Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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 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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Toolbox
  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.

Nominations

Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... one of Frederick the Great's cavalry generals, usually credited with the training of cavalry and development of cavalry tactics. I've experimented with a different citation template for this, to aid in the review process auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Major_General_von_Seydlitz_pipe_Prussian_cavalry_Battle_of_Rossbach_Richard_Knötel.jpg: When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Segundo Romance

Nominator(s): Erick ( talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

After getting both Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album) FA, I've been wanting to get this article FA as well for a long time but never had the motivation until. The article was promoted GA in 2014 and recently received a peer review and a copy-edit (courtesy of GOCE). This article follows a similar structure to the other two FA articles mentioned above. This is the second of the four bolero albums that Luis Miguel released and I'm very fond of as I am with the other two. Erick ( talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Segundoromance.jpg: use is justified, but we don't need quite SO much repetition in the FUR to say so! Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: Thanks for catching that, I have addressed it promptly. Erick ( talk) 02:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (Segundo Reomance comprises cover versions of boleros (Latin ballads),), I would recommend linking “Latin” to “ Latin music (genre)” for clarity.
  • In the same sentence, change “Reomance” to “Romance” as it is a spelling error.
  • The structure of the following part (Four singles were released: "El Día Que Me Quieras" and "La Media Vuelta", which reached the top of the Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart in the United States, and "Todo y Nada" and “Delirio”.) is a little off to me. I would put the chart placement for the first two singles in a separate sentence following this rather than putting everything in a single sentence. I would suggest revising this portion to read and flow better as a whole.
  • In the same sentence, link El Día Que Me Quieras (song)
  • I was a little confused by this sentence (Like its predecessor, the album helped continue the popularity of boleros.). Where did the album help to continue the genre’s popularity? World-wide? Clarification is necessary here.
  • In the infobox, you have Latin ballad and bolero as two separate genres, but in the lead, you include “Latin ballads” as a translation for boleros. This is a little confusing.
  • For this sentence (Miguel excluded one track, "Lo Mejor de Mí", composed by Rudy Pérez, because he felt it would be more proper to perform it as a ballad for his next album rather than a bolero.), change “rather than a bolero” to “rather than as a bolero”.
  • I am a little confused by the insertion of this part (slow ballads "endowed with romantic lyrics”). Is this a definition of boleros in general or a critics’ take on Miguel’s interpretation of boleros? If it is a definition, then I am not sure why it is not connected to the first instance of bolero in the body of the article. If it is from a critic’s review, then you will need to attribute it and make it more defined.
  • For the audio sample, you do not need to include the artist’s name in the title.
  • For this sentence (All three singles reached number one in Mexico.), could you provide a wiki link to the actual chart in Mexico?
  • I would recommend providing more structure to the “Critical reception” section. Right now, it appears more like a list of quotes from critics without any real direction.
  • I would imagine that a “Release history” section and chart is necessary for this article.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Lilias Armstrong

Nominator(s): Umimmak ( talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a phonetician at University College London: Lilias Armstrong. She worked in the 1920s and 1930s and was a colleague of Daniel Jones. Her research focused on intonation and tone, and her work on Somali and Kikuyu is still held in high esteem. I was actually first made aware of Armstrong when I was referred to her work on Somali. I created this article as a stub in December 2014, and then decided in April I wanted to expand this article. I got this article to Good Article Status in June, and a peer evaluation believed it is ready for Featured Article Status. This is my first FA nomination, but I believe it meets all the criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Umimmak ( talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good but there are some monster paras, which should be split. Johnbod ( talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Split. There were a few places I had forgotten to double line break, thanks. Umimmak ( talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review - welcome to FAC!

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. You may wish to do a general Manual of Style review before other editors comment
  • File:British_phonetician_Lilias_E._Armstrong.jpg: the given source appears to include a list of illustrations with author/copyright holder for each - who does it credit for this one?
  • The level of originality required for copyright protection in the UK is quite low, and I'm not sure all of the transcriptions fall below it. Do you have further details about their copyright status? Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the captions. The list of illustrations provides a general note "The remaining photographs were supplied by Michelle Stanbury [i.e., Daniel Jones' daughter —Umimmak] or taken by ourselves", but it doesn't indicate who actually took the photograph.
As for copyright, I didn't think one could copyright images of individual words or simple geometric shapes.
But the text of Mill on the Floss was written in 1860 and Armstrong's transcription was published in 1921, so by any metric that should be good. Armstrong died more than 70 years ago so copyright has lapsed in the UK for the works which she solely authored. That leaves the Tunes and the Burmese, which come from works still in copyright due to the second author, but the images themselves don't have enough creative aspect involved for copyright. Umimmak ( talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

I don't know that I will be able to review this in detail, so for now please consider these "drive by" comments:

  • There are a lot of quotations in the citations. It is unusual to add quotes to citations unless there is a dispute about what the source said or some other compelling motive for including them. If there is not such a justification, you should probably trim these out of the citations.
  • I fixed a couple of MOS:LQ issues that I spotted; you might want to check for others.
  • I see a lot of people mentioned as co-workers, commenters, etc., without any explanation of who they are. Even when there are links, some brief context is usually preferred. For example, "British phonetician Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..." rather than just " Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..."

That's it for now. If I get a chance to review the article more thoroughly, I may come back with more. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the quotations in the citations, my reasoning was it would be good to preemptively include quotations for increased verifiability, particularly when the original source was not in standard English orthography or was from a source other editors might not have easy access to. I figured it would be easier to add the quotations while I still had access to the sources than risk someone requesting a quotation when I no longer had access. If this is something I need to do, I'll go and remove them, but I'll hold off on this for now because it would be a lot of effort and I can imagining other editors preferring them to be there, for the reasons mentioned above and also to ensure I'm not too closely paraphrasing. Other points noted and I'll edit accordingly, thanks. Edit: I did remove some of the quotations -- but only those which are in standard English orthography, online, non-paywalled, and not via Google Books as one can't trust a Google Books URL to be available for all editors. Umimmak ( talk) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Update: Additional paywalled quotations removed if they were in major online resources like JSTOR and in standard English orthography. Umimmak ( talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to be well-written, well-cited, and an example of Wikipedia's best work. All my concerns were addressed already, so I'm happy to support. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 19:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Umimmak ( talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Mells War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Another war memorial. Another Lutyens. But this one's a little different. Lutyens did not just design memorials for major towns and cities like my previous few nominations but also for lots of tiny little places in the middle of nowhere, usually in connection with his pre-war work on country houses. Such was the case with Mells (population ~600 in 2011), where Lutyens' friendship with the owners of the manor resulted in multiple commissions. The story of this tiny village's war memorial is a microcosm of a nation's pain and grief following the slaughter of the First World War. The article has had an A-class review at Milhist and I feel it's up to scratch but I'd appreciate any and all comments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I supported this article at its A class review, and also carried out an image review. I believe it meets Featured Article standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Support similarly, I supported this article at its A class review, and any concerns I had were dealt with there. Nice work. Harrias talk 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Avoid "multiple ... multiple".
  • "In November 2015, as part of commemorations for the centenary of the First World War, Lutyens' war memorials were recognised as a "national collection".": By? After you add this, I'd suggest using the same language in the lead, in place of the unattributed quoted text.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Who doesn't like multiple multiples? ;) I've made the addition to that sentence, and I get what you're saying about the lead but the feedback in previous FACs has been to cut that down in the lead and keep it about the individual memorial rather than the group. One day I'll get round to writing an overview, but I've got another half a dozen individual memorials to cover yet. Very much obliged, as ever, Dan! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Melanie Barnett

Nominator(s): Aoba47 ( talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about is a fictional character who appears in the American sitcom The Game, portrayed by actress Tia Mowry. Introduced in a backdoor pilot on Girlfriends as Joan Clayton's cousin, Melanie chooses to support her boyfriend Derwin Davis' career in the fictional National Football League (NFL) team the San Diego Sabres rather than attend the medical program at Johns Hopkins University. The series primarily focuses on Melanie and Derwin's rocky relationship, with Melanie's fears of infidelity serving as the core of a majority of the episodes' storylines. I found a surprisingly nice amount of coverage on the character, ranging from Melanie's character development to Mowry's casting, departure, and return. Critics responded negatively to Melanie, though the character received more positive attention from fans. Mowry's performance received primarily positive reviews from critics.

I created and expanded this article earlier in the year by myself. This is one of the projects that I am the most proud of on here. I have actually never seen this show and I was primarily inspired to make this article after seeing ChangedforBetter's work on the Denise Huxtable page. I hope that this nomination encourages more people to work on articles on fictional characters and put them through the FAC process and create and work on new articles for notable fictional characters who do not already have one on here. I believe that this article meets all of the criteria for a featured article. I look forward to everyone's feedback and suggestions. Thank you in advance!  Aoba47 ( talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ceranthor

  • which aired on The CW Television Network and BET - I usually expect a time frame after this; "from 2006 to 2015" should do the trick.
  • Added. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • rather than attend the medical program - do you mean medical school? I've never heard of a "medical program" in the US
  • I have heard both terms used, but I have changed it to medical school. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Intelligence is one of her defining characteristics. Mowry left the series in 2012 on learning that her role would be reduced as a result of co-star Pooch Hall's decision - These two sentences have little to do with each other, and I'm afraid it's disjointed to read. Better organization of ideas would help; I think it would be best to move the intelligence bit to the second paragraph
  • I have removed the intelligence part as I do not believe it is important enough enough to be included in the lead. I think that should hopefully solve this, but let me know what you think. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Media commentators also panned the character's representation as a mother. - I know this is just the lead, but a brief explanation of why the character was criticized would help
  • Added a short part to hopefully better explain this. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Derwin proposes marriage to her on live television, during the halftime of a Sabres game, and despite her concerns she accepts.[6] - this comes sort of abruptly; could you transition to this or provide more context prior to it?
  • Added some context. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • During this time, she has an abortion, leaving her highly unlikely to conceive children naturally. - Does the show elaborate if this infertility is due to a complication? If so could you clarify that?
  • To the best of my knowledge, it seems that the infertility came from complications from the abortion so I have added that in. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • and because she is considered an unfit parent is allowed limited contact with the child - considered unfit because?
  • I have added some more information. I had to include a reference to the primary source (an episode of the series) as I could not find a credible/reliable source to support this. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Cynthia Addai-Robinson was originally cast to play Melanie,[4] before Tia Mowry was chosen to play the role instead - This sentence reads awkwardly, particularly the second half. Tweak it a bit
  • Revised. Not sure how I missed that one lol. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • professor Marquita Marie Gammage - of what institution?
  • Added. Thank you for catching this. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a well-written and interesting article. It just needs a few more details fleshed out before it's totally ready. ceran thor 17:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @ Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments! I greatly appreciate that you took the time to review this. I would also like to thank you for your kind words. I enjoyed making this article, and I am glad you found it interesting. I believe that I have addressed all of your remarks, and I look forward to hearing your response. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose. I think this is a well-written and engaging article. ceran thor 21:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Panagiotis Zois

  • File:MelanieBarnettImage.jpg - Image is under a fair-use licence and has the appropriate rationale. Used only once in the infobox. Sidenote: You really do go all the way with image information.
  • File:Mara Brock Akil.jpg - Image originates from a YouTube video which uses the Creative Commons licence Attribution 3.0 Unported, which is acceptable in Wikipedia. Used in "Production" section which discusses Akil.
  • Here's the link.

So basically, the first two images are just fine, but I think the third one needs to go. Unless another image London exists that isn't copyrighted. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 10:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @ PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the image review! I have removed the Lauren London image per your suggestion. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You're welcome :D. Not sure if it's necessary for me to state this for image reviews but it passes. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 18:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 18:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Operation Inmate

Nominator(s): Nick-D ( talk) 01:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This article covers a two day long series of air attacks and naval bombardments conducted by the British Pacific Fleet against isolated Japanese-held islands in June 1945. Somewhat oddly to modern eyes, the main purpose of the operation was to provide the Allied airmen and sailors with combat experience before they conducted more demanding operations against Japan itself. The Allied force achieved this goal, and incurred relatively light casualties by standards at the time, though the Japanese later reported that the attacks had caused only minor damage. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the tactics used during naval operations in the final months of World War II and the circumstances endured by cut-off Japanese garrisons in the Pacific.

I developed the article from a stub about a year ago. It was assessed as GA class in November, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in February this year. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited, and I believe that it draws on all of the significant sources available on this minor military operation to provide a rounded view of the experiences of the Allied and Japanese forces. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D ( talk) 01:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:HMS_Implacable_arriving_at_Sydney_on_8_May_1945.JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    Australian copyright expired after 50 years if the image was taken before 1 May 1955. This was taken in 1945, so the copyright expired in 1995. It is also in the public domain in the United States because it was in the it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (1 January 1996). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    The US tag currently in use has publication requirements beyond "PD in home country", though. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    G'day Nick-D, I suggest, given this is held by the AWM, PD-AustraliaGov applies. You do not need a US PD licence for PD-AustraliaGov. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    I've just made that change. Thanks for the image review Nikki, and your assistance Hawkeye and Peacemaker. Nick-D ( talk) 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dank Nick-D ( talk) 21:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article at GAN and again for Milhist A-Class. I've gone through the changes since then, including Dan's copyedit, and believe that it meets the Featured Article criteria. I've also conducted a source review and they are all reliable. Spotchecked fn 12 and 34, both ok. Suggest moving the References section to 20em to eliminate whitespace. Well done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I've just made that change. Nick-D ( talk) 02:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

SupportComments from Hawkeye7

  • "The British Pacific Fleet " Introduce the abbreviated BPF here
    • Done Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The British aircraft carrier HMS Implacable " Do we need "British"? And should we say "fleet carrier"?
    • Not in this context (as it seems clear), and yes - fixed Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Admiral Bernard Rawlings – the commander of the fleet's combat force" Rawlings was only a vice-admiral at the time.
    • Fixed Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " the 29th of the month" -> 29 May per MOS:BADDATE
    • Tweaked to avoid this Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "a US Navy submarine took up position near the atoll " That was USS Pompon?
    • Could you please provide a source which confirms that? The sub's DANFS's entry says that her patrol commenced on 18 June 1945 [1] - though DANFS is often wrong, and Clay Blair doesn't mention it in his Silent Victory. None of the sources I've found name the sub. Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Nick-D ( talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources comment: 13-digit isbns are preferred in booklists. You can convert the 10-digit versions to 13 by means of this Brianboulton ( talk) 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Nominator(s): FrB.TG ( talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson has made quite a name for herself from beginning acting from the age of seven to becoming one of Hollywood's biggest stars. She is also quite often in the lists of sexiest women in the world, which contributes significantly to her public image. I saw some of her films not long ago and liked her in them.

Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews, and do not have anything controversial so I think they should be okay for use here. I also feel the article might have many quotes, but I believe they are important and add to the article and her personality. Should someone object to it, I will do my best to address their concerns. Thanks to anyone and everyone for taking the time. – FrB.TG ( talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from regarding the sources, but there is documentation regarding fabricated quotes and interviews for at least one of them, haven't checked others. Strongly suggest you reconsider that approach, and only include what can be reliably sourced. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed the Daily Mail source, the other one is IndieLondon, not sure how you feel about it. Will go through the sources again tomorrow. – FrB.TG ( talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be properly licensed, but only Scarlett Johansson.jpg currently has alt text. Moisejp ( talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, added.

Comments by Moise

Hi FrB.TG. Comments on what I've read so far:

Lead:

  • "She voiced an intelligent computer operating system in the 2013 comedy-drama Her and played an alien in the 2013 science fiction film Under the Skin and a woman with psychokinetic abilities in the 2014 science fiction action Lucy." Sentence feels a little long and has two instances of "and" (even though the second one doesn't introduce a new clause so is still grammatically correct). Maybe try to break the sentence up somehow, or change the second "and" to "as well as", or at the very least put a comma after Her.
  • Third and fourth paragraphs have two sentences in a row starting with "She". Feels a bit repetitive, especially in the third paragraph. Maybe if you broke up the sentence I quoted above into two sentences, it would solve both issues in the third paragraph.

Films with Woody Allen:

  • "When Allen offered Johansson the part, she accepted it on a condition that he change her role's nationality." Would be nice to know more about this.
  • Thanks for adding the precision about what nationalities they were. I was hoping to also know the reason why she preferred playing an American (maybe she wasn't comfortable with a British accent?) and was going to add it myself, but when I looked in the source I did't find anything about Johansson requesting the change. Is it possible the information is in a different source? Moisejp ( talk) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is what the "Why I love London" source says, "Scarlett Johansson replaced Kate Winslet shortly before shooting began, a switch that required the character to change nationality. 'It was not a problem,' Allen says. 'It took about an hour.'"
  • Yes, it does say that there was a "required" change in nationality, but not that Johansson wasn't willing to take the part if the nationality wasn't changed. One could imagine from what is written in the source that perhaps it was Allen that felt the nationality change was better. It feels like a bit of a jump to me. Moisejp ( talk) 15:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This source ( [2]] contains the line "So I had to recast and it turned out I could cast an American so I went down the list and saw Scarlett’s name" which may suggest a different sequence of events for Scarlett's character becoming American. Moisejp ( talk) 15:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Reworded to be more faithful to the source. – FrB.TG ( talk) 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll finish reviewing the rest soon. Moisejp ( talk) 06:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Moisejp. I have rearranged the lead a bit. Hopefully it reads better now. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. – FrB.TG ( talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe:

  • "The film gained mainly favorable reviews, and Anne Billson praised Johansson for bringing depth to a rather uninteresting character that it made one wish to watch her story than Damon's." The end of the sentence (from "that it made..." onwards) doesn't seem to quite fit grammatically. Moisejp ( talk) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It's too much detail anyway. Removed that part. – FrB.TG ( talk) 10:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • For this sentence (Johansson shifted to adult roles with her performances in Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) and Lost in Translation (2003), for which she won a BAFTA Award for Best Actress.), would it be better to remove the two (2003) parenthesis and move the year to the following “Johansson shifted to adult roles in 2003 with her performances…”? Just providing a suggestion to avoid the repetitions of 2003 in the same sentence.
  • I am not certain about the “Also in 2010” transition in the lead’s third paragraph. Maybe revise it to something like “Also in the same year” or “In the same year”.
  • Would there be a way to reword this sentence (The highest-grossing actress of 2016, she is also, as of May 2017, the highest-grossing actress of all time in North America.) without repeating “highest-grossing” twice? Just seems repetitive here.
  • This is more of a clarification question but is there a reason why ('introducing' credit on this film) has single quotation marks (i.e. ‘.’) as opposed to double quotation marks (i.e. “.”).
  • In the phrase (Made on a paltry budget of $4 million), I am not sure if the word “paltry” is necessary. I would let the numbers speak for themselves.
  • Could you possibly revise the following sentence (Aspiring to appear on Broadway since her childhood, Johansson made her debut on Broadway in a 2010 revival of the drama A View from the Bridge, written by Arthur Miller.) to avoid the repetition of the word “Broadway”?
  • Entertainment Weekly was linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • I think that this “and speak in English accent” should be revised to this (and speak in an English accent).
  • For this part (while taking note of her first fully nude role. For the role,) I would avoid the repetition of the word “role” in such close proximity.
  • In this part (her lips, green eyes, and voice are among her trademarks), who considers these her trademarks? I am just curious about the attribution for this.
  • In this phrase (Often sexually compared to that of Marilyn Monroe,), is the “sexually” part needed in “sexually compared”? Something about it sounds a little off to me. I understand the intended meaning, but I am still not quite so sure about it.
  • I am not sure about the immediate value of the second paragraph of “Public image” section. It seems rather repetitive to just list her placement on lists of the “sexiest celebrity”. It is important information to include as she is known as a sex symbol, but I am curious if this could be cut down further.
I know it is somewhat repetitive to list down those lists, and I have seen some strong opposition from a certain user, but I think they are important, as they are, like, the awards she receive for her films. Regardless, I have trimmed it a little.
  • Thank you for addressing this. I would not compare her appearances on these lists to her awards from fils as they are completely separate things. I am still not entirely convinced of the value of the paragraph, but I understand your point, and will leave this up to future, more experienced reviewers. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Would the second paragraph of the “Philanthropy” subsection be better suited for the final paragraph in the “Endorsements” subsection. It seems a little odd to have information in one subsection about how she resigned from company due to conflicting endorsements and then place the full reasonings behind it in a later subsection.
Simply removed that part from Endorsement as I think it belongs more in Philanthropy.
  • In this sentence (Her endeavors included appearances in Iowa during January 2008, where her efforts were targeted at younger voters; an appearance at Cornell College; and a speaking engagement at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota on Super Tuesday, 2008.), all instances of the semicolon should be a comma.
  • For this part (for The Black Eyed Peas frontman will.i.am's song), I do not know why it is necessary to bring up The Black Eyed Peas if they were not a part of the song or video? I think the descriptive phrase “singer” or “rapper” would suffice here.
  • Do you think it is notable/relevant enough to include her appearance on SNL as Ivanka Trump in the skit “Complicit” as that got some media attention after it aired.
I think it's enough to mention her 2017 appearance. Mentioning also that would be somewhat overkill.
  • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoba. Some really great points. – FrB.TG ( talk) 08:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

This is pretty formidable, with 290-odd citations, so I'm doing it in stages. First column:

Well, she has been active since 1994, has starred in dozens of films, released two albums and done other works, so it would naturally be a little large.
  • Ref 7: The publisher should be rendered as E!News, with the wikilink
  • Ref 19: What makes this a high quality, reliable source? It's self-published, and reads rather like a fan piece. Also, the book is unpaginated, so "pp. 5" doesn't make sense as a reference point.
  • Ref 26: The Redford quote is clearly on o. 12, so why the open page range?
  • Ref 36: Again, the page reference should be precise, not to an open-ended range
  • Ref 70: The link seems to go to an entirely different website, unrelated to Johansson

More to follow. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I have addressed your concerns and look forward to the rest. – FrB.TG ( talk) 19:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Megalodon

Nominator(s):    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very very large shark that went extinct a really really long time ago. It also got to GA a really very long time ago in 2008, and now I'm here to see it through FA    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Pbsouthwood

Image licenses:

  • File:Megalodon shark jaws museum of natural history 068.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Stenoshark.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon tooth with great white sharks teeth-3-2.jpg - looks OK
  • File:White shark.jpg - looks OK
  • File:FMIB 45542 Cetorhinus maximus.jpeg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon scale.svg - looks OK
  • File:Carcharodon megalodon.jpg - looks OK
  • Source link doesn't appear to have original publication - when/where was this first published?
added    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Megalodon.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon teeth.jpg - looks OK (dead link to source)
  • File:Megalodon jaws on display at the National Baltimore Aquarium.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon skeleton.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Giant white shark coprolite (Miocene; coastal waters of South Carolina, USA).jpg - looks OK
  • File:Meg bitten cetacean vertebra.jpg - not found at source url, page may have changed. OTRS ticket on file, assuming OK
  • File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg - source archived, I don't know how to check licensing for this one.
  • File:Physeteroidea - Livyatan melvillei.JPG - looks OK
  • File:VMNH megalodon.jpg - looks OK. source checked, OTRS ticket on file.
  • File:Megalodon teeth.png - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
  • File:Orca pod southern residents.jpg - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
  • File:Megbook.jpg - looks OK, but I am not expert on fair use.

File:Megbook.jpg and File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg should be checked by someone more expert. I am satisfied with the others. These two are probably OK too but I am not sure. Nikkimaria, perhaps you would be kind enough to check them. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The map appears to be pretty much identical to the source site, which is problematic given this statement. The book cover currently has no fair-use rationale for this page and can't be used here without one. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the book image, but I'm not too sure what to do with the map. It says you can use a modified version of the map, and the one on here is covered in dots, so that seems to check out. It says it can only be used as a resource, just not point-blank copy/pasted onto a page    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem is, File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg appears to be an unmodified version. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I switched it out with File:Land shallow topo 2048.jpg    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  04:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK to me · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All images have alt text. I think some could be improved. I will get back to this for details or make the suggested changes myself if you are happy with that. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I have made some alt text copyedits, and plan to do more. Feel free to revert if you disagree with them.
    Done with alt-text. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • External links look OK on Checklinks. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect check looks OK on Rdcheck. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Sections:
Lead
  • Infobox gives four synonyms as C. spp. Are they all Carcharocles spp? Phylogeny section appears to suggest that other synonyms exist.
Synonyms of Carcharocles sure, but not synonyms of megalodon    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair comment. If the accepted procedure is to list only species synonyms in the infobox, no problem. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I see that this has been changed. Looks OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • First paragraph suggested that Megalodon:The Monster Shark Lives is a documentary. I changed it. No action required · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Fossils
  • competing figures still exist as to when it evolved - What are Competing figures?
disagreement    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the expression, is it standard or common usage in paleontology? I think it may be a bit obscure for the average reader. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the visible V-shaped neck on the teeth?
the neck of the tooth is where the root meets the crown    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Phylogeny
  • in 1960, the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four sharks Are these four sharks those which are now assigned to Carcharocles? If so it would be clearer to mention it.
I switched it to "those four sharks" because I figure it'd be confusing saying "the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four Carcharocles sharks"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
External appearance
  • This section seems excessively tentative. It suggests that the shark resembled at least four rather different extant species. It may be that there are different opinions as to which shark it most closely resembles, in which case this should be specifically mentioned, if possible mentioning the specific attributes that are hypothesized to match each of the species.
there’re three different ideas as to what it really looked like, so they’re split into three different paragraphs    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps the section should lead with a mention that opinions differ, and possibly mention who holds which opinion.
I just opened the paragraphs with "one idea is..."    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That is better. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • However, since sand tiger sharks are displacement swimmers, and use drag to propel themselves; they are required to move around three or four times their own weight in water on each tail stroke. On the face of it, this does not make sense. Explain or link "displacement swimmer", explain how drag can propel anything, as it seems a contradiction in terms.
fixed    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph is still incomprehensible to me, and is not linked to anything that explains it. I am not a specialist on animal swimming, but I am educated in basic hydrodynamics and have probably a better than average layman's knowledge of marine biology, so if I don't get it, I suspect that the majority of readers also won't get it. In this context does "own weight in water" mean an amount of water weighing as much as the shark independent of immersion medium, or an amount of water weighing as much as the apparent weight of the shark when immersed in water? I expect the latter, but then some indication of the apparent weight is needed, as for a neutrally buoyant shark this would be zero. If the former, that is a huge mass of water, and the reason escapes me. Axial swimming is not explained in the article and does not appear to be explained anywhere else on Wikipedia. A footnote may be useful. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"axial swimmers that flex their body for propulsion"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"own weight in water" means in the most literal sense possible "own weight in water"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The source specifies own mass, which is unambiguous. Weight in water is ambiguous as it can mean apparent weight. Own weight of water is less ambiguous.
I read the source. It also fails to explain the meaning of axial swimming and the requirement to displace a large mass of water by drag adequately. I also did a little research into fish locomotion, and found a resource which explains the differences between body forms optimised for acceleration, maneuverability and sustained high speed. I think Kent is trying to say that the sand tiger is optimised for acceleration and possibly maneuverability, but is an inefficient form for sustained high cruising speeds, which tends to be represented by less flexible bodies and high aspect ratio caudal fins, and preferably near neutral buoyancy to minimise induced drag. I am going to look for a suitable wikilink, but may have to resort to a redlink. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is a "pig-eyed appearance" intended to mean in this context?
the source said “pig-eyed” which means popping out    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I accept that the source said "pig-eyed". I checked, and it is there, but I could not access adjacent text to see what meaning they intended. Nevertheless, I do not get a clear understanding from the expression as used in the article, and question its usefulness as a description on that account. I found definitions for pig-eyed in Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, which both say "small, deep-set eyes", quite the opposite of "popping out". I think we can reasonably assume that the authors meant small, deep-set eyes, and as the meaning is clearly not obvious, suggest that the article is changed to clarify. There is no entry in Wiktionary. Either reword or a footnote would do.
I just appendaged an explainer on the end    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Teeth and bite forces
  • What are post-cranial generated forces? Link would be sufficient.
I just removed “post-cranial”    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Range and habitat
  • Fossil remains show a trend for specimens to be larger on average in the southern hemisphere than in the northern, with mean lengths of 11.6 and 9.6 meters (38 and 31 ft), respectively; and in the Pacific more so than the Atlantic 10.9 and 9.5 meters (36 and 31 ft) respectively. The section in italics is not clear. Do the 10.9 and 9.5 meters refer to mean lengths in the Pacific and Atlantic (both hemispheres) repectively, or to mean lengths in the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere in one of these oceans?
11.6 and 9.6 metres mean length for the southern and northern hemispheres respectively; and 10.9 and 9.5 metres for the Pacific and Atlantic oceans respectively. The semicolon is there to separate the two    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
To what does "more so" refer? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly what it sounds like? I use that every day to mean "a quantity more than..." (and on occasion "more like..." depending on the context, but you get the idea)    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an explanation of the meaning, and is what I would expect it to mean. What I asked was what concept in the sentence "more so" refers to. Is it "a trend for specimens to be larger in the southern hemisphere than the northern", or just "a trend for specimens to be larger"? In effect I am asking whether the trend for larger in SH vs NH is exaggerated in the Pacific in relation to the Atlantic, or whether the trend for larger mean lengths in the Pacific than the Atlantic is greater than the hemispheric variation. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed it myself after referring to source. No further action required if you are OK with the change. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Prey relationships
  • Being an opportunist, it would have gone after small and fish and other sharks given the opportunity. First paragraph of the section states probably an apex predator, so maybe "Also being an opportunist...". In same sentence, "small and fish" makes no sense, but not sure what is intended. "Smaller fish"?
fixed    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Citations

Checked: sample of 10 refs chosen from accessible websites. Some when checking specific content, some arbitrarily selected for no special reason.

  • Roesch, B. S. (1998) - OK
  • Does Megalodon still live - OK
  • Alten, S. (2011) - OK
  • Weinstock, J. A. (2014), Partly checked, some pages not accessible, no problem detected.
  • Prothero, D. R. (2015), 1 use checked as OK
  • Bendix-Almgreen, Svend Erik (1983) - OK
  • Fitzgerald, Erich (2004) - OK
  • Ferretti, Francesco; Boris Worm; Gregory L. Britten; Michael R. Heithaus; Heike K. Lotze1 (2010) - OK
  • Renz, Mark (2002), partly checked, pages not fully accessible, samples checked were good. no problem detected.
  • Siverson, Mikael; Johan Lindgren; Michael G. Newbrey; Peter Cederström; Todd D. Cook (2013) - OK

Additional checks when researching for clarification.

  • Pimiento, C.; Balk, M. A. (2015) - OK
General criteria
  • well-written: Could use some more copyediting. I will do what I can, but don't claim to be very good at it.
    • comprehensibility to the layperson reasonable for the topic. Some clarification needed as detailed above.
  • comprehensive: Looks good to me.
  • well-researched: Appears adequately cited, and those refs I have checked look good.
  • neutral: As far as I can tell. No reasons found to suspect otherwise.
  • stable: Looks fine. A lot of constructive work over the last few months and no recent edit wars.
  • lead: Seems generally appropriate.
  • structure: Also seems appropriate.
  • citations: Not checked (yet). Looks OK on a sample check. (see above) I don't do ref formatting reviews, but have not noticed any obvious problems.
  • media. See above: reasonable variety of images, appropriate for purpose, licensing issues appear to be fixed.
  • length. Seems OK.

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal

  • Mega shark series is a dab link, so that needs to be fixed.
that was one purpose,it just lists all the movies in the series    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Using a dab like that is a bad idea (it's just going to draw people trying to fix it), so I resolved by creating a Mega Shark (film series) article. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In prey relations, the text is being sandwiched between the two images, so if that could be fixed, it would be great.
fixed    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  23:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

More by evening! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 05:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm gonna be gone over the weekend to a place where wifi is a foreign concept, so I'll answer any more comments on Monday (or Tuesday)    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
wifi at last    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, completely forgot about it!

  • Link naturalist.
done    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
it also says the subject should be facing the text, so like the Megalodon painting shows the Megalodon facing the left so the picture should be on the right side so that it faces the text    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, possibly over 200 centra. Only the great white approached it." Can these two sentences be merged somehow? (maybe "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, with the great white shark's equaling it, with possibly over 200 centra.)
done    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is all I have to nitpick on. It is a really very well-written, solid article! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 19:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Support - A very solid article, and well deserves a shiny star to it! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 06:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll take a look at this soon. Some initial thoughts below. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems the image layout could still be improved. In the Taxonomy section, the white shark or tooth image could maybe be moved down, so they don't cluster above, both next to the cladogram.
I moved the great white image down    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Under "Teeth and bite force", the Baltimore jaw image seems a bit redundant and crammed-in, could be moved somewhere else.
any ideas where?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It is slightly repetitive, so I'd just remove it or put it in the fiction section as decoration or something, but it's also a shame to remove it, so maybe just leave it as is. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The vertebra under "Prey relationships" could be right aligned so it doesn't cluster with the skull photo.
done    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In fiction" Still seems a way too specific and inadequate title for something that includes info about wrong dating of teeth. This has nothing to do with fiction, and instead of making a new section, it would be better to just make the title more inclusive.
I changed it to "Fiction and sightings"    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
How about "Fiction and misconceptions"? There have been no plausible sightings. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe fiction and cryptozoology? It may also be an idea to make the title even more generic, if we want to include for example non-fictional media appearances or such. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The external links and videos should be cleaned up; some of the links don't work, and some are just redundant junk.
I removed all the deadlinks and weird ones    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Alternative combinations (of genus and species names, such as Carcharodon megalodon) should also be listed in the taxobox synonyms. It is also better to spell out the genus names in the presently listed synonyms, otherwise we won't know what genus each invalid species was assigned to. All synonyms should also redirect here.
done    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, there's a problem with listing genera separately from species here, though; Carcharocles contains species other than megalodon, so synonyms of that genus cannot be synonyms of the species C. megalodon itself. So what I meant is you should list full binomials as synonyms. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why this restoration isn't used?[3] It doesn't seem like a white shark-like appearance has been ruled out, but it's explicitly mentioned as a possibility under description.
  • There is a photo of a coprolite, is there any published information about this? Could be interesting.
  • "In the past, the two major interpretations were Carcharodon megalodon (under the family Lamnidae) or Carcharocles megalodon (under the family Otodontidae)." This is very vaguely worded. Interpretation of what? What kind of interpretation? And what is "in the past"? You could say there has been a historical debate about its generic classification, and that one possibility is now in favour, but the current wording is just too weak.

Sources review

  • Ref 7: publisher location missing
  • Ref 12: There are 21 citations to a page range 1–159. How is someone to check any of these, short of scouring the whole book?
  • Ref 17: Same problem – this time 31 citations without page references, in a book with at least 517 pages.
  • Refs 23 and 40: what makes fossilguy.com a high quality reliable source
  • Ref 29: as per 12 and 17 – 7 citations, no p. refs, book 389 pp.
  • Ref 37: what makes theworldslargestsharksjaw.com a high quality reliable source?
  • Ref 57: lacks publisher details
  • Ref 71: there's a stray > sign, also publisher location missing, and no page refs
  • Ref 75: publisher location missing and no page ref
  • Ref 76: publisher location missing
  • Ref 80: New York Times should be italicised

Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality and reliabiliuty. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Boat Races 2017

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well it took nearly six months to get this passed at GAN so this can’t be much worse... another comprehensive Boat Races article based on existing predecessors who have been promoted to FA over the past couple of years. As ever will work my little cotton socks off to address any and all comments here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the course map. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    Cool, to what? You know there are like 180+ of these all based on the same image size and several have gone through FAC before? Any other image issues? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    All images are appropriately licensed. Looks like of the other FAs on the races, most don't use |upright=, so that'd make the difference. If you do want to keep the upright you can scale to 1 to match the ones that don't use it, or pick something up to 1.3 for larger. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    Okeydokes, dropped "upright". Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

A rather new topic for me, please excuse possible silly questions, and don't expect me to have read other articles in the series ;) Lead

  • The lead image is too small.
    Yes, it's sub-optimal, but it's that or nothing. I prefer something. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    made it a bit bigger, Alakzi told me how -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are many boat races in the world. If the article name doesn't tell us Oxford/Cambridge, the lead needs to clarify that soon, certainly before sponsorship.
    There's only one called The Boat Race and that's linked in the opening sentence of the lead, and explained as such. Alt name is mentioned there because it would be awkward to add it later. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I know FAs where an Alt name is given later, see Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4. Better than getting clumsy, even a translation has been postponed, see Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I'm following a consistent approach to such sporting events, because often as not, it's borderline the common name for such an event, and it's in parentheses so I don't think it should change. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the men's, women's and both reserves' races" - I understand that saying "races" three times would be awkward, but so is this. Do you expect us to know the term "men's reserve race"?
    Yes, I do, that's what it's called, although I seem to recall there's an issue outside BritEng with the term "reserve", it may be that we could find a wikilink to make it easier. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    Yes please. I understand the explanation in the body, but this super-short version is not good for someone unfamiliar with the topic. Could you link to below, perhaps? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I have linked reserve. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Goldie" sounds singular, even Club (which I don't know until hovering over the link) would be singular.
    The joy of British English, where we allow English plurals. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Background

  • The second para presents rather mixed bits of background, history of women's races, sponsorship, prize money, - could that be organised / fleshed out?
    It says all it needs to say as far as I can see, it's been like that for a few previous FAs (see 2015 and 2016), and covers what is necessary without giving undue weight to anything in particular. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Are umpires and broadcasters "background"?
    Yes, because they are all decided upon months and months in advance of the race, so (and as I have for the preceding 180-odd similar such articles) that would be the "background" to the race as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now, thank you for the article. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for the interest Gerda, responses inline above. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
More responses inline, others taken. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

Support I reviewed this at GA, and believe that it meets Featured Article Standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, I appreciate you getting to the GAN after all this time, and I appreciate your support here! The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I'll be supporting the promotion of this first-rate article, but first a few minor drafting points.

  • Except at the start of sentences we usually have a lower case "t" in "the Boat Race", but there are two places, one in the opening para of the lead and the other in the second para of the Background section, where the article has been elevated in mid-sentence to initial capital status.
    Yeah, that means I probably need to edit the previous 181 race articles...! Thus fixed here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    Consistency is the refuge of the unimaginative, as Oscar is alleged to have said. To Hell with the other articles (unless you actually feel like tweaking): it is this one with which we are concerned here. Tim riley talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless a merciful oblivion has set in, you will not have forgotten my regular bleats about false titles: "former Oxford rower Matthew Pinsent" is another case of tabloiditis. Also shown on the charge-sheet are "former Goldie coach Rob Baker", "former Light Blue cox Peter Rudge", "former Oxford cox Acer Nethercott" and "long-term coach Daniel Topolski". It drives ageing Wikipedian Tim Riley up the wall.
    I've addressed each of those issues, and taken advantage to reduce a little prose redundancy while I was at it. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The event was threatened with the discovery – this gave me momentary pause. Nothing actually wrong with it, but it might help to avoid breaking flow if you made it something like "jeopardised by".
    Rephrased entirely, but avoided "jeopardised" because I have a personal aversion to any word which contains J, E and O in order. Frankly, an abhorrence. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The article really conjures up the event. I'm not generally all that much interested in the Boat Race, but reading this, I got quite caught up. I look forward to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 18:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Tim riley, thanks for your review and your kind words. Hopefully I've addressed your concerns, but if not, of course give me a shout. Cheers, The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed you have. Incidentally, as a Mozart fan I am hoping that this article full of Isis und Osiris will fall to the High Priest Sarastro to promote, but I digress. Very pleased to Support. Tim riley talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Like Gerda, I know little about boat races but found this account to be interesting and clear. I have a small number of suggestions that should not threaten your cotton socks.
Background
  • The map showing the course of the race includes "Harrods Depositary". Should that be Depository with an "o" rather than an "a"? See listed buildings. I really like the map, by the way.
  • Yes, it almost certainly should! In the 182-odd articles (all of which are at least GA), that's the first time this has been noticed, so good spot. I'll leave a note for Pointillist who created it, to see if they'd be kind enough to update it, although their edit history indicates they are no longer regularly around. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "For the fifth year, the men's race was sponsored by BNY Mellon while the women's race has BNY Mellon's subsidiary Newton Investment Management as sponsors." - Better if flipped to active voice and trimmed by a few words? Suggestion: "For the fifth year, BNY Mellon sponsored the men's race, while Newton Investment Management, a Mellon subsidiary, sponsored the women's race."
  • Gladly, I've never liked that. Thus reworded. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Coaches
  • ¶2 "OUWBC's chief coach was the Canadian former international cox Ali Williams, her first year in the role having been the University of Alberta's head coach." – The "having been" segment is kind of dangling in space, and I'd rather see the four Williams modifiers placed elsewhere. Suggestion: "Ali Williams, the former Canadian international cox, was OUWBC's chief coach, a new role for her; she had been head coach at the University of Alberta." Or something like that.
Build-up
Men
  • ¶2 "The second race was much closer, with the result being declared in favour of OUBC 'by a seat'." – Replace the "with plus -ing" construction and flip to active voice? Suggestion: "OUBC won the much closer second race 'by a seat' ."
  • ¶2 "Numerous pushes from Leander were responded to by Oxford and the latter passed the finish line with 'a lead of several lengths'." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Oxford responded to numerous pushes by Leander and crossed the finish line with 'a lead of several lengths'."
General
  • Alt text would be nice.
  • Some of the citations use title case, while others use sentence case. It's probably best to choose one or the other and stick with it. Nitpicky, I know.
  • Done I think. A lot of stuff like "Blue Boat", "President" etc remains capitalised as they're specific terms in this context, hope that's okay? The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation 45 is out of sync. It employs the "citation" family, while the others use the "cite" family.
  • The link checkers find no problems with dabs or dead URLs.
  • No remaining duplinks. I found and removed three. Finetooth ( talk) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Finetooth thanks for the review, I've addressed and responded to each of your comments inline above. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers, The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
All good. Thanks for the rapid response. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth ( talk) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources look of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's great Brianboulton, thanks for taking the time to check. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

Nominator(s): Seiya ( talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an important event in history. It was sent to copy editing and peer reviews, all of which are closed and archived. It has been modified and improved according to suggestions and hopefully it is now time to justify its nominations. I hope you will consider the article and address any eventual problems so that they can be corrected and improved. Seiya ( talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Maps, charts, and the symbol image should all be scaled up
  • File:Lavrenty_Beria.jpg needs more information to verify the given licensing tag
  • File:Crimean_nations_18-21_centuries_EST.svg needs a source for the data presented
  • File:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars_symbol_71.jpg: who created this symbol? Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who created the symbol, the image has no source at the Wikimedia Commons.-- Seiya ( talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
What size should the maps and charts be? 300px?-- Seiya ( talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
They should generally be scaled, not set to a fixed px size. See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done – The images have been scaled up. -- Seiya ( talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability. As this is evidently the nominator's first FAC I have carried out spotchecks on the online sources:

  • Ref 13 (Banerji). The sentence cited to this source reads "The Crimean Council even organized mass massacres of Russian in Crimea, which killed tens of thousands". I can't find any similar informatioin in the source. (Incidentally, "mass" massacre is tautologous - a massacre means killing on a large scale.)
  • Done – Corrected.-- Seiya ( talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 28, 36, 46, 55, 63, 64 (Pohl 2000). I have a problem here. The Pohl 2000 source is unpaginated, yet all of these citations provide page references. Ref 36 cites page 1, so I checked the beginning of the source article to see whether any of the multiple details cited to p.1 in your text: "...a total of 8,995 former soldiers of the Red Army of Crimean Tatar descent were registered in special settlements. Among these veterans, there were 534 officers, 1,392 commanders, and 7,079 soldiers. There were also 742 members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and 1,225 members of Komsomol" appear in the source. The figures are all there, but well beyond what might be considered "p.1". You need to reconsider the pagings of all these references. Also, your wording "1,392 commanders" should read "1,392 sergeants".
Yes, I have found a PDF version of the report, with pages on it. Hope this helps [4].-- Seiya ( talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done –
  • I checked a number of other sources and found that they supported what's in the article, with no evidence of close paraphrasing.
  • There are several formatting issues:
  • citations to page ranges should show "pp." not "p."
  • Done –
  • A number of citations (nos 13, 19, 76, 78, 81 and others) include an apersand sign. What is it's purpose? The sign indicates the word "and".
  • Done –
  • Ref 58 has an mdash in its page range
  • Done –
  • In the list of books, consistency is required over whether publisher locations are included. Should be all or none.
  • Done –
  • isbn formats should be consistent. The 13-digit format should be used; you can convert 10-digit to 13-digit using this
Which isbn formats are not consistent?-- Seiya ( talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done – Never mind, I converted them all to 13-digit isbn numbers.-- Seiya ( talk) 10:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The isbn for Polian is subdivided while the others are not. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done –
  • The Al-jezeera source is lacking a retrieval date
  • Done –
  • Italicization of sources: again you need to be consistent. Generally, we italicize if the source of origin is printed, e.g. a newspaper or journal. This you have done in the case of KyivPost but not with Time or NYT
  • Done –
  • Some of your online sources lack publisher details, and in some cases the publisher is being treated as the author.
You need to clarify. Which ones?-- Seiya ( talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pohl 2000 shows no publisher. You should add "Self-published" in the publisher field. BBC News is the publisher, not the author, of the "Crimean Tatars recall mass exile" report; the website address is not the publisher Likewise, "International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam", "Radio Free Europe", "Reuters", "Ukrainian Congress Committee of America" and "UN News Centre" are all publishers. You are not required to provide an author for each source, but you are required to state the publisher. Thus, the proper format for the BBC News source above is: "Crimean Tatars recall mass exile". BBC News. 18 May 2004. Retrieved 4 August 2017. ". The others should be reformatted accordingly. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done –

Brianboulton ( talk) 15:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Lede
  • "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar Qırımtatar sürgünligi; Russian Депортация крымских татар; Ukrainian Депортація кримських татар) refers to the ethnic cleansing of at least 191,044 Tatars from Crimea on 18 May 1944 carried out by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police, under the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin." Quite a lengthy opening sentence. How about cutting it in two? Thus, "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar Qırımtatar sürgünligi; Russian Депортация крымских татар; Ukrainian Депортація кримських татар) refers to the ethnic cleansing of at least 191,044 Tatars from Crimea on 18 May 1944. It was carried out by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police, under the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin."? Much cleaner. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps worth mentioning at that very early point that Crimea was in the Soviet Union; perhaps "Tatars from Crimea, in the southern Soviet Union", on 18 May 1944" or something like that? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, should we be giving the specific date "18 May" here? Surely the deportations took a longer period of time; would it not be best to simply state "May"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If we link "Communists", then it is probably best to link Red Army too. Then remove the later link to Red Army that appears nearer the end of the first paragraph. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "to modern-day Uzbekistan" - why not just to "to Uzbeskistan", and then link to "Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic"? Also, perhaps make it clear that Uzbekistan was part of the Soviet Union at the time. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The present two-paragraph structure to the lede is perhaps a little dense for many readers. Have you considered splitting it into a three or four paragraph structure? That way we ease the reader in a little more gently, rather than bombarding them with lengthy chunks of prose from the get-go. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "would die in later years" - "died in later years"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Stalin's regime" - minor point, but "government" or "administration" might be more neutral here. The term "regime" tends to have slightly negative connotations in the English language, and while I can fully appreciate why many people might think that perfectly acceptable when discussing Stalin's USSR, it's probably best that we try to keep our wording as neutral as possible. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "it was forbidden to even mention that nation in the files of the USSR" - cut the "even", it comes across as being a tad sensationalist or melodramatic. Maybe we could also reword "that nation in the files of the USSR", which is a little clunky. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "condemned Stalin's crimes" - Not particularly neutral wording. Perhaps "Stalin's actions" or "Stalin's policies"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "given permission to return to their homeland" - "permitted to return to Crimea". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "issued a declaration on 14 November 1989" - "declared on 14 November 1989". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "deportations of people during the Stalin era had been a criminal act" - scrap "of people"; it is extraneous and self-evident in this context. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There's some further instances of sensationalistic and slightly melodramatic language in the second paragraph of the lede. "Even though the local authorities did not help the Tatars to return"... "The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, never paid reparations to the Crimean Tatars". It feels a little like the prose deliberately seeks to portray the Russian and Crimean governments in a bad light and that gives me concerns about neutrality. Thankfully, a tidy up of the wording should deal with the problem. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Rather than "Even though the local authorities did not help the Tatars to return and did not compensate them for their lost land, by 2004 the Crimean Tatars had experienced a fragile revival, comprising 12% of the Crimean population. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, never paid reparations to the Crimean Tatars, nor did it compensate then for their lost property. Also, it never filed any charges or legal proceedings against the perpetrators of this forcible resettlement." we could go for something like: "By 2004, sufficient numbers of Tatars had returned to Crimea that they comprised 12% of the peninsula's population. Local authorities did not assist their return or compensate them for lost land. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, did not provide reparations, compensate those deported for lost property, or file legal proceedings against the perpetrators of the forced resettlement." This wording gives the reader the same information as before but (I hope) avoids any loaded or emotional language. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars was a crucial event in the history of that nation" - "that nation" being Crimea or the Crimean Tatars themselves? I think it needs to be made a bit clearer. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "A rally in Taras Shevchenko Park in Kiev, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 2014" - this reads a little as if it is referring to the deportation having taken place in 2014. Perhaps move "in 2014" to just after "in Kiev"; that should solve the problem. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done--- Seiya ( talk) 19:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Background
  • "for centuries, from 1441 to 1783" - scrap "for centuries"; it is superfluous given that the dates are provided directly after. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "who were used for slave trade" - "used in the slave trade" would perhaps be a better wording. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "thus extremely averse to the new Russian rule. Thus, the " - "thus... Thus" is a bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Three sentences in a row end with "Ottoman Empire". Bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland" - using the term "homeland" might not be terribly neutral given the emotional resonance it carries. Perhaps "Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in Crimea". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "in 1783, they had comprised 98% of the population,[5] but by 1897, they comprised only 34.1% of the population" - the prose here is a little repetitive. How about "in 1783, they comprised 98% of the population,[5] but by 1897, this was down to 34.1%." Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "At the same time, Moscow was carrying out the Russification of that area, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic nations. This Russification continued even during the Soviet era" - Avoid using the name of a capital city as a synonym for a government. While certainly used in some prose sources, it is not terribly specific and should be avoided at Wikipedia. Avoid the term "nation", which can be quite loaded and has a lot of baggage stemming from the Soviet period, with the more neutral "ethnic group". Also, terms like "even" again reflect a level of sensationalism within the prose. How about "While Crimean Tatars were emigrating, the Russian government encouraged Russification of the peninsula, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic ethnic groups; this Russification continued during the Soviet era". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1941 the Nazis invaded Eastern Europe" - better to say "In 1941, Nazi Germany invaded Eastern Europe" as most of the troops in the Wermacht were not actual members of the Nazi Party itself. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • All done.-- Seiya ( talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

Cant read the sources. Needs a c/e, the language slips into informality at places, which leads me to worry about those sources. The lead image is a dreadful choice. Needs work. Reading through. Ceoil ( talk)

Raymond Leane

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Raymond Leane was a highly decorated Australian Army officer who rose from the rank of captain to lead a brigade during World War I, and was dubbed "the foremost fighting leader" in the Australian Imperial Force. After the war he was quickly appointed as the Commissioner of the South Australia Police, a role he carried out with distinction for 24 years, overseeing significant developments in the force, for which he was knighted. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:The_fighting_Leanes_of_Prospect_1915_P02136-001.jpg: source states this is a studio portrait from the UK - not sure AustraliaGov would apply
  • File:SLSA_B9700_Anzac_Day_March_1937.jpg: as a newspaper photograph, the copyright wouldn't automatically have belonged to the government, unless there was some agreement to that effect? Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article at GA. I believe that it meets the FA standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources seem of appropriate quality/reliability and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Liliuokalani

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR ( talk), Mailee66 ( talk), Mark Miller ( talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the last ruling monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii who died on November 11, 1917. Aim towards possible TFA for November 11, 2017. Mark Miller ( talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Mark Miller: I think we originally planned to have this as DYK (resulting from the GA) on November 11, 2017. Per DYK rules, it can only be DYK if not otherwise appearing/having appeared on the main page. TFA doesn't have those restrictions, so we could have it appear as TFA at a later date. My personal experience is that not only is FAC a little backlogged, but TFA nominations also take time to get through. But let's see what @ KAVEBEAR: thinks. — Maile ( talk) 22:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm concern this is moving too fast and the article still needs some additional work. I can help when I can. I'm on break for the entire week. But pass or not these reviews will help improve the article. As for DYK, we should go ahead with it expecting we won't get it to FA and through TFA nomination by then. Worse scenario we can postpone TFA to January 17. Maile66 can you nominate the article for DYK now? -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 02:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea. If this does not pass by the November date it can always be a good TFA for the January 17 anniversary of the overthrow.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
DYK Liliuokalani was nominated yesterday. @ KAVEBEAR and Mark Miller: please feel free to offer ALT hooks there. — Maile ( talk) 11:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Some initial comments on the first things that caught my eye:

  • Several reference notes (3, 26, 132) contain links to what looks like a non-RS blog to provide translated content from historical Hawaiian newspapers, such as Ka Nupepa Kuokoa and Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika. The blog itself warns that the translations are "works in progress". Is there no better source for this material? It appears that Ulukau: The Hawaiian Electronic Library has images of these papers available online, albeit those are in Hawaiian.
Ulukau books online are in both English and Hawaiian, (although, I don't know about the specific ones you mention) - whichever the reader clicks as their preference (the selector button is in the upper right hand corner. Click "Kikokikoana Hawaii" to get the Hawaiian language version, or "English text" to get the English language version). The Kunkendall books, for instance, if you click the links you're getting the English version. Except for the issue of the location of source on the books, which can be easily fixed, I think maybe @ KAVEBEAR: or @ Mark Miller: might have the answer to your other questions. — Maile ( talk) 23:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
At least for the relevant issue from Ref 3, I found images of the paper here, but no translated text. If it comes to a choice, I think a reliable source in the original language would be preferable to a non-reliable translation. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree per policy and guidelines that is actually acceptable. It isn't that it must be an English language source but that if no other reliable English source is available, non English sources can be used.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 05:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. All changed. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 02:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Book citations are inconsistent as to whether a location is given.
done — Maile ( talk) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you please comment on the reliability of the Rogne 2002 source? The publisher specializes in devotional literature, and the Amazon description of the book says it presents inspirational "characters", including Biblical patriarchs. This seems to suggest material selected for inspirational value rather than for historical accuracy. Most of the remaining sources seem to be books from academic publishers or reliably sourced historical newspapers, but I will circle back to confirm after I've had a chance to review more thoroughly. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The specific source, Rogne 2003 needs to be looked at to see exactly how strong the source is. Off hand I would say not to discount what appears to be inspirational material on Hawaii's Christian community, Hiram Bingham is considered both inspirational and historic. It would certainly depend on the context, author and publisher to determine the RS strength. It is late here so, If I don't respond directly, I will shortly-- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The source cannot be compared to Bingham which is an accepted historical source of the period. The page being cited also is written in the first person voice from Father Damien's perspective (yet it is not an autobiography). I removed it since all of the information in that sentence can be found in the book by Law which was published by UH Press and has been peer reviewed. If anybody disagree we can discuss on talk or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ---- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 02:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments after a more thorough review:

  • Ref 142: A local church newsletter may be within the letter of WP:RS, but seems weak for an FA. Is there specific detail in the text that isn't supported by adjoining Ref 141, which has much stronger sources?
  • Removed Ref 142. It was just an additional source that gave more detail about the clock that is not found in the article here.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 11:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A similar question applies for Ref 177, which has as its second source a local canoe club. Is there information needed from that source that isn't in the ESPN article?
This appears under the Legacy section. The canoe club tells the reader why the race carries Liliuokalani's name and why it's held on Labor Day weekend - to honor the Queen by holding it the weekend of her birthday. The ESPN article omits those details. — Maile ( talk) 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 153 and 157 seem to be handled inconsistently with other newspaper and magazine sources – these two use Harvard refs to a bibliography entry, while other such stories are fully cited in the notes. The Harv-ref/bibliography approach is used consistently for books and journals.
  • Reformated.
  • Refs 159 and 166 say "Queen Lili'uokalani Trust" in italics, while Ref 171 calls the same organization "Lili'uokalani Trust" with no italics. Should be consistent in both name and format.
  • Standardized the naming for the Trust. The problem is that the trust seems to have rebranded itself in recent year just looking at their annual reports as simply Lili'uokalani Trust while they were referred to as the Queen Lili'uokalani Trust just a few years before. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 04:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 163 is missing the publication and access date details.
  • Chronicling America is credited with a 'via' parameter in Ref 164, but is used extensively in other citations without a 'via'. This should be consistent.
  • Maile66 what do you think? I have a tendency to not add the via and you do so it is just a difference in our referencing style that is creating this. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 04:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed the "via" for consistency, since it seems to be the only one of its kind. — Maile ( talk) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 174 links to a marketing company, not to the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame. The page you should probably use is http://www.hmhof.org/honorees. This could also replace the archive link in Ref 173.
  • What? You can link Ref 173 and 174 to http://www.hmhof.org/honorees but does not list Charles E. King or the Nani La Eha separately. I changed the link as recommended.
  • Looking at this more closely, I was confused by the web site design. The site opens subpages for the honorees without changing the URL. You can right-click to open the subpage with its own URL, which goes to the marketing company, who are apparently hosting subpages under their own domain rather than the Hall of Fame's domain. So they've not blocked deep linking, but they have ensured that anyone following the deep link will be cut off from the main site. Given the way they've done this, I guess the original URL for what was Ref 174 (the page for Charles E. King) is OK. Sorry for the trip down the garden path. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame initially had a dedicated page for each honoree, with a direct link that didn't require jumping through hoops to access. A couple of years ago, they re-designed the website, which resulted in (IMO) a less user-friendly and less informative website. And they still change it around on occasion. So, it's the old Wikipedia bug-a-boo about the URLs changing that necessitates that bot that checks for dead links. — Maile ( talk) 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like what is now Ref 172 is now without any URL. I'm OK with whichever of the links you prefer (now that the confusion over the site design has been cleared up), but it does need a link since it is a web citation. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Added link.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 02:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 178 presents the library as if it were an author; more typically the library would be listed as publisher and no author would be given since the page is unsigned.
  • Changed it.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 22:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 183, 185 and 188 all cite the "Hawaiian Almanac and Annual" for various years without any other publication information. How are readers supposed to know what this is, much less whether it is reliable?
  • @ RL0919: These are... But my question is do we actually want to list 19 more sources into the bloated Bibliography?
  • If you really need to cite them all, then better a larger bibliography than to leave readers in the dark. But there might be alternatives. One option would be to find an alternative source that provides the information more compactly. Or perhaps an explanatory note could be crafted that explains more about where the information was sourced, but without listing the full details (much of which is repetitive) separately for each annual edition. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are no sources I know of that provide this compactly. Let me know if you have any specific alternatives for the ones (The Court, Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, year–year) I have already.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 04:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Assuming the nomination continues (pending resolution of the image dispute issue below), I'll try to come up with an explanatory note and post it here for your consideration. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1875). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1875". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1875. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 12–13. 10524/664. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1876). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1876". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1876. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 62–64. 10524/665. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1877). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1877". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1877. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 56–59. 10524/658. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1878). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1878". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1878. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 5, 34–38. 10524/667. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1879). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1879". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1879. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 33–38. 10524/669. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1880). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1880". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1880. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 33–38. 10524/656. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1881). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1881". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1881. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 65–70. 10524/23168. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1882). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1882". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1882. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 77–83. 10524/23169. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1883). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1883". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1883. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 74–80. 10524/657. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1884). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1884". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1884. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 76–82. 10524/985. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1885). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1885". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1885. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 84–91. 10524/1078. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1886). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1886". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1886. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 81–88. 10524/1484. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1887). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1887". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1887. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 91–98. 10524/659. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1888). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1888". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1888. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 91–99. 10524/666. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1889). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1889". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1889. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 117–126. 10524/655. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1890). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1890". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1890. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 117–126. 10524/31851. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1891). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1891". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1891. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 161–169. 10524/661. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1892). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1892". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1892. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 144–152. 10524/662. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1893). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1893". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1893. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 139–147. 10524/663. 


Leaving aside items questioned above, the remaining sources have a mix of academic books, journal articles, popular books, and journalistic sources (modern and historical). There are also about 30 cites to the subject's own writings. Those categories are all accepted as RS, although some should be treated with caution. Spot-checking I didn't see any uses that seemed obviously concerning. -- RL0919 ( talk) 01:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've struck the resolved issues above. Looks like only three items are still unresolved: the Rogne source, URL for Ref 172, and how best to cite the Almanac and Annual. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
RL0919 I addressed Rogne and the URL issue.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 16:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, now struck above. For the Annual, a possible explanatory note might read like this: "Information on her titles and styles from 1874 to 1893 is from the yearly editions of the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, all edited by Thomas G. Thrum and published by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Abbreviated citations are provided to indicate the specific editions used." I'm not hung up on the exact wording, just want some way to provide the publishing details so the abbreviated cites are meaningful. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
this?-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. I think we can call the source review completed. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • For images showing more than one person, captions should do a better job of identifying which is which
  • File:Lydia_Kamakaeha.jpg: source links are dead, when/where was this first published?
    • Many of these images were uploaded from the original Digital Online Archive of the State of Hawaii. They went off line but have since returned on different servers which changed the urls but kept the content online. I will correct links and check first publication.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed to PD-US-unpublished.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Liliuokalani_and_relative_(detailed).jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Kapiolani_and_Liliuokalani_at_Golden_Jubilee_(Onipaa).jpg
  • If you're going to use PD-US for these, need a pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Still don't know about these.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:USS_Boston_landing_force,_1893_(PP-36-3-002).jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Same with File:Liliuokalani_entering_palace_for_trial_of_1895_(PP-98-12-010).jpg
  • Add rough note on first publication both before 1920.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Aloha_oe_song_01.png should use original publication date
  • File:Liliuokalani_in_1917.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Queen_Liliuokalani_in_mourning_at_Washington_Place.gif
  • Changed to PD-US-unpublished.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For the former, what was the author's date of death? For the latter, the source site identifies a pre-2003 publication so the unpublished tag won't apply. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Revert change on the latter. The former was published before 1923 so added link to where it was first published.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Hawaii_(Kalakaua).svg should include a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The work was based on other coat of arms from modern photographs and PD publications. Those files have appropriate tags.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 16:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Addressed most of these to my knowledge. And fixed migrated (not dead) links. But based on our past FA interactions, this is all I know about these images. Most of them have been published and printed in late 19th or early 20th century books on the overthrow but they are the archival image versions of those and others are straight archival images from the Hawaii State Archives or the Queen Liliuokalani Trust (onipaa.org). I am not sure what you want on the last image, just adding a PD-US to it?-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 04:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If PD US applies, sure. For the others, if you can identify a pre-1923 publication that would work. If an archival image were unpublished, you'd need to see if {{ PD-US-unpublished}} would apply. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: The infobox image is iffy as a TFA image. I tested it yesterday when I nominated the DYK. Shrunk down to that size, it was hard to tell who that is. Too old and grainy; too much throne chair and official attire. Is there something we can put in the article that is more a close-up on her head and shoulders? — Maile ( talk) 11:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I cropped it a bit and swapped it in the infobox. Tell me what you think. — Maile ( talk) 13:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I am against it. I can revert my change that seems to make it grainy but the reasoning for DYK and FA thumbnail size doesn't seem reasonable to replace what appears to be an official image of the Queen while ruling and has a clear publishing. I'd like to revert that for now.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 03:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
And I swapped it back. Per DYK rules: Wikipedia:DYKIMG "3. It must already be in the article". YES, only an image from the article can be used in DYK. The larger one also has clear publishing. And I would add that when we get to TFA, that would also be a reduced image with the same issues of how it looks. It's not just an issue of the graininess. In a reduced size, it's hard to see who that is. I understand you are the one who originally uploaded the one you want to use, but it's not workable as a reduced image for the main page. — Maile ( talk) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Reminder: stability is one of the FA criteria, and edit-warring over the image could well result in an oppose on that grounds. Sort it out. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Reach a consensus on which one to use. IMO, the J. J. Williams image dates to her reign, but it doesn't work well as an infobox image. It should be incorporated in the body if it ends up being ruled out. The George Prince image was taken during her residence in DC with the queen in the formal regalia of the monarchy. It seems exactly like the one she used for her 1898 autobiography File:Liliuokalani of Hawaii.jpg, anyway we can verify this and see if Prince photographed this one as well? Maybe that is something we can find in old DC newspapers from the era...There is also not a strong argument for a set image for Liliuokalani. Looking at Google and book covers you see most people just choose which ever one they like best from the hundreds of photographs she took in her lifetime. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 13:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
What the majority agrees on is fine with me. I just want it to be viable as a reduced main page image. For what it's worth, the image in DYK has to be from the article, but it does not have to be from the infobox. We could put the Prince image lower in the article. However ... whatever is in the infobox is the first image readers see of her. Again ... at TFA, it's the same issue of what works on the main page. — Maile ( talk) 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Restarting

Nikkimaria, I swapped some images that I couldn't find pre-1923 publication dates and added appropriate tags to others. Can you let me know what problems remain with the images? One of the original request I don't get was the one regarding the coat of arms, maybe you can be more direct with your suggestions there.---- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 16:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  • File:Haleakala_-_the_C._R._Bishop_Residence,_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_D._Howard_Hitchcock,_1899,_Bishop_Museum.JPG needs a US PD tag and a date of death for the author
  • File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Hawaii_(Kalakaua).svg should include a licensing tag on the image description page for the original design, which is presumably PD by now? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "founder of the Kamehameha Schools." Why does the reader need to know this in the lede of the article about Liliuokalani, which is a fairly long lede? You never mention this again (which makes it unsourced) Consider cutting.
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If you italicize hānai in the article, it probably should be in the infobox. Consider a link there on first use.
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "which was temporarily blocked by the President Grover Cleveland." I would cut "the"
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the oligarchical government" this has the feel of editorializing. If you feel the need to point out here that the Republic got there by questionable means, suggest more subtlety.
@ Wehwalt: I'm just guessing at how that terminology ended up there. The term is in the lead, but not in the article, which might be what caught your eye. Separate biographies I've been creating/expanding on other individuals from that time and place, in the sourcing I see that phrase a lot, and I think it is referring to the provisional government that was inbetween the monarchy and the Republic. I can't swear to it without re-locating sources, but I'm pretty sure "oligarchy" was the accepted term used across the board, including (if memory serves me) used by one of our US Presidents. — Maile ( talk) 01:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Of the aliʻi class of Hawaiian nobility, her family were considered collateral relations of the reigning House of Kamehameha sharing common descent from the 18th-century aliʻi nui (supreme monarch) Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku." "Family" is singular, at least in AmEng. The introductory phrase is a bit confusing. Consider "Her family was of the aliʻi class of the Hawaiian nobility, collateral relations of the reigning ..."
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "was one of the royal twins alongside Kamanawa depicted on the Hawaiian coat of arms.[7]" the "alongside Kamanawa" causes problems in this sentence. Maybe "was depicted, along with his royal twin Kamanawa, on the Hawaiian coat of arms".
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "She, along with her classmates, had been formally proclaimed by Kamehameha III as eligible for the throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii.[13] Liliʻuokalani later noted that these "pupils were exclusively persons whose claims to the throne were acknowledged."[14]" so basically you're saying the same thing twice. I might cut the quote. If you want to substitute something else by L. about her schooling, that's another possibility. You really don't say anything about what the schooling was like for her, just who her classmates were.
  • "The boarding school headed by the Cookes discontinued around 1850," I might suggest a "was" before "discontinued" and change "headed" to "run".
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "After returning from school," age or year, or possibly both, please. Also remember that the last real mention of her was in the young age group of her class, so having her come home clutching her diploma is a bit of a surprise so suddenly.
  • The last mention was when she transferred to a day school. Corrected that to reflect when she moved back with her Hanai parents. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pākī's death in 1855" Since you differentiate between the two spouses by name, is it proper to refer to "the Pākīs'," earlier?
  • I think so. As a family, they were the Pākīs. Pākī refers to Abner Pākī same as you would differentiate Lincoln, the person from the Lincoln's, the family.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "but declared that if neither the King nor any high chief though proper to marry her" Note 2. Presumably "though" should be "thought".
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "during the royal marriage" should "marriage" be "wedding"?
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Courtship" might be better placed somewhere in the following paragraph.
  • "She ultimately broke off the engagement at the urging of King Kamehameha IV and the opposition of the Bishops to the union." I would change "at" to "because of" because "at ... the opposition" reads oddly.
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "a staff member of Prince Lot Kapuāiwa (the future Kamehameha V) and secretary of King Kamehameha IV. " I would change the first "of" to "for" and the second to "to". I imagine that the secretary job was a personal secretary?
?? Obit for Dominis says he was "secretary and chamberlain" to Kam IV.
?? Obit 2 says "private secretary" for both Kam IV and Kam V, in addition to later being a Governor under Kam V.
— Maile ( talk) 20:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dominis began as a staff member to Prince Lot and later as a personal secretary, aide de campe and adjutant general for Kamehameha IV. As far as I know, Dominis did not hold the position of chamberlain during the reigns of the Kamehameha's. Changed the propositions.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "they had known each from childhood when he spied upon the royal children from a neighboring school next to the Cookes'." "neighboring" is redundant here. I might change "spied on" to "watched".
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Rev." at baptism, you refer to the officiant as "Reverend" without the "the".
  • "her hānai sister Pauahi and her husband Charles Reed Bishop." Long intro for two people who in the last paragraph you called "the Bishops"
  • Remove, it is redundant anyway since we've introduced both figures by their full names.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "but Dominis's mother Mary made her disapproval apparent by not attending the ceremony. " Can you make your disapproval apparent? Either way, you're guessing.
  • These are the arguments of Helena G. Allens.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The couple moved into the Dominises' residence Washington Place in Honolulu." I think a comma after "residence"
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that "Liliuokalani" is spelled without the mark in the sections at the bottom of the article, such as her arms, and her family tree.
Checked – — Maile ( talk) 22:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
More soon.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@ KAVEBEAR: I took care of all that I could from Wehwalt's first list above, and have checked-signed off on each one I dealt with. But others were not details I was necessarily familiar with. So would you please have a look at those if you have time? Thanks. — Maile ( talk) 00:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: Can you strike the one that are sufficiently addressed, so it's easier to navigate the remaining ones? There are some I need a little more time to address like the schooling piece.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Recommend closing this FAC to resume at a later date

There is now an edit war happening in the article regarding the infobox image. There are also related issues at the DYK nomination. This is not ready for FAC. — Maile ( talk) 11:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's attempt to resolve the issue. It is a ridiculous thing to edit war about. Can I broker a compromise so things can proceed without this? Just use the original image and add the new 1898 image to a section below. We still can use either images for DYK.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR I am willing to go along with what you suggest. — Maile ( talk) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me know if/when images are stable so I can re-review. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I added Prince's image to the article.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Coldrum Long Barrow

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl ( talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Neolithic burial site in Kent, south-eastern England, one of several Medway Megaliths located around the River Medway. Part of a tradition of chambered long barrow construction that took place across much of Europe in the Neolithic, it is one of the very oldest built constructions still extant in the British landscape. As well as having an important archaeological side to its story, it also has various folkloric associations. The article has been a GA for two years and I believe that it now meets FA criteria. I managed to get Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas to FA several months ago, and I'm hoping that this one can join it and improve our coverage of British prehistory. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Map_of_the_Medway_Megaliths.jpg: description page should include mention of sources used to create this map
  • File:Coldrum_skeletal_material.jpg: confused by this - if there is a FUR there should also be a fair-use tag of some sort. The given PD tag requires more explanation, both regarding which point is believed to apply as well as what steps have been taken to attempt to identify author. Same with File:Coldrum_skulls.jpg. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • There's a Harvard error on each of the Holgate citations - 1981 v 1982 I think
  • Well spotted! It is 1981, so the problem is in the bibliography. Fixed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 51: mdash in page range
  • Replaced with the shorter dash (sorry, I don't know the specific name of it!) Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Bibliography:
  • National Trust: The title on the linked page is apparently "Stunning views from the top of the barrow", not the title you give in your bibliography
  • I was under the impression that the title is "Coldrum Stones", with "Stunning views from the top of the barrow" as a form of sub-header between the main title and the main prose? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Way: Can you clarify which of the articles listed on the linked page is your source article?
  • Ditto with Wright
  • (being really pernickety) isbns should be consistently formatted. The 10-digit isbn shown for the Malone book can be converted to 13 via this.
  • Smashing website; thanks for the link. Will try and remember to use that in future. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources are of impeccable quality and reliability. Signature added following the reproof below. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: the above source review is by Brianboulton. He should be forgiven his absence of mind in omitting to add his tiddlies, as he's almost as old as I am, poor soul. Tim riley talk 13:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time on this one, Brian! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I expect to be supporting the elevation of this comprehensive and fascinating article, but I have a few very small quibbles first.

  • In the "Meaning and purpose" section I imagine "mouments" is a typo, but as it is in a quotation I didn’t like to alter it.
  • Indeed, it is just a typo. Well spotted! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Bibliography I wondered about "Otherparts" (in the George Payne entry).
  • That appears to be an error; I will correct it to "Other Parts". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "North Downs" is linked twice in the main text.
  • "an idea likely derived", "monuments were likely influenced" and "a local community could likely muster" – a curiously AmE feel to this formation. In ordinary BrE I'd expect "an idea probably derived", "monuments were probably influenced" and "a local community could probably muster". (The other "likely" in the text seems to me perfectly idomatic.)
  • Sure. Changing instances of "likely" to "probably". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Good. Privately I think the AmE "likely" is rather better than our BrE "probably" (always prefer the shorter word to the long, and the Anglo Saxon - or in this case Norse - to the Latin) but the BrE usage here is pretty invariable. Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • False titles: in a BrE article, it is jarring to see false titles such as "Archaeologist Robin Holgate", "historian Ronald Hutton" and "Archaeologist Caroline Malone". Prefixing them with a definite article would take away the pain.
  • A fair point (and one you've made to be before, admittedly). I've made the amendments. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "morris dancing – one hates to encourage goings-on of that sort, but the Wikipedia article capitalises Morris throughout. The OED on the other hand, doesn’t. I leave it to you to decide which is the greater authority on the point.
  • If we don't capitalise waacking or waltzing then there is probably no good reason to capitalise morris either. Ensuring that it appears in lower-case throughout this article (except when it appears in the name of a particular dance troupe). Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • waacking? I won't ask (nor click on the link); I agree with your decision about capitalising "morris". Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of any great consequence here, but it would be nice to have these minor points cleared up. – Tim riley talk 13:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for offering your thoughts, Tim; I've responded to all of them but if there is anything else then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
After another perusal I am happy to add my support for this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Another most readable and enjoyable article from Midnightblueowl. Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is well-written and appears to be comprehensive. I have a small number of questions and suggestions.
Lead
  • ¶1 "located near to the village" – Trim to "near the village"?
  • Link sarsen in the lead caption?
Context
  • ¶2 "Britain was largely forested in this period,[8] with Kent only seeing widespread forest clearance in the Late Bronze Age." – Link Late Bronze Age and give a date span?
Agreed. Good catch. Finetooth ( talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 Replace "with plus -ing" construction in the Late Bronze Age sentence? Suggestion: "Britain was largely forested in this period; widespread forest clearance did not occur in Kent until the Late Bronze Age (date span)."
The chamber
  • ¶1 "and 53 centimetres (1 foot, 9 inches) in depth at its thicker, eastern end." – Should this be "in thickness" rather than "in depth"?
Demographics
  • ¶5 "revealed that while the bones had δ13C values" – Link δ13C?
  • ¶5 "they had significantly higher values of δ15C, which grew over time." – Should that be δ15N? An isotope of nitrogen rather than carbon?
  • Indeed, it should - my silly mistake. Well spotted. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Post-mortem disposition
Again, a very sensible idea. Added. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Damage and dilapidation
  • ¶2 "which ordered the opening of tumuli" – Link tumuli?
Folklore, folk tradition, and modern Paganism
  • ¶4 "Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to meditate, pray, or perform rituals, with some having reported experiencing visions there." – Replace the "with plus -ing"? Suggestion: "Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to meditate, pray, or perform rituals, and some have reported experiencing visions there."
Early antiquarian descriptions
  • ¶1 "alerted to their existence by a local vicar" – Link vicar?
Agreed. Good catch. Finetooth ( talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "stating that two individuals excavated in the centre of the chamber without permission, discovering a human skeleton, the skull of which was re-buried in the churchyard..." – Slightly smoother might be "stating that two individuals who excavated in the centre of the chamber without permission discovered a human skeleton, the skull of which was re-buried in the churchyard..."
Archaeological excavation
  • ¶1 "he returned to excavate on the north-west corner of the dolmen" – Link dolmen?
  • I'm going to change "dolmen" to "chamber" here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for offering your comments, Finetooth. The article is much the better for them. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All good. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. A most interesting article, well-done. Finetooth ( talk) 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Coldrum Lodge, which has since been demolished" When was this name coined, and when was the farm demolished?
  • If only we knew! Sadly, this does not appear to be mentioned in the reliable sources. Hopefully, it might appear in some future publication and we could use it in the article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "about 500 metres from", "one and a quarter miles away" I'm assuming that conversions would be needed for measurements here, since you also do it elsewhere. Anyhow, you should be consistent in what units you use.
  • I've ensured that in both of these instances we have both imperial and metric measurements. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you could mention country and area under Name and location too, the intro and infobox should only summarise info found in the article body, but now the info isn't there.
  • I'm not an WP:engvar fanatic at all, but isn't this sufficiently associated with the UK for British English to be used in the article? Maybe it is supposed to be UK, I just see "meters" written various places instead of "metres".
    I've ensured standardisation as "metre". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you could define long barrow in-text early in the article body. The article is written in a way that just assumes the reader knows what it means.
  • I've added a few sentences to the start of the "Medway Megaliths" sub-section to give greater explanation. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, FunkMonk! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • "from the vicinity of the White Horse Stone" It could be explained what this is.
  • I have added the brief following explanation to the sentence in question: "a putatively prehistoric monolith near the river," Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and Maloideae Only genera and species should be in italics, not families.
  • Ah, I did not know that. Removed the italicisation of the word. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "They can be divided into two separate clusters" I would name them, since this is the start of a new paragraph.
  • "Eocene." You could add "epoch", so readers will not confuse it with the much narrower periods also mentioned.
  • Any genetic work done on the human remains?
  • Are there any reconstructions of how the monument would have looked originally?
  • I'm not sure that any would be fair use given that they would be artistic depictions created by other people. The other option would be for someone with a talent for art to produce a reconstruction (based on others) which could then be used here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Constructed circa 4000 BCE," Only seems to be stated explicitly in the intro, which should not have unique info. Also, what is the date based on?
  • I've changed this to "Probably constructed in the fourth millennium BCE". The issue of date is discussed when examining the bones, mentioned in the final paragraph of the "Demographics" sub-section. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so that's the only line of evidence that has been used for dating? FunkMonk ( talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's also the stylistic evidence, i.e. that it is a chambered long barrow and these are known to have been erected in the Early Neolithic. So it's a matter of relative dating, rather than any absolute dating. Hopefully any future excavation might be able to utilise techniques like carbon dating and thus ascertain a more precise date for the barrow's construction. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "about by Neolithicisation" Which is what?
  • I've replaced the term "Neolithicisation" with the more explicit "the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It would seem those 1910 photos might be PD-old, know who the photographer was? In any case, they are PD-US, so you should upload them here locally in full res, like for example this image:[5]
  • "in a paper largely concerned with discerning racial characteristics of the bodies" May be controversial, but what did he conclude?
  • "their results were published in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society in 2013" Do we really need to name the journal in-text? You don't do this for other such studies.
  • " published in the Folklore journal" Likewise.
  • "Wysocki's team noted that in all but one case, the fracture morphologies" Maybe add "of the bones" to make it clearer.
  • "on the left frontal" Spell out frontal bone and link. A bit too jargony.
  • "sub-adults" Seems too jargony, could at least be defined.
  • The article defines the bodies as between 16 and 20, so I have added that date range to the prose. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "as seen here in contemporary Sichuan" Better to give a date, or be more vague, like "modern". If this article exists in 50 years, will the photo still be "contemporary"?
  • Good idea. I've switched "contemporary" to "in the early twenty-first century". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The inclusion of occupational debris" Which is what exactly?
  • "earth energy" Any reason why this isn't linked?
  • "spirits of Albion" Could be linked.
  • I do not think that "Spirits of Albion" itself could really link to anything, but we could link " Albion" itself? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I was thinking. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll add the link. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kit's Coty House" is mentioned a few times, but what is it?
  • It is the name of one of the other Medway Megaliths; this is mentioned in both the second paragraph of the lede and again in the third paragraph of the "Medway Megaliths" sub-section. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, for some reason it didn't work when I searched the article... FunkMonk ( talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Have there been no excavations after the 1920s?
  • Unfortunately not from what I gather, but hopefully some will take place in the future, at which point we can add any information about them into the article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "An patch of scorched earth exists on the grass" Looks like a mistake
  • "After limited reconstruction" You mention this in the intro, but I cant see any elaboration in the article body.
  • The article mentions the chambers being fortified with concrete in both "The chamber" and "Archaeological excavation" sections; do you think that the lede needs to be clearer on this point? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
That seems just short of reconstruction, though? Perhaps clarification would be better. Or do the sources refer to it as reconstruction? If so, it could also be solved by stating this explicitly in the article body. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I expanded the lede a little to better clarify things, but I felt that doing so just made that last lede paragraph too clunky, so I felt that the best bet was just to remove "After limited reconstruction" all together. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why your self-made diagrams haven't been moved to Commons? Could be useful to other projects.
  • Not that I am aware of. If anyone wants to move them, then feel free to do so. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I would, but the tools for it somehow don't work for me anymore... FunkMonk ( talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems only two issues are unaddressed, after that I should be ready to support. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a fourth-century AD Christian patchwork Latin poem, arranged by the Roman noblewoman Faltonia Betitia Proba. Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi is composed entirely of lines by the Roman poet Virgil, but the author has taken them, rearranged them, and re-contextualized them to be about the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible. In addition to its peculiar poetic style, the work is unique for a number of reasons: for instance, it is one of the first examples of Christian poetry, and perhaps the first instance of a Christian, poetic description of hell. The poem was also likely the first work by a women to have been printed and disseminated via the printing press. Finally, this work falls under the umbrella of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History and June of 2017 by Miniapolis. It looks good, reads well, has images, and is properly formatted. I think it is time for the next step.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Publius_Vergilius_Maro1.jpg needs a copyright tag for the sculpture. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've swapped the old Virgil pic out for a new one, to which I have also added an object copyright tag.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 32: I rather think that "Dorothy Disse" is the publisher of this website, as well as its author, in which case the question arises: what makes her a reliable source? Incidentally, the link to the original source no longer works.
  • That's a good point. Here is a really useful 'review' of the website by then- UIowa current- Concordia University faculty member Nora E. Jaffary explaining in detail why it's a good, reliable source. Jaffary makes some solid points (if I do say so) that I believe support its inclusion on this page. As to the second point, I'm not sure what you mean; I did archive it, so in terms of actually accessing it, it should not be a huge issue.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What I meant was, there are two links in the reference, the first of which goes to the source while the second gives "Internal server error". There is no problem in accessing the source via the working link. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I apologize if I'm coming across as thick, but I guess I'm confused as to the issue? The first link has 'died', and so I've added an archive link. If I remove the original, dead url link I believe the citation template will give an error message. Anyway, I believe we're supposed to keep them as per WP:KDL.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 53: page range inconsistent
  • Ref 60: "p." missing?
  • Refs 73 and 84: I assume that your sources are published editions of these ancient works, in which case you need to provide details.
  • I'm only referring to the original sources. Giving citations like this is standard practice for ancient documents, especially in the Classics, and based on previous experiences at FAN and GAN here at WP ( e.g.), I have assumed it is acceptable here, too.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Having looked again at how these citations are used in the text, I have no further issue with them. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than these points, sources seem fine. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. Well written, and (as far as a layman can judge) a comprehensive treatment of a delightfully dotty topic. Nicely illustrated, and well sourced and referenced. The lead is on the short side, but having read the main text I didn't see anything that I thought should have been mentioned in the lead. I enjoyed this article, and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. – Tim riley talk 13:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Rodrigues rail

Nominator(s): FunkMonk ( talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an article about an obscure, extinct rail, the closest relative of the likewise extinct red rail, which was featured a few years ago. I've been sitting on this GA since 2012, while expecting Julian Hume to publish a monograph article about extinct Mascarene rails (like those about the parrots and pigeons from there), but now I'm not so sure it will come any time soon, and figured this would be as good a time as ever to polish and nominate it. The article covers pretty much everything written about this bird so far, and will of course be expanded further if that monograph is ever written. FunkMonk ( talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All links checked and working. The only issue is with ref 4, the link in which goes to p. 123 of the source, when the required p. range is given as 23–24. Otherwise, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and formats are consistent. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good catch, I copied the ref from an article about another bird ( Rodrigues parrot) which was discussed in that page range of the same source, so I will change it to 122-123 instead. FunkMonk ( talk) 22:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • All images are properly licensed, have appropriate description templates, no copyright problems, and although not necessary, ALT text is present too! Support Adityavagarwal ( talk) 05:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Any views on the text itself, Adityavagarwal? FunkMonk ( talk) 08:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk Now that I came to know one could do any image review and prose review too, I would check it out and by tomorrow have all the issues listed! :) Adityavagarwal ( talk) 09:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hehe, in theory, one could do both a prose, source, and image review (I've often done prose/image). But I think supports can mainly be given based on prose reviews. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Lol, yeah! In fact, now that you have mentioned it, I would have done all three for you, but seems like source has already been done. :P Adityavagarwal ( talk) 09:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal

  • "...is an extinct species of rail that" you should mention "...is an extinct species of the rail family, that".
Added, but I'm not sure about the comma? FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed, though Mauritus here refers to the island alone, rather than the modern country, which includes other islands. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Links to "zoologist", "palaeontologist", and "ornithologist", although not necessary.
Linked, though it seems like overlinking, maybe someone else will remove it. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Any subspecies (I do not think so)? If not, you should mention that.
Nope, multiple subspecies hardly if ever evolve on a single, small island... FunkMonk ( talk) 09:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Günther and Newton" I think you should mention A. Newton or E. Newton, as it would otherwise create a confusion.
Added. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "plumage, perhaps flecked with white, it" I think the sentence should break here. "plumage, perhaps flecked with white. It".
Split. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "had a red beak and legs, and a red, naked area around its eyes." I think this should be "had a red beak and legs, and red, naked area around its eyes."
I reworded it slightly differently, better? FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The behaviour and ecology section has singular/plural issues
Should now be singular. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "island's ecosystem is heavily damaged" instead "island's ecosystem was heavily damaged"?
Changed, though it is still damaged. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That is all I have to nitpick. A very well-written article, and a very interesting read. I am feeling to contribute to extinct species! :P Adityavagarwal ( talk) 08:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Extinct species can sometimes be hard to write about, since little is often known about them in life, and the text can therefore be more about history than behaviour, as is in this article... But I think it's fun to dig through old sources. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
All issues should now be addressed. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Strong support - A very well written article, and an interesting read! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 13:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, FunkMonk! I think I should try an FAC of an extinct species after the current common loon and the next alpine pika FACs! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 13:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the double support (first time I get that), and feel free to ask for any advice with the extinct species! There are plenty to go around... FunkMonk ( talk) 13:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Surely, I would ask you for any help! :D I would most probably pick up an extinct species for the next GAN (which would go to an FA hood), so your help would come in handy there! ;) Adityavagarwal ( talk) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Something like Nuralagus rex, a giant, prehistoric lagomorph, might be up your ally... But I can give you many recommendations in many categories, if you don't already have your sights on something. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Support just a few comments.

  • Suggest putting how it became extinct high in the first paragraph. Say the second sentence. Simply that it was through hunting, and possibly the bit about being attracted to red.
I've been wary about this, because the reason for its extinction is explained in more detail in the second paragraph, so wouldn't it be repetitive/redundant? FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " and was named leguati in his honour. " I might make it clearer this was some time later.
Added date. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the second paragraph of "taxonomy" might be usefully split.
Split. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "in reference to its behaviour towards red objects" Some mention prior to this of what this is would be helpful. The lede describes the bird as attracted to red objects.
Mentioned "attraction". FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Günther and E. Newton" Why E.? Why not Edward?
In this case it's because his first name has already been mentioned earlier in the text. The "E." is just to distinguish him from his brother Alfred ("A."), otherwise I would only write "Newton" on second occurrence. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the overall size of an individual bird or to sexual dimorphism.[8][6] "refs out of order, if you are ordering them.
Haven't given order a thought, but changed around anyway here. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "According to the contemporary accounts, " I might cut the "the".
Removed. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref #2 likely should have the title italicised.
Oops, changed to book template. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Very interesting.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all issues should be addressed. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

*" the bird is poorly understood" - not fond of understood here (not as if it's speaking a foreign language!), "known" is better.

Actually that's about all I can see that I'd fix.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo fixes! I rewrote that sentence, both to avoid a double "known" in the same sentence, but also because the sentence was misleading, implying the bird was only known from accounts, even though bones are of course also known. How does it look? FunkMonk ( talk) 13:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes much better. all good now. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I did a few other changes too, hope it's fine as well. FunkMonk ( talk) 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Spot check from Cas Liber

  • Earwig's copyvio inflated by (appropriately attributed) quotation. all good.
  • FN 2 used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 7 used 5 time, faithful to source.
  • FN 13 used thrice, faithful to source.

All checks out. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois ( talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment of the popular horror movie franchise. Released in 2006, it sees James Wong and Glen Morgan return as writers after having been absent during the second movie. Diverging from its predecessors, which were highly linked to one another, FD3 was written from the beginning as a stand-alone sequel. The film focuses on Wendy Christensen as the film's visionary, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Having foreseen the derailment of the Devil's Flight roller coaster, she manages to save some of her friends and realizes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about how they're all going to die.

I got the article to GA-status in spring and tried getting it to FA-status a few months ago but due to personal reasons was unable to continue with the review. Since then I've made a few minor edits, mostly focused on the sources, replacing them with more reliable ones. I hope people enjoy reading the article and become interested enough to watch the movie as well. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47

Wonderful work with this article. I will leave my comments/suggestions for improvement below and good luck with it this go-around:

  • In the lead’s first paragraph, would it be helpful to add in the release year for the first film (i.e. 2000). It could be placed in parenthesis at the end of the sentence.
  • Revised.
  • I was a little confused by the note. You do not specify where the “six years ago” line came from. I am assuming that it was in the beginning of this film, but I believe you should fully explain the context by adding that to the note.
  • I added a little bit more context as to when and where this happens.
  • For the lead, please add the year in which the second film was released.
  • Done.
  • I think you can cut “who was” after you talk about Jeffrey Reddick for conciseness.
  • Done.
  • I would revise the following two sentences, “Final Destination 3 received mixed reviews. Negative reviews stated that the film was formulaic and did not bring anything new to the franchise.“, to avoid ending one sentence with “reviews” and starting another with the same word. In the third sentence you also use “reviews” in “positive reviews”. I would cut down on the use of the word in such close proximity.
  • Revised though I'm not sure if replacing "negative reviews" with "negative ones" is that much better.
  • I have done some revision here. Let me know what you think. Feel free to revert. Once I hear your feedback on this part, I will support this as you have addressed everything else. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh damn, I didn't even think of that. It is better that way, thank you. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 16:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Make sure to link Final Destination 3 and Final Destination 2 when you first reference them in the body of the article. I would also add the release years too.
  • Half-done. I need to link the third film to itself?
  • Oops, you are right. I had brain fart here. Sorry about that. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • XD
  • Link James Wong when you first mention him in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • In the “Casting” subsection, you do not need to link the characters as they are all linked in the “Plot” section above. The actors were already linked too so you do not need to link them again.
  • Doesn't that fall under the same instance with Wong's name that people should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the main body?
  • I would move the screenshot of the tanning bed death down to the section where it is discussed.
  • I did think about doing that as while their death scene is the source of analysis.. but at the same time it was also pretty notable in reviews, being regarded as (one of) the best death(s) in the film / franchise. I guess it has notability in both sections.
  • I will leave it up to further reviewers. It was more of a suggestion, as I do not have a major problem with the placement. It is a good screenshot for the section so it was a wise addition to the article. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this. My comments pertain just to the prose, as I will leave anything about source use and reliability to the source review. If possible, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, great job with this and I will support this once everything is addressed. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will wait to support this until the issue addressed below about the "Reception" section is more resolved as there are some sticky areas with prose there that I agree need to be further revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Aoba47: I did make some changes in the "Critical response" section. Unfortunately Slightly mad wasn't satisfied with them. I did make some further changes based on his comments. Are there any further changes you'd like for me to make? PanagiotisZois ( talk) 08:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have made the following modifications to the reception section: edits. Feel free to revert them if you do not like the changes. Just trying to help out to improve that part. I will support this. I am not sure if the first paragraph of the reception section is entirely necessary though. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Aoba. I really appreciate the help. As for the first paragraph, I think it should stay as it includes professional consesus sites that immediately give the reader a general overview of the film's reception. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 18:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could offer at least some assistance as I know that you have worked a lot on this. And your reasoning makes sense to me. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 ( talk) 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Slightlymad

  • Kindly read my reply above in case you're wondering why I opposed the nomination outright. One final thought: while it's not for me to decide who should review the sources, I recommend pinging the editor who had opposed the source review from the previous FA for assurance that their issue has been resolved. Thank you for your effort. Slightly mad 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Spiro Agnew

Nominator(s): Brianboulton ( talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC) and Wehwalt

Largely forgotten today, this is the tale of the corrupt former vice president Spiro T. Agnew, who served from 1969 to 1973. His rise was meteoric, from almost nowhere to VP in just two years, and he was an early standard-bearer for what became known as the New Right – the "John the Baptist" of the movement, some said. His rhetoric of the "forgotten Americans", his avid cultivation of the politics of resentment, and his attacks on the elitist liberal establishment, have a strong contemporary feel. A controversial and divisive figure, with Nixon in deep Watergate stews, only Agnew's venality stopped him from becoming the 38th president. What might have been... Co-written by myself and Wehwalt, with sturdy help from our peer reviewers to whom many thanks. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Spiro_Agnew.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Spiro_Agnew_Congratulates_Launch_Control_After_Launch_of_Apollo_17_-_GPN-2002-000058.jpg. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment

  • Is there a way of wording "and wrote a novel and a memoir defending his actions" which doesn't make it sound like the novel was also written to defend his actions? Bencherlite Talk 15:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review

  • Ref #2: Does it need page numbers? Should "American National Biography" be removed, and if not should it be italicized?
  • Ref #11: The author is Douglas Martin.
  • Ref #46: Seems to misspell Csicsek.
  • Consider bringing the wiki-links for The New York Times and The Washington Post to their first instance in the References section. Consider wiki-linking other newspaper names there for consistency.

Those are all the issues I could find. Moisejp ( talk) 05:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, done those things. I've avoided the question of the ANB page numbers by using the online edition, which probably the majority of people do anyway.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good. :-) Moisejp ( talk) 14:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. I was among the peer reviewers and was v. satisfied with the outcome. One (I think) BrE spelling – "mould" – has subsequently crept in (third para of Campaign section). That apart, no further quibbles, and though Agnew is arguably more fortunate than he deserves in having two of our leading editors working together on this biographical article, I'm pleased to support its promotion to FA, as it seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 23:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help throughout. I've modified to avoid that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. On prose and comprehensiveness Comments by Finetooth

This article about an important public figure is excellent. I have only a small number of minor suggestions and questions.
General
  • Alt text for the images would be nice.
Political awakening
  • ¶3 "With Symington's defeat in the congressional election, Agnew became the highest-ranking Republican in Maryland." – I got slightly confused in this paragraph by the juxtaposition of two different elections. It might be helpful here to say "When Symington lost to Democrat Clarence Long in the congressional election...".
Election 1966
  • ¶2 "Your Home is your Castle" – Should the second "your" have an uppercase Y?
  • ¶3 "Agnew had failed to report three alleged attempts to bribe him, made on behalf of the slot-machine industry..." – What did the slot-machine people want from Agnew?
In office
  • ¶3 "Several cities exploded into violence..." – Maybe just "in" rather than "into"?
Republican National Convention
  • ¶2 "In the discussions that followed about a running mate, Nixon kept his counsel while various party factions thought they could influence his choice - Strom Thurmond, the senator from South Carolina, told a party meeting that he held a veto on the vice presidency." – The hyphen doesn't work here. Should it be a terminal period? A semi-colon?
I've tried a colon..-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Transition and early days
  • ¶5 "many of the commission assignments Nixon gave Agnew were sinecures" – Link sinecures?
"Nixon's Nixon": attacking the left
  • ¶2 "while himself remaining above the fray." – A little smoother might be "while remaining above the fray himself."
1970: Protesters and midterm elections
  • ¶2 "increasing Viet Cong control of parts of Cambodia, which they used as sanctuaries" – I think "it" would work better than "they" here. The Viet Cong was an organization.
  • ¶2 "Feeling that Nixon was getting overly dovish advice..." – Link dovish?
I think it can stand without it. Rogers and Laird were not pacifists.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "Nixon decided to attack the Viet Cong positions in Cambodia, a decision that had Agnew's vigorous support, and that he remained convinced was correct after his resignation." – For clarity, remove the comma between "support" and "and"?
Since we're jumping in time a bit, I think the comma is useful and should stand.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Criminal investigation and resignation
  • ¶4 "Under increasing pressure to resign, Agnew took the position a sitting vice president could not be indicted..." – Insert "that" between "position" and "a"?
  • ¶5 "recalled that he heard the news while on the House floor and his first reaction was disbelief..." - Insert "that" between "and" and "his"?
I don't think it's necessary, it's close enough to the "recalled that".
Citations
  • Some of the citations to newspapers are in title case, and some are in sentence case. You might want to choose one over the other and make them all the same.
Thank you for the review. I've changed all of that except the alt text, which I hope to get to tonight.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The alt text is done now too.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
All good. Switching to support, as noted above. Impressive article, easy to read. Finetooth ( talk) 16:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Very grateful.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
<My thanks added. Brianboulton ( talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tonystewart14

  • I'm curious if there's a reason you add "He died in 1996." at the end of the lead when this is already mentioned at the beginning of the lead.
I just think it rounds out the lede well, finishes telling the story.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Another nitpick is on the "Post resignation" section: Should this have a hyphen instead of a space? Perhaps it's different in a section heading versus in text.
  • Final years and death, 2nd PP: Comma after Wednesday
  • Legacy, 2nd/3rd PP: Levy is used in second paragraph, then Peter Levy in the third. Perhaps this should be consistent as he was introduced quite a bit earlier.
  • Legacy, 3rd PP: "heartbeat away from the presidency" is cliche and not encyclopedic IMO.
  • Ref 3: Change 1966 to 1996. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 01:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for those. Except where I commented, those are done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I went through this article in peer review, and found it very satisfactory. My opinion is unchanged. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Drive by comments I lack any expertise to comment on Agnew's life, but would like to offer the following comments on the section on World War II:

  • "He remained on standby in Birmingham until late in the year" - he would have been assigned to an officer replacement holding depot or similar (which by all accounts were soul-destroying places) - saying he was 'on standby' makes things sound a bit more interesting and glamorous than they probably were.
  • The source that deals with Agnew's military career (Witcover 1972) describes him as a "casual officer" in Birmingham before his posting to the 54th as a replacement. I can't say that "standby" suggests anything interesting or glamorous to me, rather the reverse. It's a pretty trivial point, not really worth changing, I feel. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Standby' suggests that he was something more than one of thousands of officers cooling their heels and waiting the fill the shoes of a dead or wounded officer. I'd suggest changing this to 'he remained in Birmingham'. Nick-D ( talk) 10:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the following months, as commander of a supply and maintenance company, Agnew saw intense action" - how? The commander of a maintenance unit would have been behind the front line and have seen relatively little combat for members of these hard-fighting units (especially compared to his equivalent in one of the battalion's infantry companies). Did he go out of his way to get into action?
  • The source is not particularly informative as to details, but I've added a little context. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good Nick-D ( talk) 10:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • At the risk of being a bit nit-picky, the US Army's armored infantry battalions each had a single 'service company', not a 'supply and maintenance company' (see page 2 of [10], for instance)
  • Source refers to "service (supply and maintenance) company". Witcover is not a military historian so occasionally his choice of wording might be imperfect. I've changed it to "service company". Brianboulton ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "his company was pinned down during the siege of Bastogne" - his company was part of a large US force besieged in the town: this wording makes it sound like it was only this unit. The garrison wasn't really 'pinned down' either - it gave as good as it got, with the armored and armored infantry battalions being used in a mobile role.
  • As noted above, I've changed the wording - can't comment on your latter point which is somewhat ultra vires. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ""thirty-nine days in the hole of the doughnut", as one of his men put it" - the Seige of Bastogne only lasted for about a week
  • I imagine that the sergeant's comment about "hole in the doughnut" referred to the entire Battle of the Bulge, which did last for about 39 days. The revised wording should cover it. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest removing this quote, as it's not accurate. Nick-D ( talk) 10:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have asked my co-nom's opinion on this issue. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If one of his men said it, then it is worth hearing about because it was how they viewed it, and helps to show that Agnew was not an armchair warrior, given the hard line on Vietnam he would later take.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The photograph for this section seems oddly chosen given that Agnew was not an infantryman. His job was to keep the infantry fighting. Nick-D ( talk) 09:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can find anything better. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these observations. I've taken your points on board I think. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919

Who could forget the enemy of pusillanimous pussyfooting? :-) The article looks good overall, so only a few comments from me:

  • Last week an IP editor tried to add to the lead the fact that there was a third-candidate in the 66 governor's race. The add was quite clumsy and I reverted it, but the point does seem relevant enough to mention in the lead, considering that he won with less than a majority.
  • Speaking of that election, shouldn't the section on it have a "main article" note to Maryland gubernatorial election, 1966?
  • The lead and body say he helped win "border states", and the body lists South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. What definition of "border states" is this? It doesn't match Border states (American Civil War) or International border states of the United States.
I've made it less specific ("key states") in one case, and added a bit to the other. Definition of where states are has varied over time, North and South once met at the Mason-Dixon, not really true today.
  • I noticed some MOS:LQ issues -- "for a thousand years." is an obvious example of a phrase with the period inside the quotes, but there are also cases where what appear to be full sentences have the period outside the quotes, such as "I have one utility, and that's the ability to penetrate to the top people". I could fix the former type of case myself, but the latter should probably be looked at by someone more familiar with whether the quotes are full sentence or not.
I've gone through them and made what changes were called for.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering that the article is over 10,000 words, I wonder if there are opportunities to trim. Some possibilities to consider (I'm not saying any of these are wrong or offensive, just looking for opportunities to shorten the read without losing anything important -- there may be more opportunities that I didn't spot):
    • Do we need to know the specific address where Agnew's parents lived?
    • Or his salary on the Zoning Board?
    • "though he did not immediately become involved in politics" -- isn't that obvious enough from the subsequent narrative?
    • "as was customary, he sat down immediately after being sworn in, and did not make a speech" -- if it is typical, is it really significant enough to mention?

I don't want to be a nattering nabob of negativism, so that's it for now. -- RL0919 ( talk) 03:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Agnew lived at his parents' house there too ... and people may not be aware of what the VP does at the inauguration. When the VP's inauguration took place in the Senate chamber, he did sometimes make a speech, so I'm inclined to keep it. The specific ones you cite, I'm inclined to keep, but I'll look through for cutting opportunities.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I've done all of these now. Further to cutting, I find from experience that cutting detail doesn't cut many words, it's only when you chop out paragraphs and subsections that these things add up. Thank you for the detailed review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all the changes made look good. Regarding the suggestions to trim, I'm still not clear on why his specific address is a significant point that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. That said, I understand it will be a long article regardless of a few specific points that I may consider unnecessary. I didn't spot any other concerns in my standard review checks, so I support this for FA. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It allows you at least to check where it is on google maps, perhaps ... thanks for the support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from John

It looks great! I tool out some howevers and some hemisphere-dependent time referents, and formatted some images. I am minded to support after another pass. Good work. -- John ( talk) 18:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article has been significantly improved following another detailed peer review, prose advice from Corinne, and an extrapolation of those comments to tighten up every nook and cranny of the article. Having implemented the prose polishing, the creation a smooth narrative flow throughout, and the trimming of the footnotes, it is now a much easier and more pleasant read. I am pleased to nominate this again for FAC ahead of the centenary on 2 November; I hope you enjoy it. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Support - all my issues were ironed out during the latest peer-review, so I'm happy to see it here again. A flurry of sudden interest and intense edits from many editors, in a way I haven't seen before, seems to have made the article less cohesive right before the first FAC (and after the first peer-review where I, for full disclosure, acted as mentor). FunkMonk ( talk) 08:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up lead image slightly
Done
  • At the previous FAC, you had mentioned proposing an amendment to the UKGov tag wording - any progress on that?
Yes. I have pinged you on Commons
This fix has now been completed. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:The_"Basel_Program"_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg: first source link doesn't appear to work.
Fixed with Wayback Machine

Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Replies in green above. Many thanks for the speedy review. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

In my view all sources meet the required standards of quality and reliability. This review is concerned with issues of presentation and format.

  • In about 20 cases you use "p." instead of "pp." when citing page ranges (17, 33, 65 etc)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 65 and 73 need ndashes not hyphens
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit dubious about the use of "et seq" in cited page ranges. It's open-ended, not particularly helpful to someone wishing to check. Is it possible to be more precise?
Agreed and fixed. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 32: Your text refers to the Jewish population as "a small minority, approximately 3% of the total" – but I don't see any mention of 3% in the source.
I have added Bachi, the underlying source, which includes a table with percentages supporting the "approximately 3%". Other sources summarize the data in a similar fashion, which we can use if needed: ([11], [12], [13]). Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also in 32, why is it necessary to refer your readers to another WP article for "further details"? What "further details" do they need? (same issue arises with ref 85)
I have removed this in ref 32. Source 85 is a link to the Central Zionist Archives article, that is intended to be linked in the same manner as Cambridge University Press is linked, rather than for further information in the way ref 32 was being used. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 214 and 236: wikisource citations should give author and date information (there is a useful template available)
Fixed. Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 216: Harvard error
Fixed by RL0919 (thanks). Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 217: Italicize Jerusalem Post
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 262: requires author and proper source title
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 276: The link on "Virginia Page Fortna" is dead.
Updated. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 287 lacks publisher information; Jim Miles is the author
I removed this ref as not necessary. Instead I added an additional page number to the Schneer ref. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 290: Italicize The Guardian
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Access dates are required in a number of cases: 262, 287, 290 and 292 are obvious examples, but there may be more.
I added these. I also looked for others, and can confirm that these are the only primarily web-based sources in the article which did not already have access dates. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is your criterion for adding access dates in the bibliography, which you do on a couple of occasions?
I removed the two access dates; I have always considered them only relevant when the reference is primarily a web-based source ( WP:CITEHOW only mentions access dates under "web pages") Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You need to be consistent about including publisher locations for books. In general you don't give them, but in the odd instance you do (Stein, Wavell and Woodward are examples but there may be more)
I found and removed nine examples of this. They don't add anything; the books are all easily identifiable with existing information. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent about how publishers are shown. For example, you have "Cambridge University Press", but "OUP". Another abbreviation is "NYU Press". Also, consistency is required in the use of "The...", e.g. "University of Texas Press" and "The University of California Press"
I reviewed and fixed these. On the first topic, I found three abbreviations (including SUNY). On the use of "The" I have removed the example you pointed to, and added it to a journal name – the criterion I am using is that "The" is only used when it appears in the official title of the organization or journal. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yapp appears in the bibliography but has no citations.
Removed. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all I've found. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

All fixed; replies in green above. Many thanks for looking at this so thoroughly; I imagine it took some quite some time (I figured that the volume – c.300 citations and c.100 items in the bibliography – would have made a source review more onerous). Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict": "origin" doesn't work because it's ambiguous; it can mean "initial stages", "explanation" or "cause". Pick a different word.
This is a very good point. I spent some time looking across the underlying sources in the article, and opened a discussion at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#The_Declaration_and_the_Conflict. The consensus is for "cause", which I am happy with. Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "On the basis of the quid pro quo agreement in the correspondence, the Arab Revolt was launched on 5 June 1916. However, in May 1916 the governments of the United Kingdom, France, and Russia secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement": "However" is the wrong word here, because a secret agreement doesn't negate or mitigate a revolt. Rewrite to clarify which two things are being contrasted.
Done; I have flipped the first sentence around to directly juxtapose the two agreements. As such I kept the word "however", but I case just as easily delete it if you think better without. Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sykes was a British Conservative and Unionist MP whose role had developed from his seat on the 1915 De Bunsen Committee to have a significant influence on British policy in the Middle East, including initiating the creation of the Arab Bureau, whilst Picot was a French diplomat and former consul-general in Beirut.": Loss of clarity, mainly from trying to do too much in one sentence.
Done. I had the same uncomfortable feeling reading that sentence previously. I have now split the sentence into two, and copyedited the Sykes sentence to improve clarity and flow. Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • “: no curly quotes, per WP:MOS
Fixed Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "it was intended that Palestine may become a Jewish Commonwealth if and when ...": might, or would, not may.
Done. Changed to “would” since that’s the word Lloyd George used in his quote Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. I got down to the last section before the end-sections, Reaction. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Seraphim System

This statement is in the lede: The opening words of the declaration represented the first public support for Zionism by a major political power. I am looking for a source for it in the body but I can't find it, could someone please point it out for me? Seraphim System ( talk) 14:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I have now added this into the body in the Zionist reaction section. Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

  • Do we really need the full quotation of the Declaration's wording in the lede? It looks a little messy to have an indented block of prose in the lede itself, and I'm wondering if we would be better off simply paraphrasing its contents in that opening paragraph. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Not my article, but ... personally, I wouldn't want to see this changed without a discussion at WT:FAC of the general principle. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed during the last FAC at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#Infobox:_Proposed_RfC and Talk:Balfour_Declaration#RfC:_Location_of_verbatim_text. The discussions were linked at the FAC review. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have said before that I am not too keen on having both the info box and the text block; now that there is a higher resolution image available, could we not look at this again? Selfstudier ( talk) 11:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. I also added a link to Zionism. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Allied war effort" - this is the first introduction of the concept of the "Allies" in the lede. I'm concerned that there are points like this which require the reader to have a pre-existing understanding of the First World War and its various sides in order to understand what the lede is actually referring to. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Took a great deal of thinking, and a lot of iteration, but I think I have fixed this. I only explained the position of the countries we discuss in the lede. Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The opening words of the declaration represented the first public support for Zionism by a major political power" - probably could just go with "The declaration represented the first expression of public support for Zionism by a major political power." Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have made most of this proposed change. The bit I didn’t implement was the deletion of the words “opening words of”; this is there in order to differentiate from the latter part of the paragraph which talks about “the second half” of the declaration, which comprises the two key provisos. Onceinawhile ( talk) 23:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We link to Palestinians when mentioning "local population of Palestine" but it would be better to move that link to the earlier mention of the "the local population in Palestine". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories, and was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considered the world's most intractable conflict." I'm wondering if this would work better as two separate sentences: "It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories. It was also the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considered the world's most intractable conflict." Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have split this as proposed, and incorporated Dank's comment above. Rather than "also" I used "As a result" as the linkage, because the causation of the conflict runs through the strengthening of Zionism and the creation of Israel/Palestine. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
In "Background"
  • The first sub-section has a lengthy paragraph and then a very short one. Consider rearranging so that we have two even-sized paragraphs? That should make it more appealing for readers. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. I didn't make them exactly evenly sized, but created one paragraph relating to the mid-1800s and one to the late 1800s/early 1900s. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The British Foreign Office worked to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine" - perhaps "The British Foreign Office encouraged Jewish emigration to Palestine"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Changed to "actively encouraged", to be clear that this was not passive encouragement of an existing trend. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The 1881–84 Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire encouraged " - "Anti" should probably be "anti" here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider aligning the "Basel program" picture to the left, to avoid clustering on the right. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and former MP" - this acronym has not previously been explained in the article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done - I have now explained this. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Turks began to apply restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine in late 1882" - I think that this is the first explicit mention of the Turks; before this we have only mentioned the Ottoman Empire. It might be worth making clear the connection between the two for readers unfamiliar with the situation. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done - I have added "also known as the Turkish Empire" in the paragraph above. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " At the meeting David Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whose law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland to work on the Uganda Scheme,[40] "referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine".[41] " This is a bit clunky, especially the middle section. Perhaps it could be broken into two? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, by moving the middle section to the next sentence. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " a Zionist, who believed Weizmann's demands were too modest.[" - we could quite easily scrap the comma here and streamline the sentence as a result. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed; restructured the sentence. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "his election defeat in 1906," - perhaps "his electoral defeat in 1906," would read better? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "member of the Conservative and Unionist Party in their role " - link to Conservative Party (UK); also, probably best to simply use "Conservative Party", which is common use. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Added link as proposed. Conservative and Unionist Party was the contemporary name in common usage, because the merger of the Unionist and Conservative parties had only just taken place in 1912. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Many further discussions followed, including the initial meetings in 1915–16 between Lloyd George, who had been appointed Minister of Munitions in May 1915,[48] and Weizmann, who was appointed as a scientific advisor to Lloyd George's Ministry of Munitions in September 1915.[" - it is a bit repetitive to use "Minister of Munitions" twice; in the latter case perhaps just "advisor to the ministry in September 1915." Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Seventeen years later in his War Memoirs Lloyd George described these meetings as being the "fount and origin" of the declaration although this claim has been rejected by historians.[" - this sentence could do with some additional commas, after "years", "Memoirs", and "declaration". Midnightblueowl ( talk)
Done. I made the last one a semi colon and removed "although". Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a few instances of passive voice where active voice might be more appropriate. "Zionism was first discussed at a meeting of the British Cabinet on 9 November 1914," could be "The British Cabinet first discussed Zionism at a meeting of the British Cabinet on 9 November 1914," while "although this claim has been rejected by historians." could be "although historians have rejected this claim." Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the "1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine" sub-section, the second paragraph is far, far too long. Definitely trim this into two if not three smaller chunks. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done, split into three. I made some additional stylistic improvements to make this work. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In late 1915 the British High Commissioner to Egypt, Henry McMahon, had exchanged ten letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, in which he had promised Hussein to recognize Arab independence "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo", in return for Hussein launching a revolt against the Ottoman Empire." This is a very lengthy sentence and it would work better if divided into two sentences. Also, no reason to include the "had" in "had exchanged" and "had promised". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " for carving up the area" - "for dividing the area" might be a little more encyclopaedic in tone. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sykes was a British Conservative and Unionist MP" - no need for "and Unionist", I'd have thought. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Per above, it is more accurate to contemporary usage to retain Unionist. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In Sykes’ mind, the agreement became outdated even before it was signed – in March 1916, he was to write in a private letter: " - change the apostrophe after "Sykes" to the standard style; maybe "was" rather than "became"; "he was to write" to "he wrote"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "borders of the Ottoman empire" - Upper case E needed in "Empire" here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "responsibility for Middle Eastern Affairs" - "Affairs" should probably be "affairs" here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sykes’ goals" - again it's the odd apostrophe. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "mobilizing of Zionism" - "mobilisation of Zionism", perhaps? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done, although retained American spelling Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the wider war had reached " - "the war had reached"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "would first turn in " - "first turned in"; "had declared war" to "declared war"; "was still hoping to avoid" to "still hoped to avoid". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done, except for the first one, where I am intending to communicate that we are talking about events which post-date the subject of the declaration – and in particular the narrative to come in the following sections. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Russian forces were known to be distracted " - "Russia's armies were distracted"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's important to retain the information that this was known to the British, as the most relevant point to the article is what the British thought rather than what was or was not true. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Alexander Kerensky's Russian Republic " - perhaps better to state "Alexander Kerensky's Provisional Government"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " and would only withdraw after the final stage " - "and only withdrew after the final stage". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Other
  • I'm really not a fan of the very heavy use of quotation in the Notes, which I find a bit excessive. That would not stop me supporting the article, but I do think it could be trimmed back. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Understood. You may be interested to see the discussion at the last FAC. I have cut them down since then, and will have another go at some further trimming now. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Midnightblueowl: just to say thanks very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Operation PBHISTORY

Nominator(s): Vanamonde ( talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a CIA covert operation in Guatemala, one of many articles I worked on related to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, which became an FA earlier this year. It's based on pretty much every scholarly and book source that discusses the subject, and I feel it's comprehensive. It went through a detailed GA review by Shearonink earlier this year, and I've polished it since. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Guatearbenz0870.JPG: per the FOP tag, should include more details about the artwork pictured, particularly its specific location
  • Hmm. I'm uncertain how specific I can be about this, because the location "covered an entire city block within two hundred meters of the National Palace". If we need the precise address, I can ask here; has something changed since then?
  • Think you can just add that description to the image page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, done.
  • File:PatrickJHillings.jpg: don't see that tag at the source site, or am I missing something? Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I investigated this in more detail, and you're right. The image seems to originally come from the NYT, on whose website it is no longer available: I also find it unlikely that the NYT image would be PD, and unlikely that we could justify non-free use here. So I've removed the image: the article has a fair few images in any case.
  • @ this image is clearly horizontally compressed, but I've no idea of how to fix that besides downloading it, stretching it, and uploading it. I'm uncertain if there's a better way, or if that method is acceptable: d'you have any advice? Regards, Vanamonde ( talk) 08:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, they were very helpful. The issue has been fixed. Vanamonde ( talk) 14:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from SchroCat

  • Why is the title part-capitalised? I don't see any rationale in the MoS that would justify it (although I may have missed it). - SchroCat ( talk) 05:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @ SchroCat: That's an understandable question. Basically it's because that's what the source do: Holland, for instance, says "There is, to be sure, an oft-told anecdote derived from PBHISTORY, the cryptonym for the project dedicated to gathering and exploiting Guatemalan Communist documents." (Holland, 2004, p 300). More generally, it's the convention used by the vast majority of RS for all of the related CIA operations: Operation PBFORTUNE and Operation PBSUCCESS, for instance. I'm uncertain as to the origins of the convention. If there is a good reason to ignore this convention and move the article to Operation Pbhistory, I'd be willing to do so. Regards, Vanamonde ( talk) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'm right in saying that most military operations also use the same capitalisation format, but we drop it to sit in line with the MoS. (And looking at WP:FA, I don't see any other capitalised operations). Ian Rose or Dank (both being active in that project) will know better than I. - SchroCat ( talk) 05:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Well, Milhist is not my usual area of work; this is as close as I get: so I'm happy to follow the advice of folks more experienced in this area. Let me just throw in a few more options: "PB" is the CIA's geographical moniker for Guatemala. The "History" was operation specific. So I imagine a case could be made for "Operation History", and for "Operation PBHistory". Also going to ping Peacemaker67, who reviewed PBFORTUNE at GAN: I'd like to hear your views. Regards, Vanamonde ( talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Others may have a different view, but although military operation names are usually rendered in Title Case, given these operation names seems always to be in all upper case in sources, we should IAR, ie I reckon the whole operation name should be in upper case across these CIA articles (Operation PBFORTUNE etc). Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Either Pbhistory or PBHistory would work for me. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: I wonder if we could get your opinion here too, as we seem to be evenly divided. Regards, Vanamonde ( talk) 05:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I did see the original ping and was going to stop by but, perhaps because I didn't yet have the nom on my watchlist, it dropped through the cracks... In RL I'm used to operation names being upper case (see the RAAF's current ops page for instance) but we do seem to have broad consensus for title case on WP, thus given the slightly unusual situation with this one (initials evidently being part of the name) I think I'd have to go with "PBHistory"... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, Ian Rose. It looks like "PBHistory" has the most support. As I've temporarily handed in my mop, I'm unable to move the page: might I ask you to do the honors? Regards, Vanamonde ( talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @ SchroCat: The article has now been moved. Did you have any other suggestions you wish to mention? Regards, Vanamonde ( talk) 15:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I will see if I can. I have promised myself to a couple of different things and time is a bit stretched, but if a window comes up, I'll be along. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 10 requires pp. not p., and ndash not hyphen
  • Fixed: also used the dash script on the whole page, there were a few others.
  • For consistency, the citations to "Holly" should be to "Holly & Patterson", as per the other multiple author source.
  • Also fixed.

Otherwise, sources look fine. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. Vanamonde ( talk) 04:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Northern rosella

Nominator(s): Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've scoured everywhere and feel I have covered just about all information available on this pretty parrot. I feel it has come together okay and is within striking distance of FA status. have at it. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There's nothing in the lead that actually says what the Northern rosella is (a species of parrot). This should be in the first sentence, as is the case in the other FA parrot (and parrotfinch) articles: Broad-billed parrot, Mascarene parrot, Rodrigues parrot, Turquoise parrot, Fiji parrotfinch. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 06:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Good catch...I rejigged it now... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I'll give this a look soon... FunkMonk ( talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "first described as Psittacus venustus by German naturalist Heinrich Kuhl." Give date.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The description was based on an illustration by Ferdinand Bauer" The article is pretty empty, perhaps find and include this important type illustration?
having trouble locating it... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thought so, can't find it either... FunkMonk ( talk) 11:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Butting in: could this be the illustration? - Which is one of 52 plates held by the NHM in London - see here. - Aa77zz ( talk) 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The NHM has a watermarked image here - Aa77zz ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems very likely! I think it would be good to include somehow, since that image is what the species is based on... FunkMonk ( talk) 12:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
that's definitely it...surely it is out of copyright... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gregory Mathews described P. venustus hillii in 1910" You could add "the subspecies" before the name, so the reader will know what you're talking about.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "possibly through bowdlerisation" I have no idea what that is.
linked now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "was basal to the other" Could be linked and maybe explained.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and that non-sister taxa" Likewise.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The description section feels like a wall of text, but I can't really see any place where it would make sense to split it...
  • "the adult northern rosella weighs 90–110 g (3.2–3.9 oz), is 29 to 32 cm" And is?
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "in the western subspecies hillii" Seems out of place and redundant to mention this under description.
removed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "not a gregarious bird" Could be linked.
linked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "such as Darwin Stringybark (Eucalyptus tetrodonta)", listed later as ", E. tetradonta". Seems odd you would list all species with the common name first and scientific name in parenthesis, except for this example.
rejigged Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The bird louse Forficuloecus wilsoni" Everywhere else the scientific name is in parenthesis after the common name.
it is a species of bird louse. And has no common name. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)" Why is the abreviation, and not the full name, linked?
target article is at acronym...but switched now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is IUCN not spelled out, like CITES is?
is now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breeders have attempted to use sprinklers in enclosures to induce pairs to breed at other times" How would this help?
not spelt out in source but presumably to mimic rain (monsoon) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "native to Australia's Top End" That term is neither used or explained in the article body.
just changed to "northern Australia" as the term adds nothing really Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The sexes have similar plumage, while younger birds are generally duller with occasional spots of red." Maybe include females in the latter group as well, as you state they are occasionally red in the article body.
good point - done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - that was quick! FunkMonk ( talk) 05:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

Lead

  • Spell out IUCN
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy and naming

  • Spell out RAOU
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • nonsister -> non-sister?
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Link Arnhem Land (as in lead)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "John Gould reported in 1848" perhaps just Gould here
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "However, a mitochondrial study by Ashlee Shipham and colleagues published in 2017..." Shipman et al used nuclear DNA in their study ("genomic wide sampling of thousands of loci") which they considered more reliable and which gave a different tree from that obtained using mtDNA.
damn...I need to read these articles when less tired...done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Description

  • First sentence needs to be split
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strangely HBW alive has 28cm and 85g - not within the range given in the wiki article
I'll stick with HANZAB... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • mention bill colour
I did...see "The beak is off-white with a grey cere"... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link retrices
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Behaviour

  • "The northern rosella is not a gregarious bird, found solitarily or in pairs, although several birds will perch together in the same tree." -> ..."and is found solitary or ..."?
changed to "alone" Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Feeding

  • "Plant species it eats both seeds and nectar of include" word missing?
rejigged Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Breeding

  • add size of egg in inches
added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservation status

  • Are there published estimates of the population size?
not known - remote areas its lives in and poorly studied Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz ( talk) 06:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Perhaps add some links:

  • link scapulars in lead and body
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link mantle in lead and body
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link Melville Island (Australia)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link cere
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link Tiwi Islands
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking good. - Aa77zz ( talk) 08:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Re comment from FunkMonk above:

  • "The description was based on an illustration by Ferdinand Bauer ..." - need a source for this information. - Aa77zz ( talk) 12:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Supported above. - Aa77zz ( talk) 17:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

More on Bauer

  • "The description was based on an illustration by Ferdinand Bauer from a specimen collected by Robert Brown..." From your source (Australian Faunal Directory) it isn't clear that Kuhl based his description on the drawing - he could have used the actual holotype. He mentions that it was in the Museum of the Linnean Society (now in the NHM). Bauer's illustration is from the same specimen. (I've been following up all the references on the Australian Faunal Directory page to see whether Brauer's illustration has been published). - Aa77zz ( talk) 12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 23: The hyphen in the page range should be replaced by an ndash
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Page range formats should be consistent - compare, e.g. ref 16 with 9, 23 and perhaps others.
aligned Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look fine. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JennyOz

  • "International Ornithologists' Union (IOC)" was it intentional to keep that acronym after the name change?
No idea, but I do know they still have "IOC" on their site.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • possibly reword to avoid close (proximity) repetition?
"...there is no evidence indicating a decline in population." and
"...with no evidence of any significant decline."
tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all, JennyOz ( talk) 11:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

  • Rosella should be linked in the lead.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, it might be good to say "nominate" (linked) before "Northern Territory subspecies", as the other subspecies has its name shown in the lead.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, "blue green" should probably be hyphenated.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity, in the sentence "The long tail is blue green and the wings are blue-violet and black", "black" and "blue-violet" should probably be switched, as it might be interpreted as meaning that the wings are blue-violet and blue-black.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In this phrase, "but may also eat insects", you should probably say "it".
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There probably shouldn't be a comma separating "Brown" and "in 1821" in the sentence "Dutch zoologist Coenraad Jacob Temminckpublished the name Psittacus brownii, in honour of Brown, in 1821."
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It would probably be better to say "synonymous to the nominate" or something like that instead of just "synonymous". This can be found in the sentence "Animal taxonomist Arthur Cain treated the subspecies as synonymous as the only difference he knew of was the colour of the cheeks, but conceded further evidence could prove them distinct."
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should probably specify what "this" is in the sentence "Gould reported in 1848 that this was the local name used, and it was the most common name at the end of the 19th century."
changed "this" to "the latter" to avoid repetition yet highlight what was being discussed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the description section, you inconsistently use "to" and "–" to represent ranges of numbers.
aligned Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That is all for now. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 23:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC) More:

  • It might be better if you say "in addition to" instead of the second "and" in the sentence "It has broad wings and a wingspan of around 44 cm (17 in), and a long tail with twelve feathers." RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
changed the first "and" to "with" instead Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't mean to say a whitish throat and large, whitish cheek patches when you say this, "a whitish throat and large cheek-patches", right? If so, please specify. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
not quite - one subspecies has predominantly white with some blue and the other predominantly blue with some white - this info is in the sentences following Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are four problems with the sentence "These last are mainly white with lower borders violet in the nominate subspecies, and more blue with narrow upper segment white in subspecies hillii." First off, violet should be before "lower borders". Second off, after the comma, you do not specify whether you are talking about the cheek patch as a whole or just the lower borders. Third off, "narrow upper segment white" should be "a narrow white upper segment". Fourth, you should specify what "these last" are.
changed "these last" to "which" to link. switched the two colour adjectives to the places identified. To me it seems obvious that I am talking about the whole cheek patches of the two subspecies in each segment...? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... looking at it now, it does seem pretty obvious. Also, it might be better to say "the latter of which" instead of just "which". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 12:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
err, that could make it really confusing. To my eyes, the "which" clearly refers to the cheeks and cheeks alone. Making it "last of which" sounds weird as leads me to wonder how it refers to a portion of the cheeks... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence, "The feathers of the lower neck, mantle and scapulars are black narrowly fringed with yellow, giving a scalloped appearance, while the feathers of the back, rump, upper tail coverts and underparts are pale yellow with black borders, and concealed grey bases; those of the breast have very dark grey bases, occasionally tinged with red", should probably be broken up into two sentences, with a split at the semicolon. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Immature birds resemble adults but duller overall, with less-well defined cheek patches", it should be "are duller overall". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "The northern rosella is endemic to northern Australia", it might be better to say the states that it can be found in, because the next sentence literally starts "In Western Australia". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe try and reword this sentence so you don't have two "south"s so close together: "In Western Australia, it is found across the Kimberley south to the 18th parallel south, around Derby, Windjana Gorge National Park, the northern King Leopold Ranges, Springvale Station and Warmun, with vagrants reported at Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing." RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I just abbreviated it to "18th parallel" as it is obvious which one we're talking about Cas Liber ( talk · contribs)
  • Saying "further east country" sounds odd. This can be found in the sentence "t is absent from central Arnhem Land, but is found further east in country around the western and southern coastline of the Gulf of Carpentaria, south to Borroloola and across the border into western Queensland[21] as far as the Nicholson River." RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
yeah, reading it again "in country" is redundant so removed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The northern rosella lives in grassy open forests and woodlands, including deciduous eucalypt savannah woodlands", do you mean to say that the woodlands are also grassy and open, or not? If not, then maybe switching around the two would do the trick. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I mean they are both grassy and open Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "More specific habitat includes vegetation along small creeks and gorges, sandstone outcrops and escarpments, as well as some forested offshore islands", you should probably say "habitats include", as "habitat" seems to be plural. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
was thinking of it as a collective noun but done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It isn't "green public space" (which, to my mind, is public space that is the colour green), it is "public green space" (which is a public park). RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't forest be enough in the sentence "It avoids dense forest and rainforest", as a rainforest is a type of forest? RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To maintain consistent tense, it would be better to say "although several birds sometimes perch together in the same tree" instead of "although several birds will perch together in the same tree". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The northern rosella feeds on the ground ingrassy glades in woodlands, roadsides, riverbanks and in the canopy of trees", you say that they feed on the ground, but you also say "in the canopy of trees". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
reworded, does that help? they generally feed on the ground...unless in canopy. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should not say "winter" in the sentence "Nesting occurs in tree hollows in winter, often in eucalypts located near water." If the source doesn't specify the months, then saying "Northern Hemisphere" or "Southern Hemisphere winter" should be ok. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
SH added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The incubation period is around 19 or 20 days, with the female performing this duty alone", "performing this duty alone" doesn't really make sense, as there isn't a verb that "this duty" refers to. Maybe say instead, "with only the female incubating the eggs". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
changed to "The female incubates the eggs alone, over a period of 19 or 20 days" instead Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There should be an indefinite article before "fall" in the sentence "Although the northern rosella is an uncommon bird, there is no evidence indicating fall in numbers." RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe say "may have a negative impact on northern rosella numbers" instead of "may have impacted on northern rosella numbers". RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should be able to just use the abbreviation for IUCN in the conservation section, as you have already mentioned it in full in the lead. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
see above - I unabbreviated it in the course of this FAC. Technically they are separate areas of article, like how we link once in lead and once in body. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There shouldn't be an Oxford comma in the sentence "Like most species of parrots, the northern rosella is protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) with its placement on the Appendix II list of vulnerable species, which makes the import, export, and trade of listed wild-caught animals illegal", as you do not use Oxford commas throughout the rest of the article. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey @ RileyBugz: are you now satisfied with items to this point? Any other issues? cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Revival (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book Revival, published by Image Comics between 2012 and 2017. It passed GA in June 2017. The previous FA failed due to concerns over sources. Some of them have been replaced since then. Rationales showing why I think the other questioned sources are high quality can be found here. Since the previous FA nom, I tried to work with the opposer, but did not receive a response. I have also added a second image in the body of the article. Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

I still support this article based on the prose as all of my concerns and comments were addressed during the first FAC. I do have some concerns about the "Merchandise" section though as it is rather short, and would be curious if the information could be moved into a different section (such as a part about the comic's release). Otherwise, great work with this and good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've mixed the merchandise into the release. Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

From Slightlymad

Nothing else is bothersome to me... except the Reviews section; it's the usual A said B structure that has been retooled around many articles that has a Reception section. Have a look at this essay— Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections—as it gives a couple of interesting points to make this section a fine read. Is it standard to report on Comic Book Roundup aggregate scores on comic articles? If so, then just find a way not to remove them right after you've copyedited the section (In the essay, the True Detective example had the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate score removed as a result of the copyedit, even though it's pretty standard for film/TV articles to keep them intact.) Otherwise, I believe this passes FA. SLIGHTLY mad 05:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay link. I have revised the review section with your suggestions. Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Support SLIGHTLY mad 13:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Other Languages
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Вікіпэдыя:Кандыдаты ў абраныя артыкулы
oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча: Vikipediya:Tanlangan maqola nomzodlari