Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators— Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{ done}}, {{ not done}} and {{ xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{ @FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the .

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may want to create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use emboldened subheadings with semicolons, as these create accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Adventure Time

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Adventure Time, an American animated television series created by Pendleton Ward that follows the adventures of Finn (a human boy) and Jake (a magical, shape-shifting dog and Finn's adoptive brother) in a post-apocalyptic world of Ooo. The show has been quite the pop culture phenomenon these last few years, and has won numerous awards, including a Peabody and several this. Since then, I have greatly expanded it, both in terms of size as well as coverage. I have used the highest-quality sources (all of which are archived, if applicable), and I have had it copy-edited a handful of times, both by myself as well as others. The content is solid, the prose reads well, and it is accurate. While it is currently a good article, I believe it is ready for the next step. Also, if anyone wishes to do source spot-checks, I have access to many of the books, and I'd be willing to send out scans to expedite the process.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. MCMLXXXIX 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@ 1989: Good catch. I have added alt text to all the images.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! -- MCMLXXXIX 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • Replace the (rare) curly quotes with straight quotes.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. A joy to read ... now I want to watch the show. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Fantasy VII. The seventh overall entry in the Final Fantasy series and the first entry for the PlayStation, it is generally hailed as one of the most important and best-remembered video games in the history of the medium. This article was delisted as a Featured Article in 2008 due to quality concerns, and has since been lingering at GA level since then. With the arrival of Final Fantasy VII Remake and the 20th anniversary of Final Fantasy VII, it was suggested and decided to make a push towards bringing this article back to its former place as an FA. Along with myself, this project has been a collaborative effort with @ TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, Sergecross73, Deckiller, and Brayden96: our work has included grammar work, reference maintenance, and the expansion/trimming/tidying of multiple sections. I hope they will also help bring this article through the final stages to FA status. ProtoDrake ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. -- MCMLXXXIX 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@ 1989: I've added alts to all images. They can be improved if needed. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! By the way, if you don't add a signature, pinging won't work. -- MCMLXXXIX 20:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)

  • "A high-definition remake is in development for the PlayStation 4.": Potentially an ASOF issue here, but I don't take a position on those.
  • "casting magical abilities": Doesn't sound right ... how can you cast an ability?
  • "planet's lifeforce": linked to Gaia hypothesis, but it's nothing like that hyphothesis. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Avalanche": For this word and maybe others, sometimes you capitalize and sometimes not. I don't have a strong feeling about this if there's a clean break from one style to the other, but some reviewers will see it as a mistake, so you probably want to fix it.
  • "storyboards": A good habit to get into is to ask yourself every time you see quote marks: why the quotes? I don't know why these quote marks are here ... were they not storyboards? Were they sort of storyboards? Unless I'm missing something, the readers won't know what you mean either.
  • "While sprites proved more popular": With the staff? What about them was more popular?
  • In Reception, there's a {{ vague}} tag.
  • In Reception, the logical quotation ( WP:LQ) suddenly goes all to hell. Only put a comma or period inside the quote marks if it's there in the original, and if the quote is substantial; a good rule-of-thumb is that a clause (with a verb) is substantial.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. I learned a lot of video game history here, and it wasn't hard to follow. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Dank: I've done my best with your comments, and done some further work of my own. Many thanks.
Looks good, though I haven't checked the LQ. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

X-10 Graphite Reactor

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The X-10 Project was the Manhattan Project effort to breed plutonium for atomic bombs using nuclear reactors. As part of this, an experimental reactor was built at the Clinton Engineer Works known as the X-10 Graphite Reactor. It operated for many years, and is now a tourist attraction. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)

  • "but had sufficient confidence in his calculations that the water-cooled reactor would.": Would what?
    Well spotted., Corrected. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. Your writing gets better all the time. It's really hard to make a subject like this concrete, the way you do it. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The article might have been nominated earlier, but the US National Parks Service website suddenly went down in January. It's back now. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Evita (1996 film)

Nominator(s): FrankRizzo ( talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about...the 1996 film depicting the life of Eva Perón, from her beginnings, rise to power and death at the age of 33. FrankRizzo ( talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)

  • "June 21, 1978": See WP:MOS. Here (and elsewhere), a comma is needed afterwards if there's no other punctuation there.
  • "they are upset": About?
  • "Lader taught Madonna how to sing using her diaphragm rather than just her throat, allowing her to project her voice in a much more cohesive manner.": I'm dubious that this was the first time she heard about singing from the diaphragm, and I think readers will need clarification even if it's true.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. Well done. - Dank ( push to talk) 04:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments I think even though the film received according to review aggregation websites an average of mixed reviews, the protagonism of Madonna has had attracted an universal acclaim. There is some yesterday and today sources like this: 1 and 2. So, one of the most important things in an article is to be neutral, and there is not something to treat it lightly, specially when some source claims that Madonna "popularised" Argentinian politics. So, my request is to mention in the lead and critical response section, this specification about her acting (as they do in other articles, like Suicide Squad with "Robbie and Leto's performances"). Thanks Chrishonduras Diskussion) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Hills, Bogotá

Nominator(s): Tisquesusa ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Eastern Hills of the Colombian capital Bogotá.

  1. - article is imho complete covering all areas and linking to specific main articles for further reading
  2. - list of sources is extensive and reliable
  3. - images are there to show the location and different characteristics
  4. - infobox, tables and other features are complete
  5. - other, supporting articles (geological formations, rivers, earthquakes) are in preparation or have been newly created already

In general, I think the article meets the standards for FA. Please review and I am open to comments about the contents of the article Tisquesusa ( talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose (for now at least). There are an excessive number of images (and too many galleries), many of which are forced into sections which creates large area of white space. There are a lot of out-sized images and too much sandwiched text between two images.
In terms of the sources, there is no need to have so much capitalisation in the names or titles, and you need to ensure the formatting of the references is consistent (There are examples of p.1 and p. 1 and some page ranges that are p, not pp. - The Bounder ( talk) 09:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Founding Ceremony of the Nation

Nominator(s): 如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng) ( talk) , Wehwalt ( talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a very well known painting (in certain parts of the world) with a fascinating history. Few paintings have been buffeted so often or so dramatically by the winds of political change while in the final analysis, remaining more or less the same. Wehwalt ( talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It certainly has a fascinating history, and am delighted to see this here, both from an art historical and social political point of view. I met this at PR, need to read through again before casting a vote. In terms of the former bent, I don't like kitsch or cheap sentimentality, which aesthetically is what this amounts to, but have a long interest in Mao's bleak approach to the arts, which this page details and services very well. Ceoil ( talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919

An interesting subject both artistically and historically. I made some edits (revert or modify as appropriate), and have just a few comments/questions:

  • Since Mao, etc., were leaders of the Communist Party of China, and the painting concerns an event of special meaning to the Party (not just any ideological communists), shouldn't 'communist' be 'Communist' in most/all cases in this article?
  • "Dong was commissioned to present a visual representation ..." The use of 'present' and 'representation' give this a repetitive air. Perhaps an alternative could be used for 'present', such as 'create' or 'paint'.
  • "Although Dong later complained that never in his career had he been allowed to create the painting that was uppermost in his mind ..." I'm not sure I understand what this means. Is this in reference to the changes to this painting suggested by other artists, as mentioned later in the article? Or did he desire to paint some other subject that was forbidden? Or some other meaning?
  • The fact that the new flag flies over the people is mentioned twice under "Subject and composition" (in the first and third paragraphs). It seems redundant; similar elements, such as the lanterns, are mentioned once.
  • The quote, "seeing it as a testament to the young nation's evolving identity and growing confidence", is given a refnote, but not attributed to anyone in the main text.
  • Alt text for images would be helpful.

Overall this is looking really good. -- RL0919 ( talk) 02:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. All done except the alt text. Due to past experience, I don't think I do alt text well and prefer to leave that for others.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose. The alt text is desirable, but not a content guideline, so not a reason by itself to oppose. I may take a crack at adding it later. -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that, and thank you for your understanding.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments (Brianboulton): I've been looking for a suitable vehicle for a limited return to FAC reviewing after months of enforced absence, and this looks just the ticket – short(ish), historically and artistically significant, and well-prepared. I am confining my comments to where I feel competent – questions of style, clarity and MoS observance etc. Nothing major, I'm sure.

  • Lead and Background
  • I am dubious about the hyphen in "most-reproduced"
  • There is a question of inconsistency of style when you refer to "the Chinese artist Dong Xiwen.." but later, in the Background section, to "arts official Wang Yeqiu" and later to "Deputy Minister of Culture Zhou Yang" before returning again to "the art critic and official Jiang Feng". With or without the is equally acceptable, but I think we should be consistent in what form we use.
  • Subject and techniques
  • "...and in the distance is represented the nation of China...": It is not clear to me from this, how the nation of China is being represented in the painting.
The green belt you see, I imagine. The source is not specific, but what else could it be?
  • Likewise when I read: "Mao ... faces Qianmen, aligning himself along Beijing's North-South Axis, symbolizing his authority" I am not clear why this alignment is thought to symbolise Mao's authority.
That's a bit more difficult. We don't seem to have good coverage on that. I've added "old imperial" but beyond that I'd have to add a footnote as the explanation would slow down the prose.
  • Composition
  • "He used sawdust..." – pronoun requires defining. I'd probably combine these two short sentences into: "Dong used sawdust to enhance the texture of the carpet on which Mao stands,[11] and painted the marble railing..." etc
  • Reception and prominence
  • "about it" in first line is redundant
  • Later history
  • "given its popularity" → "given the painting's popularity"
  • What is the nature of a "rural cadre school"?
  • A redundant "as well" occurs towards the end of the fifth paragraph.

Those are my meagre offerings. I look forward to adding support later. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done or responded to all those things. I is a delight to see you back. FAC is not the same without you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:PRCFounding.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Founding_Ceremony_original.jpeg is missing a copyright tag
  • File:Tiananmen_beijing_Panorama.jpg: what is the PRC tag meant to apply to? The image is claimed as own work and China has freedom of panorama
  • There are four different images with FURs that state "To show the reader the subject of the article (one of two versions of the painting)" (my emphasis). Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
All fixed or in one case deleted. Thank you for the image review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Lithopsian ( talk · contribs) & Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the sixth brightest star in the sky. It's been a collaborative effort with a few folks involved, Spacepotato brought it to GA-hood and I have tried to buff it with Lithopsian. We think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)

looks fine so far Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "observers north of 44°N. its name meaning": ?
whoops/fixed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "it and Capella were situated rather close to each other": How many light-years apart? Or were they only close as viewed from Earth?
the latter. Does this help? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It helps. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Capella was seen as a portent of rain in classical times.": In what way?
source doesn't clarify. presumably though the star appeared just before a regular rainy season and ancient observers (falsely) suspected causation... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Are readers likely to infer that meaning, or any particular meaning, from your text? I leave the question with you. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "apparently detected and confirmed an X-ray source": Why apparently?
good point/removed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 723": Typo? Just checking.
Not a typo. 723 arc-seconds. Does it need clarifying? Linking? This unit occurs quite a few times and units tend to be abbreviated except possibly for the first occurrence. Lithopsian ( talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I was just checking if it was a typo. You don't usually see 723 arcseconds, for the same reason that you generally don't see a time interval measured as "723 seconds". - Dank ( push to talk) 15:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "A 2016 measurement gives the magnitude different between the two stars at 700nm as 0.00 ± 0.1.": I don't follow. "magnitude difference", maybe?
Yes, a typo. Corrected. Lithopsian ( talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

  • References 10, 27 and 59 are showing stray square brackets and should be fixed.
all tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 09:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Reference 84 has missing }
tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 86 has no English translation of title.
added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 84 & 86 use different way to indicate language to other entries.
both tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 09:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Line-of-sight links via optical double, but does not go to a useful point in the article.
that article is a mess. Need to rejig target article before finding somewhere to link to. frustrating... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I've snuck "line-of-sight" into the lead of double star which seems like a quick way to satisfy readers that they've reached the right place. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a teaser about differences in isotope abundances, but there is no detail. This would be a missing knowledge in the article.
added a footnote but need to sleep as should get another sentence to explain Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The footnote covers what I was referring to. The differences indicate the more advanced evolution of the primary. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Also there is nothing about elemental composition and how it compares to the sun etc. Are there any molecules in the spectrum?
not seen any molecules mentioned. Metallicity similar to our Sun. Will write after sleeping Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about heavy element abundances. There isn't anything striking about them, other than the already-mentioned differences between the two giants. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 09:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Haedi is not a useful link, dropping you in at the top of the constellation.
Now linked to Auriga (constellation)#Eclipsing_binary_stars Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Orbital parallax redirects to a section in cosmic distance ladder that does not mention this term . Is it actually different to Hiparcos measurements?
linked to dynamical parallax Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • chandra Links to the Wrong subject.
linked to Chandra X-ray Observatory now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speckle imaging could do with a link.
linked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • In "In traditional Chinese astronomy" the name is given in four forms, traditional, simplified, pinyin and English translation. This ia a bit undue. We can do without the simplified characters, as they are an anachronism. People that can actually read Chinese can go to the Cinese language article if they cannot cope with traditional characters. After all the native scripts for Macedonian or Indian laguages are not included.
removed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I can still see "五车" in there. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That one removed also. Lithopsian ( talk) 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've used that destination. There seems to be little on the Boorong, even to make a stub. 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ancient Balts deserve a link to make it clear who/where they were.
linked to Balts as (a) there is no subarticle and (b) it isn't clear from the original article about the age Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 62 and 63 are dupicates.
unified Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 82 is a translation, so it should probably say so in the template J F is the translator. Reference 83 is the same work untranslated, but author name is different to 82, and the language, Latin, is not indicated.
added all Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent space between initials in references, eg 26 vs 28. I believe the MOS says to put a space.
I've always had no space - I can't se the bit where it says use a space. So have streamlined to unspaced Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
See MOS:INITIALS. Lithopsian ( talk) 16:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
sigh...ok then...will do....all done I think.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
added some Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
all linked now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
When I look at the diffs you have not been using the template parameters, it should be for example author-link1=Dorrit Hoffleit and author-link2 = Noah Brosch. etc. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Think I've got them all fixed. Lithopsian ( talk) 17:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • All the images need to have alt= text added for those using text readers
added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have now checked all the wiki links. We should convert the see also section to a one or two sentences summarising the topic. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
yes - that has been tricky given the obscure nature of most of the fictional material. Still, I found two that are discussed in secondary sources Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I took a quick pass through the text and found a few issues.

  • There no discussion of the tidal evolution of this system, and no mention of the detached state of the orbit throughout their respective evolution. I.e. was there a Roche lobe overflow? No, according to Torres et al (2011).
added note - wasn't sure whether to move stuff up to that section about more massive star's maximum radius as a red giant, which is currently further down the page... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Components section may be confusing since it is using the same notation for different units. At a minimum, I'd suggest using the HTML &prime; (′) and &Prime; (″) for the angular notation.
I spelled out feet and inches to avoid confusion. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is some inconsistency about capitalizing 'Sun'.
capped Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The article should mention that the rotational velocities are projected, not the actual equatorial velocities. You can't directly compare them without know the respective inclinations of their polar axes.
I mentioned this where relevant. It is somewhat unimportant for this star given the known rotational periods. The inclinations and absolute rotational velocities are also known. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • How were the rotational periods derived? I'm assuming from measuring periodic variability of their surface activity.
Directly measured in the same way as the orbital motions. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "700 nm": it should indicate this is a wavelength.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The first use of 'metallicity' in the article body should be linked.
linked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have another look later for more. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Waiting (2015 film)

Nominator(s): Numerounovedant Talk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 release starring Kalki Koechlin and Naseeruddin Shah. The article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and a Peer Review and has been stable since. Looking forward to the comments. Numerounovedant Talk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Dank: Thanks a lot! All your edits are always appreciated! Numerounovedant Talk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
  • The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: Thanks for being the wonderful person that you are. XD Numerounovedant Talk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the compliment :) Aoba47 ( talk) 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Pres N 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Claiming the title as the best strategy video game and best computer game of 1999, Homeworld is considered a classic of the genre for a single innovation: it was the first strategy game that was fully 3D, in the sense that units were not restricted to a plane like the ground, but could move anywhere within a sphere of space. Connecting the levels together so that the same plucky fighter ship from level 1 could end up leading a formation against a capital ship 6 levels later was the icing on the cake, and it's no surprise that when the rights came up for auction they were snapped up immediately. I rewrote this article from the ground up this past Fall, and it passed GA then; I've done some cleaning and archiving and polishing since, and I think it's ready to go for FA. Thank you all for reviewing, and I hope reading this makes someone hear "Adagio for Strings" in their heads once again. -- Pres N 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)

  • So, I pulled up the Homeworld soundtrack on YouTube ... and found it in my Favorites folder ... I didn't recall that it was from Homeworld, I just remembered it as my favorite version of the piece.
  • "was also highly reviewed": Roughly speaking, when doing prose reviews at FAC, I stay away from word usage problems, or at least the kind that people like to argue about. This is a close call; I haven't seen much support for "highly reviewed" in the sense of "highly rated", and it might even be a grammar problem rather than a usage problem. But if you think the usage is arguable, then I'll let other reviewers weigh in on that (or not). - Dank ( push to talk) 19:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Did some research, and I think there's a problem of the appearance of suspect grammar. That outweighs usage questions, I think. I'll change it. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. I think the greater appeal of this game helps the article become more appealing as well, and the writing is (mostly) easy to follow, which isn't always easy to accomplish in VG articles. Well done. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What's there is very good, but I think the article has to fail on comprehensiveness grounds due to the very small development section that really offers no insights into how the game was made. At the very least there must have been magazine articles at the time that offered previews with quotes from the development team. If you can prove me wrong, I will withdraw the objection, but I would still be hesitant to support, as I do feel a video game FA requires more in this area. Indrian ( talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Indrian: Tracked down some previews and added about 2.5 paragraphs to development; you're right, that was a pretty big miss- the ones that had the good previews with interview quotes were also the ones that don't have an extant web presence any more. I tend to forget about the magazines that didn't end up on the web, and it bit me here. -- Pres N 16:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @ PresN:That looks much better. Consider my objection withdrawn. I will conduct a more formal review in the near future. Indrian ( talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there's any new information in these, but I found a preview from PC Gamer US and one in this issue of Computer Gaming World. Hope these are useful! JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 23:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, unfortunately- I'd already seen those, and the CGW one is just a description of gameplay (which isn't changed from the final version, so no good there), while the PCG one at least has quotes from Garden, except it's just gameplay descriptions again, not design choices/development information. They're what I usually expect from previews, in other words (actually a preview, not a development interview), which is partially why I didn't think to search really hard for them in the first place. Will need to do that if I ever try to take Dungeon Siege to FAC, it came out around the same year. Thanks for looking though! Glad to see you still poking around. -- Pres N 00:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem—I just wish they'd been more help. And yeah, I still check Wikipedia every day, even if I rarely edit. Feel free to hit me up for scans any time you might need them! JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation Grandslam

Nominator(s): Indy beetle ( talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Operation Grandslam, a UN peacekeeping operation undertaken in the Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (presently the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1962–1963 to suppress the secessionist State of Katanga. This little-discussed episode formed a part of the Congo Crisis, a tense moment in the Cold War. The operation is unusual in the sense that it, in spite of being a "peacekeeping" action, involved thousands of soldiers and included a UN air raid on a rebel air base. This article extends beyond the purely military aspects of the conflict and showcases an interesting moment in international and Congolese affairs as UN member states debated over what courses of action to take while the Congo struggled to rebuild. Though marking the end of a formal secession movement, insurgency continued to be a large problem in the region until October 2016. This article has passed both a GA review and a WikiProject Military history A-class review. I have extensively researched this topic and developed this article to a point where I believe it qualifies for FA status. At this point, the only improvements I can make are those suggested to me be others. Considering that I have already had such reviews conducted, there is no further step for me to make but to nominate this article for featured status. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. In my view this is a clear pass. The article is well-written in that the prose is simple and never tries to do too much. The structure is logical. The sourcing is of a high standard; I did limited spot-checking of the early parts of the article. I made some minor wording changes myself, which I hope are correct. I then had the following two very minor points which I raise here only because I hesitated before dealing with them myself:

  • "Shortly thereafter South Kasai and the State of Katanga declared independence from the central government."” – As far as I’m aware, one secedes from a country, not from a government.
  • "Peacekeeping contingents from Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Sweden, and Tunisia were officially earmarked to carry out Operation Grandslam." – earmarked by whom? (The passive voice here doesn’t work well on this occasion). Also, “officially” seems unnecessary, as does "publicly" in "publicly announced" later on in the article.

Those points are nowhere near consequential enough to delay me from marking my review as a support. Syek88 ( talk) 02:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Response: - I think I've addressed these criticisms. - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. As an aside, concerning this edit, I agree with Dank. The term "damages" does not have a generic meaning; it has only a specific meaning in a legal context, namely compensation payable for loss. I think "damage" is correct here. Syek88 ( talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: - Before any other reviewers proceed, I, the nominator and primary author, feel one point must be drawn to their attention. In the WikiProject Military history A-class review for this article (under my response to HJ Mitchell) the matter of two UN Security Council resolutions were brought up. In the end, I never really got a clear answer on whether to include information about the two resolutions in the article. These resolutions are what gave ONUC the ability to use force against Katanga. I've found no sources that make an explicit connection between these resolutions and Operation Grandslam. I have found a source that makes the connection between those resolutions and Operations Rumpunch, Morthor, and perhaps Unokat, as well as the suppression of the Stanleyville government. I have also found that Dorn and Kille (which, for the record, is a chapter written by Dorn) make implicit and vague references to the resolutions in the context of Grandslam. So, my question is, should I provide information on these two resolutions in the "Background" section of the article? - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Some source that might help in drawing a link: pages 244 to 245 of this book, which says quite firmly that Operation Grandslam was the UN making "effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", having previously referred to the 24 November 1961 resolution as "more robust" and "much less ambiguous" than the earlier authorising resolution. That looks rather solid to me. There is also page 72 of this book and page 217 of this book, which aren't as strong. I would think that (a) if there are scholars who say the operation was authorised by UNSC resolutions, and there no significant contrary view, only silence, the article should present that view as fact, and (b) if there is genuine scholarly debate, the article should present that debate. Syek88 ( talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that, @ Syek88:. I have added the info on the security council resolutions to the best of my ability. That's some good stuff you've found, but I'm afraid those sources are somewhat inaccurate. I've come across this issue before. In attempt to put everything into summary style, a number of authors have ended up combining the events of Operation Unokat and Operation Grandslam. This is apparent in Klose (first source you provided) because that sources says that a combined strike force of Swedish, Ethiopian, and Indian aircraft were fielded in Grandslam. We know from Dorn that this is not true, because India and Ethiopia had withdrawn their aircraft by November 1962. Only in Unokat were all three country's air forces operated simultaneously. So when the source says, "It would be another year before the UN made effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", it's in effect whitewashing the whole occurrence of Unokat. I can try and make the connection between Unokat and the second resolution distinct (there are sources that support the relation), but I think in terms of Grandslam I've added all that I can accurately do so. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds entirely prudent. The authors of the books to which I linked may well be generalist international relations or legal scholars who aren't sufficiently across the facts of the Congo operations. Syek88 ( talk) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Irish_captives_in_Katanga_1961.PNG: when/where was this first published? Same with File:United_Nations_peacekeeping_air_forces_in_Congo_-_January_1963.jpg. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Response: The first file was uploaded by Katangais, a good fellow here on Wikipedia and on the Commons. However, it does seem they give little info on the source of the image. As such, I've removed it from this article. I've replaced it with a quotebox with a statement by Thant. The second file was a blatant copyright violation and has been removed. - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Simone Russell

Nominator(s): Aoba47 ( talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, this article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. While her early appearances center around her love triangle with Chad Harris-Crane and her sister Whitney, the character later receives more prominence on the show through her experience coming out as a lesbian to her family, and her relationship with Rae Thomas. The network defended the show's treatment of Simone's sexuality as a serious commentary on the topic. Created by the soap's founder and head writer James E. Reilly, the role was portrayed by three actresses over the course of the show: Lena Cardwell (July 5, 1999 to April 16, 2000), Chrystee Pharris (April 17, 2000 to April 22, 2006), and Cathy Jenéen Doe (July 23, 2004 – September 4, 2007). The character was created as a part of the show's effort to represent a full African-American family and full-realized African-American characters on television.

Her storyline made daytime television history by having the first instance in a soap opera of two women in bed making love. The character is also notable for being daytime TV's first African-American lesbian. At the 17th GLAAD Media Awards, the show won Outstanding Daily Drama for its portrayal of Simone's sexual orientation. The show's representation of LGBT topics, and Cathy Jenéen Doe's performance as Simone, received a mixed response from critics. This is my fourth nomination of a Passions-related article through the FAC process; the other three were Chad Harris-Crane, the Russell family (Passions), and Eve Russell. I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from 1989
  • Support I didn't notice anything major. Good work. MCMLXXXIX 22:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2

I almost support it but there is one thing that kinda bothers me

  • The storyline section seems a bit in-universe (like "Born in 1983" seems trivial for the casual reader). Couldn't it start with something like "The character debuts in the season x, episode x"? Same with the other paragraphs.

Ping me when you are done, and I will support. Tintor2 ( talk) 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @ Tintor2: Thank you for your comment. I completely understand what you mean by this as it is an odd introduction into the "Storylines" section. I have changed it to say that she first appeared in the series premiere. Since Passions is a soap opera, to does not have the season x, episode x format of other shows. The years in the rest of the section, such as "In the summer of 2005" correspond to the episode's air dates to provide a context for when this story arc takes place. I hope this clears things up and let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Thank you again. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. So I support it. Tintor2 ( talk) 15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment by Syek88

I probably won't review this article, I'm sorry, but I did notice one thing - the article seems to be inconsistent (lead, infobox, body) about whether the Cardwell-Pharris casting change occurred in 2000 or 2001. Syek88 ( talk) 21:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comment. Another user had changed the years on the article a little bit ago, and I forgot to change everything back. I have fixed this. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Carbrera
  • I'll be on and off today so I'll try to leave a few comments here and there throughout the next few days. In the references section, you should only provide links to different publications and website (like Soapcentral) on the first occasion.
  • Thank you for helping with this article; I look forward to your further comments and take your time. There is absolutely no rush with this. I received a note from my previous FACs that the publications and websites actually should be linked for every single reference in the reference section (probably so if a reader is looking at any individual reference they can easily click the appropriate link to find out more about the publication and the work). I am not completely sure on the right way of doing it, but that is just a note that I have received in the past. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • More to come, Carbrera ( talk) 16:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC).
  • @ Carbrera: Just wondering if you had any further comments about this? Aoba47 ( talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Support from Jaguar

Support I've just finished reading through this article and couldn't find anything that jumped out at me. I did notice that ref 14 has a typo ("=Variety"), but other than that, I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive and engaging. Good work! JAG UAR  14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your support. I have fixed the typo. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:CathyJenéenDoePinkTop.jpg: Non-free image, which seems like the correct license for such an image. Using it to show the article topic seems fine for me. The non-free rationale seems to address all aspects of NFCC.

ALT text is ungrammatical. Otherwise all seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 13:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support — Well written, comprehensive and admirably no-nonsense. I wanted to comment on the faulty alt text but Jo-Jo Eumerus did it just now to my amusement. Great job! Pavanjandhyala 15:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 17:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Everything is in good state with wikilinks and archives. I'll give it a pass. Tintor2 ( talk) 13:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

William Pūnohu White

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a second go around as recommended by the closing admin of the last nomination after drumming up some interest. Thanks.

Text from my last nomination: "This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure." KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Image review

  • All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

  • I don't understand note 5. What organisation was founded?
  • No libel case was found. I added "libel".-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think you mean "found" instead of "founded" then. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 02:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In May 1893 he organized the native community of Lahaina in removing the pro-annexationist Reverend Adam Pali of Waineʻe Church, who was asked to vacate the pastor's residence owned by church by July 8 I take it you mean he organised the native community, and they petitioned the Church to remove him? What happened here?
  • Clarified a little. Let me know if that is more clear. I am trying to keep the details of the summary short since it is a rather larger part of the article as is.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • supporters of Rev. Pali Delete "Rev."; same with "Judge": use the title only on the first use
  • written with the use English language sources I don't understand this at all.
  • This refers to the conventional versions of Hawaiian history written with the use of English language sources. Added "of". I think that was the problem, correct?-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, prompted the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii, until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington. Insert "and" before "prompted"
  • I don't think that addition make sense. Breaking down the sentence. - The native resistance, the results of the Blount Report, and President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, [list of things, i. e. plural noun] prompted [verb] the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii, until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington. - Would it be better to break into two sentences: "The native resistance, the results of the Blount Report, and President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, prompted the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii. This government would continue to rule until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington."
  • I see the issue. I removed the extra comma before "prompted".-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • the morning of the 12th Reformat the date

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Reading now..

White inherited the oratory skills of his Hawaiian ancestor Kaiakea, a legendary orator for King Kamehameha I - you've said in the para above he has oratory skills, so no need to mention them again here...and comes over as a bit effusive/puffy.
  • How about: "Born in Lahaina, Maui, of mixed Native Hawaiian and English descent, White was descended from Kaiakea, a legendary orator for King Kamehameha I."? There is this important cultural concept call kuleana in Hawaii that attributes ancestral traits and duties to their descendants. Or maybe a synonym instead, maybe?-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
he was an Englishman originally from Plymouth or Devon. - umm, Plymouth is in Devon, so needs to be reworded
Change to Plymouth, Devon. One obit said Plymouth and another said Devonshire so I was not sure and included each.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
In 1891 White changed party alliance and joined the National Liberal Party. - I don't know much about Hawaiian politics, but this sentence is just there without any immediate explanation.
How so? It is explained in the following sentences. He became a traveling stump orator/advocate for the new party and the paragraph also explained some key stances of the new party.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Presumably he became an advocate after he had switched - from reading it it doesn't give me an idea of why he switched. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Casliber: Still a little confuse here. What do you want me to do here? The sources just indicates he switched political party during the months before this election; it does not state why but generally many of the Hawaiian politicians felt the National Reform Party was too conservative and not Hawaiian enough, so they broke off and form the Liberal Party. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
White reportedly said, "He had always abhorred the idea of a republic," during a meeting of Hui Kālaiʻāina, on December 4, 1892 - it would be quotes and "I had always abhorred.." or he said that he had aways abhorred (without quotes).
I'm quoting the newspaper here. Added that part in there. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd dequote and reword, as as it is written it makes no sense. All you need is a synonym for abhor. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
IUser:Dank made an editor to it that I feel fixes the problem without changing any word.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Is the Hawaii Herald mentioned the same one as the predecessor to the Hawaii Tribune-Herald?
No it is not. His paper lasted only a few months. There is no connection.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
After the overthrow, this Hawaiian political group switched its political agenda toward opposing annexation to the United States and restoring Liliʻuokalani - I'd put a "from" x and "to" x WRT agenda
Can you explain this suggestion a bit more? The effort was a local initiative by the local Euro-American community to annex themselves to the US rather than the US being the more active party in which case it would be annexation (efforts) from the US.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
All you need to do is add a "from (old agenda)" after the "agenda" and before the "toward" Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The ending is a nice flourish. Nothing else is jumping out at me at present. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • support if no-one else thinks the outstanding one is an issue I'll chalk it down to me being obtuse. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • In infobox, "The Honorable". Is this usual for Hawaii legislators? I know there is a consensus not to use the term (though it is proper) for US legislators, but Kingdom of Hawaii differs?
Removed.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • My understanding of infobox practice is that the children should not be listed if they are not notable (and blue-linked) but the number of children should be listed instead. Also, you mention two here, but four are mentioned in the article.
Removed. No exact number are known. His obit listed two surviving children at the time of his death while census records indicate there were at least four..-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The various occupations should not be capped except the first one. Sheriff? Really? Based on a 12-day term? Also, politician may be redundant with an officeholder ...
Changed. He was a sheriff during his early life as well before going into politics.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Throughout both legislatures" possibly "throughout the terms of both legislatures"
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Serving as a legislator in the legislative assemblies" I might say "Representing Lahaina in the legislative assemblies" which better sets up the "Returning to Lahaina" later in the lede and avoids a near-repetition.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Alongside Joseph Nāwahī, he was a principal author of the proposed 1893 Constitution with Queen Liliʻuokalani. " I imagine both were co-authors with White, but that's not totally clear the way it's phrased.
Changed.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "White's opponents tried to slander him in the English-language press and to diminish his support among Native Hawaiians by claiming he had tried to incite the people to storm the palace and harm the queen and her ministers." This seems a little long considering we are talking about a period of three days. Can't we just say "White's opponents falsely alleged he had tried to incite the people ..." I imagine the Iolani Palace is meant btw.
These three days are quite significant though. Shorten a bit and add link to Iolani Palace-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "on his home island of Maui" given that you've already said where Lahaina is, I might just say "on Maui"
Changed.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • " for running out " slang or cricket?
Synonym for expel.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "his many attempts to win re-elections" should be re-election if, a return to office after an absence would count as such.
This is summarizing his string of electoral defeats between 1902 and 1914..-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Some sort of link for the Hawaiian Territorial Legislature should be inserted.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "one of the oldest foreign residents in Hawaii" age or length of residence? And I might say foreign-born
Length of resident. Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jr" missing a dot, to be consistent with "Sr."
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph, you should re-establish that you're talking about the subject of the article.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Did William White have a mother? Is her family worthy of note? Can anything be said about White Jr.? The lack of detail on the parents seems a bit striking considering the depth of coverage of selected male ancestors.
Nothing is known about his mother and only the name of his father is mentioned. I couldn't find anything about either of them..-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The long account of the (male) ancestors seems, well, long. Can some of it be omitted? For example the final sentence of the paragraph on White Sr. seems to have no great relevance to Wm. White. except by establishing his paternal grandfather likely wasn't a big influence because he didn't live in the same place as his grandson ...
How? They both lived in Lahaina. And the genealogy is important in Hawaiian culture especially for the half-caste individuals in regards to their Hawaiian ancestors and the ancestors who settled in Hawaii from foreign lands. It also establish the basic information of his family background which is otherwise unknown. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kaiakea" given his service under the king, it seems likely to me that he was Wm. White's great grandfather. Can this be stated?
Done. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Anglican mission boarding institution ran by Archdeacon George Mason in Lahaina. " ran should be run.
Done. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "He was educated with" Since you've mentioned someone else since last mention, I would say "White was educated with"
Done. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "He initially worked in law enforcement on the island of Hawaii and later became a lawyer and skilled orator." As you later go into all of this, why is this sentence needed?
Removed. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Deputy Sheriff Kāmauʻoha was removed from his position for malfeasance and White was appointed his successor as deputy sheriff of North Kohala." deputy sheriff ... deputy sheriff. One should go.
Changed. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "strict attention to his duties, as well as his thorough integrity". This needs a cite, as does every quotation. I wonder if you need all that in-lifetime puffery in this and the next quotation.
Changed. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "It does not seem like he held this position for long because J. W. Moanauli was listed in 1886 in that post.[18] By 1885, he was living in Hilo where he had begun practicing law." The second sentence seems to obviate the need for the first.
Anyway to retain both? The first sentence explains the list of sheriffs changed to listing another individual in 1886 while he had moved elsewhere sometime before then in 1885. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "One of his other early official posts of note was as an agent to take acknowledgements to instruments on September 12, 1884.[21]" So he was basically a notary public. Is this greatly notable?
I mean one has to start somewhere and this come from his public service office card in the archives which only list this and the times he served as a legislator. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "He later became a member of the Hui Kālaiʻāina (Hawaiian Political Association), a Hawaiian political group founded in 1888 to oppose the Bayonet Constitution and promote Native Hawaiian leadership in the government." I would strike "Hawaiian" from the text as redundant, considering.
  • I strike the second Hawaiian. The first is the accepted translated name while the third use is distinguishing indigenous from non-indigenous groups.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "King Kalākaua's coerced signing of the unpopular Bayonet Constitution of 1887." The year would probably be better off on first mention. Said constitution is referred to as "unpopular" four times. There seems to be a bit of POV.
I removed the extra ones from two of them but retained it for the intro and the paragraph following the "Legislature of 1892–93" section. It was not supported but many in the populace (because of restriction on suffrage) or the two monarchs (because it limited their powers) and the modern-day consensus in secondary sources is that it was an unpopular constitution. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
More soon.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Picking up:
  • I believe the guideline that you don't list non-notable children in the infobox also applies to parents, so I would delete that.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "it failed to pass and was defeated by vote of 24 to 16." I would delete "failed to pass and". An "a" needed before "vote".
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • " to travel around the other islands and canvas for the new party" Shouldn't that be "canvass"?
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Liberal Party advocated for a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution to replace the unpopular Bayonet Constitution and increased Native Hawaiian participation in the government. " to avoid the repetition, I might say "to draft a replacement for the unpopular Bayonet Constitution ..." I would add a "for" before "increased".
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the party soon became was divided between radicals and more conciliatory groups. " some cleanup needed here.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "White and his wife march alongside other legislators and their spouses" marched.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "that was referred to a selected committee." likely the last two words should be select committee.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "economic depression on the islands' sugar industry" likely "in", not "on"
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "constitution would increase the power of the monarchy, restore voting rights to economically disenfranchised Native Hawaiians and Asians, and remove the property qualification for suffrage imposed by the Bayonet Constitution" because "economically disenfranchised" is a bit ambiguous, I might say "constitution would increase the power of the monarchy, and would remove the property requirement to vote imposed by the Bayonet Constitution, thus restoring voting rights to Native Hawaiians and Asians" or some such.
There was a racial clause to the suffrage in the 1887 constitution which outlawed Asians from the vote outright though, so it was not solely based on property qualification. The sentence is only serving to introduce certain aspects of the proposed constitution and not meant to be exhaustive. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Among the crowds were White and members of Hui Kālaiʻāina " they are not crowds individually, so I would say "Among them were White and members of Hui Kālaiʻāina "
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
More soon.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "sympathetic to the Reformer," I'm not sure what the Reformer is.
The Reform Party.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "White remained a royalist and agent to the deposed monarch on Maui" I would add a "the" before "agent" and change "to" to "of"
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "asked him to vacate residence owned by church" "the" before "residence" and also before "church", I think.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "who held control of church, " I might say "in physical control of the church"
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the president of the group" "its president" is likely ample.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "stopped the annexationist scheme prompted the Provisional Government" some issue here, I imagine.
Changed.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "foreigners and natives alike in Maui (with the exception of Hana)" Hana is not a person. Possibly "residents of Hana" or some such.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • " although the genial 'Sam' could change the euphony by adding another terminal vowel to his name." Not sure what this means. If it's a pun on Pua's name, it may be lost on most.
I feel like it should stay.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "for unpaid printing cost of the short-lived paper. " cost should probably be plural
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "to paid" to pay
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "they sent a memorial requesting for the restoration of the monarchy" "for" should likely be deleted.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "established after the Hawaiian Organic Act," likely "under" rather than "after".
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The references at the end of the first paragraph of 1901 legislature are out of order.
Changed.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The legislative assembly was later mockingly dubbed the "Lady Dog Legislature" because of extensive legislative debate" I would cut "legislative" before "debate" as repetition and not really needed anyway.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The length of the quote at the end of the section may be excessive, especially since it deals with the legislature as a whole, not specifically White.
I feel like it is quite important, though since it provides a modern evaluation about the legislature.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite expecting an easy victory, he was defeated by Republican candidate Charles H. Dickey. " I might cut "despite".
It sounds odd without "despite".-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "saw significant loss in the polls" I would change to "lost" and add a comma.
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "However, it was soon placed on file by the Hawaii Supreme Court," I would change "file" to "hold"
Done.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "by an act of the following legislative session in 1905." acts are not passed by legislative sessions, but by legislatures.
Changed.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll take a second look once this is done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: Done. Thank you so much for the thorough review. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Thanks.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Support' Well done. I would still mention that nothing is known of his mother and only a few details on father btw.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the thorough the review. Your help is greatly appreciated. As for the last concern, it just what is available in the published sources. I'm sure that that information may only be known in unpublished oral knowledge by his descendants in Hawaii.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)

  • I did some editing on this, but the going is rough, and I'm neither supporting nor opposing. I might or might not oppose future nominations, depending on how much work the prose needs on the day the article hits FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated many articles about magazines full of bad writing, but this is a magazine I can actually recommend. F&SF (as it is universally known) is a survivor from 1949, and from the start has been one of the most important magazines in science fiction and fantasy, though it's been decades since magazine publishing was the most important market in the genre. It's always had a focus on quality writing over sensationalism, and has maintained its high reputation up to the present day. Sadly, all the covers are in copyright, so I've only been able to include one image, of the first issue. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)

  • "when he left Joseph Ferman": garden path. The sentence is a bit long.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review and support. I've tweaked that sentence; does that fix it? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    Looks good. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fsffall49.jpg: should only include the latter fair-use tag, and suggest expanding purpose of use. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    I cut the first tag; is that what you meant? Not sure what to say for the purpose -- it's to illustrate the magazine's appearance, and I don't discuss the cover at all. Perhaps that's an indication that I should be using a different image, for a cover that is mentioned in the article? Or is the justification for using the first issue stronger, just because it's the first issue? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    The main purpose of having a cover image in the lead is for visual identification - what cover do you think would best serve that purpose? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    I found one I think works better and substituted it. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Nikki, a couple more images have now been added; would you mind taking another look? Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

All current images look fine. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

  • Shouldn't Ashley's quote at the end of the 1st paragraph be cited? WP:LEADCITE suggests that "direct quotations [in the lead] should be supported by an inline citation."
    Yes; done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Publication history
  • Shouldn't the issue data table be directly under the Publication history section header? It covers the period 1949–2017, not just Lawrence Spivak's tenure.
    I had some trouble with text flow when I tried that, but you're right it makes no sense there. I moved it to the right of the page instead. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Bibliographic details
  • The stream of issue price changes in this section is quite a mouthfull to digest. Can't it be tabularized, something like the issue data table further up?
    Done -- how does that look? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    That looks better; I tweaked the table header here to match the Anthologies table below – I hope that's ok. — Bruce1ee talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The use of the possessive apostrophe is inconsistent, for example, Brian Aldiss's "Hothouse" and Mills' tenure.
    Well spotted. Fixed for several, but I believe the rule is that a voiced s at the end (i.e. a z sound) doesn't get the extra s after the apostrophe, so I didn't add an s after Mills. I'm not certain of the rule, though, so if you know better, please let me know. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think that's right, but have a look at MOS:POSS – that covers the topic in detail. — Bruce1ee talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise it's looking good. — Bruce1ee talk 10:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Support the prose and MOS. Thanks for your fixes and your ongoing work on SF & F magazines. — Bruce1ee talk 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a pleasure; and thanks for the support -- and the link to WP:POSS, which appears to say my approach is OK. Still a few more magazines to go, though I think the major ones are almost all done now. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Commentsfrom RL0919

I made a few copy edits, and just have a few comments:

  • Would be helpful to add alt text for the images.
    Done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "taboo-breaking" is given in quotes -- is this a quote from the source cited at the end of the sentence?
    No, it was an attempt to summarize the discussion there; the magazine tried to include stories with more sex than was common in the genre at the time. On looking at it again I'm not sure I can justify "taboo-breaking", as there had been some other stories about sex up to that point, but I decided to just cut that half of the sentence. It's about Venture, not about F&SF, and the reader doesn't need the background to understand the point, which is that Boucher couldn't take on the extra work of another magazine. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding the limited availability of images, I see there are a couple of photos of Gordon Van Gelder on Commons. Perhaps one of those would be relevant.
    Thanks for pointing that out; no idea why I didn't think to look. I found one of Spivak too, but nothing for the other editors, sadly. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Generally looking quite good. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks good; happy to support. RL0919 ( talk) 01:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

Hi Mike (and Andy/Sarastro), I started a copyedit/review a while ago but have been waylaid, I expect to finish this w/e and can also do the source review. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Recusing coord duties (of course), I've finished copyediting all but Overseas editions, which I know has been revised since the nom opened and can probably survive without me... ;-) Pls let me know any concerns with my edits; outstanding points/queries:

  • We note that Starship Troopers "proved to be one of Heinlein's most controversial books" -- it's also one of his most popular, does this source happen to mention that too?
    I can't quickly find a cite for its popularity -- the source doesn't say it was popular, nor does the SFE3 entry on Heinlein. I do mention the Hugo that it won, which points in that direction. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    No worries. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tiptree contributing some of her finest stories" -- I realise "finest" would be via the source but wonder if it might also support something that doesn't sound quite so opinionated, e.g. "best-known" or some such.
    Changed to "best-known". Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Under Bibliographic details (bullet points and table), WP style guidelines might suggest "Late 1949" or at least the more generic "Autumn 1949", but OTOH "Fall 1949" probably reflects the exact terminology on the cover, so I just put it out there for your consideration; not a show-stopper for me...
    Sorry, not clear on the issue here -- yes, "Fall 1949" is the cover date for the first issue. The date ranges I give are not the calendar dates during which the editors held the post; they're the cover dates of the issues for which they're responsible. Perhaps if I changed the heading to "As of March 2017, the issues for which each editor was responsible are as follows"? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    Hi Mike, the point was that we should generally avoid using seasons to denote times of the year but if -- as you confirm -- it's the cover "date" for the first issue then it's probably fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I might check over Holdstock's encyclopedia for any worthwhile tidbits when I do the source review later but this looks very comprehensive though not overly detailed -- well done as usual.
    • Mike, Holdstock's encyclopedia highlights Mel Hunter's idiosyncratic "robot" series of illustrations in F&SF -- worth a mention alongside Bonestell, Freas and Emsh?
      Good find; I added a sentence, and it gave me an excuse to include another cover. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
      An opportunist after my own heart... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In the same work, Christopher Priest describes F&SF as "a sort of New Wave of its own ever since its inception", which might work in the Assessment section here.
      I read what he says; it would fit in the first paragraph of the "Edward Ferman" section. I think he's largely echoing what Ashley says, though, even to the point of picking out Zelazny as someone who appeared in both F&SF and the British magazines. Do you think there's something in what Priest says that's not adequately covered in the current text? It's earlier than Ashley's comments, and it would give a different source (nice to use someone other Ashley where possible), I suppose. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
      Well, yes, I think it'd be fair to give space to someone other than Ashley (invaluable though Ashley is) and especially to a reasonably well-known author -- plus I found Priest's words kinda snappy. I mean I'm not sure that we need suppress one for the other (unless I've missed the bit you're referring to) but will leave to you... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
      Done; I added a bit to assessment, and a bit to the discussion of the New Wave in the section on Edward Ferman. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      Tks mate, the only thing I could suggest is that because Priest's words are from many years ago it might be better to use past tense (i.e."agreed", "added") but again will leave to you -- very happy to support; another fine achievement. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
      Reworded -- how does that look? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
      Added a word but apart from that, all good I think -- tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 04:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and the copyedit is appreciated as always. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
No probs, will aim to get onto the source review in a day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support just a few suggestions.

  • "but the decision was quickly taken" I would say "made" for "taken". Sounds more US.
  • "The magazine was quite different in presentation from the existing science fiction magazines of the day" Given the number of times you use the word "magazine" in this paragraph, I would change "The Magazine" to "F&SF".
  • "Boucher bought "A Canticle for Leibowitz" from Walter M. Miller, who had been unable to sell it elsewhere, and printed it in the April 1955 issue; it was the first in that series," Are we talking about a short story (as the lack of italics might argue) or the novel? A link might be helpful. Was there a series of short stories that became the novel?
  • "It remained eclectic over the 1960s and 1970s" I would say "through", not "over".
  • "Ashley describes it as bridging "the attitude gap between the slick magazines and the pulps"'; and argues that it made the genre more respectable." That shouldn't be a semicolon.
Very well done and engaging. I often read it in the 1980s.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. I've made all the changes you suggest; I linked to A Canticle for Leibowitz, which is about the novel, but the publication history gives the details; as you guessed, it was originally a series of short stories and became a fixup novel. I had avoided linking it because it's not immediately obvious from the linked article that the novel is not directly what I'm talking about. Perhaps it would be better to link to the publication details section; what do you think? Or perhaps clarify in the text, or in a note? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly something like " 'A Canticle for Liebowitz", the first story in the series that would become the novel of the same name".? I leave it in your discretion.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Good idea; done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Ian

  • is a new one for me and I don't trust my German, so could you take me through how we established reliability?
    This was added a few days ago by an IP; there's a discussion on the article talk page. Looking through that I see I took them at their word when they said it was reliable -- I thought it was a page by the publisher, but per Google Translate it appears to be someone's personal page. I'm pretty sure this is not going to be reliable. I don't think one can ping IPs, but I'll leave a note on the talk page and do some more research and see what's salvageable. It's mostly non-controversial (how long did the German series last, and what were the titles) and I can get some, but not all, of it from the ISFDB. I'll report back here in a couple of days. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Now removed. The only thing I lost was the exact number of that edition under each title; the ISFDB will eventually add those covers, and then I can re-add the information. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Worth adding OCLCs for the book refs missing ISBNs?
    Will do, probably tonight. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Now done, except for the Kingsley Amis. I can find other editions of this on Worldcat, but not the Ballantine edition. Is it acceptable to use an OCLC for a different edition? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    Hmm, not sure about that -- maybe just leave, I don't think it's a showstopper. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You use "Westport, Connecticut" but "Middletown, CT" -- aside from consistency I think it's best to spell out states, provinces, etc.
    Done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "de Camp" and "del Rey" but "De Larber"? Unless the latter's is always rendered with the capital...
    Done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • FN53 -- Weinberg (1988) but looks like it should be 1985?
    Actually the mistake was the other way round; I've fixed the other cites to say 1988. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not really a sourcing thing but in the same general area of the article -- I know we sometimes editorialise a bit in footnotes but do we really need "approvingly" in #5?
    I think I was trying to add Aldiss & Wingrove's weight to the comment, but there's no need to do so, so I cut it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing else leapt out... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

HMS Levant (1758)

Nominator(s): Euryalus ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

An eighteenth century Royal Navy frigate with a solid record as a hunter of French, Spanish and American privateers. Launched in 1758 and in service during both the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, defeating a total of 24 enemy vessels. This article passed GA and MILHIST A-class review last year, and received an FAC mentor review from Nick-D a few weeks ago. After extensive recent tweaking I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. However it's been 712 years since my last FAC, so I apologise in advance for any obvious errors. Comments, suggestions or criticisms welcome. -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks

Image review

  • captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Thanks, done.
  • File:USS_Revenge_(1777).jpg: I'm not seeing any evidence that Benson was a Navy employee? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Removed. Will restore if verified or replace if possible, but it's largely decorative so am also happy to leave it out.

Comments by Ykraps

Just started looking at the sources.Shouldn't the citation for first sentence in the construction section (Levant was an oak-built 28-gun sixth-rate, one of 18 vessels...) be pp.227-231? The oak reference appears on p.229 and the other pages are needed to confirm there were 18 ships.

  • Done. Also added a ref to the table in Gardiner 1992, which handily lists all 18 on the same page.

I can't see where Dull indicates, "Despite the Treaty, Spain delayed the issue of a formal declaration of war" (pp.102-103)

  • Yeah, Dull kind of talks around it by flagging the date of the treaty but not the date of the declaration. I've added a better reference (Hunt 1905), which reads in part: After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on April 12 ... She did not declare war until June 16 in order that the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action." For verification there's an online version of Hunt here - search function doesn't seem to work but the reference is near the top of page 196.
  • I was going to suggest this [[1]] but I think yours is better.-- Ykraps ( talk) 16:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really an issue, just wondering why the table for captures during the Seven Years' War gives the day and the table for captures during the American Revolutionary War, doesn't.-- Ykraps ( talk) 21:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Have started to add them in, for consistency if nothing else. Will finish this up shortly.

The sentence "Her erstwhile captain, George Murray, was assigned to command the 30-gun fifth rate frigate HMS Cleopatra; he was promoted to the rank of admiral in 1794, and died in 1796" has been referenced using the ODNB but the version I'm looking at [[2]] says he suffered two strokes in 1796 but didn't die until 17 October 1797 (at the home of his nephew). Can you check your source again?-- Ykraps ( talk) 16:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I can't access odnb from where I am at present, but I checked the University of Michigan ref used elsewhere in the article and it confirms the 1797 death date (also made admiral in 1795, not 1794), as you indicate. Have fixed the date and added UMich as a reference - sorry, I would have used your odnb reference link instead but I cannot open it.
    I didn't mention the promotion because ODNB says he was promoted to rear admiral in 1794 and vice admiral in 1795, so I thought, "promoted to admiral in 1794" was okay. If you want to use it, the citation is - Lester, Malcom (2008). "Murray, George (1741–1797)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . I think you need a subscription or a UK library card to access so that's probably why the link didn't work. Or use the sources you have. Whatever you think best.-- Ykraps ( talk) 08:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Done - I re-added the ODNB ref per the above, for the date of appointment as rear-admiral in 1794, and also kept UMich as a slightly more accessible source for date of death in 1797.

Source review - Sources appear reliable and of suitable quality. I have checked all those available to me for accuracy and copyright violation. Where I have been unable to access the source, I have tried to corroborate using my own (with varying degrees of success). With references I couldn't check I've AGF, having been satisfied with everything else I have seen. Some examples below:

Text in article: Captain Murray's orders were to join a Mediterranean squadron under the overall command of Captain Robert Mann, which was tasked with intercepting merchant vessels suspected of supplying American rebels. While at sea, Murray also took the opportunity to train his crew in seamanship and battle techniques, in preparation for future enemy engagement.

Text in source: ... the ship travelled as part of the Mediterranean fleet under the command of Rear Admiral Robert Mann...Early entries of the log book contain some description of pursuing and halting ships from England and America (one from Pennsylvania and one from Maryland). Other ships encountered by the Levant hailed from Amsterdam, Genoa, Martinique, Cádiz, Jamaica, and Antigua. The author also described exercising the ship's guns and practicing tactical fleet formations (forming a line of battle abreast, a line of battle ahead, and the bow and quarter).

Text in article: In March 1776 she anchored in the Bay of Algiers where the Dey received her warmly and provided the crew with supplies including bread, vegetables, and three live sheep.

Text in source: The crew of the Levant also encountered the Dey of Algiers who "sent onboard as a Present 3 live Bullocks of sheep with bread & Vegetables to the ship comp'y." (March 7, 1776)

Text in article: Her erstwhile captain, George Murray, was assigned to command the 30-gun fifth rate frigate HMS Cleopatra; he was promoted to the rank of admiral in 1795, and died in 1797.

Text in source: He later served as captain of the Levant from 1774-1779. In 1780, he was appointed to the frigate Cleopatra……He obtained a promotion to Vice Admiral in 1795……He died on October 17, 1797.

Text in article: On 12 April 1779 Spain signed the Treaty of Aranjuez with France, setting terms for a joint military alliance against Britain. Despite the Treaty Spain delayed the formal declaration of war until June, to give time for better co-ordination of its battle fleet.

Text in sources: the 12 April 1779 Convention of Aranjuez, Spain and France became allies. (Dull) After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on April 12. The treaty, which did not include the Americans, provided that Spain should recognise their independence and that the two contracting powers should invade England ; and the reconquest of Gibraltar and Minorca, the acquisition of the coast of Florida, and the expulsion of the English from Honduras were mentioned among the objects which Spain desired to effect. She did not declare war until June 16, in order that the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action. (Hunt)

Text in article: Levant was returned to Portsmouth in early 1775, but put to sea again on 22 June amid the early stages of the American Revolutionary War.

Text in source: Ord: 6.5.1757. K: 6.1757. L: 6.7.1758. C: 17.7.1758-16.6.1759 at Portsmouth............In 1774 under Capt. George Murray; home in 1775, then returned to the Mediterranean 22.6.1775.......

Earwig's Copvio tool returns 36.7% violation unlikely [[3]] The inclusion of this quote increases the count considerably [[4]] -- Ykraps ( talk) 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Clare Stevenson

Nominator(s): Ian Rose ( talk) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been a long time coming. I took the article, on the first commander of an Australian women's military service, through MilHist A-Class Review back in 2009. It was (I believe) the project's first A-Class article about a woman. If it succeeds here, it'll be the first -- long overdue -- FA on a woman in the military biography category. I had planned to wait a while between ACR and FAC to see if any new sources turned up but little has so I think we have as comprehensive a picture of her life and career as can be expected and, besides, eight years is time enough. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Suppport Comments from Syek88

I've had a series of read-throughs of this article, including against select sources, and have very little in the way of suggestions. I think it is very well written: it has a natural flow that must have been very difficult to achieve given the extent to which material has been cobbled together from very thin sources. The second paragraph of "Early challenges" is a particularly good read.

It is both disappointing that the existing biographical material on Stevenson is so limited, yet so satisfying that here on Wikipedia we (you) have been able to fix that as best as possible. Also, the article also does an excellent job of outlining the discrimination Stevenson and her colleagues faced without bludgeoning the reader with commentary (cf Stephens and Isaacs, who do not mince words).

I have checked what sources I can. The Thomson source appears to be the most significant one not available for public access.

My only suggestions:

  • ”By the end of the war a total of 27,000 women had served in the WAAAF, comprising thirty-one per cent of Air Force ground staff and filling sixty-one trades, all previously occupied by men.” I don’t think the source fully supports this. In Stephens & Isaacs the 61 and 31(.5)% figures date not to the end of the war but to July 1944. I’m not sure this is trivial because much could have changed between July 1944 and the end of the war. It wouldn't be surprising if the number 61 increased substantially.
    • Appreciate you taking the time to spotcheck sources -- you're quite right, the text as I had it was making an assumption not explicitly supported by the source, so I've reworded. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ”Stevenson obtained a Bachelor of Education degree from the University of Melbourne in 1948.” Is “degree” necessary? I told you I was scraping the bottom of the barrel for comments.
    • Have to admit I'm used to seeing the word "degree" in there -- could we see if any other reviewers comment on it? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest having the dates of her tenure as Director in the lead. It's the most important thing she did, and the casual reader might want to know that information without having to read down the page.
    • Agree, done. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Regards Syek88 ( talk) 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words and comments -- I'll try to look at these in the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure. There is nothing in the second point, so I'm marking this as (a very easy) support. Syek88 ( talk) 18:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Whew, it only occurred to me after I nominated that I hadn't checked/updated the image links and licences since 2009, so glad I caught 'em before you reviewed -- tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Tks as always Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T3

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a torpedo boat that was built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1913–1914, and served under their flag in WWI. She was transferred to the new Yugoslav state after the war, and saw service with them until Yugoslavia entered WWII, when she was captured by the Italians. She was later captured from them by the Germans and saw service with them or the puppet Croatian state until she was sunk in February 1945. This article has been significantly expanded in the last couple of months. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, with a prose suggestion:
"Originally built as 78 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1914" Perhaps "Originally built as 78 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat of the Austro-Hungarian navy, which was built in 1914." -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, with a slight modification. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Golden swallow (bird)

Nominator(s): RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits , Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a swallow in the genus Tachycineta. It isn't very well studied, like, I daresay, most Caribbean birds. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Since this is seems to be the WP:Primary topic, I think this article should be moved to Golden swallow, which is now a disambiguation page with only one other topic (a film) linked. The disambig page should be moved to Golden swallow (disambiguation) instead. Review to come, but this issue is pretty important. Sorry I only noticed it after nomination. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, looking at the page views, and just at the google search results, there is no primary topic. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The movie is obviously named after a bird, so it would mean the bird has the "right" to the title, being the original subject... FunkMonk ( talk) 14:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the generally accepted "criteria" says that which is the original topic doesn't matter, thus invalidating your argument. Furthermore, the top hit on google for "golden swallow" is the movie. But, the second hit is for the bird, meaning that none of them are the primary topic. Also, the movie formerly (before I started the improvement of the bird, but even so, the page hits now are about equal) had many more views than the bird. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that the movie is located at a different article title ( Golden Swallow (1968 film)), so the bird isn't even competing with the movie for the name. This is about whether Golden swallow really needs to be a disambiguation page, or if that could become Golden swallow (disambiguation) instead, thus freeing up the unbracketed name for the bird. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, since there is no primary topic, then the dab page should be kept at "Golden swallow". RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 18:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
That's very much up for discussion, let's see if others chime in. I'll go on with the rest of the review when I've finished the map. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
With just two articles using this name and one having to have a date in its name I'd move this to golden swallow, dab at the top to the film and remove the dab page entirely. Oh, and I'll review soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll make a formal move request once the FAC is over. FunkMonk ( talk) 20:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for making it easy! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Map now added. Any reason why this illustration[5] isn't used? Seems a nice counterpart to the one in the article. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Added illustration. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Subspecies should be listed in the taxobox, with authorities.
  • "Adult of the race sclateri perching on an artificial nest box" Two things with this caption. First, I'd assume all nest boxes are artificial? Seems like stating the obvious. Also, perhaps less confusing to say subspecies instead of race there, since you use that term in the rest of the article. I know the terms can be used synonymously, but it's better to be consistent and clear.
Changed RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"The current genus Tachycineta, on the other hand, was originally described in 1850 by the ornithologist Jean Cabanis." This is missing the point, which is that the species was moved to this genus at some point, which contains other species. Therefore there is no need to mention when that genus was named (it is not monotypic), the important part is when the species was moved to the genus, by who, and why.
  • "This swallow is bitypic" The species is. You shouldn't mix common terms with taxonomic terms here.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "This swallow is bitypic, consisting of two subspecies; the second, T. e. sclateri" You should mention the nominate trinomial first here, may not be obvious to most people what the name is.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You could mention much earlier that the nominate subspecies is probably extinct. For example, you refer to it in present tense under description, and you don't refer to it by name under distribution, you just say the species is extinct in Jamaica.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The golden swallow is native to Hispaniola" I'd add "the island of Hispaniola". Most people may not know it is an island, as they probably know the names of the countries located on it instead.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The golden swallow is victim to various mammalian" Victim sounds overly dramatic, something like "preyed upon" would be better.
What??? Anyways, I think that this should be kept, as mammals are thought to be a possibly cause of extinction of the Jamaican subspecies. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The only species that is known to inhabit nest boxes occupied by golden swallows is Polyancistrus loripes, a species of katydid." State this is an insect, by reading the text I thought it was another bird.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I assume much of the behaviour section applies specifically to the extant subspecies, in which case it should probably be noted.
  • The intro seems slightly too detailed compared to the length of the article body. Could be summarised further.
Is it good now? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Only a few points missing. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Hume/Walters source[6] has some info about the extinct subspecies not mentioned here: It's last major roosting site was destroyed in 1987, it was considered common in the 19th century (gradually declining during the century), and there is no mention of its range between Cockpit Country and the Blue Mountains (Jamaica). These seem like significant omissions.
Added mention. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd add the part about last roosting site too. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Added now. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - it looks good now, but I still think the two subspecies should be listed in the taxobox, but this seems to be inconsequently done across other FAs. FunkMonk ( talk) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is well sourced and reads well. ( talk) 21:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thanks/much appreciated Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Sabine's Sunbird

First off good on ya for not listening to me when I was doubtful this could get to FAC size (not listening to me is an important life lesson for anyone). Now on with the review.

  • Lead- unless there's a good reason, I think the lead should follow the same subject order as the main text. This lead jumps around a lot. Status is towards the front, in the main text it is at the end. At the very least in the first paragraph I think it's essential to place the habitat requirements after the distribution.
I think that its status should be put near the front of the lead, as it is relatively important and is probably the most studied subject of this bird. Otherwise, I did do what you wanted. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • An esoteric point, I know typically we describe the nominate and then explain how subspecies differ, but since the nominate is extinct wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around?
I guess, but the nominate race was described first with the other subspecies being described in terms of changes from the nominate. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Early naturalists were not aware of this species Do we know that for sure? Records can be lost.
I suppose, just going on what this paper said (Graves was the guy that scoured the island for 20 years trying to find it). Given its delay in description, I reckon it's not a far-fetched point to make. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is there a section about its status in the taxonomy section when it's also in the lead and its own section?
Removed RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there any information about why the two subspecies are treated as a single species as opposed to two species? When where they lumped? Has anyone advocated splitting them?
I have been trying to hunt this. This is proving really hard Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If there isn't anything there isn't anything. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Casliber: Have you found anything yet? Also, could you (after you hopefully find it) do the subspecies taxobox thing, as I am pretty inexperienced in what authority to cite, etc. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We know its habitat requirements in Hispaniola (with the eponymous pines) , what about Jamaica?
Could not be found RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The Graves paper does discuss habitat in part - I have read it a couple of times and will see what/how to add something. I think we can add a bit more than what we have, just need to digest it and think... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Any progress? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Will look tonight. been distracted.... added now. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

More to come. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Sabine's Sunbird: Is it good now? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Some more. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Predators and parasites - surely this should just be predators in this instance?
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The nominate subspecies is presumed to be extinct, possibly because of habitat loss and predation. The population is declining, mostly due to shifting agriculture and predation by introduced mammalian species surely that should be the remaining population?
Added "The remaining T. e. sclateri...". RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Sabine's Sunbird: What do you think now? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 19:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Looks pretty good, but of course some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me?

  • The description in the lead is a bit too detailed for my taste, since it's all repeated later, but I'll leave that to you
I did that a bit, hopefully I will summarize it more later. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • inhabits the inner hills of islands— do you mean "interior"?
Reworded RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • has blue-green forehead —missing "a"
I actually had to reword this, so now it is all resolved. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This swallow is bitypic, consisting of two subspeciesThis swallow has two subspecies is simpler and avoids the undefined technical term
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • clade —needs link
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You correctly use BE "metre", "centimetre" and "fibre" in this article, but consistently use AE "color", which is not appropriate for this swallow
Done, with much regret RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • insects of the order Hemiptera, and various other insects—avoid repeat of "insect" in the same sentence
Reworded RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

Looks good but there are formatting problems with the references that should be easy to fix.

  • Ref 2 - add place of publication (London) for consistency. It is easier for the reader if the link is to the actual page - and I prefer to use BHL when available as in this case. url=
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 6 Bryant (1866) Need name of journal (Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History). Normally sentence case is used for the title of a journal article.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 7 Cory (1884) The Birds of Haiti... This is a book. Need publisher and place.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 8 Cory (1984) "Description of Several New Birds .. Need name of journal (Auk). Need sentence case for article title.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 10 Whittingham et al (2002). Sentence case for title of article.
Actually, everything here is correctly capitalized, the things that are capitalized are supposed to be that way. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 12 Proctor (2016). Why not include a link here as the thesis is unpublished?
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Switched. Thanks for actually making the citation. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 14 Townsend et al (2008). Sentence case for title of journal article.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 15 Hume & Walters (2012). Place of publication? (for consistency)
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz ( talk) 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Aa77zz: All done, thanks! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Ref. 7 Cory (1884). The Birds of Haiti... This is a book and requires a page number. The scan is poor but I think you want page 45 which is at url= There is a picture on the previous page. - Aa77zz ( talk) 22:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
got it/added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Supported above. Reference 12 Proctor (2016) is a dissertation for a Master's degree. I'm unhappy with the use of this type of source. Theses and dissertations are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as journal articles. If the results of a study are important they would normally be written up and submitted to a journal, usually in collaboration with the supervisor. The submitted article will then be peer reviewed before publication. The dissertation by Proctor is unusual in that it consists of what appear to be two prepared manuscripts each with other authors including his supervisor David W. Winkler listed on the title page. It seems likely that these two manuscripts have been submitted for publication. If and when they eventually appear in print after peer review, it would be good to cite the published articles rather than this dissertation. - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

agreed/we can do that. The dilemma is weighing up comprehensiveness vs breadth and Reliability of sources. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we will do that. I'm pretty glad that I found that, or I don't think that this could have been expanded to FAC appropriate levels. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them, I think we just need image and source reviews now. These can be requested at the usual place. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, only the image review is needed— Aa77zz did the source review. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, no problem. That's why it's good to bold "source review", then I don't miss it! Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Cape sparrow

Nominator(s): — innotata 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this article is a comprehensive resource on the species that meets all the featured article criteria. — innotata 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sabine's support

A few now, more to come when I get back from work.

  • For a sparrow, the Cape sparrow is brightly coloured and distinctive, I would suggest it is striking rather than colourfull
  • In behaviour; Away from humans it is nomadic, and forms flocks of up to 200 birds. Away from settled areas perhaps?

I'll have a more comprehensive read through later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done — innotata
  • Do you want to include the weight range? 17-38g according to HBW.
  • Maybe calls instead of vocalisations?
  • Loxia or Fringilla, - might it be helpful for casual readers if we had common names, crossbills and finches, after the genus names?
    • When the Cape sparrow was classified in Loxia, that genus name didn't exclusively refer to crossbills, so I think that would be more confusing. — innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • as a member of the genus Passer. and also to make it clear that by being in this genus it's in the old world sparrow family? It's family is mentioned in the lead but should be mentioned here too
    • Edited — innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • and the Sudan golden sparrow have been reported how on Earth did they meet?
    • Sudan golden sparrows are fairly popular pets. — innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • including holes as well as open locations. seems redundant, just put a semicolon and jump to trees.
  • Cape sparrows are among the main hosts of brood parasitism by the dideric cuckoo,[15] and have been recorded parasitising others of the same species.[28] I think the cuckoo needs to be qualified that it's the main within the sparrow's range (it probably isn't the main host in Kenya) and the second part could make it clearer that it's referring to intraspecific parasitism.
  • Not an actionable comment, but why on Earth is it on a CAR stamp?
    • Presumably it's one of those countries that puts random stuff on their stamps to sell to collectors. Done all the rest so far. — innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, this is all good. Fix the above (or explain why you won't) and we're done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Since I GA reviewed this, I may return later if the FAC stalls, to give a new opinion. Until then, I can say the images look fine, all are user-made or from Flickr, with appropriate licences. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have one suggestion, the image under Relationships with humans seems rather bland, and it even seems to be slightly out of focus. Why not use a more interesting image, such as one of these?[7][8][9]
    • Done, moved it up though. — innotata 21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I thought this looked like FA quality when I GA reviewed it, so I have little more to add. But there was one issue where you said details were in a paper you couldn't access, perhaps it would be worth getting those papers now? To answer why it "has a low reproductive success in more built-up areas". FunkMonk ( talk) 11:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to make sure it didn't drown in other comments, did you see the point above, Innotata? FunkMonk ( talk) 10:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The main paper in question is from the proceedings of the 19th IOC in 1988; if I remember right, my school's library doesn't have the complete proceedings. Now, I'd say it's not absolutely needed, though, since Summers-Smith covers its findings well: it found later breeding times, smaller clutch sizes, and consequently lower overall reproductive success in more urban/built-up areas, and attributes this to "suboptimum habitat" insufficiently similar to its wild, grassland habitat. It doesn't seem that this or any other sources have gotten any deeper into the weeds about why this difference was seen. — innotata 00:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - still looks good, note that inaccessible sources can often be received through the WP:Resource request. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

I will start with some quick comments, like I usually do:

  • In the lead, the term "granivorous" should be explained.
    • changed to eats seeds — innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What is a nomadic flock? Please explain the term, again in the lead.
  • Probably should add a comma after "breeding" in the sentence "A typical clutch contains three or four eggs, and both parents are involved in breeding from nest building to feeding young."
  • It might be good to add a comma after "plumage" in the sentence "A medium-sized sparrow at 14–16 centimetres (5.5–6.3 in), it has distinctive plumage including large pale head stripes."
    • Done these three — innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the last sentence, it would be good to add how it is categorized as least concern, instead of just "not threatened". Also, it would be good to split the sentence into two parts, one about its IUCN status, and one about how the population isn't decreasing significantly.
    • Removed IUCN status from the lead — innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you re-add the IUCN status? It is pretty standard (as in really standard) to have the IUCN status in the lead, at least for bird FAs. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really care either way for LC species; added it. — innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:ACRO, IUCN should be expanded at its first occurrence.
    • Done — innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's all for now, good luck! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Why is the taxonomy after the description? It is generally standard to have the taxonomy before the description. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Either works, since those sections define what the species is; I think it makes more sense to put the description first, since that's a more fundamental definition, and the taxonomy if informed by physical attributes. Bird and other animal articles are pretty mixed on which goes first, and all the other sparrow articles have description first. — innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Innotata: Sorry about this, but I will stop the review. If you want an explanation, I made the essay User:RileyBugz/On retirement. The gist of it is if I have too many commitments in an online community, the likelihood of me retiring increases. This, unfortunately, seems to be one to many FAC reviews. Sorry, again. Hopefully you are ok with this. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 02:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I remember this, a smart bird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • male Cape sparrow has some bold black— repeat of species name seems unnecessary
  • cheerup, chip cheerup.[7][4]—refs in wrong order
  • transcribed—overworked in the calls paragraph
  • Miocene —time range would be helpful here
  • but these habits are not important sources of food—"habits" seems redundant
  • and the Sudan golden sparrow have been reported—clarify that these are escapes
    • Done these — innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Any known predators, parasites or diseases? There is at least this as a parasite, and you may be able to find something for a local raptor, although that's often tricky to RS, even when it's "obvious".
    • I've done some pretty thorough searches for cites on predators, and didn't find anything specific enough. I'll add something from the source you linked. — innotata 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Fine,changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I'm fine with your tweaks, you're on the right track. For instance, I changed "when X when Y" (not grammatical) to "when X and Y" ... I wasn't wild about the result, but I'm not trying to get my favorite wording, I'm only trying to make minimal changes to fix things that are problematic or don't have consensus. So, tweak away. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That's what I figured; thanks for looking through and noticing these problem phrasings! — innotata 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Maine Centennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 20:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a rather ugly US commemorative, but still one of interest, and somewhat valuable today. Enjoy. Wehwalt ( talk) 20:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moisejp

  • Lead: "centennial commission decided to charge a premium" / Inception and legislation: "the centennial commission decided to issue it at a premium": For those who aren't coin buffs, could you explain in the article what this means?
  • "first considering a two-year extension for the National Screw-Thread Commission. Once the committee had heard of the standardization of screw threads": I wonder whether it would be an idea to remove this? If I have understood it directly, it's not directly related to the Maine coin story. Also, for someone like myself who is not that familiar with various processes related to making coins, it feels like an extra layer of detail to decipher—especially if it is not directly related to the main story.
  • "Once the committee had heard of the standardization of screw threads, Congressman Peters addressed the committee, of which he was not a member, regarding the Maine coinage proposal, telling of the history of the state and citizens' desire to celebrate the centennial, including with a commemorative coin." Even if you do remove the first bit, this sentence is awfully long, with lots of clauses. Would you consider breaking it up into more than one sentence, or break it using a semi-colon?

More comments to follow. Moisejp ( talk) 05:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • This is going to be my biggest comment. I really believe the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the Inception and legislation section get bogged down by detailing what every single person said chronologically. The reader needs to try to grasp the point of view of each of the many characters who are listed, and it gets difficult to keep track of the overall narrative. I have to admit that I gave up trying, because there are too many details and it gets exhausting. Plus, the structure gets quite repetitive: A said ____; B replied ____; C recalled that D had said ____. I would like to strongly suggest that you summarize the points more. Maybe you don't need to mention every single person. I see these people all have wiki-links so they must be historical people of some importance, but if you could find a way to remove unnecessary details that could help. Maybe there would be ways to merge structures of the type "A said ____; B said _____" to become, for example, "A and B discussed ____"? That's just an idea, but however you do it, I really think you need to make this section less dense.

I still have a few other smaller comments and will get to them soon. Moisejp ( talk) 16:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. My book references cover how these coins came to be very lightly if at all, and few have Congressional ProQuest. So I'm trying to increase the knowledge that is freely available to all. I will try to do it in a less dense way.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I've taken out unnecessary detail and dealt with your other concerns. Thank you for the comments.

Thank you. I've got a bit busy the last few days, but plan to make time to continue this review soon. Moisejp ( talk) 05:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Your removal of unnecessary detail has been an improvement. The Inception and legislation section is still a tiny bit dense for my tastes, but it may be a matter of personal preference, so that's OK. But its denseness means I don't feel I understand every detail as well as I should, and I have some questions:

  • "Initially, the idea was to have a circulating commemorative that could advertise the centennial celebrations in Maine, but subsequent to the approval of the legislation... " Is the "approval of the legislation" the same approval process that is described in the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, or was it a previous level of approval? This wasn't clear to me. Or I think maybe the first paragraph is talking about state government, while the rest is talking about federal government? Maybe this could be spelled out more clearly for readers less familiar with the U.S. government.
  • Did you add clarification for what "issue it at a premium" means? I'm guessing it means instead of going into regular circulation, the coin is sold for an amount higher than its face value, but I'm not sure. If you're confident that should be clear to everyone, and no other reviewers have any doubt, maybe it's just me.
I had clarified the lede, now I've tried to make it very clear in the body.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Minnesota's Oscar E. Keller asked Peters to confirm there would be no expense to the government, which Peters did... In response to questions by Gard, Peters explained that although Maine would pay for the dies..." This sounds possibly contradictory but I couldn't tell whether the two statements were supposed to be related or were talking about different things. Ah, but now that I realize the context of the second to fourth paragraphs is the federal government, it seems to make more sense. Could this be unclear to other readers? It could be another reason to make this context extra clear from the outset.
"federal" added.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "On May 3, McLean asked that the three coin bills (Maine, Alabama and Pilgrim) be considered by the Senate immediately, rather than awaiting their turns, but Utah Senator Reed Smoot objected: Smoot's attempt to bring up an anti-dumping trade bill had just been objected to by Charles S. Thomas of Colorado." The colon suggests that what follows it is the reason for Smoot's objection, but the exact implication is not clear to me. Was Smoot grumpy that his own bill had been rejected, so he wasn't going to let another bill get fast-tracked?
I looked at the Congressional Record again and what you said is the way it looks. Smoot basically says, if we are going to go by the agenda, we should start with the first bill on it, which they do, but pass by about forty items before they get to one they actually discuss (deportation of aliens). I've tried to make this clearer, but am hampered by the source and the references to arcane Senate rules.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "This was probably in an attempt to improve the striking quality of the coins, and if so, likely had limited success, as the full detail would not appear on many coins." I'm not convinced the second half of the sentence make sense as is. At minimum, I would take out "likely". Actually, maybe that's all you need. I was going to suggest a change of verb tense in the second half, but I'm not confident about that either. I would just take out "likely".
Axed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Near the rim are the name of the country and HALF DOLLAR." May I suggest it would be more straightforward and plain English to use "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" instead of "the name of the country" (which sounds a bit forced to me here).
This and the one below are my efforts to vary somewhat formulaic language common to most commemorative coins of the era. I've done as you suggest.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "with the excess over the round number" also feels a bit forced to me, but ignore this comment and the one above if you disagree.

That's all my comments. Cheers, Moisejp ( talk) 06:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done that. Thank you for the extensive comments. It is always good to get a new perspective on these things.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It all looks good. I'm happy to Support. Moisejp ( talk) 01:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the support as well.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Just some minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • there in commemoration of it—clunky, don't like sentence ending in "it"
  • They catalog—in BE, "catalogue" isn't a verb, is this acceptable in AE?
It may be numismatic (and philatelic) usage. I am determined to avoid saying "are worth". Changed to "list".
  • Relatively few sold —missing "were"?
I've done those. Thank you for the review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments by Mike Christie

A couple of minor points that aren't worth withholding support for:

  • "They list for hundreds to thousands of dollars" -- this isn't strictly an "as of 2017" situation, but it might be good to provide date context in the lead -- prices can change, after all.
I think it is phrased vaguely enough that it should survive a good long time.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "That legislation for a Maine Centennial half dollar had been introduced in the House of Representatives by that state's John A. Peters": two "that"s in quick succession.
  • Is it worth redlinking the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures?
Linked to the list of defunct committees.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "planned to give their endorsement of the bill": perhaps "planned to endorse the bill".

-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. Except as noted, I've done those things.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them, I think this just needs image and source reviews. These can be requested at the usual place. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The Fade Out

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer ( talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book series The Fade Out by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips. It was promoted to GA status in Sept 2013 and has been stable since then. I recently updated it to include information on the hardcover edition. Argento Surfer ( talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Cover_to_Fade_Out_1.jpg: FUR needs work - for example, "n.a" parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: Per comment below, a second image has been added to the article. Argento Surfer ( talk) 19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The FUR of the first will need updating to reflect that, and as with the first the second will need its "na" parameters filled in. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. I've read through a couple of times and made one minor tweak; can't find anything wrong with the prose. Short, concise, and clear. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88

I think this is very well-written. Tight, focused, and easy to read.

My only comment is about comprehensiveness. I make the comment tentatively because I have never read a comic book in my life and don't want to barge in here and start tanking a candidacy with ill-informed criticisms.

After reading the article a few times I was left wondering "how was this series illustrated? What do the comics actually look like?" At the bottom of "Development" there is a sentence or two on digital illustration tools, and a couple of reviews talk about Phillips' illustrations. But what we don't have is a section of the article that puts these things into context. Nothing explains the style of illustration, which would extend from graphic portrayal of characters to font of texts. The Featured Article Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book has two paragraphs (under "Style and themes") dedicated to these questions.

Just a comment at this stage for the purpose of discussion. Syek88 ( talk) 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point. There won't be a large amount of citable information about Phillips' style in The Fade Out in part because it looks like every other comic he's drawn for the last decade, but I may be able to find more on the topic. Alternatively, would including a panel or two adequately address your concern? Using the bottom left panel from this image would show the artwork, lettering, and the colorist's effects. Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Ideally we would have both image and text, the latter being Wikipedia's primary method of communication and the former being a helpful option. But I take your point about there not being much referenceable information, at least specific to this comic. Maybe it would be possible to shoehorn into the article something general about Phillips' style? But it would probably be better for me to leave this to your judgement and support however you choose to do it. The image you have suggested is certainly very good and we might not need much if any text to supplement it. Syek88 ( talk) 18:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I have added the image to the reception section to accompany the reviewer's comments on the artwork. I considered putting in Development near the part about how Phillips drew it, but I thought it might be too close to the infobox to look nice. I will look for citable discussions about his style, but it may take a few days. Argento Surfer ( talk) 19:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

York City War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Following on from the North Eastern Railway War Memorial which recently made it through FAC, this is the second half of the story. the city council commissioned the same architect but had a tenth of the railway company's budget to play with; this and the proposed locations of both resulted in considerable controversy. Pevsner laments that the original, much more ambitious, scheme was abandoned in favour of this more modest memorial. The article is a shorter one, but I believe it's up to scratch. As ever, all feedback is welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Yunshui

Just a few notes from a straight read-through:

  • "the leading English architect of his generation" - would be nice to have a source for this quote.
    • It's from Historic England, but there's a bit of a distance between the quote and the reference so I've added a duplicate.
  • Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations, as well as the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing—the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world—and the Stone of Remembrance which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials. - bit of a mix of list punctuation; I would suggest the following:

Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations; the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world, and the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials.

    • I like that. In fact, I like that so much I'm going to go back through all my other Lutyens articles when I get chance and rewrite them the same way!
  • the only two to stand as a civic memorial in a city - plurals suggest this should be "the only two to stand as civic memorials in cities."
    • Done.
  • whether the war dead should be commemorated with a building with a community function or a purely monumental memorial - I'm not super happy with how this reads: "with a building with" sounds clumsy, and the way this is worded makes it unclear whether "purely monumental memorial" is meant to equate to "building" or "community function".
    • Leave this with me for a day or two and I'll think about rewriting it.
  • The committee gave Lutyens a budget of £2,000 (1920) - would be nice to have an approximate modern equivalent value to this.
    • This has come up a few times in previous FACs. The trouble is the inflation template is essentially useless for something this old (the figure is only slightly more useful than if it was plucked out of thin air) and we haven't been able to come up with an easily translatable alternative. I'm open to suggestions.
  • but the committee opted for his second choice of a site inside the walls in the moat by Lendal Bridge, 100 yards (90 metres) from the proposed location for the NER's memorial. - I'm being super nitpicky, but this seems like too many descriptors ("second choice" "inside the walls" "in the moat" "by Lendal bridge" "100 yards from the proposed location..."). Probably doesn't need fixing, but it doesn't read quite right to me.
    • It's a bit wordy, but these are all vital descriptors—we need to know where it is and how it relates to the NER's memorial and the walls and Lendal Bridge are both relevant to what comes later, and it's noteworthy (especially in light of the controversy that followed) that Lutyens originally proposed another site.
  • Given the proximity to the city walls—Lutyens' initial proposal for which abutted against the wall... - this doesn't make sense; "for which" makes it appear that Lutyens proposal was for "the city walls", and "against" is tautological alongside "abutted".
    • Must be a relic of a previous rewrite; fixed now.
  • in the centre of which is the City of York's coat of arms. - maybe link Coat of arms of York?
    • Didn't know that existed! Linked.

Overall I enjoyed the writing style, though there's a bit of a preponderance of em-dashed parenthetical phrases. Interesting article, and a very enjoyable read. Yunshui  11:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I know I tend to overuse emdashes; I'll see if I can cut them down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm guilty of the same thing myself—I just like the damn things—but other parenthetical punctuation options exist (and variety improves readability!). Yunshui  15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as an addendum - I'm a little concerned about consistency in the citation formatting - there is a mixture of shortened footnotes, named references and inline citations, which I'm not sure meets the requirements of FA criterion 2c. Not actually sure what the procedure is for using shortened footnotes with web references, though. Yunshui  14:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any sense in using shortened footnotes for a single-page web document and personally I've always liked this format because it's tidy and clutter-free. I can't remember anyone objecting to it in any previous FACs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Could just be my personal opinion then. If it hasn't been commented on in previous FACs (I don't do them very often) then it's probably fine. Yunshui  15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to lend my Support - the fixes that can be done are done, I have every faith you'll do a fine job rewording the bit that hasn't been reworded yet, and while a modern financial equivalent would be nice, the pound is bouncing around so much with Brexit on the horizon that any non-templated estimate would be massively outdated in about twenty minutes. It's not a deal-breaker - I look forward to seeing this on the Main Page. Yunshui  15:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • One comment: repeating Yunshui's suggestion above (with the semicolon fix): "Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations; the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world; and the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials." There's nothing technically wrong with that, but it's slightly garden path-y, and a bit more involved than is ideal, perhaps. Another option is: "Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations, and the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world. He also designed the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials." - Dank ( push to talk) 15:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
↑ This is better than my version. Yunshui  16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Keith D

Appears strange to have a couple of instances of metric first for the height of the monument, rather than being consistent with imperial first which appears to be used in other places in article. Keith D ( talk) 01:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88

My only issues are about prose, and in that respect I have general rather than specific comments:

The article is trying to do an awful lot with punctuation. In particular, it is replete with semi-colons, parentheses and parenthetical dashes. The punctuation is never ungrammatical. But the paragraphs are quite long to begin with, so long and heavily punctuated sentences make the task of reading quite difficult at times. Some examples:

  • 'Proposals for a war memorial in York were mired in controversy from the outset; a war memorial committee was established after a council meeting in May 1919 and the committee opened a memorial fund for donations in August, but six years elapsed before the City War Memorial was unveiled.' There is no reason why the semi-colon should not be a full-stop. It would be a much snappier read that way: introducing the paragraph with one punchy sentence. There are other examples in the article where a simple full stop would do the job better. 'Nonetheless, objections were raised after the approval;' is one.
  • The final paragraph of the article has two lengthy parenthetical explanations of the criteria for Grade II and II*. It is quite clunky, even lawyerly, to read. I think you would be fine, and the reader better served, simply by explaining the criteria in separate sentences. There will be many readers who don't know the criteria, so there is no need to apologise for explaining them by jamming them into parentheses.
  • There is one sentence in the "Inception" section that contains two parenthetical notes, which is two, and certainly one, too many.

There is also unnecessary use of passive voice. For example: 'The memorial was eventually unveiled by Prince Albert, the Duke of York (later King George VI), on 25 June 1925—six years after the memorial fund was opened.' The passive voicing of this sentence is not only unnecessary but makes the reader wonder whether the identity of the unveiler is relevant to the adverb "eventually", to which the answer is "no". Another example: 'The York City War Memorial was designated a grade II listed building...' The passive voice begs the question: designated by whom? Cast the sentence in the active voice and we will know. Another example is 'a war memorial committee was established after a council meeting in May 1919': again, established by whom? The preposition 'after' means that the reader is unable to make the otherwise obvious inference that the council meeting itself established the committee. I recommend going through the article sentence-by-sentence to identify unnecessary passive voicing because there is quite a lot of it. Turning these sentences around would make them easier to read and in many cases provide greater clarity.

This may all seem nitpicky, but I do think it reflects the difference between Good Article and Featured Article level.

I have checked the article against the source in footnote 1 only and discovered no problems. I can't verify the use of the Skelton source as it is not publicly accessible. The article certainly seems to be an easy pass on all other criteria. Syek88 ( talk) 05:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Much of what you're saying is good advice ... with the caveat that making something readable often takes a lot of work. It's not just chopping sentences in two. Concerning the passive voice: linguists are skeptical of much of the 20th-century admonitions against passive voice, even though there's general agreement that overuse of the passive is one of the signs of bureaucratese. And that should be avoided, of course. A readable and accessible treatment of what linguists have discovered on the subject can be found in Pinker's The Sense of Style. I'm bringing this up because I'm not sure if I agree with your advice on the passive above; for instance,why would I care which bureaucrat signed off on the grade II listing? And flipping around "The memorial was eventually unveiled by Prince Albert" to "Prince Albert unveiled the memorial" wouldn't find approval from style gurus or from linguists; see for instance Sense of Style, chapters 2 and 4. I note that someone has already rewritten that sentence (probably Harry), and the change looks good to me. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It is good advice, and I'm aware of my overuse of dashes and semicolons, which why I've been through this morning working on readability. I don't have strong opinions on the passive voice in cases like these, but it harms nothing to re-write it where it's easy to do. I agree with you though, Dan, that the exact details of the listing process are a little too bureaucratic and the passive voice is better for concision (because the answer is "by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the advice of English Heritage, which is now Historic England"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It probably isn't particularly helpful of me to chip in again on passive voice in the middle of this review, but I do question the exceptionally broad assertion that flipping the Prince Albert sentence "wouldn't find approval from [any?] style gurus or from [any?] linguists". I do not think your (Dank's) single citation comes anywhere near establishing that. In any event, I think the largest problem with passive voice, not evident in the Prince Albert sentence of course, is unnecessary omission of the subject. When I read the article I did care who signed off on the grade II listing. I immediately asked myself whether it was the same council that approved the memorial decades earlier: if it were, that would have been an interesting fact. Or was it the national government? Or an independent non-government body given statutory powers? And we need not necessarily say "Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the advice of English Heritage, which is now Historic England". Something briefer and less specific may suffice, especially as it was presumably the Secretary's delegate rather than the Secretary personally. Syek88 ( talk) 18:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Meets the criteria from my point of view, although Keith D's point on consistency of imperial v metric should be addressed. All the best, The Bounder ( talk) 08:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think this still needs a source review for formatting etc, unless I've missed one somewhere. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC as usual. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

White-naped xenopsaris

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The latest from WP:BIRD. This species is pretty obscure, and the article is shorter than many we produce because of that. But everything that can be said about this species is there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk ( talk) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the same 1989 study that linked Xenopsaris to Pachyramphus." But wasn't this already believed? The sentence makes it sound like it was a novel conclusion.
  • Clarified
  • "were found to actually formed a fourth family" Form?
  • fixed
  • "and Psaris, a genus erected by Georges Cuvier" Genus of what?
  • synonym of Tityra, added
  • "The subspecies X. a. minor is has"
  • Fixed
  • "ti-ti-ti-ti", according to the Handbook of the Birds of the World." It seems a bit odd that you only make in-text attribution here in the description?
  • It's a direct lift of how they represented it, not something I wrote myself. If it's fine to cite inline I'll change
  • "where their ranges overlap in Venezuela." I get what you mean, but I can't help but think "wouldn't they look similar anywhere?
  • Clarified
  • "from June to September,[14] but the Austral summer in Argentina (October to January)." Not sure what the but is meant for.
  • clarified
  • "unusual in suboscine birds" The term is not used in the linked article. Is it a valid grouping?
  • removed birds
  • Image review - let's get this part over with; all licenses and sources are fine, but I wonder whether a range map could be added? FunkMonk ( talk) 15:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can get/make one
  • You should replace the pixel forcing of the horizontal drawing with the "upright" parameter. Then the image will scale according to which screen it is viewed from.
  • Removed pixel forcing, will play with upright parameter when I get home
  • The drawing could also be left aligned, so that the subject "faces" the text. Also, why do you use the binomial in the caption?
  • I've never understood the fixation with having images look inwards, but I'll see how it looks left aligned on my huge screen at work before changing.
It's not too important, just looks slightly better... FunkMonk ( talk) 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Last issue; "It lives in open savannah" only stated in intro.
  • removed
  • Support - looks fine to me now (don't forget the upright parameter!). FunkMonk ( talk) 09:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Quick comments first:

  • In the 2nd para of the lead, I feel like it may be good to tone down the ", and" thing. It just gets repetitive.
  • Fixed
  • In the breeding section, the sentence "They are constructed from woven plant fibre and a few rootlets, or fine dry grass," could either mean: They construct their nest with either just the plant fibers and rootlets, or with just the fine dry grass; or it could be taken to mean that they always construct it with woven plant fiber and use either rootlets or fine dry grass.
  • Fixed
  • Still is a bit confusing, maybe split the sentences?
  • How so? Nests have been found constructed one way, or another way. I tried rewording
  • The flow is weird in the sentence "The hatchlings are dark-skinned with grey down, and pink mouths." Removing the comma should fix it.
  • Done
  • In the 2nd para of the taxonomy section, you have, in parentheses, the family name. Yet, you do that pretty much nowhere else.
  • Removed
  • Only Oxford comma inconsistency I really see is in the sentence "The species is also known as the reed becard, white-naped becard, and simply xenopsaris." There might be more, though.
  • Removed

And that's all for now. Good luck! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Now for some more:

  • In the sentence "The species is not common and little is known about it, but it is not considered in danger of extinction, and has been classified as of Least Concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature," "least concern" should be lowercase, like it is on its Wikipedia page.
  • Done
  • Add a comma before the genus name in the sentence "Burmeister originally placed it in the the becard genus Pachyramphus," so that it is clear that Pachyramphus is the becard genus.
  • sure
  • Add "to" in the sentence "When placed with the tyrant-flycatchers, Tyrannidae, it was considered closely related the genera Suiriri, Serpophaga and Knipolegus."
  • done
  • Link "Tityridae" in the 3rd para of taxonomy.
  • Done
  • First time genus Tityra is mentioned, so maybe add something about how it was proposed that it was closely linked to that genus, before the sentence "A 2007 study of mitochondrial DNA confirmed the white-naped xenopsaris' place in the Tityridae, and its close relationship to both Pachyramphus and the genus Tityra."
  • The 1989 study didn't find support the close relationship, that's something that came out in 2007. Reworded slightly to introduce the tityrias.
  • Reword the sentence "The female is similar to the male except duller overall, and the crown is tinged with chestnut," maybe to "The female is similar to the male, but is duller overall and has a chestnut-tinged crown."
  • okay
  • Add "being" in the sentence "The initial trill is described as rising and then falling, and the last trill is described as long," before "long" and after "as".
  • Done
  • In the sentence "In 2006 the species was reported for the first time in Peru, but it was unclear if this represented a vagrant escaping cold weather or a migrant, as the species is mostly uncommon across its range and that area is poorly studied ornithologically," "ornithologically" isn't needed and is a bit of a big term, per say.
  • I think it's worth clarifying, but I did link the term
  • En dash should be used instead of hyphen in the sentence "Both sexes incubate the eggs during the 14-15 day brooding period."
  • Bloody mdashes. Sigh. Done
  • Capitalization of "least concern" in the sentence "For these reasons, it is evaluated as being Least Concern."
  • Done
  • It would be nice to see a range map.
I can make one, what source should it be based on? FunkMonk ( talk) 09:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
HBW. I was going to dust of GIMP and do it on the weekend though. I was just being a smart alec. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, didn't see this, so made a map. Seems the illustration of the bird should be moved to the left just so it doesn't clash with the taxobox... FunkMonk ( talk) 18:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
No drama, thanks for the map! Love the illustration as suggested. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And that is all! Again, good luck! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Shoot. Temporary support, pending me getting better. Feel free to promote if I don't respond further, just so I don't hold this up. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 18:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Never heard of this one! Nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me?

    • It was entirely unfamiliar to me before I started too. Comments below. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • a small tityrid—pointless repeat imho
  • removed
  • The genus name Xenopsairs… —you should give the source language in this sentence, Ancient Greek or Latin as appropriate. Also add that Psaris is from Gr. psar, starling. Let me know if you need a ref for that
  • done
  • nominate subspecies —link
  • linked
  • wing covertscovert feathers are not flight feathers, which is your current link.
  • fixed
  • You mention only the wing chord length of minor, might as well give the tail length too.
  • I thought about this but decided not to. Bird measurements like this are not interesting except insofar as they establish size differences between different taxa or populations. I think its enough to establish that one is bigger than the other and provide an example, but if you disagree I can put tail in
  • In the Diet section, the subject of all the sentences beginning They is Chicks in the nest, not what you intended I think.
  • Fixed
  • Nesting timing varies by location, in Venezuela is reported — missing word?
  • Fixed
  • 11,000,000 km2 (4,200,000 sq mi). —Would look neater templated to give million as word instead of string of zeroes, but your call.
  • How do I do that? Can't work it out on the template page
  • Your final ref from Hornero needs italics for the binomial
  • fixed
I'm happy with those responses. I've fixed the "million" bit in the text, it's not exactly intuitive, even the space being necessary. Changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Saving the millions coding to my user page if I need it later ;) Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

although it was long still known to be closely related to Pachyramphus. - this is ambiguous and sounds odd. Presumably you mean after it was moved to new genus?
  • Fixed I think
..which overlaps in range in Venezuela. - sounds odd - "which overlaps its range in Venezuela." (?)
  • Changed
The white-naped xenopsaris differs from the cincerous becard in being smaller... - repetitive, could say, " The white-naped xenopsaris is smaller" or " The former (differs from the latter) in being smaller" or something
  • Changed.

Otherwise looks pretty good. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the edits and support. I was amused that one of the edits undid a change requested above. My only quibble was linking to species description when referring to a generic description. I feel it's a deficiency of the target article, but I think I'll unlink it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for undoing the link to species description; it would be nice to have something to link to, but I can't find a suitable article, or a suitable section of species description. Which edit undid something ... species of least concern? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I feel it would optimal for species description to be a bit wider in breadth rather than having a new article, but that's an aside to here. All you undid was the insertion of being in the sentence about calls. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I see it now. "The initial trill rises then falls" would be my preference, unless there's a reason to suggest that there's some question or doubt, which the current language does (by saying that it's only described that way). - Dank ( push to talk) 17:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it, we still need a source review which can be requested in the usual place. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Sorry, been a while since I've done one of these, what is the usual place? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Morihei Ueshiba

Nominator(s): Yunshui  13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Japanese martial artist who founded the art of aikido. I've been working on it on-and-off for a couple of years now, and reckon that it's as good as I'm going to get it without outside input. Yunshui  13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1921.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Morihei-ueshiba-c1918.jpg, File:Onisaburo_Deguchi_2.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1922.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_1939.jpg, File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, File:Takeda_Sokaku.jpg. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Original publication dates for these images are basically impossible to come by - all have been reproduced in a wide range of sources over the years. The subject matter, however, clearly shows that they were originally taken prior to 1946 (thus meeting the requirements of Japan-PD), with the exception of File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, which (again, based on the subject matter) is also old enough to be PD in Japan - though in this case it's slightly less certain, and I'm happy to remove this image if it's a stumbling block. Yunshui  08:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The {{ PD-1996}} tag requires that it was published before a certain date, as well as being PD in Japan before 1996. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I certainly can't be sure it was PD in Japan in 1996 (indeed, it very likely wasn't) so I've removed that image. Thanks for picking up on that. Yunshui  10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Were the others published early enough to meet both requirements? Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
All taken prior to 1946, thus PD in Japan in 1969 (prior to 1996) and thus PD in the US; so yes, the others should all meet both requirements. Yunshui  12:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, just to clarify: they were all published (not just created) early enough? Can we add earlier publications to the image descriptions? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Like I said above, the actual publication dates are impossible to ascertain - these images have been so widely circulated that their origins are lost in the mists of time. However, {{ PD-Japan-oldphoto}} requires that the image ... was published before December 31st 1956, or photographed before 1946. Since these pictures could not have been taken after 1946 (given that they show Ueshiba during the 1920s and 30s), they comply with the PD requirements. Yunshui  09:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
In Japan. For US, {{ PD-URAA}} requires it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice. If we can't demonstrate a pre-1978 publication, and we don't know the first publication, we can't meet that. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
My mistake; I was reading the PD-URAA as having or criteria rather than and. Well that's this FA fucked then. There's no way I can prove original publication date for these images, as I've said, and removing them instantly negates FA?#3. I guess you'd best mark this as a quick fail. All that work down the drain... Yunshui  08:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we show any publication before 1978, even if it wasn't the original? Failing that, could alternatives be found, or could one or more images have a fair-use claim? Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to anything from Japane pre-1978 that contains these images (they largely existed in private collections), and there are no free alternatives that I can prove were published before this date. Fair use wouldn't apply, because free imagesdo exist, I just have no way of proving that they are free. Yunshui  13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If we can't prove they're free, we assume they're non-free - and so fair use could potentially be applied, if we can't prove that any image is free. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's like picking a scab; despite dewatchlisting this page I still find myself checking in on it... I've uploaded a new portrait under FU guidelines, though I'm still not sure that FU applies. Anyway, it's in the article now, at least until the next review! Yunshui  09:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and comphrehensive article. I have done the biographical part of the article—which amounts to the bulk of it—and thought I should write down my comments now, before proceeding to the remainder. I made some minor edits myself. I hope they work.

You will see from these comments that I don't have much to say. Most are minor; perhaps the least so is my niggling concern about the academic credibility of the so-called "Aikido Journal", which is invoked as a reference on several occasions.

  • It would be useful to have a brief, even half-sentence, explanation of the "Shrine Consolidation Policy". The name doesn’t tell us much, and if Ueshiba was involved in opposing it, an explanation is relevant to the article.
Good point - I've gone one better and created a stub article for the topic, which is now linked from this article.
  • "Leaving most of his possessions to Sokaku..." – use “Takeda” for consistency given the previous paragraph mentions him frequently?
  • The Aikido Journal is labelled a journal, but it is clearly not in the academic sense, and I'm not immediately convinced of its academic credibility for Featured Article purposes.
see below
  • The Wikipedia article for Shūmei Ōkawa does not support the statement that he was a war criminal; the article says that his trial was aborted on the ground of mental illness.
  • "Ōmoto-kyō priests still oversee the Aiki-jinja Taisai ceremony..." This is the first mention of this ceremony, and goes over the head of the reader unfamiliar with the term "Aiki-jinja Taisai".
On reflection, that bit (which has never set well either there or in the Iwama section) is really rather trivial. I'm going to excise it altogether.
  • Is there any reason for Ueshida’s permanent move to Tokyo in 1927? The article gives no explanation, which is peculiar given his reluctance to go there just months earlier and his desire to return to Akabe so quickly.
This I haven't fixed yet, but I'll get my books out later and try and expand on the reasons for the move.
  • "In his later years, he was regarded as very kind and gentle as a rule, but there are also stories of terrifying scoldings delivered to his students." – This general statement of character does not seem to be attributed to a reference. The reference cited for the subsequent sentence supports only the individual example of one form of scolding (which does not seem particularly terrifying).
I'm taking this bit out as well; it was in the article long before I got my hands on it and has never to my knowledge been sourced.
  • Many occasions of the word "however" are unnecessary, especially the two occasions in which it appears in consecutive sentences (grating on the reader).
I hadn't realised how much I overuse that word. I have now expunged about half of the instances of it's use in the article, however...
  • "Takeda Sokaku" – the use of diacritics in his surname is inconsistent.

I also note some dispute at Talk:Morihei_Ueshiba#Kisshomaru_vs_Stevens about the use of John Stevens as a reference. Some comment on that would be appreciated. I did not have the impression that the reference was being used to support anything outlandish. It seems that the outlandish claims in the article have been deleted since 2014, but I would appreciate reassurance that Stevens is not so off-base that he should be ignored entirely. Syek88 ( talk) 05:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this thorough review. I've addressed most of the points you've raised above (and will do some more work once I have some books to hand). With regards to the sources, Aikido Journal is, as you say, not an academic journal, despite the name. Originally Aiki News, it was a periodical and later website published by Stanley Pranin, who is widely regarded in aikido circles as the most prominent historian of the martial art. Most of his work is ostensibly self-published, it's true, but if you were to ask any aikidoka for the foremost source on aikido's history, Pranin would be the first name to spring to mind.
John Stevens is the most well-known translator of Ueshiba's work into English, and has been published by at least two mainstream publishing houses that I know of, so he is easier to pass off as a reliable source. His biographical work is generally no more more outlandish than Kisshomaru Ueshiba's (who also repeats the claims of bullet-dodging, accidental-person-carrying, tree-uprooting and so on). I've left these out since almost without exception they are reported in the sources as either hearsay or Ueshiba's own recollections (which, given how patently barking he was, may not have been entirely reliable). Yunshui  09:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for these replies. The new article on Jinja seirei is a great idea (my only minor question now being whether "Shrine Consolidation Policy" is better as a common noun). I'm tending to think that the Aikido Journal and Stevens fall into similar categories: sources from within the world of Aikido. In an ideal world we would have two or three detailed biographies written about Ueshida by credible academics from outside the Aikido world. But we don't. The next best thing to do is to be as judicious as possible in the manner in which high-quality sources from within the Aikido world are used. I'm satisfied that has been done here. The best I can probably do, given that I have not been reviewing Featured Articles for long, is to flag the issue for whoever does the source review. Syek88 ( talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My second tranche of comments now. I don't think the "Development of aikido" section is quite up to the same (very high) standard as the biography. Looking at the history of the article I can perhaps see why: it has been there for a lot longer, and improvement efforts since 2014 have focused on the biography:

I had previously recommended not to expand this section overly since Aikido itself is a Featured Article and covers this. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I certainly concur with not expanding the section; I don't think expansion would be appropriate at all. If anything, I'd be open either to reducing its size or the more radical step of amalgamating the relevant parts of it with the biography. Syek88 ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "It is unusual among the martial arts for its heavy emphasis on protecting the opponent and on spiritual and social development." - I can't see the book referenced, but the suggestion that either of these characteristics is "unusual" appears quite stark, and the book referenced does seem to be an Aikido source. Unless the source were fully independent, it might be best to state the two characteristics without the comparison with other martial arts.
  • The "spiritual awakening" language leaves me a little uneasy. This sentence in particular: "Ueshiba developed aikido after experiencing three instances of spiritual awakening." It might be better to say something like "Ueshida described three spiritual experiences that led him to develop aikido." In that way, the article avoids any implication that it is verifying that these experiences took place or that they amounted to "spiritual awakenings". I would say the same about the reference to "spiritual enlightenment" in the lead of the article.
  • "The technical curriculum of aikido was undoubtedly most greatly influenced by the teachings of Takeda Sōkaku." - the passive voice plus double-adverb doesn't read very well.
  • "The early form of training under Ueshiba was noticeably different from later forms of aikido..." - There are a number of aspects of this paragraph that I'm unable to trace to the Green & Svinth source cited. The paragraph has been in the article for a very long time. It started off uncited at all.
  • "As Ueshiba grew older, more skilled, and more spiritual in his outlook, his art also changed and became softer and more circular." - what does "more circular" mean?
More circular means less direct - would the latter work. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It still sails over my head a bit... Syek88 ( talk) 18:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To the lead - "It is now practiced in many countries around the world." - "in many countries" could be superfluous?

I think that's likely to be it from me. Thanks again. Syek88 ( talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Development of aikido" bit was, as you say, part of the article that I'd done very little with. I've now reordered it, changed some of the wording per your suggestions above, and added a few more sources. Thanks for giving me the impetus to sort it out a bit! Yunshui  10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've had another couple of read-throughs of that section and I'm now marking my review down as a support. I have one point for other reviewers and the FAC delegates: the point I raised above about the extent to which the article relies upon sources, such as Stevens and the Aikido Journal, which are written by Aikido followers (if that is the correct term). I didn't feel qualified to comment further upon this issue and its relevance to the Featured Article criteria in this case. Syek88 ( talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Dank

Support on prose per my These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

This is an unfamiliar topic for me, please excuse silly questions ;)


  • Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?
  • "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)


  • Do I have to know what a dojo is?
  • "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?


  • "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.
  • "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?


  • "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.
  • "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?
  • "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.


  • I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.


  • I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

Interesting article, thank you! I only looked at the prose, simply trust that you used your many sources well. I'd like more images, but understand that in FAC time, every new image is a new problem ;) - If you also want to look at an unfamiliar topic: I have a FAC open. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the kind words, Gerda, but as Nikkimaria has established above, there is literally no way for this topic to ever become a Featured article (it's impossible to include suitable images that comply with the PD requirements, and you can't have an FA without images). As such, I'm no longer trying to make FA improvements; in fact the whole process has left such a bitter taste in my mouth that frankly I think I'll just dewatchlist it and go do something else. Yunshui  13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Pity - are the images really that much of a problem. I had thought they were acceptable but admit to being totally confused with the jargon. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That is saddening. I'll alert a commons admin, who solved my last image license problems, - often it's just a missing license. My expert for FAC image problems is RexxS. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be great. Going through the FA process can be full of roadblocks which on the face of it are insurmountable. Help would be appreciated. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm back here, I figure I should address Gerda's points:

  • Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?

I think this is relevant; since his other children had some influence on history (Matsuo by marrying Nakakura (the one-time inheritor of Ueshiba's martial art) and Kisshomaru by being the actual inheritor) it seems reasonable to indicate why the other two did not.

  • "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)

How big a can of worms would you like to open? The problem is, adding a selection of students in the infobox could easily seem to elevate them above the others mentioned in the article body - cue edit warring as readers try to make sure their teacher/lineage head gets included at the top of the page... Even if we restricted it only to students who developed their own schools of aikido, you'd still have ten or so names in the box. To my mind, a link to the table of notable students is still the best way to do this and still keep both a stable article and a reasonably-proportioned infobox.

  • Do I have to know what a dojo is?

It would probably help, I've wikilinked the term.

  • "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?

That was rather clumsy wording, you're right; I've restructured the sentence to make it more readable.

  • "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.

Changed this to make the subject of each sentence clear.

  • "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?

More clumsiness on my part; rewritten for clarity.

  • "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.

God idea, done.

  • "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?

Not a lot; it's now gone.

  • "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.

The debate over whether he was teaching aikido at this point is a long one (I think the name would have been Ueshiba-ryu Aiki-jujutsu around that time), so I've removed the term (and improved the sentence structure as a result).

  • I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.

By all accounts it didn't actually have much influence on him - he was in a pretty remote, rural part of Japan and was largely self-sufficient. The only major effect of the war on him was the prohibition on martial arts by the occupying forces - which Ueshiba ignored anyway! I'll have a dig around to see if there's more to say on the subject (the Iwama section is quite short compared to the others and I'd like to flesh it out if I can), but most histories seem to agree that Ueshiba's day-to-day life wasn't particularly impacted by the war.

  • I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

I haven't made any change on this as yet; I'm going to have a think about what information needs to be in there and how best to organise it.
Many thanks Gerda for your suggestions (especially the bits that needed rewording; very much obliged for those!). Yunshui  11:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I like what you did, and am close to supporting. I was always told that a link from the infobox to below in the same article was a no-no, - how about a separate little article "List of students ..."? Which would also remove the appearance of the table from FA consideration. We made Franz Kafka works, when the list got too long ;) - The infobox could link to it, as Beethoven's to his list of works. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Gerda, that's a bloody genius idea! I've always hated that table - changing that section into a paragraph or two on his relationships with his students and the international spread of aikido would be much better. I'm strapped for time right now, but I plan to do some more work on this tomorrow, so I'll implement this change then. Thank you so much for this solution! Yunshui  15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
What I've actually ended up doing is modifying the existing article List of aikidoka to include this information (since almost every student was already listed there) and deleting the table. I'll have a rummage through my books and see if I can flesh that section out a bit. Yunshui  08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

CMLL World Lightweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ -DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship known under various names over the years.I brought this to GA level last year and put more work into it, making updates based on successful FA Nominations of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship, CMLL World Middleweight Championship and CMLL World Heavyweight Championship articles. This is also currently part of a Featured Topic candidate at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships/archive1. I hope you will find this a high quality article and know that I am always open to suggestions and modifications to make this an even better article. Thank you in advance for your participation.  MPJ -DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose on prose

  • MPJ-DK, I recommend finding a co-nominator. I'm glad you're bringing Lucha Libre articles to FAC, I'm glad you've had a lot of success with that, but there are too many big, obvious problems here. We don't want to burn out reviewers, forcing them to do work that you could have done and should have done before FAC. A few examples:
  • "During Máscara Dorada reign with the title": In normal speech, informal writing, and formal writing, no one says "Dorada reign". (Everyone makes typos of course, but you have to check for typos before you nominate at FAC, it's not our job to fix those.)
  • "the name was changed to be": No one says "the light was changed to be green" or "he changed the name of his hair style to be a mohawk".
  • "native Japanese wrestlers On February 27, 1999, they held a one night tournament": ?
  • "making the first time in the history of CMLL": Did you mean "making it the first time in the history of CMLL"?
  • "Mexican Ricky Marvin ... exchanged the title": Leaving the "the" off is just wrong. After the "the" is added, then people can argue over the best ways to present nationalities.
  • "Jr..": No..
  • Like I say ... I'd like to see more of these articles. The first or second time someone comes to FAC, if they're having a hard time, I hold off on criticizing. You've been here often enough that I don't think I'm out of line asking you to either do the work yourself before FAC, or if you don't want to or are having problems, find a co-nominator who is interested in Lucha Libre and is willing to get these articles up to FAC standards before FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: If anyone thinks I'm being too hard-nosed here, I'm always open to input. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Dank from my perspective you are fine, pointing out legitimate issues and a firm, but not unfair kick in my complacency ;-) and looking at the article again I see it and the need to tighten up a few things in my approach to FA. I would like to put a couple of hours of work into this and tue ask for your honest opinion on where it is at Quality wise. So no worries about harshness, I did not in any way take offense to your comments. Side note, I also appreciate the input on burning out reviewers - I wonder if that is part of the reasons my FACs don't always attract reviewers? I do appreciate the honesty, otherwise I would not be pushed to improve, which is the whole reason for me doung the FAC thing.  MPJ -DK  18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. The part I review at FAC is prose ... and not even the tough prose problems, I just handle the straightforward stuff. So I can't really tell you how close you are to the finish line. Several people have given you extensive reviews for past FACs. Ask them ... and if they don't see much work to do, then fine. If they do see work to do, ask them if they'd like to co-nominate Lucha Libre articles at FAC so they can get some recognition for all the time they're putting in. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
        • So I have taken a much needed pass at the article again, there were several embarrassing issues in it that really should not have been present in a FAC. Dank I would like your honest opinion on the level now, not necessarily a detailed feedback more of your take on if it's even worth pursuing FAC for this article right now.  MPJ -DK  00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I finished this up, and I can support it on prose now. I might or might not oppose future articles, depending on how much work there is to do when they hit FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that Dank and thank you even more for your edits to the article - it has really helped bring up the quality of the writing. I've already decided that I need to either co-nominate or at least have a second/third set of eyes on the article prior to even nominating for FAC, I want to deliver a higher level of quality right off the bat and I have some work to do on my own.  MPJ -DK  02:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
      • One more thing ... a previous reviewer recommended mentioning and linking kayfabe. I agree in principle, although that article is a mess. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
        • That article is such a fancrufty mess I almost hate sending any reader in that direction.  MPJ -DK  21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Donkey Kong 64

Nominator(s): czar 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This 1999 video game marked the decline of the adventure platform genre. "As ... Super Mario 64 breathed life into the 3D platforming genre", Electronic Gaming Monthly wrote, "Donkey Kong 64 sucked it all out". But you couldn't infer that from the lionizing 1999 press. Interesting enough, today's game journalists remember the game's 1999 reception as "mixed" even as Metacritic called it "universal acclaim". Reading the original reviews, almost all mentioned the nagging backtracking for collectibles, but only one reviewer (GameFan) went so far as to call it (as retrospective reviewers do) a deal breaker: "a big bloated project with not enough brilliant moments to justify the numbness ... [of] sitting through the whole thing". Indeed, as much as GameFan was an outlier among the 1999 hype men, it had its finger on the game's legacy. The game is not a "recommended" title in the overall Donkey Kong series, but as the console's top seller in the 1999 holiday season and with over two million copies shipped, the game is famous despite how it was sold.

This article is the most complete treatment of the topic on the Internet, and includes a wide range of online and offline sources worked into readable prose. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria, and look forward to your feedback. czar 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. Always disliked this game, because it had none of the atmosphere of the SNES games, so will be fun if this article can in some way change my opinion... FunkMonk ( talk) 10:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha, well, I think it'll do more reinforcing than changing of opinion, unfortunately! czar 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Some words are not linked at first occurrence outside the intro, including the characters (that have articles), minigame, Rare, etc.
  • I'm not sure whether the design of the console and its components are copyrighted, so I'll leave it and see if it is brought up during image review, but may be a problem.
  • "and avoid consumer confusion,[25] However, according to Rare" Seems the first comma should be a full stop?
  • "Nintendo said that it bundled the accessory with the game to simplify its installation and avoid consumer confusion", "Additionally, Nintendo said that the choice to bundle, rather than selling the accessory separately, would avoid consumer confusion." Seems like the same information repeated?
  • "The game released in November 1999" Was released?
  • "as Nintendo fought off the new Sega Dreamcast console." This seems a but hyperbolic, and I'm not sure what is meant (did Nintendo win?). "Competed with" might be more neutral?
  • The setting is barren and nondescript at first, and only later introduces lighting effects and richer textures." I think this subjective statement needs clearer attribution.
It's a statement of fact, not interpretation, and it's within the IGN citation segment. I can move a direct citation next to the sentence if necessary, but I didn't think it was needed
The sourcing is fine, I'm just not sure who says this from reading the text, I think you could mention who made this opinion (IGN, it seems). FunkMonk ( talk) 22:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, I meant that it isn't an opinion—I see that it's between two opinion statements from IGN but this one is evaluative (like the statements also sourced to the review and used in the Gameplay section). Reception sections can be monotonous "X said Y" affairs, so it's important to diversify the prose. I'm open to rephrase suggestions but I don't think that attributing the statement to the author ("IGN said") clarifies more than it congests in this case. czar 01:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I would have suggested semicolon, but then the combined sentence would be overly long. But if no one else latches onto this, should be fine. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It always baffled me that Dixie and Kiddy Kong were not in the game, though they seem to have been replaced by very similar characters for no apparent reason. Any discussion of this in the sources?
As far as I can recall, not at all, or at least no one made a point of it. The closest is that Dixie and Kiddy are "lookalikes" of Tiny and Chunky.[10] (I'd consider this a minor point, in any event.)
Heheh, at least now I know I wasn't the only one who thought this... FunkMonk ( talk) 22:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Donkey Kong 64's 3D platforming commonplace by the time of its release" Missing a "was"?
Thanks, @ FunkMonk. Addressed this first batch. czar 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Support - while I may be a bit biased seeing as I contributed a bit to the Development section, it cannot be denied you've done an outstanding job here, especially considering the scaricty of any substantial sources. So yeah, I pretty much agree with the intro claim about the article being the most comprehensive body of information about the subject. Another thing of note is that the prose seems to be concise, well-written and diverse all across the board. All in all, this is exemplary work. You've got my vote for this one. Electroguv ( talk) 00:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one comment from Niwi3

Resolved comment from Niwi3
  • You've picked a poor gameplay screenshot. Try to illustrate a gameplay mechanic or show a good perspective with the player character in the center of the screen. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 22:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@ the special ability pad/swap barrel, but those concepts could be adequately explained in the text, so the image is for illustration of how the character plays in the environment. Also the player-character is rarely in the center of the screen when the character is in motion, so not sure that tip is instructive—it illustrates more that the character is frequently not in the center of the screen (which helps lead the camera to see what's ahead). czar 15:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@ this one to explain that players can climb up trees and swing from vine to vine. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 20:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the screenshot with the first one you recommended—it has a little extra draw distance of the original scene, but it also has the benefit of being an emulated rendering (and thus, sharper). czar 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:DonkeyKong64CoverArt.jpg: Non-free cover art, which seems like the appropriate license to me. Non-free use rationale appears to satisfy all requirements.
  • File:Dk64 jungle.jpg: Non-free screenshot, which seems like the appropriate license to me. NFCC#8 rationale is a bit generic, may want to specify what it is used to illustrate.
  • File:Nintendo-64-Memory-Expansion-Pak.jpg: Free image on Commons. Image topic is discussed in the adjacent section. Good EXIF, no indication of impropriety.
  • File:Jungle green Nintendo 64 (10448842084).jpg: Free image on Commons. Image topic is discussed in the adjacent section. Image is from Flickr, no evidence of copying in GIS.
  • File:Grant Kirkhope.png: Free image on Commons. Dependent on OTRS and hasn't been processed yet apparently. Image is of the composer and is discussed in the adjacent section.

All images appear to have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Other Languages
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Вікіпэдыя:Кандыдаты ў абраныя артыкулы
oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча: Vikipediya:Tanlangan maqola nomzodlari