genus."

Well, I think that's all. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber looks at reference formatting and images[edit]

Going by this revision....all refs look consistent to mine own eyes...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 34 lacks publisher location
  • FN 11 lacks publisher location
  • File:Heterodontosaurus model.jpg doesn't have the template that all the other zookeys collabs do..I presume it should?
  • Otherwise images look all in order thanks to a nice collaboration between zookeys and wikispecies...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Reviewed this for GAN, can notice no more flaws. Awesome work! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 [11].

Margaret Murray[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prominent Anglo-Indian Egyptologist, archaeologist, and folklorist, known for being one of the earliest female scholars in her subject matter and for establishing the controversial witch-cult theory. It is a GA-rated article and although a recent Peer Review Nomination did not result in any review, I have read through the article to correct any prose issues that were apparent. I think that it is either FA quality, or very close, and thus would like to nominate the article here to see if others concur with my assessment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • The lead image should use {{non-free biog-pic}} rather than the current tag, and the "purpose of use" description could be more expansive. Do we know the date of the image, or its original source?
    • With regard to your initial points, done and done. I shall look into the latter point and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nikkimaria: I haven't been able to find any information on the date or original source for this image. Would it still be permissible to use this image without said information, or would you recommend that I find an alternative image about which we have more information? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to ODNB, this is the original source - can you update the image description page in accordance with this information? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh wow, thank you Nikkimaria. I hadn't even thought of looking at that website. I'll make the necessary changes! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nuremberg_chronicles_-_Devil_and_Woman_on_Horseback_(CLXXXIXv).jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Bust_of_Margaret_Murray,_UCL.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture. What is the copyright status of the original work? Same with File:Horned_God.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photographs in question were both taken in the United Kingdom rather than the United States, and thus fall under the jurisdiction of UK law, which is far more accepting of panoramic freedom. I've also added the "FoP-UK" tag to both; does this deal with the issue? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying - that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM

I've read through down to "legacy", making tweaks as I go. My only comments so far follow:

  • " He also noted that the book's tone was generally "dry and clinical, and every assertion was meticulously footned to a source, with lavish quotation"." Could you check this quote? What does "footned" mean?
    • This was a spelling error of mine. I have changed it to "footnoted". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "historian Jeffrey B. Russell and Brooks Alexander" Russell's a historian, but who is Alexander?
    • Alexander is an "independent writer and editor" (according to his own description here) who focuses on discussing occultism and new religious movements from his own evangelical Christian perspective. Russell had written the book in question, A History of Witchcraft, back in 1980, and when revising it with updated information for the 2007 work A New History of Witchcraft he brought Alexander in to add a chapter on the growth of contemporary witchcraft. I'll add "independent writer" before Alexander's name in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to look through the remainder of the article later this week. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh, it's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished looking through the article again; overall, I think it's fantastic. My only real concern (and I think I already know what your answer will be) is that there seems to be a strong focus on the witchcraft content at the expense of information about the influence of her academic archaeological work. I assume that her archeological work (for example, her work on Malta) has not really had a significant legacy? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of, to be honest. Vast amounts of ink have been spent discussing her impact in witchcraft historiography, less on her impact in Egyptology, and next to nothing on her impact elsewhere. Then again, I am not really familiar with the archaeology of Malta as a field of research, so must admit that it is possible that his side of her work is discussed in some obscure edited volume or something of that nature which has been published within that academic arena. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, providing nothing major is raised. This strikes me as an exemplary article. Delegates: I was the GA reviewer. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this article's use of Anglo-Indian, to mean "the wealthy British imperial elite", is outdated (please see Anglo-Indian).—indopug (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article notes that the use of "Anglo-Indian" to describe the British community living in the Raj is a common use of the term. It notes that it is largely a historical term, but then again, Murray was a historical personage; she grew up as a British person living in British-occupied India. Is there a more appropriate term for such people? I'm certainly not aware of any apposite alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've advertised this page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism in the hopes of attracting more reviewers. Apologies if this seems a little presumptuous- I'd just hate to see this FAC fade away. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written, extremely detailed biography of a significant pioneer in various fields. Pity it still contains so many red links but it is to be hoped these will be covered in due course.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting article, well crafted and researched. I'm not a FAC reviewer, tho the subject interests me. I spotted two minor things: a typo that I'll correct. Also found this sentence confusing: "The historian Amara Thornton has suggested that Murray's Indian childhood continued to exert an influence over her throughout her life, expressing the view that Murray could be seen as having a "hybrid identity" that was both British and Indian." I went to the source referenced (Amara Thornton's journal article), and to my mind, she is proposing that Murray expressed a hybrid transnational identity, both British and Indian. There's a subtle difference. If it's ok with the primary authors/editors, I'll make that change. This weekend will give the article a deeper read - it's a fine article! Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support thoroughly enjoyed reading this well-written and well-documented article. Not sure if there are qualifications to a reviewer of FAC, but it is one of the most detailed articles I have read on WP. SusunW (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- To SusunW and other reviewers new to FAC: First of all, welcome -- we can always use more commentary on nominations! Secondly, there are no specific qualifications to review at FAC but it's important to be familiar with the FA criteria and to judge an article against those criteria. Of course not everyone is comfortable reviewing against all the criteria (some may know the subject intimately and be well versed in content and sources, others might feel more competent judging prose and comprehensibility for instance) so it's helpful for coordinators such as myself when new reviewers state on what grounds (i.e. criteria) they support (or oppose) promotion. As you become better known in the FAC community, such formailty can become somewhat less necessary. All the best, and I hope you will explore other nominations for possible review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had already looked at the criteria and it appears to hit all the bells and whistles in the appropriate manner. I should have been more specific in my earlier comment that the article does reflect that the criteria is met, in my estimation. SusunW (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month since I nominated this article at FAC, and it currently has four statements of support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I'm sad to see that no one has taken up a source review, and so will do one myself. I've been heavily involved in the article as a reviewer, but I could not be called an author in any way. I will not be offended if the coordinators are unhappy with me being the reviewer.

  • You should be consistent on whether you list the publishers of journals (you list a publisher for History of Religions but not others). Personally, I wouldn't bother. Or are you distinguishing between multiple journals of the same name?
    • I have removed the History of Religions publisher name; this was simply an oversight on my behalf. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the publisher and title, I thought the Faxneld source may not be ideal, but I see that it was based on his PhD thesis and that he is a postdoctoral fellow in religious studies. The information it cites also seems uncontroversial. No objection.
  • I'm guessing that Folklore Society News isn't quite a scholarly journal, but as you're using it for the personal opinion of a notable scholar, the citation is fine. No objection.
  • Relying on Runciman would be questionable given where he was publishing, but the context in which it is used is completely appropriate. No objection.
  • Valiente might raise some eyebrows, but is appropriate in the context used. No objection.
  • Terry Welbourn is not an academic and the publisher isn't what I'd call scholarly. Nonetheless, he's published in decent journals on the same topic for which he's cited here, and the claim is backed up (I assume that's what's going on with the multiple citations in that footnote?) in a more obviously reliable source anyway. No objection.

Other than that, all sources are clearly articles in academic journals (not all peer reviewed, necessarily, but decent nonetheless), academic works from decent publishers or works by Murray herself, so I am happy as regards reliability. I'm moderately confident with regards to comprehensiveness after a previous general search and a previous search specifically to look for information about a particular area of her work. If there are any missed sources, I suspect they're older/of less significance/tertiary or some mix of the three. I have not completed spotchecks; I can find time to do this over the weekend if it is desired. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winick paper used 6 times - material faithful to source.
Williams paper used 4 times - material faithful to source.
James paper used several times - material faithful but source is cursory and refs are combination, so material also derived from other sources. What is there is consistent though.
Davidson paper used once - material faithful to source.
First 4 Murray (1962[1921]) refs checked - all in order...late here and I haven't the time to read the whole book.....
Earwig's Copyvio Detector has one false positive as the goodreads page has some text from the WP article, otherwise all clear.

All material checked so far is in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to both Josh Milburn and Cas Liber for their source review and spot checking! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2016 [12].

Persona (series)[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Persona series, formally marketed overseas as Shin Megami Tensei: Persona is a role-playing video game series developed by Atlus as a branch of the Megami Tensei franchise. Beginning in 1996 with the first Persona title, the series consists of six main entries, multiple spin-offs, and various media expansions including manga, anime, novels and stageplays. While a spin-off from Megami Tensei, there are very few direct plot-related connections to it, so understanding both series is not a prerequisite. All online references in this article are archived, and while the usage of images may come up at some point in this review, I deemed it necessary to use them as I did to help break up the article and demonstrate points made in the text. Plus, due to the series pre-dating the mid-2000s, GameRankings is used in the aggregate tables as per consensus on the WikiProject talk page. This title became a GA in August 2015, and was given a peer review that same month upon which I performed some copyediting. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The GameRankings scores do not add any value over Metacritic's in this case. The two are very similar in score, such that GR duplicates the function of Metacritic. The only exception could be the GR score for Innocent Sin on PlayStation, which has no Metacritic—however, I would strike that score anyway because it is an average of two scores, which isn't a suitable minimum for inclusion as a metascore (we usually set four reviews as a suitable minimum). czar 07:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be nitpicky, but I think the images requiere an alt.Tintor2 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Just parachuting in to look at the lead. Some points:

  1. "Since then, there have been eight further"—what's a simpler grammar? "There have since been ..."?
  2. "with another one"—one word could be removed.
  3. Just checking: the "aspects" are summoned during battles, right?
  4. Subsetting disease? Maybe not, since only you know whether you're citing the whole list or a subset of it: "The series' trademark features include ...". If the whole, use "comprises".
  5. utlizing ... why not using?
  6. "has also used a social simulation function called Social Links, which are directly linked to the gameplay"—Clash between singular and plural; perhaps "is" rather than "are", unless there's a good reason to stresses the individual links (but difficult with the capped title). Alternative, remove "which are" altogther. Bin "also", unless that function needs to be stressed as an addition, add-on.
  7. You "do" a design? Simplify the grammar ... central characters were designed by.
  8. The + noun + of. the exploration of.
  9. Sick of "series"—"The series' recurring concepts ...".
  10. "Beginning with Persona 2: Eternal Punishment, the localizations have been notably faithful to the Japanese versions at the insistence of Atlus."—I don't like "notably faithful". Is notably part of the mood (Notably, beginning with ...)? What does notably mean, otherwise.
  11. Helping to
  12. "Numerous adaptations have been made, including anime television and theatrical series, novelizations, manga and stage plays."—There have been numerous adaptations, ... Check the subsetting of this list.

So some fine checking of the whole article would be good. Might be ok as a candidate, then. Tony (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1, I've done some work based on your suggestions. It's very useful. A full prose review would be nice, if you can manage that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing. I don't think I can allocate more time to going through in fine detail. Can you recruit fresh copyediting eyes for the rest? Tony (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I can. Maybe CR4ZE or JimmyBlackwing could oblige. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this message. Really sorry, but I'm just too busy with off-Wiki work to edit these days. Even making time to fulfill scan requests has been a challenge lately. Hopefully you can find another copyeditor without too much trouble. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808[edit]

Just a note, I always do copy/editing when I review articles.

Main series

  • Perhaps adding a timeline?
  • I've added it. It actually fits in quite well. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could probably add the spin-offs in it too. --JDC808 ♫ 15:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-offs

  • "A spin-off for the Nintendo 3DS, Persona Q: Shadow of the Labyrinth, was released worldwide in 2014;[1] though it features the full casts of Persona 3 and 4, it is classed by Atlus as an official entry in the Persona canon."
  • I copy/edited this but wanted to clarify the reasoning. I removed "though" and put "and" before "it is classified". "though" made it sound as if 3 and 4 aren't officially canon, which I'm assuming they are. --JDC808 ♫ 00:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Just finished the last section of the article and besides the copy/editing that I've done, which was minor, I don't see anything that concerns me and makes me feel that this shouldn't be an FA. --JDC808 ♫ 15:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Masem[edit]

  • Having played P3 + P4, but not the other games, the gameplay section looks really haphazard to me, but it's hard to tell how much it can be normalized. I would definitely suggest trying to group everything about Persona into one section as a starting point, here describing how they have abilities, strength/weaknesses, the ability to grow and fuse, and connection to Social Links, and then briefly mentioning then in combat how the player summons these into battle to use these abilities. And since I can't readily speak to P1 or P2, I don't know if the mix of social interactions and then dungeon exploring of P3/P4 is a consistent feature.
  • I noticed there's a good number of game names without italics, this should be fixed. There's also some internal linking to Wikipedia as references, that shouldn't be done. You also have embedded external links in prose which you should be careful with.
  • Image check
    Series logo is just text, so non-copyrightable.
    File:P4BattleScreen.jpg is reasonable but is that really the best quality even at reduced size?
    File:Persona5visual.jpg has no rationale to be used in this article. That said, I think this can be supported to be used in here, in discussing the contributions of Soejima to the series, but that rationale has to be there. For the caption, you may want to indicate that this is the main protagonist (I assume) for P5, and his Persona behind him, as that further aids in understanding how these Personas look alongside the human characters.
    File:Masaomark.jpg again has no rationale to be used on this article. Further, I would argue that this one may not be as necessary here as the above P5 poster. You don't specifically refer to the appearance change in the text (though allude to all changes made between localization releases in general), and this is probably best only on the Revelations article. So I would recommend removing this.
    File:Persona 3 The Movie 1 The Spring of Birth Promotional Poster.png, again no rationale here, and I also struggle to find why this is needed here (it's appropriate on the movie page).
  • As these suggestions remove images, some ideas for free images that can still enhance the article include: Something from the Commons category Commons:Category:Tarot cards, since that plays into P3 and P4, and potentially from Commons:Category:Cosplay of Shin Megami Tensei: Persona. A quick check unfortunately doesn't give us any free images of the key people on the series but you might want to look for that. Also, I feel you can support a second non-free gameplay image here, possibly showing something related to Social Links, such as when the player's given an conversation tree option to a potential Social Link. This can help demonstrate that factor, the visual novel-aspects of the game, and how the game's presented outside of combat.
  • Overall I can't support this presently as FA, it does need some work to get there but it's not too far off. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on, just noticed the version I checked had a class project edit, which really needs to be checked, I will double check the version prior... --MASEM (t) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that version introduced all the non-italic game names and inter-wiki links, so ignore that comment above, but the issues with the jumbled gameplay section and images still are there. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I'll do my best with the gameplay section, but it'll take a little time. As to the images, I removed the fourth and fifth images, did my best with the image rationale for the third image, and replaced the second image with two images demonstrating combat and Social Links. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The updated images (and the removal of those noted) all look fine now. As I noted, you might be able to use some free imagery to help break up the article more but that's not required. I'd love to help on the gameplay but I don't have enough familiarity on the P1/P2 games to know how to best normalize it. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem, I did my best with the gameplay. I expanded the blurb about Personas into its own subsection. I've done my best to place features unique to each entry in their own section while keeping the most common aspects separate. I've also done my best to expand the concepts behind Personas without blowing up the section too much. The Social Links/Negotiation can't really be separated without making the section(s) rather small, and since they're related in a way, I thought it best to keep them together. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This looks much better / easier-to-follow, particularly noting differences between the games. I have not been following P5's news outside that I know it's coming soon, do we have a good enough idea that it will follow the P3/P4 model, or are we still sorta waiting on that? Regardless, I support this now as a FA, my main issues have been resolved. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P5's gameplay is still a mystery. On purpose, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IDV[edit]

  • The series is a spin-off from Atlus' Megami Tensei franchise. - this sentence is quite short and feels sort of choppy. Maybe it can be merged with Persona began as a spin-off based on the high school setting of Shin Megami Tensei if...., perhaps something like Persona is as a spin-off from Atlus' Megami Tensei franchise, and was originally based on the high school setting of Shin Megami Tensei if....?
  • There have since been eight further console titles (four main entries and four console spin-off titles) - we've already established that the eight games being discussed are for consoles, so it's not necessary to say that the spin-offs are on consoles.
  • The game was later ported to the PlayStation Portable (PSP): it released in 2009 in Japan and North America, and 2010 in Europe as a digital release. Might want to clarify that it was available both physically and digitally in Japan and North America - this could be read as being a digital-only release in all regions.
  • Might want to add the P2 games' original platform.
  • Released in Japan in 2012, it was not released in the west. The West is written with a capital W. This is something that needs to be fixed at multiple points in the article. Also, I don't know, something about this sentence is sort of weird. I'd change it to something like "It was released in Japan in 2012, but was not released in the West".
  • A director's cut featuring new content and an epilogue, Persona 3 FES, - almost makes it look like P3FES were the epilogue. Maybe something like Persona 3 FES, a director's cut featuring new content and an epilogue, would work?
  • The success of Persona 3 Portable inspired the team - maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but we haven't mentioned any team yet. Perhaps "the development team" or "the developers"?
  • Originally scheduled for release in late 2015, it is currently scheduled for a 2016 release - Unsure if the delay is important enough to be mentioned in the series article.
  • a new free-to-play browser game titled Persona Ain Soph,[Jp. 2] was released that year; - the comma isn't needed. Link free-to-play.
  • A fighting game sequel to Persona 4, Persona 4 Arena, was released in arcades in Japan in 2012. - might want to link arcades to arcade game or amusement arcade.
  • Their first partnership was in 2006 with the development and release of Megami Ibunroku Persona: Chapter of the Foreign Tower of Emptiness,[Jp. 3] a 3D dungeon crawler set within the environments of Persona. Since the series is also called Persona, it might be good to specify that this is specifically about the first game.
  • The gameplay of the Persona series revolves around combat against various enemy types (Demons, Shadows, Personas) - I'd prefer something like various enemy types: Demons, Shadows, and Personas.
  • Link random encounter.
  • Please explain "running into sprites" further. I've played these games, but for someone who hasn't played them or who doesn't know much about RPGs, it might be difficult to understand. Also, P3 and onward uses models for characters, not sprites.
  • Persona 5 introduces elements such as platforming and stealth gameplay to dungeon exploration. - Link platform game and stealth game.
  • manifestations of a person's inner psyche. - I'm not a psychologist or anything, but is there such a thing as an outer psyche? Would just psyche work?
  • Personas are used for types of physical attack and most magical attacks, - this sounds kind of confusing. How about Personas can be used for both physical and magical attacks,
  • Link status ailments to status effect
  • For all Persona games, all characters start out with an initial Persona, - All playable characters. Most NPCs don't have Personas.
  • Two (later up to twelve) Personas - I think I know what you're referring to (more complex fusions being unlocked by Igor later in the game), but this is not all that clear. I could read it as "in the first games, you could fuse two Personas, but by P4 you could fuse twelve", which probably (?) isn't what you meant. I suggest changing it to Multiple Personas.
  • which acts as an independent level system tied to a Persona family or Arcanum. - Not really clear what this means.
  • such as their academic abilities, social aptitude. - and their social aptitude.
  • , set in the year 1996 CE - Is this necessary? There's not really any room for confusion with 1996 BC.
  • Link collective unconscious
  • For refs 69, 88: should we really be linking to these scans?
  • Halfway through the scriptwriting for Innocent Sin, it was decided that the world needed a new perspective to that of the current protagonist. Maybe my English just isn't up to snuff, but I don't understand this sentence.
  • Persona 3 had a dark atmosphere and serious characters - Persona 3 has a dark atmosphere [...]. Same for the P4 example.
  • the localizations for the Persona series are generally handled by Yu Namba and Nich Maragos of Atlus USA, - Maragos works at Nintendo of America now, not Atlus USA (source for him moving to NoA). Might want to make some changes or additions based on this.
  • the team incorporated as much of the original Japanese content as possible, As far as possible, they incorporate Japanese elements unless they would not be understood by the view, - a bit repetitive. Also, I don't understand what "by the view" means.
  • It is planned to follow this localization approach for Persona 5. - Again, my English isn't perfect, but to me it would sound more natural to say "This localization approach is also planned to be used for Persona 5".
  • The first Persona was referred to at the time as a sleeper hit, and the success of it and Eternal Punishment helped establish both Atlus and Megami Tensei in the west. - These two titles were not released in Europe. Is the claim still correct, or should it say "in North America"?
  • Persona 4 has in turn been examined by multiple sites over its portrayal of sexuality, particularly homosexuality and gender identity. - add a comma after "homosexuality" - as it is, it looks like gender identity is a sexuality.
  • Link anime
  • It was animated by A-1 Pictures, directed by Jun Matsumoto, with character designs by Soejima and Yuriko Ishii, Persona designs by Nobuhiko Genma, written by a team that included Yasuyuki Muto, Shogo Yasukawa, and Shinsuke Onishi, and music composed by Taku Iwasaki. - This doesn't really work. It was animated, directed, and written. "With character designs" and "and music composed by" don't really fit in with those - they should be added at the end, perhaps something like ", and features character designs by XYZ and music by ABC".
  • In 2014, a second series based on Persona 4 Golden, - The first P4 anime wasn't based on Golden. You'll have to rewrite to make this clear.
  • focusing the protagonist's encounters with new character Marie. - add "on" after "focusing" and "the" after "with".
  • The first Persona 4 series Persona 4 anime series
  • Persona 4: The Animation -The Factor of Hope- - We don't style Japanese titles like this (see MOS:JAPAN#Subtitles). Change to "Persona 4: The Animation - The Factor of Hope".
  • have been produced under the banner titled Persona 3 the Weird Masquerade - should this be something like "under the banner Persona 3: The Weird Masquerade"?
  • both produced by Marvelous AQL receiving limited runs in 2012 add "and" after "Marvelous AQL".

I think that is all. Sorry, this got way longer than I thought it would.--IDVtalk 21:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IDV, I've addressed everything above as best as I could. I included the scans for the Play Magazine reference as there are no page numbers available, so I included the scans so readers could verify the information for themselves. --ProtoDrake (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've caught a few things I missed, and a few things you missed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right, cool. It's getting late, so I'll take a look at it tomorrow.--IDVtalk 01:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through it, and did some minor changes. I think it looks good now, and support this as an FA.--IDVtalk 08:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN[edit]

Reviewing... --PresN 18:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "it released in 2009 in Japan and North America, and 2010 in Europe as a digital release." - awkward, and the 3rd and 4th use of "release" in 3 sentences. Maybe "it was published in 2009 in Japan and North America, and 2010 in Europe as a digital release."
  • "Released in Japan in 2012, it was not released in the west. The original version was re-released" - triple released.
  • "it released in 2006 in Japan, 2007 in North America, and 2008 in Europe" - the game did not release itself, so it "was" released
  • Were Persona 3: The Night Before and Persona Ain Soph released outside of Japan, or only in Japanese?
  • "A spin-off for the Nintendo 3DS, Persona Q: Shadow of the Labyrinth" - the structure of the paragraph implies that this is a spinoff of the P4Arena games, rather than a standalone spinoff game
  • 9 sources at the end of a paragraph (Gameplay 1) is a bit much; it does seem like those could be dispersed better
  • "Many Personas are inspired by Graeco-Roman mythology: in Persona 4 they were based" - a colon indicates that the next bit is going to be a more precise clarification of the bit before the colon; as a result, it doesn't fit here, since nothing after the colon is an example of Graeco-Roman mythology.
  • "according to them, as nearly everyone experiences of being a student" - experiences of?
  • " the world of Persona 2 needed a different perspective to that of the current protagonist" - than that
  • A few redirects that don't look intentional- Jungian psychology (twice), dungeon crawler, Marvelous AQL, NIS America in the infobox
  • I had a bunch more, but between IDV's review and your edits they're now gone... --PresN 01:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I've attended to all the points you raised. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PresN 14:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Darkwarriorblake[edit]

  • "Persona (ペルソナ Perusona?), formerly marketed in Western territories as Shin Megami Tensei: Persona, is a series of role-playing video games" - This seems awkward and a huge mouthful, it goes on a tangent in the second word of the article. Is it appropriate to just say "(also known as Shin Megami Tensei: Persona)"?
  • "This motif will be more overtly expressed in Persona 5." What does this mean?
  • I don't feel like File:Persona5visual.jpg is sufficiently justified. I get what you're using it for but the explanation here is loose and not specific, it reads like it is the cover image for a different article.
  • " Persona 3, which allowed for sound streaming, he was able to fully express his musical style." What does this mean?
  • Is there any potential for a brief music clip to demonstrate the music discussed?
  • "The series currently consists of ten games" Maybe remove "currently". I think there is a guideline against this but I can't think what it is called, but it is non-specific, since the article could be not updated for another 10 years while 5 more games come out.
  • "Due to the company not having a European branch, Atlus has generally given publishing duties to other third-party publishers with branches in Europe, which frequently results in a long gap between the North American and European releases." I'm finding this sentence problematic. Do they publish ever in Europe or not? What is a "long gap"? Physical copies or digital copies?
  • So I take it Yu Namba is a person? Maybe say "translator Yu Namba" or something. Given the frequent use of exotic terms and names, I first thought this was a company until reading the following sentence.
  • Archiving seems thorough and date format, while not my preference, is consistent. Harder to judge content of the refs due to the language barrier.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: I've done my best to address all the issues you raised above. The sound streaming thing wasn't that clearly defined in the original reference, but I've done my best with the citable information. I changed the P5 artwork (that's being used as the infobox image for its article until actual cover art comes in) to actual promotional artwork for P3. I think this article needs such an image to help demonstrage the series' artstyle, alongside those images showing its recurring gameplay elements. As to the Japanese references, I've double-checked them myself during the writing process for this article. I give you my word that they're in order. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify I didn't have an issue with the previous image you were using, it just needed a more detailed justification for its use, so if you want to use that image and expand it's detail that's fine.
  • Darkwarriorblake It's alright. I'm fine using the image that's there now. The reason I used the P5 image was because an image related to P3 was being used in the "Related Media" section, which has since been removed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've hit most of my issues, my only remaining concern is the use of "which frequently results in a long gap". Is it at all possible to clarify what a long gap is? Average of years? Months? Decades? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranges from a few months to a year or more. So now says the text, with help from another reference. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy with the article following the changes made. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Looks like this still needs a source review for formatting/reliability -- you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain on sources[edit]

As the original GA reviewer, I support the prose, and approve of all changes made since my review. I'll be taking a look at the sources. I went through with Checklinks. It's strange that it picks up on the Gpara.com references as dead, whereas they all work fine for me. It picked up on a few other faults, but they're all archived in the article anyway. I did a manual check, and my only suggestion is to link 4Gamer.net (refs 34, 49, 142). I really had a thorough look here, and I wish I had more to talk about, but that's honestly as nit-picky as I can get (although, of course, I'm not surprised). With that said, I'm happy to support on sources. – Rhain ☔ 07:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: File:Persona 3 AD.jpg has no rationale to be used on this article (or on Megami Tensei, for that matter). I approve of its usage within the article, but the lack of rationale should be addressed. – Rhain ☔ 07:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: I've picked up the stuff in the references. Also, I did my best with the image rationale. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the rationale, I'm fairly sure another {{Non-free use rationale}} should be added, with a different |Article=, like here. – Rhain ☔ 09:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC
@Rhain: Done, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Happy to reinstate my support. Well done. – Rhain ☔ 10:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2016 [13].

Thunder (mascot)[edit]

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 08:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC) User:Atsme[reply]

NOTE: This is a wikicup nomination for Montanabw

This article is about the three rather amazing Arabian horses who have been the live animal mascots for the Denver Broncos. They gallop around on a football field during games with 75,000 screaming fans in the stadium and appear to enjoy the job. (though the latest horse does prefer to wear earplugs for the noise). I started the article couple years ago and now that the Broncos have won the most recent Superbowl, it was time for an update and polish. Hope all reviewers enjoy the story! Montanabw(talk) 08:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I had a brief look and smiled: a sweet topic for a change. I was a bit melancholic seeing who took the video. A few comments, only regarding the prose.

Lead

  • "Thunder III also wears earplugs ..." - to what in "personality" does that "also" refer?
    • Tossed it from the lead, kept it in the body --MTBW
  • "continued to make public appearances; one of which was" - I thought ";" separates independent clauses?
    • Rephased. --MTBW

History

  • I could imagine the history in chronological order, instead of saying when it happened first, and then what led to it.
    • OK, swapped first two sentences (Atsme did suggest that too...so if two people are saying it... meh!) I hope that helped --MTBW

Mascot duties

  • I was surprised to see a link to "gallops", thinking by now we knew what that is, and more surprised to find a link to Canter.
    • We don't have a separate article for gallop, it goes to a dab... probably need to rename the article to "canter and gallop" --MTBW
      • I still think people who read that far don't need any link. ---GA
  • I think bodyguard doesn't need a link.
    • Kind of fun to emphasize, though. The gelding needs protection...  ;-)
  • "amped up" isn't a phrase I know but may be the only one.
    • Hmm. Good point. It means the players are loud, excited, ready to run onto the field and play -- big men with a lot of testosterone. (think amplified--make things bigger and louder) Suggest a less colloquial word for that? --MTBW
      • You do that, not my field ;) ---GA
        • Rephrased to add "with energy and excitement" -- is that better? (the phrase supports a direct quote from the person) --MTBW
  • "Might have to give ol' Thunder an IV after this one." - sorry, I see a Roman number 4 in IV, - no idea how that could be avoided.
    • I know... and it's a direct quote. I did "I.V." . Does that help?
      • yes ---GA
  • "Thunder appears at most home games, but his away games only occur when the Broncos play in the Super Bowl." - not happy with that construction.
    • Yeah, Atsme, you had a different phrasing, and I've redone that so many times I can't "see" it any more -- can you tweak that sentence?
  • people friendly or people-friendly? 2*
    • Hyphenated. -_MTBW

Background

  • I wonder if there's a better heading for the individual people and horses.
    • Ideas?? --MTBW
      • Perhaps two, one for the people, one for the horses? - I usually see Background as the very first para, ---GA
        • I made the individual horses into level 4 headers and made "Horses" Level three. Does that work better? --MTBW
          • Yes. Still not happy with "background", - but why shouldn't background be in the "back" of the article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may explain that the names Dos and Tres are just numbering.
    • I debated linking the numbers -- they are nicknames, kind of a joke for an English-speaker to use simple Spanish like that... I could unlink?? Thoughts? --MTBW
      • Understand now, fine with me.

That's all for now, enjoyed the ride! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acting on my comments, everything is cleared which doesn't have an indent 3 level, and even some of those, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything clear to here. Will give it another read a little later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tigerboy1966[edit]

Just a quick look. It may be a personal preference, but I think that a statement in the lede should be expanded in the main article. I spotted that the statements about Miles (the man with the horse's head) and the wearing of ear-plugs are more or less repeated, albeit with a source. Just to point out that in horse racing ear-plugs are used not so much for protection as to stop the horse becoming agitated or upset by crowd noise. Tigerboy1966  08:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not much to say about "Miles" -- originally I had it only in the lead with a source, but sources in the lead look funny and lead to "why isn't the rest of the lead sourced?" questions, so that's why it's in twice. I moved it though... I also tossed the earplugs from the lead -- seems to bug people that it's there. The hearing bit is the reason given by his trainer... (hmm, wonder how American Pharoah would do at the Super Bowl? LOL!) . Montanabw(talk) 08:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks fine to me. The various minor issues have been fixed. Tigerboy1966  08:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Lede
  • "had appeared at Super Bowl XLVIII and Super Bowl 50. Thunder III had also" -can you avoid repeating "had"?
    • DONE --MTBW
  • He has been flown on airplanes, ridden in elevators, appeared at indoor press conferences, and walked among over 100 banquet tables at fundraisers. " -he has been flown? -I think this warbles a bit for the lede, I'm not sure you need to go into that much detail from the preceding sentence.
      • Rephrased: "He has been flown on airplanes, ridden in elevators, appeared indoors at press conferences and banquets." Better? I kind of liked "he has flown," but someone else thought that anthropomorphized him too much. --MTBW
  • The horses who have served as Thunder have demonstrated a certain trust in their rider and handlers, and were trained to remain calm in situations that would normally frighten most horses, such as being inside football stadiums with thousands of cheering fans, exploding pyrotechnics, loud music, cheerleaders waving pom-poms, skydivers landing on the field, and other spectacles common to National Football League (NFL) games. " -rather long, perhaps a new sentence and handlers?
    • Rephrased it some, trimmed to toss some detail. Better? --MTBW
  • The first Thunder, later named "Thunder, Sr.", was a stallion registered as JB Kobask, a former show horse and original team mascot from 1993 until his retirement in 2004. He continued making community appearances until his death in 2009. Thunder, Sr. was succeeded in 2004 by "Thunder II", an Arabian gelding registered as Winter Solstyce. He had been the personal pleasure riding horse of Magness-Blake. Thunder II retired from mascot duties in early 2014 bu..." should't this come before going into the personality descriptions? Might it not also make sense to simply cover each horse in turn including history and personality and make it concise with going back to them?
    • Fiddled with lead, see what you think, also pinging Atsme to look over revision and see if it's still OK -- --MTBW
      • Fixed the "photographer with ears forward" sentence that made a great dangling participle, tightened and made a few minor tweaks to the lead here and there to maintain consistency. (--that was Atsme)
          • Better now? --MTBW
Mascot
  • "Another unexpected event occurred during Super Bowl XLVIII " -which year was this?
      • 2014. Added. --MTBW
Superbowl
  • "At Super Bowl XLVIII, Thunder led the team onto the field at the start of the game;[36][37] making it the first Super Bowl where he was allowed to do so." -comma needed rather than semi colon here

--Fixed. --MTBW

  • "and after finishing college became a horse trainer, " -and again

--No semicolon there, someone must have fixed it. -MTBW

  • " She has competed at the national level in Arabian and Pinto horse show competition. She is also a horse show judge who has adjudicated national and international events.[1]" -I would merge sentences.

---Hmmm. Competitor and Judge two different jobs. Semicolon?  ;-) --MTBW

  • "Thunder II learned, apparently on his own, that when a person pointed a camera at him, to look attentively at the photographer with his ears forward" -makes you wonder if the Beckhams trained him ;-)

--LOL! --MTBW

  • "He is people friendly and has been described as "social" and "quite the poser".[11] and " -check punctuation again.

---Um, I'm not seeing it. Clarify? (Or just tweak it if it's minor??)

There's a fullstop before "and" rather than a comma Montanabw.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Now I see it. Removed "and" and created sentence properly! Fixed! --MTBW

Not bad, but in places it does read as if the writer has an affection for that horse and horses in general. Some rewording and polishing needed in places I think but this looks on the right track.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Gosh, ya think? ;-) Montanabw(talk) 08:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support. It is well written and comprehensive, though in places the tone might be modified a little to avoid seeming too affectionate!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Open to suggestions of places where the tone issue could be modified? Montanabw(talk) 05:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was well-loved by fans,[2] and particularly popular with children.[4] T-shirts were sold with Thunder's image, and he was referred to as the "second most popular Bronco" after former quarterback John Elway. "
    • Tightened that a bit. Open to further suggestions for rephrase. --MTBW
  • " Thunder responded to the situation with aplomb; although, Judge remarked "he's running forward and his eyes are happy and bright, but you can tell every time he changes leads, something is going “BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!”[19]"
    • Removed quote and just described behavior. Was pretty remarkable for a horse to run through fire, actually. --MTBW
  • " "Might have to give ol' Thunder an I.V. after this one." Judge said Thunder, age 19 at the time, was actually quite happy because he got to run so much, describing him as "full of spit and vinegar" the next day.[23]"
    • Implied in the article was that the animal rights types thought they were being mean to the horse to let him run, when in reality he seemed to be pumped up because of it. Tightened prose a bit, open to further suggestions. --MTBW
  • "He remained calm and controlled in very intense situations,[20] and Judge believed he had a sixth sense for when to be energetic and "on" for a performance and when to calm down. He was notably gentle around children who wanted to pet him."
    • Horse was a stallion who let a lot of little kids pet him. Not super common in stallions (they can be prone to biting, for one thing). But I tightened it a bit, open to further suggestions --MTBW

Reads as a bit crufty, particularly the middle ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tightened up most areas, hope it's better. Open to further suggestions as needed. Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cass[edit]

I've corrected some minor punctuation errors as I've gone along; things I've been unable to fix I've listed below. Please feel to revert anything you don't agree with. Comments are as follows:

  • "Thunder debuted as team mascot September 12, 1993..." -- requires some attention.
      • Rephased, " Thunder's debut as team mascot was on September 12, 1993..." Better? --MTBW
  • WP:OVERLINK of "horse show" in Thunder Sr. section?
        • Think I got them. --MTBW
  • "He remained calm and controlled in very intense situations, and knew when to be "on" for a performance and when to calm down." -- Why do you invert "on" here?
      • I'm confused what you mean by "invert" -- do you mean the contrast between "on" and "calm down"...? I'll try to fix if I better understand the concern ;-) --MTBW
        • Why does "on" appear in quotes? Who said it? If no one, then I don't feel the sentence benefits from it. CassiantoTalk 22:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah! It's in scare quotes because it is a colloquialism used by the source. The source quotes Ann Judge saying "He is so bold and dynamic and has a sixth sense as to when he should be ‘on,’ but when he’s around kids, he just drops his head and lets them pet him.” So... I am open to suggestions how to better explain that the horse could mentally shift gears from being all bold and energetic while running down the field and then promptly calm down to be a gentle horse children could pet... within a very short period of time. I credited the word to Ann Judge, does that work? --MTBW
                • What does "on" mean? I think that's the problem here, "on" could mean a number of things. CassiantoTalk 00:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I added "energetic" to the phrase, did that help? (If not, I'm open to suggstions). --MTBW
  • Second para of Thunder II, requires a new noun in place of the pronoun.
    • I made a different change (moved the bit on stabling up to Ann Judge's section) I hope in the process I fixed that problem (?) --MTBW
      • Sorry, my mistake, check the second para of Thunder Sr section. CassiantoTalk 22:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rephrased "The stallion was kicked by a mare in a 1997 breeding accident.." Better? --MTBW
  • Overlink of "horse breeding". CassiantoTalk 22:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I loved this! Well written, well illustrated, and brilliantly researched. Thunder II especially stole my heart here. CassiantoTalk 08:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

spotchecks not done

  • FN5 is a broken link; also, Press Release needn't be capitalized and CSU is a publisher
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • {{reflist}} should use colwidth rather than fixed number of columns
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • Animal Genetics Inc is a publisher not a work
    • The parameter now reads "Website" -- is it just that you don't want it italicized?
  • Date format varies between mdy and dmy - should be consistent
    • Dang, thought I got all of those, which ones did I miss?
      • Most fixed now, but FN45 abbreviates date while other cites don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed --MTBW
  • FN8 is missing work
    • Was a duplicate ref, fixed--MTBW
  • FN9: Press Release is not an author
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • FN10: source gives FOX31, not FOX3
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • FN13: Broncos are a publisher. Check for other errors of this type throughout
    • Fixed this one, but the parameter in the cite web template reads "website" -- "Publisher" is only used where there is a distinction needed, IMHO. --MTBW
      • |website= is used for online work titles, |publisher= is used for the organizations that create the online works. For example, ESPN is a publisher whereas ESPN Front Row is a work. You usually don't need to include both, but they do have different purposes, and several cites are still using them incorrectly. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I think I got them all, please pinpoint any that you still want changed. --MTBW
          • Fox refs that cite channels rather than shows should use |publisher=, as should FNs 43, 44, and 50. Otherwise this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN15: why duplicate date? Also, author is first-last here but otherwise last-first throughout other refs
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • FN17: short videos shouldn't be italicized
    • Tell the cite AV media template, it's the title. Suggest a solution? Different template?? --MTBW
      • In this case probably {{cite episode}} would work best, but for YouTube I would recommend just {{cite web}} with |type= set. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed the Broncos TV one with the "chapter" parameter. {{cite episode}} didn't work, it insisted on a "series" parameter. Made YouTube into citeweb --MTBW
  • Fn23: doubled surname
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • Fn29: quotations within titles should use single quotes
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • Link for FN33 goes to a different article than the one cited
    • FIXED (that was weird) --MTBW
  • Fn34: author surname is Otis and all words in work title should be capitalized
    • FIXED --MTBW
  • FN39: in FN10 you attributed a similar source to Fox
    • Made consistnt --MTBW
  • Fn47: website names are italicized elsewhere, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • Fixed formatting. Arlene Magid is probably the leading researcher in the world of Arabian pedigrees, a highly respected source. Also one of the only reliable online sources that explains the asterisk thing. --MTBW
  • Fn54: given link does not go to cited source
    • FIXED (wrong party)--MTBW
  • Be consistent in whether you use Denver Post or The Denver Post
    • FIXED I think (?) --MTBW
  • In External links, you include Vine credit but not YouTube - should either include both or exclude both. And as before, short videos generally aren't italicized.
    • Fixed publisher. Again, the template italicizes "title" parameter. Open to suggestions to fix. --MTBW

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Nikkimaria: I think everything is now fixed. The templates for cite video and cite AV media both italicize titles. I am not sure how to fix this problem as it's at the template level. Montanabw(talk) 07:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: OK, now I think I have everything, and if not, just pinpoint the problems. I did get my cataracts fixed and now see things much better than I used to, but I've still stared at this article too long to have fresh eyes on it. Montanabw(talk) 06:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Go Phightins![edit]

Hello everyone, I just wanted to drop by to say that I have received word that Montanabw is having some personal technological issues that necessitate her procuring a new computer, so she may not be back online for a few days. Please be patient; she fully plans to respond to all queries as soon as possible. Go Phightins! 02:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wondered why everything got so quiet. 😝 Atsme📞📧 05:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a touch of minor copyediting. One sentence I think needs revision is "Thunder III is Me N Myshadow, a 2000 Arabian gelding, the third purebred Arabian to serve as team mascot,[9] Ann Judge calls him "Tres",[1] Me N Myshadow is sired by Monarch AH out of a *Gondolier daughter, making him a distant cousin to Winter Solstyce." ... seems to be a run-on. Could you address that? Beyond that, everything looks excellent, and I offer my hearty support based on a prose review. Go Phightins! 01:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go Phightins!, the minor copyedits you mentioned are now complete. Atsme📞📧 01:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I"m back. Thanks all, for the fixes in my absence. What more do we need at this point? Montanabw(talk) 07:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back!! Just dropped by to say the Reference section looks mahhh-velous - all neat and orderly. Excellent article - great job, Montanabw! Atsme📞📧 20:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank YOU also, Atsme, because you did the final polish on the prose that made it all possible. Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ian Rose - apologies but I'm not sure what you're asking. Atsme📞📧 16:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk, we need someone (not us) to check images for copyright status. Often NIkkimaria does this but others can too. Montanabw(talk) 18:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is a horsehead tunnel?
    • The big plastic (or whatever) fake horse head that's in the image... you have any suggestions for a different caption? And is that a copyright problem? --MTBW
      • "Image review" != "copyright review" - it also checks other issues related to WP:IUP/MOS:IMAGES. In this case, the problem is a confusing caption, particularly given that at the displayed size it is not obvious that the plastic horse head is actually a tunnel entrance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use "Thunder II" in the lead caption but "Winter Solstyce" in the later caption?
    • Because they are in different sections... the lead needs the stage name, the other is in the section showing each individual horse. Is this a copyright issue? --MTBW
  • File:JB_Kobask_aka_Thunder.jpg: not sure how this shows "a flashy and more dynamic horse"? Also, what steps did you take to try to determine the original author?
    • The horse is dead. We can't get more images of him. What is your concern? The image shows what he looks like. His demeanor and looks is a secondary reason. He is a stallion, standing with a prouder stance, with a high arched neck. The image illustrates what Thunder I looks like and is in the section that is about him. The source includes the caption "Former Denver Broncos mascot “Thunder,” JB Kobask (GG Jabask x Kom-Nitah), and Ann Judge Wegener at the Arabian Horse Celebration in Denver, Colorado, in August 2004." No photo credit, it was reprinted here (Same magazine) and I cannot locate the image elsewhere. It shows he looks different from Thunder II and Thunder III, he also was a stallion, and in that image is standing proudly, with an arched neck, very stallion-like in demeanor (particularly compared to Thunder II, who often seems a little . Need more? (Found one more in our sources in the article, that one is credited "AHA Archives" here -- MTBW
      • I understand that the horse is dead, I'm not questioning that. But the FUR claims that the use of a non-free image is necessary to show "a flashy and more dynamic horse", which is not apparent from the image - if "his demeanor and looks is a secondary reason", I would suggest amending the FUR to focus more on the details you describe here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ThunderIII_TD509.ogg: was this recorded live or from a television broadcast? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The video was taken by User:PumpkinSky live, when he was actually at the game, he sent me the raw footage, and I did some editing to make the original clip clearer and a bit tighter. I emailed that version back to him and then he uploaded it to commons. Does all this need to be explained at Commons? Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that explains the Exif data - perhaps just mention there that the file is an edited version of raw footage. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria Do you have actual concerns? I hope I clarified your comments with my best guess. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I modified the captions to sync with the prose and to eliminate confusion. Hope that helps. Atsme📞📧 00:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I modified one of the captions a bit more from Atsme's excellent revisions. I will also modify the commons caption for JB Kobask and the video. Please advise if we need to do more. Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, would also like to see the video description expanded to account for the editing of raw footage - otherwise we should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did: "file is an edited version of raw footage taken by uploader who was present at the event portrayed in the video". (I rephrased that a bit) Need more? Montanabw(talk) 02:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've just moved that into the source field, and this is now good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YAY! Thank you! Ian Rose, anything else needed for promotion at this point? Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2016 [14].

Monroe Edwards[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a forger, slave smuggler and general all around scoundrel. He came to my attention from George Wilkes, who is probably the author of the contemporary but highly-sensationalized account of Edwards' "exploits" in the mid-1800s. We've polished the prose, dug into every source that we could find, and then polished again. Initial polishing was done by Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), but John (talk · contribs) has helped a bunch also, along with assists from Karanacs (talk · contribs) for the background of Texas history. I present to you Monroe Edwards, another bad-boy, but this time a bad-boy American and not a bishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited, and I note the following things:

  • I would add OCLC numbers for books where ISBN is not available.
  • In the Wilson citation, "Bartleby" should probably be in single quotes rather than double.
  • Welcome back and Happy New Year. I'll try to get back and do a full review but timing is uncertain.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Acdixon[edit]

Comments OK, a Kentuckian. I'm game. Lead:

  • I don't love the wording "who was the subject of a famous trial in 1842". First, "famous" is a bit subjective. I think "well-publicized" could be better. However, the whole phrase could probably be rewritten. Just saying he was the subject of the trial kind of makes the reader wonder if he was convicted or not. Also, the publicity derived, at least in part, from an all-star defense team, but that isn't mentioned here.
    • I've added "well-publicized trial and conviction" in place of "famous trial". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "swindle" is used pretty often in the lead. Maybe consider alternatives, since swindling isn't a specific crime like, say, embezzlement.
    • Varied.
  • "Convicted partly because of his good looks". I think this needs to be reworded. Maybe "Convicted partly because his distinctive good looks made him memorable and easily recognizable", or something like that. As worded, at almost reads as though the good looks were criminal or at least an aggravating circumstance to a crime! :)

Early life

  • "Edwards was born in 1808 in Danville, Kentucky." Note that Ms. Chapman Coleman's biography of John J. Crittenden says "Monroe Edwards was a Kentuckian, his parents were from Logan County, where he [Edwards] was born, and where Mr. Crittenden commenced the practice of law." (p. 97) I realize that, with few details of his early life, this will be hard to verify, but this could be an important detail, as Coleman says Crittenden agreed to defend Edwards because of his friendship with Edwards' parents, presumably formed during their mutual time in Logan County, which is, incidentally, a long way from Danville.
    • I wouldn't use Coleman's biography as a source for Crittenden's article, so I would also not use it here. To be honest, that's from 1873 - and outdated. If there was not other information on his birth location from more recent scholarship (i.e. the American Dictionary of National Biography article) then I might consider something from 1873 - but given the much more recent treatment that disregards Coleman's information, I am good with ignoring an 1873 biography. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if the more recent scholarship is definitive on the subject, I guess I'm OK with ignoring this. BTW, I did use Coleman's biography as a source in Crittenden's article, which is a featured article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My view of the matter is: it depends. The ANB is good but by no means infallible (or even internally consistent), because they often rely on the same sources we do, and the authors, though of course expert in the field, are only human and have their own biases and prejudices and sometimes err. As for Victorian or later biographies, they are good for detail that later biographers gloss over, but I wouldn't trust them much on "big picture" since the picture has very much changed in a century. I'm going to duck out of this by saying the you guys know the sources better than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 1822, Edwards was sent to New Orleans" By his parents, presumably?
    • None of the sources say who sent him. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to learn business from a Mr. Morgan, a merchant there". Simplify to "a merchant there named Mr. Morgan".
  • "but in 1823 Edwards' father moved to Galveston Island" Not sure how these thoughts are connected. If the younger Edwards was already away from home in New Orleans, why does this move by his father matter?
    • It was in the source but I agree it's not useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the late 1820s Morgan set up a trading post on San Jacinto Bay near Galveston." Which Edwards? Father or son?
    • Son. this should be clearer now that we've excised the mention of the father in the previous sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwards was arrested in 1832 as part of the Anahuac Disturbances". Maybe add a descriptive phrase about these events, for those who are unfamiliar and do not click through.
    • Now reads "was briefly imprisoned along with others during the uprising against the Mexican government which ruled Texas."

Slave trading and forgery

  • How is the explanatory information about slave traders and indentured servants relevant to Edwards? The Mexican crackdown on long indentures happened in 1832 and Dart and Edwards' activities appear not to have occurred until 1835.
    • It was requested by a previous reviewer as background for people unfamiliar with the situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it a little distracting, since it didn't have any material impact on Edwards' schemes. I'm going to leave this to see what others think. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's useful. I was unfamiliar with that myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the plot to discredit Dart and Texas. What was the nature of the plot? We know he obtained money under false pretenses, but what did he actually intend to do with it? Were the exploits in England also intended to gain money for this as-yet-unstated purpose, or were they not connected?
    • It's not clear why he did the efforts - it's just not given in the sources. Edwards is still a bit of a mystery in some respects. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's disappointing, as it would be interesting to know what he was up to, but it's understandable that it isn't in the sources. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the amount extracted from Lord Spencer given in pounds, but the amount of Edwards' defrauding of a Liverpool company in the next sentence given in (presumably) American dollars?
    • That's what my source used. Rather than try to convert I stuck with what the source gave as the amount. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there an accepted way to convert one to the other, accounting for the economics of Edwards' day versus ours? If so, it might be worth at least a footnote. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know of one - I had conversions in the article but was told that they weren't accurate for capital sums - so I'd be hesitant to convert this either. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider inflation templates useful. There's no meaningful way to translate values between era as much of what you buy has changed. My favorite example is that until WWI or thereabouts, even middle class families had hot and cold running servants, something impractical for most today.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final scheme

  • "Unluckily for Edwards" Is this editorial comment necessary?
    • NOt really but it's not like it's egregiously awful here either. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I typically wouldn't use something like this, but I won't quibble about it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't think of a good way to bridge between this sentence and the preceeding one without some sort of comment on the utter bad luck he had with this being caught - suggestions on better wording? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would be inclined to just drop the "unluckily" bit and begin the sentence with "In September", leaving the reader to decide what they think about his luck. I typically am a fan of "show, don't tell". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

  • "media marvel" Is this the best term we can find?
    • I'm open to other suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this a term in one of the sources, or one you chose? If the latter, in what respect are you considering it "marvelous"? That might help find a better descriptor. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I honestly can't remember if it came verbatim from the source, if I paraphrased it from the source, or if this wording is from one of the copyeditors along the way. I got the source through ILL so I'm not sure I can easily get a hold of it again. I probably copied the relevant sections (that's my usual practice) but we're packing to move and I have no idea where those photocopies might be lurking. The trial was very well covered in the newspapers - think of an early-day O. J. Simpson trial and that's the general idea you get from the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Understand about ILL. I run into that all the time. I think "media sensation" might sound better to my ears, but that's a style thing. Your call. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sensation works for me also - changed to that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while it took place" Shouldn't this be assumed?
  • Maybe mention the Edwards' family's connection to Crittenden here.
    • None of the recent sources mention such a connection - if a recent biography of Crittenden does, then yeah, I'm good with it, but I don't trust a 1873 biography that isn't corroborated by more recent scholarship. (I'm a hobbyist genealogist and I'm well aware how often authors from the Victorian period got facts wrong.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the best modern biography of Crittenden (of which I'm aware) is Kirwan's John J. Crittenden: The Struggle for the Union, which doesn't mention the Edwards incident at all. (This in itself is a bit strange to me.) Still, Coleman's assertion seems to be at least plausible. Otherwise, what would motivate a sitting U.S. Senator – especially one of Crittenden's stature – to defend someone who seems to have been pretty obviously guilty? Also, Crittenden mentored Marshall, which would explain how he got involved. Finally, Coleman attributes the connection to William Evarts, another member of Edwards' defense team. Isn't all that worthy of at least a footnote? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, this comes back to not using an 1873 biography when there are more recent biographies available for Crittenden. If they don't mention Edwards' connection to Crittenden - we shouldn't use such an old source. Coleman is Crittenden's daughter but the information she's relaying about Edwards is related in regards to events over 20 years before and it's not clear where she got the information. She may be speculating on why her father took the case - and making up some sort of early connection. The fact that modern accounts of Edwards give a completely different county for his origin make Coleman's account much more suspect - Logan County is along the border with TN in the western part of Kentucky and Danville's up in Boyle County in the center of the state near the bluegrass. It's not a case of neighboring counties ... it's quite a distance. One thing I've noticed with Edwards' life - there is little family mentioned in connection with him - even the name of his father is unclear. It comes down to ... yes, if you wanted to use Coleman for color in Crittenden's biography, that makes sense - the daughter is going to have some comments on his character/appearance/etc that are relevant. But that doesn't make her not a problematic source for other people (I guess I should have said I wouldn't use her for a biography of Evarts - since I'm hoping you used her with Crittenden mainly as a daughter, and not as a historian.). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I'm trained in computer science, not history, so I'll defer to your judgment here, I guess, although if it were an article I were composing, I'd probably at least include it as a footnote, qualified with the appropriate reservations about Coleman as a source. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the mentions of Crittenden and Marshall's absence from Congress immediately follow mention of their presence on the defense team? Why interpose mention of Evarts?
  • "absented themselves" Is it common to use "absent" as a verb?

Legacy

  • "Melville has a character refer to Edwards and ask Bartleby, then imprisoned in the Tombs, if Bartleby is a "gentleman forger" like Edwards." I think "has" is a weak verb here. Maybe rewrite as "One of Melville's characters asks Bartleby, the imprisoned in the Tombs, if he is a "gentleman forger" like Edwards".
    • Yeah, that's a better wording, changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The account, which was probably written by George Wilkes, is the fullest account of Edwards' life, but mingles fact with fiction to the extent that it has been listed in bibliographies of American fiction." Who opines that the work was written by Wilkes, and are there contrary opinions? Who lists the book as fiction? Does anyone list it as nonfiction?
    • I've not run across a person who disagrees with Wilkes' having written it - including several Wilkes' biographers. The other bit is from the ADNB and it isn't qualified by numbers - just a statement that it has been listed, not how many do so. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're not aware of any dissenting opinions, is it necessary to qualify Wilkes' authorship? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the authorship was listed as not by him and I'm not aware that he ever did claim to have written it (and given it's rather ... sensationalist tone, I'd have wanted to avoid claiming authorship too!). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I wasn't aware of the nature of the piece, so that makes sense. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a slave who loved Edwards and rescued him and followed him throughout his life" Rescued him when? How?
    • Not stated, as this is one of those legendary elements introduced into the story that has been disproven by historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the legend has been disproven, why isn't that mentioned (and cited) in the article? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The best way to describe this is Thompson's entry in the ADNB when discussing the whole work "The fullest account of Edwards's life is Life and Adventures of the Accomplished Forger and Swindler, Colonel Monroe Edwards (1848), written by an editor of the National Police Gazette, presumably George Wilkes. Its account of Edwards's criminal career is largely verifiable, but other aspects of the book led it to be included in Lyle Wright's standard bibliography of American fiction. It is the chief source for the romantic story of Kitty Clover, a beautiful slave who rescued Edwards from arrest in Texas and followed him devotedly through his later hardships and successes, until his arrest." I've read bits and pieces of "LIfe and Adventures" but it's ... wow. Very very early Victorian and very very much a pot-boiler with heavy romance elements thrown in. Kinda like a version of Uncle Tom's Cabin but with a forger as the hero instead. Since Thompson only mentions Kitty in the bottom where he discusses the Life and Adventures - and the Handbook of Texas doesn't mention her at all, I don't think it merits any mention beyond what's there. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • So no one says it is explicitly disproven; you're just making that inference based on its absence from more reliable scholarship? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I make that inference here - I don't in the article, you'll notice. The statement about Kitty Clover is bare bones and reflects the secondary scholarship's mention of her (which is the mention I described above from the ADNB). She's not mentioned in any of the other secondary sources, which is why I don't think we need to go into the details of Kitty's story - the secondary sources don't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know information is scarce, and some of these issues might not be resolvable. Just food for thought. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve attempted to address most of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And ... I hope I haven't tread too badly on your Kentucky toes! It was a very strange subject for me to get interested in but .. interested I got. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Just making some comments for thought. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it appears no one else will weigh in on my concerns above, I will support this promotion. Don't want it to get snagged over those little issues, and I plan to be watching basketball this weekend rather than checking my Wikipedia watchlist. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most interesting. Just a few comments. Seems very well done.
" and partly from unique misspellings in his fakes" this is not supported so far as I can tell in the body. There is discussion of the misspellings but it is termed rather differently.
Changed to "partly from misspellings in his fakes" Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his move" which one?
  • "He traveled to the United Kingdom," doesn't using letters of introduction to people in the UK already imply he went there?
  • I'm open to other wordings, but not sure how this can be changed... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sensationalist" might be OK without the ist
  • "Edwards was arrested in 1832 as part of the Anahuac Disturbances," was the arrest part of the disturbances or was it what he did?
  • It was part of the disturbances, at least as far as I can see. The arrests of people fed into the whole incident. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1829, Mexico had abolished the importation of slaves, but gave Texas an exemption from emancipating slaves who were already in the territory." banning the importation of slaves does not equal emancipation, so there's a bit of a disconnect here between the two parts of this sentence.
  • Karanacs provided this - it appears that not only was the importation of slaves abolished, but slavery itself was also, but Texas was exempt for a while. I've added in a source saying slavery was abolished in 1829. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the new Texas Republic eventually outlawed the importation of slaves from anywhere but the United States, Edwards' landing of slaves from Cuba in early 1836 was never prosecuted" unless the Texas constitution permitted ex post facto laws, I doubt it could have been on the fats given, so how is this remarkable?
  • It was a big point in the article - although I lived in Texas for 19 years, I never did study the history - but I know that whole issue of slavery in Texas was very fraught with legal difficulties - because Mexican law outlawed the improtation of slaves, I would assume that those laws were considered in force until superceeded? All I know is the point was made that he was not prosecuted even though there was some question he might have been, at least according to this source. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Republic of Texas ambassador in London" that was very advanced of Texas given that the US representative in London was not styled "ambassador" until the 1890s. Minister?
  • Source says "The Texas ambassador to England succeeded in discrediting Edwards with the British government..." It's even Oxford UP produced - (American Dictionary of National Biography). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two brokers – Brown Bros. & Co. and Jacob Little – gave Edwards bank drafts for $25,000[1] each. " I might add "New York" before "brokers"
  • You might want to mention one of the distinguished offices Evarts later held.
  • What was Edwards charged with? You never say.
  • Weirdly, no source gives the exact charge. They describe him as a forger, but the specific charge is not given in the ANB or the Handbook of Texas. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the imprisoned in the Tombs" I might change the first "the" to "when"
  • "and was known for his attempts to reform the treatment of the prisoners. Melville's narrator also tries to secure better treatment for Bartleby." I might change "reform" to "improve". And I'm not sure this parallel holds. Melville's narrator was Bartleby's ex-employer, who feels at least some moral responsibility for what has happened to Bartleby. Not true of Edwards.
  • I've never actually read Bartleby (or any Melville - I escaped it in school and it's never appealed) so this parallel is from the source. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Edwards and rescued him and followed him throughout his life. There are other accounts, including two anonymous accounts" serial "and"'s in the first sentence, accounts/accounts in second.
  • Now "who loved Edwards, rescued him, and followed him throughout his life. There are other accounts, including two anonymous narratives published in 1842." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn b: "slaving trip into Texas " surely into Africa? (note that as it stands, "Texas" is used three times in the sentence.
  • No, he was going to bring slaves from Martinique into Texas - have clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn d: " historical events narrated as contemporary" possibly "described" or "depicted" for "narrated"
Glad to have the opportunity to read it in detail. Looking forward to supporting once these matters are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on these tomorrow...
So my weekend turned into a zoo. I've addressed these as best I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry about the zoo. Acdixon asked me to look at his points. I am traveling at present and so it may take me a day or two. Thank you for your replies.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm content with things as they stand. Sometimes you just have to make the best sense you can out of difficult sources. It's been done well, in my view. Congratulations on another fine article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You don't need my help with prose, all things considered, but a support on prose might come in handy. I'm interested in the article because I think it would be great for April 1 of next year. Acdixon, how are you leaning on this one? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I suspect I will support. None of my outstanding issues is major, and I just struck a couple I should have done earlier, but I still feel the info from Crittenden's daughter might be worth a footnote. As Wehwalt didn't really have a strong opinion either way, I'm kind of still waiting to see if we get a third opinion on that, since I'm assuming we still need one more review for the article to pass anyway. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was insane at the time of his death": "insane" doesn't have any meaning that everyone understands the same, apart from "legally insane". If he hadn't been adjudicated insane, then it would be more helpful to say that he was delusional, or had been placed in restraints, or whatever "insane" means.
  • My source just says "violently insane". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Read this while on smartphone earlier. Looks good but one query - why is one mode of death in footnotes? Also I presume it is not given equal weight as it is less reliable - so maybe best to just say so...? Also agree with Dank that any more info on the insanity would be good...but then again I am a psychiatrist....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC) : This is a case of weight, yes. The beating story comes from the Handbook of Texas while the TB story comes from a peer-reviewed book by a university press. Handbook of Texas tends to be reliable for Texas events, but much more cursory about events outside Texas. Unfortunately, the American National Biography article just says "He died in prison." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC) I'll try to get to these after the weekend. Spring here and trying to clean the barn up some. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "and partly from misspellings in his fakes" It is not immediately obvious why misspellings should help to convict him. Maybe "partly from making the same spelling errors in fakes and letters in his own name".
    • I went with "and partly from making the same spelling errors in his fakes" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Herman Melville's work "Bartleby, the Scrivener"." I suggest "Herman Melville's 1853 short story, "Bartleby, the Scrivener"."
  • "San Jacinto Bay near Galveston" I would wikilink Gavelston and add "in Texas" for people unfamiliar with American geography.
  • "successfully smuggled slaves into Brazil." - was he evading a Brazilian law against slave trading or Royal Navy anti-slave trade patrols?
  • "Edwards was arrested in 1832 as part of the Anahuac Disturbances," "as part of" seems an odd wording - "for supporting (or taking part in)" the disturbances?
    • It's not clear that he was arrested because he was an active participant or if he was just rounded up because they arrested a bunch of gringos. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edwards' contribution was land certificates." I do not understand this.
    • He gave land certificates (i.e. something like bonds or stock certificates but instead they allowed the bearer to get so much land) as his part of the partnership. I've added "Instead providing money for the partnership, Edwards' contribution was land certificates." to make this a bit clearer. Merriam-Webster definition. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "establishment of the Republic of Texas" I would specify "independent Republic" for clarity.
  • "about $20,000,[12] and then used the funds to repay Lord Spencer" I would say "part of the funds" as he only had to repay £250. Also it does not sound right saying he was unable to raise funds when he had got $20,000.
    • Added "part of the funds" and went with "was unable to acquire more money in England" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known how he was able to get such a high powered defence team?
    • No source really speculates - it is a bit of a mystery. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen these and will try to get to them tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2016 [15].

The Oceanides[edit]

Nominator(s): Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Oceanides, written by the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius in 1914; indeed, it stands as his second to last tone poem and is widely considered to be one of his most underappreciated (and underplayed) masterpieces. If you have never heard it, do yourself a favor and give it a listen: the wave-crash climax near the end of the piece is perhaps the most epic and onomatopoetic 'water music' ever written, serving as a worthy comparison to Debussy's ubiquitous La Mer. While I did not create the original article, I am the editor responsible for having dramatically expanded the content and for having brought it up to GA status (with the tireless effort and sage council of Ipigott, Gerda Arendt, and Tim riley providing essential wind in my sails). I want to be clear that The Oceanides was not only my first GAN, but also marks my first FAC. In addition, I see it as but one part, however important, of a larger project of mine: bringing as many of the Sibelius tone poem stub pages as possible to GA or FA status. I have also tackled or begun to tackle The Wood Nymph, User:Sgvrfjs/Ensaga, and User:Sgvrfjs/Pohjolasdaughter. I really look forward to the editing community's comments and questions! Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Support contingent on references check (which I am probably too busy to do)

Thanks for giving the piece a read through, Lingzhi. I am presently out of town but rest assured that I will soon be able to attend to the issues you have raised. Just did not want you to think you were posting in a vacuum. Thanks again! Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hepokoski and Dahlström. Harv error: link from #CITEREFHepokoski_and_Dahlstr.C3.B6m doesn't point to any citation. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Thanks for pointing this mistake out. I have added the source for Hepokoski and Dahlström; however, I am having some trouble with the edit. The reference still, upon being clicked, does not jump to the Hepokoski and Dahlström source. And, additionally, the Grove Music Online is a service for which one has to pay to access; the access URL I have is through my university, Vanderbilt. But clearly, this won't work for readers. What is the Wikipedia solution for this issue? Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the linking issue, see Template:Sfn#Citation_has_multiple_authors_and_no_date. On the URL, the problem is that you are sending the reader through the Vanderbilt proxy - to fix this, removed ".proxy.vanderbilt.edu" and it should work. Personally I would suggest taking out the question mark and everything that follows as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Thanks for the assist on this; everything seems to work well know. The reference in the footnote now links appropriately to the source. I did, however, have to switch to using harvid rather than the sfn I have used throughout the article. Is this inconsistency a problem? Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but switching the reference from {{cite web}} to {{citation}} is - cite web will work so long as you include |ref=harv. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the term "convergent evolution" explicitly used in Hurwitz 2007? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Convergent evolution is my term, but one which clearly captures the meaning of Hurwitz's view. Initially, I had block-quoted the entirety of this interesting (and important) Hurwitz passage, but during the GAN review, Tim riley (talk · contribs) suggested that I cut down the number of instances of block quote. Thus, when reworking the Hurwitz quote into an adequate paraphrase, I settled on condensing his wording with the term convergent evolution, which is shorted but retains his meaning. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a formal term in academic literature, using it unattributed kinda smacks of WP:OR, at least in my book. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I see your point and agree. I reworked the sentences on Hurwitz to eliminate the term convergent evolution. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aallottaret ("It must be so".), this instance is awkward. It almost appears as though Aallottaret should be translated as "It must be so." The punctuation is awkward as well. Please make it clear that "It must be so" was Sibelius's opinion on a related question. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Agreed; deleted "It must be so", which in retrospect seems like an unnecessary quotation that contains little additional information. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small point, "(movement No. 1 lost)" in the lede is the only mention of having lost it before this fact is taken as given in the Bard section. readers may have forgotten that brief mention by this point in the text, so I would suggest a slight rewording of the Bard section to begin the sentence by restating that the movement was lost... and while I'm here, how do we know one movement was lost, and if we do know one was lost, how do we know it came first? I need to reread I suppose. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I have added a brief recapitulation of the point to begin this section. I should add, however, that the subsection 'Initial and intermediate versions' does contain the sentence, "Today, three versions of the work survive. Initially in 1913, Sibelius conceived of the commission as a three movement suite for orchestra in E-flat major, of which only No. 2 (Tempo moderato) and No. 3 (Allegro) are extant", so there is already a mention for readers about this point post-lede. That said, I agree with you that by the time the reader gets to the subsection on relation to The Bard, they may be liable to need a refresher. Hope this fix works. As for how we know only one movement was lost and that the lost movement preceded the Tempo moderato and the Allegro, I believe the answer is this: the pages of the manuscript are numbered, and the numbering of the Tempo moderato begins on 27, or something like that. Thus, the first 26 numbered pages are missing; thus the assumption is that the first movement was 25 pages (not counting 1 page for the title page), which is about the length of the original copy of The Bard. Likely, 25 pages is too few too encompass more than one movement. This is the best answer I can provide, and to my knowledge the numerous sources I have read do not really detail the point beyond this. Barnett is that author who deals with the original suite most extensively. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is critic Cecil Gray, writing in 1931, "modern day", while Wilhelm Peterson-Berger (1923) is not? Where do we draw the line on "modern day"? Is it post-WWII, or is there some qualitative distinction that can be drawn between the two groups? If not, then it's possible that the easiest solution would be just to delete the (potentially unnecessary) term "modern day"... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I moved Gray up to be with the older commentary, such as that by Peterson-Berger and others, and edited the descriptive phrase 'modern day commentators' to be 'more recent commentators'. The reason I see these two groups as distinct is because the latter group would have had knowledge of the reception of The Oceanides by the former group. But, you are right that Gray is best considered part of the earlier group. Hope this edit addresses your concerns. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'm not too keen on the internal link "translated to English" in the very first sentence of the lede. It seems to me to have a subtle aroma of WP:EASTEREGG, but perhaps I'm being too picky. I would suggest simply deleting the link rather than rewording, but others' opinions may differ. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Agreed; I deleted the piped link you mentioned above, as well as the one about the Jäger Movement, which likely followed the same logic. I did, however, keep the piped link on 'extant' that page jumps to the subsection on 'Relation to The Bard'. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His response was to isolate", but "isolate" is a transitive verb. If you stick in "himself" as the object, the sentence does begin to show early signs of awkwardness. Dozens of ways to fix, but must be done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I understand your point and am fine with the solution you found. I would just like to add that, originally, this passage read: "His response was to self-isolate." However, it was suggested during the GAN review that this should be truncated to just "isolate". Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consists of two subjects Sibelius gradually develops in three informal stages: first, a placid ocean; second, a gathering storm; and third, a thunderous wave-crash climax" This passage is apt to be confusing, because apparently "subjects" has some sort of formal definition (A and B, lively and majestic), but an uninitiated reader would almost certainly look within surrounding lede text and conclude that the two subjects are... wind and water or water and storm or similar. I suggest mentioning A/B lively/majestic... And is there an article on tone poem subjects we can wikilink? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Hmmm...I see your point, but don't necessarily know what the fix is. I think mentioning A and B in the lede is not really that informative. As for whether we have an source we can link to to discuss the meaning of 'subject' in tone poems, I am at a loss. I think on this point, I might defer for the time being and wait for comments from other editors. Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Hey. I was just curious if you had any other thoughts on this 'pending' issue. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arguably the work's most stunning section " according to Barnett, on cited page? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Deleted; I cannot find where I read this, but it does not appear to be Barnett. Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "magnificent yet subtle" paraphrase or direct quote? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Paraphrase; the exact quote from Rickards is, "The Oceanides is an extraordinary score, the subtlest, most magnificent evocation of the sea ever penned … The Oceanides, for all that it reflects the variability in mood of the sea, is music suffused by light". (Rickards, p. 118). Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Hey. I was just curious if you had any other thoughts on this 'pending' issue. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about the national anthem and "Finland thanks you" is fluff, but it serves as an aesthetic pad after the extended direct quote.. but then, looking at the sources, they are three in a row from Stoeckel 1971. Are we in danger of close paraphrase here? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE My solution is to footnote Sibelius' reaction to the orchestra's playing of the anthem, while retaining in the main body the content that explains the pieces (including the anthem) that joined The Oceanides on the June 4 program. As such, the aesthetic pad is shortened, but maintained; hopefully, the fluff is gone. If this edit was unnecessary in your mind, please feel free to revert it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm currently struggling with a temptation to Oppose. I'm still reading from whatever sources I can find. I see many bits of relevant vocabulary on the page, but am not sure at all that it presents an accurate description. Suggest requesting expert input... know anyone? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lingzhi, for the update. Would you mind telling me which words in particular (e.g., "subjects") you find worrisome? Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I don't have my thoughts in order, and unfortunately will soon hit a very busy period in my life. But I can throw out a few impressions (pun intended):
  • First, I think the fact that this work is "strikingly different" from his other works (see "Gray, who calls the" in article's text) is more important than how often it was reworked, and thus belongs in the lede, whereas the number of revisions may or may not.
  • Second, an explanation of this difference is in order.. perhaps along the line of bits of this quote from Inventing Finnish Music by Kimmo Korhonen "The Fourth Symphony (1911) is an extreme example of Classical simplification. Its severity and tonal ambivalence link it to Expressionism. Around this time, Sibelius wrote other introvert works, and it was not until the tone poem Aallottaret (The Oceanides, 1914) that he made a departure towards a brighter Impressionist tone." essentially I'm wondering if this is the only piece in his oeuvre that has been discussed as Impressionistic, and if so, what term (if any... perhaps Expressionism? Tim Page seems to suggest that Sibelius generally defies classification but occasionally leans to Romanticism; if he defies classification, then the whole "If this is the only Impressionist thing then what is everything else" line of inquiry hits a problem...) more nearly characterizes his other work. IN SHORT: Where does Oceanides stand in comparison to his other works (if definable), and where does Sibelius stand in relation to other composers (if definable). Note that some critics call Sibelius a "nationalist-romantic", but others say that label is true insofar as it goes but is a major underestimation of his work.... if that helps. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third, in my mind at least there seems to be overlap between the "reception" and "analysis" sections. Admittedly that may be unavoidable, but I think that we should at least consider whether some bits should be moved. (I won't cause a fuss if you say "no, they can't", but I hope you will think about it.)
  • Fourth, what is this discussion of Sibelius as progressive, what does it mean.... and why do I see mentions of it in discussions of Oceanides etc.; is it something characteristic of Sibelius, or was Oceanides notably more or notably less progressive than his other works, or... what? I have no understanding of music, but I'm sure these things can be considered... Perhaps more points later, but as I mentioned, I am hitting my busy season... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Lingzhi, for your attention to detail. I am going to try to take each of these points individually:
  1. Definition of a "subject": I am not formally educated in music and music theory, and so, I am clearly not the most qualified person to answer this question. When faced with a question over a definition in music, I often turn to one or two books I have on my shelf: The New Everyman Dictionary of Music by Eric Blom (revised edition, 1988) and The Harvard Dictionary of Music by Don Michael Randel (4th edition, 2003). According to these resources, the definition of subject is as follows: per Everyman, "A theme used as a principal feature in a composition, esp. in a Fugue, where it is brought in a number of times, voice by voice, or in a Rondo, where it is a recurrent main theme returning after a series of episodes. In sonata form 1st and 2nd subjects are the main structural features, but there they are thematic groups more often than single themes"; and, per Harvard, "A melody or melodic fragment on which a composition or a major portion of one is based. The term, which has been used since the 16h century, implies that the material in question is developed or treated in some special way. It is not used principally with respect to the fugue and other imitative forms such as the ricercar and with respect to sonata form (where it may be synonymous with theme)". In my mind, when I use the word subject in my writing, I have theme in mind (per Everyman: a musical idea, generally melodic, sufficiently striking to be memorable and capable of being developed or varied in the course of a comp. A theme is generally complete in itself, whereas a motive is a figure which contributes something to a larger conception; but a precise distinction between the two is impossible"; and, per Harvard: "A musical idea, usually a melody, that forms the basis or starting point for a composition or a major section of one. Although the terms theme and subject are sometimes used interchangeably, as in the context of sonata form, theme often (though only since the 19th century) implies something slightly longer and more self-contained that subject".). So, with these four definitions from two respected sources in mind, here's where I think I stand: 1) the search for a clean distinction between various musical terms (e.g., subject, theme, motive, etc.) is particularly fraught, and indeed, common usage appears to have, more or less, eroded the distinctiveness between these terms that may have existed at an earlier time; 2) notice that Hurwitz sees The Oceanides as "sonata form without development" and Layton sees it as "something of a free rondo"; as the above definitions indicate, the use of subject is applicable here (or, at a minimum, not out of the ordinary), because the A and B subjects/themes do recure, are developed, and do form the basis (in terms of structure) of the composition in question; 3) the dean of Sibelius biographers, Erik Tawaststjerna (as translated by Layton), uses the term subjects and theme interchangeably in his writing.
  2. Overlap between RECEPTION and ANALYSIS: I can see your point; after all, the very people quoted in the Analysis section are individuals who reviewed the work upon its various performances. What I have attempted to do here and in other pieces I have written or am writing about the tone poems, is to make the Reception section focus solely upon the positive/negative evaluation of the compositions (e.g., so-and-so didn't like it, whereas so-and-so thought it was sublime!), while the Analysis section seeks to hone in on one or more (in this case, two) substantive discussions about the piece. I, personally, like this distinction/division, because it allows the reader to focus on different aspects of the all-encompassing "discussion" in smaller, bit-size pieces. I also think it works better conceptually. Perhaps this explanation is not convincing, and I will think a bit more about a different combined section route, but I am glad to hear that you won't oppose the candidacy on these grounds! :)
  • My section is getting long, isn't it? I apologize; you see, I am learning as I go. I want to repeat my muted wish that we could get someone with formal musical training in here to comment, BUT having said that, I feel a great deal of hope that my additions to the lede will accurately (that is the key concern, of course) resolve my earlier uneasiness about three points all in one blow: theme, subject, and what art school this piece should be considered within (if any). It also ameliorates the lack of discussion of the piece's relationship to Impressionism, which topic has its own section in body text and therefore is usually worthy of mention in the lede. I also appreciate your explanation of the difference between RECEPTION and ANALYSIS. I will continue to consider all these things, but I am feeling better about my earlier concerns on many fronts... I'm hoping this leaves only the issue of whether or not we need to discuss whether Oceanides is or isn't "progressive". Perhaps that topic is inside baseball; I dunno. I will consider Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am prepared to drop the issue of whether or not the piece is "progressive". This may be a topic for the Jean Sibelius page (I suspect it is), or maybe be entirely inside baseball and not grist for discussion in an encyclopedia. Either way, I'm dropping it for this article. I have stricken through relevant comments above. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also have requested a source check, as for example, what makes [Kalafut WP:RS. (I think that one can be safely deleted anyhow; it's backup)... I suppose I should get over my allergy to doing such checks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated the Kalafut reference. All others seem to me to come from reputable sources, primarily books and journals. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review

PENDING Thank you for your help, Nikkimaria. As I noted before, this is my first FAC and I'm not exactly sure what it is I am supposed to do with respect to the images. Should they just be deleted because they were flagged? Or is there some sleuthing expected of me? Thanks! Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these will be fairly easy to fix, some will take a bit more sleuthing. If you are able to resolve an issue, do; if not, ask; if no one can, then the affected image should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the email: "The Norfolk Chamber Music Festival is very happy to give you permission to use the images you list below. To the best of the our knowledge the images are in the public domain, and we would like to be credited as the holders institution. Thank you for adding "courtesy of the the Norfolk Chamber Music Festival, Yale School of Music". Good luck with the Article. If possible, when it is completed we would be very interested in a copy for our music library. Kindest regards, Deanne Chin Associate Manager Norfolk Chamber Music Festival - Yale School of Music." Sgvrfjs (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Both of these are currently tagged with PD-USGov - you'll want to replace that with a tag explaining why the images are in the public domain, if it isn't because they're government works. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems someone else has already added OTRS templates to these, so I guess they are done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above, we need to verify that

the paintings were published or publicly displayed before 1923, not just created at that point. If they came from a private collection, it's not certain this would be the case. The Norfolk Chamber Music Festival images still say they are government works, but above it appears that that is not the case. And File:Sibelius_à_Ainola_1907.gif is a problem: if the author is unknown and the work was created this century, we can't say that the author died 70 years ago, and it doesn't appear we can verify date of first publication either. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we have OTRS tags, doesn't that mean I can just remove the "government works" data on those photos? [Still may need to track down one author?] Plus I swapped out one image with no provenance for another with provenance showing previous displays: File:Les Oceanides Les Naiades de la mer.jpg, see provenance at Peter Nahum At The Leicester Galleries. As for all other paintings: how many images do FACs need these days? I seem to recall they were considered "not strictly required, but highly advisable" back in the day. I think some of these images are just gonna get removed from the article. Tks for your attention. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An OTRS tag is supposed to tell you that there's an email somewhere confirming a license - it isn't in itself a licensing tag. I don't know what this particular OTRS email says so I can't tell you what the tag should be.
  • As to how many images are needed, there's no minimum or maximum number, it's generally what makes sense to support the article content. I have no objection to removing some. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the exterior of the Music Shed, I may have a two-part answer, and I want to verify before I upload. So there's a postcard on the same Press Photos page where Sgvrfjs found the other photos ("A publicity post card prior to the 1940s"). That's part one. Then I found the identical postcard postmarked 1922 Apr-22 on this website. Do those bits of info fit the bill for uploading and including without recourse to email requests? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the postcard in the article (see above); I deleted a couple images; I have a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License image of sheet music that could replace another image if that license is OK. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues:

  • Parker image, per above
  • File:Max_Jensen_Großes_Marinestück.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • What tag is the "Dude's been dead over a hundred years" tag? And if it's the case that we need to establish public display for each and every individual painting separately, then I assume we'll have to rip through Commons and delete nearly everything, because it simply cannot be done. That's often true for the world-class painters, and certainly true for a minor afterthought like Max Jensen. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{PD-old-100}}. And usually it's not complicated - most often either "dude's been dead over a hundred years", or for more recent images there's decent documentation, or the painting was published at some point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the prompt and very helpful reply. I have a question: is there some online reference that lists the display history of nearly every work by nearly every reasonably well-known painter? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've seen those for individual artists or museums, but I'm not aware of a more comprehensive online reference, unfortunately. (If you happen to find one, I'd love to take a look!). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CarlEllenStoeckel_NCMFYale.jpg, File:Shed1906interior_NCMFYale.jpg: need to sort out what the licensing actually is, per above
  • File:Sibelius_-_The_Oceanides,_Op.73_(trans._Gärtner_-_piano).png: licensing doesn't make sense. The music itself would have been under Sibelius' copyright, and this particular edition has a copyright notice
    • Well it's six of one and half dozen of another. On the source page for the image of the sheet music, the image has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License very clearly displayed. I was just buying in to their licensing statement. While doing so, I was assuming that this was a case of transformation of format, similar to the case in which a PD written text in one language ceases to be PD when it is translated, as the translator holds licensing rights. But if we can't follow their clear licensing statement, then perhaps we could go Fair Use, since it's just one page of music from a large work. Meanwhile, the source page seems to have a PD license for the music itself. IANAL, YANAL. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMSLP's PDFs are mostly user uploaded - like Commons or Wikipedia, we can't always take the tag at face value. In this case, the original edition would more likely be PD as a pre-1923 publication, plus or minus additional licensing for the arrangement - not necessarily fair use, but definitely a need to revise the licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The arrangement was done at time of creation; I can link to a book if you'd like. I'm gonna change it to PD-1923, then, if that seems reasonable. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ainola image, per above
  • @Nikkimaria: This image verification search is taking way too much of everyone's time. I have removed a number of offending images. if we manage to get verification for licensing later, we can stick 'em back in. I think the ones left are all OK. Some of them were discussed above.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Tim riley[edit]

Leaning to support – 3,500 words are are lot for a piece lasting 10 minutes, but there's no padding, no excessive detail here, though it might be worth hiving off the discography to its own article. A little fine-tuning is needed.

COMMENT I am well-aware of the padding concerns, and have fought to footnote all that I think is fluff but relevant (per your GAN review suggestions and using your reference style for Ravel). I should add, though, that there is perhaps one final bit in the main body that could be footnoted (or deleted), and that is Kajanus' speech on Sibelius' 50th b-day. Not exactly relevant to The Oceanides, even if it is beautiful; perhaps something better placed in the Jean Sibelius main page? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE the Kajanus quote was excised from the article. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A decision needs to be made and followed about whether to use English or American style for possessives ending in "s". At present we have both Sibelius's and Sibelius'.
PENDING Agreed; I have decided in all of the Sibelius articles I write to use the American Sibelius' rather than the English Sibelius's. I find 25 Sibelius possessives in the article, of which 24 are Sibelius' and 1 is Sibelius's; the latter, however, appears in a direct quote of Layton: "Its growth from the opening bars onward is profoundly organic", Layton writes. "And its apparent independence from the rest of Sibelius's work is manifest only at a superficial level". Please kindly advise me: should I edit the Layton quote to read "Its growth from the opening bars onward is profoundly organic", Layton writes. "And its apparent independence from the rest of [Sibelius'] work is manifest only at a superficial level". Or merely leave it as is? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The Manual of Style gives you licence to leave as punctuated in the original or to standardise on the punctuation as used elsewhere in the article. On reflection I'd be inclined to leave Layton's quote intact, but it's up to you. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Okay; I'll keep Layton as it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is customary, as well as civil, to give people their titles, and you should afford Boult, Beecham, Gibson, both Davises and Elder theirs – and no lazy "Sir Thomas Beechams", please: it's worth doing the job properly as "Sir Thomas Beecham", etc. Rattle should probably not be given a title here, as he was not knighted at the time of the recording and its first release.
PENDING Agreed, and sorry to inadvertently deny the English their honors. :) I have fixed the Adrian Boult reference in text, but am struggling to figure out how to add 'Sir' to the names you described in the discography table without messing up the sortname function Gerda did for me. {sortname| Sir Adrian|Boult} would seem to work, but I don't know if this is a fix or work-around befitting a FAC! In fact, when I did it, it broke the links for Gibson and A. Davis. Thoughts? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'm not clever with tables, and I take the liberty of asking @SchroCat:, who is a wizz, for a steer on this. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Okay, thanks; I'll message him. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and remember to pop round shortly, but if I forget, could you remind me? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONE thanks to, @SchroCat:, for your help! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are inconsistent about whether to use words or symbols for flats.
DONE Agreed; edited to make everything the symbols. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing very earth-shaking there, and I look forward to supporting. Not directly relevant to this review, but if one types "Oceanides" in the search box one ends up here. Well worth adding a hatnote there or otherwise disambiguating. Tim riley talk 13:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE thanks to, @Lingzhi:, for taking care of this! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a fine page, and I look forward to further additions to the series Sgvrfjs has in mind. It would, nonetheless, be no bad thing if future articles were a touch more concise than this one. Tim riley talk 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim, for your support and I am pleased to hear that your are a believer in the larger 'project' I have planned. As for the concerns you have over length, I concede that I am an editor who aims for writing a comprehensive article, and this goal does mean that the pieces are somewhat long-ish; I simply do not want to leave out details or pieces of the historical record that are important or noteworthy and in the analysis sections, I aim to let each side of the various 'debates' have their say. I do, however, work hard on the ledes because I recognize that not everyone wants to read all the detail of the main body and thus, the former's concision is an advantage. One final point: I see The Oceanides as a middle-of-the-pack tone poem in terms of anticipated article length; others, like En saga, Tapiola, Finlandia, and Lemminkaäinen would be longer; some, like Pohjola's Daughter and Luonnotar would be the same length; and, finally, most others would be much shorter, such as The Bard, The Dryad, Spring Song, The Wood Nymph, Nightride and Sunrise, and Pan and Echo. These lengths in my mind are a function of 1) historical significance/importance; 2) how much has been written by others (commentators, critics, academics); and 3) the story they have to tell (in terms of a laborious composition process, an important program, etc.). I have already written The Wood Nymph, which is shorter, and am at work with En saga, which is longer. I should add that I am starting a process, but probably will never complete the whole 13 tone poems. I see myself doing 4 of 5 (The Wood Nymph, The Oceanides, En saga, Pohjola's Daughter, and Lemminkäinen) in detail and then moving on! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda[edit]

I am sorry to not have time yet for in-depth looks, but have a few comments already.

  • Image placement: try to have people look "into" the article, for example Stenhammar, looking right, should be right, Debussy should be left.
DONE for Stenhammar, but there seems to be no good way to get Debussy to look into the article because of the blockquote from Gray. The Debussy image being placed on the left would disrupt the aesthetic of the indention pattern necessary for blockquotes relative to paragraphs. Maybe I can find a different Debussy image? Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions: make the connection to context, explaining why the image is there.
DONE, finally :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid pushing a header to the right by a left image, as the Moran sunset.
DONE Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider to separate books, journals, online in the refs.
DONE Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and have a few more questions.

  • I am happy we have an infobox which tells the reader at a glance that it's a tone poem by Sibelius, because with only the lead, the reader has to wade through a long sentence of other names before getting to that vital point. I suggest to word the first sentence with just the original title, and have all the other names later for those who would not look at a box.
  • I wonder if the composer's image shouldn't go below and something more relevant to the piece itself take the top position.
Done I've been clear on numerous occasions that in the series I have begun I prefer for the image of the composer to be in the infobox rather than some random piece of artwork that has a wave or a nymph in it. Since that seems to my memory to have been resolved in earlier discussions on the article talk page, I defer to it and am going to hold firm. Sorry! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought more of the sheet music than some pretty wave ;) --GA
  • I believe that every quotation (such as "the finest evocation of the sea ... ever ... produced in music") in the the lead needs a citation right after the quotation (not the sentence).
  • I don't see why "in D major" is in brackets.
Done; also changed D-flat. Used commas instead of parentheses to set off the clauses in D major and in D-flat major. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand "As the tempest subsides, a final chord sounds, symbolizing the mighty power and limitless expanse of the sea." - thinking I would need to know how it sounds.
Done The tempest is the large storm that generates the wave-crash climax. After this, a chord is played that Tawaststjerna thinks symbolizes the might power and limitless expanse of the sea. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add the name of who thinks this? --GA
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to mention the duration sooner and close the lead on the 2002 performances.
The reason I avoid doing so is that if we move this sentence up to the first or even second paragraph of the lede, then it is out of order chronologically, because the Yale version is not mentioned (and appropriately) until the third paragraph. I don't like the idea of having two separate duration sentences, so this isn't a fix. I'll have to think about it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it stays there,can you perhaps one more sentence about reception? It's not an ending of "mighty power" ;) --GA
DONE I've decided to leave it as is. Sorry. Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading "Naming the new piece": I don't know what new means here, following final.
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

  • Can a patron be a couple?
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—acting on Parker's recommendation—" - can that be at the beginning or end of an already complicated sentence?
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on other pieces and revisions"- for those familiar with his works, are there a few which could be mentioned?
Pending I'll have to look. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • "always a thorn in Sibelius' side and whom the composer had once mocked" - I would read "always" as also belonging to the second clause, which doesn't work with "once".
Hmmm...to me the English is quite clear; two clauses and two temporal adverbs. Always goes to the first and once goes to the second, meaning Peterson-Berger repeatedly criticized Sibelius' music and that one time, in his diary, Sibelius had responded by mocking him. What fix would you suggest? Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me, because I would simply drop the first clause about the "thorn" (don't like "always" anyway), leaving: "The influential Swedish critic Wilhelm Peterson-Berger, whom the composer had once mocked ..." --GA
DONE I've decided to leave it as is. Sorry. Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General: Did I miss when the name The Oceanides first appeared?

Done Yes; we cannot know for certain because the episode is confusing, but in the subsection Naming the piece, I have tried to piece together the story, and Sibelius' vacillations, as expertly as possible. It has been assumed that Sibelius must have taken the Finnish title from the Kalevala and added the German version of The Oceanides as an explanatory note during publishing. Outside that, I don't think we have any other information. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say when "The Oceanides" appeared first in print under that name, just supplies it as translation of the German. --GA

That's it, - enjoyable reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dank, for your support, as well as for having taken a look at the prose. The majority of your edits I support, but since your disclaimer gives me a little wiggle-room, I made two important changes: 1) I returned the original apostrophes around 'placid ocean', 'gathering storm', etc. because these are my paraphrases of Grimely's rather verbose explanations. Thus, in my mind, the quotation marks may not be appropriate, because it then makes it appear as though I/we are directly quoting the author; and, 2) I returned the words "Sibelius too" to the sentence that describes the second 1915 Sweden concert arrangements falling through, because the edit you made left it unclear as to who (Sibelius or Stenhammar) was the guilty party. Other than that, looks good. Thanks for your attention to detail! Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to take WT:MOS#double vs. single quotes into account, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Short version: MOS doesn't like the single quotes, and MOS compliance is part of the burden of FAC. If you'd rather not have double quotes because you're concerned that readers won't understand that the material isn't quoted, then find a way to rewrite it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I eliminated the single quotes, but opted not to rewrite, since the phrases I used already are a paraphrase or rewrite of the Grimley original. The document should be single quotes free now! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Laser brain[edit]

  • Page ranges in the References section are not presented consistently. I see a mixture of "pp" and "p".
    • I think these have been fixed. Will double check. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kilpeläinen isn't really a web site, right? I mean, you're citing a document, not a web site.
  • Books: please provide linked ISBNs. --Laser brain (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laser brain: I have a few general questions. Some older works listed here at least seem to have no ISBNs (or I can't find them), but have been reprinted extensively, resulting in newer editions that do have ISBNs. So: If ISBNs are unavailable, are ASINs or OCLCs preferable? [The Wikipedia Way would generally be to say, "Neither, but be consistent." But I am just double-checking.] And if newer editions (which are presumably MUCH easier for interested readers to obtain, which makes listing them a small service to our readers) are available, link to those, and change the year in the cites/refs? Would we be worried about page numbers being off between editions, forex? Not sure. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've been rock-solid, Lingzhi. Thanks for getting the ball rolling again on what I had thought was a more or less dead FAC. But it may still die due to the image review that I don't know how to handle. Sgvrfjs (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boring point on possessive[edit]

DONE All Sibelius' changed to Sibelius's Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC) This is an excellent article which seems to me to meet all the FA attributes. I only have one nit-picking point. At various places in the article [Sibelius possessive] is represented as [Sibelius']. I believe the accredited usage should be [Sibelius's], the form I have always used in similar cases in my articles and which has never been queried. I have been unable to turn up the WP guidelines on this, but sources which I have found (see e.g. here) confirm this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:POSS Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected (as far as WP is concerned :-}). Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I think the normal pronunciation is indeed "Sibeliusses" (as in Sibelius's works), in which case it would be incorrect to use Sibelius'. Maybe that is not the case in American English?--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty standard in American English to not include the additional s, and we have certainly litigated this before during the GA and FAC. Then again, the Sibelius bio uses Sibelius's. I have already adopted European dates and punctuation for you guys; why not European possessives, too! :) I hereby renounce my American citizenship. Or, perhaps let's just de-Latinize Sibelius's name to the family original of Sibbe. Our problem (and Sibbe's) would be solved. But I joke. Let's make the change, and I'll do so to my other Sibelius articles (and under construction Madetoja bio) as well. Sgvrfjs (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

@Nikkimaria and Laser brain: Just confirming, should I take it that we now have clean image and source reviews? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite there yet on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

I'll try to give this a look tomorrow, not images, but the overall article. Perhaps Nikkimaria could make it clear again to the nominators what still needs to be fixed, or has this been done now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Sorry, I don't know the "rules" very well. I thought things were only supposed to be linked once. Is the preferred method actually to re-link anything linked in the lede once again upon its first mention in the body? In that case, there are many things that should be re-linked. Thoughts? Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them for consistency. Yes, I think that is usually preferred, link once in the lede and once in the body.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No link for Finnish National Theatre?
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Composer (and former Sibelius pupil) Leevi " -be consistent with the use of the definite article. The composer.
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finnish composer Kalevi Aho and Conductor Osmo -ditto
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very impressed with this. It's a superb piece of work , exactly what I'd expect for a featured article on a Sibelius composition. I'm surprised that the nomination has gone on as long as this, it looks a clear cut pass to me, but I gather there ws a problem with the images? @Ipigott: Have all of the images now been sorted out? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld As far as I can see, there are no further problems with the images. I would also have given strong Support to this article but as I did quite a bit of copy editing early on, I did not know whether or not it was permissible.--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment! I had kind of lost my focus on this due to the amount of time it took (especially since I am lost when it comes to images), but fortunately key helpers like Lingzhi picked it up and helped answer the reviewers questions and make the relevant changes. There's a few changes I need to still make when I get a moment of free time. Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's one of the things which puts editors off FAC at times is the time and effort it takes to pass. For some reason this one has been gone on a long time, probably because of the uncertainty over the images. I think it's important that we should try avoid this at FAC as we don't want to deter people such as yourself from coming here again out of frustration with the process. Hopefully next time you won't have to wait so long. Some do take a lot longer than others for different reasons though. The important thing is that the best possible article results at the end of it, and that is usually achieved through a vigorous FAC. In future perhaps consider opening a Wikipedia:Peer review (see this for example) before coming to FAC as they tend to get more people involved with improving it sooner and stands a better chance of passing sooner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice from Dr. B re. PR. One remaining point though (and sorry I didn't note earlier) is that, as this is Sgvrfjs's first FAC, we'd need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- unless one of the reviewers has done so and I missed it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

  • A false positive triggered in Earwig's copyvio tool because of some quotes, looks okay.
  • Kilpeläinen used 6 times in all - material is faithful to source
  • Clements website used once - material is faithful to source

Just about all other sources offline. But what I have seen is ok, so leave it to coordinators to deem whether is enough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2016 [16].

Isopogon anemonifolius[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) & Melburnian (talk · contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another collaboration, this came together well and is comprehensive and cohesive. We'll hop to it and fix any issues quick-like. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yes it's a wikicup nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Woorikee2000.jpg: can you verify and replace the autogenerated source? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I updated the article page. I uploaded that a looong time ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • "He gave it the name Leucadendron apiifolium, but never officially described it." Perhaps mention that it is therefore a Nomen nudum? FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - will try to find a source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finding material on this is proving difficult.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the definition of nomen nudum, it has to be published without a description to be one, where as this name was not published. Still waiting on a source.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specific epithet derived from anemone "anemone"" Seems a little bit like over explaining here? Why not just link the genus, or when anemone is mentioned at the end of the sentence?
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistency in whether you say "I. anemonifolius" or the full binomial throughout, within sections. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought one needed to use the full binomial to start a para (and was told it was needed to start a sentence), but looking online I found that the the general use is for abbreviation after first mention. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Isopogon anethifolius is found along the east coast of New South Wales, from near the Victorian border" I assume this is a mistake?
Yeah, I was originally going to expand and nom that species but there was more on this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though broader than the related Isopogon anethifolius" Only appears to be stated in the intro?
See sentence #4 in Description section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to mention broadness? Or am I missing something? "Its flat leaves distinguish it from the terete (round in cross section) leaves of Isopogon anethifolius." When I think of "flat" I think of height, not width (would be "narrow" then?)... FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any news on the naked name? If not, I have nothing more to add. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all serious issues solved. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, edits look fine. I can go either/or on but/though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

I happened to review this article for GA status. I think I had overlooked a few issues, which I must mention here:

  • I think "described" can be linked in both Lead and Taxonomy.
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Description ...compared with the 1 mm wide leaves of the latter species... needs convert template
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Taxonomy It gained its current name in 1809 when it was redescribed as the anemone-leaved isopogon (Isopogon anemonefolius) in a controversial work On the cultivation of the plants belonging to the natural order of Proteeae,... Is Isopogon anemonefolius the same as the current Isopogon anemonifolius? Very slight difference, but there it is.
this is not uncommon with names with compound genitive components - often in early works an 'e' or 'æ' would become an 'i'. I can't find a comment about it specifically as most botanists would accept it at face value. Will see if I can find something to put as footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Amazing how you get to learn stuff while reviewing! Yes, I think you should add a footnote with the above explanation. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a general footnote detailing the rule. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link variety (Taxonomy). Is not "common name" too common to be linked?
I was the one who linked that. Maybe because I'm not a native English speaker this term isn't too familiar (in a taxonomic context)... Not sure if my language has an equivalent, doesn't have an article at least. Feel free to remove if it is common knowledge for English speakers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added link for variety - common name has a specific meaning which I think is interesting for layperson. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that I never saw "common name" linked elsewhere. Why not use "vernacular name"? Would you need a link even then? At least I have not seen it linked anywhere else. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Vernacular name" is a redirect to common name and to my ears all intents and purposes a synonym I think. However "common name" is more accessible to lay reader. You are right in that I have not linked it much in other articles and would not be opposed to unlinking it here (i.e. my preference is to remain linked but not by much and if consensus was that it was redundant I would not have a problem with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So should we wait for a consensus? Well, as for me, I oppose linking the term. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I delinked as neither Funkmonk or I care one way or the other and you feel more strongly. That's no problem. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find any more issues with the article. Thanks @Casliber: and @FunkMonk: for their cooperation. I give my Support on prose to this article. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your thoroughness and support. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM

I can't see this being controversial! A few thoughts:

  • "broad-leaved drumsticks" Is this plural or singular?
Used for both, in the manner of glasses, billiards etc.--Melburnian (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its height usually ranges between 1 and 1.5 metres (31⁄4–5 feet), generally being smaller in exposed heathland" This doesn't quite work- "its height" is the subject of the first clause, while the plant itself seems to be the subject of the second.
Agreed - tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "common name of drumsticks" How about "common name, drumsticks"? I think it would be words as words. (Perhaps something similar could be done with the mention of the common name in the taxonomy section?)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The flowers appear anywhere from July to January" I assume you mean any time?
facepalm. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a globe?
it's the woody base the flowers come out of. I'll have a look for technical terms Cas Liber (talk
I've used the wording "globular inflorescence" to refer to the whole structure and tweaked the wording around it. --Melburnian (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appeared in his paper On the natural order of plants called Proteaceae in the Transactions of the Linnean Society in 1810" According to our article (I think) the published version had a different title- as an article, it'd probably need to be in quotes rather than italicised, too?
The name On the natural order of plants called Proteaceae was published as a standalone, which indicates it needs italics. When called "On the Proteaceae of Jussieu", it was as an article in a journal and hence that title is in quotation marks. I've seen it referred to as either name. What I don't know is what the lectures were called. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the article reads "Brown's description appeared in his paper On the natural order of plants called Proteaceae in the Transactions of the Linnean Society in 1810"; my understanding is that this is incorrect. Perhaps "Brown's description appeared in his paper On the natural order of plants called Proteaceae, subsequently published as "On the Proteaceae of Jussieu" in the Transactions of the Linnean Society in 1810"? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah ok, see what you're getting at - good point/fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to Brown's varieties?
I forgot to do this edit before. Both were synonymised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "around two months of being burnt in a bushfire" ?
facepalm. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to resprout for more intense fires" Again- I'm struggling
facepalm. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably just a personal preference, but I really don't like the table format for the images; Template:Multiple image looks much better, to my eyes.
Done. --Melburnian (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm being picky, but I'm not sold on the one-line paragraphs
Yeah. I had trouble shoehorning those into paras, which was why I didn't do it initially. I've had a go now but am at a loss with where/how to place the single line in the ecology section... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No further comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input.--Melburnian (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Source spot-check
  • Fn 3c, OK
  • Fn 5, OK
  • Fn 16, OK
  • Fn 23, OK, but the search string in your link produces an error message. I had to do a new search by "Atylus anemonifolius".
Damn, that's timing out for me, which sporadically happens. Will put that on to do list once I can access site. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2016 [17].

William Sterndale Bennett[edit]

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English composer William Sterndale Bennett. Bennett has been underrated as a composer but, as I hope the article shows, he also had a significant influence on musical life in England in the 19th century. I have tried to include in my recent revisions of the article comments made by editors in the article's pre-GA peer review and at its GA review. I hope that it may be a candidate for FA on Bennett's birth bicentenary, 13 April 2016.Smerus (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley: I worked quite a bit on the article back in 2012, and though that was long before Smerus's overhaul began, I think I am nonetheless disqualified from offering my support here. What I think I can conscientiously say is that I have been struck - and much pleased - by the great improvement between the article as I left it and the article as it is now, and propriety or no I venture to give my opinion that the present article meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM
  • "During this visit he also arranged the first cricket match ever played in Germany, "as fitting a Yorkshireman" as the musicologist Percy M. Young comments." I think we may have different comma philosophies, but this sentence doesn't really work for me.
  • Should "Symphonic Studies" be italicised?
  • Is "Sonata Duo" the name of a composition? Should it be in italics?
  • "The directors of the RAM decided to close it, over the head of Bennett as Principal. Bennett, with the support of the faculty and the students, assumed the Chairmanship of the board of directors." Reference?
  • What was his cause of death? Do we know?
  • I think "as already mentioned" would count as a self reference to avoid
  • It's perhaps a little odd to start a section with "however".
  • The quote beginning "Rejecting the superficial virtuosity" doesn't seem to end
  • I don't think "pianoforte" is as well-known a word as you may think. I'm struggling a bit with the whole sentence. In fact, the whole section could perhaps be ironed out a little- the terminology is a bit alien to me.
  • "is described above" Another self-reference

I really don't know much about the topic, but this seems to be a very strong article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for these helpful comments and for your edits. I think I have now addressed all the issues your raise above, except for the Sonata Duo. That is indeed what WSB called the work. However, as, had it been titled simply either Sonata or Duo, there would have been no requirement for italicization, it is my present feeling, in what is an admittedly an equivocal situation, to leave it unitalicized (unless a storm of protest erupts :-}). Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I think the article looks great- I want to have another look through before supporting, but I suspect I will be. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support. The article seems very strong, but I am a long way outside of my comfort zone reviewing it! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sheffield_Parish_Church_1819.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Michael_Costa_(conductor)_-_Rosenthal_1958_after_p96.jpg
  • File:SirWilliamSterndaleBennett.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:Many thanks for this. On Commons I have now provided US PD tags as necessary, and given the correct source link for File:SirWilliamSterndaleBennett.jpg --Smerus (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Very nearly perfect. My largest concern by far is the rather expansive stretches of text cited to Bennett (1907); I'd strongly suggest/request that someone who has this text check for close paraphrase. These things can sneak in against our wishes at times. Nitpicks:
    • The text seems to suggest B. and Schumann hit it off very well from the start, both musically and personally, but later suggests that B. felt a bit uncomfortable with S's music ("He would not have a note of Schumann"). Am I missing something?
    • "although he faced a continuing reluctance of many British music lovers and several leading critics to acknowledge the possibility that an English composer could be of the same stature as a German one" ... perhaps better as "although many British music lovers and several leading critics remained reluctant to acknowledge the possibility that an English composer could be of the same stature as a German one"
    • In the same paragraph, is the informality of "won round" a bit out of place in the formality of surrounding text?
    • "whose book, like that of The May Queen, is by Chorley" IMO completely irrelevant.
    • "In Bennett's 1858 lecture on "The visits of illustrious foreign musicians to England", the latest mention is of Mendelssohn, enabling the likes of Wagner, Hector Berlioz and Giuseppe Verdi to be bypassed, and omitting Franz Liszt and Chopin" ...This sentence niggles at me on three fronts: first, it's odd to my American ear, especially "enabling.. to be bypassed" rather than a straightforward "bypassing" (especially given the resulting parallelism with "omitting"); second, is there some reason why the first three omitted individuals are given a separate verb, suggesting some qualitative or temporal distinction between them; and third, if B is deliberately skipping his "continental contemporaries" then why does he praise Gioacchino Rossini? Perhaps a simple adjective or two describing why the latter found favor might make this easier to understand. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi: Many thanks for these useful comments. My feelings are as follows:

  • Bennett (1907). I am very aware of the problems of close paraphrase and can give you my assurance that I have been very concerned to ensure that WP standards are not infringed in this respect. The complete text of the book is available here (page by page) if you nor any other editors wish to check.
  • I think there were always reservations on WSB's side about Schumann's music. In the section 'Style' I mentioned WSB's 1837 comment to Davison that he found Schumann's music 'rather too eccentric'. I have now moved this comment 'up' to the section 'Germany: Mendelssohn and Schumann', so this should now be clearer.
  • although/won round....now copyedited per your suggestions.
  • book - well, I wouldn't say totally irrelevant, but agree pretty irrelevant, and have removed.
  • visitors. I have rephrased this, making it (I hope) clearer. Rossini had retired from opera after 1829, so although he lived on until 1868 he was already history by the time of WSB's lecture. I would infer (although the lecture text does not make explicit) that WSB saw Rossini as being more 'classical' than Verdi, but to enlarge on this would I think be WP:OR. Therefore perhaps better left as it is and let readers draw their own conclusions.
With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi:: Could you clarify please, does your strikethrough mean that you withdraw support or withdraw conditionality? If the former, do please let me know what else might need to be done? Many thanks, --Smerus (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brianboulton[edit]

Support: I reviewed this at WP:PR and was highly satisfied then. I believe it has improved meantime and am happy to sipport its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of sources lack publisher locations (Oxford university press ones)
  • In External links, why do we need a link to the 1911 EB article?

Formatting looks good otherwise.

Using this version of the page for ease of navigation:

  • material of FN 49 is faithful to source without copyvio.
  • strictly speaking FN 77 mentions there is a prize that is (obviously) still current. It does not mention anything about Sterndale Bennett getting money and donating it to fund aforesaid prize....
  • material of FN 78 is faithful to source without copyvio.
  • material of FN 86 is faithful to source without copyvio.
  • material of FN 87 is faithful to source without copyvio.
  • material of FN 115 is faithful to source and attributed appropriately.
  • Earwig's copyvio detector seems pretty clear to me....

Ok so in summary, one tiny thing to fix, otherwise looking ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the EB link.
Places: I've added 'Oxford' to the missing Temperley source, but the Firman source uses Template:Cite ODNB which comes up without place (presumably as it is a web source).
Prize. The money collected at the event was used to set up the fund: whether WSB himself donated it is a moot point (although one can infer that he wished it to be used in that way, I find no source making this explicit). So I have reworded and given an additional citation.
Hope this may now be OK. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All in order, squire. :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: - is this OK now do you think? I'm hoping to be able to propose it for WSB's 200th next month - Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds -- was just walking through the article myself before promoting... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having tweaked a couple of things, as is my wont, I'm promoting but there is a harv error coming up with Firman and I couldn't spot an obvious reason why -- perhaps it's that template? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2016 [18].

Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) and Thoughtfortheday (talk · contribs)

This article is about a very early cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, who supplied a wealth of them later in life. The extraordinary work remained his only extant cantata for the First Day of Easter, as if his first statement to the battle of Life and Death, based on the unchanged hymn by Martin Luther (based on Medieval models), was final. Read yourself ...

Thoughtfortheday and I worked on an article from Wikipedia's early years for a while, Corinne copy-edited, to have it ready to appear on Easter Sunday. All comments and improvements welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to several comments, we have

  • restructured and expanded the background section, including the list of early cantatas in the context, more on the church and circumstanzas in Ansbach and Mühlhausen
  • added where the autograph parts and a manuscript later score are kept
  • improved referencing

Please let us know what could still be improved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I'm not very sure that the Bach's early cantatas section belongs in this article, and doubly unsure about the table it contains. Will defer if others think this is significant/useful. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165 and other FA, - these articles establish the context for periods in Bach's life (so far 1714, 1715, early 1723), planned to cover his life eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The title of the original parts..." Is there something I'm missing here? This seems very repetitive, as if this sentence could be deleted and the next sentence left in its place. It reads like "a basketful of apples was in the basket full of apples." Or does it? Did I miss some germane detail?   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's what Bach wrote himself, and not in German but Italian and French. I think it allows a look into his workshop. --GA
What I mean is, this sentence and the sentence immediately following it (including the bullet points) seem to present precisely the same information in a somewhat different format, rendering the first sentence redundant. If that's the case, then from my perspective, if you want to keep the first sentence, I would make it a footnote. YMMV.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the two sentences describe the same thing: the title including the scoring. I find it interesting what Bach himself wrote, as a glimpse at the style at the time. I would not like to move it to footnote. The following one has more or less the same information, but with some links and introducing the abbreviations. I will move the translation to a footnote, and perhaps that is what you meant? ---GA
  • "a work in the style of an overture to a contemporary Venetian opera" do you mean that the sinfonia or the melody is in that style, or both?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's first to have a sinfonia at the beginning at all, then also the style, while the melody, derived from the mediaval hymn tun, will be different from any Italian one. Note that the majority of Bach's later cantatas has no sinfonia --GA
Please let me rephrase: I'm not sure whether the appositive "a work in the style..." refers to the sinfonia or the first line of the melody. SO --Is this rephrasing of the sentence correct ( I am only guessing): "The cantata begins with an instrumental sinfonia, a work in the style of an overture to a contemporary Venetian opera, that introduces the first line of the melody with chordal passages and occasional polyphony".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it now and tried to untangle, please check. ---GA
  • I never read articles about music (not my field), but most articles I read from other fields develop "from general to specific". So why is the "Overview" after the "Music and scoring" and "Tune"? Is that customary in this field? Or is the "Overview" really more specific than general in nature, and the section heading is misleading? And it gets a little repetitive at times, e.g two instances of "The cantata begins with an instrumental sinfonia." Ah, maybe "Movements" or "Overview of movements" ( I tend to prefer the former, but defer...)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
In "normal" Bach cantata articles - perhaps compare GA BWV 23 - we have simply: History - Structure and scoring - Music - Recordings. This one is more complex, "Overview" - a term inherited from earlier editors - is only the overview over the musical aspects. If you can suggest a better term or even structure, I'd be grateful. --GA
I don't like the term "Overview" here because I think it indicates the highest possible level of generality (and so would encompass all other aspects, including "Scoring and structure" and "Tune")... Can you think of a better word for "musical aspects" (you used that word in the sentence immediately above this one
I tried "Movements"now, how is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would copy edit, but I'm afraid that in my lack of expertise I'll disturb some domain-specific detail(s)...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could make proposals here, or point out where you think changes are wanted. - Thanks for doing what you "never" do, - input from such a reader is most welcome, because we get blind for things we take for granted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understood two more things - and thank you for your patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bottom half of the Online Sources section puzzles me. It seems to lapse out of alphabetical order, and one stokowski cite is never linked (but should be, I assume).. and ""No. 171–180" points to a page where I don't see any 171 or 180 (though perhaps I missed something.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm sure my last little quibble (immediately above) will be resolved one way or another. Everything else looks sterling.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I removed the ref, probable a rest of something that left the article when trimming. I also fixed the numbers, - sorry about that, copied from BWV 172 and forgotten to change ;) - The online sources are alpha as long they have authors,- I don't know what to do about the few others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Looking forward to supporting, but a few minor comments first.

  • Statements that could do with a citation:
    • First performance
      • First para: second, third and last sentences
      • Third para: in toto
    • Scoring and structure
      • Most of the fourth para
Will look later. -GA
I will ask Thoughtfortheday who wrote the passages and can probably simply add the sources, while I would have to search for them. I dropped the outlook to Mozart, - see below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is more I could say. John Eliot Gardiner, for example, doesn't use a solo bass in the aria in question. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected recordings
    • I'd be inclined to omit the adjective from the heading, as the section is an overview rather than a selection. I'd also omit the uncited six words at the beginning of the section: WP:PEA, you know.
Header shortened, agree. - If you look into the article history, it was first the other way round: saying that the many recordings demonstrate how important the work is. That it is unique in many respects should be clear by the time a reader gets here, and why not tell someone (again) who only reads this section? --GA
  • Spelling
    • English or American? We have "colour" but "center". English strikes me as preferable, of course, but we should be consistent one way or the other.
I agree to mostly English, but am not strict myself as long as it will be understood. "Centre", yes, but those English names for the shorter notes ..., "bar" - highly ambiguous to the uninitiated, "programme" ... - not necessary, I believe. Please feel free to change what I overlooked --GA

This is a fine article and I shall be glad to support its promotion once my few quibbles are addressed. – Tim riley talk 14:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading and valuable comments! I will get to adding references only later. In case you have access to Taruskin's book: mentioning individual page numbers would be helpful. We inherited some sources and lack of them from users from the past. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting now after further read-through (most enoyable). Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 21:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the melodic comparisons
good idea, done --GA
  • File:Osterlieder.jpg: should explicitly identify the copyright status and details of the original works - these are not exclusively "own work"
please help me to understand whose copyright is in danger for these centuries-old,mostly anonymous melodies, and if, what can be done --GA
To be clear, we will not have to remove this as a copyright violation, but we should still use the correct reason for why. A life+100 tag would be correct for the melodies themselves, with some further details added to the description about who is really the author and what is the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to clarify the copyright status of the original works contained within File:Osterlieder.jpg. Does that meet your concerns, Nikki? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. We have three potential copyrights to consider here. First the melodies themselves, which are obviously PD; second, the transcription of these melodies into modern musical notation; and (arguably) the side-by-side comparison. At the moment the licensing tag reflects the status of the third, certainly; I don't know whether the second falls under this as well or not, as the exact source is unclear. Was it transcribed from the original by the user, or copied from a secondary source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, Nikki. The uploader was de:Benutzer:Rabanus Flavus who edits regularly on the German Wiki. Perhaps Gerda would be able to ask him if he knows where the transcription of the music into modern notation came from? Her German is certainly better than mine (probably her English as well) :P --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will get him here. We worked together on the list of Luther's hymns, his English is good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The notation of this file is my work and PD. --Rabanus Flavus (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we're clear: you transcribed these melodies from the original, pre-1700 sources? Or did you derive them from existing transcriptions? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Christ_lag_in_Todesbanden.JPG: given licensing is incorrect - a single note would be ineligible for protection, but a melody is not
It looks to me that {{PD-old-auto-1923 |deathyear=1546}} ought to cover the original work scanned in File:Christ lag in Todesbanden.jpg. Is there any reason why a melody published in 1524 would not be PD everywhere by now? --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nadia_Boulanger_1925.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can do anything with File:Nadia Boulanger 1925.jpg. The link is dead and neither the Internet Archive] nor a Tineye search turns up a confirmed source. The attributed photographer, Edmond Joaillier (1886-1939) has many photographs in Bibliothèque nationale de France, so there's no reason to doubt his authorship. As he died more than 70 years ago and the photograph was published in 1925, I would expect from List of countries' copyright lengths that the image would be PD in France (country of origin) but possibly not in the USA ("95 years from publication for works published 1923–1963" would end copyright on 1 January 2021). What do you think, Nikki? --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question would be, published where in 1925? If it was in France, no, it wouldn't be PD in the US - it would still have been under copyright in France in 1996 because of the wartime extension (50y pma + 8y 120d), so the US copyright would have been restored. If it was published outside of France, though, that's a different story. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we can't find for certain what country it was published in until we find the source. Joaillier worked in Paris, and Nadia Boulanger owned a house in Gargenville, so we would guess France, but she visited the USA from December 1924 to February 1925, so even that guess could be proven wrong. Maybe look for another image, Gerda? --RexxS (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by Thoughtfortheday, and is a thoughtful choice because it illustrates and thus highlights that it was recorded (unusually) early, and twice by the woman who influenced a bunch of notable composers. - We could take the same Gardiner as everywhere else, but it would serve the readers less, imho. As we could use the same Luther instead of the comparison, but same. I would prefer to be specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the one that Lingzhi suggests below, there is another in the BnF: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9022360s which has no named photographer ("Agence de presse Meurisse") but was published in 1913. Unless there's something unusual, that ought to be in the public domain everywhere. There's a version on commons as File:Nadia et Lili Boulanger 1913.jpg but it needs a US copyright tag - maybe {{PD-anon-1923}}? --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, - I will notify my image expert, I still feel insecure when it comes to image licensing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit lost, but here's a press photo by Agence Meurisse. As nearly as I can tell (via Google translate), Agence Meurisse may have been folded into a department of the French government in 1937 (if that helps)(link here)...and finally, it seems our friend sometimes goes under the name of Henri, and died in 1935: [here)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for trying to find an alternative, but I feel the 1925 image is close to the time of recording, while the 1910 isn't, and the sister has nothing to do with it. Am I the only one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's your nom, not mine; I of course defer to you. I was only hoping to find one of rock-solid licensing,,, But is the photo I found the sister of the one in the article's photo? If so, then sorry.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry I wasn't clear that "sister" referred to the other proposed by RexxS, above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I won't argue and removed the two images questioned, a bit sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

  • The cantata is a chorale cantata, a type of composition in which both text and music are based on a Lutheran hymn, in this case Martin Luther's hymn of the same name, the main hymn for Easter in seven stanzas which is based in text and tune on Medieval models. - That's a lot of commas. Can you simplify this sentence?
tried ---GA
  • Link the instruments?
better not,because violon would leed to (mostly) modern violin, etc.. They are linked below in the section dealing with the scoring, while in the lead (and the infobox) the baroque instruments in general are linked.
  • Lead strikes me as long. I think you could nix the final paragraph without any issues.
Lead seems shortish to me,compared to all the thingsthat could be said ;) - I would not like to end on "17th century", - I like a final statement. ---GA
another question for Thoughtfortheday ---GA
I take your point. I could rewrite to refer to Wolff as regards quality (as well as the speculation on missing cantatas). -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is documentary evidence of a performance in 1707. - A performance of what? Christ lag in Todes Banden? Say so. Or nix the sentence, as you've got "It is known that Bach performed a cantata of his own composition at Easter in 1707 as a part of his application for the post of organist of Divi Blasii church in Mühlhausen, and this may have been Christ lag in Todes Banden."
nixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he composed any other cantata for Easter Sunday, it did not survive. - I'd expect the plural to be used in this sentence (i.e. any other cantatas). Compare "Did you buy any other paintings while you were gone?"
Probably my lack of English, - I would find it strange to use a plural when most likely it wasn't even one. ---GA
  • Luther wrote - you haven't introduced him in-text yet (only in a table). As such, I'd use his full name on first mention, and link him. The same for his hymn.
good thought, tried ---GA
  • between Life and Death. - The capitalization suggests that life and death are personified, or otherwise more than simple life and death. Not sure that's what you are going for.
This came up in the GA review. Please compare the translation in the Dürr-Jones Source, Life and Death almost allegorical figures. ---GA

That's it for now. Be back later or tomorrow with more. Overall, though, I'd suggest looking at a way to avoid having single-paragraph sections. THere are quite a few in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will look, but please be patient, real death hit twice in a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I answered some now, -thank you for helpful comments. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back

  • CN tag added
I removed (commented out) the sentence about trombones doubling the voices in Mozart's Requiem. It's often done, but is - as so much in the score - not written down by Mozart himself, and a discussion of all this would belong in the Requiem article, - then there could be a link. --GA
  • Shouldn't Easter be linked on first mention, rather than halfway down the article?
Yes, done. It's often not linked at all, and so was here. The link "further down" points specifically to Easter Sunday, with different liturgy than Easter Monday and Easter Tuesday. Bach wrote new cantatas for Monday and Tuesday, but not - that we know - for Sunday. --GA
  • Although Boulanger decided to concentrate on teaching, she had a notable career as a performer of early music, and in 1937 she made pioneering recordings of Monteverdi madrigals with a group of singers that included the tenor Hugues Cuénod, who was featured in her second recording of the cantata. - not sure how pertinent this is to the cantata — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A question for Thoughtfortheday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could go. My reason for going into this level of detail was to suggest that the Boulanger recordings of the cantata are an important landmark. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Oppose at this time, per 1(c) and 2(c) of the FAC criteria. I would like to think that these can be fixed during this nomination, and if so, I would be happy to switch to support. My reasons being that there is a distinct lack of closing citations. CassiantoTalk 12:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the "Performances" section, there are a few paragraphs that end with no citation.
Only one left, about the style and Pachelbel, hope for my partner ---GA
  • "Although the cantata is remarkably accomplished" -- POV?
  • The Martin Luther images finishes with no full stop.
does now --GA
  • The paragraph starting "The exact scoring of the first version is unknown..." is lacking a citation.
a few added ---GA
  • ...as is the next paragraph.
Only the last sentence is "unreferenced", which is a description of the following table (saying what is not shown). ---GA
  • First paragraph in "Tune" section closes without a citation.
two sections rephrased ---GA
  • Last para of the "Verses 1" section has a wrongly ordered citation series.
fixed --GA
  • As does "Verses 7".
fixed --GA
  • "An outstanding work among Bach's cantata..." -- POV in "Transcriptions" section
See above. The lead summarizes, that this is outstanding in more than one respect, - it's only repeated for those who read only this section. --GA
The issue is that it omits to say who considers it to be "remarkably accomplished" and "outstanding". Currently, this looks like your opinion and your Point Of Veiw is neither here nor there, unfortunately. CassiantoTalk 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first chorale cantata, the only extant cantata for Easter Sunday (which is the highest feast): everybody agrees it's outstanding. To repeat a few voices who say that in the recordings section would be undue weight, - I'd rather drop the half-sentence which is only repeated from the lead, as said before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then simply saying "critics" or similar would cure this and keep everyone happy, I think. CassiantoTalk 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Critics? Of Bach? I don't know any ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then refer to my "or similar". Was there anyone who would've given this opinion? You don't have to name them, just say what there role was; ie, critic, scholar, etc... . What ever happens though, this still comes across as being your POV, and as lovely as that is Gerda, we can't be having it in FA's. CassiantoTalk 07:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just removed it. It was not introduced by me, but I try to keep the good work of former editors if I can. Giving up in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled as to why you think somebody's unfounded personal opinion can be considered as "good work", but here is not the place to question such things as the sentence has now been made more neutral. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Transcriptions" finishes without a cite.
  • As does the third para of the "Recordings" section.
Thank you for diligent reading. You possibly didn't read what Tim mentioned above, so we have some duplication. Please bear in mind that it's a joint effort, and the first FAC for Thoughtfortheday. I will go over more ref details later today. A problem - said before - is that this is a very old article with some unreferenced facts which we don't want to throw out without at least trying to find refs in retrospect. Facts that we can't source will be eliminated, but that's the last step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I appreciate that Gerda and like I say, I will happily switch to support as and when these major problems are fixed. I hadn't noticed Tim's comments but with two of us now picking up on this, maybe this brings a sense of urgency to the table. Welcome to FAC, Thoughtfortheday, please don't be put off by my oppose; we are all here to help, should you need us. Gerda, did you consider a peer review first? CassiantoTalk 13:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some. I didn't consider a peer review for two reasons: lack of time because Easter is early this year, and similarity with other FA articles. I notice by now that there are also differences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome , Cassantio. I have been a bit busy this week. Otherwise I would have done more editing on this article. I look forward to doing more work in due course. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It's great to see that the prose has improved, but I'm still seeing some missing citations at the end of paragraphs. I'm close to supporting if you can bottom this out. I'm counting three at the moment. CassiantoTalk 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I found them. I didn't put anything behind that the continuo is not shown in the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

  • In the lead, the English title "Christ lay in death's bonds" should probably be in bold text. Reading through, delighted to see a nom from Thoughtfortheday, having seen their good work over the years. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be bold if a redirect, for example from an English title or a frequent translation. But this is only one of several possibilities, nothing to bold, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than "1707 ?", is c 1707 more appropriate. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's most likely, just not 100%. "c 1707" might also be 1706, which is impossible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this, we could do the same: no question mark but explain in the text, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link would seem to indicate at least before 1707, which is a very different thing to "?". Is 1705 or earlier also "impossible"? Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How? It says 24 April 1707, and then "wahrscheinlich" (probably). No indication of a "before". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Early performances": 24 April 1707. Presumably it was written before performed. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see what you mean;) - No, he was fast. Usually he wrote a cantata and rehearsed it it within a week. He did that for three years, from 1723, one a week + extra holidays, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Gerarda, but things that are obvious to you, who is so steeped and knowledgeable with Bach (a large value to wiki) might have to be spelled out for others. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are available in Bach's biography and Bach cantata, the first link. We can't spell them out in individual articles, would be close to 200. - I changed "composed" (where we really know nothing) to "performed". We could add the two notable performances in Leipzig. - Please note that will be on vacation, with no to limited internet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support although in places the writing seems laboured and stiff, I accept Gerda's stated need to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise the article meets the criteria, and I applaud the work put in here; her and Thoughtfortheday make a great team. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

I took a look at the lead.

  1. "One of his earliest church cantatas, and his earliest surviving chorale cantata, it was probably intended for performance in 1707, an early work in the genre to which he later contributed complete cantata cycles for occasion of the liturgical year."—Possibly remove first comma. This sentence is rather long and cumbersome; I don't understand "for occasion of".
    Please look above, the sentence was just changed in a copy-edit, a factual error introduced which I fixed, admitting (see above) that it will need more work. I tried to split it now. --GA
  2. "Christ lag in Todes Banden is a chorale cantata"—just been told that. Instead: "A chorale canata is a style in which ...".
    solved by the split --GA
  3. "The work was composed in seven stanzas and based on text and tunes adhering to Medieval models."—Maybe "and was based on". Maybe "... tunes after Medieval models". "Adhering" is pretty clunky.
    tried, and think that's a version we had before --GA
  4. I don't see a good reason to cap Life and Death.
    The source does. Most frequently asked question ;) --GA
    But it's a paraphrase, not a direct quote. I see no reason to cap. Tony (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like this in the translation to English of the cantata text by Jones, the best translation I know, interpreting with this little device that Luther and Bach seem to look at Life and Death as almost allegorical figures. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't go with the imputed logic: "Although all movements are in the same key of E minor, Bach employs a variety of musical forms and techniques to intensify the meaning of the text." You'd have to build in, briefly, the notion that unchanging key is not good at intensifying the textual meanings. And do you later explain the mechanics of those intensifications?
    I do the latter, but isn't obvious even to a lay reader that "same key" implies little variation. I think it would be too long for the lead (which has already been described as too long above) to explain that Bach later went for change of expression by key also.--GA
    The logic doesn't hold up. Tony (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't get it. Should we make it two unrelated sentences? My logic is that he keeps the key - almost boringly - the same but still achieves a great variety of expression. Any better wording welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would "Although all movements are in the same key of E minor, Bach employs a variety of other musical forms and techniques to intensify the meaning of the text." get the meaning across in the lead? The further exposition takes place in the Movements section. --RexxS (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The present wording is "Although all movements are in the same key of E minor, Bach achieves variety by many musical forms and techniques which intensify the meaning of the text." - How is that? We could also say: "achieves still variety". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have to be "still achieves variety" ('still' normally precedes the word it modifies in English), Gerda, but that's not the nuance. The point is that he uses forms & techniques, other than key changes. --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Key change is not a musical form,and I doubt that you could call it a musical technique, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Christ lag in Todes Banden is Bach's first cantata for Easter, also his only extant original composition for the first day of the feast." Comma splice.
    will look later what that means, on vacation --GA
    I looked and understand that a comma is unwanted between two independent sentences, but here the two share the verb. ---GA
    I removed the word "also"   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a comma splice. There is one subject ("Christ lag in Todes Banden"), one verb ("is"), a predicate ("...cantata...") and a noun phrase ("...composition...") in non-restrictive apposition to the predicate. Comma is correct. --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, not a comma splice. But it's awful. Replace "also" with "and". Tony (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lingzhi did that, did you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "He later repeatedly performed it as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, beginning in 1724 when he first celebrated Easter there." Specific claim but no ref. I've been away from FAC for so long I'm unsure of the party line on reffing in leads.
    You don't have to source summaries in the lead (this is a summary of two dates sourced later), only quotations. --GA
  8. "Only the performance material from Leipzig is extant." Perhaps "... survives". Whereabouts is it? Maybe that's not important, though.
    I added that, and a later score. All these source are in Bach-Digital, for those interested in details. ---GA
    English is not my fist language, thanks for those little differences. In German,"survives" sounds strange for something that never lived. --GA
  9. Slight grammar shift: "and a choir of cornetto and trombones doubling the voices at times" -> "and a choir of cornetto and trombones that double the voices at times". I'd numerate them (one ... and ?three), to avoid the jolt from singular to plural.
    A choir is singular, no? And doubles the four voices, so has to be 1 + 3 without mentioning, no? --GA
    Yes, choir is singular. You need "of one cornetto and three ..."/ Tony (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Interesting, but I hope it's explained or reffed in the main text: "The scoring of the first performances was possibly similar, in the style of a "Choralkonzert" (chorale concerto) from the 17th century."
  11. drama" and. -> drama", and
    I think it is, please look --GA

Tony (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for very helpful comments, partly done, partly for later, hopefully today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back from vacation, but a lot of other work waiting, - please excuse that work will trickle, not flow.
Now with the Women in Red/Music being over, and no new cantatas until Palm Sunday, I have more time for this. I used Wolff a lot, thinking of you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Return comments: I've gone through it to edit. It's mostly well-written, but check subtle word-order and comma improvements (at least I hope they're improvements). I support promotion to FA status once these issues are dealt with (and provided no outstanding issues remain from other reviewers). It shows a great deal of careful, skilled work. Nice.

  • Check my "structural", please.
I am not happy with "structural variety", because it seems to limit too much. I see much more variety of expression, and variety of following the meaning of the text in detail. - I like all your other changes, and thank you for taking the time to copy-edit. --GA
  • What do you mean by "the performance material"? The parts only, not the full score?
Why would you think not the score? - If it was only the parts, I would have written the parts. --GA
So what does it mean? Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it should specify: "the score and parts"? (but what else?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguous: "with a choir of one cornetto and three trombones doubling the voices at times" – do you mean those brass instruments play a lot of the time but only at times double the voices; or that they play at times, when they double the voices?
Please word it better: the brass goes only with the voices, but not all the time (as the table shows: only in Versus 1, 2 and 7). --GA
Ah, and I read it as on and off during a single movement. I'll look at it. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard the term "organ prospect". I presume it's a technical term (I did my performance degree on organ).
Orgelprospekt [de], see wictionary: facade of an organ, - I don't know if there's a better term, - never heard facade so far, but learning ;) --GA
"front of the organ"? "display front of the organ"? or "facade" would do. Not "prospect".
Using "front of the organ" (even if it sounds a bit childish to me). The equivalent for the German Prospekt leads to "Case" here, but that's a different thing (would be Gehäuse), all around and holding, while Prospekt is the often showy side that you see. Really no English term? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where Bach was the organist" – unclear whether you mean he was organist at both or just the New Church (I thought it was just the latter; if so, relocate the comma).
Comma moved, thank you --GA
  • "Commentators find parallels in the music of composers such as Henry Purcell." – really??? Gardiner has given us a lot of pleasure in his recordings, but sometimes his musings go a bit far. Is there evidence in the music for this assertion? And then "some of these parallels", a back-ref, seems to mix up Purcell with Pachelbel: I don't get it (and "the music in question" is a certain piece by Purcell, or Purcell's style in general—I'd drop this bit).
History: first came the mentioning of Purcell (by those who wrote the article before I even joined Wikipedia), then Gardiner. Dropped. --GA
  • "Wolff points out the relation to works by Dieterich Buxtehude" (see the comma I inserted?). The meaning is unclear: the relation of what? BWV 4, or BWV 150?
general, now there --GA
  • "Features characteristic of his later cantatas, such as recitatives and arias on contemporary poetry, were not yet present, although Bach experienced them in oratorios by Buxtehude" – how do we know he did? Consider: "although Bach may have heard them in oratorios by Buxtehude"? I wouldn't mind briefly knowing what characteristics (this would be important info, in my view, and worth mentioning elsewhere too in your Bach-cantata articles—I hope Dürr didn't let us down on this matter). Also, to be fussy, the logic is faulty: we've been told this is an early work, so it's slightly redudant to tell us that those features are yet present (I can live with it, I guess).
Wording changed. - To say again "no recitatives and arias" is not for you and me, but for a reader less familiar with the topic but perhaps a vague idea that Bach's oratorios, Passions and cantatas are dominated by these operatic features. They are, but not the early ones. Better wording always welcome. --GA
  • "Instead, these works" – which works?
"early cantatas" now repeated --GA
  • "Bach uses the limited instruments at his disposal for unusual combinations" – they were limited in tuning, range, volume? I think you mean "limited number and types of instruments", perhaps?
"types" taken, number doesn't matter (violin sound is violin sound, whether one person plays or 3 or 5) --GA
  • "The hymn stresses the struggle between Life and Death." – we've heard that above, but there it refers only to the fourth stanza; now it's the whole hymn? Perhaps it's "struggle" vs "battle". Really?
The hymn mentions Death in the first line, that's the topic, no? - I don't mind struggle or battle. --GA
  • "in addition" – I hope Wolff has decent evidence for this timing and implied motivation. Is the point made because Bach took the score to Mühlhausen with him?
Wolff said possibly. Nobody knows. I understand that any of the early cantatas (already composed) would have made a good entry for the audition, but that Bach possibly composed this cantata for the Easter occasion of the audition once he knew that was the date. Seems clear to me as a hypothesis, and we will never know for sure. --GA
Then I think the current workding is too certain. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest to say instead of "possibly"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but its style is different from the others" – ok, not a trivial claim for Dürr to make, so does he provide any specific points about this? I'm unsure of the provenance of his claims unless he backs them up with evidence verifiable in the actual scores, or documentation.
At this point we would have to repeat again, that the later chorale cantatas, especially those of the second cantata cycle, included recitatives and arias on paraphrased text, which is handled in Chorale cantata (Bach) which was linked before. Do we really have to say that again? The stress should be on that he seemed not to mind that his style had changed, still found the early work in good company, and never bothered to compose anything to replace it, as far as we know. Can you word that? --GA
  • "The brass parts, a choir of cornetto and three trombones reinforcing the voices" – repetition. You might consider dropping it from the opening, or at least not wording it in the same kind of detail. The issue I asked about above could be clarified here, and the doubling of voices dropped where it appears earlier.
Are you sure all readers will know that "brass" summarizes cornetto and trombones? --GA
No, they may not. But that's not my point. The info is largely repeated. Can it be in one place (preferably further down) with the higher level of detail, not twice, once without detail and a little misleading? Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of "a choir of trombones" in the summary. Insiders will know that cornetto was the typical soprano instrument for that. Just "brass" would probably mislead unfamiliar readers to the trumpet direction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed some of the repeat linking.
Thank you! --GA
  • "with all other parts entering later" – I haven't heard it for a while and haven't time to consult the score; do you mean after the sop. chorale statement is over? What does "later" mean? Perhaps "enterning soon after"?
says now: "after the soprano began". In later works - thinking of "O Mensch, bewein dein Sünde groß" (first St John Passion, then St Matthew Passion) - often the lower voices begin with imitatory entries, and only then the cantus firmus comes in. --GA
Right, so you're talking on a localised level—some readers might not get that. I'll look at it. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I get what you mean by "localised level". The soprano begins a cantus firmus line, the others come in (a bit) later in counterpoint. Next line: same. While in the movement mentioned above, the lower voices begin in counterpoint, the cantus firmus comes in later (and finishes aline sooner). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the final Halleluja in all four voices" – what does that mean?
Supposed to mean that the alto has no cantus firmus function, as it had so far in the movement, - how would you say that? --GA
  • "They were copied from the lost autograph score by six scribes, four of them known by name, including the composer." – bit confusing.
I thought it would be a bit too much to list the four names which include JS Bach, no? But found worth mentioning that even as Thomaskantor, he still did the copy-job. --GA
So it's Bach and three others—that would be clearer. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could we say "the composer himself and three others"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've emailed before, but I can't find your address. If you send it to me I'll attach back some photos I took of the Bach Church in Arnstadt in 2013, one of which will surprise you (for which I have no permission to upload to Commons). Tony (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have email enabled. Looking forward! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But one can't attach to WP emails. Tony (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tony (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggestion[edit]

Wonderful job on the article! Truly, great job! I'd recommend adding the music itself. And in the infobox, just put the key, the year it was composed, and the Period (Which is Baroque). Those are things I like to see in a music infobox.
If you'd like inspiration, my favorite music infobox is from Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E minor, because it specifies everything you need to know about the composition in the infobox, and it's so simple that someone who doesn't know what it is can understand it quickly. It is a good example of a very well constructed infobox.

Cheers,
The f18hornet (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hornet, you mean an audio file? I hope it's good, and preferably period instruments. Commons has a lot of poor performances. Tony (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- looks to me like we're almost there but has someone carried out a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No but the formatting is as for the three Bach cantatas that are FA already (172 - 22 - 165), and I hope the reliability as well, - several reviewers checked carefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Citations
  • Ref 25 needs pp not p
thank you, fixed --GA
  • Likewise ref 28
fixed --GA
Bibliography
  • The IMSLP scores are not a cited source, and should be listed with external links.
done --GA
  • Some of the online entries lack publisher details: Bischof 2015, Bischof 2016, Hewett
done --GA
  • Why is "Emmanual Music" a reliable source?
Emmanuel Music is used for one purpose: they have the best translation available online, which I can tell you as a native German speaker. - Alternatively I could translate myself, but I think this is better. If you look at the Bach-Cantatas site: there are nine translations to English available, feel free to compare. The translations by Pamela Dellal have been used and cited in the other three FA Bach cantatas. --GA
The issue is not the quality of Ms Dellal's translations, but whether Emmanuel Music is a reliable source per the FA criteria. Emmanuel Music describes itself as the Ensemble-in-Residence at Emmanuel Church, Boston; I'm not sure that qualifies it as reliable, but beyond a very slightly raised eyebrow I'm not intending to press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two identically-described "John Eliot Gardner 2007" sources, which should be distinguished in some way.
title and publisher distinguished --GA
  • The publisher of the Grob source is given as ".s-line.de". This is a website name – who is the publisher? (As far as I can see it is Lexikon Geschichte Baden+Württemberg, some kind of dictionary?
I am not sure. I think Mr. Grob publishes his details like Mincham, see below. Comparable to Emmanuel: it's only used to cite the title, which could also be cited to a facsimile, but less conveniently so. --GA
No, Mincham self-publishes, while Grob uses the Lexikon Geschichte website which, I think, should be listed as the publisher rather than the web name.
taken ---GA
  • While I don't doubt Julian Mincham's Bach expertise, I am doubtful whether his self-published essays qualify as a reliable source for WP:FAC purposes. He does not seem to have published other than at this site, so there are issues of editorial supervision etc. (As a matter of personal interest, I knew Julian in the early 1980s, when he and I both taught at what was then Middlesex Polytechnic, later Middlesewx University. Very dynamic, very committed.)
The views on Mincham differ. There were long discussions on Classical music in 2010 when his site was new. Some articles on Wikipedia, written by Nikkimaria in 2013, rely in the Music-section almost entirely on his prose (for example Das neugeborne Kindelein, BWV 122). I like his site for good musical examples, and try to refer only to facts such as keys and meters, not to his personal interpretation. Here, it's just one to-the-point summary I used: "The musicologist Julian Mincham remarks: "The variety of ideas and range of inventiveness is incredible but never disguises the presence of the chorale."" - If that seems too much, the article could live without it, and Mincham be an external link. --GA
Nikki's article that you link to is not a FA and has not been subject to FAC review in which harsher standards of RS are applied. Regretfully, I think Julian has to go as a source; by all means add him to Ext links. Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done ---GA

Subject to these issues, sources look of appropriate quality, and formats are consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a diligent look and good remarks, - please look again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
more action --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinators: Sources all OK now – no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems as if it has already had a good grilling and has been improved. Can see nothing wrong with it, it certainly looks to meet the FA criteria, excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2016 [19].

Passenger pigeon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most famous bird species to have been exterminated by humans, but it was also notable for being a very unique pigeon when it existed. The last specimen died on September 1, 1914, so we missed the hundredth anniversary, but it is hoped that (if it passes here) the article could have a main page appearance on that date this year instead. This was originally intended to be a co-nomination with Rufous-crowned Sparrow, who worked on the article back in 2013 (giving the article a solid "skeleton"), but has since been absent from Wikipedia; I recently pulled myself together and finished my part of the work, and 7&6=thirteen has also made many additions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

Thanks, sounds good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • Is this written in American English? If so, place the {{American English}} template to the article's talk page
American, added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, change "The male was...The female was...The juvenile was" to "The males were...The females were...The juveniles were"; also do this in the Description section
This is how the sources say it, and is the norm in ornithological literature, which we generally follow. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, change "but hunting became intensified" to "but hunting intensified"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, change "This has been described..." to "It has been described..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Taxonomy section, change "...International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature..." to "...International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some American/British English inconsistencies. For example, I see coloration and coloured used.
Fixed that one, see others? FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You there, Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to use American English, it may be best to use empirical units rather than the metric system (instead of cm to in, in to cm); both are actually used in the article, converting cm to in before the Ecology section and converting cm to in after the Ecology section. Be consistent and if you do fix it, use empirical units since this is written in American English
Can you have look at the unit issues, 7&6=thirteen? I'm not much of a numbers guy. There are also two more such issues listed below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to ping User:7&6=thirteen another way... Did it work? FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Just reversed them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be something that occurs throughout the article, though, would it be possible for you to fix them all? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did. I again used FIND to look for "cm" and those all conform. The speed appears twice and is in the right format. So I don't know what else it is you want. Please point me in the right direction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, makes sense, because the remaining issues are when the first number uses mm before in. There are also a bunch of places where "acres" are mentioned, but without any conversion following. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the mms and inches. Just reversed. I guess we will have to manually do a hectares and acres conversion. Not sure what the template is. 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done 100 square miles ((260 km2) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, conversion can often be done by just writing an equation into Google... FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence in the Description section "It is a washed brown on the upper parts, wing covert, secondary feathers, and tail (where it would otherwise have been gray), and white on the primary feathers and underparts,[needs a conjunction or period] the normally black spots are brown,[consider putting a period here] and it is pale gray on the head, lower back, and upper-tail covert feathers, yet the iridescence is unaffected" is a run-on
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Description section, change "...to differentiate the bird's osteology from that other pigeons..." to "...to differentiate the bird's osteology from that of other pigeons...
Added "of". FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Description section, wikilink "musculus supracoracoideus"
There's no article, do you want a red link? FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try to explain it in the article. If you can't, then red link Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 03:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll link it then, I don't think it needs to be explained here past what is already written. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use either mph to kph or mi/h to km/h when converting units
 Done Just reversed them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Diet section, the fruit of dogwood is called Canadian dwarf cornel, Canadian bunchberry, or crackerberry (same fruit different name)
Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Reproduction section, the sentence "ranging from 120 acres (49 ha) to thousands of hectares in size" is inconsistent with units
Was this done? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Relationship with humans section, wikilink "Seneca"

Comment Didn't do that, as Seneca people is already linked earlier in the article. WP:Overlink? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Hunting section, change "...that resulted in a large mass of flying, easily hit pigeons" to "...that resulted in a large mass of flying, easily hit, pigeons"
 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Relationship with humans section, you use the terms "Native Americans" and "American Indians". Pick one (I suggest Native American)
 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Hunting section, change "...the town of Plattsburg, New York, is..." to "...the town of Plattsburg, New York is..."
 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll go through the last points soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been in the review process for nearly a month. Shall I contact the FAC coordinators or let it continue review for a couple more weeks?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty common, though (I've waited far longer), articles are usually not archived "early" when they have a certain amount of comments, supports, and no opposes. Pinging coordinators won't bring more reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images[edit]
  • change "...illustration of this species (a male)..." to "...illustration of the species (a male)..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References[edit]
  • For all references that require one to sign into an account (when redirected to the given link), use {{Registration required}}, assuming registration is free, as with ref no. 14 (Johnson and Clayton et al.)
I've removed such URLs instead, they are redundant, since the DOI is already a link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added all (many) relevant blue links to references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the citations and added any possible links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that when I click on the links in this reference, there is a discrepancy as to the names of the authors.
Hung, C. M.; Shaner, P. J. L.; Zink, R. M.; Liu, W. C.; Chu, T. C.; Huang, W. S.; Li, S. H. (2014). "Drastic population fluctuations explain the rapid extinction of the passenger pigeon". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (29): 10636–10641. Bibcode:2014PNAS..11110636H. doi:10.1073/pnas.1401526111
I do not know why. Nor do I know how to resolve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the vocalization score
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Map-Ectopistes-migratorius.png: can we be more specific about the source - was this map published, is it held in an archive...?
Added book source to the file page, better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mershon's_The_Passenger_Pigeon_(frontispiece,_crop).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added — to all page ranges per earlier Peer Review of this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, and on this note, seems the link to that peer review is not working? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Added link to earlier Peer Review of this article 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, is there any reason why the link to that peer review is red on the passenger pigeon talk page? FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was archived. Probably changed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Sort of. formatting is wrong. Not sure how to deal with the template. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better than before, at least. I had never seen that peer review before because the link didn't work... But nice that you made the request for it! FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing this article forever. Or so it seems. So I had 'local knowledge.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

This is a really comprehensive article with remarkable flawlessness in presentation, language and informativeness. Dunkleosteus77 has already taken care of Lead and the introduction of Taxonomy. I begin from where he/she left off.

Evolution[edit]
  • I find some vagueness at the start of Evolution. It was even suggested that the mourning dove belonged to the genus Ectopistes and was listed by some authors as E. carolinensis. Could we cite any article from those "authors"? Or a reword?
Mentioned one, though I'm not sure who made the recombination originally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have often found there is trouble when simply names are mentioned without identity. For instance we do not know who Kevin P. Johnson and Fulton are. If you can not identify them then simply write a 2010 or 2012 study. The references already name the authors, so why invite vagueness?
Would something like "American geneticist" or "researcher" be enough? I've removed the first names of those that did not have articles, perhaps it's better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well we must get the professions correct. Sorry I could not see what changes you have made. Anyway I think the best way would be to say 2010/2012 study as you have done elsewhere. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the two latter names, but kept Beth Shapiro, since she has an article, and because she headed the first ever study... FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DNA in old museum specimens is often degraded and fragmentary, and passenger pigeon specimens have been used in various studies to discover improved methods of analyzing and assembling genomes from such material. DNA samples are often taken from the toe pads of bird skins in museums, as this can be done without causing significant damage to valuable specimens. This looks like it has more to do with the utility of this species to human beings rather than its evolution.
I can somewhat see what you mean, but I think it is relevant to mention the methods used and the importance of the species, as a "type example" for studies of extinct animal DNA. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I can not see where else this could fit in! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird was able to hybridize with the Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) in captivity, though the offspring was infertile. If you are referring to this as an observation made during some study, and not as if such hybridization was natural and common, then mention when it was observed.
The case in point is Whitman's aviary described at length under "Last survivors". I was concerned I would add too much duplicate information if I explained that at length there, but I have clarified a bit, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you should put all the info about this under Taxonomy where I think it would be more interesting. So you will also be saved from the duplication issue. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all that seemed relevant there. The hybrids are only mentioned once again in the later section, as part of the explanation of what happened to the last surviving group. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed that all links used in the cladogram are duplicate.
That's common across all FAs I know of, it just makes it easier for the reader to know what all these names in succession refer to. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess Etymology could be made into a different section altogether, what has this got to do with the Taxonomy?
I can understand the concern, though as above, this is also common for FAs, and here the explanation of the scientific name at least is relevant to taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have not seen many FAs then let it be so if that's the style. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • "Iridescent" is a duplicate link.
Removed second time. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like carmine, I think rufous too deserves a link.
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plumage of the sexes was similar during their first year." I think "juvenile males show change in plumage after a year" better conveys the fact.
I think that would be an oversimplification, because I don't think the iridescence appeared in either sex until this time, therefore the female changed as well. But this is not clearly stated in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat[edit]
  • Why not link the United States just like the other countries under this section?
Linked at first mention now, which is under evolution. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology and behavior[edit]
  • ...it accounted for between 25 and 40% of the total... I guess here it would be better to write % as percent, adds to the MoS.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beechnuts" and "chestnuts" are duplicate links in Diet.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detail about when the bird gained sexual maturity should come before going into the details of mating. At least it should not figure at the very end.
Heh, it is kind of a chicken and the egg situation, where the cycle should begin and where it should end. Now it is mentioned in relation to juveniles leaving the nest, because that part already deals with development to adulthood. I think it makes more sense there, since if it was added to the beginning, it would be a bit disjointed from the rest of that text, which starts somewhat "in medias res" with the adult birds finding nesting grounds... FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should state here itself that John James Audubon is a naturalist, not in the following section.
Not sure what is meant (since he is already described as a naturalist at first mention), that I remove the second mention of naturalist? There it is used collectively for Audubon and Wilson, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the first mention? Is it not just above the second quote? Add the naturalist fact wherever it is, and no need to omit the second mention.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First mention is before the first quote (right under the Ecology and behavior header)! FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry, I have been too inattentive here! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link incubation.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship with humans[edit]
  • International Union for the Conservation of Nature Add the abbreviation IUCN as you did for ICZN.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Last survivors, endling is a duplicate link.
Removed the first time which was an easter egg link. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General: "Observers", "many observers" are used continuously throughout the article. I am not sure if this should be treated as vague at some places, but if such repetition could be avoided and reworded, I think it would be better. Not much of an issue, though.

Cut some instances. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the impeccable writing and exploring of several details without deviating from the main topic. Also, I noted a positive point about this article, that much caution has been used about what all to link and maintain consistency, for instance linking just the geographical landmarks and not the States, I mean it's a good job! I have noticed only a few small flaws that once resolved should make the article all-perfect. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We'll go through these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response! Great, FunkMonk! We shall continue with the few things left. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : All the issues I had raised have been appropriately addressed. So I feel the article should make a perfect FA. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the "last points" were all done. I did not add one link for as it appeared and was linked earlier in the article. That would be a matter of editorial judgment per WP:Overlink. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No no, you're right to ping. I've been a bit busy and haven't reviewed as many FACs as I should. Consider this a placeholder.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to having cultural importance, .. - looks odd where it is as the flow seems chronological. In fact, I wonder whether it adds anything at all
though there were still millions of birds by the 1850s - works better as "in" rather than "by" I think
NB: I made these changes
  • Thanks, took your suggestions, and your edits look good! FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot - support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

It's an impressive article and illustrates our short-sightedness when dealing with other species. A few points:

  • "It has been described as one of the greatest and most senseless extinctions induced by humans." - This sentence needs rephrasing because the subject of the preceding sentence was not extinction.
"The eradication of this species has been described as one of the greatest and most senseless extinctions induced by humans." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lower throat and breast were richly pinkish-rufous and became a paler pink further down, and white on the abdomen and undertail covert feathers." - This sentence needs some attention.
Rephrased, better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description section could do with some wikilinking of the less familiar terms.
 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... scolding call. This call, described as "kee-kee-kee-kee" or "tete! tete! tete!", was used to call either..." - Too many calls!
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were also records of stragglers from Scotland, Ireland, and France," - This is somewhat ambiguous, as if the stragglers originated in Europe.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such a number would likely represent a large fraction of the entire population at the time, if not all." - "if not all" seems a curious remark.
Reworded, better? Or do you mean the claim itself? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... mainly persisting around 1/10,000 of the several billions estimated in the 1800s." - the meaning of this is unclear.
Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The American chestnut trees that provided much of the mast the passenger pigeon fed on" - Perhaps "on which the passenger pigeon fed".
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the day, it left the roosting forest to forage on more open land" - This is in the singular but the rest of this paragraph is in the plural.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.1 kg (0.22 lb) of acorns per day" - mostly you have been putting imperial measurements first.
Fixed. I see a few more inconcistensies under description, will fix them soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this brooding period both parents took care of the nestling, with the males attending for midday." - I am unsure what the last part of this sentence means.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was of particular value on the frontier, and some colonies counted on the pigeon to support their population." - Perhaps the word "colonies" could be replaced here being somewhat ambiguous.
Changed to settlements. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During a nesting in 1871" - Could be better worded.
Changed around, better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scattered nestings are reported into the 1880s, but the birds were now weary," - They might well have been weary but I fancy you meant "wary".
Hehe, changed! FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, will fix these soon! FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All should now be answered, Cwmhiraeth. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Supporting on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Burklemore1[edit]

I'll have a look through sometime soon. As I'm very busy with things at the moment I won't be able to remain on Wikipedia as much as I wish to, so I apologize in advance. On first glance, however, this is one excellent article. Must have been immense work! Burklemore1 (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the article now. Will be leaving comments shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link the word "rump" for those who are not familiar with morphological terms of birds and such. Whether or not it's a word many may know, it would still be convenient for others who would want to know more about it.
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly are tertial feathers? I'm familiar with the primary and secondaries, are these perhaps a third set of feathers?
Here's a diagram:[20] Linked in article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can, you could also explain or link keel, radius and ulna. Will add more later, looking good so far.
Linked keel. What do we need to know about the radius and ulna other than that they are wing bones? The sentence currently says "The wing bones (humerus, radius, ulna, carpometacarpus)". FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a work-in-progress for years. By a number of editors, upon whose shoulders we gratefully stand. Article information and statistics 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two of the words in parenthesis are also wikilinked, so I think it would be nice to link the remaining terms if possible. Don't worry about explaining it either, that was my own error and have struck it. The work within those years seem to have paid off so far, I only have a few more comments once I have read over the remaining sections. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon hatching, the nestling (or squab) was blind and sparsely covered with yellow, hairlike down." Unclear for me at the last bit, what do you mean by yellow, hairlike down? I've read the remaining sections of the article and could not find any noticeable problems, so once this has been addressed I can support.
Would a link to Down feather help? FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not sure if it's what you meant, Burklemore1, I've added a link to down, since it might be useful in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading the link, it seems to be perfectly related to the sentence. Now that all my points have been addressed, I can now support this article for promotion. Well done to all who were involved in this colossal project. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just returned from a fortnight in Mexico, will review as soon as I catch up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

One major problem before I review in detail. It's normal to write science articles in metric, although many projects outside physics also give US units in parentheses. That is the case even for regional endemics such as White-breasted Nuthatch, an existing FA. I see above why you changed, but I think that writing it as a US local topic (rather than a science article about a US species) is not in accordance with our normal practice and inconsistent with existing bird FACs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on this. Maybe it warrants some more opinions? Might you have a look at this, User:7&6=thirteen? FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a local (i.e., North American) article. But there aren't a lot of bird species that are truly world wide.
OTOH, the encyclopedia is world wide. And the adherence to English units of measurement (instead of metric) is idiosyncratic to the United States. If we had followed the law that was passed by Congress under the Carter administration (and repeated under Reagan) we all would have been metric a long time ago, and our children would be better off. The only hard part of metrics was converting to English measurements in the first place.
Economically and technologically, the U.S. is the tail and not the dog in the world. There are 7.3 billion people in the world, and a whole lot less in the USA. Eventually the States will come around.
So my feeling on this is that User:Jimfbleak is right, and we should put metrics first, then English. Just my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I swap the measurements under description, can you take the rest of the article, User:7&6=thirteen? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to it for three days. I am up-to-my-ass-in-alligators in the real world in the interim. But I'll do it then. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, sounds kind of unpleasant! Cool, I'll fix description tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally unpleasant. Just real life deadlines. Maybe even a seriously good opportunity, but I have to comply if I want to get in line. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All measurements should be switched around now, Jimfbleak. And User:7&6=thirteen, I guess it depends on what "up-to-my-ass-in-alligators" means! FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the specific difference with the passenger pigeon compared to other bird FAs is that it has been extinct for over 100 years and contemporary references came from a time where imperial measurements were far more widely used. In the UK, modern engineering practices use metric for everything, but in Victorian times, it was all imperial. Heck, we only got rid of 12 pennies to the shilling 45 years ago! If you've swapped all the measurements to metric already, this point is moot, but I just thought it was worth making. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already done, but nice with some perspective! FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and a couple of comments Excellent stuff. Just a few things you might consider
  • offspring was infertile — unless you know there was only one chick, should be "were"
  • American behavior scientist —behavioural?
  • You don't need the species' name in the image captions, images are assumed to be of the article's topic unless otherwise stated

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will fix these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed most. Left a few captions, where it might have created a bit of confusion without the name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GBooks links should be truncated, usually at page number
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals, and if so how these are formatted
  • Edition statements aren't typically part of the title
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN44: is there a spelling error here?
Removed publisher, where the error occurred, as publishers are usually not mentioned in journal citations here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how chapters are formatted
  • FN71-72: do you have a secondary source to confirm the significance of this cultural reference?
I think you need to look at this one, User:7&6=thirteen. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done See Note A and references there under (currently footnotes 72, 73, 74, and 75).
Turns out that was a very good suggestion. I think the new sources and quotes add dimension to the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN94103: society name should be properly capitalized
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN110113: where are you getting this location?
It is the dateline of the article "Boston" Special to the New York Times. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers
  • Fn126135 has too much italicization
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN127136 should include publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Want to split these, User:7&6=thirteen? Six points for each... We should be pretty close to the end. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unaddressed issues[edit]

I think all of the issues that are indicated above have been addressed except for the following:

Source review - spotchecks not done
  • GBooks links should be truncated, usually at page number
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals, and if so how these are formatted
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how chapters are formatted
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers

Hope that benchmark moves this along. Thanks for the reviews and helpful suggestions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure these days, but it seems spot-checks are mainly done when the nominators are inexperienced, or if there is a real concern about copyright violations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially correct; I don't think we need a spotcheck here. Now, are the outstanding source review points above taken care of? cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per my request, User: Magioladitis ran a fix on the citations.
15:33, 4 March 2016‎ Magioladitis (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (114,864 bytes) (0)‎ . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes using AWB (11964)
Does that satisfy the concerns? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:GoingBatty has fixed references here, here and here. He also removed an external link that was used as a reference and combined references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure from the many new comments, but have all these issues now been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, have all source issues now been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor additions[edit]

Just a minor 'heads-up.' Footnotes #66 and #s 74-82 have been added, along with some minor text additions associated with the new citations. Just wanted to call this to your attention, so that you are not being reqjuired to 'recreate the wheel.' An external link or two were also added. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A miscellaneous error[edit]

Can somebody fix this please? 16:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks, User: ‎GoingBatty. Who also did some policing of the references, external links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, all the source issues have been addressed.
Atsme added a few comments. These keep straggling in ('a Camel is a horse designed by a committee'), and sometimes it feels like we are looking for 'the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow'. I am sure she means well, and even that the comments (which I think you have now addressed) are well met. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, yeah, I had one question for Atsme (a she, btw), then it should be ready for further actions. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Atsme[edit]

Support - The article is nicely written and very informative. It certainly deserves promotion to FA. There are a few minor tweaks that I wanted to bring to your attention, although they are not deal breakers. I focused only on the lead.

  1. "The scientific name also refers to this feature." While it is grammatically correct since the preceding sentence describes "this", it may cause a reader to refer back for verification thereby interrupting flow. I recommend replacing "this feature" with "its migratory characteristics". Not a biggy.
  2. ..."physically similar" is ok, but "morphologically similar" is better for maintaining a more encyclopedic tone, especially considering the subsequent mention of genetics.
  3. "....eastern North America, but was also recorded elsewhere, and it primarily bred around the Great Lakes." Should be "...North America and was also recorded elsewhere, but bred primarily around..." The "ands" and "buts" are transposed. 😆
  4. "massive and industrial"? Commercialized is already mentioned, so I'm not sure what industrial means.
  5. The last paragraph of the lead can be tightened - "Passenger pigeons were hunted by Native Americans, but hunting intensified after the arrival of Europeans, particularlyrefers to a higher degree than is usual or average while especially singles out; both are correct in the 19th century. Pigeon meat was commercialized as cheap food, resulting in hunting on a massive scale for many decades. There were several other factors contributing to the decline and subsequent extinction of the species including shrinking breeding populations necessary for preservation of the species and widespread deforestation which destroyed habitat. A slow decline between about 1800 ..."
  6. "The eradication of this species has..." overuse of "the" and "this" - try "Eradication of the species has...."
  7. The last sentence needs to go since it was incorporated with the "many other factors..." sentence.

I am guilty of having a lead fetish. Atsme📞📧 16:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Took all the suggestions, though I think the following part is now a bit unclear? "including shrinking breeding populations necessary for preservation of the species" Maybe this could be "...shrinking of (the large?) breeding populations..."? FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol* I was up and at 'em early this morning - awakened by the sounds of a tornado warning on the iPhone!! It has been a busy morning. PS: I love this article!! Atsme📞📧 15:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and woah, watch out! FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2016 [21].

History of York City F.C. (1980–present)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the history of York City Football Club, an association football club based in York, England, from 1980 to the present time. The article follows on from History of York City F.C. (1908–80), which has been a featured article since November 2015. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I passed this article at GAN and thought it was on track for a crack at FAC. Will offer some more thoughts below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the club from 1980 to the present time covers the period from the 1980–81 season, through their fluctuating fortunes in the 1980s and 1990s and relegation from and return into the Football League, to the current season. - this strikes me as a bit repetitive and laboured, why not something like, "This page covers the period from the 1980–81 season, through their fluctuating fortunes in the 1980s and 1990s and relegation from and return into the Football League, to the current season."
Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
''winning promotion into the newly renamed Second Division, now called this upon the formation of the Premier League. - why not "winning promotion back to the third tier of English football, now renamed as the Second Division."
Reworded to "winning promotion back into the third tier of English football, now renamed as the Second Division." Mattythewhite (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok-more later. RL beckons.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In sum, tentative support though I concede as an enthusiast I might miss some prose tweaks. So consider this pending further supports, though this is a given anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the goal coming from a late penalty scored..." -> courtesy of a late penalty
  • "After being unbeaten in the last nine matches..." should be a comma after matches
  • "again drawing 1–1 at home to Liverpool..." comma after Liverpool
  • I would move ref 36 to the end of the sentence, so it comes after punctuation
    • Per MOS:PUNCTFOOT, "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space". Therefore, I've placed references after the text they cite, rather than the nearest punctutation. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma before ref 43
  • "Ward's assistant Alan Little..." commas after assistant and Little
    • I feel commas there would break up the flow a little bit. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They lost only..." I would switch this so it says only lost
  • comma before ref 58
  • "For the second consecutive season..." needs to be a comma after season
  • I know you're trying to reference specific items when you have a ref without punctuation, but I would just move it to the end of the sentence, so it complies with the MOS
  • In mid-December 1997 &By mid-October 1998 need commas after the months. This should apply to other instances as well
  • comma before ref 82
  • According to our wikipedia page, the Walkers Stadium wasn't opened until 2001. Does that mean the FA Cup tie, would have been at Filbert Street instead?
    • Good spot, that was me being daft. Added an additional reference for the ground. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being beaten 2–0 at home..." -> losing 2–0 at home to
  • comma before ref 103
  • "They won none of twenty consecutive matches, gained five more points[115] and finished bottom of the Third Division." I know what you're saying in this sentence, but it's a bit clunky, I would try and make it flow a bit better
    • Reworded to "They won none of their final twenty fixtures, garnering only five more points as they finished bottom of the Third Division". Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma before ref 129
  • "being beaten 2–1 on aggregate..." -> losing 2–1 on aggregate
  • You have a problem throughout the article with introductory statements not having a comma. An example is At the start of 2008-09. I would go through the article and check that similar sentences structured like this, all have commas after the introductory part
  • I'm slightly confused by the Evening Press and York Evening Press refs. They go to the same site, so does that not mean they are one and the same?
    • It's the same newspaper, but it has changed name numerous times. I've gone with what the newspaper was called at the time the articles were published, for historical accuracy. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support the article now my issues have been addressed. Great work! NapHit (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, given this has stagnated, some very minor queries...

  • "Former York player and club director Barry Swallow took over as caretaker manager in March 1982[7] and the team finished in seventeenth place," out of? Not necessarily clear to the reader if Swallow did a good job to keep them up in the division. There's very little context over the promotion/relegation system, which isn't exactly meant to be a critique of these history articles.
    • There was no relegation from Div 4 at that time, instead it was a re-election system in which the bottom four clubs had to apply to stay in the FL. This is alluded to earlier in the article, and a wikilink is provided to Re-election (Football League). Mattythewhite (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They lost 7–0 in the replay at Anfield—the club's record cup defeat," the citation says "York went on to draw 1-1 with Liverpool at Bootham Crescent in the fifth round, but lost 7-0 in the replay at Anfield four days later in what was the club's record cup defeat," given how this has been worded, there's always a chance the reader may think the record has since been broken. The other issue is if York play a team who beat them 8-0 in a cup competition, that BBC article isn't going to update itself. Best to cite a stats website like Statto for club records.
  • "A week later they returned to Wembley for the play-off final, when they beat Luton Town 2–1", should that not be 'where'?

Will have another look at some point this weekend. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Apologies for the delay!

  • References are formatted accordingly and consistently.
  • No dead links.
  • I've crosschecked some sources (12, 13, 18, 19, 26, 31, 46, 47, 49, 67, 72, 106, 132, 133), no real signs of close paraphrasing or misleading info.
  • Was concerned about the differing titles of the York Evening Press, but your reasoning above is fine.

Support, on comprehensiveness and sourcing, nice work. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2016 [22].

Serpin[edit]

Nominator(s): T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a protein superfamily that is significant to both fundamental science (protein conformational change and enzyme inhibition) and applied science (mutations cause a wide array of Genetic disorder). It has been a Good Article since 2007, and has been significantly improved since then (particularly images, layout, readability and accessibility to lay audience). There are relatively few high-quality articles on protein superfamilies currently, so it would be good to have an FA example. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from delldot ∇.[edit]

Hi Evo & Evo, looking good so far, although I'm only partway through. Thought I'd leave these comments to let you get started. Mostly minor copy editing stuff:

  • Might it make sense to add into the first sentence or para what organisms they occur in? e.g. "Serpins are a superfamily of proteins with similar structures, found in all kingdoms of organisms, that were first identified for their protease inhibition activity."
Done - Good point, although I've put their occurrence second in the sentence since it seems the subsidiary point of the sentence.
  • I dunno if you can do anything about this, but the first para says "inhibit" so much the word starts to lose its meaning.
Done - I've inhibit managed inhibit to inhibit reduce inhibit the inhibit occurences inhibit a inhibit little. A keen eye could perhaps excise one or two more.
I replaced one with 'acts on', now that's a normal number of 'inhibits'! delldot ∇. 06:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In History, why is this a new para? "Examples of cross-class inhibitory serpins..." My understanding is short paras are discouraged.
Done - (suspect you mean Activity section) I've combined the paragraphs, since they were clearly discussing the same topic.
  • Citations needed: "It is presently unclear whether any mammalian serpins function to inhibit caspases in vivo." "Structural biology has therefore played a central role in the understanding of serpin function and biology." "Around the same time, the first structures were solved..." and "The structures indicated that the inhibitory mechanism involved..."
I'll address these over the next week. Some are easy. A couple I'll have to look up.
Done - The caspase sentence has been removed, since it was an overemphasis on caspases, which held no particular significance in that section. The rest have had references added (or reviews repeated from elsewhere)
  • In Protease inhibition, the last sentence seems like a non sequitur. Could there be transition wording or could it be incorporated elsewhere? "In Caenorhabditis elegans, all serpins lack signal sequences..."
Done - I think it was originally included as an example of intracellular serpins, but it's was simultaneously over-specific and vague so I'v moved it down to the Distribution section.
  • In structure, Reactive Centre Loop is inconsistently capitalized.
Done
  • Why the switch from plural to singular? "Serpins are classed as irreversible inhibitors and a suicide inhibitor"
Done
  • Can you replase one 'basis' with another word? "The understanding of the molecular basis of this interaction formed the basis of the development..."
Done - definite improvement
  • in Latent conformation, does this exist only in proteins that do not have the described in the previous section, or do some proteins do both?
To the best of my knowledge, latency and activation are relatively rare and no serpins have been described that show both. Jcwhizz may know more.
Ah so this is instead, not in addition. Does that go without saying, or should that be indicated? delldot ∇. 06:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Aha, antithrobin can do both (convert to latency, and be allosterically activated by a cofactor). I've therefore updated the section to make clear that both are possible for the same serpin.
  • The section Deficiency is very short. Could it be fleshed out with any examples?
In progress
I'm not a stickler for the cosmetic stuff so I won't object to the two-sentence paragraph, but it would be good to have examples of the conditions that can result, as the other subsections have. delldot ∇. 06:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Whilt looking for more examples it became clear that deficiency almost invariably refers to deficiency due to polymerisation. The few examples of null mutants or less active mutatnts I've now grouped together into a single subsection. I've made clear at the beginning of the Disease section and Polymerisation subsection that polymerisation is the most common mechanism of serpin-caused disease
  • Inconsistent spelling of α-Antitrypsin deficiency.
Done
  • Unclear: "Each monomer of the serpin aggregate in the relaxed conformation (RCL inserted into the A-sheet)."
Done
  • Unnecessary 'in'? "The domain-swapped trimer (of antitrypsin) forms in via the exchange of..."
Done
  • I think 'and / or' is discouraged. Would 'and' work just as well by itself here? "Lung and / or liver transplantation is also used to treat"
Done - Hadn't noticed that one! "And" is definitely sufficient.
  • "gene targeting in induced pluripotent stem cells has successfully been deployed to correct the Z-antitrypsin defect..." This is the only mention of the Z-antitrypsin defect, can it be described or linked?
Done - I think the term can be safely removed and left as the more descriptive "antitrypsin polymerisation defect"

In general I have no major complaints! Well done making this tough-to-comprehend topic understandable! delldot ∇. 04:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the points so far. I've addressed most of them. the ones that require some more reading I'll try to get to over the week. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good so far! I replied to a couple of your replies. (Oh, BTW, I think the {{done}} template is discouraged on this page, see the blue box up top). I will be back soon with more input. delldot ∇. 06:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • "Antitrypsin augmentation therapy is approved for severe..." Could this sentence be expanded a bit to explain what Antitrypsin augmentation therapy is? Do they just pump a bunch of it into you?
Done - turns out basically yes, not even recombinant currently, jut purified from donor plasma.
  • In Degradation, I think it might help to add a topic sentence up front to help introduce and transition to the new topic. Something like, "once a serpin has successfully formed a complex with its target enzyme, it must be broken down and disposed of."
Done
  • I think the Signalling section needs to be fleshed out a bit. It might also make sense to move it above Degradation, since wouldn't it seem more logical for the latter to come at the end? But do these really need to be separate sections? What if Conformational change in non-inhibitory function were broadened to be, like, Other things that serpins also do? The signalling seems like it could follow that para. Then the whole article might flow better: How they function in cells, why it's bad when they don't, evolution. Not sure if this would work, just an idea.
Done - I added some more information, then realised that it's really two different phenomena that already have logical places to merge. Where signalling is merely due to the cleave of signalling cascade proteases, I've merged the info into the Function section. Where signalling is due to direct binding of the R-conformation, I've merged it into the Conformational change in non-inhibitory functions section. Degradation is now under the normal functioning, before the Disease section.

Gotta sleep, more later! delldot ∇. 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last few:

  • In Human, might it be better to spell out 'about' or 'roughly' rather than a tilde? "analysis of ~500 serpins from 2001".
Done
  • I like the idea of hiding the massive table in a navbox collapsed. Might it look better like this rather than having the column headers showing in the title bar?
Done - I've implemented your formatting and moved PDB codes to the end.
  • In Insect, does 'toll' need to be capitalized? Should this be hyphenated, Toll-mediated? "...which results in Toll mediated signaling..."
Done - lower case is correct, and hyphenated is appropriate
  • In Plant, could "the most well-studied example" be written "the best studied example"? delldot ∇. 01:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Nice job so far! Just one additional comment:

  • "The presence of serpins in plants has long been recognised,[166] indeed, an abundant barley grain serpin (barley protein Z) is one of the major protein components in beer." I think this sentence carries a false implication, that recognising serpins and putting them in beer are linked. I'm picturing like the ancient Egyptians or whoever going "aren't these serpins great? Let's put them in beer!" I think just splitting into two sentences and removing the 'indeed' would fix this.

Anyway, ping me when you're done with all my comments, looks like you're super close! delldot ∇. 07:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, everything above is addressed. I read it again so of course I now have more comments (don't worry, there's fewer each time!).

  • Is this supposed to be capitalized? "a large Extracellular multiprotein complex" I changed one before noticing this one and being overcome by self-doubt. also, maybe a link for extracellular?
Done - must have been a copy-paste error some time back
  • The Non-inhibitory roles section is smallish. Is there another sentence that could be said about this? "heat shock serpin HSP47 is a chaperone, essential for proper folding of collagen." What role does it play?
Done - elaborated on HSP47 and added in ovalbumin to make the section cover all non-inhibitory serpins with reasonably well-established function
  • Is this correct hyphenation? "In some serpins, the S-to -R transition"
Done
  • "polymers are slowly removed via endoplasmic reticulum associated degradation." Should this be "endoplasmic-reticulum-associated" or "endoplasmic reticulum-associated"?
Done - wording order change improves clarity anyway
  • The ref Acosta 2015 uses semicolons instead of commas between author names. Same with Mushunje 2004 and Walenga 2002 (also names not initials) and Fermi 1984 (and aren't you supposed to fill a parameter for what language the source is if it's not English?) Also some titles capitalize every word (e.g. de Serres 2002 and Egeberg 1965) and most don't.
Are there semi-automated editing help tools? I'll go through the ref formatting manually if not, but it might be more efficiently done by others!

Real minor stuff. It's promotable now, so I'll go ahead and give my support now on the assumption that you'll do whatever's best with these last few. I did some minor copy editing, you may want to double check it though. delldot ∇. 18:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jfdwolff[edit]

I'm impressed by the current state of the article (I created its first version in March 2004...) Well done to Evolution and evolvability (and of course to Jcwhizz who has contributed significantly to the content). This is well outside my professional scope so my comments will be limited. JFW | T@lk 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • My main concern is about the decision to use primary sources as support for many statements. For clinical articles we are quite strict about secondary sources, although I am fully aware that this is less of a concern for the basic sciences. Is there any scope for increasing reliance on secondary sources? I am worried that claims about transcortin deficiency "caus[ing] chronic fatigue" might be misinterpreted, and I would suggest that all associations with human disease are supported with WP:MEDRS-compatible secondary source whenever possible.
I see your point (particularly the megatable, which contains almost 50% of the total references). I'm not usually involved in MED articles, but the disease section and table of human serpins definitely fall within the remit of WP:MEDRS, so I'll put that as a priority. For these sections (and much of the rest of the article), there are a half dozen or so extensive reviews cited that can be used to support more of the paragraphs to increase the weighting of secondary sources.
Done (maybe) - I've replaced all lead citations with major secondary sources. I've also made sure that all main points made in the Disease section are supported by a secondary source as well as any primaries. Finjally, I've addeed the two main secondary sources for the megatable in its heading. In fact the megatable has a high degree of overlap with the tables presented in both of those references. If appropriate, I'd prefer to keep the primary refs in the table, mostly so that as new functions are discovered, they can be easily added. I'd particularly value your opinion on the use of the main secondary sources in the column name of the the deficiency column of the megatable.
  • Other point: consistency of capitalisation in the "Decription" column of the "Table of human serpins", and occasionally in "Common name" and "Disease / Effect of deficiency".
Done - I've gone though and made a stack of clarity and consistency edits. I find it easy to miss those sorts of things in tables.
  • In the same table: what is "Angiodemia"?
Done - wow, it's amazing how long a typo can go unrecognised.

Response from T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)[edit]

@Delldot and Jfdwolff: I've gone through all of the comments above! Let me know if you think the responses sufficient, or if you recommend any further changes. The article is already much improved from your suggestions. One final question is what are your opinions of the External links section? Lists of laboratories seem to be common in science articles, but I'm never sure how well they are kept up to date, or weighted by significance. Finally, I've taken the liberty of emailing the lab heads on that list to see if any are willing to cast their eye over the article before it finishes review. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on lead from Aa77zz[edit]

Why is it considered necessary to have citations in the lead of this article? The usual practice is to include citations only for direct quotations. See WP:LEADCITE. Aa77zz (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I was unaware of the WP:LEADCITE policy! The citations are the broadest academic reviews on the topic, a decision based the decision on WP:MCB articles like DNA, gene and enzyme. It seems to be relatively common for science articles to use the lead to place important general references (list of WP:MCB articles of FA-class). However, given this isn;t anything close to official policy, I'm happy to go with consensus of a few editors (delldot, Jfdwolff - any opinions?). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is there is no rule against putting citations in the lead, and you need them if the info is not cited elsewhere in the article, but they're optional as long as it is. I can't think of any reason to keep them out, but I'm not worried either way. delldot ∇. 02:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Seppi333[edit]

  • Support promotion to FA – this is one of the best formatted FA candidates that I've gone through in terms of article layout and text formatting. I've manually checked the article source for MOS:NUMERAL, MOS:NBSP, and MOS:IMAGE (specifically, MOS:ALT and MOS:CAPTION) compliance and made a few minor tweaks. I also used AWB to group named refs together and used 2 scripts to standardize MOS:DATEFORMAT and MOS:DASH formatting. I also made a few minor copyedits to the article text. As far as I can tell, the text/source formatting is fully MOS-compliant at the moment.
Here is a summary of my changes.
I'm not entirely familiar with the subject matter of the article, so I'm not particularly comfortable with doing a thorough review of the article text; however, on a cursory read-through the text does appear coherent and well-written. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from User:jcwhizz[edit]

  • Support promotion to FA – I declare a conflict of interest in that I contributed to earlier versions of the serpin page. I work in the serpin field, and I can confirm to the best of my knowledge that the data in the page is a high quality and accurate reflection of the field and is up-to-date. I'd also like to say that as a total non expert in terms of creating and editing wiki pages that I'm incredibly impressed with how the community (and in particular User:Evolution and evolvability) have worked on this page to make it more attractive and accessible! All the best, James Whisstock.

Response 2 from T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)[edit]

Thank you to the recommendations, and edits delldot, Jfdwolff, Aa77zz. I believe that all the major points above have now been resolved (or at least discussed). Please let me know if there are any outstanding points you'd like further addressed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and evolvability I'm still not very happy with some of the sources. Only secondary ones are suitable for medical associations. The "chronic fatigue" reference is unchanged... JFW | T@lk 21:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfdwolff: Ah yes, I'd thought that putting the secondary refs up in the header would be sufficient. I might need I've made a few alternative referencing formats of the megatable in a sandbox page:
  1. Version with only secondary sources in header, primaries in cells - new functions easily added when discovered
  2. Version with both primary and secondary source for each cell - messy, but ensures that anyone who looks at the primary source ref is fully aware of the secondary source
  3. version with secondary references in header only - removes temptation to rely on primary sources, but I can imagine new functions being added to the table with no sources at all
Originally, I was keen to retain the primary sources in addition to the secondary and so preferenced #1, but I guess that any 'new functions' should only be added once there's a suitable secondary review of them anyway! Additionally, the wording of functional descriptions could be made more specific, e.g.:
Deficiency may cause chronic fatigue → Deficiency-causing mutations associated with chronic fatigue
What do you think of the different table versions and wording suggestion? Thanks for your help! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution and evolvability I don't think we need the primary sources mentioned at all, provided the secondary source provides the serpin-disease association. I am happy to yield to a second opinion, but formally speaking WP:MEDRS applies. Sorry to be such a nuisance! JFW | T@lk 17:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally I agree with the wording change. Association does not prove causation. JFW | T@lk 17:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfdwolff: Not a nuisance at all, it's important to get it right. I've implemented the secondary source only table in the article I'll store the current version of the table in this talk page for reference in case anyone needs to chase down a primary reference for some reason. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I really, really disagree - fair enough cite a secondary source for medical condition, but in in a lot of cases the primary citations ARE important and relate to scientific findings where primary sources can and should be cited - the maspin entry for example is now incorrect, and removing valid information that actually is useful to the community simply because one doesn't want to cite a primary source seem odd and non-helpful. User:Jcwhizz - James Whisstock.
OK - I'm not expert enough a user to undo all that has been done to the table without causing utter mayhem! I think it is essential that primary sources in the table are cited for scientific findings - these make reference to valid peer reviewed papers that usually are published in high profile journals. I am happy for secondary sources to be cited for diseases. So we don't get into a game of tennis and prior to attempting to re-reference the table does this seem reasonable to all?. User:Jcwhizz - James Whisstock.
@Jcwhizz and Jfdwolff: I've had a think about this and I have a possible solution. I agree that it would be a shame to sacrifice the utility of the references for the non-medical statements by just citing secondary sources. What's more, the main secondary sources ([1][2]) are from a biochemistry research angle rather than a medical angle, so aren't actually ideal for WP:MEDRS anyway.
What I suggest is to ensure that all medical claims are kept only in a "Human disease" column, and are only kept if good secondary/tertiary sources can be found for them. Mouse models etc should be kept in a different column so that their relevance to humans is clearly distinguished (and primary sources are still permissible). That way the statements that need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant are more clearly delineated within the table. I've implemented what I mean in the article for now, with disease statements removed until I find good sources for each. I'll add them back in as I go. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution and evolvability Thanks, and sorry for the hassle! JFW | T@lk 12:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important, and worth it to get it right for an FA. Given that the superfamily has such biochemical and medical relevance, it's actually pretty unique as an FA. I hope that resolving it will set a good precedent for other similar articles in the future. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have some more thoughts for the ones that you need support for. SERPINB6 - this is pretty clear cut. First of all KO in the mouse results in hearing loss - see PMID: 23669344, so that at least can be cited and mentioned in the table. There are about 4 different studies on various populations that show association of SERPINB6 with human hearing loss - all primary I guess - maybe also cite PMID:20451170 and PMID:25817395 in effect of deficiency section. SERPINB7 was a major discovery and actually very interesting - there are a couple of reviews - PMID: 25029323 and PMID: 24635962. SERPINC1 is antithrombin - heaps and heaps of reviews to choose from here - PMID: 21781239 would be a recent one, but it is one of the best characterised serpins to date. SERPENT (PAI-1) is clearly controversial - think leave this one out in the disease column. SERPINH1 got a cracker here - PMID: 25007323 and PMID: 23145505 - very high profile reviews - again really interesting and unexpected discovery as well. SERPINI1 - very well known if rare disease (FENIB) - see PMID: 12112652 for e.g. or PMID: 19164889. Finally PMID: 25660269 for SERPING1 or PMID: 24125136 - again this should not be controversial - G1 is complement C1 inhibitor - well known in angiodemia. PMID: 17768101 for macular degeneration. By the way I do apologise that I'm simply not adding these things by myself - I just feel that I'm likely to do more formatting harm than good!!!!! As soon as my grant writing season is over I'll try to relearn how to do wiki pages properly. OK - over and out will look at the remainder later. User:Jcwhizz - James Whisstock.

Thanks for the medical review references James. I've integrated them into the megatable, in addition to a good review of the SERPINF2 (α2-antiplasmin). The remaining serpins (A10, B8, I2) seem to have only primary references at the moment. similarly, SERPINA10 (PZI) still seems highly contentious. It's reviewed in '07,[3] but an '08 meta-analysis disagrees.[4]. We should probably leave them out for now, until their disease role is reviewed in the medical literature. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am really really happy with all this - it is great - all my concerns have been addressed!!!! User:Jcwhizz




Comments from Opabinia[edit]

  • Support! I've been meaning to read this forever and it looks like everyone else has beaten me to criticisms of any substance :) Well written and illustrated as usual, and very deserving of an FA star. Minor nitpicks/suggestions below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few instances of "conformation change" - to my ears it should always be "conformational".
    • History section says The name "Serpin" was first coined in the 1980s when it became clear that they formed a large superfamily of related proteins that also included non-inhibitory members - which gives the impression that the name was chosen due to the non-inhibitory members - but the lead says the name is from "serine protease inhibitors", the opposite implication.
    • In the protease inhibition section, preventing modulating activity of protease is awkward.
    • It sounds as if the key to this inhibition mechanism is the kinetics: the conformational change happens faster than acyl hydrolysis. Have the rates actually been measured? Are there mutants that are slow switchers and therefore ineffective inhibitors?
    • Degradation of extracellular serpins is mentioned, but not intracellular - is there anything interesting to say about how these are recycled? (It would be kind of cool if there were a ubiquitination site only exposed post-transition...)
    • Parallelism in the distribution subheads ("fungal", "prokaryote" - pick either nouns or adjectives)
Done - Thanks! I've addressed the wording suggestions. As for the kinetics question, you're completely correct. For wild-type serpins, the relative rates of (inhibition)/(hydrolysis)≈1 i.e. inhibition is so much faster than hydrolysis that the relative rates can't be measured. I get the impression that it's at least 10<sup3-fold faster given the accuracy of the methods used to measure, but I can't find a secondary source that makes the statement. I've added a sentence highlighting the significance of the kinetics. There are plenty of mutants with reduced conformation change rates, but I think that those details are probably too much for the article. V. interesting though! It also turns out that there are multiple, definable sub-steps in the conformational change. [1] T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 21:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks! I guess one thing I learned today is that acyl hydrolysis is slower than I would've thought. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gettins (2002). "Serpin Structure, Mechanism, and Function". Chemical Reviews. 102 (12): 4751–5504. doi:10.1021/cr010170+. PMID 12475206.

Response 3 from T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)[edit]

Thank you again to all delldot, Jfdwolff, Aa77zz, Seppi333, Opabinia regalis, and Jcwhizz. I think I've now addressed everyone's key recommendations and criticisms. In particular, I think the combination of primary/secondary sources for scientific points with med-secondary and tertiary sources for medical points has made the page more robust. Again, let me know if there are any additional issues, or if you feel I've not fully addressed the issues already raised! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 21:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suppport FA. Great work. Could I recommend one slightly different source for the clinical correlate of SERPING1 deficiency: doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2015.03.006. The source currently supporting the link with hereditary angiooedema is mostly a cohort study. Otherwise very good work and ready for the star. JFW | T@lk 06:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo), is this your first FAC? A belated welcome if so -- we will need a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing in that case. Also source review for formatting and reliability, and image licensing review. All these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Thanks, FAC is surprisingly different to the GA system! I've added a source audit request at WT:FAC. Are there any other steps I need to take, or will the rest of the process run its course automatically if the article passes source review? Thanks again, T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, per my initial comment, pls add "image review" to your list of requests at WT:FAC (unless the licensing has already been validated and I missed it). As long as all these checks come back clean (or any issues found can be actioned in reasonably short order) then there should be nothing more to do before the article can be promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I note several duplicate links in the article. Given the length and technical nature of the article, some of these might be justified but pls review in any case (you can install and run this script to highlight the duplicates). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've corrected the request. I've also done a run through removing duplicate wikilinks (certainly those in the same section). Some concepts are introduced broadly in e.g the lead or mechanism, but then discussed in more detail in a later section, so the duplicate link is occasionally useful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review by Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, taking a look....

Refs should all be formatted the same - hence the authors of refs (using this version for reference) 8,11, 12, 53, 156, 157 and 163 (and some others) should all be "Smith J, Jones F, etc"
pageranges in refs should be consistent - hence ref 105 has "1269–1275" and ref 40 has "579–586" (also ref 101) - where in most other places you seem to have a two digit page range (e.g. ref 100 has "237–45")
some dates are written "2013-07-01" and some are "March 2002" - I'd comform them all.
Dates have been standardized to DMY. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FN 1 used 5 times - material cited and faithful to source
FN 19 used 3 times - material cited and faithful to source
FN 66 used 6 times - material cited and faithful to source
FN 190 used twice - material cited and faithful to source
FN 192 used once - material cited and faithful to source

Regarding images, if File:Serpin (stressed).png is actually the synthetic scorpion toxin linked to, should it not say that in the description?

Same goes for File:Serpin and protease.png and File:Serpin equilibrium.png
Eep, my mistake: PDB: 2K9O​ should be PDB: 1K9O​! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

I'm going to promote but pls note there are several duplicate links in the article; some may well be justified given the article's length and detail but pls review and lose whatever's superfluous. This script can be installed and invoked to highlight the duplicates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2016 [23].

Sexuality after spinal cord injury[edit]

Nominator(s): delldot ∇. 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal cord injury has profound implications for sexual function and for sexuality in its broadest sense, affecting relationships, self-esteem, and quality of life. However the effects are different from what most people expect. This article has had a peer review, and two of the experts cited in the article were kind enough to give it detailed reviews as well. I'm excited to hear your thoughts! delldot ∇. 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from soupvector[edit]

Some immediate impressions

  • Images are important, but sparse in this article (not a deal-breaker, I would think, but something to consider).
  • Two of the images may lead some readers to confuse/conflate afferent and efferent pathways (though both are high-quality). The dermatome map is afferent, and the "pathways" figure is efferent. Arrows (pointed from the CNS toward the genitals) might help with the latter. The caption of the former should stipulate prominently that's its a sensory map.

Hope this helps. I'll try to read more fully, but these popped out at me. — soupvector (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments!
  • Yeah, I've thought hard about what images I can add, but not come up with much that would do more than decorate. There's a photo of different personal lubricants I could add, and I've actually thought of taking photos of someone in a wheelchair holding hands with or kissing someone for the lead. Not sure if either or both of those would help, what do you think?
  • I added "sensory" to the dermatomes map. The image I based the reflexogenic and psychogenic image on has both afferent and efferent functions. (erm, click on the first link in this search). e.g. "The pudendal nerves from S2–S4 comprise both motor efferent (neuronal cell bodies in Onuf’s nucleus) and sensory afferent fibers" in the caption. Did I oversimplify this so much it lost meaning? Thanks for the help soupvector! delldot ∇. 01:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could add arrows downward from the brain for the thoracic segments and bidirectional arrows for the sacral ones. What do you think, soupvector? delldot ∇. 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a big improvement. — soupvector (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about this, soupvector? Thanks for the input so far, I'm eager to hear any other thoughts you might add. delldot ∇. 02:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but aren't the efferent arms opposite in effect (you have them colored the same way)? I recall that the thoracic psychogenic arc is sympathetic and inhibitory, whereas the sacral reflexogenic efferent arc is parasympathetic and stimulatory. If that's the case, maybe it's worth making the efferent arrows differ in some way that could be explained in the caption or text? I am not confident that the text conveys this currently, either. — soupvector (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point, I tweaked the image and added wording to the caption and text like so. delldot ∇. 03:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also added an image to the lead per your first comment. What do you think soupvector? delldot ∇. 01:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a powerful image is an asset for the lead. My impression is that the image of the two people holding hands in a park evokes friendship more than sexuality, and conflating the two might not be ideal - but I think it's a net positive and someone might find a better one now that there's something to prompt them. — soupvector (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Soupvector: what do you think of this? Also there are several other variations on that image with varying degrees of steaminess. delldot ∇. 05:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better - less Platonic. — soupvector (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the pathways image - I've tweaked the caption to be a little clearer (since there's no legend regarding the meaning of the blue/red colors). HTH. — soupvector (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thank you! delldot ∇. 16:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dodger67[edit]

Just a few initial comments:

  • I couldn't find the two expert reviews mentioned above - please provide links, or even transclusions in the article Talk page if they are not too long. Unless of course I'm simply not seeing obvious links.
  • The sourcing and referencing is very good, no concerns there. You've managed to cite a good mix of strictly MEDRS and more general non-medical sources. I come to this FAC review from a disability rights POV so I really appreciate the non-medical content. All too often the medical world treats PWDs as "lab specimens" rather than complete people who do actually have lives outside of hospitals and doctors' surgeries.
  • The prose appears well written, I haven't gone through it wearing my "grammar nazi" hat yet, but will do so soon.
  • As far as images are concerned I think it's sufficient, there's no need to include "crip porn".
  • (Content comment, not really FAC issue) You've cited the Push Girls tv series in the "Society and culture" section for the women's POV, have you ever seen Murderball? It's a documentary about the US national wheelchair rugby team. It contains quite a bit of "locker room banter" from the male "sports jock" POV as well as a very frank "interview" that includes some discussion of sexuality. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the kind words! The two experts gave me the reviews over email, I failed to ask them if I could post their names or words online. I could ask them for permission, if you think it's best, but I do feel kind of awkward bugging them again after they were already so generous with their time. Would it work for me to forward you their emails? I'm not trying to be sketchy here, I don't know if there's a procedure for this. Here are some of my edits in response to the reviews: [24][25][26]
    • I have seen murderball the sport, but not Murderball the documentary. Let me look for sources and see if there's something that would be good to include. Thanks for all the input here and beforehand! delldot ∇. 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure how emailed external reviews should be treated but published reviews are handled according to WP:External peer review. You're welcome to contact me through email - there should be a menu item "Email this user" when you're on my user page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger, are you planning to check grammar soon? I saw a couple of things that probably need to be adjusted, but nothing major. (It'd probably make more sense just to fix them instead of making a list.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry WhatamIdoing, I've not done it - too much to do, not enough time! I've had an insanely busy few weeks both on and off-Wiki. Please go ahead with the language check if you want to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done the first few sections, and need to take a break. If you or anyone else wants to have a go, then feel free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey Roger and WhatamIdoing, thanks for the work you've put in so far! Any further thoughts? I'd be eager to hear them if you have time. Thanks again! delldot ∇. 07:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jfdwolff[edit]

Compliments on this important article. It is very comprehensive and meticulously sourced. A small number of comments in addition to my previous peer review: JFW | T@lk 12:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done The choice of section headers and levels is still a little bit unclear. The "Sexuality and identity" starts by summarising normal function, then moves to the situation after SCI. Can the content be integrated into the larger section called "sexual function", with a somewhat clearer distinction between "normal" and "post-SCI"?
    • This resulted from a discussion about sexuality as a broader topic than sexual function (justifying inclusion of topics like relationships, social stigma, self-esteem, etc.) and a concern that 'sexuality' might be confused with sexual orientation. So I thought it was important to have a "what do we mean by sexuality and why is it important" section first, defining the term. If the name of the section is a problem, could rename it to 'Sexuality defined' or 'Definitions' or something. I edited the section to distinguish better between pre- and post-SCI, what do you think? delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section title is tricky, because IIRC the MOS discourages sections called "introduction" etc. Not a dealbreaker in any form; clearly some definitions are required for the remainder of the article to flow well. JFW | T@lk 09:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The opening sentence of the section "sexual function" says "Sexual dysfunction usually results from SCI". Would active an form be better?
  •  Done There is a single red link to American Spinal Injury Association - perhaps a stub could be created as this appears to be a notable professional organisation. (Almost synchronicitically I bumped into the ASIA website this morning when looking at a journal article about spinal examination!)
  •  Done This might be hard, but the images in the subsection "Level of injury" are both colour-coded, but differently. What's the chances of harmonising the colouring?
    • Ooh, I know, this bugged me too. I will work on this but I'm not sure my attempt at images in Inkscape is going to be better than what's there. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I found a fair number of links that go through redirects.
Thank you JFW! I'll ping you when I've worked on those images. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! JFW | T@lk 09:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delldot the WP:Graphics Lab can help with improving and editing images. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, good to know, thanks. I gave the svg image a few more tweaks in inkscape to match the spinal column, so now I'm pretty pleased with it. I'm satisfied with the images if others are! delldot ∇. 21:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jfdwolff and Dodger67, I think I've addressed all your comments so far. Have any more thoughts to add? Thanks to both of you! delldot ∇. 02:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not as such. I haven't done the standard checks for consistency in references and the like, but I would support for FA based on the content. JFW | T@lk 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks so much! delldot ∇. 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Notecardforfree[edit]

This is a fascinating and well-written article. Although my academic and professional life has little to do with the biomedical sciences, I found the prose easy to understand and very interesting. You have done an excellent job covering many complex aspects of a very important subject. Well done! I only have a few brief comments:

  1. In the section about "sexuality and identity," the article says that SCI "most frequently happens to young people, who are at a peak in their sexual and reproductive lives." Spinal cord injury#Epidemiology appears to provide some conflicting information about this. First, it cites a source that says the average age at the time of injury is 41. Later in the same paragraph, it says that "[m]ost of these injuries occur in men under 30 years of age." Can you verify that the statement in the section about "sexuality and identity" is accurate?
  2. In the section about "complete and incomplete injury," the final sentence of the section says "In both injured and uninjured people, the brain is responsible for the way sensations of climax are perceived." It isn't really clear to me what the implications of this statement may be. It might be helpful to add a sentence that says something like: "Therefore, for people with and without SCI, the qualitative experiences associated with climax are modulated by the brain, rather than a specific area of the body" (and cite to the Courtois article). Of course, I might be totally misreading the source.
  3. At the end of the section titled "Factors in reduced function," the article says, "Feelings of undesirability or worthlessness even lead some to suggest to their partners that they find someone better." Instead of saying "someone better," maybe this should say something like: "someone without SCI"? I wouldn't want the casual reader to think that the article is making a value judgment.
  4. In the final sentence of the section about society and culture, that article says, "SCI may necessitate reappraisal and rejection of assumptions about gender norms ..." Is this referring to society's reappraisal or a reappraisal conducted by the individual with an SCI? Or both?
  5. This probably isn't worth including in this article, but some scholars believe that there is a distinction between the mind and the brain.

Let me know if any of my comments don’t make sense. Thanks again for your incredible work with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! I'm gonna go through and reply to each thing. I thought I'd note for full disclosure that I've been and am reviewing some articles Notecard has been working on at GAN, not that I think it'll bias either of us. These are good and thoughtful points, thanks again for them! delldot ∇. 02:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Epidemiology. Sure, I can give more data on that. That SCI happens most in the young is well known. For right now, the Cramp 2015 source says "Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) most commonly occurs in young adults at a point in their lives when sexual activity levels and reproductive capacity are at their peak." But this gives me the idea to put a pie chart in the SCI article with a breakdown by age of injury. I just have to find a source with worldwide data.
    Added some info to the age para in Spinal cord injury#Epidemiology. The reason for the higher-than-expected mean is probably the bump in cases in the elderly (but not at rates as high as for people under 30).
Thanks for adding the extra info. I wonder if these numbers result from the fact that men under 30 years of age are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors that result in spinal cord injuries? Very interesting stuff. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, beyond a doubt. It's 4:1 male to female, too. delldot ∇. 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. brain and sensations of climax. Yes, you understood the gist right, and your suggestion is good. Let me make sure I can back that up with a source and I will add something like it.
    I looked back at the source and I think you read it right. So I just combined the last sentence with the one you suggested.
Thanks for clarifying this. This looks great! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Someone better. Good point. Changed to 'find someone able bodied'. How is that? Or maybe 'find someone uninjured'?
Thanks for clarifying this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Reappraisal of gender norms. I suppose both would help, but the source was talking about an individual's path toward acceptance of and adjustment to the injury. From that source, I added, "those who are able to change the way they think about gender roles may have better life satisfaction and outcomes with rehabilitation."
The text looks great. Thanks for clarifying this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Mind/brain I can see why you'd include it but I can't think where. Perhaps I should emphasize the mind/body difference more in the Changes in sexual practices section in the first para? I recall reading somewhere "the most important sexual organ is the brain."
Yeah, I think a discussion about the mind/brain distinction would be too far outside the scope of this article. Of course, if you really wanted to get philosophical, you could talk about the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of intimacy and lovemaking, but you have done an excellent job keeping this article focused on its subject. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping you when I'm done working on the first couple. delldot ∇. 03:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Notecardforfree: I think I've addressed everything you brought up, what do you think? Thank you again for the input! delldot ∇. 08:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Delldot: Thanks so much for taking the time to address my comments. This article looks great! In all respects, it complies with the Featured Article Criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-reserched, neutral, stable, and it complies with relevant style guidelines. I don't see any issues with the media used in this article, and as I mentioned above, you do a nice job keeping things focused without going too far afield with tangential information. I am pleased to offer my support for this excellent article. Well done! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I appreciate your time and well considered thoughts. delldot ∇. 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

I've looked only at the lead. A few points:

  1. Lots of subsetting: include and variants occur seven times in two paragraphs, and there's a "such as", too. Any inline lists that you feel could do without explicit subsetting, do it. I see a few that may be possible.
    Got rid of as many as I thought possible. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SCI ... we memorise the abbreviation, but then you spell it out again in the second para.
    Done. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. At least two "also"s could be zapped.
    Went throughout and zapped many. I hope this works. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Body image issues and other insecurities affect sexual function, and they have profound repercussions on ...". One word could be binned.
    Done? Body image and other insecurities affect sexual function and have... delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. not just ... not just.
    Got rid of one. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tony! I'm a fan of your writing tutorials. I have tried to address these throughout the article so you hopefully won't run into them again if you keep going. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any more thoughts, Tony? I'd love to hear them if you have time. Thanks! delldot ∇. 07:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'd probably be crestfallen to go through those tutorials again, renovating. Maybe some time in the coming months. You may still prefer the comma after "function" (there are two "and"s). Tony (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, comma added. Thank you! delldot ∇. 17:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

I passed this for GA and think it is looking better than then. Queries below:

  • People with SCI need to take special measures during sexual activity to deal with SCI effects such as weakness and movement limitations - I wonder if "special" is redundant as we go into specifics afterwards...
  • Sexuality involves not only sexual behaviors... - there are four "sexuality"s in the first four sentences of this section...can we change this one to "It..." maybe?

These are minor - support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Cas! Got rid of two 'sexualitys' in the para you mentioned. And you're right, 'special' is not the right word here. Got rid of that one and a few other 'specials'. Thank you again! delldot ∇. 21:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Didn't spot image licensing or source reviews above, these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appropriately licenced, tagged and sourced.
  • Reference formatting all consistent.

Using this version as stable point:

  • FN 9 used once - material faithful to source
  • FN 44 used fourteen times - material faithful to source
  • FN 56 used once - material faithful to source
  • FN 75 used once - material faithful to source

Ok, I think that does it...off to bed now. All looks in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2016 [27].

Westminster Assembly[edit]

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a committee of theologians called by the Long Parliament to reform the Church of England during the Civil War. The Westminster Assembly created documents which are part of the constitution of virtually every Presbyterian church in the world. Tim riley recently promoted the article to GA. JFH (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The start: "The Westminster Assembly of Divines was a council of theologians (or "divines") and members of the English Parliament appointed to restructure the Church of England beginning in 1643. It was formed during the lead up to the First English Civil War by the Long Parliament." is rather misleading, as the committee did not actually sit until the war was well under way, and would not have sat at all without the war.
  • The legacy section seems rather short, and does not make clear the legal position in England of those continuing to uphold the WA positions after the Restoration.
  • Should not the quite long Westminster Confession of Faith get a "see also" link, as well as the standards?
  • The article hardly mentions the virulent anti-Catholicism which is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the assembly and its product.

Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod, for your helpful comments. I think I've addressed them all. The issue of anti-Catholicism was a bit difficult, as I didn't find a lot written on the anti-Catholic attitudes of the Assembly itself (though I agree it was very anti-Catholic). I did manage to add a bit on Puritans anti-Catholicism to the background section and a paragraph on the Assembly's theological opponents (Catholics and radicals) to the theology section. --JFH (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sorry, I thought I had already done so. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – One feels shy about commenting after real experts like Johnbod, but I found the text well sourced and constructed when I reviewed it at GA and have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I am particularly impressed that after yet another reading for this review I have no idea where the nominator's sympathy lies in this protracted punch-up. A fine example of impartiality. Tim riley talk 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too kind, Tim, but really, I'm well out of my area here! Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "several others of the Assembly documents" Several other documents, or several other confessions? Seems it must be the former, but wording unclear. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The divines were even more strongly opposed to Catholicism than to William Laud and his followers. They associated both with Arminianism and persecution." Here "both" == Catholicism and William Laud, or Arminianism and persecution? Different meaning. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lingzhi, I think I've cleared this up. --JFH (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The House of Commons approved both catechisms, but the Lords only approved the Shorter Catechism" Out of curiosity, is it worth noting either of two things: first, why they didn't approve the Larger, and second, whether this rejection had any real later impact? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My source doesn't comment either way, so I'm not sure what to do. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut this out as unnecessary detail. It matters very little that Parliament approved of the catechisms at all.--JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conceded to the Scots on prudential grounds" as in "prudent" or "advisory; superintending or executive"? Please use somewhat more high-frequency vocabulary, whenever such options are available... And is this a direct quote? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might remove this whole episode per your comments regarding too much detail.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Parliament may have nominated them to lend greater legitimacy to the Assembly and not have expected them to attend" Why not? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.--JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think the count of divines should be mentioned prominently in the lede. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Assembly's documents became influential worldwide through missionary expansion" This happened during the 17th century? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some; New England is mentioned earlier in the paragraph. I suppose that's an immigration rather than missionary effort so I edited the sentence. But most missionary activity is going to be later. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Neither this article nor the one on the Root and Branch petition seems to spell out clearly what were the "perceived abuses by bishops". This is a critical oversight, IMHO, although I'm not sure which article should detail this info. perhaps this one can at least add 7 or 8 words to list the main one or two...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I decided this was not a great description of the petition anyway. The abuses would have been the aforementioned changes in worship practices and silencing of Puritans. Calling these abuses is probably not neutral. I did try to make it clear early on that Puritans opposed episcopacy because of its relationship to Catholicism. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After reading and rereading, my biggest nagging concern about this article is that seems to have a "can't see the forest for the trees" problem. As just one example, the article closes by calling the Assembly's Confession "by far the most influential doctrinal symbol in American Protestant history", but never says why or how. The focus of the article seems too firmly set on details and not nearly enough on big picture issues that an outsider, who has no familiarity with anything Presbyterian or Episcopalian or anything even vaguely similar, needs shoved up to the lede and spelled out in flashing letters. Why should anyone care about this Assembly? How is its impact still felt today? Why is it important? It almost seems as though it was written by people so deeply imbued in those realities that the biggest facts are unconsciously assumed to be understood. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I have to agree. Some of it is probably from trying too hard to be neutral and just get the facts out. But of course the article needs to answer the questions you pose and doesn't need to get into minutiae. I'm going to have to think about how to fix it. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the Aftermath, now Legacy, section to better explain the Assembly's lasting importance. I've incorporated this into the lead and moved it toward the top of the lead. I've trimmed some detail, especially dates which are not particularly important. --JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done.--JFH (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The lead says the assembly was appointed to restructure the English church, and later that it produced a liturgical manual for Scotland. I think it would be helpful to say that its remit was later extended to church government in Scotland, as stated below.
Done
  • "Puritans were forced to keep their views private." This seems wrong. Puritans did express their views, but were persecuted for it.
Done
  • The comments on the Scottish church are unclear. It is stated that it was presbyterian, but then that episcopalianism was imposed in 1604. Did the church defy the king and keep presbyterianism, or was it episcopalian between 1604 and the Civil War?
I tried to clarify this. I think I overstated saying he "imposed episcopalianism" at that date. Returning to my source it looks like it started as a threat, and that it was a gradual introduction of epsicopacy and BOCP worship rather than a complete change of one government for another.
  • "The eighth of the Thirteen Articles" Why thirteen?
Typo! eighth of the Thirty-Nine
  • "Augustinianism channelled by Anselm, Thomas Bradwardine, and John Wycliffe." "channelled" seems an odd word in this context.
Done
  • "The doctrine of Scripture was also a particularly important area of debate at the time, since some scholars had argued that the Hebrew vowel points of the Old Testament were probably not part of the original." I do not understand this.
Attempted a clarification
  • "The Civil War brought with it the end of the consensus that there should be a single church imposed by the state" Was there really a consensus on this point before the Civl War?
Benedict uses the phrase "long-standing consensus". I think it's implied in Benedict, but not necessarily in my article, that we're talking about Protestants, so I made this clarification.
  • "the Church of Scotland's "principle subordinate standard"," principle or principal?
Fixed
Thank you very much for your comments. Please let me know if I haven't fully addressed any. --JFH (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But I am not sure about "King in Scotland". Surely he was King of Scotland? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and thank you!--JFH (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Officially I think he was King of Scots, but no-one in the late period except his mother seems to be usually called that way. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- JFH, am I right in assuming this will be your first FA if successful? In that case we'd need an editor to conduct a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Also I think we still need a source review for formatting and reliability of references (something required for all nominations). A request for both of these checks may be left at the top of WT:FAC, unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is my first. I've made the request. Thanks. --JFH (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

  • I think the first sentence of the lead would be stronger if it mentioned the time period
Added.
  • The link label "121 ministers" is a bit odd. I even wonder if we need a link here in the lead. I'd assume the reader expects the list to be in this article. I think it suffices to have a link, properly labeled, "full list of members of the memebers of the Westminster Assembly", in the body of the article.
OK
  • "to replace those who could no longer attend" seems not quite to cover the case of those who were not even expected to attend.
Fixed
  • sources formatting: isbn missing for Muller 2003a, 2003b, Jones 2011, Moore 2011
Fixed
  • Google Books seems to think Muller 2003b's title is "Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena to theology" It is sometimes wrong.
Fixed

I'll try to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--JFH (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

  • 8 Fesko 2014, p. 49. ok; ref 92 ok; ref 93 ok;
  • 61 Letham 2010, p. 46. ok

That's as much as I can do unfortunately. Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2016 [28].

Siege of Sidney Street[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Sidney Street was the culmination of a two-and-a-half week investigation by the two police forces of London, following a bungled burglary by Latvian agitators. Three policemen were murdered in the burglary, and two more were badly injured (it is still the blackest event in British police history). The siege itself was made all the more interesting by the fact it was captured on the cameras of Pathé News, and the presence of the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. This article had a great PR, with some hugely helpful and constructive comments throughout. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very happy PR customer, I think having such a high quality article on this sort of event exemplifies the strength of wikipedia. No doubt it'll be the best and most concise overall article about it you'll find. Clearly meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I have read this again today and think that it has vastly improved since the PR. I feel this meets all the necessary criteria to be considered featured content. CassiantoTalk 18:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • many thanks to you both for your first class reviews. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: would like to see a specific time reference here if possible, and network shouldn't be italicized
  • Check alphabetization of Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria, much appreciated. I've not got a time, unfortunately, but the remainder has been sorted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review': I did an IR during PR, and all the issues I saw were fixed. Nothing new added, by the looks of it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Chris, much appreciated. I confirm that no new images have been added since you signed off at the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support My, the party is getting started early. I had my usual at the peer review, and a quick glance over shows that no one's taken a sledgehammer to it since. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt - very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by EddieHugh

  • "John Rosen—real name John Zelin or Tzelin—who came to London in 1909 from Riga and worked as a barber." (Not a complete sentence.)
The formatting went wrong. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before arriving in London in June 1910.[21][6]" (Swap 21 & 6 around.)
  • "were armed only with a short wooden truncheon. When they faced armed opponents" ("armed" twice, but the message is that the balance of firepower was unequal, so clarify or alter one "armed"?)
  • "Webley and bulldog revolvers, shotguns and small-bore rifles fitted with .22 Morris-tube barrels, the latter of which" ("latter" → "last")
  • "Sokoloff and Peters were present and, in all likelihood, were two of those that shot the policemen" (What policemen? This is the first mention outside the lead.)
  • "Rumbelow also considers that present at the events—either as lookouts or in unknown capacities, were" (Two dashes or two commas, instead of one of each.)
  • "So as not to rouse the man's concerns, Piper asked the man "is the missus in?" The man" (3 "the man"s in 13 words is excessive.)
  • "Police Constable (PC)" ("PC" is used again only in a caption, but "constable" is used again twice... drop "(PC)"?)
Now something needs to be done about the caption. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who watched the two properties" (Which ones? It's getting unclear, as so many have been mentioned.)
  • "Bentley knocked at number 11," (Who's Bentley? This is his first appearance.)
  • "a group of three man" ("man" → "men")
  • "Choate was also taken there where he was operated on" (A comma between "there" and "where"?)
  • "at 5:30 am" (Times start shifting between having "am"/"pm" and not at this point.)
  • I've only used them where there is some clarification needed: those without should be fairly clear from the context (I hope!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reported one of his lodgers, Nina Vassilleva after she had told him" (Add comma after name).
  • "two S-shaped cuts, both two inches long were on his cheeks" (Again, two commas must be used to offset the additional information.)
  • "His biographers, Paul Addison and Roy Jenkins both consider" (Again.)
  • "I did not send for the Artillery or the Engineers." (The Artillery are mentioned later; did the Engineers turn up?)
  • Not entirely clear from the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they soon located one of the bodies—that of Sokoloff—which was extracted" (Simpler as "they soon located Sokoloff's body, which was extracted", or "they soon located and extracted Sokoloff's body"?)
  • "the first siege to ever be captured on film" ("ever" is redundant.)
  • "The proceedings consisted 24 individual hearings" (+ "of".)
  • "although this was later overturned on appeal" (clarify whether the sentence or the conviction is being referred to.)
  • "Her eventual fate or date of death is not known" (More natural as "Her eventual fate and date of death are not known"?)
  • "The Man Who Knew Too Much, [141]" (Cut space before ref.)
  • "by F Oughton" cf. "H.S. Harris" and "US" (Choose with or without full stop throughout.)
  • "The plaques called Peter the Painter an "anti-hero"" (What plaques?)
  • "In December 2010, on the centenary" (Drop the comma this time, to be consistent.)
  • No, it's correct here, as there is a sub-clause that follows. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Jew in London. A study of racial character and present-day conditions" cf. "Greater London Murders: 33 True Stories of Revenge, Jealousy, Greed & Lust" (Capitalisation in Sources needs to be standardised.)
Not done by first update. There are some in References, too. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a series of events that began in December 1910 with an attempted jewellery robbery at Houndsditch in the City of London by a gang of immigrant Latvians, that led to the murder of three policemen," (The second "that" threw me: I was expecting a continuation of the series of events rather than more detail on the first one. Would "which" instead of the second "that" be easier to read?)
  • "Police were informed" ("The police"?)
  • "Toward the end" (Isn't "towards" British English?)
  • As is "toward", although archaic, according to my 1968 edition of Fowler, and if it were archaic for him, then it's positively antediluvian now! the "s" now added. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SchroCat: treat yourself to the new edition of Fowler, revised by Jeremy Butterfield. It's a joy to browse in and as reliable an adviser as the original and Gowers versions and a damned sight better than the fatuous Burchfield's 1996 attempt. (Apologies for dragging a kipper across this FAC and I'll shut up now.) Tim riley talk 20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of broader things. A map for each incident's location would be ideal for following where the various people went. I know that it's topical now, but is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the events (the robbery in particular) were done for revolutionary reasons? Based on this article, there doesn't seem to be, which means that the early stressing of immigration and crimes by radicals might be overdone: apart from language problems and the short paragraph on the Alien Bill, this aspect fades away. A lively read overall. EddieHugh (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maps: possibly, although space precludes adding too many more images, and we have the one overall map with the two locations showing. I had mulled over adding more, but went against it in the end. Revolutionary reasons: at the end of the day, these were Russian/Latvian agitators and revolutionaries and "appropriation" was a strategy they frequently used. As no-one admitted responsibility, and the actual identity of those involved is unconfirmed by the courts or those involved, the motives were never uncovered. The modern sources all point towards it, but they admit there is scant evidence for a connection. Having said that, they reflect what the feeling was, expressed in what the press (quality and popular) were saying at the time - often in the most anti-semitic terms.
  • Many thanks for your very detailed thoughts and comments here. I've done all, except for the small number where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maps: that's fine; it was more of an 'ideally' than a need. Reasons: also fine; it could make an interesting linguistic study in a few decades' time. 3 things not quite dealt with are indented and signed above. Spotted another 2 things:
  • "In recent years" (Time period related to an unspecified present is best avoided.)
  • "Piper later described him as being approximately 5 feet 7 inches (1.70 m), pale and fair-haired." (I was expecting this to be relevant later on: cut as irrelevant detail, or leave in for the mystery?) EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All now sorted, with the capitalisation done, and the few tweaks sorted. I've left Piper's description in there, as it gives a little 'colour' to the background. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's now the punctuation of "and worked as a barber.[24] while another member". Thanks for the patience. Moved to Support above. EddieHugh (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked - and thanks for your patience and comments: it's looking much tighter than it did before. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer reviewer looking in. Excellent then, excellent now. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a great deal to say at peer review, where much useful article building was done. That leaves me with very little to say here, beyond that it's a very interesting story that deserves to be better known. As a matter of curiosity, we have near my home a one-man decorating business that styles himself "Peter the Painter". It couldn't be, could it...? Of course, he'd be about 140 now, so unlikely. But I'll be wary of employing him. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: much appreciated. Avoid topics of politics with your decorators is one lesson to learn here! - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments: my own patrilineal ancestry and last name go back to a Russian who arrived in London's East End as a young boy around 1900, so I'm sure he would have a thing or two to say about this! He was a bit of a ne'er-do-well, I've always been told, so perhaps he was even tangentially involved... family lore has it that "Asher" ("Ашер" in Russian) was just one of several aliases. Anyway, I enjoyed this article very much, and have just a few quibbles, none of which detract with my support:

  • You have initials like "H.S. Harris" and "J.P. Eddy" with stops and no space. I would put a space in per MOS:INITIALS and perhaps lose the full stops as well, but this latter suggestion is a personal stylistic preference.
  • we link Dictionary of National Biography more than once
  • "he saw a man acting suspiciously" doing what? perhaps reword to something like "Piper reported that as he was leaving Exchange Buildings to return to Houndsditch he saw a man acting suspiciously", so we're clearer that the "man acting suspiciously" is Piper's opinion
  • I think plainclothes is one word in a police context
  • The OED have this as two words (although "plainclothesman" is one, curiously) - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image of the Mauser C96 shows the firearm with a wooden stock, which the gangsters here probably would not have had attached. I suggest switching for an image without the stock (this one maybe), or alternatively adding to the caption that this photo shows the firearm with a stock attached.
  • Quite right: they used a metal frame stock (I saw the actual one a month or so back and an evil-looking bugger it is too). - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say the police had no Russian-speakers on the force, then two paragraphs later they're putting out Russian-language posters. Not an actionable point (presumably they got someone in from outside to write the Russian posters), just an observation.
  • "About 90 detectives actively searched the East End" not sure you need "actively" (not sure you can passively search something). Perhaps "vigorously" or similar?
  • "King George V was represented by Edward Wallington, his Groom in Waiting, and Churchill, as Home Secretary, was present, as was the Lord Mayor of London." A lot of commas here, especially in the second half. Perhaps consider redrawing
  • "many local businesses closed as a mark of respect; The nearby" capital letter after semi-colon
  • "The police officer—Sergeant Leeson—later made a full recovery." can lose "later"
  • "Twenty one volunteer marksmen" not Twenty-one?
  • "Liberal party" I'd cap up Party and link both words: "Liberal Party"
  • Perhaps pipe Maxim gun to "Maxim machine gun", as many may not know what this is
  • "Sokoloff put his head out of the window; he was shot by one of the soldiers and he fell back inside" in the head, presumably? do we know if the shot killed him?
  • Possibly. The autopsy said the body had at least one round in him, but it was charred to beyond the point they could accurately say whether that was the cause of death. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's me lot. Thanks again for the great read; whether you choose to act on the above or not I'm happy to support the nomination. Cheers and have a great end to the weekend, —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except where commented on (and the overly-commaed sentence which I need to do shortly. Thanks very much indeed for yout thoughts: as insightful as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2016 [29].

Mortara case[edit]

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One night in Bologna in June 1858, police came to the home of an obscure Jewish merchant named Mortara and seized one of his children, six-year-old Edgardo, on the orders of the papal government. This child would find himself catapulted into the public eye across Europe and America, his well-being of concern to ambassadors, a secretary of state, a prime minister, a pope and even briefly an emperor as the Mortara family desperately tried to reclaim their son against the backdrop of Italian unification. The Mortara case has been given little prominence in most Risorgimento histories, if it is mentioned at all, but it remained very well-known among Jewish historians—to quote one of the affair's main scholars, David Kertzer, it "fell from the mainstream of Italian history into the ghetto of Jewish history". Since the 1990s, however, several scholars have highlighted it as one of the most important events of Pope Pius IX's papacy. Kertzer goes so far as to suggest that as a primary motivator for the French change of stance that precipitated Italian unification in 1859–61, this "story of an illiterate servant girl, a grocer, and a little Jewish child from Bologna" may well have changed the course of both Italian and church history.

This article just received a glowing GA review from Tim riley and I think it is at least close to FA standard. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to any comments you may have. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have only the smallest tweaks of prose to suggest with the FA prose criterion in mind. Those apart, the article meets all the FA criteria in my view.

  • Feletti, passim
    • He is labelled "Father Feletti", rather than simply surnamed, nine times during the article, and it might be as well to prune a few of the "Fathers".
  • Lead
    • The last sentence is arguably self-contradictory: Kertzer's study was itself a re-examination, rather than something that led to a re-examination. Perhaps "has given it greater prominence" or some such?
  • Instigation
    • "not likely to be consulted regarding" – "regarding" seems a trifle stiff: perhaps a simple "about" would be smoother?

That's all from me. Happy to support this unexpected and intriguing article for FA. Tim riley talk 08:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you very much Tim for the kind words, the helpful points and the support. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. A fascinating read on a subject I'd not come across before. I tripped over seeing "cruelest" in a British publication, but anything that ends up with Johnson at its head is capable of anything, I suppose! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Formatting is good, with three minor points to raise:
  • it may be worth adding The Spectator's issue number—1585—just for good measure (purely voluntary)
  • The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 8. You have the dates as c. 1815–c. 1914, but I've recently been told that the MoS prescribes using a spaced en dash if there is a "c." involved (The front cover of this edition also uses a space)
  • Is there an OCLC for L'anima di Pio IX: quale si rivelò de fu compresa dai Santi? (I appreciate that WorldCat isn't infallible on non-English publications)
Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this Gavin. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The article looks to be of FA quality and the subject interested me greatly. Z105space (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words and the support; I'm glad you enjoyed it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not a topic I'm intimately versed with, but I appreciate the way the sections are laced with appropriate contextual summaries to bring unfamiliar readers up to speed. The weight given to both accounts where the narrative parallels is also quite satisfying. There were perhaps one or two instances of stiff phrasing, which I edited. Just looking over the current coverage, linking, and notes I think the article could make for solid FA material. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Katangais, for the support, the kind words and the helpful tweaks. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - an interesting article! I do have a few (tiny) issues with the text that should be addressed though. "Church", for instance, should be capitalised when it refers to the Catholic Church and small only when it refers to a church building. More to follow. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the support, the kind words and the suggestion—have implemented. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up leading image and both maps
  • I've had a look at how it would be with the leading image up at 350px, but I have to say I personally prefer it at 300px. The two maps I've left as I think they would look unattractive if too large—the Papal States are clearly visible in both cases anyway, and one can always enlarge the map by clicking on it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Italy_1494_shepherd.jpg (source image of the first map) needs a US PD tag
  • File:San_Domenico75.jpg: since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the pictured building?
  • Long out of copyright, I'd say—the convent as a whole goes back to 1228 and I think this part dates to 1507. I've added PD-Italy and PD-1996 tags. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pioantonelli.jpg: can you be more specific on the source?
  • File:Moses_Montefiore.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this Nikkimaria. Hope all okay now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments leaning support, I hope to finish this tonight. A few comments.

  • "If true, this would make the child no longer a Jew but a Catholic in the eyes of the Church" I would cut "no longer a Jew but". I think it's understood.
  • "Morisi fell pregnant" I would say "became" rather than "fell".
  • "The Pope was the official head of the Holy Office, but only occasionally attended its meetings, and was not likely to be consulted about what the cardinals saw as routine matters. It is not known by historians whether Pope Pius IX witnessed any of the early discussions over Mortara, or was otherwise aware of Feletti's initial investigation" I might reverse this and have the specifics about Pius first and then the generalized explanation after.
  • "Angelo Padovani, a prominent member of Bologna's Jewish community, resolved that their only hope was to appeal to Feletti." Is that something that you resolve? You might conclude that, but resolving generally involves an intent to do something going forward, not a conclusion.
  • "as opposed to the usual single meeting" could this be described as a farewell visit?
  • I suppose it could, but Kertzer doesn't call it that, so I'd be careful. What was by this time often allowed, he writes, was "a single visit by a family member and a representative of the Jewish community". —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "favoured by the Jewish communities and other backers" consider "community" for communities.
  • "the neophyte Edgardo" unless something technical is meant, I would say "young" for neophyte.
  • Neophyte in the religious context means a new convert, and the word is used deliberately in this sentence describing the pro-Church accounts to lightly say this is what they saw him as. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He indeed claimed that he did not himself know how to administer baptism" I'm OK with claimed I suppose but I'd cut "indeed". I don't see what it adds.
More soon. Very nicely done so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I look forward to more thoughts from you. Glad you're enjoying it so far. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just these
"22 bishops and archbishops" Anglican, I assume. May wish to mention it.
Further up, I would eliminate AD from the year the whole AD v CE thing.
Support It clearly meets the criteria. I knew about the case but am glad to have learned the details.Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the comments and the kind words Gary. I'm glad you enjoyed it and am very happy to have your support. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "Pope Pius IX, elected in 1846, was initially widely seen as a great reformer and moderniser who might throw his weight behind the growing movement for Italian unification—referred to in Italian as the Risorgimento (meaning "Resurgence")—but when the revolutions of 1848 broke out he refused to support a pan-Italian campaign against the Austrian Empire, which controlled Lombardy–Venetia in the north-east." -rather long, can you split/reword?

♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I split it and put a "however" in there —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removal
  • Rep of "she had" in "she had feared he might die. She said that she had "
Alatri
  • You state that Alatri is about 80 km from Rome but [30] actually states almost 100km. I suppose it means as the bird flies, and from the outskirts rather than the centre.

Support This really is a brilliant account of an important but apparently poorly documented event in Italian history. I can really find very little fault with it. Any Italian historian would have been proud to have written this, and having such a quality article in English on this is so valuable. Clearly meets the FA criteria, and it is one of the strongest articles I've read in recent months.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the extremely kind words, good doctor, it is very much appreciated. I'm pleased you enjoyed the article so much. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2016 [31].

Sonam Kapoor[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonam Kapoor is an Indian actress, working in Bollywood films. She, not as successful as her contemporaries, is known more for her dresses than her roles and films, which are not quite entertaining and most of them have failed commercially. In the meanwhile, she has starred in some of the films -- such as Raanjhnaa and the recent Prem Ratan Dhan Payo -- which might be remembered for a short period of time.

I nominated the article some months ago but failed due to some reservations about prose and neutrality. It was recently copy-edited by WP:GOCE and peer reviewed. Please note that an image review was done in its peer review. I would like to see comments on how I can further improve the article. Thank you. -- Frankie talk 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – All my concerns were addressed during its previous nomination and the peer review. Hopefully it'll pass this time. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article meets all the criteria. Plus, now with re-addition of important information, the article seems brilliant. Well done Frankie.Krish | Talk 20:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the comments, support and re-addition of the personal life "stuff" but please note that I didn't remove but merged them to the "Life and career" section. And as for the media image section, I liked the changes you made. I just removed some quotes and did some trimming so that reviewers don't complain about its neutrality. Thanks for your time, Krish! -- Frankie talk 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments moved to talk page.)

Source review from Johanna

I had done a source review on the previous FAC and found the article to check out, as it was based on high-quality, reliable sources. I had a few questions regarding the nature of a few of the sources, and they were summarily answered. With that, I reiterate my Support. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have one question—in the prior FAC, you said that Mid Day was "a reputable source"--could you expand on this? Johanna(talk to me!) 15:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been used on almost every FA concerning Bollywood. It has received several awards, such as INMA Global Media Awards and INMA Awards so I believe it's a decent source to use. -- Frankie talk 15:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mid Day is indeed a RS, as it's operated by Jagran publication's. The same company behind Dainik Jagran, one of the most read indian newspaper. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Off-topic discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Sonam Kapoor/archive2) --Laser brain (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Just read through the article for a second time, and I think it's pretty much flawless. I remember reviewing the GAN and found no issues with the sources, and I've also looked through the source review in the previous FAC and everything has been addressed. There is one thing I did notice; "Kapoor was born in the Mumbai suburb of Chembur on 9 June 1985.[1][3]" - although the first reference contains the information on her date of birth and Chembur, the second reference doesn't. This is minor, but I'd recommend moving that citation anywhere else. Other than that, this article definitely meets the criteria. JAGUAR  21:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that source. Thanks for your GA review, PR comments and support, much appreciated. -- Frankie talk 21:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support—After going through the article once again, i found that the nominator has resolved mny queries and i also find his explanation to a couple of comments quite reasonable. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Had to give a significant copyedit myself but the prose is certainly improved overall. The article is now in my opinion approaching FA quality so I'm leaning towards support. The lede though I think is still rather weak and needs to be strengthened and a bit more informative about the nature of the roles, perhaps with less films mentioned. Could still benefit from a few decent editors overlooking it and really polishing it off, and I would like to see somebody like Nikkimaria do a vigorous spotcheck for sources and citations. In places I think the citations look a bit cluttered and in places you might give more sources than you actually need to. Other than this, I believe it covers the necessary aspects of her career to date and is on the right track to pass now. Good luck.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks x2. -- FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments moved to talk page)

Support from an IP with a few comments:

  • I don't think that you need to source her date of birth in infobox because it's already sourced in the life section.
  • Use pronoun instead of repeating her last name in every sentence in the Aisha part.
  • "which was also poorly received with mixed reviews". Two different statements.
  • "Bhaag Milkha Bhaag was one of 2013's top-grossing films". It was a top grossing film in the Hindi film industry not worldwide.
Not sure how an IP from the UK got interested in a Bollywood actress but thanks for the comments. -- Frankie talk 15:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks from Famous Hobo

Alright, I just went through every ref (I don't recommend doing, it takes a toll on you). Anyway, for the most part, everything matches up fine, just a few things that need to be addressed

  • What is the point of Ref 5? It doesn't say anything Sunita
  • When the statement about how Kapoor's dresses have drawn criticism, only Ref 113 actually mentions criticism. Refs 109 and 112 simply show pictures of what she wears.
The other two refs are for the praise for her dress sense and style.
  • Ref 129 doesn't say anything about Mijwan Welfare Society empowering girls, but that it "collect[s] money for the very skilled villagers of Mijwan, who do exquisite work on clothes"
  • Ref 133 says Kapoor was nominated for a Zee Cine Award, but never states what award. You could say this is implied since the previous two award mentions say she was nominated for BBest Female Debut, but if possible, I'd recommend finding a better source
Yeah, but the source was also published in 2009 and by then she had received only one nomination from said award. Unfortunately I could not find an alternative. I can remove it if you want.
  • Ref 145 isn't available in my region so ... I can't check
I can't thank you enough for this exhausting job (yes I know how tiring spot-checking can be). Hopefully the comments are addressed and my replies are justifiable. -- Frankie talk 08:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the Zee Cine Award, are you sure that's the only mention of it? If it is, then I'd say it's fine to leave it, since it's implied from the previous statements, though it's your choice. Anyway, like I said, everything else checks out, so to repay the favor from my FAC, I'll Support this article with it's sources. Nice article by the way. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2016 [32].

U.S. Route 25 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a highway that no longer exists in Michigan, at least not under a single designation. All of what was US 25 in Michigan is still maintained by the state, but under other names. This is one of the only places online to collect all of these pieces of information about the highway in one place, and I think it's the highest quality compilation you'll find. Imzadi 1979 → 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aso of note, the article just received an A-Class Review, which included an image review and source review. Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed the article at the A-class review and believe it meets the FA criteria. --Rschen7754 17:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I also reviewed the article at ACR and too feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 18:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I figured I'd come over here, since you visited my own FAC, why not travel a bit?

  1. Is it worth linking "decommissioned"?
  2. In the section for "State line to Downriver", you say "before turning more northeasterly" in the 2nd paragraph, but the writing implies it had been going northeasterly ever since it reached US 24, and there is never a mention of it going a direction aside from northeasterly. Is it really turning if it doesn't change directions? Or, if it changed directions, when did it?
  3. "In Downtown Detroit, Fort Street ended at Campus Martius Park at M-1 (Woodward Avenue). US 25 looped around the square and followed the street named Cadillac Square over to Randolph Street, turning north to connect to Gratiot Avenue." - you say "looped around the square", but is this referencing to Campus Martius Park or Cadillac Square?
  4. "Gratiot Avenue is a major thoroughfare on the east side of Detroit running through residential neighborhoods and connecting to the Detroit City Airport." - why isn't this mentioned when you first mention this avenue? The flow just seems a bit off in this paragraph, but understandably so given how dense the roads are in the motor city. I would also mention in this paragraph when it turns off of Gratiot Avenue, given you later say that it crosses the avenue again.
  5. I'm slightly uncomfortable with how "The Thumb" is referred in the article. It acts as if it's an official name with a clear boundary, which it doesn't (according to the article). I don't know how to get around that - I don't mind that it's used, I just wish the wording treated the region slightly less officially. If you can't think of a solution, don't worry too much, it's not a big deal.
  6. "Eight miles (13 km)" - per WP:MOSNUM, both units should either be abbreviated or spelled out - Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures.
  7. "The chief transportation routes in 1701" - what's important about 1701? Would "early 18th century" work here too?

All in all it's a good article, especially one that hasn't been an active route for several decades. My comments are relatively minor, and I'll be happy to support afterward. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I'm numbering your points above for ease of replies.

  1. It's usually been a good practice to link because some people get confused over the term in relation to highways.
    • Yea, I agree. Make sure you link decommissioned then. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It does turn there and change angles/directions from north-northeasterly (in comparing the routing to that of the parallel Telegraph Road, "both ran north-northeasterly in the area") to more of a just northeasterly direction. It's the joys of trying to describe things when the entire routing in that southern third is canted off north–south or east–west because it parallels the Lake Erie shoreline which is NNE–SSW or so, and the roads switch between NNE–SSW and NE–SW.
    • In that case, you should add another directional reference, as the order of directions in "State line to Downriver" is N, NNE, NE, N, NE (new paragraph), NE, NE. From the end of the first paragraph to the next one, it says the two highways ran concurrently northeasterly, continued northeasterly, and before turning more northeasterly, without references to new directions. I'm assuming there is a direction change in there that prompted the "before turning more northeasterly", but there is none listed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tweaked to try to make the angle changes more explicit. Imzadi 1979 → 10:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tweaked.
  4. Tweaked, and noting that the point was already mentioned in the article where US 25/M-59 departed Gratiot Avenue to intersect I-94 west of New Baltimore.
  5. It's about as official as any of the other subregions of the two peninsulas as "Northern Michigan" (oddly refers only to the northern part of Lower Michigan and never to the UP even though Northern Michigan University is in the UP...) or "Central Michigan (which does have Central Michigan University in its midst).
  6. Tweaked
  7. The year 1701 marks the founding of Detroit, and while that's not the first settlement in the future state of Michigan (the UP has two cities that are older), it is the year demarcated in my sources for the first roadways the correspond to our state's highways, or the starting points of their explorations of the topic. Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just read through the article. I could not find any errors. Everything seemed straightforward to me. The pictures were useful too. Glad to support. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Seems a while since we saw a roads article at FAC! I don't have time to check myself but is the info in the Major Intersections table mentioned/cited in the main body? Or is there a single source that covers all this data (citation #2)? cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: the content of that table is fairly unique to that section, as it is in every highway article. The specific mileposts, as statistics, are cited to that one source, but it would also back all of the counties/locations and the intersecting highways. Imzadi 1979 → 02:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2016 [33].

Hex Enduction Hour[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E Smith's finest moment and maybe one of the most enduring and influential early 1980s Post-Punk albums. Smith has always been instantly quotable and an engaging, acerbic subject. Note he tends to swear in that Manchester way, if I ever get hauled to arbcom for this. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - I would argue for a more extensive FUR for each of the audio excerpts, indicating why these particular clips are needed for reader understanding. Also, the current FUR for File:Hex_Enduction_Hour_by_THE_FALL.jpg is incorrect - it's File:Hex_Enduction_Hour.jpg that's used in the infobox. Why are both needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, removed the promo artwork and one of the clips...working on FU for the remaining two. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have only a few issues. Interesting choice of subject by the way.
"Vocalist and Fall leader" maybe "frontman" for leader?
  • "touring rock groups" maybe "bands" for "groups"?
  • "laval-walled" lava-walled?
  • "who apparently often posed him loaded questions" I would drop the apparently and just say who is saying this.
  • "He later said that what was going through his mind with Rough Trade was "Fuck off", while Kamera's attitude was "Yeah! Get on with it" This is saying, as I read it, that Smith's attitude was "Fuck off". Given that the second part is about what Kamera's attitude, I'd expect the first part to be about Rough Trade's.
  • "memorably claimed" says who?
  • "The track has been compared to dub "if it had been invented in a drizzly motorway ..." I'm not sure I understand what is being said here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except the last, which is a reference to Northern bleakness ie the surreal while also kitchen sink. It seems clear to me, but obviously need to figure this one out. Anyway, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Great record, and nice to see the mighty Fall getting some Wiki attention at long last. A couple of things jump out at me:
  • The album is referred to simply as Hex in the lead, whereas the full title is used in the body of the article. Should this be consistent throughout, since it's not a particularly long title anyway?
  • In the final sentence of the 'Re-issues' section, the title is formatted as "Hex Enduction Hour" - I think this should be Hex Enduction Hour, per this guideline.
Thanks :) — sparklism hey! 08:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more from me:
*In the 'Background' section, Rough Trade should be linked, and possibly briefly described
  • The same section talks about the "post Iceland recordings", but this is the first time that Iceland has been mentioned in the body of the article (it's mentioned in the lead and the next section) — sparklism hey! 20:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sparklism, now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the "post Iceland recordings" part isn't quite right - it appears before the mention of the band recording in Iceland. — sparklism hey! 08:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at this one:
*Smith is described as "Fall frontman Mark E. Smith" in the lead, but simply as "Smith" in the first mention of him in the main body of the article - I think he needs 'introducing' properly here
By linking again? I disagree 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you've had a go at this :) — sparklism hey! 07:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*"According to critic John Doran this unease seeps into the album's sound..." I think this is in the wrong section, since we're still giving background here
But its pernanat to how Smith viewed The Fall at the time. The quote would be out of context and needless otherwise. Ceoil (talk)
OK — sparklism hey! 07:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*"the ambience would resemble their live sound" - whose 'live sound'? (presumably the bands)
  • "and wanted that "we recorded part of it in a cave..." doesn't quite scan right to me
  • A direct quote, and scans with the "otherworldly sound" above, but to ok with changing Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and BOLD-ly tweaked this in the article. If you don't agree, please feel free to revert :) — sparklism hey! 16:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change was for the better. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*"vocals are higher in the mix than on previous releases" → previous Fall releases?
*The first mention of Sounds (magazine) should be italicised
  • The lead states that "It was their first album to include Karl Burns and Paul Hanley in the band's classic two-drummer lineup" but this isn't mentioned in the body of the article
  • True, but not sure if this fact bears repeating, verbatim. The reasons why are certainly interesting and could be expanded on, but out of scope? I'm ok with leaving to the article body, if LEAD is more important than juice. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, agree about it being out of scope to go into further. As far as LEAD goes, my view would be that this comes under the "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" part, so I'd prefer to see it in the body - this is just my personal preference though, and it's cool if you don't agree. If it stays solely in the lead, though, will it need a source? — sparklism hey! 16:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for "Smith was inspired both by the otherworldliness of the landscape and the enthusiasm of an audience unused to touring rock groups."
Is this sourced anywhere? — sparklism hey! 16:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*The lead says "The album was widely praised on release" but the Reception section says "Overall however, the album was not well received."
*In the professional reviews template, Allmusic should be stylised as AllMusic, and Pitchfork, PopMatters, The Quietus and Stylus should all be in italics
*Just a thought: was the album not reviewed in Melody Maker?
  • Not that I have found, and its long defunct. I lost my sub to rock's back pages a few years ago. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look around too, and couldn't find any evidence that they reviewed it, which I'm surprised about but there you go. — sparklism hey! 07:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*"Describing the album in the NME in 1982, Richard Cook described the band..." Perhaps the first 'describe' here should be 'reviewing', to avoid repetition
*The lead says that "today it is considered a hallmark of the post-punk era", but the closest the body of the article comes to that is that is Pitchfork saying it was the "33rd best album of the 1980s" etc.
Hope this helps (this is my first time at FAC, apologies if I'm not doing it right...). Thanks — sparklism hey! 05:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; the above observations are most helpful, sorry if some of the responses are tearse. All well observed and on point, though I'm disputing a small few. Working through the others, you can challenge as you see fit. My apologies for the time gaps in resp, but appreciate your time and view; the real problem with wiki is the admin tendency to loinise "Shift-Work " as the greatest Fall album, and ruthlessly suppress dissenters ;) Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! No problem at all. I've struck my comments that have already been addressed to make reading this page easier - I'll take another proper look at the article soon. It's shaping up beautifully, btw. (Oh, and I heard that Jimbo's favourite record was actually Bend Sinister, but I can't seem to locate the source...) Cheers! — sparklism hey! 14:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bend Sinister? Jesus, what kind of board of directors have we. Anyway found the 82 MM review; added now. Ceoil (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I've replied above, sorry about the delay (busy IRL). You'll see I've made a few more tweaks to the article, hope this helps...thanks — sparklism hey! 16:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those recent changes weren't me, by the way. You might want to look at those. — sparklism hey! 12:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did and done; interesting POV. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see there have been some significant changes to the article, so I'm going through again:
  • "a Northern England working class ascetics.." doesn't quite scan right - would this be better as "a Nothern working class ascetic.."
  • Done per your wording. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead states that "the album sold poorly" but then that it "sold well relative to its release on a small label" and the 'Reception' section says that "The sales reflected a surge in the band's popularity.." after it was " was the first Fall album to make the UK Albums Chart"
  • Re sold well, this is sources contradicting themselves, and its of course relative. Sold better than previous albums is safer and will go with this. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, article now reads "By mid-1983 it has sold twenty thousand copies". Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Smith fought that the remaining album track were recorded in a relatively ambient and open space, eventually a disused cinema in Hitchin. He had hoped that the ambience of such a space..." needs a copy edit, I think. How about "Smith wanted to record the remaining album tracks in a relatively open space, eventually using a disused cinema in Hitchin. He had hoped that the ambience of such a space..." or something. (Though I've got a problem with my own 'using a disused' there)
  • "would begin to resemble their live." is obviously missing a word
  • "Jawbone and the Rabbit Killer" sounds fantastic, but it doesn't appear on this album (!)
  • It should! But fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Winter, Part I" and "Winter, Part II" are not actually how the songs are titled in the track listing either
  • The commentary for "And This Day" is interesting but unsourced
  • The 2002 reissue was billed as Hex Enduction Hour+, and the 2005 remaster as the 'Expanded Deluxe Edition' - I think the collapsed headings in the 'Track listing' sections should reflect these
Hoping this helps :) — sparklism hey! 19:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and thanks. I think I have all these now. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed a bit of a howler:
  • we've got "it builds on the low fidelity production values..." and "in parts from low-fi production values..." in the first two sentences of the lead. They both link to different articles too - I think the former is correct, since we are not talking about the genre of lo-fi music. — sparklism hey! 21:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, and got rid of the other instance. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is my first time at FAC, so I'm by no means an expert, but all of my concerns have been addressed. I haven't checked the media or the reference formatting, as I wouldn't really know where to begin, but the article looks good to me. Excellent work, Ceoil. — sparklism hey! 10:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few general observations:

  1. I usually despise too-formal prose on Wikipedia, but here the opposite is the case, thanks to too many quotes. 'Background' especially gives off a huge punk oral-history vibe.
  2. None of the influences in the lead—VU, Can, Beefheart—are mentioned again or expanded upon in the article; how did they influence Smith etc.
  • I'm going off single mentions. Smith is not the type to expand. Move to body? Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't see the point of the Album heading—articles on books wouldn't have a Book section. The old way was fine.
  2. The audio clips need captions, describing the music and vocal style etc.
  1. Aren't there any 1982 reviews of Hex? If not, it'd be great if you could source a biographer saying "the press ignored it" or band members' perceptions of how it was received. Also you should mention that what you're quoting are only retrospective reviews.
  2. Reissues seems sparsely unreferenced?—indopug (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for comments, working through Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, I think I have addressed all concerns, except for either naming or alluding to 1982 reviews. Working and will ping. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update; almost done trimming quotes. Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Damn...meant to comment on this yonks ago!) support on comprehensiveness and prose. Ceoil asked me to look at this some time ago and I thought it was shaping up pretty nciely. I took another squiz on my phone later and was happy with what I saw (i.e. lapsing into just reading and forgetting about prose-picking). So I reckon that's a good sign....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just a few things
Comments
  • Was it really a tour of Iceland? How does a rock band tour Iceland? There's nothing above 20,000 outside Reykjavik! Or was it a tour that stopped in Iceland? I notice the lede more definite on this point than the body.
  • "He proposed a final album" the band's last ever? Some uncertainty in meaning. I imagine they had fulfilled their contract to Rough Trade and were at liberty to peddle their services?
  • "He already had a number of songs recorded at Hljóðriti studio in Reykjavík during their 1981 tour." He or they? I'd move "recorded" to after the "had" for clarity.
  • "He had hoped that the ambience of such a space would begin to resemble their live sound. " for "begin to resemble" maybe "recall" or "emulate"?
  • "but that the word Enduction was made up; a word he just liked the sound of.[10] " since the text after the semicolon cannot stand on its own as a sentence, possibly a comma instead?
  • "that was acceptable by Fall Standards" query if "Fall Standards" is a proper noun. Maybe "that was acceptable to Fall members"?
  • "The preceding single, "Look, Know"" preceding what?
  • "the band's stock and popularity" stock?
  • "An excerpt was used in 1991" of which song?
  • "biro" I would pipe to ballpoint pen or similar.
Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited except as follows (ref numbers per this version:

  • Hex Enduction Hour is inconsistently italicised in the source titles (compare 9 with 13 and 15, although there are others. Note some have partial titles)
  • I'm not sure that ref #22 or 51 is consistent with your capitalisation practices.
  • Italics problem in #36
  • regarding #39, ends with a full stop, all others do not.
  • about #50 seems imprecise as to a date for a fortnightly magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all done except for the italicisation of album title in some refs; a necessity of using "" for the article title if the source is an magazine (which are magazine). Ceoil (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, are you happy with actions/responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up a bit. Aside from one thing more, I'm OK with it now. But what is #23? "Middles, Mick. "The Fall". Omnibus Press, 2009. ASIN B002WHS6A0" If this is a book, can you give guidance to the reader on how to find the cited material?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was unable to find a page number, so have removed. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2016&oldid=712731568"