Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2016 [1].

History of the New York Yankees[edit]

Nominator(s): Giants2008 (Talk) 02:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, my fellow reviewers. For the second time in my Wikipedia career, I'm bringing an article to FAC. This page is about the history of one of the most successful teams in North American sports. It has taken almost three years of editing to bring the article to this point. The version from before I started renovations deserves a place in a museum; not only was it largely unsourced, but it somehow managed to be outdated and full of recentism at the same time. That's not a combination you come across too often, even on the lower end of Wikipedia articles. As a diehard Yankees fan, I knew a lot about the team's past in advance, but I'm surprised at how much I learned while doing research.

The article reached GA status in early 2015, following a review by Wizardman, who I'm relieved to see has returned to editing after a brief absence. To help prepare it for FAC, I brought it to peer review and sought out input from the great Wehwalt. Among the topics discussed was the length, as this is admittedly a long article (although not as long as his latest political epic). He wasn't enthusiastic about the idea of splitting the page, and in truth neither am I. If possible, I'm inclined to follow his advice. I believe that the article has been brought up to FA standards, and will be around to address your comments. Please enjoy the article, and hopefully the home run the Red Sox hit against the Yankees while I was typing this won't prove to be a bad omen. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)1[reply]

  • Image review:
  • Others OK. Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your concern looks valid, and I removed the image. Thank you for the review. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I haven't reviewed any other aspects of the article, but I'm pleased to strike the opposition. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One minor point: I might just pop back and review this properly as it looks rather good, to no-one's great surprise! The lead reads very well. But for consistency, should all the names in captions be linked? Some are, and some aren't. Unless there is a reason for this that I've missed, I think it should be all or none. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: It's been ages seen I'd seen you at an FAC before today! It's great to see you contributing here once again. I decided to remove almost all of the links from the captions; it's just a personal preference of mine, I guess. There is a photo of George W. Bush throwing out a ceremonial pitch with his name linked in the caption; his name doesn't come up in the article itself, so I left that link alone for now. If you'd prefer them all to be linked, I'd certainly be willing to bend on the issue. It would be fantastic if you could give this a review at some point. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem either way, not a big deal for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Read to end of 1903-12 section. Looking very good so far, just a few minor nitpicks. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "moved to position the circuit as a new major league that would compete with the established National League": I'm assuming that the circuit refers to the Western League, but this is a little vague on first reading.
    • I changed the order of the sentence to make things clearer. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the first paragraph of the Background section a little confusing. "In addition to placing three teams in cities with NL clubs, the AL had another three in former NL team locations, including Baltimore" feels important, but doesn't make it clear to me why that is. Also, "the Orioles were one of four clubs shut down by the NL after the 1899 season" confuses me. I had thought that the Orioles were formed in 1901, and it was only when I followed the link that I understood.
    • There was a little unneeded detail and it didn't quite get to the point before, upon a second look. See if the new version looks better. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York posted a fourth-place finish": This may just be me, but I never like "posted". I prefer "finished fourth", but that may just be me!
  • "due to ineffective pitching": Just a hint of editorial voice here? But I'm loathe to go with "according to XXX" here. If there is an easy way to reword this, it might be changed, but if not I think it is fine.
    • I gave more explicit reasons for the pitching's struggles. There was a quote I could have added, but I thought it best to spare us all from "Griffith's cripples". That's not very nice, even by early-1900s standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a 70–78 record that was 21 games worse": Presumably they won 21 fewer games?
    • Actually, it was 22, but the teams played an uneven number of games, so the record books show it as a 21-game margin. I just listed the wins, for simplicity's sake. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After their first couple of seasons in New York City, Highlanders ownership infrequently invested in new players": In this paragraph we call them Highlanders, but earlier we say that this was not their only nickname. Would it be safer to call them something else? Again, not a big deal, and feel free to ignore it.
    • Removed the nickname where I saw it. Their nickname becomes official in the next section, so it won't be as much of an issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York was searching for a site to build a new stadium on": Gives me a strange vision of all the people of the city searching... Maybe "The team owners" or similar? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source mentions one owner, so his name is now there. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I made a few minor changes, but please check them as usual. I've been known to mess up baseball articles before! Looking good, to end of 1913-20. Sorry it's a bit slow. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With the Yankees finishing no higher than sixth place in 1913 and 1914": Given that it's only two seasons, why not give their actual places for the two seasons as this is a little teasing.
  • "and reportedly carried debts": Not a fan of reportedly; can we be more definitive about what their debts were?
    • The source doesn't give any more details, and there was nothing in the other major sources I checked. I removed "reportedly". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 1916 Yankees improved to 80 wins" sounds a bit jarring to me; not sure how you can improve to wins! But I suspect it's common usage, so feel free to ignore.
  • "The war-shortened 1918 campaign saw the Yankees contend": Never a big fan of this usage of saw, but again it might just be me.
  • "and wind up fourth in the AL at 60–63": And I really dislike "wind up"!
  • "for $25,000 cash and $75,000 in notes": What are notes in this sense?
    • They were promissory notes, and that is now linked. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Curse of the Bambino, this mainly comes up after 1986. Were there any more contemporary similar views?
    • The source is adamant that talk of a curse did not start until then, and for what it's worth our article on the curse agrees. The people in New England had their hearts broken in 1986, and that probably led talk of a curse to spread. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder are we a little light on Ruth. If attendances increased, can that be tied more to him? Something about people coming to watch him, how amazing he was, something like that?

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wehwalt added a little on him (naturally), and I plugged in a sentence that may help explain his appeal better. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch: No major problems, just a few nit-picks and questions over phrasing. Now to end of 1929-35; enjoying this one! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ruth himself resurged after receiving vocal criticism": Resurged seems a bit strange here! Maybe another word (though I can't think of much better than a dull "had a resurgence"
    • Your suggestion is the best I can come up with as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "losing season": Pretty obvious, but the completist in me wonders if we need a note or something to explain? Maybe not.
    • How about a wikilink to a glossary article explaining the concept? I often find it easier to do this than add a footnote, since most of the sources assume the readers know what the definition is from the start. One of the occupational hazards of writing about sports, as I'm sure you're aware. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York suffered the death of manager Huggins": Not sure suffered is the right word here. Maybe just "The team's manager, Huggins, died ..." or similar.
  • "McCarthy's team was a transition from Murderers' Row": Again, I know what this means, but I think its a little laboured. Is there a non-sports-speak way to say it? Even if we just say something like "undergoing a transition", or "the personnel were in transition from that of the Murderer's Row..."
  • "beating out the Athletics for the pennant": Beating out is a new one for me, and doesn't sound too encyclopaedic.
  • "Ruth's batting production": Yuck!!
  • "in areas such as on-field hustle": Not sure what this means. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to a concept that should be easier to understand. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Down to 1948-56 now. I did some minor copy-editing; as usual, please check my working! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he benched himself": I never like this, but I may be in a minority, and I can't think of a concise way to say the same thing. For me, it's creeping into sports-speak, but not a big deal to be honest.
    • Took it out altogether, as the rest of the sentence gets the point across. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were one out from losing when Tommy Henrich struck out": Is there a way to avoid out...out?
  • "an MLB home attendance record by attracting 2,265,512 fans": Presumably over a season? Perhaps make that clear.
  • "the 1955 Yankees beat out the Indians": Sports-speak?
    • Yes. I am guilty of that from time to time. It's gone now. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the Yankees' management had sought to avoid integrating the club's roster": Perhaps worthy of a little more comment, even if just context or comparison to other teams.
    • Commented on it, as indicated below. I was going to work on all of this batch later, but since this was related to one of Wehwalt's comments I decided to expand on what I was writing there. I actually think giving most of a paragraph to this helps "break up the flow" as you wanted. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general comment about this chunk. The 1936 and 1948 sections are a little bit of a chore to read to a non-specialist. I think the two main reasons for this are that we have a lot of sentences beginning with "the" and an unavoidably repetitive structure of wins, etc. The second reason is that, unlike earlier, we are a little starved of comment. The team was obviously really, really dominant here, but there is no comment on this. For example, what did the critics say, either now and then? What did the fans think? Were they popular or unpopular? If there was a way to break up the flow of seasons and results, it might make it a little easier. This is not a major issue, but it is one worth considering, if anything can be done. We certainly manage it on the previous sections. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was about the point where I realized the article was headed for 15,000 words if I didn't tone things down a bit. :-) I've done my best to try and break up what must be monotony for you. For the 1936 section, I added some brief commentary on the 1939 team and that era. The 1948 section benefits from the integration addition earlier, and I inserted a short paragraph on falling attendance and television broadcasts, which is a departure from the results etc. In addition, I varied the beginnings of sentences some more. Have no fear if you choose to keep reading (and I hope you do!): after the next section, things become more interesting. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now down to the end of the 1973 to 1976 section. Did a couple of minor copy-edits, but nothing really jumping out at me. All looking good. I'll try to finish this tomorrow, sorry it's taking so long! (I'm out of practice!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Finally done, having read to the end. Nothing leaped out apart from these fairly minor points which don't affect my support. An excellent piece of work, and an interesting read. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "who later broke the career stolen base and runs scored records": I'm pretty sure I understand this but it lacks a little elegance. Is there a way to rephrase it a bit?
    • Changed it to "the future MLB career stolen base and runs scored record holder", which is hopefully better. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just dawned on me that we never introduce the Mets: they aren't actually linked either! And we last left it where the Giants and the Dodgers had just left, but nothing is followed up. Might be obvious to a baseball fan, but perhaps not to everyone, and we go into more detail about the other NY teams earlier in the article.
    • Excellent catch! I added a couple sentences on the Yankees' new competition in the 1965–72 section. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following their 2003 season, in which Jeter became their first captain of the Yankees since Mattingly..." I could be missing something obvious, but this made no sense to me!
  • I wonder if the second paragraph of the 2009-present section just becomes a touch too much like PROSELINE? And I like the final paragraphs which sum it all up, but they seem a little bit of an afterthought. I wonder if they should have their own section? But not sure that would work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed a couple of words around to make it less like proseline. As for the final paragraphs, I played around with giving them their own section in edit preview mode, but it just didn't feel right to me. The section looked stubby in comparison to the rest of the article. If it's okay, I'd like to leave them as is for now. If they receive further objections from reviewers, I'd be more inclined to take out the quote and incorporate the content from the summary paragraph elsewhere in the article. Thanks for all of the useful comments, which have improved the article tremendously, and for your support. I'm happy you decided to visit FAC again! Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm working my way through the article, mostly hands on. Excellent work, as I remember it being. My biggest quarrels so far are a tendency to use "New York" as a plural noun (especially pre-1914), and a lot of fairly unneeded phrases like "in the AL" following say, "third place", when it is obvious from context. I'd ask you to look through and see if those and similar phrases are truly needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do worry about the singular/plural issue, because I've seen numerous FACs tank over it. Many of the strongest European prose reviewers took a dim view of using "it" for the first names of teams, from what I remember at past sports FACs. Still, if that's what you want to see, I'll reduce the plural nature of the city name. If it's okay with Sarastro, I might just go with Highlanders, as I see that nickname more often than Americans in most sources. I'll do these items with Sarastro's next batch, as I do want to watch some of the game tonight if possible. Oh, and thank you for the prose cleanup you've been doing. I still lack much experience in FA-level writing; noticing issues in others' prose is much easier than scanning your own! Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No problem. The reasons why the Yankees avoided integrating the club might be helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went and did a sweep focusing on singular/plural issues and the removal of extraneous phrasing. My hope was to finish the integration comment and your others below, but it's almost midnight now and I really need to stop for the night. They will need to be tomorrow's job, along with anything else that may come up in the meantime. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any help, I've no problem at all with using "it" for a team; I consider it an ENGVAR issue. I'm OK with Highlanders too, though it may be confusing if not used sparingly. And I see that I've just repeated Wehwalt's comment about integration. Sorry! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a few sentences on the Yankees' attitudes toward black players. They should help the readers understand the prevailing sentiment of the time, in all of its ugliness. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Stout writes that they "were the first team to comprehend what free agency meant", in terms of increasing attention paid to the club and revenue"" Well, they were the first team to build a winner through free agency, which seems to me to be the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, and I added something along that line that the source was able to support. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did the resurgence of the Mets contribute to the Yankees' decline in the mid 1980s?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the field, not really. They did more damage to themselves than anything else. However, the Mets started outdrawing the Yankees every year, which I thought was worth a mention. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
During the account of 2001, I think there needs to be some mention of 9/11 and the resumption of baseball. It was seen as something of an important symbol.
Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a more pungent way of putting the comparison of team payrolls? If the source will support it, I'd put it in terms of ", as much as the Senators, Pilots, and Pilgrims combined"
It listed all the team's payrolls, so that was fairly easy to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your use of "numerous", it's a bit heavy.
I saw a couple of them in the bottom of the article and dealt with them. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say a bit more about the new stadium, its location, perhaps mention that Monument Park was moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if you have any other comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to touch on the Rodriguez drug affair. Possibly in the listing of accomplishments (pennants and whatnot) at the end, you can include something from the lists of the most valuable franchises in sports. As I recall, the Yankees are up there.
Support In addition to my comments here, I've edited the article a fair amount during the FAC and weighed in some time back at the peer review. I continue to believe that the article is not too long. I suspect that our articles are mined for information rather than read straight through, and should not be laid on a Procrustean bed for adjustment. An excellent account of the team's history. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and your help in polishing the article. I added sentences to address your last two points. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Been reading this over - comments soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the American League (AL) was founded in 1901, the Baltimore Orioles were one of the original eight clubs; after two years, the organization was replaced by a New York City-based franchise, which became known as the Yankees in 1913. - this bit reads a bit weirdly as it is unclear why the Orioles are being mentioned (also the New York Yankees page sets 1901 as the establishment date). How about "The club was one of the original eight clubs of American League (AL) at its founding in 1901, though was then known as the Baltimore Orioles; after two years, the organization was moved to New York was transformed into (or replaced by) a New York City-based franchise, which became known as the Yankees in 1913." ?
From 1936 to 1939, the Yankees won the World Series every year - I'd flip this, sounds funny as is

I was reading this on my phone and there were some other minor things that I can't find now, so never mind....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did something a little different than that. The sources are split on whether the Yankees actually moved or were a new team; if anything, most of the recent sources say the old Orioles went under, leaving a spot in the AL that the future Yankees filled. It's hard for me to redo the lead that way when it would be going against the team's viewpoint (it doesn't count the Orioles years) and secondary sources. The 1901–02 section has good background info, but I can see why the Orioles mention in the lead would be confusing. I rewrote the sentence in a way that removed the Orioles while mentioning other content from the section per WP:LEAD. I was hoping to avoid stirring up a potential hornet's nest at the main Yankees article, but if you want me to try editing that page with a couple of the sources used here, I guess I'll give it a shot. Let me know if that's what you want me to do.
  • Your second comment should be done. Thanks for taking a look, and please do post the other things if you remember them. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. That reads fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Giants2008, has there been a source review I'm missing? If not, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Laser brain (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask for one, but it looks like Wehwalt has made that unnecessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistently cited except as follows:

  • You are inconsistent in whether significant words are capitalized in news article titles. A cluster beginning around ref 252 have caps, most others do not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalized all significant words. Thanks for taking a look at the referencing. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax Hi, Giants2008. The lead image looked small to me, and I noticed it was sized to 300 instead of to 300px, so I upsized it using our image rescaler parameter to upright=1.3 which is the maximum size recommended for an infobox, if there was one, which there is not. Using the upright parameter is the preferred way to upsize or downsize images. 1.3 factor will make it 286 pixels wide if a reader has their preferences set to the standard default of 220px. Always include a scaling factor when using the upright rescaler, or it will auto downsize images to 70% of the user's default image size.

I made several edits here, mostly for MoS and aesthetics. With lots of real estate and not an over abundance of images, I was able to jigger the images around to make the page flow better. I hope you like it.

This sentence looks odd to me and you might want to read up on MOS:NUMBERS (as it pertains to fractions):

the total gave them the league championship by a 4 1/2-game margin over Cleveland.

The numeral 4 should not stand alone and it should be a word, but if you convert it to a word, then you also need to convert the fractional portion to a word. Also, hanging the word game on the fraction with a hyphen is irregular, IMHO. Ping me back after the prose edit and I will be sure to !vote on this for you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was meant to be a mixed number, and apparently the MoS wants you to present mixed numbers in figure form. I base many of my own comments on MoS issues, and even I can't keep up with all of the manual's twists and turns. The fraction is now MoS-compliant, and I tweaked the sentence to remove the hyphen. See if that works for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:33, 22 May 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) 08:12, 31 May 2016 [2].

Michael Francis Egan[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Michael Francis Egan, the first Catholic bishop of Philadelphia. It is shorter than my usual fare, but he was only bishop for a few years, and the historical record is fairly sparse. Even so, I hope you'll find this an enjoyable and interesting article. Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently a Wikicup contender, but I wrote most of this article last year, so I will not be submitting it for points there. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Dank, and thanks for catching those errors. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jfhutson[edit]

  • Not sure post-nominal letters should be bolded.
  • I see from the footnote that before his appointment as bishop the US was one big diocese. I think the reader would be interested to know without seeing the footnote that the "vast diocese" is the entire US.
  • Is there anything you can add about Egan's position on trusteeism before you talk about his actions?

Sources look OK given the subject.--JFH (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the review. I've made all of these adjustments now. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, looks good. The prose is clear and understandable. I've also reviewed the images. Support--JFH (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and I presume comprehensiveness (I don't know the topic but it appears cohesive) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This hasn't attracted a great deal of commentary but the reviewers are experienced and the necessary image and source reviews are complete, so given it's been open seven weeks or so and doesn't appear to be a controversial subject I'm going to promote it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 31 May 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) 07:53, 31 May 2016 [3].

God of War (series)[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the God of War video game series, one of the biggest video game franchises of the last decade. It has become a flagship title for the PlayStation brand, and the character Kratos is one of PlayStation's most popular characters. The series consists of seven games (with an eighth in development), having appeared on the PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, and PlayStation Portable, and remastered ports appearing on the PlayStation 3, PlayStation Vita, and PlayStation 4. There was also an installment released for mobile phones. The series expanded into a franchise with the release of a comic series, two novels, a web-based graphic novel, toys, prop replicas, and other merchandise. A film is also in development. I began working on this article in February 2009 when it looked like this and have substantially expanded the article. It became a Good Article in July 2012 and is the main article of the God of War franchise Featured Topic. I believe this article is now ready to become a Featured Article. JDC808 ♫ 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain[edit]

Extended content

For clarity, I checked this version. Some really excellent work here, as expected, so I'm going to be as nitpicky and annoying as possible. Apologies in advance.

Lead and infobox
  • I know that {{Infobox video game series}} has no guidelines on publishers, but {{Infobox video game}} states that only publishers in English-language regions should be listed. Capcom doesn't fit this. However, since it's technically not a guideline, this doesn't bother me; just figured I'd mention it.
  • "God of War III Remastered released on..." should be "God of War III Remastered was released on...".
  • "Sony reported that the series up to that point had sold..."—is "up to that point" necessary?
  • The reference at the end of the lead can be removed, per WP:LEADCITE.
    • All points addressed. As per the last point about the reference, that one is there because that sentence's information is not anywhere else in the article. --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Games
  • Consider linking Kratos and Ares, since its their first usage outside the lead.
  • I find it strange to mention the Ultimate Edition and Collector's Edition in this section; it seems pretty insignificant.
  • I also find this section to be quite under-referenced, since none of the IGN links actually mention all of the information that they're being used to source.
  • Link SCE Santa Monica Studio in "Future", and use their full name upon the first instance.
  • "Creative Director" and "Game Director" don't require capitalisation. Probably just a personal opinion, though.
  • "As its title implies" seems unnecessary.
    • Addressed points. As to the "under-referenced" comment, most of the information for the standalone games are their plot summaries, so I basically treated that in the same vain as plot summaries for game articles, where it's not required to source the plot summaries. I just put the reference at the end of the paragraph, instead of right after the first sentence of each one. --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay
  • The games and some characters shouldn't be linked in this section, since they're linked above. I presume this was a result of restructuring the sections—easily fixed.
  • Provide a source for the first-person camera in Ascension.
  • Link combo in the second paragraph; remove the link in the third.
  • First sentence of the fifth paragraph has a minor punctuation issue.
    • Addressed points. I think I got the minor punctuation issue. --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Main series
  • Remove the link for Santa Monica Studio.
  • As above, roles like "Director of Visual Development" and "Lead Concept Artist" don't require capitalisation.
  • Link GameSpot.
  • Link engine.
  • I think it would be better to reference the quotes immediately at the end of their respective sentences.
  • Link Backward compatibility.
  • Might be a good idea to link E3 2009.
  • Change "Diamond" to "Diamand".
  • I never see PlayStation Blog written with the period. Not asking for it to be changed—just a note.
  • Remove the link for Sony Computer Entertainment in "PSP games". Add it to the last paragraph of "Main series" (or to the Saga listing in "Collections and remasters"—whatever you think would be more suitable).
Adaptions
  • Link Daniel Craig.
  • In the last paragraph, change "Ascension's" to "Ascension's".
    • Technical question, what exactly is the difference in the second point here? I've never actually understood it. --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never addressed this. Since the game is titled God of War: Ascension, not God of War: Ascension's, the italic writing should stop before the apostrophe in order to encompass the official title and no more. Hope that makes sense. – Rhain ☔ 07:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well that was a lot simpler than what I thought. That does make sense, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • Remove the link for Sony Computer Entertainment.
  • Change "never ending" to "never-ending".
  • "listening to the whole album can seem repetitive" should be reworded. Perhaps even adding "some reviewers felt that" to the beginning would be enough.
  • In the paragraph about the Ghost of Sparta soundtrack, I feel as though iTunes should link to iTunes Store (in which case, the link to the latter should be removed in the "God of War: Blood & Metal" section).
  • The article would definitely be cleaner if Blood & Metal was split into a separate article—it's a shame it didn't receive enough coverage to warrant one.
    • Addressed points. Blood & Metal did have its own article at one time, but it got merged back into this one because there wasn't enough coverage. --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • Change "NA" to "N/A" in the table.
  • The bracketed information in the first sentence seems unnecessary.
  • "(MC)" is unnecessary, since the abbreviation is never used again.
  • Reference the sentence about the games receiving critical acclaim as compiled by Metacritic; just add the Metacritic reference for each game to the end of the sentence.
  • Link GameSpy.
  • Mention who awarded Chains of Olympus the "Best PSP Action Game".
  • Reference IGN's Chains of Olympus review immediately after the first quote.
  • The reference after "Most Anticipated Game of 2010" can be removed.
  • Mention who awarded God of War III "Most Anticipated Game of 2010" and "Best PS3 Game".
  • "players still having to move boxes to solve puzzles" felt awkward to read. Consider rephrasing (perhaps something along the lines of "puzzles requiring players to move boxes").
  • Why was the God of War III puzzle criticised, and considered inappropriate? Some brief elaboration would help here.
  • Remove space before ref #150.
  • Unlink GamePro in the final paragraph.
  • The last sentence is particularly wordy. The word "impressive" shouldn't be used outside of a quote, and mentioning the price itself seems out of place. Consider rewording.
    • Addressed points. As to the bracketed information, I put that there so that anyone reading who may wonder if there's recent sales data, it lets them know, no, there's not. As to the puzzle in 3 being considered inappropriate, the review didn't elaborate on it, or specifically mention which puzzle. When he said that a puzzle felt inappropriate in the video review, it showed the Guitar Hero-like mini-game, but he didn't say why it felt inappropriate. I removed it and replaced it with another reviewer's criticism. As to mentioning the price, it was something that pretty much all of the reviewers criticized. I know that we generally don't mention prices unless it is particularly noteworthy, but I felt it was noteworthy in this case. --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • I noticed that most of the references are archived, but some (#2–4, 6–9) are not. I'd personally recommend archiving all online sources, both for convenience and consistency.
  • I also noticed that some references (in fact, most—#5, 10, 14, 17...) don't use |deadurl=no, despite the fact that the links aren't dead. Not a huge deal, but I personally prefer using the parameter whenever I can.

Don't let the amount of comments fool you—this is a really great article. I found it very entertaining and interesting to read, and didn't really spot any major problems (hence the fussy and nitpicky comments). All editors should be proud of their work on this article. – Rhain ☔ 11:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: Thank you. I believe I've addressed all the points, and I made some comments about some above. --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing all of my points. After reviewing all of your changes, and taking another quick look at the article, I'm happy to support this candidacy. Well done! This is a fantastic article. Not that I'm surprised, of course. – Rhain ☔ 07:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a note: when pinging or replying to users, you'll have to re-sign in order for the target user to be notified. That wasn't a problem here, since I followed the page anyway, but it's useful to know if you weren't already aware. – Rhain ☔ 07:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for both your support and the comments to help improve this article more. In response to pinging, I did not realize that. I guess the times in the past that I've used it, it was part of my original post before I had signed. --JDC808 ♫ 15:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After several times reading I can't spot out any flaws on the article. Great work! Simon (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As someone quite familiar with the topic and reviewer of most of the God of War game articles. → Call me Razr Nation 14:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I seriously tried to find something that stood out that needed fixing, but I'm not seeing anything to prevent this article being given that golden star. Well done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just two very quick comments:

  • "have been praised as" -why not "have been praised for"?
  • Changed.
  • "several reviewers as compiled by review aggregate Metacritic.[120][121][123][124][126]" - what's with so many citations? As I can see they are used nowhere else, I think you can group those. FrB.TG (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations are for each game mentioned in the first half of that sentence, and they are used in the review scores box. I could make it so that the citations are right after each game in the sentence? @FrB.TG: --JDC808 ♫ 21:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they are used elsewhere, I guess it's better to let it as is.

Comments from David Fuchs[edit]

Still working my way through a thorough review, but some initial stuff you can chew on in the meantime:

  • Prose (1,2):
  • Raymond Padilla of GameSpy wrote that God of War is the "best action game ever to grace the PS2"[135] and one of the best action games of all time, having received over a dozen "Game of the Year" awards.—wait, is Padilla the one giving it a dozen GOTY awards? These sentences don't seem like they can be linked.
  • Tried to rework.
The changeup introduces the problem of ascribing a objective statement to a single critic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked again. --JDC808 ♫ 18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betrayal's is there just to show its difference.
The point is, merely illustrating the difference isn't enough to meet WP:NFCC. You have to argue that our understanding of the topic as a whole is severely impaired without a shot of a spinoff side scrolling game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. NFCC is annoying. --JDC808 ♫ 18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • References (1c, 2c):
    • What makes SquareEnixMusic.com and Game Music Online high-quality, reliable sources?
  • According to WP:VG/RS, they are reliable.
    • Looks like web references all archived; this pleases me.
  • Misc. (1–4):
    • Overall the article seems to be the appropriate length for coverage.
    • Additionally, Santa Monica partnered with iam8bit and artists Jim Rugg, Doaly, and Nimit Malavia to create their own inspired movie posters based on God of War I, II, and III for the franchise's tenth anniversary.—this detail seems trivial and too detailed to go in the lead.
  • Removed.
    • The second paragraph of the lead gets really heavy with repetitive use of em dashes, with the consequence it feels like the prose is stuttering constantly. I think turning these into commas where applicable and restructuring the sentences as necessary will help with flow.
  • Left the dashes on the first instance, the rest changed to commas. Is that better?
    • Although Betrayal did not receive this level of positive feedback, it has been acclaimed for its fidelity to the series in terms of gameplay, art style, and graphics.[5] Similarly, Ghost of Sparta did not receive that level of acclaim, but has been praised for its graphics and story. These seem like exceptional statements to make on the basis of single sources. I think a more neutral descriptor would just be saying that Betrayal and Ghost of Sparta received lower aggregate scores.
  • Reworked.
    • I'm not sure the track listing or reviews of the soundtrack are relevant enough to be included.
  • Removed the track listing but kept the reviews just so it at least has some reception. --JDC808 ♫ 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Do you think you'll have more comments to add here? --Laser brain (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try and finish the review in the coming day or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked references to current refs 13, 14, 34, 69, 103, 134, and 146. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or bad/erroneous citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:34, 23 May 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) 17:00, 28 May 2016 [4].

George Tucker (politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hoppyh (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of America's early educators and writers, whose life included some intriguing paradox, in addition to his publication of the first fiction of colonial Virginia life. Tucker's premier comprehensive biography of Thomas Jefferson, his History of the United States, and lastly, his writing of an early science fiction, also qualifies the article for consideration as a featured article. While Tucker's life could command but a singular in-depth biographer, Robert C. McLean, McLean's book is strengthened by its having resulted from his dissertation—prepared for, reviewed, and approved by a Washington University faculty committee. Publication was made possible by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The work, 230 pages in length, is well sourced by a bibliography which spans 18 pages. Hoppyh (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I reviewed this for GAN. Really impressed by the beauty of the prose and the comprehensiveness. This should be one of the finest articles in its field. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks again for your remarks, but especially for your time and effort with the GAN. Hoppyh (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Fire caption needs editing for grammar/MOS (I would actually suggest doing a more complete check of MOS issues throughout the article)
Done. See below. Hoppyh (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should generally use image scaling rather than a fixed pixel size
Image taken from Richmond Theatre fire. I'll need an image expert to help with this issue. Hoppyh (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Prof._George_Tucker.jpg: when/where was this first published? Who is the author and what is the source?
This is a pic of a pic in my home (Tucker was a relative). Hoppyh (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For this and similar: if the upload to Wikipedia was the first publication of the image, then the given copyright tag is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the copyright holder, though? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is this is a family photo. Hoppyh (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[5]. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the tutorial, and your patience! Of course, I haven't the specifics on this photo—from around 1840—other than I am unaware of any publication of it. The same applies to Maria's. I wish there was more I could do to mend the problem. Hoppyh (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Source of image file corrected; author unknown per source. Hoppyh (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:StGeorgeTucker.jpg: source link is dead
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maria_Carter_Tucker.jpg: when/where was this first published, who is the author, and what is the source?
Image removed—copyright appears to be held by George Washington Foundation. Image file requires permission, for which a request has been submitted. Hoppyh (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Date, author, source, and copyright issues resolved. Hoppyh (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1811_Richmond_Theatre_fire.jpg: what is the original source?
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pavilion_IX_UVa_Holsinger_1911.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I lack the ability to provide this tag. Hoppyh (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Replaced image. Hoppyh (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This looks good overall, but I have some comments:

  • Family and early life in Bermuda:
    • In the first sentence, I think the em dash sticks out a bit. probably better broken into two sentences.
    • Link St. George's Island?
    • "Reading included..." should be "His reading included..." or something like that, I think.
    • the Calliopean Society: was the one formed a Yale related to Tucker's, or is it just a coincidence? If there's no connection, then there's really no reason to discuss the Yale one.
    • "...but being quite unqualified..." How was he unqualified? Is it that his studies weren't complete, or he just felt that he wasn't up to the task, or something else?
    • "...a career in America." Normally, I think "United States" and "America" are fairly interchangeable, but considering Bermuda is a part of the Americas generally, it might be best to use "United States" here.
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immigration to America, education and first marriage:
    • I'm not sure "spurned" is the right word here, unless he had an offer to study in London that he rejected.
    • Link College of William & Mary?
A link is provided in the lede and I understand duplicates are discouraged. Hoppyh (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...possessed of much charm and fortune..." I think you're talking about Mary here, but without a possessive, it's hard to tell.
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richmond society, second marriage, slavery and politics:
    • "well furnished" needs a hyphen.
    • "..., that "slow dull man" according to Tucker,..." It might make the sentence flow better to change this to "(whom Tucker called a "slow dull man")"
    • "While Tucker initiated some literary work, as an attorney he was initially deficient,..." Not sure what you mean by "initiated some literary work". That he began writing?
    • "... being literally disabled in the courtroom..." Maybe "overawed by the courtroom" or "uncomfortable with public speaking"?
    • "... Tucker assaulted him." Do your sources give any detail about the nature of the assault?
Detail added-included in cite. Hoppyh (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Positions on slavery:
    • "Tucker's Letter expressed an early opposition to slavery on his part..." might be better as "Tucker's Letter expressed his early opposition to slavery..."
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scandal, rustic life and valor:
    • In the first sentence, "sustain the expenses essential to" might be replaced by "support".
    • "In 1803 he joined..." This formulation should have a comma after the year: "In 1803, he joined..." Same for the 1806, 1808, and 1811 dates farther down.
    • "He also reportedly acted as..." Who is reporting this?
    • "He economized..." should be "Tucker economized..." to make the antecedent clear.
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elective office and early writing:
    • "...Maria's father Charles Carter encountered..." should be "...Maria's father, Charles Carter, encountered..."
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academics:
    • "... and he was quite well published..." might be better as "...and he published several works..."
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Politics
    • Link Andrew Jackson and Second National Bank?
    • "Tucker as well promoted..." "also" is better than "as well" here.
    • "...criticized Jackson for his defunding of it." It's more concise to just say "criticized Jackson for defunding it."
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First biography of Jefferson:
    • Not sure what you mean by "complete with franking" here.
Omitted - unnecessary detail (enclosure with seal/postage). Hoppyh (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coke...link added Hoppyh (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...with the Brits..." is too informal.
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resignation from faculty and relocation:
    • "...the two freed slaves who accompanied him to Philadelphia immediately took flight upon their arrival there." If they were free men, they really can't be said to have taken flight, can they? They just left.
    • Link William Henry Harrison?
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I have. Looking forward to your replies. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed everything you mentioned. Thanks so much for your time and effort. Hoppyh (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything looks to be in order. I'm happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hoppyh I've made a few minor edits to the article. Fine writing. The only thing that strikes me as awkward is this paragraph, which unintentionally lays the last pregnancy on Maria's shoulders. Women of that era really had no choice in the matter.
Though Maria was warned against having more children in her vulnerable physical and emotional state, she again conceived, and died in pregnancy in February 1823. In the carriage to Washington after the funeral, Tucker muffled his face with a handkerchief to hide his tears and feigned a toothache in response to inquirers. Maria's death indeed weighed heavily upon him, as he reflected on his errors in the midst of her travails.
You don't actually say if they were advised not to have more children because she was too frail to withstand another pregnancy, or if her nerves couldn't take more little kids in the house. I'm not sure what "errors" he reflected on, but was it that he caused the pregnancy? Or was he more concerned about his business, than actually grieving for her. If you could reword that paragraph for clarity, it would be good.— Maile (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - clarified to extent possible per source. Hoppyh (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments a) Passage use of “ conservative” requires clarification. “Politically, Tucker was a Jeffersonian Republican, but he was also a conservative and supported the national bank.” Commercial development through credit and internal improvements were marks of commercially innovative Federalists amidst the context of existing Virginia planter aristocracy. This fits into Tucker's ability to see the good in both sides. Maybe substitute "conservative" with "commercially innovative". b) I see one last HARV warning left. c) I wonder if there may be related articles for a See Also section. Excellent article. Support FA nomination. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - political clarification made per cite, HARV warning fixed, and See also articles added. Hoppyh (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Hoppyh, has this had a source review that I'm missing? If not, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Laser brain (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request made. See below. Hoppyh (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Sources all look reliable, no problems there.
  • You sometimes have a space after "p." and sometimes don't. I standardized them for you so they all have spaces. If you prefer the other way, that's fine, just so long as it's consistent.
Thank you. Hoppyh (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure you use "p." for single pages and "pp." for multiple pages. I fixed one, but there are more.
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, you use the same footnote multiple times. Footnotes 4, 5, and 6, for example, are all to the same page of the same book. These should be combined. Given your citation style here, the best way might be with the <ref name=___> format, but other other citation templates are good, too. There's more information on this here, if you're interested.
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have an empty heading at the bottom of the "Works (by year)" section.
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the works cited section, sometimes you spell out "University" and sometimes you don't. Both are fine, but it should be consistent. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this all checks out. Good luck with the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm going to promote but I note there are a great many single-paragraph subsections, which means a lot of subheaders in close proximity and that can be a bit wearing. I wonder whether all the single-paragraph subsections are really necessary, and perhaps could be combined or the subheaders removed entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and effort. I should be able to remedy subsection issues - in some cases more than single paragraphs may be the answer. Hoppyh (talk) 19:14, 28 May 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) 15:55, 21 May 2016 [6].

Walt Disney[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney was one of the biggest figures of the Twentieth Century. From a small-time animator in the 1920s, he built an empire on the back of a mouse His work has, probably, been seen by most people on the planet, and he influenced cinema, the illustrated arts, television and recreation time like no other individual ever has. This is a level 3 article and it is the 50th anniversary of Disney's death this December, and it's probably appropriate he has an article that reflects this. After a very well-attended and constructive PR, any further constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Had my say at PR. The article has looked even better since. Thank you for taking the initiative to bring out a fine article on one of our biggest childhood idols, SchroCat.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with one comment — I had a small say at PR and am impressed about the quality of writing on this very important figure. It's definitely much better than the previous version. There are a few issues I found regarding the references.

  • Refs 22, 66, 78, 125 display the message "When WebCite tried to archive the page, it received a Page Not Found error from the website concerned." — Can this be rectified? Z105space (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Z105space: Rectified.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Z105space and Ssven2 - many thanks to you both for your comments and fixes both at PR and here - they much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination isn't listed on the WP:FAC page, so you need to complete the nom process. I'll be back anon with additional comments. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... You'd have thought I would have learnt by now! Thanks Brian. – SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Just checked UPenn film and artwork renewals for the years 1954 and 1955 There was nothing for Disney, Iwerks, Winkler Productions or Universal, so it's clear, however you want to license it. We hope (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, new version uploaded and cats added. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility[edit]

The article meets our accessibility standards quite well.

  • The headings are properly structured, so that a screen reader can navigate around the article without problems.
  • There are no issues of misuse of colour or text-size, so that people with diminished vision will have little problem in reading the text.
  • Although none of the images have alt text, in most cases the caption text will be sufficient for a screen reader to understand the content and purpose of the image, for example "Disney in 1938" is about all that's needed for File:Walt Disney NYWTS.jpg. Captions such as "The first appearance of Mickey Mouse, in Steamboat Willie (1928)" will be adequate for that purpose - an alt text something like "A cartoon mouse is operating a ship's steering wheel" could benefit a screen reader, but its absence won't cause a serious problem. Similarly File:Walt Disney Grave.JPG could be improved with alt text that states what a sighted reader would see written - perhaps something like "A gravestone inscribed 'Walter Elias Disney', 'Lillian Bounds Disney', 'Robert B. Brown', Sharon Disney Brown Lund ashes scattered in paradise' ", but it's not crucial. However, in the case of File:Disney1968.jpg, a screen reader might be confused by hearing "1968 U.S. postage stamp" at the start of the Personality and reputation section. It really needs some alt text along the lines of "A portrait of Disney with cartoon representations of different nationalities on a 6 cent US stamp" to supplement the caption in this case. It's worth checking each of the images to see whether an alt text is needed or would make an improvement.

Subjectively, I found the article an engaging read and very informative, dispelling some of the myths that have developed around Disney. It's clearly well-researched and very well written. The references are clear and the use of list-defined references along with shortened footnotes makes the wiki-text much clearer for an editor. The reference named "Variety biopic" is defined, but is not presently being used in the article - it just needs to be commented out or removed. [Update: the text In 1993, [[HBO]] began development of a Walt Disney biographical film, but the project never materialized and was soon abandoned.<ref name="Variety biopic" /> was cut in this recent edit./]

In my opinion it meets the standards we set for our Featured Articles. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Than you Rexxs. The alt text is something I constantly overlook, so I appreciate the nudge. I'll go through and add where appropriate. The "Variety biopic" reference has now been removed. Thanks again: your comments are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Cassianto[edit]

Support - with a few, minor observations:

Theme parks and other interests
1950–66
  • "Although there were early teething problems with the park" - "teething" let's this sentence down here. It would work just as well, if not better, with it ripped out. If you want to convey the fact that the problems were small, then "minor", I think, would be better.
  • "In 1955 he was involved in "Man in Space", an episode of the Disneyland series, which was made in collaboration with NASA rocket designer Wernher von Braun. He also oversaw aspects of the full-length features Lady and the Tramp..." -- Disney or Braun?
  • "Disney spent considerable time in 1966 traveling to meet with corporations willing to sponsor aspects of EPCOT, increased his involvement in films undertaken by the studio, and was heavily involved in the story development of The Jungle Book, the live-action musical feature The Happiest Millionaire (both 1967) and the animated short Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day." -- Noun+ing going on here; travelling to meet...increased his involvement etc... . This way of formatting would work better with a full stop after "EPCOT", not with a comma. For example: "Disney spent considerable time in 1966 traveling to meet with corporations willing to sponsor aspects of EPCOT. He also increased his involvement in films undertaken by the studio, and was heavily involved in the story development of The Jungle Book, the live-action musical feature The Happiest Millionaire (both 1967) and the animated short Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day."
Honors
  • "He was nominated for three Golden Globe Awards, but won none..." -- You can't win nothing, right? "Failed to win" or similar would be better.
Personality and reputation
  • "Instead of direct approval, Disney gave high-performing staff financial bonuses, or recommended certain individuals to others, expecting his that this praise would be passed on." -- doesn't quite make sense towards the end of this.
  • "his studio contained a number of Jewish employees, including in influential positions." -- "his studio contained a number of Jewish employees, some of whom where in influential positions" would work better, I think.

I'm with RexxS on this one; this is a superb account of one of biggest men in cinema. You have certainly excelled yourself with this one! CassiantoTalk 12:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Cass - your suggestions incorporated throughout. Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- "Disney received 59 Academy Award nominations; from these he received 22 awards: both totals are records. He was nominated for three Golden Globe Awards. Although not winning any, he was presented with two Special Achievement Awards—for Bambi (1942) and The Living Desert (1953)—and the Cecil B. DeMille Award." -- I see that Forbidden User has tried, and my opinion, failed, to fix the above sentence. Did Disney win the two awards at the same event as the nominations? If he did, might I suggest that we leave "nominated" as it is and not mention the fact he didn't win? As I understand it, a nomination and a win are two different things; if he had of won them, we would just say so, right? We could then use a conjunction to join the nominations and the two awards. CassiantoTalk 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe say: "Disney received 59 Academy Award nominations; from these he received 22 awards: both totals are records. Although he was nominated for three Golden Globe Award, he was presented with two Special Achievement Awards—for Bambi (1942) and The Living Desert (1953)—and the Cecil B. DeMille Award." -- only if the nominations were at the same event. CassiantoTalk 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional comment. I agree that the change introduced a measure of confusion that was absent before, and I've altered accordingly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Formatting on postage stamp img in "personality" section is way off (email me if you wanna see a screen capture, but I'm sure you can guess). Normally I would put {{-}} on the page myself, but recently two different editors on two different pages have rather brusquely reverted that edit. Perhaps it has become socially unacceptable. I dunno.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! Many thanks Lingzhi - I missed an uprighty thing | when moving the image across the page. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see the propaganda work expanded on at least a little, e.g, the really dark and scary Education for Death and also Donald pays his taxes in The New Spirit. Some scary screenshots would be effective IMHO e.g. as at the bottom of this. May be public domain.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me think about this a little. The article is supposed to be a summary of WED and his life, and I think this may be moving a little too far outside that scope. As I said, let me think about it a little – and to what others have to say about the suggestion too. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent link - I didn't realise we had anything like that. I may have a quick dust up of that article after this, if I have some spare time. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes... the discussion on the lede is scattered across several editors' comments, but I will now try to stay here inside my box... and say that I think the lede seems to work better now after your edits. Some adjacent pairs of sentences that I found slightly jarring in the earlier version now seem to be better arranged. Thumbs up.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • FN44 and others: museum shouldn't be italicized
  • References uses mdy but Sources uses dmy - should be consistent
  • FN148: Esquire should be italicized as a work title
  • FN161 through 164 present publishers as work titles. Same with FN169, check for others
  • The Van Nuys News (Va Nuys, CA) - typo? Also, why include location for this and similar but not the Manchester Guardian?
  • FN174/178 need copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria: all now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I brought this up in the talkpage but you haven't adequately explained why mentioning the creation of Donald Duck is "trivial" but mentioning films like Sleeping Beauty and Sword and the Stone aren't, considering Walt was barely involved in their production. LittleJerry (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to hear what others think. LittleJerry (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Leaning support Have read the article a few times, and am impressed, a niggle is that i dont prefer short opening paras, and that "He was a pioneer in the American animation industry, became famous around the world, and is regarded as a national cultural icon" seems a little like hagiography. Its true of course, but I would spread it out a bit, and merge the opening and second paras. Overall the article is outstanding, but now giving a third/fourth read through. Haven't looked at sources yet. Ceoil (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reworked this a little more, so this should be ironed out now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I disagree with the merge. The opening paragraph should be about him generally, and the second paragraph should begin the chronological summary. You could solve the "short opening paragraph" problem by moving some of the stuff from the last paragraph to the opening paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, following on SSilvers above, while we're talking about the lede, I thought the sentence about his death was in an odd place. maybe as the last sentence of the first para, or the last sentence of the entire lede? I also thought the organization of the lede might need reconsideration (there wasn't anything wrong with the individual sentences).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the introductory couple of lines, the lead follows the course of the article (main points of his life, his death, honours personality and a closing line). I think that a lead that sits to broadly the same structure of the article's progreession is the best way in most cases, and this is true here.
In terms of the merge I think that I am in broad agreement with the biography starting at para two, but that leaves a short paragraph to open. Personally I don't mind such a short opener, but I know others may find it jarring. It could be increased with information from the final paragraph, but I think that's just moving things round for the sake of it, and the final para, as it stands, covers some good ground and remains to be balanced in its approach. I am open to suggestions on what to add to the opening para, but I'd strongly advise against moving much up from the fourth para just on the grounds of making the opening one a bit longer. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes are a great improvement imo, I quite like how it stands now, maybe apart from the placement of his dying. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have given another run through, and happy now to support. A *huge* undertaking on a subject I had previously not cared for, but this article does a fine job in drawing out the man, for whom I now have sudden and unexpected respect; the cultural context, artistic development and his day to day strife and challenges are explained very well here, it was a pleasure to read. Ceoil (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Ceoil for your comments and thoughts here: all are much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp:[edit]

Hi SchroCat, I plan to do a full review, but expect I may not get very far today. Bear with me if I only add one or two comments for now.

  • (Lead) Three instances of "although" in two sentences: "Although there have been accusations that Disney was racist or anti-Semitic, they have been contradicted by many who knew him, although one biographer thought Disney was likely "racially insensitive",[2] like many of his generation. Although his reputation changed in the years after his death..." Perhaps break the first sentence in two (or use a semi-colon) and use something like "nevertheless" somewhere for the "racially insensitive" part. But you'd still be left with two sentences close to each other beginning with "Although". Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworked this a little more, getting rid of two of the three of them, so this should be ironed out now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I've read down to the end of Early Career and made a few minor tweaks. So far, it is a very engaging read, as usual. Just a few nitpicks, which may be safely ignored if you prefer. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Disney moved into the amusement park field": I have an odd vision of him moving into a tent in a large field with a ferris wheel in it! Is there a better way to phrase this?
  • I wonder should we mention Academy Awards earlier; it's a little jarring to have the first mention of this award as the 22nd time he won! But not too sure as the last section is mainly about his awards. Either way, I think this should be tweaked a little.
  • "Disney and his brother Roy woke up at 4:30 every morning to deliver the Times before school and delivered the evening Star after school": Is there a way to avoid deliver... delivered?
  • "a correspondence course ": Worth a link?
  • "He borrowed a book on animation and a camera and began experimenting at home": Nothing really wrong here, but is there a way to avoid two ands? But feel free to ignore.
  • Worth a note briefly comparing the cutout and cel animation techniques? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sarastro1, haven't seen you around for a while – nice to see you again. Your comments all dealt with in full (or mostly, at least), aside from the final one. I'll draw up a brief description that I'll probably add as a footnote, I think. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing Gavin here; lovely to see you back Sarastro. CassiantoTalk 16:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Read to end of the Biography section now. Just a few minor points. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Iwerks revised Disney's provisional sketches to make the character easier to animate, although he provided Mickey's voice until 1947": This is unclear. "Although" suggests that Disney voiced Mickey, but the sentence as written looks like it was Iwerks. Either way, the sentence needs clearing up, and if Disney did the voice, it should say so explicitly.
  • I see this sentence changed as I was typing these words to say Disney voiced him. I still wonder do we need to make that a separate point, not a throwaway? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped "although" to "and", which ties it together a little more. Does that look OK? - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to abandon the practice of animating straight through in favor of the more efficient technique of drawing key poses and letting lower-paid assistants sketch the in-between poses.": Not clear what "animating straight through" means here. Presumably doing the animation himself?
  • "The success of Snow White heralded one of the most productive eras for the studio; the Walt Disney Family Museum calls the following years "the 'Golden Age of Animation', [and] it was to be one of the most creative periods in the history of the Disney Studios"": My inclination here, to avoid repetition, is to cut the quotation back to "... calls the following years "the Golden Age of Animation"."
  • "after a series of accidents involving guests to his property": Not quite clear what this means. I'm intrigued how you can cause guests to a property!! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks again Sarastro1: your comments all incorporated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch: Down to the end, and very enjoyable. Just four last points. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know Tim asked for some dirt to be dished on his films, but do we now go too far the other way? As much as I hate these films, perhaps we should say SOME nice stuff. Some people liked them!
  • I've beefed up the opening sentance to that para, just to change the nuance to something more positive. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alice in Disneyland" was the name of the review, but not the name of the film as given in the "reputation" section. Also, refs 187 and 189 both refer to Lejeune's "Alice" review, but have different dates, namely 1938 (!) and 1951.
  • Doh! Wrong title in the reference: ref 187 refers to Snow White, not Alice. Now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wonder, as we spend 3 paragraphs looking at some fairly unpleasant accusations against him, could we balance this by looking a little more at positive things that were said? Not a big deal either way for me, though.
  • I'll have another look at this shortly, as I think we may be overplaying the nastier criticisms. A lot of those paragraphs are the refutation of the rumours given by people who actually knew him, but I think I may have to revisit this again to make sure it's balanced. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have in the lead "A shy, self-deprecating and insecure man in private...", but I wonder does this come across in the main body enough?

That's it from me. I'll probably just have one last read through before I support. I enjoyed this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers Sarastro1 - one point to try and readdress, but the rest sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm more than happy to support now. A great piece of work on a tricky subject. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Sarastro1 for your thoughts and comments here – all much appreciated. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Looking good overall, but I've got nitpicks.....

  • I'm not seeing anything on The Walt Disney Company itself aside from a mention in the infobox. There should be something on that given how the company he and Roy founded is one of the largest corporations ever.
  • I'll add this a little later, once I have all my sources to hand. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth mentioning in the lead that Walt voiced Mickey in addition to creating him, especially since he is described as a voice actor in the opening sentence
  • The lead should focus on more than just Oscars in terms of awards, and should definitely not downplay his Emmy and Golden Globes. I'm pretty sure those wins can take place of mentioning the Oscar noms he lost.
  • Added, although I'm leaving the nominations in, given the record number. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several of his films have been included in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress"..... let's include names
  • Reluctantly, yes. It means we now have two lists of films in the lead, which I hate to have to read through on an article - my eye slides over the lot without taking any of it in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was the fourth son of Elias Disney—born in the former Province of Canada to Irish parents—and Flora (née Call)"..... I of course understand why Roy is given more weight than the other siblings because of their business work together, but it would help to at least mention them by name within prose and not just a hidden note
  • Better, but it still needs to mention the other brothers; it doesn't help to say "he was the X of Y children" and not mention all other names. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops: I did add it, but only part way through a different footnote. Now brought up into the main text. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disney and his brother Roy formed the Disney Brothers Studio—which later became Walt Disney Animation Studios—to produce the films"..... I believe what you meant to say was that the main company was founded in 1923 rather than the animation studios, though they are often used synonymously and this is an understandable confusion
  • This source suggests Walt Disney Animation Studios. I suspect it's not a clear cut A -> B match, but probably A -> B/C/D, etc match, as the corporate set up changed a little in the 50s ad 60s, but I'll go through the sources again a little later and see what they say. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see from there are a few companies that claim the link (understandably), so I've put the main company name in there to cover all the different companies. – SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the light of the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's son"..... let's mention Charles Jr. by name
  • Is that necessary? It's too tangential to this to worry about, and the link is there to the kidnapping should anyone be really interested. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you may as well just say "the Lindbergh kidnapping" Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the 1927 sensation, The Jazz Singer" shouldn't have a comma after "sensation"
  • It's actually correct with it there (in parentheses, as it were), but I've taken it out. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should either be a comma after "1933" in "In 1933 Disney produced The Three Little Pigs", after "1934" in "By 1934 Disney had become dissatisfied", after "1950" in "In early 1950 Disney produced Cinderella", after "1954" in "In mid 1954 Disney sent his Imagineers", or those should have the years moved towards the end of the bits
  • Mea culpla: I'd forgotten the American fetish for excessive commas! - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Snow White premiered in December 1937 to high praise from critics and audiences"..... I'm pretty sure we can use "acclaim" here
  • Its one of my pet hate words, overblown and unencyclopaedic. "High praise" is fine as is. – SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response to the financial crisis, in 1940 Disney and his brother started the company's first public stock offering"..... I assume you mean Roy, and this would also read better if the year came at the end of this bit
  • I wouldn't trust Rancid Tomatoes as far as I could throw it, let alone for an old work (the modern reviews twist their awful scoring system out of line); the Numbers also includes re-releases. The figures were insufficient at the time. – SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the majority of reviews it counts for really old works are probably more recent than its release. What I'm getting at is that if it wasn't as successful as Disney hoped, then say how much it had aimed for (i.e. goal was to earn X amount of money, recieving less than that) Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the sources say what they were aming for, but (from memory) there is reference as to why it wasn't successful. I'll dig it out a little later. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd slightly misremebered: Gabler states that they lost $200,000 at the box office. – SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hit" in "The show's theme song, "The Ballad of Davy Crockett", became a hit" is too informal
  • Should "It's a Small World" be in quotation marks to keep people from worrying about how informal contractions are outside of quotes and titles? This could particularly be a problem without the link. Makes me wonder the same thing about ride names in general.
  • Not according to the MoS or the It's a Small World article. I have sympathy with your thoughts on this and I'm tempted to add the quotes, but I think these would be removed simply because of the reasons I've just given. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm normally inclined to just focus on accolade wins within a biography and place pending/lost noms on accolade pages to avoid overfocus on awards in bios, but am on the fence with total record number nominations.
  • My main concern aside from Disney Company vs Animation Studios is probably the "Personality and reputation" section; I fail to see the benefit of talking much about one's personality within an article. It at least shouldn't be lumped into one section and would be better interspersed throughout the article and/or kept to at most a few sentences rather than the full paragraph it currently has.
  • I'm fine with a section that examines it separately (it's not uncommon in FAs and external biographies to discuss the personality in one block) otherwise the impact of the knowledge is lost when interspersed throughout the work. – SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very few articles I've personally seen with sections/subsections dedicated to it, and I worry that it would likely become bloated if given its own block. If you do keep this, just please be sure it doesn't get out of hand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a fair aim to have. The section as it stands is a combination of a couple of points and is comprehensive enough already that it doesn't need anything extra added, which I think would be bloating. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is substantially better than when I reviewed and failed this at GAN in 2014. You have my applause for improving it so much. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Snuggums. I've adopted most of your points, and demurred on a couple with my reasoning shown. There is one I have to do a little later: the information about the company, which is not a clear-cut one and I need to have a closer look about the sources this evening. Thanks agin. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. There was no way I could miss the opportunity to review such a big person, especially with my available reviewing time being limited these days! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article again, I can now support since all my concerns were addressed. I have no doubt Walt himself would be proud of this work. Major kudos. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Snuggums for your thoughts and comments, they are very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley[edit]

This seems to me an impeccable article as far as it goes, but after reading and rereading I cannot support its promotion as it stands, because I think it fails criteria 1b and 1d. The article seems to me to pass over the critical reception of Disney's films. He was often praised, but was also strongly and regularly panned. In a five-minute search of the archives I found "condemned for its vulgarity and lurches into bathos", "a children's classic vulgarized", "Tinkerbell...a peroxided American cutie", "flat and conventional", "he has slaughtered good Barrie and has only second-rate Disney to put in its place", and "it may drive lovers of Lewis Carroll to frenzy". There is also much praise between the censure but I don't find any of this reflected in the article. If a section is added dealing with the critical assessment of the films made by Disney or under his management, I think the article will be on course for FAC. Tim riley talk 13:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My concerns are now addressed, and I am very happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 06:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim: your thoughts on this re much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I must applaud the nominatior for working on it so well and fast. Overall the article was an enjoyable read, but I haven't checked the sources, infobox, links and hidden text, everything except the prose. Anyway, just a two minor ones in the lede from me which can be ignored.

  • Disney received 22 Academy Awards for his work, from 59 nomination how about shifting the nomination part to after 22 Academy Awards?
  • The second last sentence of the intro is a bit long. Consider breaking it into two. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.101.203 (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016
  • Many thanks IP: I've acted on both your suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very well put together. 13:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.101.203 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks IP - Much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I raised a few concerns in a partial peer review, duly addressed. More points have been raised and resolved during this FAC. Ready to go I think. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian, for your input and comments: much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from indopug[edit]

Not a fan of the lead, mainly because so much of it is devoted to listing out film names (paras 2 and 4). This makes for tedious reading + it isn't clear whether Walt had a major role in the making of these movies. (so they might be much central to the story of The Walt Disney Company rather than Walt himself) I think you should shift the focus away from his company, and towards him—his personality, his working style (how he treated his employees), his specific contributions to the films, his politics etc.

  • I agree on the films list and I'll work on reducing the number and focussing on those of particular import. The information on his personality, working style, etc isn't really lead-worthy to be honest, aside from his politics, which we touch on tangentially in the fourth para. See below - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of reorganisation is needed as well; his lifelong smoking (might be better to bring this out as a contradiction to his public image?) and death comes abruptly after his city of the future. Similarly the racism stuff after the Library of Congress. And the last sentence is clunky, featuring the word "continues" thrice.—indopug (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Indopug, many thanks for your comments. As I've said a little further up the page, the lead broadly follows the path of the article, so his death comes at the best place for it: while he was planning the EPCOT city. This reflects both the article itself and the chronology of WED's life. The whole fourth paragraph is given over to the examination of his life, rather than the passage of it, and it reflects the positive and negative aspects in balance (to do otherwise is to present a misleading hagiography). I'll re-work the final sentance - it was an experiment of form (re-iterating the three main strands of his business life that all do what he designed them to do), but one that obviously jars too much: I'll re-work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Opening para about who, when, what and his film awards
2. Chronological run through from birth to the end of his major film work
3. Chronological run through from start of theme parks and up to death
4. Legacy etc, incorporating brief mention of personality, main personal controversy and impact.
Given the number of people commenting on this FAC, and the old adage of not pleasing all the people all the time, I'm sure this will not be to everyone's taste, but fingers crossed! Any further suggestions would be most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Doctor[edit]

Lede
  • "As producer of the films he received 22 Academy Awards from 59 nominations and he has won more individual Oscars than anyone else." -wouldn't ", and won more individual Oscars than anyone else" suffice, do we need to repeat "he"?
  • "With Ub Iwerks, Disney developed the character Mickey Mouse, his first highly popular success; Disney also provided the voice for his creation in the early years. " -what period was this?
  • "As the studio grew, Disney became more adventurous, introducing synchronized sound, full-color three-strip Technicolor, feature-length cartoons and technical developments in cameras." -can you really "introduce technical developments in cameras"? perhaps
  • "His film work continues to be shown and adapted; his studio maintains high standards in its production of popular entertainment, and his amusement parks have grown in size and number to attract visitors in several countries." "his" gets a bit repetive here.
Early life
  • "became enamored of trains" -"of" or "with"
  • I think it's "of" in AmEng, but perhaps one of our American editors could confirm for us two Brits? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creation
  • "a film described by the media historian Adrian Danks", "the professional composer and arranger Carl Stalling, " etc -American English, does it use the definite article?
  • I think they are flexible, but I've removed these to be consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though later on you did say "Journalist Bosley Crowther" rather than "The journalist"♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Golden age
  • Is it worth mentioning Snow White and Fantasia on the AFI 100 list, the 100 greatest American films ever made?
  • I'll add this to the legacy section, alongside the National Film Register information. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Theme parks
  • " the Nine Old Men,"
  • what about them...?!
  • No mention of Lady and the Tramp being the highest grossing film of the year?
  • "In 1955 he was involved in "Man in Space", an episode of the Disneyland series, which was made in collaboration with NASA rocket designer Wernher von Braun.[t] Disney also oversaw aspects of the full-length features Lady and the Tramp (the first animated film in CinemaScope) in 1955, Sleeping Beauty (the first animated film in Technirama 70 mm film) in 1959, One Hundred and One Dalmatians (the first animated feature film to use Xerox cels) in 1961 and The Sword in the Stone in 1963.[129] In 1964, Disney produced Mary Poppins,"

-nearly ten years here covered very briefly. Is there nothing more to say about his work in the late 50s and early 60s, I'd expect a little more detail.

  • It covers the film developments of the time, rather than just all his work - we go back to cover other aspects of his work in the following paragraphs. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The heart of Disney World was to be the "Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow" (EPCOT),[138] which he described as:
   an experimental prototype community of tomorrow that will take its cue from the new ideas and new technologies that are now emerging from the creative centers of American industry. It will be a community of tomorrow that will never be completed, but will always be introducing and testing and demonstrating new materials and systems. And EPCOT will always be a showcase to the world for the ingenuity and imagination of American free enterprise.[139]

" -oddly set up quote as you repeat Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow" (EPCOT), can it be reworded somehow?

Support Looks to be an excellent account of an important figure, meets all of the requiremenrs for FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Doc - your thoughts and comments are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I recently made a couple dozen minor proofing changes to the article. From what I can see and from what others have said above, this interesting article meets the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Finetooth for the excellent copy edit – it's much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax – Hi, SchroCat. I have made several edits to Disney's article to put it even closer to a Featured Article promotion. I will be happy to !vote on its promotion when things get a little closer. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Montanabw[edit]

  • Support: Similarly to Ssven, I commented extensively at PR and have been lurking at this FAC for a bit. As far as I am concerned, I have little to raise that has not been raised and addressed here already. The television and theme park section was expanded. The only nitpick I have is that I do think that perhaps that subsection heading could be renamed "Theme parks, Television and other interests..." The impact of the TV programming cannot be underestimated. Also, the TV series, as noted at Walt Disney anthology television series went through many name changes, and is probably best-known since 1961 by the various "Wonderful World" titles (1961-1981 and 1991-present), particularly The Wonderful World of Disney. I would suggest a minor edit of that section to note that the series title, as it is by far better-known than the original name. But, these comments all fall under the heading of "I'd like to see it changed, but not mandated for FAC." Montanabw(talk) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Montana, and thanks for your comments at PR and here. I think it's a fair enough change, given the weight of what is in the section, and I've made the change accordingly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 20 May 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) 02:44, 18 May 2016 [7].

William Howard Taft[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a president who perhaps falls into the shadow of his predecessor, but had an astounding federal career. No other president has even served on the Supreme Court, let alone led it, thus heading two of the three branches of government. It's a bit long, but somewhat shorter than it was.Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up map
  • "Organization and principles" image has the image name displayed in the caption again
  • File:Taft_Addressing_First_Philippine_Assembly_1907.jpg needs a US PD tag, but if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • File:WmHTaft.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Gifford_Pinchot_3c03915u.jpg
  • File:Taftheadstone.JPG: what is the copyright status of the headstone itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've resolved that either by deleting them or by beefing up the licensing (in the case of the headstone). I don't know what to do about the css crop problem so I've commented that out for the moment. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Having commented profusely at the peer review, I have little more to add. As Wehwalt says, the article was originally somewhat longer; that he has managed to reduce the wordcount without in my view short-changing any of the facets of his subject is a laudable achievement in itself. The article is informative and readable; one question arising from Wehwalt's nom statement: who, or what office, is at the head of the third branch of the US government? Just curious. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Speaker, but it may be a hydra-headed beast. If so, Polk would be the other person to have gotten two out of three, which ain't bad. Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is remarkably good. It took me a week, on and off, to read; by chance I had stumbled across it a few days before the nom, not knowing who the main editor had been nor his intentions. The writing is clear and engaging, I had no real changes to make. The sources are of the first rank, and formatted in the preferred style. I don't have an issue with the length, as I returned to it a number of times, and anyway, readers tend to search for the sections they are looking for rather than the subject as a whole, and the level of detail here, across the board, is admirable, they will be satisfied and well informed. Ceoil (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Support - Looking in here in a brief Wikibreak-break – this one is too good to miss. At PR I found it top flight and it has been tightened and polished further since then. Balance impeccable, sourcing wide and impressive, images fine, and prose a pleasure to read. Very happy to support its promotion to FA. Looking forward to Wehwalt's article on Lord Chief Justice Obama in due course. Tim riley talk 17:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you indeed. I think the article on the present chief executive is guarded with dragons ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. Nicely done, as usual. Sources all look good. Minor nitpicks:

  • fn 126 should be pp
  • Is there a reason some long cites are in the text and some aren't? It's fine, just curious about your methodology.
  • It was nice to see the Burton book -- I took his classes at St. Joe's, years ago. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ... I'd love to hear what he had to say. Generally, single use cites are in the main text, but there may be exceptions I've fixed the one issue. Thank you or the review and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if the fact that Taft's father was a member of Skull and Bones is worth mentioning in the lead. The information about Skull and Bones is furthermore not included in the main text of the article. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was I hadn't read anything that tied it to the rest of his career. Given the present-day notoriety of Skull and Bones because of W and all that, I wonder if it's really worth including? As for the father, I don't think it's necessary detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, etc. very readable and enjoyable. Only one comment: you have the dates throughout as (for example) "1921–1930", when I thought the MoS bade us go towards "1921–30". There may be a good reason, in which case all fine and dandy. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

Thank you indeed for the review and support. I can't shorten the dates because it would be inconsistent with the Taft Court membership chart, which is a generated template and in which the years can't be shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem: as long as there is a rationale for the decision, and consistency throughout, then I'm OK with it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 18 May 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) 02:44, 18 May 2016 [8].

Baleen whale[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about baleen whales which classified under the parvorder Mysticeti. There are four families (Balaenopteridae, Balaenidae, Cetotheriidae, Eschrichtiidae) that are different from each other by body shape, which in turn is greatly influenced by their feeding behavior. This can be either lunge-feeding or gulp-feeding. Note that deadlinks are most likely caused by using https instead of http (as per this RfC) which apparently does not allow you to go to websites (including .gov sites).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I fail to why there might be dead links. If you're linking to a website that only provides non-secure connections (HTTP), then don't use a secure (HTTPS) URL to link to it, or yeah, things aren't going to work :) On the other hand, it is good practise to offer secure links whenever they're available, and that is what the above RfC was specifically about: Google [Books/Scholar/etc] and the Internet Archive both offer secure connections to their content, and therefore Wikipedia should securely link to that content, i.e., use a HTTPS URL. Leonhard Fortier  (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even reputable websites like oxforddictionaries.com requires http   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine (though a little surprising), in that case it's perfectly fine to use a HTTP link. It's only case of if there is a secure link available then it's considered good practise to use it :) Leonhard Fortier  (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ works fine, though some of the resources included on that page aren't behind a secure connection (just two images actually), but that's not really relevant to just linking there. Leonhard Fortier  (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Long time, no comment, but I'm happy to be back at FAC. As is usual for my work here, I'm focusing on references and reference formatting. All reference numbers are relative to this version of the article:

General

  • It's not immediately clear to me what the criteria are for a source to be listed in "Works cited" and subject to Harvard referencing versus merely cited in long-form in the references.
  • You are inconsistent about whether to include publication locations for book sources (see #4, #5 without them, but #8 with one). Locations are optional, but must be consistently included if desired (personally, I don't care for them, but it's a matter of editorial discretion).
Yeah, in the GA review I was told to add locations to certain refs. I'm not too sure why, I'll just get rid of them
  • There are quite a few sources where middle initials appear prepended to the last names, instead of where they belong. For example, in Fordyce and Marx (#12), the citation should read: "Fordyce, R. Ewan; Marx, Felix G.". This problem is pervasive, in both the references and works cited. I'm not going to try to identify all the problems in this review; a thorough audit is necessary.
In all refs, the middle name is in the last name
  • At least one ISBN is not properly hyphenated. All ISBNs should be presented as fully hyphenated ISBN-13s. Use this tool (and bookmark it, you'll love it!).
I already have it bookmarked since you first told me about it in the Whale article review (and it has been very helpful). I'm pretty sure all of the ISBN numbers are ISBN-13 (and I fixed the unhyphenated one)

Specific referencing issues

  • There are some inconsistencies with how you cite online dictionaries. Compare the dictionary.com reference (#1) with the Oxford Dictionaries reference (#2). More specifically, I don't think the dictionary.com reference needs the italicized URL. The Oxford source styles itself "Oxford Dictionaries", which our citation should reflect; you may also consider citing Oxford University Press as the publisher there, at your discretion. Finally, the Oxford cite has an incomplete retrieval date.
fixed the Oxford publishing and access date. What should the |work= parameter be for the Dictionary.com ref?
  • Citing section titles instead of page numbers (as in reference #3) is not standard practice.
fixed
  • Shorter Oxford English [D]ictionary
  • Retrieval dates are not required (and, indeed, are discouraged) for print sources, such as Dolin (#5), even when a convenience link to an online version is provided. See also reference #29.
removed retrieval dates from book and journal refs
  • I'm not convinced of the need for the long reference quote from Woodward, Winn, and Fish, especially as it serves to essentially reference the material to an older source not otherwise credited here.
  • The byline for the Animal Diversity Web source (#7) gives the authors' full first names. The source also gives a publication year of 2002 (although not a more specific date).
So should I add the authors' full names?
  • Rosenbaum et al. indicates the source is in a pdf format, but there's no link to the article, so presumably no format field is necessary.
fixed
  • Your Harvard referenes citing page numbers use pg.; convention is to use p. for single pages or pp. for page ranges. I'm not certain if this is considered an acceptable alternative within editorial discretion; if so, it isn't an actionable objection. Note that pp is used at least once, in reference #30.
changed pg. to p. and pgs. to pp.
  • The correct journal title for the Fordyce and Marx source is Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
fixed
  • The Thomas source (#13) definitely does not require a publication location. The website itself should be cited as GrindTV, not GrindTV.com (the latter is the URL, not the website name). I'm not entirely convinced that this is a high-quality, reliable source, but could be convinced otherwise...
replaced with a BBC article
  • The Nakamura and Kato source (#15) doesn't need the country of publication. It does have a doi (10.11238/mammalianscience.54.73) that should be included.
removed location and added doi
  • The correct journal title for Potvin, Goldbogen, and Shadwice is Journal of the Royal Society Interface.
fixed
  • The link to the Royal Society Open Science article (#22) is not working; it appears the journal site does not permit https connections.
fixed
  • I'm a big supporter of OCLC numbers for books that lack ISBNs, but they aren't needed for journal articles (especially those that have a doi already), as in #24.
I don't think there is any harm in keeping the OCLC
  • Reference #25 has the http/https problem. Also, the correct journal title is Royal Society Open Science.
it seems Royal Society journals aren't compatible with https. I'll fix all of those
  • For reference #40, I would spell out World Wide Fund for Nature Global. I don't think the italicized URL is necessary. I'd also cite the org as publisher rather than author. Opinions on this formatting issue may differ.
what should the |author= and |work= parameters be?
  • Compare the formatting for reference #41 with the same website, cited differently, in reference #7.
fixed
  • The LiveScience article (#44) summarizes a publication in Nature. It might be worth examining the original paper, rather than citing a popular science news aggregator.
replaced
  • I don't think there's a benefit to citing the (sub) chapter title in reference #48; the chapters aren't by different authors, and you're already citing the claims to page number.
removed chapter
  • I'm not sure what's up with reference #52, but I don't think this is properly cited. I think the given ISBN is for a bound volume of the journal Physiology, and that this reference should be cited as a journal article with a title name and volume/issue/page information.
I don't know what's going on with that either. The ISBN and URL lead to two different things (and I'm certain I copied the correct ISBN). I don't know what to do about this...
  • For Bunn (#58), I again don't think the chapter is required here. Also, Transaction Publisher[s].
removed chapter
  • Is there a better source for the information cited to reference #59 than Huffington Post? To put it mildly, they're not always a high-quality source for science topics.
That's the only internet source that explicitly talks about that. I could replace it with the youtube video but I don't think that's much of an improvement
  • I'm not having much look identifying the parent source for the appendix cited in reference #62, but in any case, this citation is not properly formatted and is missing critical bibliographical information.
the source does not explicitly state the names of the author
  • Reference #63 needs a retrieval date.
added today's date (21 March 2016)
  • Reference #67 cites the Science website, which should probably be styled that way (despite sciencemag being the URL). However, it might be preferable to reference the original paper instead.
replaced
  • The correct journal title for reference #68 is Geological Soceity of America Memoirs. You give this as issue 57, but I believe that's actually 67.
fixed
  • Unlike most of the books where chapter titles are cited, in reference #70, they are necessary. Aidley is the editor of the work as a whole, but C. H. Lockyer and S. G. Brown are the authors of the chapter "The migration of whales" (pp 105–138).
fixed

And I'm stopping there, at roughly halfway through the references. The author formatting problems and journal title errors are the most significant issues. I'll confess that I didn't double-check the correct title of every journal cited, and I probably should have, given that journals are incorrectly cited several times. It's still very early in the FAC process for this article, but at least at the moment, I need to regretfully oppose per 2c. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage, are you happy with the nominators edits, or do you still see some instances that should be addressed? I have willingly left additional comments about the references, so would you suggest all of my concerns surrounding the references be solved? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: do you have any more concerns regarding the references?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • World population graph should be scaled up
done (but you might want to check if it needs to be bigger)
  • Captions generally need editing for grammar - for example, complete sentences should end in periods
done
  • File:Baleen_whale_sizes.JPG: what is the source of the data used for this comparison?
I'll ask
the author didn't respond but I did find a source   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Humpback_Whale_underwater_shot.jpg: source link is dead
fixed
  • File:Janjucetus_Melb_Museum_email.jpg: please fix the machine-generated source
It says "Nomachine-readable author provided. [User:]Cas Liber assumed", so it does eventually say the copyright details even though the original author is not provided. Should I just change it just "Cas Liber"?
  • File:Eubalaena_blow.jpg: source link is dead and should use NOAA tag rather than the general USGov
fixed
  • File:Humpback_lunge_feeding.jpg: source links are dead
fixed
  • File:Humpbackwhale2.ogg: any chance of a more specific date? Even a year would be better than what we currently have
that was a joke from some vandal, I'll remove it
  • File:Eubalaena_glacialis_dead.jpg should use NOAA tag
replaced
  • File:Sperm_whale_fluke.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That image is not in the article...
Sorry for not responding, I've add the flu for 2 weeks. Can you wait until Saturday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkleosteus77 (talk • contribs)

Comments from WereSpielChequers[edit]

  • Hi, interesting read, I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki...
  • Re The unique lungs of baleen whales are built to collapse under the pressure instead of resisting the pressure which would damage the lungs. I'm assuming that this is related to diving? May I suggest it would be better expressed as: the lungs of baleen whales have evolved an ability to collapse while diving. This enables baleen whales to dive to deeper depths.
Well this sentence is in the Anatomy section, and the reformatted version would better suit the Evolution section if any.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some info on depths they can dive to would be good, see Sperm_whale#Diet as an example.

ϢereSpielChequers 20:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added to the Internal Anatomy section (on the paragraph about lungs)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry for not reponding, I've add the flu for 2 weeks. Can you wait until Saturday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkleosteus77 (talk • contribs)
No problem. There is no deadline, respond when you are ready. Hope the flu leaves you soon. ϢereSpielChequers 05:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @WereSpielChequers: to see if they have anymore comments. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

This is a big one, we're kind of touching upon the same subjects over at evolution of cetaceans, so I'll return here before long. But I'd like to see Squeamish Ossifrage issues dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has Squeamish Ossifrage's points been fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of things it has, but the user has not replied. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll have a look later today. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the etymology a separate section from taxonomy? It is about the meaning of the taxonomic name, and therefore belongs under taxonomy. Would also be better to define what the animals actually are before going into etymology.
merged   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • You make no mention of who named the group, when, and under which circumstances, that is a pretty major oversight. Also seems synonyms could be listed in the taxobox.
It says in the Etymology section (Aristotle named it). Added synonym to taxobox   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "was mistakenly run together" What does "run together" mean? Seems informal, "combined" would be more scientific.
changed to "mistakenly translated"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "although obviously more appropriate" Is this what the source actually says? Seems loaded.
the source says "...and more obviously appropriate for whales with baleen in their mouths..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "more appropriate and occasionally used in the past, has been superseded by "Mysticeti". Make it clear if it's a junior synonym.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "s due to the presence of baleen. These animals rely on their baleen plates" Why is baleen plates only spelled out and linked at the second mention?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "derived from the Latin word balæna." Which means whale as well?
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "Right whales got their name" Too informal, received would be better.
"right whales received their name" just reads strange   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
It means the same, but is more formal language, therefore more appropriate here. "Given" could also be used. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of extant mysticetes" Obviously a misnomer,r since extinct taxa and genera are listed as well.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • The article seems to take a relatively controversial new theory (that the pygmy right whale is a cetothere) as fact, but this seems not to have been confirmed by other researchers, so alternate earlier hypotheses should be presented as well.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "Baleen whales are cetaceans of the parvorder Mysticeti" This make sit sound like they are a subgroup of mysticetes, when the two terms are synonyms. Could be made less ambiguous.
changed to "...cetaceans classified under the parvorder..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "Balaenids are distinguished by their enlarged head and thick blubber" Seems an odd definition, the other groups surely have these characteristics as well?
no, the rorquals have a flat head and not as much blubber as right whales   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "and artiodactyls are now classified under the order Cetartiodactyla, often still referred to as Artiodactyla." This seems handwavey. So does one taxon belong under the other, or are they somehow synonyms?
synonyms (they basically just mashed the words Cetacea and Artiodactyla)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "The hippopotamus and pygmy hippopotamus are the closest living relative to baleen whales, aside from toothed whales." Mention Whippomorpha.
added "and form the suborder Whippomorpha"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "Cladogram showing phylogenic relations between mysticete species according to Hassanin and Ropiquet, et al., Sasaki and Nikaido, et al., and Rosenbaum and Brownell, Jr., et al." Is this cladogram WP:Original synthesis? You can't combine different studies like that.
Hassanin talks about rorquals, and Rosenbaum talks about right whales, so instead of making two different cladograms, I just made one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Then you should make clear that the upper part is according to one study, and the lower to another. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that's talked about in the main text (Classification section)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to mention it in the caption so it is immediately visible, not only buried in the article body. Otherwise it looks like syntheis. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are morphologically (different skull shape) and phylogenically different." This doesn't make sense, the two terms are not exclusive. Perhaps you mean genetically.
no, molecular phylogeny. Should it say "molecular phylogeny" in some way?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
That is the same. Phylogeny can be determined both by genetics and morphology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
okay, so should "phylogeny" stay or be replaced with "genetics"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Balaenidae originally consisted of only one genus" Was thought to consist of. The animals had these interrelationships before humans discovered it...
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Why does the museum every scientist is affiliated with need to be mentioned?
Sainsf added it in during GA. S/he figured it would be better to say "according to a study done by H. C. Rosenbaum (of the American Museum of Natural History)" than to "According to Hassanin and Ropiquet, et al..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
I can see why you would write their full names, but the museusm seem superfluous, especially since researchers from different museums often work together on such studies. Perhaps has something to add. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping Sainsf.08:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, I didn't know anything other than the museum names, perhaps Dunkleosteus77 could add something more proper like "zoologists" or "researchers". The point is to let the reader know who they are, and just their full names won't help. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think something like "geneticist", "zoologist", etc., would be much more relevant. Museum affiliation doesn't really say much about what exactly they do, and seems a bit irrelevant, unless the museum itself is discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rorquals consist of" You introduce all the other groups with their scientific names in that section.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • You define the groups both right under taxonomy, and under "Differences between families". There seems no reason why these two duplicate texts should be separated. I'd just merge the text under "Differences between families" into the upper text. Furthermore, some of the info there seems to be more relevant in other sections, about anatomy and behaviour. So not sure what its purpose is.
the only differences between them are anatomy and behaviour (what else would it be?). They were originally together but it seemed to go off-topic, so they were separated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
What I'm asking is, why is that section even needed? The info seems like it belongs in other sections, and is actually duplicated there most of the time. You should define the differences between the groups in the sections that are about their behaviour and their anatomy. Just one example "However, rorquals need to build up water pressure in order to expand their mouth, leading to a lung-feeding behavior. Lung-feeding is where a whale rams a bait ball at high speeds". This info is duplicated under the foraging section, which is where readers would look for it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it would seem to go off-topic elsewhere: starts talking about anatomy, then goes into taxonomy, then back to anatomy.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you of course don't have to move everything to anatomy or behaviour specifically, but you do not need duplicate info anywhere in the article. The specifically taxonomic info could just be moved to the first paragraph under Taxonomy which already discusses differences. But info about behaviour and such (which is already mentioned under behaviour) belongs there. FunkMonk (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rams a bait ball" Explain what it is
ram=hit with head, bait ball is wikilinked   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Most readers won't know what a bait ball is. "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."[9] FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added "a swarm of small fish" in parentheses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and consist of four families:" You should say four extant families, as there are many extinct ones as well.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

Comment from Tim riley[edit]

This is a splendid and hugely enjoyable article, but it isn't clear which variety of English it's meant to be in. It is mostly in BrE (metres, centimetres, kilometres, grey, behaviour, litres, recognised, centrepiece, cancelled) but there is the occasional bit of AmE (gray, color, traveling, favored). According to WP:ENGVAR we should stick to whichever was first used in the article, but I'm blest I know how to find out which that was without spending hours combing through old revisions. I don't imagine anyone will object if you take a view on either sticking with BrE and Anglicising the few AmE spellings or else switching to AmE and Americanising the BrE spellings. But we want consistency one way or the other. Tim riley talk 10:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be in American English, I don't see any British English used (except for maybe "neighbouring" but I'm not too sure on that)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed some of the BrE spellings, above. There are more of them than there are AmE variants. Until the spelling is amended to be made consistent throughough I shall have to oppose for now. Tim riley talk 07:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used CTRL+F to search those specific spellings in the article and I have not found metre, grey (well once but that was for a reference title), behaviour, litre, recognise, centrepiece, or cancelled. Centre was used once but that was for a reference so it should be there. As far as I know, British English is not used in the article.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent, and I am completely baffled about the earlier differences. I can't account for them at all. Putting the present text through my usual spell-checker I cannot find most of the words that came up when I did the same last week. Heaven knows what that text was, but, I'm very pleased to find, the only spellings that come up for query this time are "moustache", "neighbouring", and "sizeable", which the AmEng spell-checker doesn't like. "Naval" (for "navel") in the main text and "Bumbs" in the alt-text are probably typos. (There are a few pictures that are missing alt-text from their captions, by the bye, and there is a comma splice in the caption "Humpback whale skeleton, notice how the jaw is split into two".) It would be good to clear some of the worst examples of WP:OVERLINK - names of countries such as Norway, United States, Australia etc are not to be linked (MoS), nor are large seas and oceans; I doubt if any of our readers need help with the words "chin", "corset", "genitalia", "mouth", "parasite", "penguin", "promiscuous", "taste buds", "vein" and other everyday terms; and the repeat links to e.g. "killer whale" should be removed: one link apiece from the main body of the text is the maximum (the rule doesn't apply to captions) – 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Fixed, but I kept promiscuous and corset.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – In my opinion the article satisfies the FA criteria for prose, the coverage is comprehensive, the sourcing is wide and appears highly authoritative, and the article is splendidly illustrated. I'm sure any outstanding details of referencing can be attended to satisfactorily, and I congratulate the nominator on a fine and very enjoyable piece of work. – Tim riley talk 17:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Burklemore1[edit]

Since you have willingly left comments at the peer review for Termite, I only just noticed your candidacy and will leave some comments. First impression is though it's very comprehensive and well-written. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, since there is a source citing the original description of this parvorder, did the author leave any comments worth mentioning? I know the article discusses some characteristics that can distinugish them from other whales, but is there any more left there? Any justifications as to why he erected the parvorder? I also see that the source does have an accessdate which is not needed for books, and a specific page number would be helpful.
It was first recognised as a parvorder in 1997, but the authors of that study (I think it was something along the lines of MKenna or McKenna) acknowledged Cope 1891 as the author. Should I replace it with the 1997 study?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
If Cope is the recognised author then no. You could read Cope's source and see what he originally classified them as.
According to Mckenna and Bell 1997, they give credit to "Syllabus of Lectures on Geology and Paleontology" page 69, but I can only access pages 1-47   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Well if it's too difficult to access the content, just add the specific page number and remove accessdate. You can skip this one unless someone can provide you the full book via email.
Issue with Cope source still needs to be addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are sexually dimorphic." Nothing particularly wrong here, but it seems I can't find anything discussing this in the body. Please correct if I'm wrong.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "Males typically mate with more than one female (polygyny), although the degree of polygyny varies with the species." Again, can't really find anything.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "...moved the pygmy right whale from the (now empty) family Neobalaenidae" A bit more detail needed. The article discussing this whale says Neobalaenidae is now a subfamily, so I don't think it's technically "empty", just deranked. I think for clarity sake that this article should state it is now a subfamily and not "empty".
Neobalaeninae is a subfamily. Neobalaenidae is a family (that is now empty)
The subfamily and family are not separate though because it is technically the same name. The subfamily itself was once treated as a family, but has since been elevated. Therefore, the name isn't empty, just changed. It's the same case with Myrmicinae, which was treated as Myrmicidae at one point.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "...Janjucetus hunderi was discovered in the early 1990s in Victoria, Australia." Sounds like it was beached or something. Perhaps you should say it was discovered around Victorian waters in Australia?
I think it was found by some surfer, so it technically 'beached' (because I don't think it was found in the water)
Ah, makes sense now. It could be worth mentioning this then.
I have only noticed that the species is extinct, but the article was vague about this remark. I have clarified this. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The discovery of Janjucetus and others like it suggests that baleen evolution went through several transitional phases." Is there anything discussing these transitional phases?
Should I give some examples of transitional species?
Sure.
done
  • Link Fucaia buelli.
There's no article for it. Should I do it anyways?
Yes. It encourages article creation from what I have read.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • In the "internal systems", there seems to be a consistent series of "unlike other..." or "like other..." To change it up a bit, you could say that these features are either similar or found in different animals, but written in a different fashion.
I changed one "like other", so now there is one "like other" and one "unlike other"
Good enough with me! Adding more comments now. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The unique lungs of baleen whales are built to collapse under the pressure instead of resisting the pressure which would damage the lungs,[51] enabling some, like the fin whale, to dive to a depth of −1,540 feet (−470 m)." Interesting statement that goes in detail, but I have a question: is this given depth the absolute deepest they can go to, or can they simply swim at these depths with ease only? Is this the maximum depth?
that's the deepest they can dive
  • "It is thought that plankton blooms dictate where whales migrate." I assume the term "plankton blooms" is referring to where large populations are present and reproduce rapidly? Does climate also play a role? From the sounds of things in the latter sentences that these whales only migrate to tropical waters during winter because of low plankton populations, rather than being winter itself. I forgot to note that one of their reasons is because calves will die from winter temperatures due to frostbite, but what about the adults?
in winter, when the poles get very cold and dark, whales migrate to the tropics to give birth because: the calves would die of frostbite in polar waters, and it's dark so there's not as much food as there is in winter   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "There have also been reports of a pod attacking and killing an adult bowhead whale, holding down its flippers, covering the blowhole, ramming, and biting until dead." Some parts of this sentence are oddly worded. Also, what pod are we talking about?
killer whale pod   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
I note that the term "pod" has been clarified, but the issue surrounding the sentence has not been addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
changed it to "...and ramming and biting..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many parasites latch onto whales, notably whale lice and whale barnacles. Though not a parasite, whale barnacles latch onto the skin of a whale during its larval stage." If it isn't a parasite, why does the first sentence make it out like it is? Wouldn't it be considered a phoresy if it simply attaches itself onto these whales?
switched it around with whale lice. It isn't phoresy because whale barnacles use whales as a good place to feed (lot of water rushing into their mouths in nutrient-rich water on a whale)

*"A species of Antarctic diatom, Cocconeis ceticola, forms a film on the skin, which takes a month to develop." Does this affect the host whale?

it creates a biofilm so it would have a slight impact on the skin. Skin stuff isn't so serious because they have a thick layer of blubber, so it doesn't necessarily 'harm' the whale as such
The article should say the biofilm does not harm the whale, but may have a minor impact on the skin.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baleen whales have fibroelastic penises, similar to those of artiodactyls." What does "fibroelastic" mean?
fibroelastic is a type of tissue. It's like connective tissue
Since there will be a handful of readers who will not know this, perhaps it would be nice to add in a brief explanation in parenthesis.
  • "By the early 1790s, whalers, namely the Americans and Australians, mainly focused efforts in the South Pacific where they mostly hunted right whales, with catches of up to 39,000 right whales by Americans alone." This leaves me curious, considering Australia was only colonized in the 1780s. Did early colonial settlers from Australia participate with Americans or others?
Londoners went to Australia for whaling
If this is the case, then the article is telling something different. If it was people from London whaling in Australia, this needs to be changed.
Should it be changed to "...namely the Americans and the Australians (from London)..."?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what the source is saying. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "By the early 1790s, whalers, namely the British (Australian) and Americans, started to focus efforts in the South Pacific; by the mid 1900's, over 50,000 humpback whale were taken from the South Pacific"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what the source says, then that's OK. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "history of whaling", I see there is a quote used. After the last sentence before the quote is being used, why not use "The IWC states that:" or "The IWC states the following:"? Just looks a bit odd.
should I removed the "–IWC Commission Schedule, paragraph 10(e)" at the bottom?
No, that can stay. What I mean is the following sentence should incorporate this: "Whaling was controlled in 1982 when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) placed a moratorium setting catch limits to protect species from dying out from over-exploitation, and eventually banned it.[115] The IWC states the following:
wouldn't that be redundant? How about
"...and eventually banned it:[115]
                                            <text>
                                                – IWC Commission Schedule, par. 10(e)"

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now that I read it, it may be so. Perhaps remove "–IWC Commission Schedule, paragraph 10(e)" if you feel this would cause redundancy.
done?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
What changes have you made? Burklemore1 (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (again), I only saw the very small change. That's fine with me. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Animal-rights activist groups (such as the Greenpeace[127]) object to Japan's scientific whaling, with some calling it a substitute for commercial whaling.[128]" Remove parenthesis from Greenpeace and move ref to the end of the sentence.
I replaced the parentheses with commas and put ref #127 at the end of the comma   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Possible omission in captivity: While these whales are rarely kept in captivity, is there any information about those who oppose?
This happened mid-to-late 20th century, I don't think there were many animal rights activists back then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Ok, if this is the case I'm not asking much. If there is no material available, there's none and I won't prevent the article from reaching FA.
  • It could also be helpful by adding that these whales are rarely kept in captivity in the lead.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • In the "List of extant mysticetes" table, the second instance of nomen dubium is linked after the first one. The first does not have italics either.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • This source could be used in relation to conservation. Be sure to add the doi, PMID and PMC.
this only says that people were more compliant when tickets were added
It also mentions the reduction of speed in vessels to lower the collision rate with endangered whales. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
References[edit]
  • I will go ahead and look at the references. I note that some may be already stated by the user above, but still nonetheless need to be addressed. Most are to do with journal identifications, so I recommend all ID's to be added.
  • Ref no. 1 should not be italicized since that is the publisher. I noticed another user picked this up, but I think you should use "Dictionary.com" as the publisher.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 6: What is the current stance on using quotes? Is it allowed?
I think it's okay if a free version is not available. Since one is available for ref #6, I'll remove the quote   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
OK, thanks for clarifying.
  • Ref no. 13 has a PMID 23256199 and a PMC 3574355
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 26 has a PMID 26064636 and a PMC 4448876. The issue number is also 4, and it seems an editor has suggested you to correctly name the journal.
added. If you're referring to Squeamish Ossifrage's comments, I've fixed the ones s/he's listed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
I know, just wanted to double check because the journal name appeared the same.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 33 has a PMID 21849306 and a PMC 3259978. The authors name should be stylized as "Fitzgerald, E.M.G."
for this article, the middle name goes with the last name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • The publisher for ref no. 42 is World Wildlife Fund Global, not the author.
what should the |author parameter be?
Since there seems to be no author, no parameter should be given. If there is one (since the World Wildlife Fund Global is the publisher), feel free to add it in.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Also remove "wwf.panda.org". Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name Balaenoptera physalus needs to be italicized in ref no. 43.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
You swapped these around with ref no. 71, but I have fixed this. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref no. 71 has a PMID 24803572 and a PMC 4079202. The volume and issue number are also incorrect, both are 6.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
this is a book. I don't think books have PMID's or PMC's   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 85 needs a publisher
if you meant ref #86, added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 89 needs to be better cited. It should be cited like this: Rice, D.W. (1977). Synopsis of biological data on the sei whale and Bryde's whale in the eastern North Pacific. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 1): pp. 92–97 (I assume you may need to use the cite report or book template??) This is the same for ref no. 91
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 92 needs a page number.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • If ref no. 101 is a news article it's best to use |work=Softpedia
replaced   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 107 needs an access date.
used today's date (4 April, 2016)
  • Ref no. 112 and 113 need publishers.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Ref no. 112 also needs a page number.
added
  • Ref no. 114 may have to be better cited.

All I know is the author is the IWC, and I'm citing paragraph 10 (e) of their schedule. So, all I can do is say: International whaling commission. "International whaling commission schedule, par. 10 (e)". International whaling commission. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

Well since I can't think of anything better, I won't ask for much with this one. Though if you already have the IWC in the work parameter, I don't think it's necessary to add in the author parameter.
So it should be "International Whaling Commission Schedule, par. 10(e)". International Whaling Commission. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Yes. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref no. 119 and 120 need publishers.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
I don't see a publisher for "Defying Extinction – Partnerships to Safeguard Global Biodiversity". Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bush Warriors is the publisher for ref no. 123, and I don't think the IUCN wrote the article.
fixed (filled in the |work= parameter with "bushwarriors.org")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Work parameter should be removed. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The International Whaling Commission is the publisher for refs no. 124 and 125, not the author.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
"iwc.int." needs to be removed.
removed (I thought I had removed all those but apparently not)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 126 needs a publisher
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Greenpeace International is the publisher for ref no. 127, not the author.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
"greenpeace.org" needs to be removed.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref no. 128 has a PMID 15959491
  • Remove "BBC" as the author in ref no. 130 as it is already mentioned.
what should the author= parameter be?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Closest thing I can think of is "Associated Press".
replaced; is "associated press" basically a go-to filler for the author parameter (in news articles)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
I think so, it's the best thing I can think of tbh. I have used it several times when no author name is available. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics needed for Balaenoptera musculus in ref no. 133
fixed, it's italicizing the title for some reason, so when the text said (Balaenoptera musculus) it removed the italices   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • In ref no. 135, cite Office of Protected Resources as the work and NOAA Fisheries as the publisher.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • NOAA Marine Debris Report is the publisher for ref no. 136, not author.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
added doi, page numbers not given   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Archive.org gives a page number of 74.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Works cited[edit]
  • I just viewed the "works cited" section, and I haven't seen these cited. I think the section should be renamed to "Further reading"
they are cited just not named the same thing; for example, Bannister 2008 is the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
OK, but are all of them?
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • The book "Mammal Anatomy: An Illustrated Guide" needs a publisher
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • "Mammalogy: Adaptation, Diversity, Ecology" also needs a publisher
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
Conclusion[edit]
  • That seems to be all from me. The referencing needs to be dealt with ASAP, but I won't oppose since these are relatively easy fixes. Once all of my concerns are addressed, I will happily support.
Seems most of my concerns have been addressed, but I haven't gone through the article as of yet. Because of this, I will wait until everything is finished and support if I'm happy with the changes.
When I do my second read, I will strike my concerns if I'm happy with the changes or if the nominator gave a reasonable explanation to any specific issue.
Still waiting for one more issue to be addressed, then I can happily support. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of my concerns have either been addressed or explained and so I believe the article reaches FA criteria. Huge admiration towards the nominator for his quick and efficient responses. Well done, I hope to see this promoted. The only thing I recommend the nominator to do is ping the reviewers here and see if they have any additional comments, especially the user who has opposed. Someone may need to do another sweep over the references, though this is unlikely as I see minimal issues. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article for GAN. This is really impressive work, and I don't think anything more needs to be fixed after the efficient reviews above. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

The "Works cited" section is a pretty big mess. It needs more than a little work.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you mean. How should it look like?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reorganised it into alphabetical order   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Middle initials go with first names, then you sort by alpha. I fixed it for you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in this article, the middle initial goes with the last name, so, to stay consistent, I'll revert it and fix it.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. OK OK. Yes, I know. We can do any thing we please here on Wikipedia. We can have any citation style we want. Right? We can make up our own. Right? But no, I Oppose. I draw the line at sorting by middle initial, which has no precedent of use in any real or parallel universe. Oppose. This format is simply a big middle finger to every reader who has ever even glanced at a Bibliography.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Damn okay I'll fix it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all of the refs in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by anon[edit]

The opening sentence is a problem, "Baleen whales are a widely distributed and diverse parvorder of carnivorous marine mammals." Why is the fact that they are carnivorous so prominent in the article and included in a taxonomy statement? There are three orders that contain marine mammals, a group, not a clade so far as I know, and one of the orders of mammals that includes marine mammals is the Carnivora. This sentence sounds off and sends me away from the article rather than into it. They are filter feeders, they include the hugest beast in town, but really, that they are carnivorous marine mammals, but not Carnivora, even though we are talking about taxonomy....

the opening statement of the Taxonomy sections doesn't have the word 'carnivorous' in it. The word 'carnivorous' (actually any word starting with 'c-a-r-n') only shows up twice in the entire article: once in the lead and once in the Foraging section, I don't quite understand the 'prominence' problem. The article never said they are (or ever were) classified into the order Carnivora, and the taxobox clearly says Order Artiodactyla, I don't see how the word 'carnivorous' leads you to the order Carnivora.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to look at the science, but I can't get beyond this opening sentence about whales, but maybe about seals, also.... -2600:380:B11D:F3AD:1B8A:4BC4:8D90:5E81 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

@Dunkleosteus77: Please remove the done/not done graphics from the page per the FAC guidelines, as they slow down page load times. @Burklemore1: Where are you on your review currently? I can't make sense of the above due to the masses of unsigned inline replies. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, would it be helpful if I signed them all now, even if I wrote them on different dates? Burklemore1 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Burklemore1: No, that's fine—but in the future, Dunkleosteus77, it would be helpful if you signed inline replies or made a separate section for replies. Otherwise it is very difficult to scan for your remarks versus those of the reviewer. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am going to go through my second read of the article and strike out some of my comments. I'm sure that would make things easier. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: I see at least one outstanding issue from the image review. If that is not resolved, we will need to remove that image. There is another problem in the annotations on Commons as well. --Laser brain (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: if you are referring to the size comparison image, I asked the author for the source, and did not get a response, but I did find a source   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: Yes, I'm referring to that image. Some also left an annotation on the image at Commons indicating that something is incorrect. I'm not sure how the image you linked above is a source for the image in the Baleen whale article. The text right on the image says it's the work of a Wikipedia user, so that doesn't meet WP:RS. --Laser brain (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I believe that the author mistook the "source" parameter for the "author" parameter (I've seen this happen a lot). As for the annotation, I mentioned the error in the caption of the image   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 6 May 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) 01:53, 17 May 2016 [10].

Reg Pollard (general)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Australian General John Wilton to FAC last year was the culmination of a three-year journey improving that particular article but this one was almost spur-of-the-moment -- I became interested in Reg Pollard simply because he was Wilton's predecessor as chief of the Australian Army and it went from there. I even found out that Pollard had a connection to Wilton's predecessor as head of the Australian military, Frederick Scherger, as they were classmates at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, and obviously had a similar sense of humour (see first para of Early life)... Anyway, hope you enjoy his story; the article has passed GAN and MilHist ACR -- thanks in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always Dan -- was quite chuffed with getting "colonelcy" in there but not wed to it, however I think the way we mentioned him as aide-de-camp to first KGVI and then QEII during 1951-54 was a bit clearer before (though not necessarily beyond improvement)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, just checked Google ngrams and it's more common than I thought. It's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora - Monday 25/4 Singora (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I started skimming this with no intention of commenting, and then noticed you refer to Camberley. That's where I grew up. I have a question: over the weekend I started a new article, Seri Rambai, and as yet no one has added any of that category / classification blurb to the talk page. Do I need to wait for this to be done, or can I start using the talk page as things stand. I'd like to use the page as a sort of repository for sources I didn't use in the article.

My apologies, I overlooked your question here -- I've added some basic banners to the talk page, they could be added to. That is a great picture of the cannon in the infobox BTW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through your article:

  • 1. This "Born in Bathurst, New South Wales, Pollard graduated from the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in 1924" is a non sequitur. See non sequitur. Under "Non Sequiturs in Newspapers", you'll see the example: "Slim, of medium height, and with sharp features, Mr. Smith's technical skills are combined with strong leadership qualities (New York Times)".
    • Stet. No significant difference between this and "he was born in Bathurst and graduated from ...". - Dank (push to talk)
      • Yes, I get non sequiturs, and that the second clause doesn't automatically follow from the first here, but OTOH it's all background info and it avoids two short, staccato sentences separating the two elements.
  • 2. You need to link New Guinea in the summary.
    • Okay.
  • 3. Consistency. In the first paragraph you have "In 1938 he was posted to England"; in the second you've got " In 1957, he was promoted to lieutenant general". Why do you need the comma?
    • No opinion on this particular comma, but in general, consistency isn't enforced (on or off Wikipedia) on commas after short introductory phrases. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Removed second one.
  • 4. This is where a bit of variety might help: "In 1957, he was promoted to lieutenant general and took charge of Eastern Command in Sydney; he was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath in 1959." -> "In 1957, he was promoted to lieutenant general and took charge of Eastern Command in Sydney; two years later he was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath."
    • Okay.
  • 5. Apart from the date + comma issue, this sentence seems to come out of nowhere "In 1962, the first team of Australian military advisors deployed to South Vietnam". Is it supposed to be here?
  • 6. "After retiring from the military in 1963, Pollard became Honorary Colonel of the Royal Australian Regiment, and also served as Australian Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II during the Royal Visit in 1970; he was appointed a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order the same year" -> "After retiring from the military in 1963, Pollard became Honorary Colonel of the Royal Australian Regiment; he served as Australian Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II during the Royal Visit in 1970 and was appointed a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order the same year". My effort removes the "also" and clarifies dates. What you have is the equivalent of "John was born in 1970 and Paul was born in 1971; Simon was born the same year".
    • Okay.
  • 7. The section "Early life" kicks off with consecutive non sequiturs.
    • Stet. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Tweaked first to vary things but I think the second is fair enough, it's all to do with his education.
  • 8. The second sentence could use something like "three years later" in place of 1924.
    • It could have been closer to two or four years, for all I know. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I'd prefer the precise year here myself.
  • 9. Personal opinion. "The previous year, Pollard and Scherger had inaugurated a Duntroon tradition when they found a horse's jawbone during a field exercise, declared it a lucky charm on the basis of the Biblical tale of Samson slaying the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, and brought it back to the college as a mascot; it became known as Enobesra" -> "The previous year Pollard and Scherger had inaugurated a Duntroon tradition when they found a horse's jawbone during a field exercise. Inspired by the Biblical tale in which Samson slays the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, they declared their find a lucky charm and brought it back to the college as a mascot; it became known as Enobesra".
    • I like it -- tks.
  • 10. "In November 1938, Pollard travelled to England to attend Staff College, Camberley; he graduated in September 1939". Here again you could try something like "the following September".
    • Don't mind that (you'll note that I do like to use "the following", "the next", etc, now and then) but preferred not to have two "the"s in close proximity.
  • 11. Possible redundancy: "A cease-fire on 12 July ended the campaign (in Syria)"
    • Dunno about that -- other opinions perhaps?
  • 12. Is this the correct phrasing: "and Pollard was mentioned in despatches for his work"? The word "work" seems unusual. Think: bravery, efforts, contribution/s, leadership, endeavours, decision making, strategic foresight, etc.
    • I agree, I didn't like "work" either -- changed to "service".


This is a good article -- I'll carry on later.

Tks for taking the time to review, will try to address these shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I interspersed a few comments. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks both of you, think I've actioned or at least acknowledged everything above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora -- May 2nd Singora (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do this while I'm eating my dinner.

  • 13. RE: "the award was gazetted on 30 December 194". Confirmed -- Pollard is mentioned on page 7358.
  • 14. How exactly are these two clauses related: "Pollard was promoted to lieutenant colonel in August 1941, and was responsible for establishing the AIF Junior Staff School in Palestine"? Are you trying to say that in 1941, while establishing the blah blab blah, he was promoted to blah blah blah? Or was he given the responsibility as a consequence of his promotion?
    • This is pretty well just how the ADB source puts it, making the connection but no more explicitly than this.
  • 15. In the lead you say "Promoted to colonel in 1942, he became senior staff officer of the 7th Division in New Guinea". Now you're saying "Returning to Australia in August, Pollard was appointed General Staff Officer Grade 1 of the 6th Division; he served on its headquarters in Papua from September until mid-November 1942, when he became Major General George Vasey's senior staff officer at the 7th Division". This isn't a problem, but I wonder why you've not used Papua both times.
    • I think I just wanted to refer to the broader island mass in the lead and the more narrow territorial term in the body.
  • 16. RE: "He spent the next two months attached to the headquarters staff of Northern Command". Have you dropped an apostrophe?
    • Not knowingly...!
  • 17. RE: "allotted to instruct". Not sure about the word "allotted", but did he teach? You've only told me the school was renamed and relocated.
    • The military tends to use the term "instruct" but it effectively means "teach". Happy to change "allotted" to say "assigned".
  • 18. RE: "Pollard's rank of lieutenant-colonel had been made substantive in September 1946 and his rank of colonel in July 1949". The chronology here seems wrong: we've gone from 1947 to 1948; you've told me he was appointed Director of Personnel Administration at Army Headquarters in January 1949; you've said that compulsory national service was introduced in 1951. And now you're jumping back to 1946.
    • Well, yes, I deliberately put the info about his promotions into one sentence towards the end because I felt that inserting it in a strict chronological fashion broke up the flow of the preceding info about his postings.
  • 19. RE: "from April that year until April 1954 he was aide-de-camp to King George VI". Tell me -- when did King George VI die?
    • Yes, I referred to that above with Dan after his ce, I think we need to re-tweak that sentence.
  • 20. Personal Opinion. Pollard was quoted as saying that there were "one or two" serious complaints but that he was "amazed how few there were, considering that the average soldier complains considerably all the time" -> Pollard said there were "one or two" serious complaints but was "amazed how few there were, considering that the average soldier complains considerably all the time".
    • I like your shorter version but OTOH I tend to prefer terms like "quoted as saying" or "reported as saying" when it's from a newspaper as opposed to a secondary source.
  • 21. RE: "Communist aggression". Why capitalize?
    • I think I did that for consistency with capitalisation in a quote later on.
  • 22. Just noticed you've referred to the CMF six times without linking the term (Australian_Army_Reserve).
    • I did actually -- in the lead and on first use in the main body (Early life).


More tomorrow or the next day.

  • Thanks again for your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Singora (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! However:

  • 1. I think you should paranthesize CMF in the summary; ie, Citizens Military Forces (CMF). I completely missed your first reference to this.
  • 2. The deal with King George VI is that he died in 1952. You've said Pollard served as George's aide-de-camp until 1954 (QUOTE: until April 1954 he was aide-de-camp to King George VI).
  • 3. Your word "allotted" is fine.
    • Tks for that; I've tweaked per points 1 and 2. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looked at this at both GAN and ACR, and I think it is up to snuff for FA too. I have created specific links (albeit redirects) for Sword of Honour (Duntroon) and King's Medal (Duntroon) now, so I've added these to the article. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "He served as adjutant and quartermaster in several battalions of the Citizens Military Forces (CMF) during the 1920s and 1930s." (perhaps clarify he was a Permanent Force member?) For instance, maybe this would work: "A regular officer, he served as adjutant and quartermaster in several battalions of the Citizens Military Forces (CMF) during the 1920s and 1930s."
  • "though this did not come to fruition at the time" --> perhaps state when it actually did happen (1968).
    • Tks for coming by Rupert -- appreciate all your commentary as the article's progressed, right down to your latest suggestions above, which I've implemented. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 14 May 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) 01:52, 17 May 2016 [11].

William Harper (Rhodesian politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When looking back on Rhodesian history and the UDI period in particular, it's often assumed that 1965's UDI occurred after circumstances contrived to put the lunatic fringe into government—so it may come as a surprise that Ian Smith was actually the more moderate choice for Prime Minister in 1964. Rhodesia could easily instead have been led by William Harper, a Calcutta-born segregationist who thought Indian independence a folly and wanted to strip black Rhodesians of what little political representation they had. Harper left the Rhodesian Front under something of a cloud in 1968, apparently after being caught having an affair with an MI6 agent, and the rest of his political career essentially amounted to giving indignant quotes to the Rhodesian press every time Smith moved towards any kind of conciliation with the black nationalists. By the time of the Internal Settlement elections of 1979, Harper was settled in South Africa, where he seems to have lived out the rest of his days in obscurity. He died in 2006.

Harper is most notable for his political career in Rhodesia, but it's also worth mentioning here that as a younger man he was one of "The Few" in the Battle of Britain, and was wounded in action after being shot down in a dogfight in which he was greatly outnumbered. I've done my best to cover his RAF service as well as his life as a politician.

This article just received a successful GA review, and I think it is at least close to FA standard. I hope you enjoy it and I look forward to any comments you may have. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this for GA and found very little that needed changing. With those things resolved, it meets the FA criteria. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words, the review at GAN and your support here, Coemgenus. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per commentary below. Comment: I had the opportunity to read this article when it was still being reviewed at GAN, and one of the things which sort of leaped out at me was how detailed the coverage was of Harper's political career, while very little information was offered given the rest of his life from 1979 on. Certainly, he lived to see the end of apartheid and the extent of Zimbabwe's social and economic collapse and it's a little surprising some one this outspoken never offered his opinion publicly on those two issues. Did he farm in South Africa, or like Hilary Squires did he accept another civil service position? Do we have any sources as to what he was doing between 1979 and 2006?

Also, just a minor nitpick about his first cabinet position: the article describes Harper's title as the Minister of "Water Development and Roads". The Southern Rhodesian Roads and Roads Traffic Act of 1936 named the responsible portfolio as "Minister of Roads and Roads Traffic". This was reiterated in the new Roads and Roads Traffic Amendment of 1948. When Winston Field first took office, it was still just "Roads and Roads Traffic". Field probably introduced the responsibility of Irrigation/Water Development to that ministry during his tenure. I believe Harper's final title as head of that ministry would've been "Minister of Irrigation, Roads, and Roads Traffic" per JRT Wood's book So far and no further. --Katangais (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katangais, thanks for this, I'll have a more detailed look later—just regarding the first point, yes, I really couldn't find anything on what happened to him after 1979. I didn't even get a reliable source for his date of death until quite recently. Either he became much less outspoken in later life or the press just lost interest in him, it would appear. If you find anything definitely add it to the article as I agree this is a place the article falls down somewhat, but I have done the best I could. I'll come back to the title of the first Cabinet position later. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I've had a look through Wood again and it seems the initial title in 1962 was "Irrigation, Roads and Road Traffic" (p. 122) with the portfolios of Transport and Power added in November 1963; the word "irrigation" was at the same time changed to "water development". I've integrated this into the article. Thanks for catching this. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having done some more research on Harper, it seems likely that he faded into obscurity after his final political defeat, and historians did indeed lose interest in him. One incident the article does not mention, I believe due to lack of adequate literature coverage - and something I'd very much like to see expounded upon - is the fact that in December 1975 Harper apparently released a report known to the Rhodesian press as the "Harper Memorandum" exposing an apparent Special Branch plot to kidnap prominent black lawyer Edson Sithole and his secretary Miriam Mhlanga, who had disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Despite the fact that one would expect this to be covered in one of the myriad of Rhodesian literature which has mushroomed in the past twenty years, I could find only one source for it. Post-1980 Zimbabwean literature on Edson Sithole is ample, but no reference is made to Harper - likely for political reasons. Clearly nobody else considered him important enough to be worth making considerable mention of this either.
I think the Harper Memorandum deserves a spot in the article, especially if you can find any more sources relating to it. The one I used came from an old back issue of Africa Today on Google Books. --Katangais (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done my best to integrate a bit on that—took a bit of work due to lack of sources but what do you reckon? —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I've just been through again and couldn't find anything else that needs tweaking. While it's regrettable that no more sources appear to be forthcoming on Harper's retirement years, I think the article provides the best coverage possible with what we have on hand. As far as I'm concerned it would make a solid FAC. --Katangais (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Katangais for the helpful review and for your support. Hope you're well. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Only one comment, in the "Emigration to Rhodesia" section:

  • "retired from the RAF in April 1949, keeping the rank of wing commander,[12] and same year emigrated": "in the same year"?

Aside from that minor point, I agree with Katangais that there could be a little more on the 28-year period he spent in South Africa, but if the sources are not forthcoming on the matter, then there is little we can do about it. An excellent overview of the man, and meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. Cheers –SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Gavin. I think I have fixed the one issue you flagged up—if I do find anything after 1979 I shall of course put it in. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_7th_Duke_of_Montrose_in_1967.jpg: the permission statement and the given tag don't match - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of selection of photos of the Montrose family uploaded about five years ago by a user called "KooksfromNyabira", who has otherwise no made no contributions to the English Wikipedia or Commons (see here and here). I would say, judging from the focus of all edits on members of the Montrose family and the character of these photos, that KooksfromNyabira is probably a relative uploading family photos. I have erred on the side of caution and simply amended the permission statement, which used to say the image is straight-up public domain, to match the given tag. Hope this helps. Cheers and thanks for this. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


SupportLeaning support: I have a number of minor quibbles, and a couple of perhaps slightly more substantial points:

  • Lead: For a relative short (under 3,000w) article, the lead looks rather on the long side
  • Early life: Do we need to spell out "William John"?
  • I personally prefer to put the full name at the start of the article body as I view this as a separate thing from the lead —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second World War:
  • Any reason known as to why he joined the RAF in 1937? Anything known of his post-school activities (he must have left school in or around 1934)?
  • "the next day after the incumbent was shot down" → "the day after the previous incumbent was shot down"
  • "From July 1940 Harper was one of "The Few", the Allied pilots of the Battle of Britain, still flying with No. 17 Squadron." Slight ambiguity in this wording, which would disappear if you re-ordered: "From July 1940, still flying with No. 17 Squadron, Harper was one of "The Few", the Allied pilots of the Battle of Britain."
  • Not sure about "ended up contacting". Just "contacted" would do.
  • Emigration to Rhodesia: "keeping the rank of wing commander" → "with the rank of wing commander"?
  • Dominion Party
  • "He was elected president of the Dominion Party's Southern Rhodesian arm..." This might confuse readers, since it's an indirect reference to the Federation which has thus far only been mentioned in the map caption. You may need a prior sentence of explanation within the main text.
  • I've added two explanatory sentences to the "emigration" section. Hope this helps —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify that Whitehead was the Southern Rhodesian prime minister
  • Rhodesian Front
  • Most readers would, I think, find it helpful if the chronology of events was made a little more specific with a few more details. For example there is a casual reference to "Federal dissolution" without a date or explanation. It would surely be relevant to state that the other two components of the Federation did gain independence when the Federation was dissolved, thus leaving Southern Rhodesia, as they saw it, high and dry.
  • I've added a bit more to explain this a bit more thoroughly, I hope it's a bit better now? —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the description of Harper as "radical", which term normally applies to ideas or policies which are progressive or at least novel; calling for the introduction of apartheid and the abolition of black representation in parliament seems ultra-reactionary rather than radical.
  • Sorry, misunderstanding on my part; I'd meant it to mean "extreme" in a kind of non-political sense, but on reflection you are of course right and I have rephrased. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the office of Deputy Prime Minister (which had been absent since UDI)..." – surely "vacant" rather than absent?
  • Resignation
  • Slightly puzzled by the parenthetic "(presuming it is true)". Is this a suggestion that it might not have been?
  • Well, it probably is, but we don't know. Harper never confirmed it and indeed told the press he'd been kicked out for political reasons. The historian Wood stops short of outright endorsing the account, qualifying it with "if Flower is to be believed". This was my attempt to do something similar. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more extreme as he really was" → "more extreme than he really was"
  • "exempted himself" – again a slightly strange choice of word. Maybe OK, but still reads a little oddly.
  • United Conservative Party: What happened to the UCP? Did it fight any elections after July 1974?
  • No, it didn't last until the 1977 election. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emigration to South Africa, and death: While accepting that there are no further details relating to Harper's long retirement, I still feel that the section as worded, with no mention of Harper until the last line, needs attention. I suggest a slight rearrangement and modification to the wording, as follows:
"Smith and non-militant nationalists agreed what became the Internal Settlement in March 1978, and in January the following year whites backed the new majority rule constitution by 85% in a national referendum. Multiracial elections were held in April 1979 with the country due to be reconstituted as Zimbabwe Rhodesia afterwards. By this time Harper had already left Rhodesia; the Guardian reported shortly before the elections that Harper was "already settled in South Africa", where he died at the age of 90 on 8 September 2006. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe Rhodesia, with Bishop Abel Muzorewa as Prime Minister, failed to win international acceptance and following the Lancaster House Agreement of December 1979, the UK oversaw a process leading to fresh elections in which the guerrilla leader Robert Mugabe was elected Prime Minister. Britain granted independence to the country as Zimbabwe in April 1980."

Interesting to read about this rebarbative individual. No doubt his years of silence in South Africa were all for the best. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this Brian, very helpful as always. I have adopted your suggested wording at the end for the most part, with just a couple minor changes—one is that the source doesn't explicitly say where he died, so I've not been able to put that he died in South Africa (though based on non-reliable sources I have seen it seems he probably did). I hope my responses are all to your satisfaction and I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed the article. Thanks again, —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about "enjoyed" – "appalled fascination" might be nearer the mark, and I'm glad he didn't advance further than he did. I'm happy with your responses and have upgraded to full support. (I might quail at the prospect of Boss Lilford or Eugène Terre'Blanche). Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Brian. Lilford I have thought for a while I might do, Terre'Blanche probably not. I have had an idea for quite a while to write one about the Verwoerd assassination, we'll see if I ever get to it. Thanks again, —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- recusing from coord duties as I can hardly resist another of John's articles on southern African Battle of Britain pilots, especially when they also commanded an RAAF unit (which I wasn't aware of before stopping by here); I'll try to look over the entire article but for now just copyedited the WWII section, and have a couple of comments:

  • "He regained the rank of acting flight lieutenant on 4 July..." -- this reads a bit oddly when we haven't been told how or when he'd lost that rank.
  • "No. 453 Squadron suffered high losses during the Japanese invasion of Malaya in December 1941 and January 1942, and was disbanded in Australia in March 1942." -- yes but unless I missed something this info isn't in that chapter of Gillison, certainly not on that page; I expect you'll find it in a later chapter but if you have trouble let me know and I should be able to locate something.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, thanks for taking an interest here. I'm rather pressed for time at the moment so if you could have a look that would be helpful and very much appreciated. In any case I will try to have a look over the weekend. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've collated some info/refs that I'll add tonight or tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done that, and also resolved the earlier point about regaining his acting flt lt rank after checking the ref. I know what it's like with long-gestating articles, and I think it'd be useful for you to go through the article to double-check that everything is sourced accurately and avoids close paraphrasing because I did find instances of both in the WWII section, and Noswall found something as well, so I think between us we've done what amounts to a spotcheck of sources that might warrant further action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wrote most of this a long time ago and should really have given it another go-through before this stage with hindsight. As you may have noticed I have already made a few edits along these lines. If you find any more for sure point them out, I will take action myself if I come across any more. Cheers and thanks for all your help here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I have just been perusing over parts of this article. I notice that the following text is supported by this newspaper article but I cannot find where that source supports the italicised parts of the following quote: "Harper re-entered politics in July 1974, when he formed the United Conservative Party (UCP) to oppose the RF in that month's general election. The RF won all 50 white roll seats, denying the UCP any representation in parliament; Harper himself lost decisively in the southern Salisbury constituency of Hatfield. Amid the Bush War, he subsequently reacted with revulsion each time Smith moved towards settlement with black nationalist factions. In December 1974 he described Smith's announcement of a ceasefire in the run-up to the Victoria Falls Conference as a "ghastly capitulation";" Perhaps it is me reading over it, but if not, you need to support the rest of those sentences with reliable sources. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Noswall, good thing you point that out—I wrote that section a very long time ago and hadn't bothered reviewing it when I put together for FAC. There was quite a big error there regarding the chronology. The UCP wasn't formed until after that election. Anyway, I've been through and fixed it now. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Noswall59 and Ian Rose: how do you think it looks now? I've had another run through and I think I've picked up any outstanding issues left over from earlier in the article's gestation. Thanks to you both, especially Ian for running through Gillison to find some page numbers for me. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cliftonian: Hi, thanks for addressing this. I've been over the paragraphs in question and, where I can see the sources, I do believe the article accurately represents them; this is a success given the obscurity of some of this material and post-1968 Harper. The 1970s–90s can also be so hard to research without trips to major libraries. As a final note, or more of a query, I wonder whether Hatfield should be (red-)linked to Hatfield (Rhodesian constituency) or some similar construction, just because that is what he was actually running for. Due to offline commitments, I can't really find the time at present to review the article further, although I may return to it if things calm down IRL; it nonetheless seems to be a well-written, comprehensive and probably necessary study of this rather detestable figure. Anyway, best of luck with this; regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Noswall, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad it all looks okay now. Re constituencies, I think that might be a bit premature at this stage as the articles for Zim/Rhodesian constituencies don't exist yet, but for sure in the future when they are taken in hand they should be linked as you recommend. I hope all's well and of course real-life commitments come first. Cheers and thanks again —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks John, I've had a quick read through the whole article now, very lightly copyedited, and spotchecked FNs 21, 35, 46 and 57. I found one minor thing with the last-mentioned, which I actioned, but feel that only the second sentence cited to FN21 is clearly supported by the source given. I think the first sentence, especially concerning the Wind of Change and "no independence before majority rule", could use another source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, thanks for having another look. I've incorporated another two for the issue you raise from the UDI article. Hope this helps. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks John. I could see it was essentially there for context, uncontroversial, but given this is FA material... Anyway, since that was was my only remaining point I'm happy to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help, the kind words and your support Ian. Hope all's well. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Did anyone look over the sources for formatting and such, aside from the spot-check above? --Laser brain (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- all links check out, formatting looks okay, saw no cause for concern re. reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 7 May 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) 01:52, 17 May 2016 [12].

New wave of British heavy metal[edit]

Nominator(s): Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Wave of British Heavy Metal was an important musical movement of the 1980s, which was pivotal for the development of extreme rock music styles in the following decades. I thought that it deserved an in-depth article and I spent a lot of time reading and researching sources related to the time period, to heavy metal subculture and to the music. The article was recently promoted to GA status and has since received a Guild of Copy Editors' revision. I believe it is now ready for Featured Article status and look forward to other editors' comments and reviews. Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This is one of the best written popular culture articles I have seen at FAC. Intelligent and perceptive, it covers an aspect of our musical heritage that has been somewhat neglected by the mainstream media. The images appear to be suitable – there is one "fair use" album cover but I haven't checked the rationelle. There are problems with the Harvard linking of some reference to the sources. These are numbers 95, 291, 334 and 336. I look forward to reading further reviews. Thank you for engaging in our FA process. It is clear that many hours of effort have been put in here. Graham Beards (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the kind words. I checked and fixed the references you mentioned. Lewismaster (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment: I'm struggling with the use of the album cover. I see that the cover's appearance may actually be a significant part of the story (given the response in the US) but, first, the value of the cover should be made clear in the rationale, and, second, the caption should make clear the significance of the cover, rather than just the album. At the moment, the use comes across as somewhat decorative. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem and changed the rationale and caption to convey the meaning of the cover. During the NWOBHM cover art was directly connected to the contents of the songs, which were about fantasy, science fiction, horror, etc. as described in another part of the article. Unfortunately, the theme of heavy metal iconography and cover art would require a separate article to be explained properly and a caption is not enough. Lewismaster (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this looks good, but since I was also the GA reviewer, I think I should wait with commenting/supporting until "uninvolved" editors have chimed in. FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I haven't looked at it too closely yet, but:
  • The crisis of British heavy rock giants left space for the rise of other rock bands in the mid-1970s,[24] like: Queen,[25] Slade,[26] Sweet,[27] Wishbone Ash,[28] Status Quo,[29] Nazareth,[30] and Uriah Heep,[31] all of which had multiple chart entries in the UK and successful international tours.[20] The British chart results of the period show that there was still a vast audience for heavy metal in the country and upcoming bands Thin Lizzy,[32] UFO[33] and Judas Priest,[34] also had tangible success and media coverage in the late 1970s.[35] Foreign hard rock acts, such as Blue Öyster Cult and Ted Nugent from the US,[36][37] Rush from Canada,[38] Scorpions from Germany[39] and especially AC/DC from Australia,[40] climbed the British charts in the same period.[20]
    This paragraph leaves me wondering how it was put together—why these particular groups? Since they each have their own cite, it looks like they've been cherry-picked—but based on what criteria? Is there some scholarly consensus that these groups are representative in the way they're presented here? The way they're individually cited makes it seem like perhaps they aren't, but rather reflect the tastes of the editor(s). That may not be true, but that 's the impression it gives. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria are: they played hard rock, they charted high in the UK and they were internationally known. And of course sources. I did not select the band according to my tastes (I know very little about Slade or Wishbone Ash and would never had picked up Status Quo), but multiple sources indicated them. About foreign bands, I thought that Aerosmith and Kiss, for example, had had some chart sucess in the UK in those years, but they did not. What you read is what I found. Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the issue: it's a list of what you found, rather than a list of what a RS found. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have some lists from reliable sources of successsful hard rock bands from the mid-70s:
Ian Christe pp.16, 23 - Blue Öyster Cult, Hawkwind, King Crimson (?), Queen, Rush, The Stooges, AC/DC, Kiss, New York Dolls, The Runaways, Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, Robin Trower, UFO
Malc Macmillan p.19 - UFO, Judas Priest, Thin Lizzy, Budgie, Bad Company, Nazareth, Status Quo, AC/DC, Kiss, Aerosmith, Montrose, The Runaways, Rush, Blue Öyster Cult
John Tucker p.32 - AC/DC, Judas Priest, Scorpions, UFO, Thin Lizzy.
When I compare this lists with the bands' UK Album Chart entries, Blue Öyster Cult, Hawkwind, Queen, Kiss, Bad Company, Budgie, Nazareth and Status Quo reached at least the Top40 before or in 1975; Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, Rush, AC/DC, Scorpions and UFO from 1976 to 1979.
I probably picked up the names of Wishbone Ash, Slade, Sweet, etc. from interviews to musicians or directly from the Official Charts Company site. I removed them. Lewismaster (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is NWOBHM really best described as a "movement"? Like, with manifestoes and rallies and stuff? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think movement better describes the term and has closer meaning to "wave" (from the title) than scene or something third. Not that the bands were proclaiming manifestos or some ideology, but movement indicates it was happening in a certain period of time and can not be repeated, unlike scene, which can still exist (Florida death metal or Bay Area thrash metal, for example).--Retrohead (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a music genre for sure. The music genre is heavy metal. I think that to reduce the NWOBHM to a regional scene would be reductive for the impact that it had on musicians and fans. The movement did not have a manifesto, but a clear ideology, moral and behavioural codes, visual identification and "stuff" were provided in spades. Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I see the word "movement", I imagine a social movement or political movement, and you can be sure I'm not the only one. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikitionary - Movement = A trend in various fields or social categories, a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals. Lewismaster (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the definition readers will have in mind? This reader didn't. Rock in Opposition was a contemporary rock social movement, so don't think I'm just splitting hairs. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that we are stuck in a very old diatribe. Macmillan in his introduction to the New Wave of British Heavy Metal Encyclopedia writes "Twenty years on and the debate still rages: was it a movement or a musical style?". I checked all my sources and they are not very useful, because most authors are quite elusive in giving a clear-cut definition of the NWOBHM. Various citations from interviews to musicians and journalists call the the NWOBHM a movement (Tucker) and so does Ben Mitchell of Esquire [13] and Sam Dunn, but others call it "scene" (Bushell), a "genre" (Christie), a "phenomenon" or simply "a wave of new heavy metal bands" (Bayer et al.). I think that opinions on this matter from other editors could be helpful. Lewismaster (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Art movement" is a very real term, and it is applied to music as well as the visual arts. That's actually what stylistic shifts in classical music tend to be called: "movements". I see no reason why, if enough sources describe NWOBHM as such, the term "movement" should be avoided here. It's not our fault if readers are unaware that the term "movement" is used outside of politics, if indeed most readers are unaware, which has not been demonstrated.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What has been demonstrated is that the term is ambiguous, and ambiguity is best avoided in encyclopaedic writing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both Geoff Barton and Neal Kay call the NWOBHM a movement and they were directly involved in it [14]. I think that encyclopedias should strive to solve ambiguities, not necessarily avoid them. Lewismaster (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain which meaning of "movement" they intended? And how do you propose the ambiguity be solved? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Research and discussion, what else? Maybe starting from Webster Dictionary definition of movement as "a series of organized activities working toward an objective" and also as "an organized effort to promote or attain an end" [15] and discuss if it can apply to the NWOBHM. I think it does. Lewismaster (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's looking at things backwards: we don't choose a word and then go through the list of its definitions to find one we like. We consider what we're trying to communicate, and find the words that best get that message across to the readership. "Movement" thus fails. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are in disagreement here. In my opinion, "movement" works just fine in describing the NWOBHM. I'm still curious about what term would you use to define it. I didn't need a list of definitions to chose it, reliable sources used the term. Lewismaster (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't need a list of definitions to chose it, reliable sources used the term—sorry, but this type of "reasoning" tells me that the person I'm talking with isn't really interested in understanding the point being made (particularly when you've quoted a source yourself highlighting the issue with the term). There're other things I'd rather be doing than banging my head against this wall, so I'll just leave the review to others. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear this, as you did a very good work in correcting various deficiencies of the article. Obviously your definition of movement if narrower than mine and I still don't know your definition of the NWOBHM. Lewismaster (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but think that the Motörhead section could be much briefer, and I'm not sure what the Lemmy quote adds. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Motörhead section is something I need advice for. The contrast between critics and fans about the band's belonging to the NWOBHM is real and I wanted to summarize the achievements and influence that the band had for both sides. Are John Peel broadcast and the No.1 on the UK chart redundant or are important to emphasize the separation from the new-born bands? They can be important if Motörhead is viewed as a NWOBHM band. And what about their punk friends? Should they be mentioned to underline Motörhead's influence on punk and the band's musical crossover? Please, tell me what you think. Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was the level of detail, not any of the actual content. I feel like you could have gotten to the point in a couple of sentences rather than an entire subsection. I'll come back and give you an example of what I mean (I have to take off now). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • meant the achievement of maturity for heavy metal, before branching out into various subgenres—I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
  • commonly known as muthas—really? Can we get an explanation for this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was a term commonly used by the British magazines at the time. It is a contraction of "motherfuckers". Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weinstein wrote that—this is jarring in its suddenness—who is Weinstein, and why do we care? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deena Weinstein is the author of one of the most cited reference book about the heavy metal subculture, as specified in the paragreaph above. Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British heavy metal is neither misogynistic nor an expression of machismo; for the most part women are of no concern." At the same time, it: "is not racist, despite its uniformly white performers, and its lyrics are devoid of racial references."—why is this quoted rather than summarized? Also, it seems to deflate the idea that it celebrated masculinity—if it's neither macho nor misogynist, in what way does it celebrate masculinity?
Summarized. Neither soccer supporters are macho or mysoginist, but their camaraderie and behaviour is masculine. Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another characteristic of the subculture was its latent homophobia—placing this here makes the homophobia seem pretty prominant. Was it so central to NWOBHM? As opposed to other subcultures, or even mainstream culture?
It is very important for all the heavy metal subculture. Gay musicians and fans were not accepted in the community and the comparison with the skineheads' attitude is not casual. Bob Halford made his coming out only 25 years after his debut as singer in Judas Priest. See Amber R. Clifford-Napoleone - Queerness in Heavy Metal Music: Metal Bent ISBN 978-1-315-85172-3 for more on the subject. Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collective affirmation of heterosexuality" or "a reaction against the erosion of traditionally available stereotypes of masculinity"[attribution needed]—quotes require inline attribution (not just citation).
Fixed.
  • the epiphany of their status—the word escapes me, but I'm almost positive it's not wikt:epiphany
Changed.
  • for the young generations—surely this should be singular?
Yes.
  • dubbed all rock music employing loud guitars with the umbrella term heavy metal—even punk & new wave?
Fixed.
  • an underground phenomenon parallel to punk—"parallel" in what sense?
Fixed.
  • and featured vocals ranging from high pitch wails to gruff and low tuned—"low-tuned" vocals?
Fixed.
Fixed.
  • 'first pints, first shags and first horror films' —I have no idea what this means, and I imagine I'm not the only reader in this predicament. A case where paraphrasing would be enormously more readable than quoting.
Quoting reduced.
  • "the concept of a rock club was pretty much inconceivable around 1978–79"[attribution needed]—but, again, why quote rather than paraphrase?
Fixed.
  • A II Z were signed by Polydor, Tygers of Pan Tang, Fist, and White Spirit by MCA, More by Atlantic, Samson by RCA, Demon by Carrere, Girlschool by Bronze, and Praying Mantis by Arista.—do we really need such a detailed enumeration? It makes for pretty tedious reading.
C'mon, it's only a line! I think it's important to show how few bands were signed to major labels. Most of them were dropped after their first relaese. Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"C'mon" is not much of an argument—try reading it. It's tedious. Is there not a better way to sum it up without boring the reader? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sentence. I thinks it works better now. Lewismaster (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The success of the music produced by the movement, and its passage from underground phenomenon to mainstream genre, prompted its main promoter Geoff Barton to declare the NWOBHM finished in 1981.—just as it was topping the charts? This needs an explanation.
I added an explanatory sentence and reference.
  • American-influenced AOR releases on national polls—what kind of polls are these?
Fixed.
  • the more sophisticated glam metal subgenre—"sophisticated" in what sense?
Changed in "polished".
  • Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, France, and Spain were the first other European countries—seven countries were "the first"?
Fixed.
I addressed most of the problems that you indicated and checked your edits on the article. You did a good work, but actually undid much of the copy editing done by Twofingered Typist in his WP:GOCE review. Different styles, I guess... Lewismaster (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lewismaster: It appears that CT is trying to improve the quality of the article although in a manner of a GA review which has already happened successfully. Some issues are style and some, like his criticism of the use of "movement", are hyper-critical - IMO. I am no expert on the subject and, for the most part, was simply copy editing what I was given which is the GOCE's role. I'll move on. Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Twofingered Typist is implying with "a GA review which has already happened successfully". Does this imply I should just rubber-stamp my support already? Not as long as I see ambiguities and readability & accessibility issues in the text: I can't in good conscious call such an article one of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read this entire discussion, but according to the GA and FA criteria, all that matters is if reliable sources call it a movement. So do they? FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all that matters, then the bronze star is worthless. Whatever---nobody seems concerned with trying to understand the point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the FA criteria/Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth are pretty clear on this. As long as the claim is verifiable by multiple reliable sources and is not disputed, there is absolutely no problem. If you can find a reliable source that disputes this is a movement, then we have a problem. Personal criteria (unpublished opinions) are a whole different matter. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said: no effort to understand the problem. And no effort to see the FA criteria as more than a checklist. I'll say it one last time: "movement" is an ambiguous term, and using an ambiguous term in the opening sentence is a poor choice to make; a poorer choice is to defend its use on the grounds that readers should be expected to read the editors' minds. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently plenty of authors used that "ambiguous" term in their texts without invoking telepathy. Assuming that we are all wrong, in your opinion what would be the right description? Lewismaster (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If they can get away with it, then so can we" is not an argument I have any respect for. But whatever—who cares how well the article communicates, as long as it gets the bronze star? I'm de-watchlisting this thing now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of Righting Great Wrongs here, using Wikipedia to spread the "truth". Instead of leaving with the ball, it would have been better if Curly Turkey had contributed to FA promotion simply writing "Oppose" and stating his reasons. This is my first FAC procedure and I thought that commenting editors would suggest changes rather than bluntly modify an article or try to impose their will instead of promoting consensus. My mistake? Lewismaster (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of Righting Great Wrongs—the fuck is this? You want me to oppose now?! You've turned this into a much bigger thing that it is. The ambiguity is a poor writing choice—I've said no more than that except to express my disappointment that nobody appears to even be trying to understand why I voiced such a concern. If everyone else decides I'm full of shit (which you all have) then the coordinators will pass over my concerns as "unactionable", and this article will become another example of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer". What exactly is the problem? Why is my shitty, ignorant opinion causing you so much anguish? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again the sources and actually almost everybody uses the term "movement" to describe the NWOBHM. "By 1980 the movement was fully realized..." [Christe p.41); "What happens is that when you get a movement like the NWOBHM, a big net is cast across the whole musical spectrum..." (Tucker p.33); "Barton's run of articles documenting the NWOBHM are valuable sources... for tracking the fortunes of the movement..." (Waksman p. 173); "But the ruthless surge of creativity unleashed as the movement gathered pace..." (Thompson p. 213). You should add the already cited documentaries by Sam Dunn, the article of Esquire, the articles and interviews by Geoff Barton and Neal Kay. I really can't understand neither the insistence of CT in denying the validity of the term, nor his claim of self-righteousness. Lewismaster (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that should be enough for Wikipedia at least. If it can be argued that it does not count as a movement by whatever criteria, it doesn't really matter here, as we only go by published sources. FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The broadest term within the context of music would be cultural movement. Only political movements and some social movements have manifestos. If ambiguity is a problem, than a wikilink to cultural movement can be provided. It's clear from the context of the sources that they are referring to a cultural movement, at least broadly construed if not more specific in definition.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Fellow humans, I really think this is now quite pointless. Curly Turkey I seriously cannot understand your vehement apposition to the term 'Movement'. I've read through your concerns about the meaning that it implies. You think that it is Ambiguous, but your starting to come across as being argumentative for the sake of, I'm sorry to say. Everything on WP is about consensus, am I right? We work towards that through such debate. 99% of contributors to the article have stated, that in nearly all the literature on the subject it is called a 'Movement'. People who liked Motörhead, or Saxon, or King Diamond, or Iron Maiden (probably the most famous band out of it except Motörhead) all wore the same clothes, all over the world! (eventually). I'd call that a 'Movement' just like the Hippies did on 1967, or the Beatniks in 1955, or the Sharpies and Mods in 1962. Non of which had any of the concerns you've raised either, but are still considered a Movement. I truly not trying to start an argument with man, but I think you've allowed this to become something you don't want to give into for the wrong reasons now. We all heard you concerns, and Lewis addressed a lot of them quite humbly and sincerely, but also voiced his concern about the integrity of the article as a whole, and I agree with that. Nürö G'däÿ 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm so "vehemently" opposed that I've agreed to let you all work it out for yourselves? You all keep pinging me after I've left, but I'm being argumentative? I haven't argued it wasn't a "movement"—I've argued that "movement" has more than one meaning that could apply (as in Rock in Opposition), and thus is a poor word choice. Your argument doesn't address that—you keep trying to convince me it really was a "movement" (which I haven't denied). Three of you have now pinged me so you could have your chance to beat into my head an argument that entirely misses the point—and you accuse me of being argumentative. Let me fuck off already. You're wrong, but you win. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- Let's try to stay cool. Any comment at FAC is fair game for eliciting a response, that's in the nature of discussion and trying to achieve consensus. That said, it shouldn't be necessary to ping a reviewer often -- if they want to pursue things, they'll keep the page on their watchlist. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Section[edit]

  • I have been invited to contribute, after a comment of mine on the article itself recently.

1 - Motörhead are in a significantly special position with regards to the Movement (yes I'll get that out of the way quickly, though I support the term Cultural Movement as a secondary choice) and deserve the attention that has been given them, as it is because of the argued position they held at the time, that the opinions need to be clarified (for mine they are a significant part of the movement, even if they had played in other significant bands prior to 1975, which is the year they formed).

Which opinions need to be clarified? I thought that the Motörhead section explained already the positions of critics and fans about their beleonging to the NWOBHM. Lewismaster (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was to support the entry as it is, not to say it needs more. Nürö G'däÿ 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 - The questions about Ethnicity and Female participation are a concern. Which by, I mean, this needs to be handled very delicately. I don't want the article to come across as promoting Misogynistic attitudes or of Ethnic exclusivity, but as a White Heterosexual Male aged 39 who was (still is) one of these dudes in Australia, agree that their is merit to the claim (though this straying into WP:OR teritory I'm aware). I also realise that the source material puts this as a significant element of the movement. As Motörhead have their significant position, so does Girls School and Thin Lizzy, and feel that they should have a explanatory. I also think the Japanese and Brazilians should get a section, because the bands in question who went on to have a prominent career, had them to thank also. It is furthering the point that as much as the British White Kids were the Face of the Movement, their were plenty of exceptions.

During the NWOBHM there were only a handful of female musicians playing heavy metal. I'm well aware of Girlschool, having written their article on Wikipedia, but they (and Rock Goddess) were the exception among hundreds of male bands and received a mention as such in the article. The NWOBHM was essentially a white male club, not mysoginist, but neither too welcoming for women. This article is not promoting anything like racism or mysoginy, it tries only to state the facts according to multiple sources. To use an hyperbole, it would be like saying that a WP article about Nazism promote the Holocaust. Thin Lizzy are cited as a successful band which pre-dates the NWOBHM. Bands from other countries than the UK are cited in the "Influences and legacy" section. Lewismaster (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you or the article of Promoting anything, I'm stating this needs to be very well versed and described, and not in some Stub style format. Nürö G'däÿ 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 - As to the external part of the whole movement, the other parts of the world need some significant mention. The term NWOBHM has always been somewhat ignorant of the fact it made it around the world, and is more of a Homage to the birthplace of the whole thing. I'm not arguing the term though, I've never called it anything else, just pointing out that all you have to do is cross the Channel and you found the same sorts of kids.

Again in the "Influences and legacy" section. Lewismaster (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reserve judgement on this until I've re-read again. Nürö G'däÿ 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4 - I didn't have a concern with the bands that had been listed in the original section. As I have worked on articles of three of the bands in the list, I think that a comprehensive list of the bands around at the time is good for the historical perspective of the musicians that played their part in it all, if anything to maybe give some credit where credit is due.

I wrote the List of New Wave of British Heavy Metal bands to accompany this article to give an idea of how many metal bands were active in the UK at that time. Lewismaster (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that it should be a seperate page for those that want to read it. Nürö G'däÿ 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I think the article is looking very sharp, compared to the version I read some years ago, to settle a drunken argument at a, wait for it, after party from which we had all been to see Motörhead in Sydney (no joke).
I'll add some more when I've had a look at some of the issues raised by others, as I'm working on another article in a mediator capacity to attempt to have a more neutral tone, before it just gets AfD' for lack of credible source material.
Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lingzhi[edit]

Resolved comments from Lingzhi

Nolo contendere. With supports from Graeme and ceoil, this obviously will pass. This page has ballooned into a mess; it will take me a while to sort through it. Very quick and initial thoughts: I'm probably with CurlyTurkey on "movement". I will need something more than "three guys said so", especially if those three guys happen to be musicians, promoters, or anyone else with a personal stake in puffing up their band. Those big blue quote boxes look... just....really... garish. Yep, "garish" is the word. Aside from adding blue boxes to the page and (again) lionizing the people who are being quoted, do they actually add content to the article? And I have a hard time, too, with long lists of bands all with cites. I dunno. Just as a very initial take, this looks very GA and not very FA to me. That is, at least on first glance, it very much has the look and feel of hagiography... I will try to look harder.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page has ballooned into a mess – not the most encouraging introduction, is it? And whose hagiography? Blue boxes are going out of the way, with the exception of Bruce Dickinson's quotation, which can be useful to explain the nature of the NWOBHM.
Let's try to settle the "movement" discussion that enraged the previous reviewer. To cast doubts aside, I'm in favour of the term "movement" to describe the NWOBHM and I used it multiple times in the article, following a precise idea of what a movement is and not making it up as this review progressed, as Curly Turkey implied. I understand the claims of ambiguity he advanced because the NWOBHM apparently doesn't fit in any category of movement listed on WP, but I'm still puzzled that the Webster dictionary definition of a movement as "an organized effort to promote or attain an end" is deemed not sufficient. At the same time, I'm not ready to accept neither that the use of the term by so many different authors is quickly dismissed only as bloated self-promotion nor that we, as editors of WP, can decide if they were wrong in using it. Did Geoff Barton manipulate the proportions of the phenomenon to boost the sales of the magazines he worked for? Yes, he did. This fact doesn't mean that the NWOBHM was a cheap fad, because many people believed in what he wrote and followed the journalist's tirades. The Bruce Dickinson's citation in one of the deprecated blue boxes says exactly this: "it did represent a lot of bands that were utterly ignored by the mainstream media. Because of that it became real and people got behind it." I'm not hiding behind the sources and saying that "If they can get away with it, then so can we", as Curly Turkey suggested, but maybe those authors were not completely wrong and we simply need to better analyze those sources to put our doubts to rest. It is also true that some authors were often not specific, used more than one term to define the NWOBHM and sometimes avoided a clear definition. Macmillan in his book writes about the endless debate if the NWOBHM was a movement or a musical style and states that "it's often a fundamental mistake to over-analyse certain aspects of cultural phenomena", but to reach a consensus it appears necessary. For what it's worth, here is my analysis:
    • The NWOBHM was not a political movement, because those headbangers ignored politics.
    • It had elements of an informal social movement, because it involved a precise segment of the British society in urgent need of separating from mainstream society and from other more celebrated trends to enjoy their newfound camaraderie and their music. They aimed at creating what in sociology is called a heavy metal subculture, which Deena Weinstein defines as a community of "proud pariahs".
    • The NWOBHM had elements of an art movement with the scope of creating new music, wilder, faster and different from the bloated and tame hard rock of the 70s. The DIY attitude appears more accidental than ideological.
    • It had also elements of a cultural movement, setting new behavioural, visual and ethical codes based on working class values and ethics, which British headbangers later exported in the rest of the world.
Those thousands of young heavy metal fans did not have a manifesto, but Geoff Barton's articles to guide them, their rallies were live shows at a local club and their goal was to get away en masse from a bleak reality. I would call the NWOBHM something like "a grassroots movement for the ethical and musical renewal of heavy metal". Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
following a precise idea of what a movement is and not making it up as this review progressed—do you seriously misunderstand the point I made that badly? That's flat-out embarrassing. Your whole comment is one wall-of-text of missing-the-point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! I thought that you didn't want to be disturbed again! I understand your frustration at our narrow-mindness for not resolving the ambiguity of the term. I'm trying to find a consensus, stating what I think the NWOBHM is and eliciting a discussion. The NWOBHM doesn't have a single definition, so it could be appropriate to remark these differences in the article. However it needs a definition like movement, period or phenomenon, at least in the lede. Which is yours? (this is the fourth time that I ask...) Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede: "Although fragmented in style..." Don't you mean it encompasses diverse styles? "fragment" seems wrong. Moreover, you didn't actually define NWOBHM. How can you write an article about a topic without defining the topic? I would suggest re-reading the relevant quote in the Geoff barton page. Err.. OK, so the DIY is the key. Suggest swapping the 2nd aand 3rd paras in the lede (with an eye toward trimming the 2nd) to move something resembling a definition higher up, then adding along the lines that stadium rock prog rock etc. was dismissed as bloated, punk rock rang true, but heavy metal rockers still wanted their heavy metal so adopted the punk rock DIY zeitgeist... see your own link for ideas... need to show it as HM style and punk "just play it" spirit in the very very early going.. but wait, for something that's DIY you've got some non DIY-ish bands in here IMO (see Def Leppard)... I would consider the possibility that your article is not about any clear subcategory at all, because its journalists/promoters (barton) just tried to include as many acts as possible into the definition, to expand their readership...hmmm...
Fragmented in style comes from one of the many changes operated by Curly Turkey, maybe the original fragmented in a collection of different styles sounds better and yours Although encompassing diverse mainstream and underground styles even better. Why insist on punk and prog rock in the lead section. It should focus on the main theme of the article and not on the background, IMO. At their beginnings, Def Leppard and Diamond Head epitomised the DIY attitude. They designed their logos, self-produced and self-distributed their first recordings and even managed their meager finances and tours by themselves. The switch of sections depends on how we will define the NWOBHM, a movement or something else. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about a thousand metal bands" huh? says who? I see one quote only, and it is casual, conversational. Suggest something that doesn't convey a false sense of accuracy...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The New Wave of British Heavy Metal Encyclopedia by Malc Macmillan alone lists more than 500 bands which emerged during the NWOBHM and released records. It doesn't count the bands that the author calls a "sheer quantity of amateur-hour acts", which were active but released only demos or limited-issue singles. Countless appears even more inaccurate. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was punk rock really dying when this sprang up? BTW, you can call it a genre if it has its own distinctive publications (plural) and vocabulary etc. that are distinct from heavy metal.. not distinct musical style; distinct other (linguistic) things...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Punk was not dead (was it ever?), but it was quickly losing its charm for the media and the fans in favour of New Wave when the NWOBHM took flight in 1979. In the history section it is mentioned how the first new metal bands contended space in the clubs to punk acts during its peak in 1976-78. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of that soundhouse link, there's an awful lot in this article (too much IMO) about Neal Kay. Is the soundhouse article the only source that foregrounds kay so much? maybe Kay and the author of the article (barton) are BFFs? I dunno about giving so much space to KAy, even in the lede...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neal Kay and the Soundhouse are mentioned in all the sources as the link between the new bands scattered all over the UK and their only initial media output, the paper Sounds. He is pictured as a central figure to the NWOBHM, second only to Barton. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, wait, now who is copying from whom? You'll need to prove to me that you haven't copyvio/plagiarized from "New Wave of British Heavy Metal: The Bands of the Nwobhm 1978-1982" and "Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide" (look on Google books). More specifically, you need to show that they copied from Wikipedia (which is very possible), since I see extended stretches of identical text. If not then of course the FAC ends there...OK, the latter book is a downstream ripoff...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the formatting of the book—particularly the refs. It's pretty obviously one of the seemingly millions of books that recycle Wikipedia content. It would be nice if Google Books would filter out that shit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that refers to Subgenres of the Beast, which you've struck out. Can't access the other one, but it smells like a duck, and there are no reviews at all of it online. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing! To see my words on the backcover of a published book is quite chilling! I wrote the words found on the backcover of "New Wave of British Heavy Metal: The Bands of the Nwobhm 1978-1982" for this article in August 2015 and the book was published in November 2015, so it should be pretty obvious who copied who. Lewismaster (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subgenres of the Beast is just a re-publishing of Wikipedia content. The sections are organized the same as they were on Wikipedia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will have little time this week to discuss your comments (real life commitments!), but please go on with your review and I'll try to answer to your questions and start corrections by Saturday. Lewismaster (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waksman p. 175 is full of stuff that jumps out at me as being, in my mind at least, key points: they suggest that NWOBHM fans saw Def Leppard as being non-members [IMO if any band this side of Camel (yuk) has not jot one of punk in their soul, it's Def Leppard]; it calls the NWOBHM a subculture rather than a movement (and makes the point that the mags do not cover subcultures so much as pull them together & construct them; it says "one could cynically claim that NWOBHM was little more than hype designed to boost the paper's circulation". I think the mags boost NWOBHM as a movement; I strongly urge Wikipedia (via FAC) not to function as a shill boosting publication sales by adopting their self-aggrandized term for their own commodity.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He uses the term movement and grassroots at p. 174 and again at p. 179. So much for consistency... Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • waksman again 173-74 says two distinct mainstream and underground components in heavy metal (the whole genre, I think, not just NWOBHM); this bears on "fractured" in the lede... but... I easily see and agree that heavy metal had those two streams but I think if there is any qualitative def of NWOBHM it must be crossover punk/hm.. which certainly leaves out the more subtle styles of blues-inspired rock (Zep, the best band ever, of course).. but also leaves out radio friendly def leppard (yuk, sorry, are my biases showing?).. so.. two strands/streams, if you are determined to keep both, but I think the magazine disingenuously included the mainstream groups in their definition of NWOBHM purely to boost sales by displaying those bands' names on the cover  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the inclusion in the NWOBHM distinguished between mainstream or not. The new bands acted in the same way recording demos, self-producing singles and sending them to Kay or Barton. So did Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Diamond Head and hundreds of other bands. Although they had very different styles they were all dubbed heavy metal bands belonging to the "new wave". Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those unpalatable chunks wherein various bands are listed as examples of this or that, with each band given its very own inline cite: can we just footnote all that? It's a bit of an eyesore, truly. As are the blue boxes. Which should just go away, because WP is not a mass-circulation magazine like Kerrang..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest subgenre. I agree with CurlyTurkey-- "movement" is just buying into hype and self-promotion.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the term "subgenre" is used very rarely to describe NWOBHM (though it has been used). Might I suggest the term "period," as I elaborated below?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • waksman 178 also mentions emphasis on instrumental proficiency as a litmus test.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many metalheads still profess their hatred for punk and considered punk musicians "not musicians". That was a unifying trait of the NWOBHM. Some metal musicians now acknowledge their debt to punk in the form of energy, DIY attitude and will to change the system. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest {{sfnm}} for your multiple cites [1][2][3][4].  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used {{harvnb}} for multiple references of published sources. I can't use it for websites. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the point in "The SAGE Handbook of Popular Music" from 3 family6's link below about hm's "phase of being critically unpopular in the UK and elsewhere during the mid-seventies before its resurgence". In fact, I like the word "resurgence". It isn't a movement, it's a somewhat-modified resurgence.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That could also work. I've found five other sources that use the word "resurgence," ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), so it's definitely supported by multiple reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resurgence or renewal could be easily used in the description of the NWOBHM. Actually the passage in the lede about "the emergence of new heavy metal bands in the late 1970s" is a less-emphasized form of the same concept. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • here's a first cut at a re-written WP:LEDE, with comments below:

The New Wave of British Heavy Metal (commonly abbreviated as NWOBHM) was a period of resurgence of both critical and popular interest in the genre of heavy metal music in the United Kingdom in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Journalist Geoff Barton coined the term in the May 1979 issue of the British music newspaper Sounds to describe the emergence of an underground phenomenon growing during the period of punk rock's decline and the dominance of new wave music. Starting from the local club scene in cities and towns, NWOBHM grew to achieve international attention and success.

Although encompassing diverse mainstream and underground styles, the music of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal is best remembered for drawing on the sound of heavy metal of the 1970s and infusing it with an ethic—borrowed from punk—that eschewed musical virtuosity and emphasized loud volume and high speed performance. The DIY attitude of the new metal bands led to a diffusion of raw-sounding, self-produced recordings and a proliferation of independent record labels.

Song lyrics were usually about escapist themes such as mythology, fantasy, horror and the rock lifestyle. These reflected the concerns of its audience: generally young, white, male and working class musicians and fans, who suffered the hardships brought on by stagnant employment opportunities that plagued the country for years after the 1973–75 recession.

The resurgence spurred the creation of countless metal bands, but only a few survived the advent of MTV and the rise of the more commercial glam metal in the second half of the 1980s. Among them, only Iron Maiden and Def Leppard became international stars, although Motörhead and Saxon also had considerable success. Other groups, such as Diamond Head, Venom and Raven, remained underground acts, but were a major influence on the very successful extreme metal subgenres of the late-1980s and 1990s. Many bands from the New Wave of British Heavy Metal reformed in the 2000s and have been still active with live performances and new studio albums.

    • I took out neal Kay until I see many sources emphasizing him.
*"Other mediators were initially more significant to the crystallization of British heavy metal. London’s Heavy Metal Soundhouse (lending its name to Iron Maiden’s first EP, released in 1979) was the genre’s major venue, emerging as the alternative to punk and new wave venues. Neal Kay was in charge of booking the bands; he helped compile and wrote the liner notes for the first major British heavy metal record compilation, Metal for Muthas" (Weinstein in Bayer p.22).
  • Waksman cites Kay dozens of times in the chapter on the NWOBHM a "keeper of the hard rock flame", a concert organizer, an opponent of punk, a promoter allied to Sounds, a man attempting "to codify his influence as heavy metal tastemaker" (Waksman pp.172-185)
  • "The headquarters of this Big Rock uprising (The NWOBHM) was a heavy metal disco in London called the Soundhouse, run by DJ Neal Kay (...) Kay mixed current hits and sacred metal classics on the turntable with demo tapes by ne local HM outfits" (Fricke p.37)
  • entrepreneurs like Neal Kay duly identified a previously-unexploited niche for rock discos with his legendary 'Heavy Metal Soundhouse' where many of the NWOBHM upstarts were introduced to the masses." (Macmillan p.21)
  • "in 1979 The Soundhouse was unique for a number of reasons (...) but what made the place really special was the guiding light and guru, DJ Neal Kay, the man who really established the place on a national scene (...) for him the Soundhouse wasn't a disco, was a crusade"; "It's important to stress just how crucial his support for the band (Iron Maiden) was during 1979".(Bushell p. 23)
Neal Kay is also prominently featured on the listed documentaries as a key figure for the movement. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took out the subculture bit... because.. are we sure they had a subculture separate from heavy metal? I see all the biker stuff (military stuff was more common where I was from).. but is that new wave, or is it just heavy metal?
The subculture was not separate from heavy metal, but an evolution of it. I checked again my sources for the sociological stuff: Weinstein's Heavy Metal: The Music and Its Culture and Bayers Heavy Metal Music in Britain. To keep a very long story short, Weinstein describes heavy metal in three phases: formation, crystallization and fragmentation. The first phase happened in the 1960s and preserved many behavioural and visual elements of psychedelia (including drug use and fashion trends) and strong musical ties to blues rock. The second phase coincides with the NWOBHM, where heavy metal "crystallized" its own codes, the subculture became fully structured and heavy metal definitely separated from other contemporary genres. (Bayer pp. 20, 21) She wrote that "British heavy metal’s era of crystallization lasted about three years, from 1979 to 1982", exactly the period of the NWOBHM. You are right in saying that the heavy metal subculture was not created by the NWOBHM, but during the NWOBHM it evolved into what it is today. I will change the sentences accordingly. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sorta don't like the word "concerns". I'm also concerned that "that started" is ambiguous about what started, but if you make two sentences of, it becomes choppy.
    • Still need to consider the possibility that other details need to be added. I will consider  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a fast comment after a rapid glance at your work. I think that you missed something important in the structure of the article. I focused my attention not only on bands and music, but also on the fans and the subculture that they created. The heavy metal subculture as we know it was born in the NWOBHM, generated by a young generation of fans and musicians, which infused it with their working class ethics in contrast with the 1970s' psychedelia. Musicians and fans came from the same mold and were in a sense interchangeable and equally responsible for this renewal. Maybe I did not stress this fact enough, but I thought that the description of how and why they "coalesced in a closed community of peers" in the "Identity and Style" section was quite exhaustive. The way you want to introduce the topic is too reductive of the importance of the phenomenon – or movement – which involved thousands of British kids and profoundly influenced heavy metal fans all over the world. More comments and a discussion to finally settle the "movement" matter ASAP. Lewismaster (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lewismaster: I didn't miss the subculture; I deliberately elided it... until you can establish that the NWOBHM subculture was in any meaningful way different than the overarching heavy metal subculture.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lingzhi: I answered to some of your comments and solicited a new debate. I hope to not be too intrusive in asking a comment to my analysis of the term "movement". I'll try to answer to the rest of your review tomorrow. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lewismaster: [Long reply, sorry, many issues covered]. My biggest problem, perhaps my only problem, is the celebratory format/tone. WP is not (or at least, should not be) here to support any cause (oh wait, it actually is quite overburdened with political propaganda... but that's another story) or any group or identity. NWOBHM is not a cause, but it is a group identity, and there is (key point!) a celebratory palimpsest beneath the veneer of objectivity. The word "movement" is but one symptom, but it is one of the more readily apparent symptoms. I could readily call punk music a social movement, because they were actively engaged in social protest ( a sort of "Fuck the Establishment, give us anarchy" thing), and at the same time I could think of them as an artistic movement, because they were in explicit protest against a previous musical style (see "Pink Floyd Sucks" etc.). They were protesting at least two things at the same time. Intuitively put, they were moving somewhere; they had a definite set of things in the past that they explicitly wanted to move away from. NWOBHM wasn't a social movement and (more to the point) not an art movement. Did NWOBHM folks characteristically spraypaint "Zeppelin Sucks!" or "Black Sabbath sucks!" on their t-shirts? I don't think so. I think they embraced/accepted Zep and Sabbath, but would say, "But I prefer Iron Maiden". It was an evolved expression of heavy metal, not a rejection of heavy metal. But "movement" just sounds cooler. It sounds like they stood for something, but they didn't, neither politically nor artistically. They just liked something, that's all. And as for subculture, you have never established that a Zep or Sabbath fan (that would be me) would look or act any differently than a Tyger of the Pan Tang fan, nor would the former be automatically excluded from hanging out with the latter. The subculture you are describing at length is not distinctively NWOBHM; it is heavy metal. That is an important distinction. If you credit it to NWOBHM, then once again you are exaggerating their role. (Another key point): They neither created nor owned the subculture; they participated in it. And the extended list of bands that sprout like mushrooms across the page are the same kind of thing. This article is not objective. It functions rather as an extended "shout out" to everyone connected to NWOBHM. [I think there may be room for mentioning Kay, but... in the lede? Maybe "Metal for Muthas" can go in the lede... this is a point I am very willing to be more flexible about].  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that working on a topic for so long and immersing in so many books celebrating the NWOBHM may have influenced some choices. But being accused of being partial and hiding "a celebratory palimpsest beneath the veneer of objectivity" (after being accused of plagiarism) means that you consider my work as an editor a failure, which is hard to swallow. I recognize that I made a mistake in using the term "create" referred to the subculture which I corrected. But the term movement for the NWOBHM don't sounds just cooler it sounds true to me for the multiple reasons explained above and for the changes and evolution it brought to heavy metal and its subculture. It's not punk, it's not a-dozen-people "movement" like Rock in Opposition, but it moved thousands of people and changed things, allowing heavy metal to survive, thrive and dramatically expand, remaining the largest underground movement almost no one knows about. A compromise definition for the NWOBHM could be "a grassroots movement for renewal within the heavy metal subculture", even if it sounds too elaborate for the casual reader. A mention to the other definitions of the NWOBHM could also be added. It is also the first time I was accused of writing an article with too many details in it. I think that the level of detail, which includes lists of a few bands divided for periods, is set to a degree that could satisfy most readers. Other Featured level articles use the same system. All bands are referenced to verify their notability, which is something that can hardly be challenged on WP. Imagine that 3family6 implied below a lack of comprehensiveness for not including influential albums and expanding the presence of bands in the article. You can't satisfy everybody. I provided above a few references for Neal Kay's role in the NWOBHM. I think that he deserves a mention as promoter of it all.Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranging from high pitch wails to gruff and low" is missing a noun at the end, and should be "high pitched" Meanwhile, following the citation to that sentence, I see a potentially useful paragraph re fashion distinctions drawn on p. 36 of Christe IIRC. I did 'not see anything about wails or whatever, in the cite that led me there.
fixed and added reference.
  • I certainly think Neal Kay deserves mention. But not glorification.
  • I note Lewismaster's regrettable personalization of the discussion above. Trust me, it's not about you. It's about text on a page.
  • You can see my non-!vote !vote above. In the cosmic scheme of things, if one article with a fannish tone gets FA, civilization will not end. I do hope this FAC process will make the nominators a bit more aware of that aura of fannishness, and impel them to dial it down more than a little.
  • I continue to suggest {{sfnm}} for bits like this: "playing international arenas,[151][152][153] " or "Samson from London,[156][157][158][159] "
This template cannot be used for websites.
  • I continue to suggest the possibility that lists of bands be relegated to footnotes. Oftentimes, the bands themselves are footnotes! 'Nuff said.
I moved three lists to a Notes section. Others remain...
  • perhaps more nitpicks later, but as I said at the top of this section, the writing is on the wall, so arguing is pointless.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Probably the most important of those compilation albums..." Citation needed  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citation provided. Lewismaster (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 3family6[edit]

As the term "movement," though the mentioned in the majority of reliable sources, is proving contentious, perhaps "period" could be used instead? That term is also frequently mentioned in reliable sources. That would also be more consistent with how other forms of music are sometimes broken up into periods, such as Western art music into the Baroque, Classical, Romantic, et al. periods.

Some sources supporting the term "movement:" [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]

Some sources supporting the term "period:" [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

I'm pinging Curly Turkey to ask if they'd be comfortable with using "period" instead of "movement".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can quit pinging me. I can reformulate why "movement" is problematic only so many times. The fact that you're desperately trying to hunt up sources that use the term tells me that you haven't tried to understand the point, and it's obviously beyond my powers to get it across. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread my comment: I'm proposing changing the term "movement" to "period."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a movement because it doesn't stand for or against anything. It is neither a style nor a subgenre (I need to strike through my suggestion above) because it has no defining characteristics (if we let groups like Def Leppard and others be included...as seems inevitable). I think "period" may in fact be the only reasonable alternative.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @3family6: I solicited a new debate for my analysis of the term "movement" above. You are welcomed to give me your opinion. I agree that the NWOBHM can also be defined as a "period", but that word sounds to me as devoid of significance and social implications in the light of the subculture in the making of that period. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is seriously over stating the relevance, or significance, of the inclusion of the word "Movement" IMO. But my suggestion, however, is that in the lede it is spelt out that it has been referred to by some sections of the media and the recording industry as a 'movement', but just as much by other media and commentators as a 'period'; of musical expression and new styles. Then never utter either again. Seriously. I understand the points being raised, and fair enough that the debate is held, but it has turned into a POV battleground, really.
    I do however, after some further thought and re-reading, think that there is potentially legitimate concerns about the Promotional issue raised.
    I'm slowly going through the links provided to reminisce my childhood/adolescence and will get back to this.
In good tidings and regards to all Nürö G'däÿ 01:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nuro Dragonfly: I solicited a new debate for my analysis of the term "movement" above. You are welcomed to give me your opinion.Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there should not be unique statements in a lead section, so it has to be mentioned at least once in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @FunkMonk: I solicited a new debate for my analysis of the term "movement" above. You are welcomed to give me your opinion. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
It is true that Judas Priest were a major influence for the sound of the NWOBHM, but so were Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy, Budgie, UFO, Mötorhead and so on. If I had to insert and comment the many albums which influenced the NWOBHM I risk an endless loop of wounded fans requesting their favourite album to be included. The analysis of which old band influenced which new band in such detail is beyond the scope of this article, IMO. Lewismaster (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lewismaster (pinging because of the massive wall of text): Are those other bands you mentioned described in sources to have had the same impact as Judas Priest? Or are the two sources above among only a few to credit Judas Priest as spearheading the movement, and thus a minority opinion? I genuinely don't know, which is why I ask. Featured articles are to be comprehensive, so I just want to make sure that all important aspects are included.
Comprehensiveness depends on the level of detail that this article needs. Other editors have already lamented an excessive level of detail as it is and to dig into the influence of single albums would be frankly too much. About JP's albums, it has been established that the NWOBHM was a hodgepodge of styles, so it appears preposterous to consider one album as "setting the sonic template for the New Wave of British Heavy Metal more than any other single recording" like AllMusic reviewer did.Paranoid, Overkill and Strangers in the Night could easily be defined in the same way and to delve into album reviews would mean a long and often contradictory work. Deena Weinstein, for all that matters, considers Stained Class as a template for speed metal (Weinstein p.53). Judas Priest and the other bands that I cited were major influences (Bayer p. 23 [35]), but so were many other bands. Steve Harris cited UFO and Jethro Tull as his influences. Def Leppard cited Mott the Hoople. A minor band like Mama's Boys cited Horslips and so on. Lewismaster (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Full review
  • Cultural origins section of infobox: Why is it extended to 1982? That's pretty much the length of the entire period. The origins, from reading the article, would be 1978-1979, at the cusp of the burgeoning period's breakout.
Fixed
  • From "Social unrest" section: "The explosion of new bands and new musical styles coming from the UK in the late 1970s was a consequence of the economic depression that hit the country before the governments of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher." How was this a consequence? What is the connection between the explosion of new bands and music styles and the economic depression?
This pargraph was rewritten by at least three different editors in the last month. Now it should make more sense. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference style is inconsistent - all refs should be converted to {{sfn}}, {{sfnm}}, or {{harvnb}}. Sfn works with websites, too - see Viking metal (which, by the way, I'm hoping to nominate for FAC, once it's peer reviewed).
Fixed
  • "Music and lyrics" - maybe change this to "Lyrics and sonic traits" or something similar - lyrics would be part of "music", whereas "sonic traits" is distinctive from the lyrics.
I don't understand this one. Music and lyrics seems to me very understandable even to the casual reader. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of accuracy. There might be some debate on this, but I would consider lyrics very much a part of music. There are entire genres based mainly or solely on lyrical focus - Viking metal, National Socialist black metal, Rock Against Communism, Christian music, gangsta rap, political hip hop, pornogrind, anarcho-punk, etc., you see my point. You also have music forms such as tone poems and spoken word which are very much dependent on the lyrics. While most readers would understand the topical focus of each section, the titling is inaccurate (this titling issue is something that I used to do myself and am trying to move away from now).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage in the development of heavy metal, lyrics had secondary importance in comparison with loudness and sound. Most LPs had no lyric sheet and many words are unintelligible. Weinstein wrote that "in heavy metal the lyrics are less relevant as words than as sound" (p.26) and it sounds very true for many NWOBHM albums - I'm still trying to decipher the texts of many Girlschool songs. This changed in later years, arriving at lyric-based subgenres. I changed the structure of the sections and the titling, comparing this article with Punk rock and Heavy metal music. Lewismaster (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setlists.fm is a user-generate wiki, and is completely unacceptable for use in a featured article.
Replaced references with Garry Sharpe-Young articles. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal Kay was one of those DJs who started to work in 1975 at a disco club called The Bandwagon in Kingsbury, North West London, housed in the back-room of the Prince of Wales pub and equipped with a massive sound system." - I'd included "aforementioned" prior to the mention "one of those DJs," as the sentence currently seems to say that he was one of the DJs who started work in 1975 in a disc club at Kingsbury.
Done
  • "The new releases by these bands were better produced and, together with intensive tours in the UK and Europe,[208] definitely promoted the movement to a relevant national phenomenon, as evidenced by the good chart results of many of those first albums." - This appears to be original research, as it is not attributed to any reliable analysis, just some chart positions.
Changed the sentences and added a referece. Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The immediate consequence of that success was increased media coverage for metal bands, which included appearances on the British music TV shows Top of the Pops[214][215][216] and The Old Grey Whistle Test.[217]" None of these videos were uploaded by any kind of official or educational source, and they don't support the analysis that the media coverage was a consequence of charting success.
Garry Bushell wrote about the increased media coverage for Iron Maiden and Saxon. The videos were replaced with other sources, with the exception of the Girlschool one, uploaded by the webmaster of their official website. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes should also have citations, if not for each item on the list, at least at the end of the sentence.
Fixed
  • "Black Sabbath got back in shape..." - seems rather colloquial in tone.
"were back on track" sounds better? Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like "back on track" either. "regained stability" or something similar I think would be more encyclopedic in tone.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "1980 stands out as a memorable year for hard rock and heavy metal on the British charts, with many other entries in the top 10: MSG's first album peaked at No. 8,[227] Whitesnake's Ready an' Willing at No. 6,[228] Judas Priest's best-seller British Steel[33] and Motörhead' s Ace of Spades at No. 4,[46] while Back in Black by AC/DC reached number one.[39]" - Who says it was memorable? All that is cited here is a bunch of chart listings.
Removed the adjective. Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really the best source available for NWOBHM bands appearing at the Reading and other festivals? It does have a lot of primary source material, but it is not collated together in a reliable way, as the site is a fan site.
Fixed with the posters of each event. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kerrang! was a huge success and soon became the reference magazine for metalheads worldwide,[246]" - does Christe call it a "huge success," or is that an extrapolation? I agree with some of the other editors that this article does have issues with having a promotional tone, and this is an example. If Christe uses the term "huge success," then I would put it in quotes, so it's not Wikipedia-voice making such a statement.
Christe writes: "Kerrang! instantly became a metal bible" (p.38); Macmillan writes: "The public reaction was unprecedented (and entirely unforseen), the result being that the metallers' bible soon became a regular sight on the shelves of newsagents nationwide" (p.21); Tucker writes: "For emerging NWOBHM bands, a dedicate magazine was a real shot in the arm"; Waksmand defines Kerrang! "the first mass-circulation music publication devoted to heavy metal" (p.171). Is it enough to call it a huge success? Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because "huge success" is not an encyclopedic tone. A more neutral and less informal wording needs to be chosen.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "The attention of international media meant more record sales and more world tours for NWOBHM bands, whose albums entered many foreign charts." - Only the charts are supported by the references, not the world tours.
Added references. Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The UK had been a music video pioneer. These suddenly stepped up from occasional promotional fancy to an indispensable means to reach an audience when MTV started broadcasting in 1982." - Perhaps re-write as "The UK had been a music video pioneer, and video production stepped up from occasional promotional fancy to an indispensable means to reach an audience when MTV started broadcasting in 1982.
Rewritten by Lingzhi. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moreover, music videos exalted the visual side of a band, an area where British metal groups were often deficient.[273][274][275]" - Looking through the sources, this sentence apparently is entirely original research. There's nothing in the AllMusic bios cited to support the claims here.
Actually Rivadavia remarks "a far from attractive visual aesthetic (i.e., they were four crusty English dudes with handlebar moustaches, bad hair, and even worse teeth)"" for Grim Reaper, the fact that Handsome Beasts obtained "more notoriety in their time because of frontman Garry Dallaway's enormous girth than their actual music" while "The idea behind Mammoth was to present an alternative to ‘pouting’ rock bands such as Poison and Bon Jovi, with the music, rather than the image", which was of bald and fat men. I changed the sentence a little. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few of the best known groups, such as Praying Mantis in Japan and Saxon, Demon and Tokyo Blade in Europe, survived in foreign markets." - Why is "in Europe" mentioned here?
Mainland Europe, outside the UK. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A new publication called Classic Rock, featuring Barton and many of the writers from Kerrang!'s first run, championed the NWOBHM revival and continues to focus much of its attention on rock acts from the 1980s." - Can we please get a better source than Blabbermouth for this?
Blabbermouth is out of the picture. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If all of these issues can be addressed, along with those already being discussed but are as yet unresolved, I'd be happy to support this article's promotion to FAC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will start working on the issues that you raised. It will take a while to convert all the references. Lewismaster (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to convert the references yourself, if you want, and free you up to work on my other observations.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still struggling with this style of referencing which I never used. But I'm willing to learn and I think it would be better if I do that work by myself. Thank you for your offer. Lewismaster (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still need to find more tour info and find out some more references. I hope that this is shaping up better. Lewismaster (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3family6: I wrapped up the modifications to the text. There are a few issues to be discussed to complete the process. I'm waiting for your input. Lewismaster (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problems I found have been addressed. The only outstanding issue for me is the "movement" or "period" discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3family6: We all have noticed that the sources use various terms to indicate the NWOBHM: "genre", "scene", "period" and "movement" are the most commonly found in the texts. I guess that the ambiguity so often reclaimed comes from the inconsistency of the sources in using only one term, but I don't think that they used the terms casually or as a form of promotion. Macmillan and Tucker cleverly avoided in their books to enter in a debate that obviously had engaged many fans and critics for a long time. However, I think that an encyclopedia should be clear about what something is or is not. The NWOBHM is not a music subgenre, because it comprises many styles and influences within the umbrella term heavy metal. It is not a "scene", because it was fragmented in multiple scenes, which remained more or less separated during the period of the NWOBHM, linked only by the articles of Sounds and Kerrang!. The NWOBHM is a "period" if you view it as a time interval when some things happened, like the explosions of new bands. It doesn't convey the info that it involved a mass of people and brought about musical and cultural changes, like "movement" does. I don't agree with Lingzhi that a movement to be called so needs to take a political stance or demand social changes. The meaning and boundaries of social movements are also object of debate among academics.([36] p.8) Cultural and art movements were often made by innovators and experimenters without a political goal. Many avant-garde movements were born from the wish of a few people to create something outside the mainstream and this happened may times in music (see List of musical movements). I think that the NWOBHM fits in the definition of musical movement, because, despite its origin as a promotional tool and its chaotic makeup, brought innovation to a music genre and evolution to a clearly defined subculture that involved thousands of people. Waksman calls it a grassroots movement, which could be appropriate, if the word "grassroots" was not so strictly linked to political movements. Lewismaster (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Period" within music doesn't mean just a span of time, although that is a large part of it. The Romantic, modern, and impressionist periods within Western classical music overlapped each other, because they weren't just time periods, but stylistic and social choices and changes within art music. Or, as you put it, a mass of people bringing about musical and cultural changes. I personally don't have a problem with the term "movement," but since some other editors do, I think the term "period" is the most accurate term applicable that will also resolve the qualms of objecting editors, since it is a well-established term within musical criticism and conveys much, if not the same, meaning as the term "movement" does.
See also my above comments in my critiques - there are a few outstanding issues that I missed when I checked over the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your goal of trying to reach a complete consensus, but I can't agree with you on the superimposability of period and movement. The Romantic period and Romanticism, the movement linked to it, have very different meanings. The NWOBHM was not just a stylistic musical change, it was a movement of working class people striving to better their lives. Apparently other editors agree with me and support this choice, when the nosayers could not produce an alternative to the term. As I wrote somewhere above, you can't please everybody, especially on such debated issues. The term "movement" is supported by many sources, has reached some consensus - maybe even yours - and I would settle on it. I would discuss if it is appropriate to call it "musical movement", or just "movement" instead. Lewismaster (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is now ready, in my opinion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great contribution and your support. Lewismaster (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

This is what a quick search has found so far. This is from Ultimate Classic Rock (and mentions Barton and Sounds), this is from Metal Injection, and this is from All Music, this is also a feature article. I'll comment further once I've finished reading them all, I've added after a brief scan for others to also judge the quality..

Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This list is for comparison really.
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 03:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this is from The Guardian, with what I think is one of the best lede ever.
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 03:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you attempting to show with these examples?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the first article it does list a lot of bands, so its supportive of such issues raised earlier. It is supportive of the comments raised about Barton and Kerrang!, so consensus needed on if it's Production/Promotion or not. The next few are more for the bands who were, or not, part of the NWOBHM and is supportive of those that were the forerunners and pioneers. The Guardian is the Guardian...and the Allmusic is because it's used 'ad nauseum' on WP for a reliable source, but is little more than a stubb with Links to the bands they have listed. Just trying to help with some supportive sources is all...

Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's what I thought you were trying to do, list some sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Comments on the title and lead (without having read any of the posts above).

  1. Is there a good reason to cap the title? The fact that it's abbreviated with an initialism is not a good reason, according to our MOS and other major style guides. I see "new wave music" and "heavy metal bands" in the first para. Why not "New wave of British heavy metal" as the title?
    This is a good question. All literature that I consulted uses the capitalization as if it is a proper name. It exists on WP a redirect page [37] leading to the current page and claiming to be in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. What do you suggest? Lewismaster (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lewis, books 1970–2008 on Ngram viewer gives this phrase and this, which means we'd downcase by our house style. See also within this book and the NYT Magazine. Tony (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the ngrams show more occurrences of the capitalised phrase, with both increasing in parallel at the end of the available time range. How do these support the lowercase version? --Mirokado (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "more occurrences" you mean 98% vs 2%, yep. But it's more like 60/40, in which case we downcase. See WP:MOSCAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. ... words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." 40/60 is not "consistently capitalised". Tony (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The New Wave of British Heavy Metal began as an underground phenomenon growing in parallel to punk and largely ignored by the media, which, only through the promotion of rock DJ Neal Kay and Sounds campaigning, reached the public consciousness and gained radio coverage, recognition and success in the UK."—This is a hard sentence for the poor readers to digest. What about something like this?: "The new wave of British heavy metal began as an underground phenomenon, growing in parallel with punk and largely ignored by the media. It was only through the promotion of NWOBHM by rock DJ Neal Kay and Sounds' campaigning that it reached the public consciousness and gained radio coverage, recognition and success in the UK." But the end is still uncomfortable ... it reached into the public consciousness and it gained radio coverage etc? Can it be recast into a more logical order? should "coverage" be "radio playtime" (if that's the term)?
  3. working class musicians ... hyphen needed.
  4. "who suffered the hardships brought on by rising unemployment for years after the 1973–75 recession"—should it be "who had suffered"?
  5. "As a reaction" ... maaaybe "In reaction"—unsure. Or " recession; these people created ..." (the causality being fairly apparent).
    "As a reaction to their bleak reality" sounds better. Lewismaster (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "It evolved into a subculture"—I think "This" would be better here.
  7. The US authority CMOS says use "that" over "which" where you can. It's good advice, in BrEng too: "... values that were quickly accepted". And consider "quickly adopted"?
  8. "the almost immediate spread of the music to the US, Europe and Japan"—would "style", or "movement", be good instead of "music"?
    The movement was not exported and remained firmly British; there was not a single style to be exported, so music appears the best term to be used in this case, IMO. Lewismaster (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "and fusing it with the intensity of punk rock, producing fast and aggressive songs"—you might like "and fusing it with the intensity of punk rock to produce fast and aggressive songs"; up to you.
  10. "Among them, only Iron Maiden and Def Leppard became international stars, although Motörhead and Saxon also had considerable success." Second "only" in two sentences. It's ok, but consider: "Among them, Iron Maiden and Def Leppard became international stars, and Motörhead and Saxon had considerable success." That would also avoid the repetition with the "but" in the next sentence.
  11. "the late-1980s and 1990s"—no hyphen.
  12. "Many bands from the New Wave of British Heavy Metal reformed in the 2000s"—I read that as the usual meaning and pronunciation (reformed). I wonder whether "re-formed" might be clearer.
  13. Not sure you need the "new" at the end.
I introduced in the lead section most of yours suggestions. Thank you very much. Lewismaster (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting topic, and a harder write than a normal popular-music theme. Tony (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's for sure. A well developed and deeply informed article on a full blown genre at FAC. Joy. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you justify the capping in the title? Tony (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is written above is all that I can say. What should I do? Lewismaster (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis, see my links inline above. Tony (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A requested move was posted at Talk:New Wave of British Heavy Metal#Requested move 24 April 2016. Lewismaster (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Tony1 on the capitalization thing. The sources do not uniformly capitalize this and similar phrases; if the sources are not consistent, MOS:CAPS has us default to lower case. This was already on my list of over-capitalized article titles to take to RM, and I just noticed the FAC on it. We don't even capitalize entire music genres, so we would not capitalize a sub-sub-genre. Capitalizing this is like capitalizing "Belgian Techno-Industrial Dance Music". We are capitalizing overarching "movements" that transcend specific genres in the arts (e.g. Classical music, and Art Nouveau), though I'm not sure why or whether the preponderance of off-WP style guides would support that. I think this is specifically what leads to the urge to capitalize things like "Dubstep" and "New Wave of British Heavy Metal"; people mistake it for a "capitalize all arts categorization labels" idea, which it is not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Please, support the move at Talk:New Wave of British Heavy Metal#Requested move 24 April 2016. Lewismaster (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just hadn't got to it yet. Had to hit the train to work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: The move was executed. Do you have more issues with the article? Lewismaster (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • "The NWOBHM involved both musicians and fans who were largely young, male and white and shared class origin, ethic and aesthetic values." Should it be "shared class origin and ethical and aesthetic values."?
This sentence was changed by at least 5 different editors. I think that it should stay as it is now. Lewismaster (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "newly-found" ... please no hyphen after -ly adverbs (WP:MOS).
Fixed.
  • covered it "intensely" ... I think "intensively" would be better, but it's up to you.
Changed
  • "News about the bands and music circulated by word-of-mouth and fanzines, or through interested DJs, who travelled the country from club to club. Neal Kay was one of those aforementioned DJs who started to work in 1975 at a disco club called The Bandwagon in Kingsbury, North West London, housed in the back-room of the Prince of Wales pub and equipped with a massive sound system." I cringe when I see "aforementioned", "hitherto", "wheretofore". Can it just be removed, since "those" is already a backref? Without a comma before "who", it looks like that all started to work in 1975 at that club ... really? Better perhaps: "Kay was one of those DJs; he started to work in ...". That would avoid the same comma plus "who" that the previous sentence has.
Changed.
  • Normally I'd object to the density of reftags; but you've fine-knitted specific refs that are typically from different pages and/or sources. Good.

I haven't gone through all of the text, but I think it's worthy of promotion. Well done indeed to the writers. Tony (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Lewismaster (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals[edit]

Ceoil[edit]

Not withstanding the semantics and cultural sensitives above, Support for an highly informed and diligently researched article on a subject very dear and close to my aging heart. I'm especially impressed by its awareness of contemporary social and political trends, and placement and evocation of the climate of the not often lamented early UK late 70s / early 80s. Hugely enjoyably read, though I'm more ex Oi! than ex head. We don't see this awareness often anymore in metal, or many pop cult articles. Its a leading example, bough down unfairly, imo. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Ceoil. Apparently the discussion will go on for a while. Lewismaster (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nuro[edit]

(edit conflict)*Supportive - I have read through Lewismaster's responses throughout the page and have been convinced that 'Movement' is the appropriate term to use. My brief reasoning is this: The amount of other 'Movements' in this 'period' of music, happening at the same time, puts into such a category. The lack of Politics is inconsequential.
The issue of Blue Wikilinks....well I've seen many a FA or just GA littered with them, massively. As to the Promotional use of 'anything' by Sounds or Kerrrang! I think this is nit picking, as the magazines at the time were the only source for the kids to get info on any of it. So that trumps the Promo thing for mine. The list of bands....I suppose my only suggestion to this is that the Pioneers and more Famous acts at the beginning of the movement get a primary mention and the leasers have a separate section. I don't know, I've nothing to really help on how that part of the article reads, it all subjective.

Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 01:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the band for periods and I think that this solution works best. Lewismaster (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for the record I support the term Movement being used. If this is in the wrong pkace please reassign this post.
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 01:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado[edit]

This subject is way outside my comfort zone, so I may notice anything which is not clear from context.

  • Lead:
    • The DIY attitude of the new metal bands led to a diffusion of raw-sounding, self-produced recordings and a proliferation of independent record labels. Perhaps "the spread of" instead of "a diffusion of"?
Fixed.
  • Social unrest:
    • deprived of the prospect of a job as factory workers or clerks that had befallen the previous generations: people are "deprived" of something they would like, but "befallen" by something they do not like. The juxtaposition of these verbs here is contradictory. How about "deprived of the prospect of a job as factory worker or clerk that was available to the previous generations" (also avoiding singular/plural confusion to make the phrase more readable).
Fixed.
    • not all working class male youths were taken in by the punk movement: rephrase to avoid "taken in by" which means "accepted by" (and in British English can also mean "deceived by"). I think "not all working class male youths embraced the punk movement" ("embraced" is probably better than "joined" here).
The results of a couple of editors... fixed.
  • Heavy rock in the UK:
    • two quotes without inline attribution.
Fixed.
  • References:
    • Column widths: A fixed number of columns for template:Reflist etc is deprecated in favour of a specified width, which works better with wide monitors. It also seems odd to have the columns for the references (citations) which are all long lines, narrower than the columns for the notes which are a mixture of long and short lines. Please consider one of the following:
      • have full line width for the references (citations) like many other articles. In that case the subheadings could be moved inside the reflist container to reduce the subheading font size.
      • make all the column widths the same (notes are currently 30em).
Fixed at 30em.

More later, it's a long article! --Mirokado (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Identity and style:
    • British heavy metal fans, commonly known as muthas, metalheads, or headbangers for the violent, rhythmic shaking of their heads in time to the music: does the source say that "muthas" is a British term in this context? I am familiar with it as an abbreviation in African-American vernacular and the derivation is different from the other two names. (I see later on Metal for Muthas from EMI so this may be just a usage I have never heard).
The term mutha was commonly used in British comic books and in music magazines to indicate a menacing character or an outcast. I added references. Lewismaster (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. The reference for Muthas helps with that term and also illustrates the occurrence of the NWOBHM phrase in lower case along with its acronym. --Mirokado (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the last part of the 1970s: Would "Towards the end of the 1970s" read better?
Yes.
    • did not translate in ...: Preferring "did not result in ..." or "did not turn into ...".
Fixed.
    • and in a journal British sociologist John Clarke "a reaction against the erosion of traditionally available stereotypes of masculinity".: I'm afraid there is a verb missing in that phrase.
Fixed.
  • Visual aspects:
    • long hair and wear jeans: I presume that should be "worn jeans"?
Fixed.

It's fair to say that I now know more about the New Wave of British Heavy Metal than I would ever have wanted to if I had heard of it before now! This is an entertaining read and I am sure I will support it... --Mirokado (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • References:
    • Barton, Geoff (July 1980). "Phil Lewis Interview". Sounds.: Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBarton1980a. You can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see problems like this. --Mirokado (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was the reference for a removed quotation. Fixed. Lewismaster (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those updates, everything I mentioned is fixed. Now supporting. --Mirokado (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Apparently there is still much work to do. Lewismaster (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the article satisfies the FA criteria and is ready to go. I appreciate Lewismaster's willingness to resolve all of the issues raised by the other reviewers and I think the text has been scrutinized in detail and all omissions have been solved.--Retrohead (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Lewismaster (talk) 17:46, 16 May 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) 01:50, 17 May 2016 [39].

Hasan al-Kharrat[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hasan al-Kharrat, a major rebel commander during the 1925–1927 Great Syrian Revolt against French rule in Syria. He died less than a year into the revolt. A native of Damascus, al-Kharrat chose the city's Ghouta countryside as his area of operations. The rebel push into the city that he led nearly ejected French forces from Damascus and prompted heavy aerial bombardment of the city on the orders of High Commissioner Maurice Sarrail, whose Damascus residence the rebels briefly captured. Prior to the revolt, al-Kharrat served as a night watchman for the orchards of al-Shaghour, a quarter of Damascus, and as its qabaday (a quarter boss whose role in traditional Levantine society is defined in the article). Unfortunately, there's little in the sources (at least the English ones) about his personal life. However, the essence of al-Kharrat's notability lies in his role in the 1925 revolt and as the qabaday of al-Shaghour, two aspects which I believe are more than adequately covered in the article. In 2013 "Hasan al-Kharrat" was listed as a Good article and was featured in the Did you know column of the Main Page. I did not send this article for peer review because I believe it currently meets the FA guidelines in all respects. I hope the reviewers here will concur, and if not, I welcome your suggestions and criticism. Thank you for considering this nomination. Al Ameer (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very good first impression. Small things; can you break the lead so its not all one paragraph; you link Seattle in the biblo, but not London. Reading through. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Thanks, I split/expanded the lead. As for London, it's already linked once in the Biblio (for the Philip Khoury source), should it be linked again? --Al Ameer (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Al Ameer, much better (though I wouldn't link either, its the consistency that's most important). but before al-Atrash's return letter reached al-Bakri - *return letter* doesn't read well. Can you rephrase/clarify this pls. Ceoil (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I revised the wording, how is it now? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better yes. Am fixing as I go mostly, sorry for the slow progress. While out of my depth on subject matter, I expect to support on prose; spot checks on refs to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your work's appreciated. Let me know if you need help with the spot-checks. I'm going to add the link for a full-view of Michael Provence's book (a major source for this article) to the Biblio. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Al Ameer, Ive read this a few times now and to be honest its pretty heavy going. As currently written its a barrage of names, dates, positions and locations, and that makes it hard to figure out. I'm still basically leaning support, but re prose, can you lessen this density. Not sure how actionable this prob vague request is, but its how I read the article. Take my edits as attempts to create more flow and trim where I can. Of course you can revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'll do what I can today and tomorrow, and then update you here. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the bulk of my trimming quicker than I thought. How's it look now? --Al Ameer (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Ok, I've finished with my copyedits. In terms of sheer prose size, I've reduced the article by some 3,000 KB. I removed a lot of uncritical/unnecessary detail, including locations, names and incidents/operations that didn't directly involve Kharrat or were not necessary for context. Hopefully, this has lightened the density and made it a smoother, less confusing read. When writing this article, I worried that the obscurity of al-Kharrat to Western readers (and non-Syrians in general for that matter) would necessitate this amount of context, but I don't think my recent copyedit has affected the comprehensiveness in a significant way. In any case, I'm currently working on a draft article to improve coverage for the Great Syrian Revolt. Anything removed from this article will likely be covered in that article or its sub-articles. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it reads quite well, and certainly better than it did before. I think to a Western eye, all names and some placenames starting with "al-" can become tiring, but this is not so different (if Ceoil will forgive the comparison) to more culturally Western articles where names are mostly either van der something or van something else except when they're "the Master of the Legend of St. Ursula" -- not to mention the multitudinous ways in which Mary is commonly referred to. It can be confusing but the sense is still there. Al Ameer has now made good use of notes to relocate some of the lists of placenames out of the main narrative. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noting significant work by Al Ameer and MPS1992. I was watching diffs during the week and impressed but have not yet read through from top to bottom, so still holding. Thanks for addressing perhaps badly stated and unspecific concerns. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have now had time to reread, and very pleased to register Support. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources check: A look at refs 5, 26 & 32 do not show problems; they back claims, are reliable, with no close paraphrasing. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Shaghour_1910.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Fakhri_Kharrat_execution,_1925.jpg: are we certain that the copyright here would have been Syrian and not French?

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For "Shaghour", the source does not indicate where it was published, only that it was a picture of Shaghour, Damascus taken in 1910 (during Ottoman rule). The licensing for this image probably needs to be changed unless it turns out to be an LoC image (couldn't find it in the LoC digital library though). Al Ameer (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For "Fakhri", I'll come back to you about this in the next couple of days hopefully, because I'm not sure if pictures taken/published in Syria during French Mandatory rule come under French or Syrian copyright. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I posted a query at the Commons Village Pump (See Here) and the response was that we would use Syrian copyright law for pictures taken/published in French Mandatory Syria. This is similar to how we use Israeli copyright law for images taken/published in British Mandatory Palestine. There's a slight possibility that we should use French historical copyright law as opposed to modern French copyright law, but using Syrian copyright law is the more likely way to proceed here. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPS1992

  • "destroyed all French buildings" - please double-check the source to see if "all" is perhaps slightly too strong. It implies a total level of success that may not be entirely justified.
The source says "He rose to prominence in the battles that ensued and led armed bands into Damascus for sabotage attacks on French installations. He disarmed patrols, held their soldiers hostage, and burned down all French buildings in the Shaghur, Souk Saruja and Jazmatiya neighborhoods." I replaced "destroyed" with "set alight". If you're still skeptical about "all", I have no problem removing the word. Also, I split the disarmament and hostage-taking bit from the sentence, because the source doesn't make clear whether disarmament and hostage-taking occurred in those aforementioned neighborhoods or throughout Damascus in general. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, if the source uses the word then you are entirely right to reflect it. I will go back over this and see if I am happier with your original wording or a variant on it. MPS1992 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've come up with a variation and added it to the article -- your original was right in that the source is quite strong, all French buildings were burned down. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the French and their sniper units" - this is a misunderstanding of the source. It is the French themselves who are receiving continuous "sniper fire" according to the source -- the source does not say they are using snipers themselves.
  • "failed to apprehend them" - this is poor wording. One does not commit a large force backed by tanks, aircraft and artillery in order to apprehend someone. "Apprehend" implies an arrest without a substantial likelihood of death.
  • "causing the French to abort the operation" - which source does this come from? Provence does indeed say that the rebels were forewarned of the French advance, but does not say that the operation was aborted as a result, merely that it was a failure (for whatever reason, perhaps the futility of using tanks, artillery, and 1920s-era aircraft to try to corner rebels in densely forested terrain they know well). Be careful to avoid confusion with the earlier 60-gendarme failure, discussed by the source in this context because of the village-burning it was used to justify; that operation was a failure due to the forewarning, this operation's failure was not caused by forewarning (from what the sources say).
  • "Thus, French intelligence justified the punitive measures against..." - I don't think this needs to be laid out at this length when the previous sentence has essentially already said the same thing.
Regarding your last four points, I revised the entire passage to more accurately reflect the source. The rebels were doing the sniping (hiding among the trees and sniping at regular army forces with rifles was actually the common mode of rebel/guerrilla combat in Syria, Palestine and Lebanon during the colonial period, as opposed to open or trench warfare). I removed the "failed to apprehend" and "caused" bits, I just wrote that they couldn't lure the rebels out and withdrew. I think I reduced the redundancy (and confusion) regarding the French burning of al-Malihah. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will take a look. I may also have some extra ideas for dealing with Ceoil's comments above. MPS1992 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPS1992: Thanks for your copyedits and clarifications above. I hope my revisions have addressed the issues you've raised. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking great now I think. I have made a few slightly bold edits including adding half a sentence to the lead about his later reputation, you may wish to tweak it around.

A couple of minor extra points;

  • The Moubayed source says al-Kharrat "received no high school education". I think this could be added to the existing text, something like: "... Michael Provence maintains that al-Kharrat was likely illiterate;[15] Moubayed indicates that his education did not reach high school level.(ref)"
  • It's good that there is now a gloss as to what the Gouta is, which I think is a recent addition. But I wonder if we can go slightly further with this and similar information. We know very little about al-Kharrat, including the details of his death etc., but we do know he was very much not just a man of his time, but a man of his locality -- as far as we know he never went beyond Damascus and the Ghouta, and his successes were in large part due to his local power and reputation in those places and, maybe even more importantly given the forest fighting, local knowledge of those places. So I think if anything can be pulled out of any reliable source (not just a revolt-related source) describing the Gouta or its relationship with Damascus in the first half of the 20th century, that would merit a separate sentence, and equally anything about the al-Shaghour district that can be reliably sourced might also merit a separate sentence. This way it may be possible to bring in extra context and background about the man (thereby helping the reader understand him better perhaps) without adding more names or places and similar details that might confuse the reader as mentioned by Ceoil above. See what you think. (Also incidentally, notice the use in some sources of "the Ghouta", maybe a slightly easier way of referring to it that makes the reader aware it's a piece of territory not a specific settlement.)

This article has come a very long way over the last few weeks. All of my significant concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: Thanks for supporting this nomination and for all your help. I agree the importance of al-Kharrat's environment i.e. Shaghour and Ghouta each warrant a sentence describing them, especially since the articles we currently have on these areas are lacking. I'll get to that very soon and update you here when the additions are made. And I restored "the" before all mentions of Ghouta. Also, I'm currently working on a draft article for Ramadan al-Shallash and the Great Syrian Revolt for readers who are interested in finding out more about these two subjects, which are obviously important in relationship to this article. They'll be ready for mainspace in the coming weeks, hopefully no more than a month. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPS1992: I've added a sentence about the Ghouta, but I wonder if it's awkwardly placed within the passage. Could you take a look and make an adjustment if necessary? I've yet to add a similar sentence about Shaghour, but I don't anticipate any issue with placement/flow for that coming addition. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me, I have made a few small changes. I have also watch-listed al-Shallash and the revolt itself, thank you for the pointer, I will get more involved in those as they develop I hope. If you have time for a rather more recent Syrian revolt, please take a look at recent changes to Asma al-Assad and its talk page, this is a university project focusing on Women in Warfare, some recent discussion from the participants at User talk:Adam (Wiki Ed)#Wiki project Women in Warfare with Dr. Phelps. Some of the edits have included removal of a perceived over-focus on the fashion sense of the subject, whether this is wise or unwise is perhaps part of the project. I am sure the students would welcome any feedback on the article talk page or elsewhere. MPS1992 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the c/e and supporting this nomination. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: everything here looks to be in order. There are sufficient citations and they all appear to be to reliable sources. Unless a spotcheck is needed, I think this is good to go. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:13, 16 May 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) 01:50, 17 May 2016 [40].

Isidor Isaac Rabi[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Nobel Prize winning physicist who pioneered nuclear magnetic resonance, which is used in magnetic resonance imaging. What more do you want, mermaids? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the magnetic moment of several lithium isotopes with molecular beams, including LiCl, LiF and dilithium": Did you mean "compounds"? Or are you saying those compounds had different isotopes?
    Compounds. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that once again. I had no idea that "artefact" was spelt "artifact" in America. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing. Yeah, I'm always looking for common spellings when I can find them, but there isn't a lot of wiggle room (yet) with "artifact". - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Portrait_of_Albert_Einstein,_Niels_Bohr,_James_Franck_and_Rabi.jpg: "persistent URL" is dead, and is a more specific licensing tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. I have removed this image from the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

Good to see a science bio here. I gave it a quick scan.

  • "a solution whose magnetic susceptibility could be varied that was between two magnetic poles." Doesn't flow.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$1,500 ($20,434 in 2016 dollars)" conversion needs a reference
    It's from {{inflation}} so added {{Inflation-fn|US}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rudolf Peierls and Hans Bethe were also working with Sommerfeld at the time, but the three Americans became especially close" works better if the nationalities of Peierls and Bethe are given as well
    Added that they were German (at the time) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was born in September" - which year?
    24 September 1929. Added year. I could give the exact date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rabi had discussions with Groves" - Groves needs a bit of context. Plus first name.
    Added. Odd that we got this far without mentioning him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

A few things in the infobox do not appear in body and remain unsourced:

  • Martin L. Perl
  • Elliott Cresson Medal (1942)
  • Barnard Medal (1960)

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed fn 27 as suggested. Fn 57 suffered from Link rot, so restored from backup via the Wayback machine. Deleted "special lecturer" from fn 59.
  • Added information about Martin L. Perl and the Elliott Cresson and Barnard Medals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great article. Gets my support. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 1923 he met Helen Newmark, a summer-semester student at Hunter College. They began courting, and in order to be near her when she returned home, Rabi continued his studies at Columbia University, where his supervisor was Albert Wills. - the bolded bit is a bit clumsy as I had to read it a few times to 'get' the grammar - I'd change to, " In 1923 he met and began courting Helen Newmark, a summer-semester student at Hunter College. To be near her when she returned home, Rabi continued his studies at Columbia University, where his supervisor was Albert Wills." - or somesuch.
The crystals then had to be carefully prepared by skillfully cutting them into sections - Two adverbs redundant here - I'd change to, "The crystals then had to be prepared by carefully cutting them into sections"
Might wanna double check and tweak where symmetric top links to....
need to link moment.

Ok, a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I am not familiar with the person or body of work, and physics does my head in :P This will be dependent on a good source review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On examining the cavity magnetron, Rabi pronounced that it was a simple design, that worked "just like a whistle". "Okay, Rabi," Edward Condon asked, "how does a whistle work?" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 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) 13:11, 14 May 2016 [41].

Springbok[edit]

Nominator(s): Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a graceful antelope. The article describes in detail several features unique to this antelope. I feel this would make an interesting read. Thanks! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I don't usually stray outside of military history, but thought I'd take a look. I have a couple of suggestions (only really minor nitpicks): AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is a dab link to Dorsal which should probably be re-aimed towards Anatomical terms of location#Dorsal and ventral
  • punctuation: "2 m (6 ft 7 in) into the air - a practice known..." the hyphen here should probably be a spaced endash, or unspaced emdash;
  • punctuation: "estimate of nearly 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 animals", the hyphen here should be a spaced endash;
  • there is a dab link to Peter Grubb that should be re-aimed (sorry, I'm not sure which is the most appropriate link, though)
  • in the title: "The Safari Companion : A Guide to Watching" there shouldn't be a space between "Companion" and the colon
  • "The Karoo : Ecological Patterns and Processes", same as above
  • the duplicate link checker tool identifies a few examples of overlinked terms: Kalahari desert, Namibia, Karoo (in the Distribution and habitat section)
  • that's it from me, thanks for your hard work on this article. Good luck with the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and comments, AustralianRupert. I believe I have fixed all these issues. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 03:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Any more comments? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time, sorry. I will try to come back after someone more knowledgeable about animals etc posts a review. Thanks for your tweaks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Would you like to add comments now? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, the article looks very good to me. I have offered my support above. A couple of minor points I noticed, which could be a matter of style specific to this type of article, so please ignore if that is the case:
    • "(Blaine, 1922) Occurs..." (probably needs a full stop before "Occurs")
    • same as above for "(Thomas, 1926) Occurs"
    • same as above for " (Zimmermann, 1780) Its range"
  • Anyway, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if biology reviewers missed this. So pinging Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, Jimfbleak and J Milburn. Sorry if any of you is busy. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

Well written and fairly comprehensive; a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You deal with predators, but I would have expected a bit on parasites too. They are surprising well studied for this species. Cain et al, has something, but a quick Google also throws up multiple sources
Yeah, don't know how I could miss this. Done. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer something more specific than eagle. I think we are talking about large species here, three of which Cain (at least) mentions by name
Done.
  • this antelope can live without drinking water for years by efficiently meeting its water requirement through succulent vegetation—clunky, perhaps this antelope can live without drinking water for years, meeting its requirements through eating succulent vegetation?
Took your suggestion.
  • The other two varieties are the pure black and the pure white forms, selected in some South African ranches—I'm unclear whether the black and white forms occur in nature, or only through selective breeding. If it's the latter, I'd make that clear, referring to wild and farmed varieties instead of "normal" and "other"
Good idea, tweaked.
  • tend to be more vulnerable to predator attacks as they can not be easily alarmed. —Do you mean "alarmed"? Doesn't make sense to me, perhaps "alerted"?
Took your suggestion.

Thanks for your comments. Will work on these in the next hour or two. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: All done, I think. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few drive-by comments (might show up later when other "less involved" users have commented"), but I think it could be nice with scientific names after the common names in the cladogram. Also, why is a saiga shown, when the gerenuk is a much closer relation? FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. We discuss the saiga more, but I like your idea better. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I already found this article to be in very good shape when I passed it at GAN. The changes since then have improved it to the point where I think it is worthy of FA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by ɱ[edit]

  • In Etymology - "identifying the animal as a non-gazelle" sounds clumsy. A comparable phrase would be "identifying that the animal is not a gazelle", however perhaps it means more if all gazelles used "Dorcas", but apparently most use"Gazella".
I see. Done.
  • In Taxonomy - " 0.08 and 0.1 million years ago" will be better expressed as 80 and 100 thousand years ago, no?
It can be either way, I think your suggestion is better as the myas are really small here. Done.
  • Springbox triptych - you still use the phrase 'normal' here. Perhaps say 'typical' or 'wild'?
Good catch, said "typical".
  • In Ecology:
2nd sentence - you need an 'and' or an 'or' before 'at midday'.
Done. Don't how I missed these.
3rd - you shouldn't use an "'s" after Thompson's Gazelle.
Right, fixed.
4th - needs another verb (replace 'with' with 'have').
Done.
  • The rest actually looks good, though in the last section, I wouldn't use a subjective/opinion-based term like 'beautiful'. As well, I have many culinary interests, and was curious when reading that the meat is prized. Perhaps could you elaborate on which peoples consume the meat, and what cooking techniques are common, or what dishes they're used in? I'm not sure you'll be able to find RSs on any of that, but if you could, it would prove very interesting and good to note in the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could I say "attractive" instead of "beautiful"? The meat is mainly an exported product, so a lot of people should be consuming it, not just locals. I could not find resources for cooking techniques, but salami can be prepared from springbok meat and I elaborated a bit on that. I have also added the characteristics of the meat.

Thanks for your comments. I will address them soon. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: I think I have fixed them all. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One last comment - reading the research paper on the topic, it doesn't necessarily state that springbok is used for salami, just that it could be, no? Perhaps change that in the article. As well, I think this bit should be mentioned: " Springbok are raised on commercial game farms. The meat is readily available in South African supermarkets and is consumed fresh or as biltong, pre-pared by preserving the raw meat with vinegar, spices and NaCl [salt], followed by drying, without fermentation." ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It is a bit difficult to wade through all that text, I will go ahead and add it. The article looks a lot better now. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Here are some comments from me now that I have returned from my month-long Welsh break!

  • The Etymology section has too many short sentence and needs to flow better.
  • "In a revision of the phylogeny of the tribe Antilopini on the basis of nuclear and mitochondrial data in 2013, " - That's a very long opening clause.
  • "became extinct during about 7,000 years ago" - One of these words is redundant.
  • "In juveniles the stripes and the patch are light brown." - This sentence and the next need swapping.
  • "adult black springbok develop two shades of chocolate-brown and a white marking on the face as they mature." - Needs attention.
  • "females have horns thinner than males'" - you could reverse the third and fourth words,and remove the stray apostrophe.
  • "female juveniles stay with their mothers until a new young is born" - This sounds awkward. How about "until the birth of their next calves"
Fixed all the above except the fifth, which I could not understand. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, some of the prose is fine, but in other places the sentences have a tendency to be short and dijointed.
I think I fixed some of the glaring examples, please let me know where else I need to work. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Diet section, the last sentence could be moved to near the beginning.
  • Again this section has a lot of brief sentences. Try to link some up and let the prose flow.
Fixed this section. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The national rugby team was officially recognised as the "Springboks"." - You have stated this before. Do you intend to emphasize how recognising the name helped in reconciliation? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was redundant. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm a bit busy now, will take a few days to check the article for all those short sentences. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Addressed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good, I have done a little copyediting. One further point; you mention that the springbok has an extra premolar on either side of each jaw. Surely that means the difference in total tooth number between springbok and gazelle should be 4 rather than 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Supporting this nomination on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the IR, @LittleJerry:! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Laser brain[edit]

  • Formatting and reliability are good. I don't have any complaints other than that I'm not crazy about this open access template being applied to citations. It adds a lot of visual noise to the References section for seemingly minimal benefit. Is this a trend now? --Laser brain (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did not know this template was there till J Milburn asked me to use it for Hartebeest. I am not a fan of it either, so I am willing to do whatever is best for this case. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:16, 8 May 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) 13:18, 14 May 2016 [42].

Lesser Antillean macaw[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a species of macaw that may or may not have existed. At the time of writing, the species is not recognised by the IUCN, though it was until at least 2013. Since then, more evidence to support the bird's existence has been discovered, and the status of the species may be re-evaluated in the future. In any case, this is one of the best documented "hypothetical species", so I think it is a worthy subject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

The first to review! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead,
  • Based on these accounts, Austin Hobart Clark named the species in 1905 appears slightly awkward, maybe because "described" would read better than "named". Can we say "Austin Hobart Clark described the species on the basis of these accounts in 1905" ?
  • Link endemic and monogamous here as well as later
  • is one of thirteen extinct macaw species Can we say "13"?
Did all the above. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Taxonomy,
  • account by the Spanish bibliographer Ferdinand Columbus, who mentioned parrots as big as chickens, which the Caribs called "Guacamayas", in Guadeloupe I think brackets would be better for the part which the Caribs called "Guacamayas". They are already so many commas.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon I think just "Comte de Buffon" should do.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link scientific name.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we avoid repeating Ara?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it is necessary to link ornithologist. Anyone acquainted with birds should know what this means. And palaeontologist...?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this is impossible to prove. A bit too strong?
Says "difficult" now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • other hypothetical extinct species For example?
Some are mentioned in the last paragraph under Taxonomy, but I don't think Greenway actually lists them by name. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are Monica Gala and Arnaud Lenoble?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • dated to 5.300 years ago I am sure it is not a decimal point.
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last para, "Cuban macaw" is a duplink.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, no cladogram here?
None in the papers! Also, a single bone isn't much to make such an analysis from... FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Behavior and ecology
  • Why is sea-level linked?
Linked to Sea level rise? FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which bird is which species in the image to the right?
Clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Extinction:
  • Have we introduced Johann Huttich?
Done. I'm surprised he doesn't have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that should be all. An interesting read, and I love the images! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always a quick one, eh? I'll return soon. Someone complained once that there were too many versions of the same images, but since there are so few images of this bird in existence, and the fact that the images have significant differences that are also dealt with in the text, I think it is ok to leave them in. Who knows which colour shown pattern is closest to the truth? FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was dreadfully late for your Heterodontosaurus FAC! This should make up for that... I am in favor of keeping all those images, they look really interesting to me. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the issues above. I think I missed out a few more things: Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Description, The tail feathers of the scarlet macaw are Present tense all of a sudden in this line?
The scarlet macaw is not extinct! Added "in contrast" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Careless me, but better to mark the contrast. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • depict red macaws that may be the Lesser Antilles macaw Not "Antillean"?
Whoops, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pleistocene" not linked in Behavior and ecology, and doesn't seem to appear elsewhere.
It is linked in the fourth paragraph of taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, had to confirm it. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a new map instead of a dubious image, is it helpful? FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, splendid idea. We should not receive many complaints on that repetitive plate if we make way for more variety in the images. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, happy to Support! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As for images, I'd of course like a photo of the claw-bone rather than the map, but that probably won't happen any time soon... Though one of the describers of the bone has actually edited this article... FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, a bone would be something fresh in this article. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 19:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: On the newly added details in Taxonomy. I think it should read has its own species if Rothschild was giving a general statement. Also, or would be better to call him a zoologist than a writer. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to "zoologist", but not sure what you mean with "has". They were clearly all thought to be extinct at the time too, and Rothschild did say "had". Also, Rothschild is long dead, and made the statement more than a hundred years ago. So what would we gain from saying "has" in present tense? On another note, I cropped the taxobox image so it is less wide, it was hard too see any details at this size. The image wasn't complete anyway, because the far right side was not part of the scan:[43] It is on a separate page[44], and some serious stitch-work will have to be done to make the image complete. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, if Rothschild said "had", then that should be it. Didn't know that. On the image, it can be questioned why only the Guadeloupe macaws are mentioned in the caption and not the other two birds apart from the Lesser Antillean macaw. The cropped image is indeed better. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rothschild's remarks can be seen here:[45] As for the other birds, 10 are clearly frigatebirds, but 6 (Pie D'Inde) is a bit more tricky... Anyway, the other parrots seem more relevant to mention because they are fellow parrots, they are close to the macaw, and they are also extinct... FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, no more quibbles from me :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, all I need now is more reviwers, probably won't be long before I have to ping people... FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Happy to take a look.

  • "and the possibility that sightings were of mainland macaws" My first thought was that this was a particular species. How about "and the possibility that sightings were of macaws from the mainland"... But then, what mainland? Perhaps this could be clarified.
Took your version and added "from the South American mainland". FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "monogamous" a zoological term?
I think it is. I have seen this term in use in several works. See Monogamy#Mating system. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to Monogamy in animals. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parrots thought to be the Lesser Antillean macaw were first mentioned by the Spanish historian Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés in 1553, referring to a 1496 account by the Spanish bibliographer Ferdinand Columbus, who mentioned parrots as big as chickens, which the Caribs called "Guacamayas", in Guadeloupe." Could this sentence be split?
I put "which the Caribs called "Guacamayas" in parenthesis, per Sainsf suggestion, better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the bird may be the subject of some illustrations" (lead) but "The French botanist Jean-Baptiste Du Tertre ... illustrated the bird and other animals found in Guadeloupe" Are these contradictory? If I understand correctly, there was definitely a population of birds there, the mystery is whether this population should be described as a new species.
The uncertainty is in whether all of the illustrations depict this bird. But since at least two definitely depict the bird, I removed "may". FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the natives" Much too colonial. I see you've used this phrase a number of times. "Native population" or "Carib people" would be preferable (though our article suggest that "Carib" is now an old-fashioned word, too- I think we should make every effort to avoid language that might be seen as offensive!)
Added "people" or "population" after every instance. As for "Caribs", it seems the exact people in question is Island Caribs, and since our article has that title, I'm not sure if that term is considered offensive as well? FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its similarity to the scarlet macaw" What does "it" refer to?
Named the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be any clearer about the location of Folle Anse and/or Blanchard Cave? Also, who are Monica Gala and Arnaud Lenoble? Academics? Citizen scientists? Locals? Tourists?
Added "south-western Marie-Galante" before the mention of Blanchard Cave, but is a more detailed location really needed for Folle Anse, even when that fossil turned out to not belong to a macaw? Presented the two writers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from archaeological contexts" is a very odd construction. I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure it's particularly good writing.
The source states "All documented instances of macaw bones have been recovered from archaeological contexts". I tried with "have been recovered from archaeological sites" instead, better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The size of the phalanx bone matched what was described for the Lesser Antillean macaw by contemporary writers, and the authors therefore correlated the two, while admitting this could only be tentative, as there were no remains of the Lesser Antillean macaw to compare with." I appreciate that you're putting across some rather complex ideas here, but perhaps this could be cleaned up a little.
Split in two, better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which supports the validity of the Lesser Antillean macaw" Again, I assume you mean something like "supports the idea that the Lesser Antillean macaw represents an independent species"; we know there was a Lesser Antillean macaw, the question is whether or not it is an independent species. Or am I misunderstanding?
Yes, took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the violet macaw (Anodorhynchus purpurascens)" This gives the impression that you're talking about a species, rather than an incorrect name.
Rejigged to "the violet macaw, which was named Anodorhynchus purpurascens for accounts", better? It should perhaps make it clearer that we don't "accept" the name in the text... FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced it's completely clear; how about something like "Lenoble furthermore concluded that [whoever]'s Anodorhynchus purpurascens, a name for an extinct bird commonly referred to as the violet macaw, was a synonym of Amazona violacea, [whoever]'s name for the also-extinct Guadeloupe amazon."? I accept that this is pretty wordy, so may not be perfect. I think part of the problem is that you flit between talking about the names themselves and the species the names refer to. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, do we need that much detail in an article not about those birds? How about: Lenoble furthermore concluded that the supposed violet macaw (named Anodorhynchus purpurascens for accounts of blue parrots from Guadeloupe) was based on references to the also-extinct Guadeloupe amazon (Amazona violacea), and therefore never existed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but many of these were based on old descriptions or drawings and only represent hypothetical species" There's a shift in subject, here- the "these" refers to scientific descriptions, while, after the "and", you seem to be talking about the names or the populations (I'm not sure)
I'm not sure I follow, the comma is preceded by "As many as 13 now-extinct species of macaw have variously been suggested to have lived on the Caribbean islands", so isn't it clear "these" refers to the species? FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "these" refers to "suggestions", doesn't it? Or are you claiming that the species themselves are based on the old descriptions? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to species/their taxonomic name, actually, like when a species is based on a type specimen. Unclear? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historical records of macaws on these islands, therefore, may not have represented distinct, endemic species; it is also possible that they were escaped or feral foreign macaws that had been transported to the islands." Similar to above: you shift from talking about "records" to a "they" which refers to particular birds/populations.
This one I understand, so I changed the sentence to "also possible that these macaws were escaped or feral birds that had been transported to the islands from elsewhere."
  • "1626 painting by Savery, showing similar red macaws with all-red tails" Is this OR? Reference, please! (Same for other captions would be useful.)
I have now replaced that one with a map, since the site that makes the connection may not be adequate, but the rest (Savery dodo, 1765 plates, Labat and du Tertre) are all discussed in the article text with sources. Do these really need citations in the captions as well? FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough- probably not. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the parrot species of each Caribbean island was distinct and could be distinguished from each other visually and vocally" How about "the parrots of each Caribbean island were distinct, and could be differentiated both based on their morphology and their vocalisations [or vocalizations]"
Took your version. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tertial and scapular feathers" Jargon
Linked, but the articles they redirect to are pretty general. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossil phalanx bone from Marie-Galante was deposited in a time when the distance between that island and the rest of the Guadeloupe archipelago was very reduced compared to today, due to lower sea-levels." Why not simply "The fossil phalanx bone from Marie-Galante was deposited in a time when that island and the rest of the Guadeloupe archipelago were closer together than they are today due to lower sea-levels."?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johann Huttich" Who was he?
Presented. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "full of this macaw" Which?
Said "red macaws" instead, as we cannot be sure what species he referred to. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "them - their beaks and claws - with" Are these the right dashes?
Replaced with – FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by M. de la Borde" Who was he?
M. de la Borde, Mèdècin du Roi, not sure exactly what he did, but seems clear he was a French writer of some sort, so added that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting article. I wonder if you could think a bit further about how to describe the population without indicating that it should be considered a species, which seems contentious. I've referred to it in my review as a "population"; how do you feel about that? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and review. Yeah, I think what replaces "species" might depend on the context it is used in. Maybe "the bird" or "the macaw" could suffice in some places, in addition to "population"... Will return soon to fix issues. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You there, J Milburn? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. If I haven't got to this in a week, message me again. A lot going on... Josh Milburn (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've made some last tweaks, but I'm now happy that this is where it should be. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your edits look good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. The article is adequately cited and uses all reliable sources. The only nitpick I have is that you use two different date formats in footnote 11. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that one is a dead link, and a link to Archive.com is therefore used instead. The extra dates (if that's what you mean) were added by a bot:[46] So I guess it is the standard way of formatting archived links now? FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more that one date is m-d-y and the other is d-m-y. But if you can't change it because of some bot formatting issue, it's no big deal. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, now consistent. The inconsistency was due to the bot-edit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

The article reads well, but there are a few minor points I noticed:

  • "... thought to have eradicated it shortly after." - "afterwards" I would have thought.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nested in trees and laid two eggs twice a year" does not quite agree with what it states in the body of the text.
I could say "once or twice a year"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on the contemporaneous accounts" - I think this is not a correct use of the word "contemporaneous" which means existing at or occurring in the same period of time.. If you and I both wrote today about Attila the Hun, our accounts would be contemporaneous.
Changed all back to "contemporary". It was changed to "contemporaneous" by a copy-editor long ago... FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(named Anodorhynchus purpurascens for accounts of blue parrots from Guadeloupe)" - I don't understand this statement.
Changed the wording a bit, is it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "far from being alarmed by many shots fired under a tree where they are perched, they gaze at their companions who fall dead to the ground without being disturbed at all," - You can see why they might have become extinct!
And almost without trace at that... FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and were probably extinct soon after." - Again "afterwards" would be better.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with the changes you have made. I consider it a comprehensive and well-written article and now support the candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 9 May 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) 13:32, 14 May 2016 [47].

Ficus rubiginosa[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a big fig tree, which can also be a good bonsai. Anyway, I hope readers care more than a fig about it. Promise to fix problems pronto...have at it, cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ficusrubiginosargemap.png: can you swap in a non-proxied version of that source link? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fixed now with nonproxied version substituted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All of my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a few observations:
  • "...exclusively pollinated the fig wasp species...": perhaps missing a "by"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species' range spans...": this has been rendered somewhat ambiguous by the use of "species" in the prior sentence.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Port Jackson fig was described by French botanist René Louiche Desfontaines...": when?
year added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Dale Dixon?
added who he is, he is a fig expert and was tempted to add, but would need to hunt a source saying that... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italian botanist Guglielmo Gasparrini, breaking up the genus Ficus in 1844...": improper tense.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to be consistent about listing the nationality and profession of the persons mentioned. For example, Frederick Manson Bailey and Friedrich Anton Wilhelm Miquel.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the paragraph that begins "In a study published in 2008" be placed at the end of the section to maintain chronological order? Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety?
my thoughts were to present a chronology for taxon as whole, and then last para for various subspecific names, but I can switch if you feel it would flow better the other way...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I won't worry about it. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical term "hemiepiphytic" should be wikilinked.
linked in the preceding section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...monoecious — both...": looks like a spaced em-dash. See MOS:EMDASH.
despaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "US Zones 10B and 11"?
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of your references has a warning tag: "Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors=".
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gasparrini (1844) should list the publisher (Francisci).
publisher and location added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, "PLoS Biol" should be written out as "PLoS Biology".
'ogy' added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

You see, I can not resist your articles. ;) Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have too many pages on my watchlist...missed this and will attack it pronto.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I am staying away a lot this week as well... Sainsf <^>Feel at home 07:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]
  • Why not link "genus" if you link "species"?
I did worry about excess bluelinks but linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in warm climates containing around 750 species Surely the climates do not contain 750 species. Better say "in warm climates and containing around 750 species"
tweaked now
  • from 4–19.3 cm (1 1⁄2–7 1⁄2 in) long and 1.25–13.2 cm (1⁄2–5 1⁄4 in) wide I think the dash should be replaced by "to"
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • round yellow fruit ripen and "ripens"? No, I think it should rather be "fruits", due to the "they" following it.
see I think of 'fruit' as a group noun, but no drama I can pluralise it and done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link pollinated, outcrop
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • which may in fact comprise four cryptospecies. Why are we interested in the taxonomy of the fig wasp here? It may go into the main text, but is it needed in the lead?
each fig species is symbiotic with one wasp species, so is significant that there are four - also I can't remove segment as incorrect to say there is one.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. No trouble then. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • and at least 2 species "two" as per the MOS.
I kept as number to align with the '14' just before it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble then. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 07:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • through to Bega Through what? Or is "through" redundant?
redundant and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy[edit]
  • from a type specimen I think "type" could be linked?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • from a type specimen whose locality is documented as "New Holland". Include a citation at the end of this part.
these sentences are all from ref #3. So have added a comment to clarify this (to avoid duplicate footnotes) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That link is a redirect to Botanical name. Have linked a bit further down Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the alternate common names in italics? They are typically kept in double quotes.
See, if you look at how italics are used, about halfway down it talks about words as words, which covers the formatting well here. I'd use quote marks for sentences and italics for words Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. No trouble then. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If genus is linked in lead, it should also be linked here.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph Maiden described variety lucida You have been saying "var." until now. The full word and the link to "variety" should be added at first mention.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • from the nominate form I think we could have a link or explanation here.
linked to appropriate section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • We need some consistency in how we refer to the plant. "Taxonomy" begins with "The Port Jackson fig", and this with "Ficus rubiginosa". Also, you say F. rubiginosa at places.
Have changed to species name throughout. Rule is full name at first mention then abbreviation thereafter. Some people start new paras unabbreviated as well. In two minds about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Choose your style. :) Sainsf <^>Feel at home 10:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have - abbreviated except at (a) first mention and (b) beginning of a section...having it abbreviated there just looks a little odd to me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ovate, obovate or oval-shaped Are all the three terms the same? If the 3rd one is explanatory, then we can say either ovate or obovate.
the first means egg-shaped but flat, the second means egg-shaped but flat with the narrow end of the egg at the stalk end of the leaf, while oval-shaped is elliptical. I will link as these are really wordy to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain petiole, vein, nipple, preponderance
linked first two, "nipple" in this context just means "nipple-shaped thing", a bit like how nipple can be used for end of baby bottle and other objects. Unfortunately nipple focusses only on mammalian nipple so is misealding as a link. "preponderance" is a cumbersome way of saying "more of them". I have simplified that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fruit ripen throughout the year "Fruits"?
the collective noun "fruit" sounds more natural to me but I am not strongly fussed so changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • its relative the Moreton Bay fig We need a comma here
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the wild they are "wild, they"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the leaves of the Port Jackson fig Inconsistency in referring to the plant
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat[edit]
  • It extends westwards "The range" extends westwards?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both forms co-occur for most of the range Better mention them by name again. It has been quite a while since Taxonomy.
  • of f. glabrescens Not written properly.
rejigged as thus, unless you want me to unabbreviate f. to forma...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks better. No rejig needed. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in any given population Is "any" not a bit too sure?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link limestone and outcrop
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Kanangra-Boyd National Park "the"
hmm, I'd not use "the" here, in the same way I'd say "in Yellowstone National Park"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how "the" is used at places and not used elsewhere... everyone has their choices. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in cracks in stone in cliffs and rock faces in natural environments Such a row of "in"s! Are we missing commas?
I rejigged to break up the 'in's. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • and in brickwork on buildings and elsewhere in the urban environment Citation for this part?
there is a commented-out note at the end of FN 16 noting that it covers the previous 4 sentences Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • well drained Dash?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are derived from sandstone, quartzite and basalt Can have links here.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • yearly rainfall of 600–1400 mm Convert.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • F. rubiginosa has naturalised What is meant by "naturalised"?
linked to Introduced species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology[edit]
  • I think the bird and fox species should be arranged in the alphabetic order of their common names.
they are arranged by order - pigeons, cuckoos, then passerines... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I still can't get the logic behind this... Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are the taxonomic groupings. I did do the bats though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many fruit drop onto "fruits"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link plant cell, pupate, defoliated (Intro)
done first two, "defoliate" leads to Defoliant, which is not a good fit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the life cycle is around six weeks Could not fully understand this.
it just means the little critters live for around 6 weeks. changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • galls at night and wander about --> galls at night, wander about
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with all figs, the fruit is actually an inverted inflorescence known as a syconium, with tiny flowers arising from the inner surface Would be more useful under Description. Syconium by the way should be linked under Description, its first mention.
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link diverge, monophyletic, crown, bushfire (Reproduction and life span) and nematodes (Other life in the syconia)
done...though Crown (botany) wasn't exactly what I wanted but ostiole exists.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplink: inflorescenced
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • that a F. rubiginosa trees often bore Errors?
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pleistodontes imperialis traversed Simply "P. imperialis" would do.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cultivation[edit]
  • and also in Hawaii and California, where it is also listed as an invasive species in some areas. Add a citation for this
added - mainly hawaii but does mention california Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tolerant of acid or alkaline soils Linking possible?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain canopy, aerial layering
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a chimera that is lacking in chlorophyll in the second layer of the leaf meristem Meristem is a duplink. "that is" may be redundant
trimmed and removed duplink Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally have more green "are", not "have"
tweaked - I meant larger green patches Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is extremely forgiving to work with What does that mean? "Extremely" could be too strong
bonsai with figs is very very easy. they are almost unkillable and I call them living plasticene. So "extremely" is justified to anyone who knows this field.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber. I see no more issues with this beautiful article. So, Support. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this more in depth soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that the standards are, but I'd expect showing an entire tree in the infobox?
found one...been meaning to take a snap when walking about but haven't seen a good one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the foliage photo under Cultivation be right aligned? It looks a bit crammed on the left side with the other image, and also interferes with the ref list.
rejigged a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "n searching for the type specimen" When?
Dale Dixon published the paper in 2001, so I have used that date for the selecting of the type. I presume he was looking for the type just beforehand but I don't know. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All these taxa were found to be indistinguishable from (and hence reclassified as) F. rubiginosa." When and by who?
this could be a bit fiddly - need to sit down and read a bit... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
update - F. baileyana was synonymised by Dixon and the others were done also by him or by Chew in Flora of Australia. Annoyingly the national herbarium website is down tonight. Will try and check tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can support once this is somehow elaborated a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
website up now. those forms all synonymised by Dixon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lithophytic, hemiepiphytic" These terms are only explained in the intro, should also be explained in the article body.
explained Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the ovate, obovate" Explain.
  • Casliber clarified above that these and a few other terms would lead to really wordy explanations, looks like we should leave a few. They are linked, at least. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They were explained after my request in another FAC at least (one of the Banksia articles?), so I don't think it could hurt here. For us non-plant people, much of such text is gibberish without explanations. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the best to add notes for us non-plant folks! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"ovate" is "egg-shaped" but "obovate" is "egg-shaped-with-pointy-end-of-egg-shape-as-leaf-base"...so tricky to word without being cumbersome...have gone with "reverse egg-shaped"
Much easier to understand now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "long petioles." Explain.
explained now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inflorescence known as a syconium" Explain.
have tried at expand a bit - a fig is essentially a hollow fruity ball with the flowers lining the inside Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(damun in the Sydney language)" You don't refer to it as "Sydney language" in the article body, so the Easter-egg link is a bit confusing.
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the species can only be pollinated by a certain species of wasp, how is it pollinated in the other parts of the world where it has naturalised (and where I assume this wasp doesn't exist)?
I have explained in para 4 of Reproduction and life span - the wasp has flown to New Zealand and been transported elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, I realised this while reading, but forgot to remove my comment before I pressed save... FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a metallic green wasp species." Why do we need physical description of a species that is uncommon on this plant, when the main pollinator isn't physically described at all?
the green is an unusual colour, while the main species is a nondescript colour.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be nice to show the pollinating wasp, but I guess we don't have an available image. Or is this it:[48]
Hmm, that is probably the right one. F. platypoda is pollinated by P. cuneatus, and I am not aware of platypoda being in Hawaii. P. imperialis is the wasp of F. rubiginosa - will look into this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe obvious to plant-people, but how can this turn intro a big tree when growing on rocks? Where do the roots go?
Aha, well I'm glad you asked - fig roots are incredibly vigorous and highly invasive - see thus local council report - scroll down and see the fun photos of Ficus roots wreaking havoc with sidewalk, drains etc. Ditto here or scroll down google images here. Short answer is fig roots grow..anywhere they want to. I will re-read to see if/how I can make it clearer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are places around Sydney where they have really mangled the footpath...but last time I walked past the parked cars obscured the shot. I am keeping an eye out.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as it is extremely forgiving to work with" Not sure what this means, and also seems like too informal/hyperbolic language.
It means a fig pot plant is hard to kill - much much easier to grow than many other plants - they are like living plasticene. "Forgiving" is a succinct way of the plant easily tolerating inept management by gardener. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I was referring more to "extreme", "very" or some such would seem less loaded. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I toned it down Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banyan and Moraceae are not mentioned outside the intro.
I nuked them - the term "banyan", even though it technically covers this one as well as the indian species, is rarely used and the information it conveys is imparted by the description of hemiepiphyte so is unneeded. The fig genus is more of a defined and notabel unit than the Moraceae family, so reverted to the former as a reference point in the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a genus found worldwide in warm climates that contains around 750 species, including the common fig (Ficus carica)." Likewise.
More germane to genus than species, so ditched it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The syconia are also home to another 14 species of wasp, some of which induce galls while others parasitise the pollinator wasps, and at least 2 species of nematode." None of these numbers are mentioned outside the intro.
The 14 spp are mentioned in sentence 2 of the Other life in the syconia section and listed in a footnote. The nematodes are mentioned further on - 2 added there now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many species of bird, including pigeons, parrots" No parrots are mentioned in the article body.
added some parrots Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - much easier for a non-expert to understand now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

It is a banyan classified as a Ficus, a genus found world wide - As somebody that doesn't remember taxonomy, this is baffling. Overall v good, though the lead is very dense like this and assumes familiarity. Would like to see wording that makes the page more accessible. Not exactly dumming down, but... explaining terms. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed some bits...you want me expain cryptospecies? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support, noting the efforts since last post, mainly re the density of the lead. Note I am a non specialist, but supporting from an interested none the less POV. Have made various, but mostly trivial edits. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions / Observation from Singora[edit]

Opinions / Observation Singora (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are just notes, opinions and general comments.

  • 1. "Beginning life as a seedling". Don't all trees begin life as seedlings?
Well, yeah, but I tried to change the emphasis - the 'that' making it more of a run-on clause. The "beginning life" shows that it germinated and developed there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. "which grows on other plants (hemiepiphyte) or on rocks (lithophyte)". Would it be accurate to swap "grow" for "germinate" in order to avoid the repetition (the sentence uses "grow" twice)?
"Germinate" doesn't impart the meaning of the little plant growing there, however I do agree about the repetition and so have changed 2nd "grow" to "matures"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. "The small round yellow fruits can ripen and turn red at any time of year" -> "Fruits are small, round and yellow, and can ..."
done, though my initial idea was to avoid a run-on "and", still I can see the point of saying the "fruit is x" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. "four cryptospecies" + "14 species of wasp" -> 4 + 14 or four + fourteen
yep/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. "Australian botanist Dale Dixon found one from the herbarium of Desfontaines at Florence Herbarium and one from the herbarium of Étienne Pierre Ventenat at Geneva" -> "Australian botanist Dale Dixon found one at the Florence Herbarium and another at the herbarium of Étienne Pierre Ventenat in Geneva". My link points to the Museo di Storia Naturale di Firenze, which includes the herbarium. What is the herbarium of Desfontaines?
I found this. I guess the best thing would be to mention it on Desfontaines' page...hang on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6. "In a 2008 study published". Is this correct? I would use "In a study published in 2008"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7. "The trunk is buttressed and can reach 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) in diameter, and the bark is yellow-brown" -> "The trunk is buttressed and can reach 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) in diameter. The bark is yellow-brown"'
split sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yep/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9. "California in the United States". Do you need to mention the US? Could you link California?
no and yes, duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10. "planted widely in Malta since the early 1990s but has not been observed to set fruit". What's the difference between "to fruit" and "to set fruit"?
errr not much really...trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11. "Many fruits drop onto the ground around the tree, though others are spread further afield by the animals that eat them" -> "Many fruits drop onto the ground around the tree, though others are dispersed by the animals that eat them"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12. "F. rubiginosa itself can endure cooler climates than other fig species". This and the preceding sentence end with "fig species". Could you change the latter to "than its relatives" or "than other members of the genus", etc.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13. "P. imperialis traversed the waters between Australia and New Zealand". Hmmmm. Traversed the waters?
changed to "crossed" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14. "P. imperialis has been transported to Hawaii, California and Israel and is pollinating its host in those places" -> "P. imperialis has been transported to Hawaii, California and Israel, where it pollinates its host", or "where it has been observed pollinating its host" / "where it is known to pollinate it host" / "where widespread host-pollination has been recorded".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15. "Trees can live to 100 years or more in age". The "in age" is implied.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16. "At least 14 species have been recorded, of which four—two each belonging to the genera Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis—are common while others are rare" -> "At least fourteen species have been recorded: ten are rare, while the others — two each belonging to the genera Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis — are common". Again, you're not being consistent re: 14 + four / two.
worded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17. I don't follow this: "The community of wasps inside the syconium is made up mostly of pollinator wasps with much smaller numbers of these other species"
only the P. imperialis are pollinator wasps - the other species are all freeloaders..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18. RE: "The parasitic wasps are around the same size as the pollinators and belong mainly to the genera Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis". You've just told me that 14 (or fourteen) species of non-pollinator wasps inhabit the syconium. You've said the most common of these parasitic, non-pollinators belong to the genera Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis. Are you not repeating yourself, then, by saying these wasps "belong mainly to the genera Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis"?
not quite as not all the nonpollinators are parasitic. These two genera are parasitic on wasps, while some others just make galls. Still, I reworded it a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • 19. I think this whole section Other life in the syconia needs tweaking. Begin by saying the community consists primarily of pollinators; describe how they develop deep inside the syconium; introduce the 14 parasitic, non-pollinators; state that 4 of these non-pollinators are relatively common while the others are quite rare; discuss in-fighting between the 4 common parasite species; mention that all parasites develop close to the wall of the syconium (away from the pollinators); conclude with a discussion of how genera of the less common non-pollinators induce galls.
I rejigged it - how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • 20. "suited for use as a houseplant in low, medium or brightly lit indoor spaces". Is the word "indoor" redundant?
I am not sure if laypeople automatically assume a houseplant is an indoor plant...but have removed it anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • 21. Checked ref #44. You say the tree may reach 30m -- the source says it grows to over 30m. The source also says the best specimens are found in "dry rainforet". Is this covered by your text: "F. rubiginosa is found in rainforest, rainforest margins, gullies, riverbank habitat, vine thickets, and rocky hillsides"?
ok, added "or More" and reffed that bit - 30 m is generally seen as max ht so presuming Morris source means "a bit more" - "best" is subjective and esoteric, referring to woodwork, which is not a usual use for this tree... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More from Singora 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's play around with the Other life in the syconia section and see what we get.

As with many other Ficus species, the community of wasps inside the figs of F. rubiginosa is made up mostly of pollinator wasps. These develop deep inside the syconium, presumably protected there from parasites. Also present are much smaller numbers of other wasp species, which do not pollinate the fig. At least fourteen species have been recorded, of which four—two each belonging to the genera Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis—are common while others are rare. Investigation of F. rubiginosa syconia found that the fig seeds and parasitic wasps develop closer to the wall of the syconium. The wasps of the genera Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis are parasitic and are around the same size as the pollinator species. Their larvae are thought to feed on the larvae of the pollinator wasp. Male Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis wasps fight other males of the same species when they encounter each other in a F. rubiginosa fig. Several genera of uncommon larger wasp species enter the immature figs before other wasps and induce galls, which may impact on numbers of pollinator wasps in the fig later. An example of this is Pseudidarnes minerva, a metallic green wasp species.

Version 1

As with many other Ficus species, wasp communities inhabiting (residing in / found inside) the figs of F. rubiginosa comprise (are comprised of) mostly pollinator species. These develop deep inside the syconium, presumably protected from parasites. Also present are much smaller numbers of non-pollinator wasp species, at least fourteen of which have been recorded. Four of these species (two each belonging to the genera Sycoscapter and Philotrypesis) are common and similar in size to the pollinators. Their larvae are thought to feed on the larvae of pollinator wasps; males are known to fight. Several genera of larger, less uncommon wasp species enter immature figs before other wasps and induce galls, often leading to fewer pollinators burrowing into the fruit. One species known for this behaviour is the metallic green Pseudidarnes minerva.

Sorry -- gonna have to leave for this for now. I can't think properly. I can SUPPORT this, but am convinced the above para can be improved. It's too late now to do any more.

yeah, working on really fiddly stuff when fatigued can have that effect. I spent a fair while re-reading the articles and staring at a screen last night before rewriting once. I'll think about it some more but need some uninterrupted time to concentrate... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Botanical Gardens Singora (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that your bonsai photo @ Auburn Botanical Gardens ought to be linked

well-spotted/linked. 21:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "The leaves ... measure from ... 1.25 to 13.2 cm (1⁄2–5 1⁄4 in) wide." I wonder if the precision of "1.25 cm" is really justified. I suppose that this precision derives from the conversion of the imperial measurement 1/2 inch. Would it be reasonable to change the statement to "1.2 cm"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went with the source - could also read it as a quarter of a centimetre.

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "It ... is used as a shade tree in parks and public spaces, and is well-suited for use as an indoor plant or in bonsai." There is a disconnect between its 30 m height/use as a shade tree and its suitability as an indoor plant. Are perhaps juvenile plants used indoors? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty tough plant - just keep it in a pot and change the soil every few years and it is restricted to the size of the pot. So no, not particularly young plants. Would some sort of contrastive help the flow? I added "also" to highlight the different uses. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, how about "when potted it is also well-suited...." Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I like that - incorporated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "Taxonomy", paragraph 1: "The specific epithet rubiginosa related to the rusty coloration of the undersides of the leaves. Indeed, rusty fig is an alternate common name." It would be good to include a photo that demonstrates this "rusty" colour of the underside, contrasted with the top. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One does. I have moved it up the article and adjusted the caption Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "Taxonomy", paragraph 3: "In a study published in 2008, Nina Rønsted and colleagues analysed the DNA sequences from the nuclear ribosomal internal and external transcribed spacers (ITS and ETS), and the glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (G3pdh) region." If these terms are not used later in the article, then there is no need to include abbreviations. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 1: "F. rubiginosa is monoecious—both male and female flowers are found on the same plant, and in fact in the same fruit." The linked article has two definitions for "monoecious". It seems that Ficus rubiginosa could more specifically be described as bisexual/androgynous/hemaphroditic/synoecious/monoclinous? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the most accurate term from that page would be "consecutively monoecious" - the article just uses the word "monoecious" so I am sticking with the source.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 2: "It is also confused with the small-leaved fig (F. obliqua), the syconia of which are smaller, measuring 4.3–11.9 mm long and 4.4–11.0 mm in diameter, compared with 7.4–17.3 mm long and 7.6–17.3 mm diameter for F. rubiginosa." Is precision to 0.1 mm really justified? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, a bit too exact maybe...rounded off now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In "Ecology", paragraph 1, why is Coxen's fig parrot specifically called out as endangered? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

being the food source of a species that is endangered I feel is in and of itself important to note and this is the most succinct way of highlighting that fact Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"being the food source of a species." F. rubiginosa appears to be a food source rather than the food source. Wikipedia's article about the parrot states that food availability is a major factor for the species, but is unclear how important F. rubiginosa specifically is in the parrot's diet. While loss of F. rubiginosa trees in a habitat would no doubt negatively impact the parrot's population, I would prefer to see a more definitive statement in a separate sentence with a specific reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From "Ecology", paragraph 1, should "spectacled flying-fox" really be hyphenated? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oops, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • The article has sufficient citations, and everything is formatted properly.
  • Minor nitpicks:
    • In fn 14, I think "Csiro Publishing" should be "CSIRO Publishing".
    • Fn 36: isn't the publisher actually "Delmar Publishers"? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes x 2/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, looks good to go then, as far as sources are concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 13 May 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) 17:40, 8 May 2016 [49].

Teleost[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk), Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the teleosts. When you think of the word "fish" its probably a member of this group that will come to mind. They have the familiar fish traits, gulping mouths, homocercal tails, ect. This article has been brought to GA status and we feel its ready for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tim Riley[edit]

Nothing from me about the content of this formidable piece of work, but a few small quibbles about the prose.

  • BrEng or AmEng? The text is mostly in BrE ("analysing", "manoeuvrability", "specialised", "characterised", "aestivate", "metres", "fertilised", "practised", "travelling") but I spotted a few outbreaks of AmE: "coloring", "optimize", "specializations" and "behavior". I think it needs to be one or the other throughout, except within quotations.
Done, I hope; and I fixed some AmE diction, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • tassled – a word unknown to the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster alike. If we mean the creature has tassels, the word is "tasselled" in BrE and "tasseled" in AmE.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The adipose fin...is often thought to have evolved once in the lineage and was lost multiple times due to its limited function. However, a 2014 study challenges this idea..." – If this means what I think it means the first sentence needs a bit of fine-tuning: "and was lost" needs to be "and to have been lost" or similar if the next sentence reflects doubt on both the evolution and the loss.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Northern hemisphere" – our WP article on the subject capitalises both words, and so would I.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similiarities" I imagine is a typo, but I didn't dare assume.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there to affect my support, which I look forward to adding. – Tim riley talk 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, hope that's to your satisfaction now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – An exceptional piece of work. Try Googling "Teleost" and you'll find nothing else that comes anywhere near the authority and comprehensiveness of this article. Easily meets all the FA criteria, and I'm very glad to add my support. Tim riley talk 21:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

This is a rather gigantic article, so will probably take me a while to review it all... FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In more advanced teleosts" Use of the term "advanced" in an evolutionary context is frowned upon in modern biology literature, and as the linked article also states, "derived" should probably be used instead.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to push the both the premaxilla and the lower jaw" Seems like a mistake.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems this article uses rather different (less lay reader friendly) headers than most other articles, anatomy instead of description, and physiology instead of behaviour. Not a big deal, but is there a reason why?
Those terms are more specific and more accurately reflect the contentsof the sections than your suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't my suggestions as much as it is just the standard headers used in animal FAs. But no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diversity would make more sense as a subsection under Evolution and phylogeny. It is good to present what a teleost actually is before going into their diversity and lifestyle.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five branchial arches." Could be explained in-text.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If these be explained, it would be good to ensure some consistency in what all we define in-text. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see many other technical terms are explained in the very section, so it seems it should be more, not less... Per: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."[50] FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, added the note just to make sure the nominators check this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pharyngeal jaws" Likewise.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and possibly some pharyngobranchials and a basibranchial." Why the uncertainty? Because only some have it, or because it is unknown which have it? Should be clarified.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In lower teleosts" As above, this is not terminology used today, basal should be used, and I don't see why we need a note here ("Closer to the base of the tree in the cladogram"), such a central concept should be explained in-text. Also, I can see you have used the term basal elsewhere, no need to be inconsistent.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In more advanced teleosts" Likewise.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to create two large upper jaws" Two as in one pair? Seems a bit ambiguous.
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The caudal fin is" Link.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as most fish from the Paleozoic." Add era, some readers might not know what this term refers to.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more flexible then" Than.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are well calcified" Could be linked.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the female is much larger." Could be interesting to note by how much, for contrast.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and many such" Seems odd to me. Many of these?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "laterally compressed bodies" Could be explained this just means flattened sideways.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether you follow a common name by a scientific name. You are also inconsistent in whether the scientific name is put in parenthesis or not.
Rationalised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the giant oarfish, with fish of 25 ft " Sounds repetitive, why not just say specimen or individual, as you do later in the text?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are demersal fish" Explain.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The former "Chondrostei" is seen to be paraphyletic." This seems redundant in-text when you already mention it in a note.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How has this group been affected by various major extinction events?
I'm not sure, but as it does not seem to be referred to, probably less than some other groups. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a first hypural with a proximal end and a second hypural attach to a ural" This will be gibberish to most readers, including me. Explanations needed.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diversity" and "evolutionary trends" seem to overlap in scope. Another reason why they should be moved closer together.
Agreed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acanthomorphs also developed spiny ctenoid scales" Why past tense? Readers might think the group is extinct, since all the rest is present tense.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "75% are endemic to the Arctic" 75% of what? Not sure I follow the sentence...
Clarified: it's 75% of the species found in the named locality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should give the etymology of the word teleost outside the intro as well, preferably where you mention who named the group.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Teleosts, including the brown trout and the scaly osman, are found in" Are the commas needed here?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a related species has been seen at" Why not name it?
It appears the fish hasn't be named yet. LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could mention this in parenthesis or some such, reads like an oversight now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The major means of respiration in teleosts, as in some other fish" Isn't this like in most other fish?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and even aestivate" Explain.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "Weberian organ" and "Weberian aparatus" in different places. If it is the same, it should probably be consistent.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk)
  • "and visual discrimination" Explain.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like an oversight that you don't mention the species that can walk on dry land under locomotion. I know they are mentioned under respiration, but not their mode of locomotion.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Multifactorial systems, involve rearrangements of sex chromosomes and autosomes." Why the comma?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still very inconsistent whether you follow a common name by a scientific name or not throughout the article, even within the same paragraphs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You briefly mention that male anglerfish are attached to the females, but what actually happens (the male degenerating to a sperm-producing outgrowth on the female) seems significant and divergent enough to elaborate somewhere.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and allow then to disperse widely" Seems a mistake.
Typo fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pelagic environment or a demersal environment." Could be explained.
Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some larvae were even considered different species from the adults." Examples? Sounds interesting.
I lost access to the textbook, but I don't recall them giving examples. LittleJerry (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus the former "Chondrostei" is paraphyletic (not a clade), and is broken up." I'd say something like "and has been broken up by more recent studies". The current wording is a bit unclear.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a bit of an oversight that there is no word on conservation and pressure by humans under relationship with humans (especially since the section goes into detail about more trivial things). Are some groups endangered or extinct due to human activities? How are they affected by pollution, climate change, and overfishing? Etc.
Added a section "Impact on stocks" covering all of these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In art" section seems to be about fish in general, and not teleosts in particular. Is it really relevant here, compared to in the fish article? Or could some more specific examples be mentioned?
I guess our task here is to show that artists represented teleosts, not any other animal; what goes in other articles is a separate issue. I've added another Haeckel. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was directed at the text (which seems to be about fish in general), not the images. Could significant examples of teleosts used in art be made in-text? FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both text and images are about teleosts. I've added a little about Haeckel since we have two of his images from Kunstformen der Natur, with a brief explanation of what he said he was trying to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure the first name mentioned in the article intro should be the title. Now you start with the scientific name, though the title is the common name. Any reason for this?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "take bizarre shapes like anglerfish and seahorses that are hardly recognizable as fish" Wording seems hyperbolic, and this info is not found in this form in the article body.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me now. With the new Impact on stocks section, this article seems much more comprehensive. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the care and attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • I think the Importance to humans section could be expanded more. I mean, they are the biggest cash fish out there to say the least   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph on fish products, their preparation and uses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also a section on human impact on fish stocks. We now have over 1000 words (about 1/8 of the article) on Importance to humans, which we think is an appropriate degree of coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure mentioning the other infraclasses is needed in the lead.
I would support their inclusion, better leave no loose strands. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 07:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not a deal-breaker anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


and few groups of vertebrates have undergone such an extensive radiation. - line is vague. It's really "none" as there are not 26,000 species of anything else with a backbone...(i.e. remove it)
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
migratory material I would move from diversity to distribution
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right!...now where was I......
I am not fond of the opening sentence as teleost is not a common/layword so is hence a short word signifying "member of teleostei". I also think the fact they comprise 96% of all fish should be up in here somehow. Maybe something like,
"The Teleostei (Greek: teleios, "complete" + osteon, "bone") are by far the largest infraclass in the class Actinopterygii, the ray-finned fishes, and make up 96% of all fish. This diverse group arose in the Triassic period. Known as teleosts, its members are arranged in about 40 orders and 448 families. Over 26,000 species have been described." (I'd ditch the bit about the other two infraclasses from the lead)
Ok, done that. I've put the other 2 infraclasses in a footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not call it a tail fin rather than caudal fin?
Done; I've put caudal in parentheses as we mention the caudal peduncle in the next sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
''macro-predatory - meaning "ate larger prey"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
, and most living fishes are members of this group - redundant as the 96% is mentioned a couple of paras up.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several early and extinct teleost groups have been described and are placed phylogenetically between the basal neopterygians and living teleosts - this is pretty technical so could be written in plainer english. Maybe just describing them as early offshoots? "Early offshoots included the....(and then mention the orders?)
Done that. Said "branched off from". Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:In para 2 of Evolutionary trends, I'd give some examples to make it easier to read for laypeople. e.g. A sentence of what critters are elopomorphs, and Osteoglossomorphs after their mentions.
Done, same as next. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of the major groups of teleosts, the Elopomorpha (eels), Clupeomorpha (herrings) and Percomorpha (perches, tunas and many others) all have a worldwide distribution and are mainly marine; the Ostariophysi (carps and catfishes) and Osteoglossomorpha (elephantfishes) - i'd move all these bracketed names up to first mentions.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we're there..nothing else I can see to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sainsf[edit]

Hey, how did I miss such an amazing article? :) This is what I have to say: Sainsf <^>Feel at home 07:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and the kind words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead:
  • Should Greek not be linked?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weighing over two tons I wonder if we could have a conversion here...
Done: it's pretty wordy, and the numbers are about the same in all 3 cases! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninety-six percent of all fish are teleosts I wonder if saying "96%" would make this less wordy...
I think we've been pulled up before for not using words for percentages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? But it should differ with the situation... I try to follow WP:MOSNUM on this. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 96% it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but WP:MOSNUM, in particular the WP:NUMNOTES subsection, is clear that you should Avoid beginning a sentence with figures. I think this trumps WP:PERCENT, another subsection of MOSNUM, which merely says the percent sign is "more common" in the body of scientific/technical articles (and this is the lede, not the body). So in this case "96%" should not start a sentence. Please restore "Ninety-six percent", unless you want to recast the sentence entirely. (I think it's fine with the words.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll put it back! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's difficult to remember the rules. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • they have a movable maxilla and premaxilla Not clear what "they" refers to.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most use external fertilization, I think this should end in a semicolon rather than a comma.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Anatomy:
  • Explanation for "holostean"?
Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the meaning of "ural" is clear.
Said "at the end of the caudal fin" instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lower teleosts, What does "lower" mean here? Would be good to link.
Added a note.
  • I think "advanced" should be linked, as has been done in the lead.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Diversity:
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea of the lightest teleost?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may consider linking (or explaining in some cases) filter-feeder, torpedoes, pectoral fin, dermal, catadromous, ectoparasite
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The adults spawn here then die "and then die"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parasites" is mentioned in the first few lines of this section, but is linked a bit later.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oscillating electric fields we may need a link or two here.
Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flatfish are demersal fish... This para looks like a sudden deviation from the ecology of teleosts. Better put this just before you begin with the facts on ecology, this looks more like a description of the physical characteristics.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camouflage is linked twice.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Evolution and phylogeny:
  • Greenwood et. al I think you should add who Greenwood is; it would not have been so necessary had the paper itself been cited, but as it is not it would be informative to let us know at least who it is.
Cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "et. al" is in italics at first mention, but nowhere else afterward.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to add who Near is, but optional.
As Near et al is cited, I think we can leave it as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Node values" and "calibrated" may need some explanation or links...
Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teleosts are divided into the major clades "Clade" is a duplink here.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 800 species of elopomorphs have thin leaf-shaped larvae known as leptocephalus which are specialised for a marine environment. Is there an error in this line?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say either "elopomorphs" or "Elopomorphs"
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ostariophysi, which includes most freshwater fishes, developed some unique adaptations Why not "have developed" in this and the next line? It made me think this group is extinct.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain scute
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Physiology:
  • and freshwater eels "eels" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • life in the sea but often migrates "migrates" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "countercurrent gas exchanger" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chondrostei such as sturgeons "Chondrostei" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly all daylight fish have colour vision at least as good as a human's It may be better to say "a normal/healthy human's"
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • spatial memory and visual discrimination Links or explanations.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "cold-blooded" should be appropriately linked.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Reproduction and lifecycle:
  • I think there is some minor inconsistency in the use of AE/BE. See this from the lead that are hardly recognizable as fish , Most use external fertilization, the female lays a batch of eggs, the male fertilizes them and having external fertilisation with both eggs and sperm being released into the water for fertilization. Internal fertilisation occurs in from this section. I think the instances of AE should be eliminated as we use BE in most places in this article.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar instances from "Mating tactics": Such coloration can be very conspicuous to predators, Smaller satellite males mimic female behaviour and coloration
Coloration is the British spelling, as in Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fewer then one in a million "than"?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority (88%) of teleost species "The majority" looks redundant.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the oviparous teleosts (Spawning sites and parental care) "oviparous" is a duplink
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Importance to humans:
  • Teleost fishes are I think just "teleosts" would do.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production is expected to increase sharply It would be good to add "According to the FAO,..."
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few teleosts are dangerous. Looking at this, it certainly is not an "importance" to humans. Why not rename the section as "Interaction/Relationship with humans"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • small size, simple environmental needs For example?
The examples, namely medaka and zebrafish, are stated in the sentence above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplinks: tuna, carp, salmon, electric eel, zebrafish
Fixed, though given the distance to the other links, some may be appropriate here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link mutagen.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fish imagery however remained "Fish imagery, however, remained"
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I see no more issues with the prose now. This article has my Support. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review by Laser brain[edit]

Owing to the high number of images in the article, I'm not going to list them all out. I'll just list ones I have questions about:

  • File:Male macularius.jpg - Commons lists an incorrect license for this. If you click through to the source, he has marked it as non-commercial. Should be deleted from Commons.
Deleted image from article, nominated for deletion from Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CC by 4 fixed on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, I wouldn't die in a ditch for it, but we have 3 subsections under Humans, on economics, impact, and other, and each one has an image illustrating the activity. The fish farming image directly shows how humans, fish and the environment are related by the economic activity, so I'd say it was a pretty good picture for the job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, no argument here. Thanks for your replies! --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And many thanks for checking the images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. --Laser brain (talk) 17:25, 8 May 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) 23:07, 6 May 2016 [51].

S. O. Davies[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to return to FAC with a new nom quite this quickly, but this April we are "awakening the Welsh dragon", and this is my slightly belated contribution to that project. Stephen Owen "S.O." Davies was a political maverick and awkward cuss from the South Wales coalfields whose career spanned more than sixty years, as miner, union official and member of parliament. He went on, and on, and on; no one knew quite how old he was (80? 90? 130?) when the Labour Party finally sacked him in 1970 on the grounds of his age. He merely took them on as an independent, and trounced them. Undoubtedly a pain in the bum to his adversaries, but in his way admirable, and with a permanent place of honour in Welsh working class history. I hope I've done him justice here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I had my say at PR, when it was already at a high enough standard. This is a top-qulity work on one of the lesser-known figures in British politics, and is up to FA standard, as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did too, and my issues were addressed. Most worthy to be a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment I made an edit to the "Labour rebel" section. In the "Aberfan" section, it says "This admission was seized on by Coal Board representatives as a means of implicating Davies": although this conclusion is surely unavoidable, by anyone. Then it says "The tribunal decided...", followed by "According to [his biographer]...", as though the matter of his responsibility for the deaths has been somehow settled or negated satisfactorily in three sentences. zzz (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I deal with your comment related to the Aberfan section, the edit you made to the "Labour rebel" section involved the removal of cited content, without any explanation or justification. Perhaps this was inadvertent; otherwise, would you care to give your reasons now? Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote didn't seem particularly interesting or revealing. "Justifying his position" is imprecise (several "position"s are mentioned in the paragraph - democracy, Soviet Union, etc.) So I removed it, with the proviso "Feel free to revert", because it seemed to look worse with than without after my move of the other text. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, though. zzz (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't agree with "Not particularly interesting or revealing". On the contrary, the quote sums up Davies's political position very precisely; he was more interested in representing the masses of the working classes than he was in towing the official party line. I've reinstated the quote Perhaps the word "justifying" is too interpretative, and I have replaced it with "Stating...", but overall the quotation is highly relevant to Davies's stance within the party. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Aberfan, this is merely a summary what happened, not an attempt to "settle or negate". Davies admitted prior knowledge of the tip's dangers and gave his reasons for not broadcasting them. The Coal Board's lawyers, who were in a tight spot, used the statement to try and shift some of the blame for the disaster on to Davies; the tribunal (somewhat patronisingly, you might think) decided that Davies wasn't aware of what he was saying and chose to disregard his words. We then have Griffiths's explanation for Davies's statement. I've tweaked the wording to achieve a greater measure of neutrality. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Giving evidence to the tribunal, S. O. Davies said he had long suspected that the Aberfan tips were unstable, but had kept quiet for fear that if tipping was stopped on the mountainside the Coal Board would close the colliery, devastating the local community." - "devastating the local community" is not neutral, or necessary; also, the phrase (or equivalent) does not appear in the "evidence to the tribunal" as implied.
  • "if tipping was stopped on the mountainside" - this pointlessly deviates from the source, which merely states "...it was the continuing fear of closure that prevented him from taking any action in regard to tip stability unless he was expressly asked to do so."
  • I'll deal with the above two points together. The sentence beginning "Giving evidence..." etc is cited to two sources: the tribunal report para 61, and Griffiths p. 274. In my summary I have drawn on both these sources, and also used paraphrase. Thus, although Griffiths doesn't say "devastating the local community", he does say "an alarming prospect in a valley which had suffered greater unemployment, poverty and migration than any other area of England." Griffiths also says "Were tipping on Merthyr Mountain to be stopped or impeded..." I don't think my paraphrases are inaccurate, or unnecessary; I think they fairly represent the substance of the sources taken together. However, I've altered the "devastating the community" wording, and clarified that not all the wording is from the evidence. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unless he was expressly asked to do so" - not mentioned in the article.
  • "Coal Board representatives suggested thst "[i]f Mr Davies is to be accepted as truthful and accurate in his recollection ... then he bears what must be one of the largest personal burdens of responsibility for the disaster"." - you mean, Gibbens - singular.
  • Altered accordingly. And Gibbens represented the NUM, not the NCB. Shame on me. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggested" - not neutral with respect to his responsibility for the disaster, implies some underhanded legal tactic. The Tribunal used the word "indicated" (and fully agreed with Gibbens about Davies' responsibility, if Davies' evidence was to be believed). If my understanding is correct, Gibbens did suggest that the tribunal reject Davies' evidence, which the tribunal agreed to do for the reasons suggested by Gibbens (although, the opposition of the NUM was also mentioned). From reading the article, you would think that the tribunal came up with the reasons and the decision to reject Davies' evidence unprompted.
  • I've replaced "suggested", although I don't personally think it implies any underhand legal tactic (maybe your experiences with lawyers are different from mine). I agree that I had perhaps over-condensed and even misunderstood this part of the story and have I think remedied this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tribunal decided that Davies had "allowed hindsight and a faulty memory to affect his recollections", and had "not appreciated the gravity of his words"." - Where do these quotes come from?
  • My fault again - they were paraphrases from para 62, and the quote marks shouldn't have been there. This extract has been redrawn.Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introducing the statement by Gibbens, it says "Inviting us to reject this evidence, which was strongly challenged by the National Union of Mineworkers, Mr. Brian Gibbens, Q.C., said" - Why is there no mention of this?
  • The reasons why Davies (if his evidence is taken at face value) bears "one of the largest personal burdens of responsibility for the disaster" need to be explained: "he was in a special position: he was not only well-known and highly regarded in the Borough but he was a Member of Parliament and had been for thirty years and if anyone could have exercised influence to overcome an obdurate or ignorant monolith like the Coal Board he was well placed to do so. But he has said that he knew of the dangers better than anyone else; he could see them plainly. He worried about them for years, but apart from mentioning the subject to miners he met about the place he appears to have never mentioned it either to the Borough Council or even to the Union, or even to the Ward Labour Party..."
  • "According to Griffiths, Davies was merely voicing the dilemma that had faced Merthyr Vale miners for years: ignore the dangers of tipping and keep their jobs, or speak out and risk the loss of their livelihood." He wasn't "voicing the dilemma..." - he was stating the facts pertaining to this specific incident, as is plain to any neutral observer, however the cited biographer may wish to spin it. This sentence should be removed in its entirety as it serves no purpose other than to portray Davies in a more positive light than the facts permit.
  • The words "According to Griffiths..." are important here, a specific attribution of the statement that follows. The exact wording in the source is: "It (the judgement of the tribunal) misses the tragedy at the core of S.O.'s testimony, namely that the system as a whole had put the people of Aberfan, the miners of Merthyr Vale and their representatives, in a cruel dilemma: that they accept the menacing tips on one hand, or risk losing a major source of employment on the other". That's pretty much what my sentence says, in slightly more neutral language. It is clearly Griffiths's opinion and needs to be on record; what we personally think of it or of Griffiths's motives is neither here nor there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited source says "We have thought it right to quote from the evidence of Mr. S. O. Davies, but he was the only witness to give such testimony and, like Mr. Gibbens, we doubt that he fully understood the grave implication of what he was saying. Were we convinced that he did, and (further) that his recollection was accurate and unaffected by hindsight, he could not, for the reasons indicated by Mr. Gibbens, escape censure." Overral, you have failed to accurately, or neutrally represent this. zzz (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with you on this final point, in relation to the former text, hence the significant amendments. Thank you for your careful review of this section, which has thrown up some important issues, now rectified I think. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
continued
  • "Giving evidence to the tribunal, S. O. Davies said he had long suspected that the Aberfan tips were unstable, but had kept quiet for fear that if tipping was stopped on the mountainside the Coal Board would close the colliery." - pointless synthesis: impossible to tell what was said and what you added
  • Paraphrase is at the essence of WP articles provided it accurately represents the source. If rather than "pointless" you mean inaccurate, then please specify in what way the wording is misleading. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "pointless", I mean that it I don't know what the point is, mixing in Griffiths' words with Davies' words.
  • "This, Griffiths says, would have been a heavy blow to an area that historically had suffered much economic hardship." The narrative is interrupted here. The economic hardship of the area can be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the section (without having to say "Griffiths says" and then back to "Davis added").
  • I don't think that works well. I'm more inclined to omit the "Griffiths says" sentence altogether, as the historic hardships of the South Wales coalfields should be clear to readers of the article. That the pit closure would be a heavy blow to the community is self-evident. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts exactly.
  • "Gibbens QC drew attention to Davies's position of authority and influence in the area" - this may be too weak to make sense of "then he bears...". Watered down to almost nothing (why?) from this:"he was in a special position: he was not only well-known and highly regarded in the Borough but he was a Member of Parliament and had been for thirty years and if anyone could have exercised influence to overcome an obdurate or ignorant monolith like the Coal Board he was well placed to do so. But he has said that he knew of the dangers better than anyone else; he could see them plainly. He worried about them for years, but apart from mentioning the subject to miners he met about the place he appears to have never mentioned it either to the Borough Council or even to the Union, or even to the Ward Labour Party". The decision to ignore Davies' testimony hangs on this, it should be quoted in full.
  • I don't think that such a chunk needs to be quoted in full, particularly as it's only a part of what Gibbens said. The source is available to all readers. However, I have extended and reorganised the material in the article, towards meeting your objection.Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His testimony was strongly repudiated by the NUM"..."Gibbens submitted that Davies's testimony should be rejected" - repetition. Could just mention repudiation after the above, instead of before and after.
  • No repetition, these are two separate things: the NUM repudiated Davies's testimony, then Gibbens invites the tribunal to do the same. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gibbens submitted that Davies's testimony should be rejected, on the grounds that he "never appreciated what in fact was the import of his words"" - could mention that the tribunal had made every effort to ensure that he did appreciate it, though - instead of:
  • "According to Griffiths, Davies was merely voicing the dilemma that had faced Merthyr Vale miners for years: ignore the dangers of tipping and keep their jobs, or speak out and risk the loss of their livelihood." - Still don't see why this is added. Looks to be to be included here out of bias, to minimise Davies' responsibility, hence "merely". Your non-explanation was "It is clearly Griffiths's opinion and needs to be on record" (it's not even Griffiths opinion, which was "It (the judgement of the tribunal) misses the tragedy at the core of S.O.'s testimony, namely that the system as a whole had put the people of Aberfan, the miners of Merthyr Vale and their representatives, in a cruel dilemma: that they accept the menacing tips on one hand, or risk losing a major source of employment on the other"). I now notice Griffiths is the leader of the Communist Party of Britain, which is not mentioned in the article, he is just described as "biographer". Which is, technically speaking, true - he has written one biography - but this is a political opinion about a historical event. How is he a reliable source for neutral commentary on a historical event such as this? At least people reading his book or the Morning Star know what they are getting, it's not dressed up as neutral and objective.
  • It is there for the reason stated, and is not different in sense from the verbatim extract from the source I provided you with. Whatever your opinion of Griffiths and his politics, his is the only full-length biography of Davies, and it can't be ignored as a source. You say: "How is he a reliable source for neutral commentary on a historical event such as this?" One comment on Davies's evidence is hardly "commentary on a historical event", and the comment is not "communistic" – it provides a possible alternative explanation for Davies's failure to speak out, as against the tribunal's apparent view that he was too muddled and senile to know what he was saying. I will drop the "merely" as it isn't in the source, but I stand by the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason stated:- "The words "According to Griffiths..." are important here, a specific attribution of the statement that follows."? But, I'm already aware of what "According to" means. Or "It is clearly Griffiths's opinion and needs to be on record" - stating Griffiths opinions automatically takes precedence over any other considerations? No - I don't agree. Griffiths is fine for biographical info, but there is no justification here for adding this type of commentary, regardless of his obvious bias. And it is simply incorrect to claim that it "provides a possible alternative explanation". It is a biased, left-wing view of the obvious (not "alternative") explanation, namely that in his capacity as a workers' representative Davies made a judgement that continued employment should take precedence over safety - a common enough theme in worker-employer relations that requires no explanation, whether neutral and objective, or a far-left slant. The only difference being that in this case, it was not the safety of the workers that was at stake. But - no surprise, given his extreme political viewpoint - Griffiths has no comment on this, the distinguishing feature of the case, which might actually merit comment.
  • Just before Aberfan section: "In 1961, at the request of the Labour Party leadership, Davies was investigated by the British security services as a possible Communist Party member. The MI5 report stated that "if not of the Party he is at least very close to it indeed"." - biased/misleading zzz (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you offer no explanation to support this accusation, I can't help you. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is available online, so I am not sure how else to help you. The article significantly distorts what it says by omitting relevant information given in the source to avoid such distortion.

Generally: I was initially appreciative of your help in improving the Aberfan section, but there is a hostility prevelant in some of your later remarks which doesn't augur well for further discussion and resolution of issues. Please keep your comments polite – a review should be a dialogue, not an inquisition. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that you think that, since there is certainly no impoliteness or hostility prevalent on my part. It is incongruous, but I suppose not surprising, that you elect to sit in judgement, given the carefully cultivated disdain and contempt you have put on display here, right from your first response, and including the remedial English lesson you saw fit to dispense as another self-justification. I have thus been strongly inclined to give up on more than one occasion - with the obvious result that your article would have been rubber-stamped, making a mockery of the encyclopedia. In future, I suggest you submit articles for review by lesser mortals at WP:GAN. zzz (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point in engaging with you further, and will not do so. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination - well written, but fails to cover important aspects with factual accuracy or objectivity zzz (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As you haven't clarified what your point actually (re the MI5 report), I am also mystified by your comment. As you are not prepared to provide that clarity, I suspect the FA coordinators will not take your oppose into account (as a coordinator of FLCs, I ignore similarly insufficient opposes). Your final comment is an unworthy one, and it would be best if you were to strike it. – SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to SchroCat On the contrary, if anything the support votes - which inexplicably (personal allegiance to the nominator notwithstanding) overlooked the extremely serious factual errors I already pointed out, above - are "unworthy" and should be struck. If you mean I should strike "disdain and contempt", please note that this was my strong impression of the tone of his comments, which seemed entirely relevant to mention, since he raised the issue, choosing to make a totally unwarranted accusation of "hostility" in the tone of mine. If you read the source about the MI5 investigation and report, the discrepancies will immediately become apparent. Perhaps the most glaring of these is the fact that he was just one of 25 reported (not by the "Labour Party leadership" but by the deputy leader); but the article misleads the reader into believing that he was the only one. Also, "The MI5 report stated..." misleads the reader into believing that this was MI5's categorical judgement - the MI5 report actually merely stated that there was "evidence from LASCAR [an intelligence agent or source within the PLP] to show..." Reading the same source, I notice: "Especially in the wake of Hitler's accession to power, he warned in 1934 that the Communist Party's policy of violent revolution could open the door to fascism and, instead, he urged unity around the Labour Party. For similar reasons, he rejected the ILP's turn to the left in the early 1930s..." This is just a random selection from a large amount of crucial information about Davies' political ideology and affiliations that has been inexplicably overlooked; since the nominator has chosen not to continue addressing issues, however, the nomination appears to be closed. zzz (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "personal allegiance to the nominator notwithstanding": please see WP:AGF before you insult swathes of editors again, it's the sort of comment that is likely to spark a blast of base Anglo Saxon in response. Still, at least you have now clarified your point about now the MI5 report: that was unclear to everyone before you explained yourself. – SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SchroCat, for taking this up. Any objective reader of the above exchanges might wonder where the supposed "disdain and contempt" is to be found in my comments, and might also notice that I took seriously and genuinely tried to accommodate many of the issues raised by this reviewer. His true animus comes out in his reply to my mild request that he showed less hostility in a review which struck me at times as unnecessarily confrontational. Had he restricted his reply to its first line, I would accepted this without demur; unfortunately he decided to add personal attacks on me and other reviewers, thus creating a battlefield mentality. When that happens, I tend to withdraw from the fray and leave others to decide where reason lies. At your prompting, Zzz has provided a few more details to support his "biased/misleading" assertion, and I will deal briefly with these.

  • The "most glaring" omission, Zzz says, is the failure to mention that Davies was one of 25 MPs and other party members under investigation. This article is about Davies, not about witch-hunts in the Labour Party of the early 1960s. The words "one of 25" etc can be added to the text for further clarity, and I've done this, but in the context of this article the point is very small
  • He says that it was the party's deputy leader (George Brown), not the Labour Party leadership, that instituted the enquiry. Brown was the agent of the party's leadership, and the wording in the source is "George Brown and colleagues"
  • According to Zzz: "The MI5 report stated... misleads the reader into believing that this was MI5's categorical judgement - the MI5 report actually merely stated that there was 'evidence from LASCAR [an intelligence agent or source within the PLP] to show...' etc." That LASCAR was, as Zzz's parenthetical addition suggests, an intelligence agent or source within the PLP, is news to me – perhaps there is a source that says this? As far as I know, LASCAR was a code-word for illegally placed listening devices (see, for example, here. I don't think the wording in the article is misleading in any significant sense, but for extra clarity I will amend to: "The MI5 report stated that there was evidence from surveillance to indicate that..." etc.
  • I believe that the article adequately shows general Davies's general political stance: pro-Soviet, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, yet convinced that the Labour Party, not the Communist Party, was the appropriate means for effecting the political changes he wanted. It's obviously possible to add more examples from the sources to underline this or other points, but this is a summary encyclopedia article, not a detailed treatise and I don't think further detail is necessary.
  • Zzz's contention that my refusal to engage further with him closes the nomination is silly and presumptious. I'll happily engage with good-faith reviewers, but Zzz's personal attacks have in my mind made his further participation in the review impossible. I'm not worried about his oppose; the coordinators will decide what value to place on that, and I'll be happy to accept their decision. But I'm not going to be dragged into endless bickering over trivial points or differences of opinion, however much he puffs these up as "extremely serious omissions". Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"perhaps there is a source that says this?" - Yes, the source currently cited in the article.
"personal attacks" - Examples, please.
  • Signedzzz, I've already quoted one instance to you, and there are others, however I don't think that listing them separately here would be at all constructive to the FAC. – SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"extremely serious omissions" - Please don't misquote me: I said "extremely serious factual errors". (However there are also serious omissions.)
It is sad to see you resorting to childish abuse and describing my efforts as not "good-faith". That is a good reason why you should iron out fundamental issues before having an article reviewed. zzz (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: I hardly think that Brianboulton is complaining about a comment I made to you (which you unconvincingly claimed to have misunderstood). So you can't actually find any of these "personal attacks" right now - because it wouldn't be "constructive"? It's more "constructive" to just pretend they exist, then? zzz (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't misquote what I have said: I did not say I could not find any, I said that providing them would not be helpful to the FAC. I don't follow what I am supposed to have "unconvincing claimed to have misunderstood" (and yes, that is another personal attack on another editor). If you refer to the comment I made above that I didn't understand your MI5 point, I didn't, and I don't think most people would have understood it because you provided none in the first instance, or when Brianboulton said he didn't understand either. As to other personal attacks, if you really want to play that game this is one, your comment to which I am replying is another, the one I pointed out to you earlier is another. I really don't want to continue this thread as it's fairly pointless to indicate what should be self-evident, and I see little possibility in anything constructive coming out of continuing. – SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to claim I have made personal attacks, I think it would be constructive to actually quote one for me, which you still haven't been able to do, so I suggest you drop it. zzz (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the diffs. If you are unable to see that you have made personal attacks that are clear to everyone else, there is no point in continuing. – SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in you continuing make allegations you can't substantiate, I agree, or claiming to know what "everyone else" thinks. zzz (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud:

  • Accusing an editor of "carefully cultivated disdain and contempt"
  • To the same editor: "you elect to sit in judgement"
  • To numerous editors: "personal allegiance to the nominator notwithstanding"

If you are unable to see that you have breached the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF guidelines then yes, there is little point in continuing, particularly as you have tried to misquote me above. I have nothing further to say, as anything nothing constructive will follow. – SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accusing an editor of "a hostility prevelant in some of your later remarks which doesn't augur well". Just drop the personal attack routine, already. You claim to know what everyone is thinking, so you must realise that no one is buying it. zzz (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's not really some thing that will cause me a lack of sleep, considering I've provided you with the diffs of the behaviour you asked for. Toodle-oo. – SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see it in black and white, I have to agree. Please consider the offending phrases struck. zzz (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zzz: in view of the above exchange I'd like to proffer an olive branch. Can we agree to set aside all previous accusations and counter-accusations of hostility, personal attacks etc, and try to resolve our remaining differences within a framework of collegial discourse? And if we can't ultimately agree, to at least "agree to differ" on a civilised basis? If we have the shared objective of improving the encyclopeadia, this should be possible. In the review I have tried to answer your points, albeit not always to your satisfaction. In a summary encyclopaedia biography I believe it is a matter of judgement as to what detail should be included to support the broad themes (take a look at Davies's ODNB entry and see what's omitted there). The objective is to remain neutral and reflect what the sources say; this is what I've tried to do. If you think that the article does not at present meet this objective, then we can discuss how this can be achieved. I'm prepared to give it a try. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I agree, it is mostly just a matter of judgement. As far as I can see there are just two points. "The MI5 report stated that there was evidence from surveillance..." - "from surveillance" should be removed, as per the source cited in the article. The source you cited above on this page is not authoritative enough to counter the opinion expressed in the article source, which is more reserved about the attention level of MI5.
  • "Especially in the wake of Hitler's accession to power, he warned in 1934 that the Communist Party's policy of violent revolution could open the door to fascism and, instead, he urged unity around the Labour Party. For similar reasons, he rejected the ILP's turn to the left in the early 1930s..." This jumped out at me from the Griffiths source. It seems important to me for two reasons. It explains his politics regarding the war. And, there is very little in the article, I think, about the ideological divide between Davies and the far left, particularly the Soviet Union. zzz (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give me the page number in the Griffiths source where this wording occurs? I couldn't find it in a quick run-thrpough. but I do miss things sometimes. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page 20. With more about the ILP (and Welsh nationalism) on 19. I don't know if you think it's worth adding any of this, though. zzz (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I still think " According to Griffiths, Davies was voicing the dilemma that had faced Merthyr Vale miners for years: ignore the dangers of tipping and keep their jobs, or speak out and risk the loss of their livelihood" should be removed. It just expresses a left wing opinion, the opinion of the leader of the Communist Party of Britain, about worker-employer safety disputes which is not specifically relevant to this particular incident, and reads like somewhat like an attempt to minimise his responsibility and involvement on purely subjective grounds. zzz (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This warrants further discussion. First, biographies tend to be full of biographer's opinions, left-wing or otherwise; are we entitled to assume that Griffith's motive was merely to protect a fellow left-winger's memory? You emphasise Griffiths's leadership of the "British Communist Party", which despite its name is a tiny splinter group in the British Communist movement, with less than 1,000 members nationwide. And Griffiths didn't become leader until 1998, long after the book was written, at which time he was principally a Welsh Nationalist. There is no worker-employer safety issue here; the question is more one of local employment versus public safety. As I said earlier, regardless of who gave it, it's a plausible explanation for Davies's silence, and no other explanation is on offer. If you wish, I will try to find a way of rewording to achieve greater neutrality – perhaps a verbatim quotation – but at present I believe that the information ought to be retained in some form. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said earlier, the only difference, and obviously the extraordinary feature of the case, between this and any typical industrial safety issue (besides the very high death toll), is that it was not the safety of the workers that was at stake in this case. But Griffiths' opinion does not address this point. This is could be for ideological reasons, as I believe, and also to protect Davies' reputation as you mention. You could replace the words "of tipping" and "Merthyr Vale miners" (and replace "Davies" with a union boss) and apply the sentence to any other dangerous industry (where only the workers are at risk). zzz (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand the above comment, but the core of your argument still seems to be your conviction that Griffiths's opinion was ideologically inspired and therefore unacceptable. This is not at all how I see it, and don't think we are going to find a compromise. On the basis that your view that Griffiths's opinion should be deleted is possibly more strongly held than mine that it should be kept, I have deleted it, though with some regret. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, for me that was a major obstacle, it really seems much clearer now. Thanks very much for dealing with all this! I have changed my vote at the top of the page to support. zzz (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I am glad that this has been resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr[edit]

Apologies for the delay on this, been busy with Dragon. Re-reading again shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • "After leaving school aged 12 and working for some years in local pits, Davies studied mining engineering and later took an Arts degree at University College, Cardiff." - is it worth mentioning a date here?
  • Dates, so far as we know them, are given in the main body of the text. We mention here his return to the coalfields in 1913, which is probably enough for the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 1924 was appointed SWMF's chief organiser and legal adviser, and its vice-president." -if he was appointed all of these at the same time you don't need two "ands".
  • "Davies was a consistent advocate for the interests of Merthyr Tydfil and the Welsh mining community." -a little vague, could you afford to be a bit more specific and add an extra line here, or do you think it would affect flow?
  • I'd say it's sufficient for the lead – detail in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had not reported his suspicions, for fear that an enquiry would cause the closures of local pits. He did not" -the "he" and "not" repeats a little on me here.
Early life
  • "His ambition and intelligence were quickly recognised by his superiors, and he was encouraged to study mining engineering, at first locally in Aberdare" -do we know the name of the school that he studied it in Abedare?
  • " with a view thereafter to entering the nonconformist ministry." -did you mean "enter" or "entering"?
  • "However, Davies's religious beliefs underwent a change under the influence of R.J. Campbell, a noted preacher who was minister of London's City Temple.[4] Campbell was the author of The New Theology (1907) which rejected much traditional Christian teaching and asserted that socialism was the practical expression of Christianity.[n 3] Davies's association with such supposed heresies was unacceptable to the Brecon college, which withdrew its financial support.[4]" -superfluous I think, why not something like "Brecon college later withdrew their financial support due to Davies's sympathies with the religious beliefs of R.J. Campbell, a noted preacher who controversially asserted that socialism was the practical expression of Christianity. If that's not agreeable to you at least a little trim? I think some of the detail could go in a footnote with that.
Mineworker
  • "Dowlais district" -is there really no electoral division article to link?
  • Dowlais wasn't an electoral division. It was a division of the SWMF (see first line, para 2. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Davies led the continued resistance from the Welsh coalfields through months of lockout, before capitulation on harsh terms in December. Dowlais was the last district to return to work.[17] In 1931 Davies was elected to Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council.[4]" -him continuing to lead the resistance for me would certainly be something worth elaborating on, I think that 1926-1930 period might have a little more detail, is there nothing worth saying about it?
  • Surprisingly, perhaps, the sources (even Griffiths's blockbuster) provided few details of Davies's activities in the years following 1926. There was a lot of in-fighting on the Left during this period, and I've added a couple of sentences dealing with Davies's role in this internal struggle, but gthere's not a lot more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Member of Parliament
  • "in the 1931 general election" -shouldn't you link this at the end of the previous section where you say he was "elected" in 1931? Or do you find this more convenient?
  • He was elected to the Borough Council in 1931; that's nothingb to do with the parliamentary general election of that year. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An uncompromising approach on any questions affecting Merthyr Tydfil or the mining industry generally, became Davies's parliamentary hallmark. " -is the comma needed here?
  • I think the case is that there's a comma required after "Tydfil", which I've added. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1934, Margaret having died in 1932, Davies", to avoid the repetition of dates and improve the flow, perhaps "In 1934, two years after the death of Margaret,"
  • " Hunger March" -no article on this?
  • "In 1945–46 he served as Merthyr Tydfil's mayor, remaining on the local council until 1949.[16]" -I think I would expect a bit more detail on his term as mayor. What were his main accomplishments and actions?
  • Again, the sources record nothing of any consequence. The only thing I can find is that he presided over the ceremony that awarded the freedom of the borough to Attlee, and I didn't think that warranted inclusion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "NUM"?
  • Link CIA?
  • "Davies pressed on, and on" -rep of "on" can be avoided here with a rewording.
  • "According to Griffiths, when Soviet troops suppressed the Hungarian uprising in October 1956, Davies was troubled, but refused to join in the general censure lest this give comfort to the enemies of socialism. He was to be equally silent during and after the events of the Prague Spring of 1968[49]—in sharp contrast to his condemnation of the "criminally dangerous and irresponsible heroics" of the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962.[50] In 1961, at the request of the Labour Party leadership, Davies was investigated by the British security services as a possible Communist Party member. The MI5 report stated that "if not of the Party he is at least very close to it indeed".[51]" -is there nothing more to say about his work in 1960-65 period?
  • Not that stands out. He fulfilled his parliamentary and local duties but, but created few headlines. That's not uncommon in a career as long as his. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aberfan
  • This section reads a little strangely as it partly reads more like something you'd read in the article about the disaster or its politics rather than from the biographical perspective of Davies. Is there a way do you think that it could be rewritten a little more from his viewpoint?
  • I take your point and have sought to address it. I think it's necessary to give the basic details of the tragedy, but I've added information to the first paragraph giving details of Davies's immediate reactions and his on-the-scene presence. I've also incorporated most of the final paragraph into a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1970 election and Final years
  • "Davies's campaign was initially very low-key." -can you think of something more sophisticated here than "very low-key"?
  • Bit puzzled by this – the term is not slang and is in wide general use, so I don't see a problem. Do you have a suggestion? Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, I don't know, it's one of those terms which I don't take well for something reason! I guess you could have always used South Wales slang and said "Davies's campaign was initially not tidy-like". Hehe.
  • "the confidence of the people recently shown him was", is this intentional or would "the confidence that the people had recently shown him was" fit better?

In excellent shape, look forward to supporting once addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:Thank you for this detailed review and for the helpful comments. I've done what I can to address your concerns – let me know if you have any outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure BB. Sometimes frame of mind helps when reviewing critically, I had too much on my mind the other day to really give this a grilling haha. Always difficult to find anything above nitpicking with you though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent article which clearly covers what is available on the subject well and passes the FA criteria with flying colours. Hope to see this promoted by the end of the month in coordination with this month's Dragon because Brian has worked very hard to get this where it is which I greatly appreciate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Sodavies.jpg: BBC credits this to the National Library of Wales - have you tried to contact them to ascertain authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have established that the original photograph was taken by Geoff Charles, and added this detail. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Commons has Commons:Category:Photographs by Geoff Charles in the National Library of Wales and there is an article on the photographer at Geoff Charles. It may be that the NLW only released a small number of images under a free license for that category. The creator of that category is Jason Evans (Wikimedian in Residence based at the National Library of Wales) who may be able to help clarify things here (though maybe you are already satisfied with the response you got when contacting the NLW direct). It is worth adding death year when known for a photographer, as that allows future calculation of when the image enters the public domain (I've added this to the image). It was also cropped from here, and the exact date is there (also now added to the image page). Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Library of Wales have very kindly agreed to upload the image in question to Commons on a CC-0 license (as it owns copyright for this collection)I have replaced the Fair Use Image with this new version in the article.Jason.nlw (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for your efforts here – most useful Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Support – A quick exception to my current Wikibreak in view of the April deadline for wakening the Welsh dragon. I am old enough to remember Davies and his combative relations with his own party, and it seems to me that this article does the subject justice in every respect. The information that Ted Rowlands won the seat back for Labour seems slightly out place under the heading "Tributes", but I am bound to admit that no better title for the section leaps to mind, and it is a point of exceedingly minor import. The sourcing of the article is excellent and remarkably broad; the prose is polished and a pleasure to read; the balance is impeccable, and the illustrations are as good as one could expect. Very happy to support, and I hope this will become a Featured Article in time for the Dragon's late breakfast. – Tim riley talk 07:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, for taking the time to look at this. At your prompting I've shifted the news of Rowlands's victory to the previous section, which I agree is more appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. One quick set of questions relating to trade union roles he held: at the bottom of the article are two succession boxes for two of the trade union offices he held. Both are vice-presidencies, one for a year (National Union of Mineworkers) and the other for eight years (South Wales Miners Federation). The VP of South Wales Miners Federation is mentioned in the lead (where it says he was appointed) and in the main body of the article (where it says he was elected in 1924 - the succession box says 1925). The article does not mention his vice-presidency of the NUM. Should it? I read somewhere that the NUM sponsored him as an MP, whatever that means. Did he give up these posts when he moved into Westminster politics? Also, do we know who preceded him in the VP of the SWMF role? The succession box has a question mark (it was William Brace from 1898–1912 and James Winstone from 1912–1915). I think it was Enoch Morrell ([52]), but cannot verify that with certainty. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not compile the succession box, but can provide the following answers to your queries:
  • Davies was elected to the SWMF vice-presidency in 1924. It is possible that his term of office began in 1925, but I think for consistency the navbox should indicate 1924 and I've altered it. None of the sources I have mention who he replaced, and I don't see anything in the link you provide to suggest that it was Enoch Morrell – maybe you have other evidence?
  • As to his vice-presidency of the NUM, this should read "Miners' Federation of Great Britain", the precursor of the NUM before 1945; I have altered accordingly. None of the sources, even the detailed Griffiths biography, give details of his MFGB vice-presidency during 1933–34. I suspect that this might have been an honorary appointment reflecting his lengthy service on the MFGB executive, but I don't know. It would be good to have this appointment confirmed.
  • Trade union support or "sponsorship" of parliamentary candidates was common in industrial constituencies, although the choice of candidate remained with the local party association. Davies was originally supported by the MFGB, later by the NUM; I have added a brief note to this effect. Such sponsorship did not affect Davies's independence, as Lawther discovered after his spat with Davies in 1953. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clearing that up. There is a source that is not easy to link to that says Morrell was VP of the SWMF in 1922. While trying (and failing) to verify aspects of that, I came across this source: Rebirth of a Nation: Wales, 1880-1980 (1981) by Kenneth O. Morgan, Oxford University Press. On page 284 there is mention of the election, noting that Davies was "elected by a large majority over the right-wing Arthur Jenkins" (possibly this Arthur Jenkins (politician) who was elected VP in 1934). That source has a bit more on Davies (a nice description on page 281), from the perspective of someone who looks to be a good source on Welsh history (you have him in the sources already with his ODNB article on Keir Hardie), but you may have enough already. Some of the phrasing Kenneth Morgan uses might add a bit more (e.g. "sombre-clad", "eccentric", "much-revered", "distinctive figure", "powerful personal following"). Carcharoth (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first line of the "Tributes" section adequately records Davies's distinctive, eccentric appearance, but thanks for providing the additional information. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Standardize: ISBNs 10- or 13-digit
  • Done - 13-digit
  • Check alphabetization in Hansard (Parliamentary debates) (I see you're going by volume, but none of the other sections are organized like that)
  • The Hansard sources are arranged in chronological sequence, which seems the most sensible way of dealing with them - essentially they are all pages from one vast online source. I don't see any great advantage in putting them in alphabetical order. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. As I said, I saw what you're doing, but people may consider it a lack of consistency. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added


Thank you for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that Awaken the Dragon is ending on 2 May evening now to allow a three day finale, so if a little extra time is needed on promoting this it's there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. An excellent well-written article. The only thing I could find wrong was a typo (fixed). While staying on subject the article also illustrates the roots, development, and dilemnas of welsh radicalism from religious non-confirmity into socialist radicalism as personified by an awkward bugger! Robevans123 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your interest and support. Awkward bugger notwithstanding, he appears to have beem much loved by his people. Hard to think of a modern day equivalent. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I know zilch about politics, but this article is very well-written and quite informative, even to someone living on the other side of the world. It was very interesting (and inspiring) to read about such a rebellious personality, and I find no reason to believe that this does not meet the FA requirements. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support. I'm glad you found the article interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 2 May 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) 23:07, 6 May 2016 [53].

From Russia, with Love (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Russia, with Love is the fifth in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories, and the one where he got his structure and form bang on the nose, according to many. It's a 'proper' spy novel (as opposed to its predecessor) and was written during one of the cold points of the Cold War. This nom follows a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bruce1ee

Just a couple of drive-by comments, more to follow later:

  • Publication history: why not give the publisher of the American edition.
  • Overlooked as most of the main sources don't give it because it's not that important, but I'll track down a source and add it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: "From Russia, with Love received positive reviews from critics" – is that what the Parker source says, because this section includes a few less-than-complementary reviews? The lead says it better ("... received broadly positive reviews ...").
  • Yes, as does Benson: both do not shy away from the term, even though we have in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: none of the images have any alt text.
  • I'll add it shortly, but it's a 'nice to have' not a cast-iron necessity. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'd argue with that: WP:ALT seems to me a prescription rather than mere advice. Tim riley talk 18:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. —Bruce1eetalk 12:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Bruce1ee - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment: Ref 63 ("The President's Voracious Reading Habits") doesn't have a page number. —Bruce1eetalk 09:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything seems fine now. Well done. —Bruce1eetalk 09:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Bruce1ee: much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article, could find little fault with it at the PR. A clear FA quality article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Doc - your PR input was invaluable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well put together. Just a few thoughts:

  • "The novel was first published in the UK" - should UK be expanded?
  • Sources are all from reliable publishers.
  • No dead links.
  • No dablinks. FrB.TG (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks FrB.TG - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looking in again, as a brief exception to a few months' Wikibreak, I find my impression at the PR stage confirmed: this article is of FA standard, meeting all the criteria. Rereading it, I find no drafting points to quibble at. There are a couple of words that I might hyphenate were I the author, but de gustibus, and there is no reason to object to the unhyphenated form. Tim riley talk 18:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim - feel free to hyphenate where you would. I tend to use it too much, so gave pobably over compensated here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Which edition is the page number given in the infobox for?
  • FN14: page?
  • How are you ordering multiple sources with the same authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All now tweaked. Many thanks as always. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Moisejp

Support – SchroCat responded to all of the issues I brought up during the peer review and FAC. I'm basically ready to support, but I'm just noticing a few final things as I do one more read-through.
Plot

  • "They persuade an attractive young cipher clerk, Corporal Tatiana Romanova, to falsely defect..." I was wondering whether something like "pretend to defect" would be clearer and more precise. I'm not sure that I would use "falsely" exactly in this way.
  • I'm happier with "falsely" over "pretend to". If there was another suggestion I would happily consider it tho. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After dinner, at which Nash has drugged Romanova, Bond wakes up..." Was Bond drugged too? The caption of the image you deleted I think also said he was drugged, and here it says he wakes up (in the restaurant car)?
  • (Minor comment) "Bond attacks and Grant is killed as Bond and Romanova escape." Here "as" possibly suggests the two things possibly happen at the same time, but I imagined Bond killing him and then escaping?
  • "Later, in Paris, after successfully delivering Romanova and the booby-trapped Spektor to his superiors" Maybe nothing needs to be changed, but I was just curious whether "deliver" means his superiors just wanted to question Romanova, or whether in the end Bond caught onto her part in the scheme and she was "under arrest". Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first: she was, afer all, supposed to be a defector. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background and writing history

  • I'm very confused by the timeline here: In August 1956 Fleming commissioned Chopping to do the cover, and the book came out in April 1957, but Boothroyd wrote a letter to Fleming after the book had been published, and Boothroyd's suggested gun was used as the model for the cover art? The image of the book cover (with the gun and the rose) in the infobox says that was the first edition. I must be missing something obvious.
  • Wrong book name! I'm tweaked it a little to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) Just wanted to check whether it was intentional that in the boxed quotes from Fleming and Boothroyd you use spaced en dashes, while everywhere else you use unspaced em dashes (maybe they appear that way in the original quotes?). Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the originals use spaced dashes, so I have. I think I have swapped such dashes around in other works (as we are able to do with minor formatting issues) so if you'd prefer consistency, I'm happy to oblige. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

  • "Benson sees the other characters in the book to be well developed": This wording may suggest that he doesn't see Bond as being well developed. Was that intentional?

I think that's all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Moisejp. If I've madeno coment to the cotrary, I've adopted your comments accordingly. Thanks very much for your careful work here and at the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect. All of my concerns really are now addressed, and the support I mentioned above stands. I went ahead and changed the dashes to em dashes for consistency. Moisejp (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Moisejp: much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Not that it's really needed but I reviewed/passed an earlier version of the article at GAN and stopped by at the recent PR, so will recuse from coord duties to complete my involvement. Prose-wise I just tweaked/trimmed a couple of things, nothing that vital. I know the book well and feel that Gavin has given a comprehensive account of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Not having participated in the peer review, this is my first reading, so I have a few points to raise, mostly of a minor nature:

Lead
  • "Fleming wrote the story in early 1956 at his Goldeneye estate in Jamaica; at the time he did not know whether he wanted to write another Bond book." I assume it means he thought at the time that this might be his final Bond book, but this needs stating more clearly.
  • "The book's sales were supported..." I think "boosted"
Plot
  • "They persuade an attractive young cipher clerk, Corporal Tatiana Romanova, to falsely defect from her post in Istanbul, claiming to have fallen in love with Bond after seeing a photograph on his file." I imagine that Soviet spymasters instructed rather than "persuaded" underlings to do their bidding. Also the syntax is dodgy; a suggested rephrase: "to falsely defect from her post in Istanbul having, she would claim, fallen in love..." etc
  • The detail about gypsies, two women fighting, and Bulgarian agents doesn't seem central to the plot and could perhaps be omitted.
  • "Bond encounters Romanova" - sounds as if by chance. Perhaps "meets"
  • "and she, Bond and Kerim" → "and the three" (avoiding names repetition)
  • The second "with the Spektor" could be omitted.
Background and writing history
  • "One of the significant re-writes changed Bond's fate": the plot summary reveals that Bond's fate was equivocal, and it would be interesting to know what was Fleming's original intention.
Plot inspirations
  • "following his involvement in a near-fatal crash" – perhaps give a date for this experience.
Characters
  • Sentence length: Look at the one beginning "The novelist Raymond Benson..."
  • Close repetition of "nervous"
  • "that Fleming also wrote" → "that Fleming also created"
  • Perhaps specify "the short story "Risico"
  • "...sees the character as having some of the moral qualities of the villain which are used in support of 'good'." Beats me, I'm afraid.
  • "Eco considers the Russians "so monstrous..." etc. Does Eco mean actual Russians, or the Russians as depicted in the book?
  • Charlie Higson's opinions presumably carry weight because he is a later Bond writer. Perhaps make this point in the text (you do so for Amis later on)
Style
  • No issues here.
Themes
  • The preface note "indicates" or "signals", rather than "ensures". I'd rephrase: "indicates that in this novel, 'cold war tensions...' " etc.
  • "With the British Empire in decline, the journalist William Cook observed..." Needs to be the other way round: "The journalist William Cook observed that, with the British Empire in decline,..." etc. And for consistency, "observed" should be "observes"
  • Bond's statement that "we don't show teeth any more—only gums" appears to recognise the decline of British power, but not the illusion that "England might once again be placed at the centre of world affairs", so "this", in "this manifested itself", needs more precise definition.
  • The word "consider" is perhaps overused in this section. There are alternatives, e.g. "suggest", "argue". "maintain" or the good old "according to", for variety's sake (but not, please, "opined")
Publication history
  • The Edens' visit was in November 1956, some months before the book's publication, so I'd reword: "In November 1956 the Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, had visited..." etc
  • "a boost in" → "a boost to", and later "a boost of" should be similarly amended.
  • Pipelink Pan (the pipes of Pan?)
Reception
  • "received positive reviews" should perhaps read "received mainly positive reviews", as there were some dissidents.
  • I'd describe Cheyney as a "crime fiction writer of the 1930s and 1940s" rather than the, as there were undoubtedly others.
  • ("Opined" - oh, dear)
  • "went on to write" → "wrote" (or possibly "further wrote")?
Adaptations
  • You describe the Daily Express here as a "newspaper", which you didn't do when you mentioned it earlier. The description is arguable, but if employed, should be used at the first mention.
  • "had adapted in such a way"? What does that imply?
  • We have "adapted", "adapted" and "adaptation" in very close proximity; some variation advised.
  • You might mention that the film has a somewhat different, less enigmatic ending.
  • I'd give the year of the radio adaptation at the beginning rather than the end of the relevant sentence.

And that's all. I don't see any major issues with above and will be happy to support in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian. These are my tweaks based on your comments. I think I've covered them all, and hope I've done them justice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Yes, fine. I've done a few more prose fixes, fuss-pot that I am – you might wan't to check them (small stuff). Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brian, Many thanks as always for your eagle eye - it is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Followed the PR, and made a few edits. In fine shape. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Ceoil for your PR edits - they were just the ticket. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Allow me to join the pile-on. I read all the way through the article and didn't spot anything I would have changed. Well done. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Giants - mkuch appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very quick comment: If Dr. No is the follow up to this book, I think it should be mentioned a bit more prominently than in the infobox. We end the synopsis with a cliffhanger, which makes this a bit more pressing than in other books. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Hi Chris, yes, I've now added a line in the body to,that effect. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still doesn't say it was a sequel "By January 1957 Fleming had decided he would write another story, and began work on Dr. No" could also imply Dr. No is a prequel or interquel (like Red Rabbit). Perhaps something like ""By January 1957 Fleming had decided he would write another story, and began work on Dr. No, in which Bond recovers from his poisoning and is sent to Jamaica" or something of the ilk. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, now added. (I'd not thought of the prequel possibility), cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 24 April 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) 23:06, 6 May 2016 [54].

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the little-known series of bombardments on Japanese cities conducted by US, British and New Zealand warships during the last weeks of World War II. These attacks sought to provoke the Japanese into committing their reserve aircraft force to battle. While the Japanese didn't take the bait, the bombardments inflicted significant damage on industrial facilities and cities. Two American submarines also conducted much smaller-scale bombardments, with one of them even landing a small group of sailors who booby-trapped a railway line.

I've been working on this article on and off for five years. As there's no single, comprehensive, account of the attacks, I've needed to piece the article together from a surprisingly large number of sources sourced from multiple libraries and websites. While all the attacks are now covered in detail, the level of detail does vary a little bit. The article was a DYK in 2011, and passed a GA review last February. I successfully nominated it for a Military History Wikiproject A-class review earlier this year, and it passed in early March. I have since further copy-edited and expended the article, and am hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Great work. It is satisfying that we now have a comprehensive account of the attacks. I just have one minor comment. The article says that 34 Allied prisoners of war died in the bombardments. Is this figure correct? The article says that 5 were killed in the first attack on Kamaishi and 27 in the second, which adds up to 32. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Roskill, Stephen W. (1961), listed in the bibliography does not appear to be among the cited sources. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, and for spotting those errors: I've just fixed both of them. I really should be able to add up! Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Support on prose and content. I have not checked sources. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: It looks good overall, but I do have a few concerns:

  • There's redundant wording. Please trim back use of 'also', 'again', 'further', and 'in addition' per eliminating redundancy.
  • Can the vagueness be resolved? I.e. instances of 'several' and 'small number'. (However, if that is the original wording from the source, I'll understand if not much can be done.)
    • Tweaked a bit, but the sources do not provide exact figures, and in general any figures would be unreliable approximations based on flawed wartime assesments or not useful to readers in this context anyway. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that restrictive clauses beginning with 'which' should use a comma or begin with 'that'.
    • "...against the Allied invasion which was expected...",
    • "...groups of aircraft carriers which formed the...",
    • "...with the aircraft which were being held in reserve...",
    • "...the fleet of ships which carried...",
    • "...18/19 July which destroyed or damaged...",
    • "...disruption to vital services which caused the factory...",
    • "...fire on small groups of ships which were probably fishing..."
    • "...and comprised the ships which had bombarded the city..."
    • "...force of American submarines which had been operating..."
    • "...general-purpose bombs which were used by Allied..."
    • "...the industrial facilities which suffered little damage..."
  • "...urban area and essential services, however": the 'however' should start this sentence.
    • Done, and the sentence tweaked so it reads better. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...base at Kushimoto, a landing field near Cape Shionomisaki and a radio station": is a comma needed before the 'and', or is the clause explaining the purpose of the base?
    • I don't believe that a comma is needed before an 'and' at the end of sentences like this. The base is identified as a seaplane base. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the interest of getting through this, I added the comma. I think Prae has a point that there's a possible (but not likely) misreading without it. Generally, I don't give comma advice, I get very little love for that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be clearer to use a hyphen when listing the shell sizes in combination with the quantity. Hence: "803 16-in (410 mm) shells". (Some national numbering standards use a space instead of a comma, so it can prove a little confusing.)
    • That's a good idea, and solves a problem with this wording which Dank noted during the A-class review but which we (or at least I) couldn't think of a solution for. Done. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...experimental 5-inch rocket launcher...": these units should be presented in a manner consistent with the rest of the article. I.e. "...experimental 5-in (127 mm) rocket launcher...".
  • Terms should be linked: calibers (-> caliber); home islands (-> Japanese archipelago).
    • Linked, with second being a bit of a miss on my part: thanks for spotting it. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider using {{sfn}} for your references so they are linked to the bibliography entry.
    • While I frequently (though not always) use that format now, it's not a FA requirement. Given that the number of references used isn't huge, I don't think that readers will have problems matching the cites with the books. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Praemonitus. I'll respond tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - I think that I've now actioned all your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Thanks for the ping, Nick, and thanks for looking at prose, Praemonitus. Concerning "16-in", hyphens are just a generally vexed issue and we often can't find consensus on usage. On the "which" question: there are many writers (including Nick) who use what's commonly called the "restrictive which" a lot. AHD says this use of which with restrictive clauses is very common, even in edited prose, and it's even more common in BritEng than among Americans. Twenty years ago, I personally didn't find the usage notes of the major dictionaries very helpful, when they existed at all; nowadays, they're plentiful and useful, and often used to settle questions like these. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Caveat: since "which" can be restrictive or nonrestrictive, it's important to keep an eye out for garden paths. That is, if the first few words after "which" don't clarify whether it's meant to be restrictive, then "that" will improve readability. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Praemonitus, I hope that helps. Also ... I just had a look at your comments in FACs and TFARs ... excellent work, carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a note on my note: Nick-D is Australian. I'm referring to "BritEng" here only because most of the Australian writers I work with talk about BritEng, and aim for a style that is more or less BritEng. When Australians say "AugEng", I say that too ... I'm not trying to inject a bias in favor of BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for those comments Dank. I've tried to write the article in American English given its content, but it's a language I'm rather inexpert in at times! ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- recusing from coord duties, I missed this one at MilHist ACR but it looks like the hard work's been done, just a few tweaks prose/formatting-wise (happy to discuss anything), no concerns with structure, tone or comprehensiveness (though admittedly I'm not a subject matter expert) and the choice of images seems particularly good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- see no issues re. reliability, and formatting looks good (I tweaked one inconsistency) but re. Blair, I wouldn't expect an OCLC when you have an ISBN (probably all the books have OCLCs and I assume there's nothing special about this one). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 16 April 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) 21:14, 6 May 2016 [55].

U.S. Route 16 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the more historical highways in Michigan, connecting its two largest cities until it was decommissioned as an active designation in the 1960s. In an earlier era, it was a footpath used by Native Americans before European settlement of the Great Lakes State, then it was a wagon trail called the Grand River Road. As is typical now for me, this is one of the best resources on the Internet available today on the history of US 16, and I feel it warrants nomination for FA status. Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Noting that I intend to take a look at this one. I'm leaning support since I reviewed it at the ACR, but there have been some changes since then, so I want to do my due diligence. --Rschen7754 07:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that source 28 isn't a SPS - could you elaborate? Otherwise, I didn't find any issues. --Rschen7754 18:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rschen7754: I had tracked down Forsyth's source, so I can switch it out with a manuscript published by the East Lansing Public Library in 1933, eliminating that web-based source. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I supported this article at ACR. I have looked over the changes that have been made since then and feel this article meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 02:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful article. Well researched and scrupulously documented An important part of highway and Michigan history. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the model WP article LavaBaron (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support (having stumbled here from my FAC.

  • Is Carferry really a term? Seems like that might need a link. You use it three times without explanation (although it's pretty obvious what it is).
  • "With the coming of the Interstate Highway System, US 16 was shifted from the older roads to the newer freeways. " - was US 16 shifted because of the expected arrival of the interstate? Or was it because of the development of the interstate?
  • You probably can't affect this, but could you put Grand Rapids in the map in the infobox?
  • "The freeway was then designated Interstate 96 (I-96) east of Grand Rapids or I-196 west of that city." - why or and not and?
  • was an Indian trail. This trail - given the redundancy here, could you merge the sentences? It makes for better flow.
  • These two highways ran concurrently out of town to the south through Muskegon Heights to Norton Shores. Here - Is "here" appropriate for a wiki article? No one is actually "here" (unless they're reading the article at that intersection), so shouldn't it be "there"? Very semantic/pedantic, but I feel it's worth asking. Ditto later with "From here east".
  • "The freeway intersected the contemporaneous routing of US 131 along the East Beltline and curved south through the eastern edge of Grand Rapids to meet the then-current end of I-96 east of downtown." - it's a bit confusing. I don't think you need to be so careful about the wording here. It's clear that US 16 was decommissioned, but the freeway still exists, right? In that case, I think you can get rid of "contemporaneous" and "then-current".
  • "which carried US 16 east all the way to Downtown Detroit" - I think "continuously" would work better than "all the way"
  • "Grand River Avenue ends at Cascade Road, but the historic routing carried it through Ada and Plainfield Township along the Grand River." - I don't think you should mention the historic route here. It just confused me as I was trying to follow the description. And you wouldn't need as much info here (which is detailed enough as it is).
  • "Near Farmington, I-96 left what is now its current routing and continued to the southeast of the present-day I-96/I-275/I-696/M-5 interchange along the current M-5. Grand River Avenue through here was Business Loop I-96 (BL I-96)." - a little time travel wonkiness
  • Is there an article for "Indian trail"? You mention it several times, but you never describe it. Was it an official designation? Was it just a nickname for a series of roads? Does the term "trail" mean something specific here? Like, I know there was the Oregon Trail that was a [[Westward Expansion Trails], as a wagon network, but what is it here?
  • "Detroit created 120-foot (37 m) rights-of-way for the principal streets of the city, Grand River Avenue included, in 1805." - weird sentence structure here. I'd put "in 1805" first
  • "and drivers charged between four and seven cents a mile (equivalent to $0.82–1.44/mi in 2013[19])" - 2016? Ditto - "with an appropriation of $25,000 (equivalent to $14.7 million in 2013[21])"

All in all it looks very good, just some minor comments here. I'll be happy to support with these fairly minor changes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: sorry for the delay in replying. All of the above copy edits have been applied. Regarding a few of your comments:
  • Oddly, "car ferry" itself is a disambiguation page that says the North American usage applies only to train ferries, and points to Roll-on/roll-off for the automotive use case. The ferries on the Great Lakes did start out carrying train cars and branched out to automobiles. Later, they dropped train service.
  • @Fredddie: about the map, unless I get around to playing with it myself. (It's an SVG, so it's highly editable.)
  • Since US 131 followed a different routing through Grand Rapids at the time, I left in "contemporaneous" in that sentence.
  • Sadly, we don't have an article on Indian trails, which were the footpaths used by the natives before Europeans arrived. I applied a few edits to hopefully clarify that.
  • The inflation values are given to 2013 for a specific reason. The tolls are adjusted using the Consumer Price Index, which has a dataset up through 2015, but capital appropriations are adjusted using the Nominal Gross Domestic Product per capita index. The NGDPPC values use a data set only current through 2013 because that index takes longer to calculate for each year. (I traditionally remember to update the dataset on April 15, Tax Day, each year.) I set both template calls to adjust to the same year for consistency, and once the NGDPPC data is updated, both update in the article to 2014 values.
Imzadi 1979 → 13:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me amend that last point slightly, the dataset can be updated this year to 2015 NGDPPC values soon. The government released figures on February 26, 2016, and will update them on March 25, 2016. That means the way that I coded the inflation templates, they'll both jump to 2015 when I remember to check the website again. Imzadi 1979 → 13:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick replies, happy to support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - source and image review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. Everything is cited and formatted correctly. Cite 67 is unusual, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be as accepted as a Rand McNally map. So, no complaints here. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - While this was checked in 2013 at the ACR stage, I checked the images again and found nothing of concern. --Rschen7754 04:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: source and image reviews done. Thoughts on moving forward? Imzadi 1979 → 08:49, 6 May 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) 21:15, 6 May 2016 [56].

Boise National Forest[edit]

Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second nomination of this article for FA status. The first was a year ago, and after taking it to GA status, I'm renominating it. I think this article comprehensively covers numerous aspects about this national forest in Idaho. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Imzadi1979[edit]

I'll go ahead and give this a basic source review after meandering here from my own nomination:

  • A key hallmark of FA status can be summed up in one word: consistency, and with citations, I'll probably mention that a lot. First example: "United States Geological Survey" but you have "U.S. Forest Service". I don't think either is wrong, but it's odd to have one spelled out fully, but the other is partially abbreviated. Further down, in note 16, the former gets abbreviated down to just "USGS", and it should be spelled out in whatever fashion to match. So in short, you should audit how you're going to spell out agency names and apply a consistent rule across all of the footnotes.
  • Back to note 16, you have an access date defined, but no URL, which triggers an error message. (It might be one of the error messages that's hidden by default, but it's there all the same for those of us who have them all enabled.) The access date does not display without a URL defined, and it would be meaningless if it could be displayed anyway.
    • Also, and this is a bit of a personal preference, but maps have authors, which can be the same organization as the publisher. I personally list the USGS in both positions in the template and include the place of publication (Reston, VA) for map citations. It's also my experience that map scales with numbers of 5 digits or more have commas inserted (1:24,000) to ease parsing the number.
  • Note 17, etc, shouldn't have the publisher wikilinked after it was in the very first note. You may need to bypass a source-specific template and use {{cite web}} directly to customize the output to avoid an unneeded wikilink.
  • In note 45, "New York, NY" the state abbreviation is normally not needed when New York is the place of publication for a book.
  • In sequential notes (53–54), you have "Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service" and just "Rocky Mountain Research Station" as the publisher. Especially if you can wikilink the first one, you could use the shorter form alone
  • In note 63, etc, "Incident Information System" sounds to me like the name of a website/work, and I'm left wondering whose system that is, i.e. who's the publisher?
  • I corrected it to "InciWeb" and added a wikilink. It's an interagency service in the U.S. government.
  • For the map in note 79, I'd spell out the series name as you did in note 16.

The sources are all appropriate for the article, so the only quibbles I have are related to the formatting, not their quality or reliability on first blush. Imzadi 1979 → 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all of these corrections. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

This is my first sight of the article – I missed the previous FAC. I've read that review, and it seems that prose quality was the principal reason why it was archived. So I've been looking particularly at the prose. Hmmm. I've got as far as the end of the "Management" section, and found quite a few issues. These are all fixable, but will require some attention, and I'd obviously like to look at the rest. In the meantime, please consider the following:

  • Lead: "in addition to" is not appropriate wording, as the facts that follow it are quite separate from the land cover details. I suggest something like "...spruce-fir forests; there are 9,600 miles (15,400 km) of streams and rivers, and 15,400 acres (6,200 ha) of lakes and reservoirs."
  • Done.
  • Also in lead: by "through the mid-twentieth century" I assume you mean "until the mid-twentieth century". This is important, because in British English, "through" means "during the duration of" rather than "up to", as in "he lived through the war years".
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "The most important known placer deposit of niobium and tantalum in the United States is located in Bear Valley." Needs a citation.
  • Done. Though the last three sentences in that paragraph are all covered by the same page of the same source.
  • "The President was given the authority..." Clarify you mean the U.S. president.
  • Done.
  • This seems like unnecessary detail in this article: "The original Payette National Forest had been established on June 3, 1905 as Payette Forest Reserve".
  • I think it is necessary since it shows when the forest was first protected. I moved it and reworded that section so it makes more sense.
  • Over-use of the word "establiahed" in the latter part of the US Forestry section. Try some synonyms, e.g. "formed", "set up", "founded" etc
  • Done.
  • I think the rather clumsy formation "and a district ranger who manages the ranger district" could be replaced by "and is managed by a district ranger"
  • Done.
  • Is it necesssary to name the "top forest official" – and that title sounds a little informal for an encyclopaedia?
  • Removed.
  • This is very clumsy: "There have been 2,648,273 acres (10,717.18 km2) of Idaho proclaimed to be part of Boise National Forest, however the forest manages only about 2,203,703 acres (891,807 ha)." Apart from the awkward wording and inappropriate comma, why is the first figure given an equivalence in km2 and the second in hectares?
  • I reworked this.
  • I'm afraid my head started to spin when I tried to follow the details in the second part of the Management section. Is all this detail necessary? If so, is this the best way of presenting it? Perhaps a table – I don't know, but you may lose readers in this morass of detail.
  • I'm not sure it would really fit into a table. I do think it is necessary to include the sentences about the two wilderness areas since they are quite large areas, but the rest could perhaps just be removed. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll return later with my comments on the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing: Sorry for the delay:

Geog and geology
  • "which extend even further north and east..." I don't see a need for "even further"
  • Done.
  • "are referred to as the Trinity Mountains" – is this a formal alternate name or some sort of local usage? Some clarification needed.
  • Reworded to eliminate "referred" and indicate it is a subrange. This is an official name supported by the GNIS reference at the end of the sentence.
  • "The forest borders parts of seven reservoirs, however the Forest Service does not own or manage any of the dams." Inappropriate comma and dodgy "however". Perhaps revise: "The forest borders parts of seven reservoirs, none of which are owned or managed by the Forest Service". This could merge with the next sentence if you replace "Rather, it..." with "which".
  • Done.
  • What are "acre feet"? An explanatory note would help.
  • Linked
Climate
  • Just a comment: bearing in mind Idaho's location in the North-west of the States, I'm a little surprised that its climate is affected by moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, which seems very distant.
  • I removed "Gulf of Mexico" because it does seem odd and overly specific but not impossible
  • I assume the snowfall figures are annual averages?
  • Clarified.
Natural resources
  • Can we somehow avoid "ecoregion" occuring three times in the first line of the section?
  • I think the third can be removed, but think the first two link to ecoregion and distinguish between the batholith itself and its eponymous ecoregion.
  • "the presence of frequent non-lethal fires" − I think "occurence" rather than presence. How about: "the frequent occurence of non-lethal fires"?
  • Agreed and changed
  • You have "Douglas fir occasionally occur" (plural verb form) but later "Douglas fir dominates" (singular verb form). Consistency needed – the latter is preferable and in more general use.
  • Done
  • Overuse of "dominates/dominated" – five in quick succession. "Is predominant", or some other variant, would make a change.
  • Changed a few
  • "Boise National Forest is directed to "control the establishment..." – who does the directing?
  • Higher level regional and/or national level Forest Service management, which I revised to
  • "Habitat in Boise National Forest supports..." – "Habitat" is not a mass noun, so it should be "Habitats"
  • Done
  • "including 36 accidental species, or those that are not normally found in the region but have been observed on at least one occasion". A little unclear; I suggest "including 36 "accidental" species – those not normally found in the region but have been observed on at least one occasion".
  • Done
  • "Deadwood Lookout is now maintained as a cabin that can be rented by the public" – this information is given in more detail in the next section, and doesn't need to appear here.
  • Removed
Recreation
  • (third line): "as on" surely just "on"?
  • Clarified to most difficult sections on these rivers since there's rafting on others as well

This is a meticulously researched article, nicely put together. Most of my points are minor quibbles or merely suggestions. I have also made a few tweaks to the text. I'll be happy to support when the above points are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns have been properly addressed and I'll be happy to see the article promoted, subject to image clearance. I hope other editors will read and review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per last time. I actually thought the prose was good then. In any case, comprehensive and an engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • The units used are inconsistent - acres and hectares in the lead, acres and sq km in the infobox. For such a large area, I think square miles and km would be more meaningful to readers.
  • The Forest Service uses acres, and on other U.S. protected area articles areas of such large protected areas are consistently listed as acres/square km, so I changed everything to that.
  • "known populations of Sacajawea's bitterroot". Perhaps "known populations of the flowering plant Sacajawea's bitterroot".
  • Done. I didn't mean for it to appear that way as I had mentioned previous resource extraction activities in that paragraph.
  • I think the lead should spell out the management objectives. You specify recreation, presumably also forestry and conservation, but does one objective take priority?
  • Done
  • The link "last [[ice age]]" is not very useful. [[last glacial maximum|last ice age]] would be more helpful.
  • Done
  • "human habitation up to 10–15,000 years" What does this mean? Any time between now and 15,000 years ago? I would leave out "up to".
  • Done
  • "A change of climate around 7000 years ago dried up much of the Great Basin, forcing the Shoshone people northward into the mountainous areas of central Idaho.[6]:3" This is unclear. did the Shoshone move into or out of Boise?
  • Clarified
  • What is the "3" after ref 6 and other similar superscript numbers? Nothing happens when I click on them.
  • That is using the {{rp}} template, which indicates the page number of that document that supports that statement. I only use it for the two excessively long documents (references 1 and 6) as a cleaner yet still accurate method of citing those documents rather than having them appear 10+ times in the references.
  • I do not see the point of that. It is far more helpful to readers to have the page number in the reference as page=. The article only has 78 references whereas some articles have over 300. However, that is up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of what is now Boise National Forest was sparsely inhabited by Native Americans, however several archaeological sites, including campsites, rock shelters, burial grounds, and pictographs have been found along rivers in the area." I am not sure why "however", which implies a contrast. Maybe replace with "and".
  • Done
  • "at the now eponymous Grimes Creek" The word "now" is not needed.
  • Done
  • "forest reserves in the U.S. Department of the Interior" Forest reserves in the department? it does not sound right. Ditto reserves "part of" the Dept of Agriculture. Maybe "came under".
  • Changed to "administered by" and "transferred to"
  • In "Capacity (MW)" what does MW mean? (Amount of electricity the reservoir produces in megawatts? If so, this should be explained.)
  • Seems a little odd to explain this, sort of like needing explain hectares and miles, but I linked to electricity generation (Capacity) and watts (MW)
  • Yes it seems obvious now but I was confused by both columns having the same heading, "Capacity" and assumed they were both units of the same thing. You might change the first one to "Volume" and the second to "Generating capacity", with MW in the units row below. Also, you are inconsistent whether acre-feet is hypenenated. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by Dudley

  • "which is a level III ecoregion" Could level III be linked to explain what it means?
    • Linked to the US ecoregion article that states they are just smaller regions within larger ones.
  • "These non-forested areas are those dominated by grasses, forbs, or shrubs. I am not sure what "those" means in this context.
    • Combined with previous sentence so its clear they go together.
  • "grand fir is predominant and western larch is found in early successional areas" Successional to what?
    • Reworded so that it says one of the first trees to become established. I don't have info on exactly which species come before.
  • "Understories are also made of mountain maple" This is a bit confusing. Which forest type is it? "also made of" sounds clumsy.
    • Combined with the previous sentence so that it is clear they go together and replaced "made of" with "consist"
  • "Treeless riparian primarily consist of willows along with thinleaf alder," How is it treeless if it has willow and alder?
    • Reworded so that it is riparian areas within largely treeless habitats.
  • "Scenic roads" Are all the roads in this section open to all types of vehicle?
    • Expanded to say they are paved highways open to roadworthy vehicles.
  • A first class article, but I do not think you should use the rp template. 1. There will be other readers who like me did not understand it. 2. The documentation at Template:Rp says "This template should not be used unless necessary". 3. With only a modest 72 references it is not necessary. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Intermountain region." Could this be linked?
  • I linked to the section of the U.S. Forest Service article that lists the regions. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax

  • I did some cleanup. Check the history for details. For one thing, I changed 300px to upright=1.8 for the map per MOS:IMAGES. If it is too big, ratchet 1.8, or remove the spec altogether, but do not go back to a hardcoded size. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Singora Singora (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. CasLiber has asked me to take a look at this, so I'll go through it bit by bit.
  • 2. A while back I wrote Buçaco Forest, an article about a small forest in central Portugal. It's not quite finished, but is structured along similar lines to Boise Forest.

Presentation

  • 3. The guy above me has inserted a CLEAR tag above the History header. This is wrong and makes a mess of presentation. Compare the article's appearance with and without this tag to see what I mean.
  • I agree.
  • 4. Do you need to source content in the infobox?
  • The coordinates and areas definitely should have references. The establishment date can probably go without one, but there's no reason why infobox content should have sources.
  • 5. Compare your map with the one I coded for Buçaco Forest. Mine is better. Clicking on your map takes me to an empty image. This is of no use whatsoever to your audience / target market. Do what I did: use Photoshop to add a red marker, and size it so that it's slightly smaller than the red dot generated by the infobox template. See also the maps for Yellowstone National Park and Zion National Park.
  • I'm not sure I would say much better, but I was trying to create one like you did and couldn't get it quite right. Feel free to try if you want. The maps for those two parks are nice and recent additions (their previous map was the same as the one currently on this page), but I can't make anything like them.

Introduction / Summary

  • 6. RE: Boise National Forest is a federally protected area that covers. "that covers" -> "covering".
  • Done
  • 7. RE: it is managed by the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture as four units. The Wiki page for the U.S. Forest Service tells us it's a division of the Department of Agriculture, so do you really need to have this info here? It's wordy and you end up using "U.S." twice in the same sentence. Look at this featured article's second sentence: Shoshone National Forest.
  • Removed the USDA part, but can't add anything about a presidential proclamation like in Shoshone as I'm not sure if it's creation was a direct result of a proclamation.
  • 8. RE: The Idaho Batholith underlays most of Boise National Forest, forming the forest's Boise, Salmon River, and West mountain ranges, and the forest reaches. "West mountain ranges, and the forest" -> "West mountain ranges; the forest".
  • Done
  • 9. "Common land cover types include" -> "Common land cover includes".
  • Done
  • 10. "Boise National Forest contains 75 percent of the known populations of the flowering plant Sacajawea's bitterroot, a species endemic to Idaho" -> "Boise National Forest contains 75 percent of the known populations of Sacajawea's bitterroot, a flowering plant endemic to Idaho".
  • Done
  • 11. "The Shoshone people occupied what is now Boise National Forest before European settlers arrived in the early 1800s" -> "The Shoshone people occupied the forest before European settlers arrived in the early 1800s".
  • Done
  • 12. "Recreation opportunities and facilities in Boise National Forest include " -> "Recreation opportunities and facilities include". It's obvious you're talking about the forest.
  • Done
  • 13. I'll add more feedback later.

Wednesday Singora (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 14. Let's look at the History section.
  • 15. The first sentence is pretty grim: "The first people entered Idaho near the end of the last ice age in the late Pleistocene; there is evidence of human habitation 10–15,000 years ago at Wilson Butte Cave, which was temporarily occupied by people hunting bison on the Snake River Plain". Your source is ref #5.
  • 16. For starters, you've repeated the word "people".
  • 17. You need a colon instead of a semi-colon as the second clause develops or adds to the first.
  • 18. Lastly, the sentence is stylistically and factually incorrect. Saying "the last ice age in the late Pleistocene" is silly. Obviously the last ice age was in the Pleistocene, but you don't even need to mention the Pleistocene since it's an epoch dating back more than 2.5 million years. I see your source for this is actually ref #6: "Near the end of the Ice Age or Pleistocene geological epoch, some 13,000 years ago ...". See how they've used the word "or". Ref #5 tells us: "The first unmistakable evidence of human occupation of Wilson Butte Cave dates from about 10,000 years ago. Ruth Gruhn, the archaeologist who excavated the cave, also uncovered cultural material that she believes shows that people used the cave as early as 15,000 years ago", adding that "Other archaeologists, however, are less convinced that Wilson Butte Cave was occupied before 10,000 BP". Note also that this evidence pertains only to human habitation in the forest - it's not the same as what you're written: "The first people entered Idaho". Finally, your claim that the cave was "temporarily occupied" doesn't reconcile with "The excavation shows that Wilson Butte Cave was largely abandoned by 400 BP, after the bison largely disappeared from the area".
  • 19. How about: "Archaeological evidence indicates that human habitation in the forest began towards the end of the last ice age: bone fragments about 10,000 years old have been found in Wilson Butte Cave, a rocky bubble on a bed of ancient lava believed to have been occupied by indigenous people until as recently as the 17th century". You could change "indigenous people" to "bison hunters" or "indigenous bison-hunting people". Ref #6 uses the terms "Plateau people" and "Snake Indians". Remember that only Ruth Gruhn believes occupation dates back 15K years. The consensus is 10K.
  • 20. Or: "Evidence indicates that human habitation in the forest began towards the end of the last ice age: bone fragments around 10,000 years old have been found in Wilson Butte Cave, an archaeological site believed to have been occupied until 400 years ago by (indigenous) people formerly known as Snake Indians". Getting in the Snake Indian blurb might be useful since it leads nicely to the Shoshoni.
  • 21 Or: "Excavations at Wilson Butte Cave suggest human occupation at Boise Forest began around 10,000 years ago: bone fragments unearthed in the cave indicate it was settled towards the end of the last ice age, before being abandoned about 400 BP.
  • I think this sentence has been changed more by other editors than any other part of this article since I originally wrote it. Changing to something like 19. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, Wilson Butte Cave isn't in the forest. It is used as an estimate of the earliest habitation for the region as a whole. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thurday Singora (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 22. Map added. Have I got it right? If not, I've kept the PSD. For some reason the infobox template isn't generating the red marker. Just noticed that markers aren't generated for Yellowstone National Park and Zion National Park, so maybe this template only works with a blank map. I'll do more this evening. Quick update: with Buçaco Forest the on-page marker is generated with percentages rather than geo-coordinates. I'm pretty sure now we can do the same for Boise and, perhaps, Yellowstone and Zion.

Saturday Singora (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 23. Map marker added to inofox. The marker is generated with X & Y parameters (rather than map_locator fields used by the Bucaco Forest template) and sits neatly on top of the larger red dot added with Photoshop. I see you have another featured article, Sawtooth National Forest, so you could now easily re-jig the map as per Boise.
  • Thanks
  • 24. Delete "on a bed of ancient lava". It's implied by the blurb re: inflationary caves & Snake River Plain.

Note to Admin Singora (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC) I see now this article is at the bottom of the FAC list. Please don't archive it. I promised CasLiber I'll review it, and I will; I won't let the nominator down. I'll try to complete the review over the weekend.[reply]

If you want to make grammar and other minor edits like some of your comments above while you review, go for it. I'll review any changes you make to be sure you didn't inadvertently change the meaning. If you would rather just leave comments, that's fine too. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Singora (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 25. OK - I'll pick out a few obvious examples of repetition you'll need to address:
    • 25.1 "Elevations in the forest range from 2,800 feet (850 m) in the North Fork Payette River Canyon to 9,730 feet (2,970 m) at the top of Steel Mountain, an elevation gain of 6,930 feet (2,110 m)"
      • Removed second elevation
    • 25.2 "The Boise Mountains cover much of the southern portion of the forest and contain the forest's highest point, Steel Mountain, but the range's highest point, Two Point Mountain, lies outside of the forest's boundary", followed immediately by "The Trinity Mountains are a subrange in southeastern part of the Boise Mountains that reach their highest point at 9,451 feet (2,881 m) on Trinity Mountain". You seem to have a "highest point" fetish!
      • No. Changed the second one to peak, but parallelism is more important in the first sentence.
    • 25.3 "The forest borders parts of seven reservoirs, none of which are owned or managed by the Forest Service, which provides access to and recreation opportunities at the reservoirs". Logic: are the recreation opportunities you refer to a consequence of the reservoirs not being managed by the Forest Service? Re-write and drop the repetition.
      • I think this sentence has been rewritten by other users a couple times, but here goes another...
    • 25.4 "The largest natural lake in the forest is Warm Lake, and there several other smaller natural lakes"
      • Removed the second natural, though it could be perceived to alter the meaning.
    • 25.5 "Average annual snowfall ranges from 55 inches (140 cm) in drier areas and at lower elevations to 70 inches (180 cm) in wetter areas and higher elevations"
      • Changed second areas to locations.
    • 25.6 "In addition to species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service maintains an independent listing of sensitive species for which it is directed to develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions". How many times does the word "species" appear in this sentence? I make it four. How many did you count?
      • None of them can be removed without drastically altering the meaning. I mean maybe the first one, but it would have to be replaced by "plants, animals, fungi, algae, etc." "Endangered Species Act" is a law and cannot be shortened. "Sensitive species" is a specific Forest Service designation. The last "species" is part of a quote.
    • 25.7 "The forests are primarily coniferous evergreens, dominated by ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and Douglas fir at lower elevations and Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and whitebark pine at higher elevations"
      • Changed to "...dominated by Douglas fir and ponderosa and lodgepole pines at lower elevations and Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and whitebark pine at higher elevations." Both elevations help to maintain parallelism.
    • 25.8 "In 2013 revenues from recreation and special use fees totaled $454,635, while expenses totaled US$352,550". Do you know what a synonym is?
  • Changed this, but parallelism is important too.
  • 26. In the FLORA section, every paragraph except the last discusses elevation. Could you not divide this section into two or three smaller sections (high and low elevations, for example) in order not to keep repeating the word "elevation"? It's VERY repetitive at present and hard to read.
  • Almost every section discusses elevation just like it discusses climate and other factors (such as aspect, slope, latitude) that are critical to determining the vegetation communities found at a specific site. It cannot simply be divided into high/low elevation because that would be arbitrary, and as the section explains, there's a lot of overlap among communities depending on elevation. There aren't synonyms that you can use to replace elevation without changing the meaning. What I did do is move the last two paragraphs after the first so that the first paragraph remains an overview of the forest's vegetation, the second about plants of special concern, and the last about invasives. I then created a subsection with the rest of the content going into the details about the communities. I also restricted the use of elevation to when it is not accompanied by specific numerical ranges except during the first occurrence, which acts as an example.
  • 27. This sentence has four refs: "The forest's management indicator species is bull trout because they are sensitive to habitat changes and depend on specific habitat conditions". Are they all needed? Why so many for such a simple sentence?
  • Down to one
  • 28. This one also has four refs: "Grizzly bears have become locally extinct, and plans for their reintroduction to central Idaho have been proposed since the 1990s but have not progressed"
  • Removed two
  • 29. Why not divide the first two paragraphs of the RECREATION section into non-motorized and motorized activities.
  • Similar to the high/low elevation in the flora section, that division is not that simple and can get into the debate of what is considered motorized use of forest lands (particularlly wilderness and bicycles). I reorganized and added a waterways section instead.
  • 30. You have consecutive sentences starting with "The Ponderosa Pine Byway".
  • Revised to "This route" in the second sentence
  • 31 You have several errors where something like this "An estimated 76 percent of Boise National Forest is forest, which according to the Forest Service is considered to be land that is capable of supporting trees on at least 50 percent of its area" could be re-written like this "An estimated 76 percent of Boise National Forest is forest, which according to the Forest Service is considered (to be) land that is capable of supporting trees on at least 50 percent of its area" or even this "An estimated 76 percent of Boise National Forest is forest, which according to the Forest Service is considered (to be) land (that is) capable of supporting trees on at least 50 percent of its area". There's a lot of redundancy and repetition in this article.
  • Done
  • 32. Do you know how to use footnotes? I think big chunks of this article would function better as notes. Parts of the FIRE ECOLOGY section, for example, are pretty hard going; some of the MANAGEMENT blurb is also quite intense.
  • The second management paragraph I transferred into a table, which fits it much better than a footnote or paragraph. Someone had suggested that previously, but I couldn't visualize it correctly until now. I split the end of the first fire management paragraph that include examples of fires into a separate paragraph and revised the similar section of prescribed burns in the following paragraph. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday Singora (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 33. Originally you had: "The largest natural lake in the forest is Warm Lake, and there several other smaller natural lakes".
    • 33.1. You now have: "The largest natural lake in the forest is Warm Lake, and there several other smaller lakes, particularly in the Trinity and West mountains. Most of these lakes are tarns created by alpine glaciers during the Pleistocene".
    • 33.2. These two sentences use the word lake three times, not counting the name, Warm Lake.
    • 33.3. So, how about:
    • 33.4. There are lots of natural lakes in the forest, most of which are tarns created by alpine glaciers during the Pleistocene. The largest, Warm Lake, is 26 miles (42 km) east of Cascade in Valley County; many of the smaller lakes are in the Trinity and West mountains.
      • Changed to a version of this.
    • 33.5. Or:
    • 33.6. Most of the forest's natural lakes are tarns created by alpine glaciers during the Pleistocene: the largest, Warm Lake, is 26 miles (42 km) east of Cascade in Valley County; many of the smaller lakes are in the Trinity and West mountains.
    • 33.7. The above sentences are only slightly longer than yours but contain more information (ie, 26 miles east ...) and less repetition.
    • 33.8. You could even try:
    • 33.9. Natural lakes, most of which are tarns created by alpine glaciers during the Pleistocene, can be found throughout (much of) the forest, particularly in the Trinity and West mountains. The largest, Warm Lake, is 26 miles (42 km) east of Cascade in Valley County and a popular destination for camping, fishing, and hunting.
      • Saying something is "popular" is often very subjective and always needs a source. I've had several people bring that up in the past, so I stay away from it.
      • My text was just an example. I copied it from the Warm Lake article. The text is supported by a source. Check it and see. Note that the archived PDF seems not to support OCR (optical character recognition), so you'll need to search the original for accuracy. I see the word "popular" used five times in the PDF.Singora (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok thanks. Either way, I'll keep it as is and leave the recreation stuff for that section. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 34. You talk a lot about "parallelism". I see little evidence of parallelism in the PhD theses and academic journals I read. Go through the article again and see if you can combine sentences to strip out more repetition.
  • 35. You've changed things to: "The Forest Service provides access to and recreation opportunities at the seven reservoirs it borders, although it does not own or manage any of them". What purpose does "any of" serve? Look for more examples of redundancy.
    • Removed "any of"
  • 36. The structure looks better! The new table is good, but looks a bit uncomfortable alongside that VERY BIG map. Why is it so big? Would it not work better as the image for the infobox? I think you should move it.
    • The user directly above when you started commenting changed it to a larger map. I think it's too big, but it still looks fine to me. Although that is likely dependent on your screen. See their comment if you want to try and change it. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also meant to say I don't think the map would be a good image for the infobox. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday Singora (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll go through this one last time. If I spot less than 10 problems I'll support; if I find more I'll let you find someone else to offer further opinions / feedback..

  • 37. "Trappers and fur traders that were descendants of Europeans" -> "Trappers and fur traders of European descent" or "Trappers and fur traders descended from Europeans".
    • Done.
  • 38. "In 1898 the forest's first gold dredge was built in Placerville and was followed by several others". The second "was" is redundant. Think: the man is tall and he is strong -> the main is tall and strong.
    • Done.
  • 39. "A shortage of Mercury during World War II led the mines in the Stibnite area to become the second largest producer of mercury in the country and the largest producer of tungsten"
    • 39.1. "Following a shortage of metals during WWII, mines in the Stibnite area became the country's largest producer of tungsten and second largest source of mercury"
    • 39.2. "Following increased demand for metals during WWII, mines in the Stibnite area became the country's largest producer of tungsten and second largest source of mercury"
    • 39.3. Both examples above mean pretty much the same thing and drop the repetition of mercury and producer.
      • Changed this to 39.1, but kept mercury instead of metals. I know you really would rather do without the repetition, but it's more accurate this way.
  • 40. I'm sure this is accurate, but it means nothing to me "The U.S. President was given the authority to establish forest reserves administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior by the Forest Reserve Act of 1891. With the passage of the Transfer Act of 1905, forest reserves were transferred to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the newly created U.S. Forest Service"
    • It describes what enabled the forest's creation and is directly connected to the preceding and following sentences.
  • 41. This is messy "All four rivers are tributaries of the Snake River, which itself is a tributary of the Columbia River, which flows into the Pacific Ocean"
    • Changed to "...Snake River, which itself is a tributary of the Columbia River in the Pacific basin."
  • 42. "Daily high temperatures range from 9 to 29 °F (−13 to −2 °C) in winter to 80 to 90 °F (27 to 32 °C) in summer, when lower elevations can experience conditions over 100 °F (38 °C)."
    • 42.1 when -> while
      • Done.
  • 43 "but when cold air masses do enter the area, they sometimes stagnate in the Snake and Salmon river valleys, enabling very cold temperatures to persist"
    • 43.1. Surely enabling -> causing??
      • Yeah, I think that's better.
  • 44. "Only about two dozen populations of the plant are known to exist, and three-quarters of the populations are in Boise National Forest"
    • 44.1. Only about two dozen populations of the plant are known to exist, and three-quarters of these are in Boise National Forest
    • 44.1. Only about two dozen populations of the plant are known to exist, three-quarters of which are in Boise National Forest
      • Done.
  • 45. I really can't see the point of adding this "The forest contains habitat capable of supporting Ute lady's tresses and Idaho pepperweed, plants listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but has no known populations of them"
    • They're directed by the ESA to manage for potential habitat of threatened or endangered species, which is why it's relevant. I do see why you may think it's unnecessary, so I'm going to remove it. But it could also alternatively be expanded upon as I stated.
  • 46. This looks like an error:
    • 46.1. "The forests are primarily coniferous evergreens, dominated by Douglas fir and ponderosa and lodgepole pines at lower elevations"
    • 46.2. Followed in the next paragraph by ....
    • 46.3. "Douglas fir occasionally occurs in these forests alongside ponderosa pine, particularly at higher elevations"
    • 46.4. If it's not a mistake, it's something many users might find confusing.
      • It's not inaccurate, but definitely could be confusing. Changed to "Due to the occurrence of frequent non-lethal fires, ponderosa pine dominates these forests alongside Douglas fir."
  • 47. You say "In cool, moist areas ranging from 4,800 feet (1,500 m) to 6,800 feet (2,100 m), Douglas fir is predominant". Surely this is a higher elevation.
    • 47.1. But you've already said "The forests are primarily coniferous evergreens, dominated by Douglas fir ... at lower elevations"
      • It's hard to put a definition on lower elevation, or what would be considered a low elevation forest in any particular place due to variation in local climate. But I would say an arbitrary boundary would be around 6500 feet for low/high elevation. The lowest elevation in the forest may be 2800 feet, but areas that low are uncommon. Furthermore, forests occur nearly to the forest's maximum elevation of 9800 feet, but this itself is relatively low compared to the 10, 11, or 12000-foot elevations in adjacent forests (and large valleys with floors of 6500 feet). So, it's accurate as is.
  • 48. Grammar "Habitats in Boise National Forest supports"
    • Fixed

. Conclusion
I still find parts of the Management, Flora and Vegetation Communities sections confusing. As I've said already, I think the Flora section should be re-structured.

  • I previously addressed your concerns and you said that "the structure looks better", so I don't know what you want. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Fredlyfish4, has this had a recent image review? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, but all images are the same from the previous nomination. I'll request on though. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by David Fuchs[edit]

  • Went through the images; all are PD per age, self-creation, or USG-personnel. No issues with sourcing or proper license tags (there are Flickr tagged images under CC-by-SA but the PD-US tag seems appropriate and superceding). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:07, 3 May 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/May_2016&oldid=722987882"