Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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


1896 Cedar Keys hurricane

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My first FAC since 2015 is a rather substantial one. This hurricane—which caused nearly $10 million in damage, unprecedented at the time—was moving so fast that it assaulted Florida with a "tidal wave" in the early morning hours of Tuesday, September 29, and sent trees crashing down upon the Gettysburg Battlefield later that very same day. Along the way, it blew down every tree in a forest the size of Northern Island, caused a dam failure that swept away one community's downtown sector in just moments, toppled an elm tree planted by Abraham Lincoln, prompted weary storm victims to draw comparisons between airborne tin roofing and "giant vampires," and rained quite prodigiously over William McKinley and his front porch campaign—1,000 miles of mayhem in just 24 hours. The article itself uses a wide array of sources, both contemporary and modern, to craft what I believe is the most comprehensive account of the storm ever published. It recently sailed through its GA review, and while I'm confident there are no major flaws, I look forward to receiving further suggestions for improvement. Thanks in advance for any comments and reviews, – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

America's 60 Families

Nominator(s): DarjeelingTea ( talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial and pseudo-conspiratorial book by Ferdinand Lundberg which was briefly influential in the late 1930s and has since been cited as an influence by Robert Caro and Ralph Nader. It recently passed GA and has, since, undergone copyediting. DarjeelingTea ( talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919

I have not read the book and have only general knowledge of its topic, so these are "lay reader" comments.

  • General:
    • The {{ cquote}} template is discouraged for block quotes in articles; the {{ quote}} template is preferred.
    • Some sentences are long and express multiple ideas; those could be split up to improve readability. For example, the sentence in the lead that starts "Though praised by" joins a mix of critical opinion with later use in a speech, plus a libel suit, all in one sentence.
    • Are there RS to supply a more complete publishing history? Only the initial publication in 1937 is mentioned, but I see the infobox image is from a 1946 publication.
  • Lead section:
    • "the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company" -- the definite article seems odd there.
    • Since the image in the infobox is not from the first edition, it would be helpful to have a caption saying what publication it is from.
    • Didn't do a full image review, but I did look at the book cover image, and the non-free use rationale for it could be beefed up. You should consider the {{ Non-free use rationale book cover}} template as it is pre-written for this use case.
  • Background section:
    • "the latest in a series" -- I assume there was not a literal series of which this is a member, so probably some other wording should be used to indicate that previous books had expressed similar ideas. Also, some information about specifics of those predecessors, such as prominent works/authors and dates, would give more context.
    • Speaking of specifics on the background, the mentions of Myers and Gerard deserve more explanation: who were they (briefly), what are the relevant works that advanced a similar thesis to Lundberg's? Also, the wording of the paragraph seems to imply that that Myers and Gerard were among the "American journalists" who wrote books on this subject, but as far as I can tell from looking at the articles about them, Gerard was never a journalist.
    • More about Lundberg would also be helpful here. What did he do before writing this book? What motivated him to write it?
  • Content section:
    • The first sentence in the section is an example where splitting into two or even three sentences would be an improvement.
    • The block quote from Villard seems longer than it ought to be. The idea of the first two sentences, that the specifics were not new, could be paraphrased. The "quotable" part seems to be the middle portion about how Lundberg brings the material together. The idea at the end, about the risk of others using the book to criticize the US, could also be paraphrased as part of the follow-up discussing the Nazi pamphlet.
    • The first sentence of the Ickes-Jackson subsection is another one that really should be split.
    • Are there really just two individuals to discuss under modern views?
    • Ralph Nader seems a bit tangential to the subject to use a photo of him.
  • Dedication section: Why is this a section? If the dedication is significant, then presumably the article should say who "Franklin M. Watts" was and why Lundberg dedicated the book to him. If it isn't significant, it needn't be mentioned at all, much less as a one-sentence section.

That's all for now; generally this looks like a pretty good article that just needs a bit of polishing. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RL0919 -thank you for this very thorough review. I believe I've made all the updates you recommended, but let me know if I've missed something. The one outstanding question of which I'm aware is additional persons to cite in the "modern views" section. I am unaware of anyone in semi-recent times who have referenced this book other than Caro and Nader. It's been out of print more than 50 years so this may not be entirely surprising. DarjeelingTea ( talk) 08:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Red-headed myzomela

Nominator(s): Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about. another honeyeater. An old GA in good shape, I've given it a spit and boot polish and am tossing it up here as I feel it is within striking distance of FA. Have at it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Just some minor nitpicking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • M. erythrocephala erythrocephala, M. erythrocephala infuscata—suggest M. e. erythrocephala, M. e. infuscata
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is sexually dimorphic and the male—I'd put a semicolon instead of "and"
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a member of the genus—the intended subject of "it" is far, far away, needs repeating
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • primary centre of origin for the Myzomela erythrocephala subspecies —shouldn't that be species, or am I misunderstanding?
I have added "two" as it means where the complex arose from. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Will review more thoroughly soon, but I see there's a range map[1] on Commons, why not use it? It could need a source to support its information, though. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
good catch. added map, and added source for range data to map on commons Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Myzomela erythrocephala was first described by John Gould in 1840" Usually thew first sentence of the article body should mention the subject by the name in the title? Why not something like "The red-headed myzomela was described and named as Myzomela erythrocephala by John Gould in 1840"?
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and still bears its original name" Do we really need this information, seems self-evident, unless otherwise stated?
  • "in a large Meliphagoidea superfamily" The large?
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "primary centre of origin for the two Myzomela erythrocephala subspecies." Is the binomial needed here? You start the sentence by mentioning the common name.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "M. e. erythrocephala is listed as being of least concern by the IUCN,[1] because the population is widespread, however Myzomela e. infuscata" Perhaps be consistent in whether abbreviating names or not throughout the article.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Sumba myzomela is similar but slightly smaller than red-headed myzomela" Why no definite the for the latter species?
mistake. fixed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "include spiders and insects such as beetles, bugs, wasps and caterpillars" What is meant by "bugs" here, to the exclusion of the other groups mentioned?
hemipterans - linked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a good deal of double-linking throughout the article.
fixed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "engaging in aggressive bill-wiping" What is that?
pretty much as it says - wiping the beak prominently to display in front of other birds Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Image review - to get this through quickly, I've reviewed the images, which are all fine, sourcing and license-wise. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • One to go, then I can support. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

I've made a series of small edits - please check that you are happy.

yr changes look fine Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 Higgins, P.J.; Peter, J.M.; Steele, W.K. (2001). This needs a page number and is the same volume as listed in Sources. I suggest using sfn.
I meant to change that to something else - done now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "While there is no reliable information on incubation and feeding," Lewis 2010 reports that only females have a brood patch so can we infer that only the females incubate the eggs?
Added this, though Lewis seems pretty cautious in assuming such. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
entered now - I have trouble finding somewhere to slot lifespan in, so put it near the other mention of banding Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead and the Feeding section have "sallying for insects." where sallying links to hawking. Noske 1996 Table 8 on page 462 lists the foraging techniques (as percentages): gleaning=14.1%, hawking=0.8%, probing=84.9% which suggests the hawking is unusual. Perhaps the lead should mention gleaning rather than hawking. Check that Higgins (HANZAB) mentions hawking. - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "the red-headed myzomela diverged from that of the black-breasted myzomela around 4 million years ago." The cite is to Marki et al 2017. I assume this information comes from the cladogram shown in Fig 4. Now I understand almost nothing about the statistical tests using in phylogeny but the numbers look bad. The Fig 4 cladogram shows the posterior probabilities for the red-headed - black-breasted node as 0.34 which is very low. In the discussion of Myzomela on page 526 the article has "Consistent with previous studies we corroborate the monophyly of Myzomela, but the relationships within the genus are complex and many are unsupported." and "but the poor resolution of this group hinders a robust assessment of their phylogenetic relationships and biogeographic history." I worry that this means that one shouldn't believe the timescale in this section of the cladogram. It may be that timing is roughly correct and it is just the branching that hasn't been determined. - Aa77zz ( talk) 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Good point, I recalibrated to this to make it more reserved/qualified. I get so happy when I see cladograms I sometimes forget to check the numbers..... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with a comment - M. e. erythrocephala is listed as being of least concern by the IUCN,[1] because the population is widespread, however M. e. infuscata is listed as near threatened. listed by whom? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It is listed as such in this book, which is referenced in the Conservation status section Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
That's the reference, so the listing authority is the Australian government? Is it threatened as a whole, or just the Aussie population thereof? That's what I'd assume, but that's because I know a bit out this. Could help to make it clearer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I tweaked it thusly Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Other Worlds, Universe Science Fiction, and Science Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Raymond Palmer, who edited the three magazines that are the subject of this article, was one of the more colourful characters in the science fiction world; he was a dwarf, crippled and for periods partly paralyzed, but he still managed to hold down a central position in science fiction magazine publishing for two decades, albeit with some flim-flammery to help. He eventually gave up and switched to flying saucers as the topic of the one surviving magazine, and unfortunately there are almost no sources on the last two decades of that title. The years when the magazines contained science fiction stories are quite well covered though, so that's the focus here. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Oworlds.jpg is tagged as lacking author info - is the illustrator known? Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    Yes; added. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919

This looks pretty good overall, especially considering the complex publication history, so I only have a few questions/concerns:

  • I assume the mysterious "Chicago businessman" who partnered with Palmer is not named in any source?
    Unfortunately not; he's just "the anonymous businessman". Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The business partner lost interest in the project almost immediately, and Palmer sold his half share in Clark Publications, which had published Other Worlds and Fate, and established Palmer Publications, taking over both the new magazines with Universe's third issue and Science Stories' second issue and giving up the editorial pseudonym." In the entire convoluted history of these magazines, this was the sentence that threw me. At first I thought it mistakenly said "sold" when it should have said "bought". It took a moment to realize that Clark Publications was not the publisher of Other Worlds -- that was Bell Publications -- and the sentence was not about Palmer buying out his partner. Actually, the disposition of Bell Publications seems to be unmentioned. That's before even getting to the second half of the sentence. I'm thinking this should be broken up so the reader can be stepped through it a little more slowly.
    I've attempted to clarify this-- how does that look? It might still be a bit too quick. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The "For a variety of reasons ..." quote from Palmer starts with two sets of quote marks -- just a typo, or something else?
    A typo; removed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:REDNOT discourages redlinks to people's names; there are several such links in the article.
    Removed. I'm not fond of REDNOT; I understand the reasoning, but it's a pity, because redlinks are valuable. Still, it's a sensible guideline, so the redlinks are gone. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I need to ask about the use of the Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source, since it appears to be an open wiki. I see you asked about it twice at WP:RSN with no responses. I also see that it is used in the Weird Tales article, which passed FA this past October, but it seems no one even asked about it in the PR or FAC. If there isn't some other place where the reliability of this source was discussed, I think we should at least talk about it.
    It's not entirely an open wiki, as there is a sort of editorial review function, but I think the strongest argument I can make is to quote the online Science Fiction Encyclopedia, which is an authoritative reference in the field. They mention the ISFDB in two articles: Bibliographies and Online SF Resources. The bibliographies article in particular says that the ISFDB has superseded Reginald (a standard bibliography in the field); it does give caveats about pre-World War II publications, but that doesn't apply here. The other article calls it "incomparable"! Can I claim that "incomparable" implies "reliable"? Incidentally, I don't know if this counts as a COI, but I used to edit at the ISFDB, and still occasionally add data -- I was an admin over there for a while but lost the admin bit many years ago for inactivity. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now; it was an interesting read and seems close to the mark for FA already. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I just acquired a biography of Palmer, by the way, and I may be able to add one or two sentences about the flying saucer phase of the magazine from that, though it doesn't look detailed -- that's just FYI in case you want to look again after I've looked through it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm good with all the recent edits; in particular the part about the change of publishing companies seems more clear now. Regarding ISFDB, if they have editorial review and a positive reputation with reliable sources, then I'm good with accepting them for the type of information they are cited for here. (It's not like there are controversial BLP claims at stake.) As for any possible COI, unless you added the data you are citing, I don't see a concern. If you add a significant amount of material from your new sources, I'll take another look, but I would support for FA based on the current prose. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Overall very good, although the phrasing is labored at times. I don't like "did his best", etc. Could do with less words. Still reading through, actionable points to follow. Ceoil ( talk) 02:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

William T. Stearn

Nominator(s): Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a distinguished British botanist. Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support I had the opportunity to comment on this excellent article before it came here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support A really incredible article. It's recently passed GA so, despite a close inspection, I was unable to find much to critique it on, nor reason to oppose its elevation to FA. Particularly notable here is the exceptionally thorough bibliography. The only issue I see is that there are no ALT tags on the images. With that correction, and resolution of the issues outlined by Nikkimaria, I would entirely support this as a FA. DarjeelingTea ( talk) 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I am unsure what is intended here, since running the Alt text tool shows that all images have an alt text. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Michael Goodyear you're right, my apologies. I'm not sure what happened. I had two tabs open simultaneously and I must have pasted the wrong article name when I ran the Alt text tool myself. DarjeelingTea ( talk) 03:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments to Nikkimaria added below -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 17:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:William_Thomas_Stearn.jpg: suggest {{ non-free biog-pic}} rather than current tag
Done -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Images are tending to the tiny side, and see WP:IMGSIZE regarding fixed px sizes
True in principle but I was concerned to make images match text. I allowed image size to float, but the Awards images did travel outside the section - my only recourse therefore was to switch to horizontal. I hope that is ok. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Cambridgeshire_High_School_for_Boys_1900.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
That's always an issue - clearly one cannot prove this. Therefore one has to use common sense. The image is a professional one and therefore likely to be taken by an adult. It is highly unlikely that any professional photographer alive in 1900 is still alive in 2017? -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually I have now identified the author and added it to the file page. It might be a struggle to look for their obituary though.-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It is true that the author is certainly now dead, but the issue is whether they were dead 70 years ago - it is quite possible for someone who was an adult in 1900 to still have been alive in 1947. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • File:GoulandrisMuseum.jpg: see here
Well it is a maybe. But also the author (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu), who is now elderly, has expressly made this public. Did you have any specific suggestions? It strikes me that it falls under "shall be permissible". -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The issue here is the architecture, not the photo - the freedom of panorama issue is unclear. Hopefully there are sources available to clarify, or the building is PD otherwise? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Medaille-Linnaeus.jpg needs a US PD tag and more information to verify the current tag
Tag added, but I agree we have no source, and although widely used on Wikimedia, I can find no original source. The author is Valérie Chansigaud who has uploaded a lot if images to Commons, but I see some questions have been raised about her license tags. It is possible of course that it is her own work, but I cannot prove it. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If you feel that it is unusable, this image is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike CC BY-NC-SA Licence, could be substituted? -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately no - see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Non-commercial_licenses. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Order_of_the_North_Star,_Grand_Cross_(Sweden)_-_Fram_Museum.jpg: what is the status of the original work? Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are looking for precisely here. The author made it PD, and is an active contributor of images. I also see many images from this museum on Commons. Is the question what permission did the museum give the author to photograph and reproduce the artifacts? -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 17:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My question is, what is the copyright status of the artifact itself, as opposed to the photo? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Lion-class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Lion-class battlecruisers were two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better. This recently passed a MilHist A-class review, which included an image review, and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the plan and the map
  • File:Lion_class_battleship_-_Jane's_Fighting_Ships,_1919_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_24797.png: image itself says 1918, title says 1919, description says 1920 - which is correct?
    • Fixed the caption; apparently the original drawing was republished in 1920 and credited to the 1919 edition of Janes.
  • File:HMS_Princess_Royal_LOC_18244u.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:HMS_Lion_(Lion-class_battlecruiser).jpg. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The first is a Bain collection image with no known copyright restrictions. Replaced the second one.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 23:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Rodrigues parrot

Nominator(s): FunkMonk ( talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the last article about an extinct species of parrot from the Mascarene islands yet to be nominated here, so I thought it was time to put it up. Very little is known about the bird, but most of what has ever been written about it is summarised here. The article also covers two supposedly congeneric, but dubious, species. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

The usual nitpicking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • it has been classified as a member of the tribe Psittaculini—"it is…"
Done. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • to avoid introduced rats—makes it sound like a decision, perhaps where introduced rats were absent
Sources say avoid, but changed anyway. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Parrots thought to be the Rodrigues parrot—perhaps replace "parrots" with "birds" or "specimens"?
Done. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Greek words necros, which means dead, and psittakos, which means parrot— personally I'd omit the second which means
Done. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • perched in parlors— reads oddly, "in captivity"?
I said "presumably in captivity", since it isn't stated specifically. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • correlated, mentioned are repeated in consecutive sentences
Rewrote. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
All should now be addressed. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk ( talk) 09:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

This is a short article, at least compared to the other bird articles I have been reviewing, so I should be able to do my initial comments in one fell swoop.

  • In the sentence "The Rodrigues parrot was scientifically described and named as Psittacus rodricanus in 1867 by the French ornithologist Alphonse Milne-Edwards, based on a subfossil partial beak," Psittacus should not be linked in the binomial name.
Why? The genus name isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, then possibly mention the original genus when talking about the move, so you can link to it there. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is necessary, though? As far as I know, there are no guidelines for this. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that it is particularly necessary, but it is just kind of odd to link only one thing in a scientific name. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I can see why one might have an aversion towards it, but I don't think it's worth stating the name again just to make room for a link. There is a FAC precedence for linking the genus name in in a binomial at Broad-billed parrot, for one. There are probably more. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok then, sounds good. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Milne-Edwards corrected the spelling of the specific name to rodericanus in 1873 (in a compilation of his articles about extinct birds), a spelling which was used in the literature henceforward, but it was changed back to rodricanus by the IOC World Bird List in 2014," it should probably be something like "changed the spelling" instead of "corrected the spelling", WP:NPOV.
He specifically stated the original spelling was an error, see the footnote here:[2] FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, well then why don't we see what other reviewers say about it? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd assume they've accepted it, since they haven't objected in their own reviews? Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure what the supposed problem is? Milne-Edwards stated his first name was an error, he proposed a corrected spelling. This is what the sources say. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Sorry! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly change the sentence "Milne-Edwards moved the species to its own genus Necropsittacus in 1874; the name is derived from the Greek words necros, which means dead, and psittakos, parrot, in reference to the bird being extinct," to "Milne-Edwards moved the species to its own genus Necropsittacus in 1874; the name is derived from the Greek words necros, which means dead, in reference to the bird being extinct, and psittakos, parrot." This would be to make it a bit more clear that necros is referring to the extinction of the bird, not psittkos.
Well, it is the entire name, "dead parrot" (not only "dead") that refers to its extinction. This order is also the one given in the source. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Well then possibly rephrase the last part to say something like "in reference to it being an extinct parrot." RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Other reviewers have recommended not repeating the word parrot twice in a sentence, so why should we do it here? It should be pretty clear that the current word "bird" refers to the parrot. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok then, sounds good. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps modify the sentence "It may be specimen UMZC 575, a rostrum that was sent from Milne-Edwards to A. Newton after 1880, which matches the drawing and description in Milne-Edwards' paper, but this cannot be confirmed," to get rid of "may" and instead say "it has been suggested to be", just because it sounds a bit like editorializing.
Done. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the behaviour and ecology section, the first quote starts out sounding like it should be in the description section, not to mention the text before it. I think that you should probably split the different sections of the quote into different sections, it should be short enough that you don't have to do another indented quote.
Hmm, I'd prefer not, that quote includes all Tafforet said about the bird, so it's nice to keep it in one place. In any case, the descriptive part is already summarised in the description section. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe just remove the quote and summarize it? I mean, it starts out looking like it should be in the description section, and then ends up looking like it is in the correct section. Either split the quote so the sections aren't going all over the place, or summarize it. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, since no one else has objected to the quote, and the sources give them in this way, I'm not sure if it's really a problem. The account isn't neatly divided into description and behaviour either; it starts out with description, then behaviour, then mentions the colour, and then behaviour again. Better have the full quote for completeness than a truncated quote, as we're not exactly low on space here. It's little different from several prior FACs about similar subjects. FunkMonk ( talk) 02:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oxford comma(s) are needed in the behaviour and ecology section.
Added. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You should probably specify the actual number of parrots in the sentence "Of the eight or so parrot species endemic to the Mascarenes, only the echo parakeet (Psittacula eques echo) of Mauritius has survived."
"Eight or so" is because there's no consensus yet on the status of the Réunion parakeet (could be a subspecies, species, or a synonym) and the hypothetical N. borbonicus (which could theoretically be confirmed if remains of a distinct parrot were found). FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The others were likely all made extinct by a combination of excessive hunting and deforestation," it might be good to specify if it was humans, introduced animals, or a combination of both that did the excessive hunting.
Added. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That's all, this is a nicely prepared article. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 02:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed some, added comments to some. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry if I seemed dismissive to some suggestions above, but some issues are more a matter of individual taste than FAC criteria, I guess... FunkMonk ( talk) 18:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It's fine! You provided adequate reasoning for your comments, so it is all good. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 18:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

  • From lead It frequented and nested on islets off southern Rodrigues where introduced rats were absent, and fed on the seeds of the Fernelia buxifolia shrub. - This describes a (presumably) narrow historical state in a way that doesn't make it clear to the average reader that it only represented the historical distribution. The species would have had at one time a wider distribution across the island.
Added "By the time it was discovered". FunkMonk ( talk) 09:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, support Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk ( talk) 09:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • Images are Creative Commons-licensed or Public Domain - OK.
  • Sufficient source and author information (one author is unknown/unclear, but the work is old enough to ascertain Public Domain status) - OK. GermanJoe ( talk) 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk ( talk) 09:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

I've made some small edits.

  • Ref 3 Leguat, F. (1891) - This should be volume 1 not volume 2. Also available from BHL here. (My preference is to use "volume=Volume 1" in the template for books which avoids the bold 1.)
Changed to 2 and added "volume". FunkMonk ( talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "sent from Milne-Edwards to A. Newton" - need to introduce and link Alfred Newton here rather than in the next paragraph. Perhaps point out that the two Newtons were brothers.
Right, I recently swapped the position of two paragraphs, so the link was moved down. Noted they were brothers. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The quote from Tafforet in the Behaviour and ecology section is misleading as it joins two separate portions of text. The sentence "The "Bois de buis"... actually comes a few pages earlier in the text (in the transcription by Milne Edwards 1875 on page 12)
Summarised in-text instead. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • An observation - no action necessary: The article correctly quotes Hume's translation of Tafforet's text but Hume bizarrely translates "citronnier" as "orange tree" instead of "lemon tree". In French an orange tree is "oranger". Both Newton 1874 on page 41 and Milne Edwards 1875 on page 15 have "citronnier". - Aa77zz ( talk) 19:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It is translated as "orange-tree" in three different Hume sources (2007, 2008, 2012), and they're the only translations I know of, so not sure what could be done... FunkMonk ( talk) 19:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I just remembered Tafforet's text is translated in an appendix to volume 2 of Leguat's book, and it is here the "orange tree" translation is taken from:[3] So Hume has just quoted that translation, and it seems there has been no other attempt at translation. FunkMonk ( talk) 20:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

All good. I've supported above. - Aa77zz ( talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I like when reviews scrutinise the old sources... FunkMonk ( talk) 21:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Passion (Utada Hikaru song)

Nominator(s): CaliforniaDreamsFan ( talk · contribs} 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Japanese theme song " Passion" (English version titled "Sanctuary") by Japanese singer Utada Hikaru. A long-time fan of hers, I value these two songs amongst my favourite recordings of all time. I decided to re-furbish the article to get to a Featured Article standard. I have put it through one good article and one good article reassessment nomination, and both have come out good. I have severely improved the article since, noting a lot of errors regarding reference templates, spelling, grammar and punctuation and other small touch-ups. As mentioned, I have severly improved this article and hopefully will get the chance to see it achieve a Featured Article star! All constructive criticism is welcome, and PLEASE ping me if you need any direct conversations/comments. Much appreciated, CaliforniaDreamsFan ( talk · contribs} 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Driveby comment

The "Credits and personnel" has some J-names in FAMILY–GIVEN order and others in GIVEN–FAMILY. MOS:JAPAN calls for GIVEN–FAMILY for those born since 1868, except in special cases (Utada Hikaru being one, for some reason). Are all these names ordered this way deliberately? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁  ¡gobble! 04:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @ Curly Turkey: My apologies for this; the names were given (and ordered by appearance) by the liner notes from the compact disc single; I've have changed it now, and thank you for your response! The Utada Hikaru name reference is detailed throughout its respective Wikipedia talk page. CaliforniaDreamsFan ( talk · contribs} 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Reference 6 is dead and needs to either be archived or replaced with another source.
  • Please include an ALT description for the English cover and the music video screenshot.
  • I also agree with Carbrera comments. A product description from should not be used as it is purely promotional and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
@ CaliforniaDreamsFan: Great work with the article! These are the only two notes that I can find while reading through the article. Once they are addressed, I will support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted in the future. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Carbrera
I will look by this little by little before voicing my opinion. Here are my comments regarding some of the referenced statements/reviews:
  • Reference #15 – Eli Kleman is not a staff member from Sputnikmusic. He's just a member (and it probably shouldn't be used here).
  • Reference #35 is too unreliable for a featured article
  • Reference #81 – A product description from should probably not be used to describe the song's cultural impact
More to come, Carbrera ( talk) 01:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Mary Kom (film)

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an inspiring film based on the legendary eponymous boxer, who was largely unknown in her own country despite achieving plethora of accolades. Additionally, the film features a remarkable performance by Priyanka Chopra. I am looking forward to lots of constructive comments. Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

William J. Donovan

Nominator(s): Meatsgains ( talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about William J. Donovan, an American soldier, lawyer, intelligence officer, diplomat and the only veteran to receive all four of the United States' highest awards: The Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal, and the National Security Medal. Donovan is known for heading the Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the CIA) during World War II, helping in the formation of the CIA, serving as Coordinator of Information, and as Ambassador of Thailand. This well decorated war veteran has a statue in the CIA headquarters, was portrayed in the 1940s film The Fighting, and is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. During World War I, Major Donovan suffered a shrapnel wound in one leg and was almost blinded by gas. Throughout his expansive career, he also served as: co-founder of Goodyear & O'Brien (a law firm in Buffalo), U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York, assistant to Attorney General Harlan Stone, director of the Department of Justice's antitrust division, candidate for Governor of New York, colonel in the U.S. Army, chairman of the American Committee on United Europe, chairman of the People to People Foundation, and co-founder of American Friends of Vietnam.

I've spent the past two weeks expanding and improving the page to its current state, to what I think is a well-researched and informative page for an individual with an incredible history. Happy to make any suggested changes and as always, I appreciate all feedback! Meatsgains ( talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

image review

  • File:William_Donovan.jpg: source link is dead, tagged as lacking author
  • File:Donovan_wwi_285.jpg: is a more specific source available?
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Chevalier_ribbon.svg is too simple for copyright protection
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Commandeur_ribbon.svg: tag should reflect the status of the design. Same with File:Croix_de_guerre_1914-1918_with_palm.jpg, File:Order_of_the_British_Empire_(Military)_Ribbon.png, File:Nastro_Croce_Lateranense.png, File:Order_of_Pope_Sylvester_BAR.svg, File:Cavaliere_OCI_BAR.svg, File:Croce_di_guerra_al_merito_BAR.svg, File:Grand_Officer_Ordre_de_Leopold.png, File:Czechoslovak_War_Cross_1939-1945_Bar.png, File:NLD_Order_of_Orange-Nassau_-_Grand_Officer_BAR.png, File:St_Olavs_Orden_storkors_stripe.svg, File:Order_of_the_White_Elephant_-_1st_Class_(Thailand)_ribbon.png. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • These elements should be referenced:
    • "Meanwhile, his superiors were impressed by his "cool and firm leadership," which made him "a legend" throughout the Allied Expeditionary Forces and "a celebrity back home." Excerpts from his letters to his wife, in which he vividly recounted his combat experiences, were published in New York newspapers."
    • "At the Justice Department, Donovan hired women and eschewed yes-men. He and his wife became a popular Washington couple, although Donovan's relationship with FBI Acting Director J. Edgar Hoover, who was briefly one of his underlings, was fraught with friction."
    • the entire paragraph beginning: "Roosevelt came to place great value on Donovan's insight..."
    • the entire paragraph beginning: "While British authorities and the US military and State Department..."
    • the list of Awards and decorations
  • the Further reading section should be below the References per WP:LAYOUT
  • in the Further reading section, the entries for Troy, Duffy, McKay, Reilly and Stevenson are inconsistent in their layout compared to the others
  • in the Notes, there are also a few inconsistencies, e.g. Brown 1982 uses sfn citations when the others do not. Also compare Rumer, ,Lovell, Clifford, Anthony Cave Brown etc to "Waller 2011"
  • the Further reading section should be sorted alphabetically
  • in the References, the date format is inconsistent, for instance I see "February 27, 2016", but also "2010-07-09" and "20 February 2017". Please make these consistent
  • for an FA, I think you will need to try to broaden the referencing base. Currently there are a lot of refs to Waller, which makes sense to an extent as that work no doubt focuses on the subject specifically, but I would suggest also trying to add some refs to some of the works in the Further reading section as well to ensure that the body of literature has been adequately canvassed
  • there appears to be a missing word here: "...would attempt to engage in a political career, but with little success" (before "would")
  • the dab link "acquisition" should be re-aimed
  • "1st battalion of the 165th" --> "1st Battalion, 165th" as a proper noun
  • "chief of staff of the 165th regiment" --> "chief of staff of the 165th Regiment"
  • suggest adding some attribution in text here: "Going into battle, he "ignored the officers' custom of covering or stripping off insignia of rank (targets for snipers) and instead sallied forth wearing his medals."" (i.e. who recounts this?)
  • "president gave the job to the "lackluster" Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter..." who describes Hillenkoetter as "lackluster"?
  • Link CIA headquarters
  • he "explore[d] ideas beyond Catholic dogma" Any idea what? (I'm thinking democracy and freedom of religion, but that's just my guess.)
  • American government's campaign against Pancho Villa Link Pancho Villa Expedition
  • which became part of the 42nd Division under Douglas MacArthur No, it didn't. MacArthur was the division's chief of staff. (He later commanded the 84th Brigade, of which the 165th Infantry was not part.)
  • Going into battle, he "ignored the officers' custom of covering or stripping off insignia of rank (targets for snipers) and instead sallied forth wearing his medals." "They can't hit me and they won't hit you!" he told his men. Direct quotes require a reference.
  • Link 42nd Division, 69th Infantry Regiment (New York) colonel on first mention
  • Meanwhile, his superiors were impressed by his "cool and firm leadership," which made him "a legend" throughout the Allied Expeditionary Forces and "a celebrity back home." Excerpts from his letters to his wife, in which he vividly recounted his combat experiences, were published in New York newspapers. Is this supposed to be a reference? It reads weird. We don't normally allow such a vague source. And I'm not sure how reliable what soldiers tell their wives/girlfriends is.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt is linked multiple times.
  • Footnote 5: I really require a page number in a reference to a book.
  • Third paragraph of "World War II" is unreferenced.
  • Link Vyacheslav Molotov, Josip Broz Tito
  • Allied landing on the French Riviera Link Operation Dragoon

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III

Nominator(s): Parsecboy ( talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Another one of my German battleship articles, this one accidentally helped make later German battleships more resistant to underwater damage. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review a couple of months ago. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Link cylindrical boilers, keel, rivet, squadron (the generic term), armored frigate, launched, Kaiser, commissioned, Netherlands, flagship, coastal defense ships, ironclad, drydock, Kaiser Wilhelm II (the ship), rammed, grounding on first use
  • Watch the rounding in your conversions: 45 cm doesn't equal 18 inches
    • Fixed
  • Link the guns, redlinks are acceptable
    • Done
  • received 150 mm (5.9 in) of armor Redundant conversion
    • Fixed
  • along with the aviso Hela comma after Hela
    • Done
  • Service as a flagship is probably worth adding to the lede
    • There's already a line about that
  • for excellent gunnery Perhaps "excellence in gunnery"?
    • Works for me
  • a United States squadron Awkward, howzabout "an American" squadron?
    • Done
  • Probably worth mentioning that she was disarmed and that her guns were, IIRC, used as railroad guns on the Western Front.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Added details on this, but according to Friedman sixteen of the twenty 24cm guns from the class were employed as coastal guns (the remainder kept as spares, I assume) - he doesn't specify which guns went where, unfortunately. Parsecboy ( talk) 00:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

image review

  • File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1887)_b_517.jpg: what is the creator's date of death?
    • It's unclear - the illustration has a signature, but I can't make it out. According to the caption, it's based on a photograph by a Th. Politzky, but I can't find anything about him. In any event, I've uploaded it locally, since it's undoubtedly PD in the US, and the border needed to be cropped anyway.
  • File:SMS_Kaiser_Wilhelm_II_after_refit.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Also unclear, but according to the source, it was received by ONI in 1911, which indicates it was already in circulation by that point. Renard's photos were commonly printed as post cards, for instance. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Habits (Stay High)

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi ( talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about " Habits (Stay High)", a song by Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo. It was a commercial success in 2014, thanks to the original track and a remix version by record production duo Hippie Sabotage. This article covers the information about both versions of the song. It is currently a GA, but I think it meets the criteria for a FA, since it features important aspects about the song and I consider is properly referenced. Paparazzzi ( talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
I will review this as I love this song!:
  • The image in the “Background and release” section needs an ALT description. Same for the image in the “Commercial performance” section and the image in the “First version” subsection and the image in the “Second version” subsection. Make sure that all of the images have ALT descriptions as it only appears that the infobox images have ALT descriptions.
  • Do you think that the following quote from the same section is really necessary ("means [the] most") as I would imagine that you can paraphrase this and get the same meaning? Same for the “huge” quote in the same sentence, and "did not get to finish too much" later in the paragraph?
  • You use the word “join” in close proximity in the “Buddhist movement” sentence and I would suggest adding some variety.
  • You use the transition “In an interview with...” in the final two sentences of the first paragraph of the same section. I would change one of the two.
  • Please finish the “Media data and Non-free use rationale” for both of the sound samples. There are two parts with “n.a.” for each.
  • You wikilink Lorde twice in the body of the article so please unlink the second instance.
@ Paparazzzi: Great work with the article! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Good luck getting this promoted. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Naruto Uzumaki

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a fictional character whom is a eponymous protagonist of the series Naruto. The article is a GA article with mid-importance in the Anime and Manga WikiProject. A peer review was opened regarding this article, and issues with the article has been discussed and fixed. It has also been copy-edited recently. I have done things on my part for this article like expand it, fix dead links, and archive all of the links listed in the references section. I have a feeling that this article may be ready for FA. Thanks, MCMLXXXIX 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Doing the Source review:

  • All references are linked, pass reliability and have archives in case of deletion. As a result, I think the article passes the source review. Good work. Tintor2 ( talk) 16:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @ Tintor2: Does this mean you support this nomination? The nomination viewer script doesn't count the word pass as a support. MCMLXXXIX 17:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@ 1989: You see, as far as I know, the FACs are divided in three parts: the general prose review, the source review and the image review. Since I used to work on this article some time ago, I my prose review would biased so I decided to do the source review. Also, another suggestion I could give you to have more feedback is going to other reviews like List of Blood-C episodes where the nominator also needs feedback too. Good luck with the article. Tintor2 ( talk) 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • In the lead, the phrase "added a harsh past" sounds a little odd to me. I understand what you mean, but I would refine/revise it to make it clear you are referencing the character's past.
  • In the first line of the lead's third paragraph, you have variations of the word "popular" in the same sentence. I would change this for variety.
  • I don't think you need to say "Naruto's character". You can just say "Naruto" or you could adjust to "Naruto's character development".
  • I could not find any problems with the "Appearances" section. It reads very smoothly to me, with only minor instances standing out to me (such as the "who, as a newborn," reads a little awkward to me). I just want to post a reminder that I am not familiar with this character or the manga/anime at all so I cannot comment on the accuracy, but it looks really good to me.
@ 1989: Overall, you have done a wonderful job on the article. My comment focus on some awkward areas in the lead that could be corrected (I always find the lead to be difficult, probably because it is the last part of an article that I work on). It is really cool to read through an article about a manga/anime character, and it actually inspires me to trying working on a similar article. Once my minor comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this article. Everything looks in shape to me. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @ Aoba47: Thanks! If you'd like, could you also do an image review? MCMLXXXIX 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course; I am currently at work, but I will do an image review later tonight if that is okay with you. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There was only one thing that stood out to me, a simple punctuation/grammar mistake that I've just gone and fixed. Everything else about this article seems sound. I'll give this my Support to this article's promotion. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections. It does seem a little odd to me to include the sketch of Naruto in the "Appearances" section as I would imagine that it would be more appropriate in a background/development one instead, but given its connection to the film, it is fine as it currently stands.
  • Both images for the voice actors (Junko Takeuchi and Flanagan) and the image of [File:Paris Manga 13 - Hiroshi Matsuyama - 001.jpg Hiroshi Matsuyama] were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • The other three images mostly have appropriate tags. Could you please be more specific about the source for this one? Is the source really titled (Naruto artbook 3)? Also include the year of its publication?
  • @ 1989: Once my minor question is addressed, then this will pass my image review. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Everything looks good then, and this passes the image review. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

General prose review

  • The article is well-written and is among the best-written articles I have seen for an anime character. However, there are currently a few minor issues I have seen: "Dub" should not be capitalized in the sentence "she decided to look the show up and felt the release of the English Dub would be popular". Also, there are a few inconsistencies in the reception section, such as switching between "ANN" and "A.N.N.". Carl Kimlinger's full name is mentioned twice when his full name should probably only be mentioned on the first mention. But these are easily resolvable problems and once these are fixed I'll be happy to give this a pass. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice work, this is a pass for the prose review. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@ 1989: Also, a suggestion: if the article gets promoted, I suggest you nominate the article for Today's Featured Article for either October 3 (the anime's 15th anniversary) or October 10 (Naruto's birthday). It's up to you what date to use. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I plan to get Naruto to FA after this one ends. I already got it to GA, and it had a peer review, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. With that being said, I'll be nominating this article for TFA on the character's birthday, if this passes. MCMLXXXIX 09:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Phantasmagoria (video game)

Nominator(s): Hun ter Ka hn, GamerPro64 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn did the vast majority of creating the article to the way it is now. I've asked him if I could nominate it on his behalf which he allowed. (conversations 1, 2). Made by one of the most important women video game designers Roberta Williams, this horror game was a far cry from the type of games Sierra On-Line made back in the day, such as Space Quest and Police Quest. Still the history behind the creation of this game, along with the controversy and banning from Australia once it was released, a fascinating look at gaming back in 1995. GamerPro64 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Indrian

A lot of good things happening in this article, but a few areas where I feel it can be tightened up a bit.

  • "who had five wives who all died mysteriously" - We can come up with a better verb than "had."
    • Changed the part to "whose five wives all died mysteriously." Does that work better? GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hoping to find an inspiration for her next novel, Adrienne begins having nightmares immediately upon moving into her new home" - As written, this sentence is describing how Adrienne deliberately induced nightmares to find inspiration for her next book.
    • Changed "begins" to "starts". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The problem was that the introductory clause is linked to the action verb of the sentence, so it reads as "because she wanted inspiration for her novel, she decides to induce nightmares." I took the liberty of rewriting this myself to avoid this connection.
  • "culminating in a controversial scene in which he rapes Adrienne" - I don't think culminating works here, as the culmination of his bad behavior is really when he starts killing everybody.
    • Changed "culminating" to "resulting". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Meanwhile, Harriet, fearing for her safety, decides to leave with Cyrus as Don becomes more abusive and erratic" - Meanwhile is not the proper transition here, as it denotes something happening at the same time as the events of the previous paragraph when it is actually something that happens later.
    • Removed "Meanwhile". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Williams had previously created suspenseful murder and crimes stories in her earlier mystery games, Mystery House and the Laura Bow series" - the use of "suspenseful" feels like unnecessary puffery to me.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "She felt the horror genre had not yet been properly explored in computer games yet, and that most attempts were just "a lot of hack and slash (where) the whole point seems to be to kill everyone and blow them away" - This is the first instance of what will become a recurring theme in this review: this is Williams talking to a house organ specifically to promote her game. As such, this may merely be sales puffery. I would take it out.
    • Just take out the sentence or should I take out everything involving the house organ? GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @ GamerPro64:I think it's okay to use InterAction for basic facts like plot points, gameplay features, development time, release dates, etc. Where I would be wary of using it is when it analyzes how Phantasmagoria compares to other games or proclaims how distinctive or wonderful any of its features are, as this material may take liberties since the primary purpose of the magazine is to entice people to buy the game. Indrian ( talk) 14:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. Removed the sentence. GamerPro64 16:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Williams found it stressful working on two major games at once and said she had "some difficulty keeping both games in my head", but felt each received her undivided attention during the most crucial times in their respective developments." - Well she would feel that way, right? Is she going to say she neglected her games? This biased opinion does not really add any understanding to the creative process of the game.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "She said having a female lead in Phantasmagoria was not a ploy to attract female gamers, but rather felt like the correct choice for the game." - If she just chose a female protagonist because she wanted a female protagonist then there is really nothing to see here. This sentence does not really add to the article.
    • You got a point. Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Morsell said appreciated that her character was intelligent and not a typical horror film heroine, saying: "She doesn't do incredibly stupid things. You don't see her screaming in her underwear. The character isn't about decoration. She's a very real person." - This is just an actor promoting a project. I would not consider that source a reliable read of her feelings on the project.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Homb compared acting in Phantasmagoria to working in an entirely new medium, and called it "one of the best experiences I've ever had in the entire entertainment business"." - Same as above but even moreso. Lots of actors talk about how great their experiences were when promoting a project, which was the entire point of the source in question.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Unlike Homb, Miano primarily played antagonists throughout his career; he estimated "90 percent of the time, I play the bad guy." - This quote does not really add to our understanding of the subject.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general note, I have examined several FA-quality film articles, and virtually none of them list extensive CVs for cast members. This info seems excessive here, especially for the actors that have their own articles on Wikipedia.
    • What does CV stand for? GamerPro64 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @ GamerPro64:Sorry, CV is short for Curriculum Vitae, which is basically a fancy way of saying résumé. The article includes a lot of prior roles for each actor, and going into that kind of detail appears atypical for FA articles on similar topics like films. This is especially unnecessary for the actors that have their own Wikipedia articles. Indrian ( talk) 00:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I get it now. I trimmed down the section a lot. How does it look now? GamerPro64 01:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Looks pretty good at a quick glance. I forgot to respond to your question about the analyst quote below, which I have now done. Once that final thing is addressed, I will give the whole article another look. Indrian ( talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "with the average scene taking about an hour to shoot, while others were significantly longer or shorter" and "The average filming day began at 6 a.m. with setting up the studio, with actors coming in at 7 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. for make-up calls. An hour-long pre-production meeting would detail what would be shot that day to ensure all necessary backgrounds and props were ready. Shooting would begin around 8 a.m. and conclude at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m." - So in other words, it followed a similar filming schedule to any other special-effects driven movie. This does not seem noteworthy and encompasses a level of minutiae not found in other FA-quality articles.
    • Removed those sentences. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Williams had no experience working with actors and feared it would be difficult due to "huge Hollywood egos", but she instead found the actors to be professional and hardworking" - Again, this may well be true, but it is drawn from a promotional book. These always go out of their way to emphasize camaraderie and harmony and are not really reliable for facts like these.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "They normally had two grips on set, but needed six for this scene, and Wolfe used friends who were visiting from out of town to help throw the props from ladders, boxes and scaffolding" - This feels like an unnecessary level of detail.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "At one point in the film, Carno lies in the hospital bed after having just survived a fire, his face wrapped in bandages with blood leaking through. During filming, Miano spontaneously sat up and started singing Al Jolson songs, making the crew laugh hysterically." - That's a cute story, but again seems out of step with maintaining a summary style.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Doberman Pinscher simply barked behind a fence during his scene, and was trained to bark on command using different hand signals. The scene with the rats simply involved them running along a wall in a basement, which they were trained with to do using food." - These are standard practices not unique to this game, so it again seems like an unnecessary detail.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "He said the game reminded him of working on one of his earliest movies, the slasher film The Slumber Party Massacre (1982)." - Another extraneous detail taken from a promotional source.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Morsell had to have her face covered in plaster when the model of her head was created, and she experienced some anxieties during the process, saying it felt "like being buried alive".[87] Robert Miano had similar feelings of anxiety when a model of his body was created, which was used in the game for a scene when Carno is set on fire. Miano had to sit on a chair for hours as the crew put plaster all of his body and face, during which he had to breathe through straws in his nostrils." - More extraneous anecdotes of a common type for actors having plaster molds made of themselves.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and one of the first horror games from any company written specifically for adults" - So says Sierra's house organ as it tries to promote the game. It is not a reliable source for this type of information.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Phantasmagoria was the first game to get an "M" rating for "mature" audiences" - No it wasn't. When Night Trap was released on the 32x in 1994 it boasted an M rating. Same with the DOS version of Mortal Kombat II in 1994. I think there were a few others as well. This is why house organs can be of limited utility as sources.
    • Removed. Really common knowledge for people who know about video game history. Also had to rework the part of the paragraph so let me know how it looks. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote: "Never before has a new product jumped to number one on the charts so quickly." - I highly doubt that, and I would certainly never trust a company organ to tell me the truth about that.
    • Actually found the issue online. Page 25. The quote isn't the same as what InterAction wrote, though. But would the InterAction work as a source here? GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @ GamerPro64:It still feels a little promotional in nature, but I assume InterAction has a decent handle on how the game did relative to Sierra's own releases. I would be okay with the magazine being used as a source for the claim that Phantasmagoria jumped to number one faster than any other Sierra game, but clearly the bit about fastest in computer game history is marketing hype rather than fact. Indrian ( talk) 14:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
        • @ Indrian:I changed the sentence to "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote that no other Sierra game topped game charts as quickly as Phantasmagoria did." Does that work? GamerPro64 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite coming out in August" - Games achieve most of their sales in the first couple of months after release, so there is nothing surprising about a game coming out in August selling better than a bunch of games that came out in January or some other earlier month.
    • Removed from sentence. GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The violent content drew a great deal of attention, with Lee S. Isgur of Jefferies & Co., a global investment bank that followed the computer game industry, wrote, "It's probably one of the bloodiest games ever."" - This is a statement from an analyst and is not part of a critical review of the game. It may fit in the article somewhere, but it does not belong here.
    • I agree with you with it not being relevant in the "Reviews" section but I wouldn't know where else to put it. Would the "Release" or "Legacy" section work? GamerPro64 21:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @ GamerPro64:Sorry I missed this one. Isgur is already mentioned in the controversy section, so that seems a natural place to work it in. Indrian ( talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay I moved it to that section and re-tooled it. GamerPro64 01:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "While happy with the game, she said she did not expect to make another horror game again, saying, "It's not really my area"." - Yeah and after finishing Time Zone in 1982 she said she would never make another adventure game again. This statement really has little probative value.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And that's it. I really do feel the article is mostly in fine shape; it just needs a little bit of trimming here and there to retain summary style and needs to take a little more care in the use of promotional sources. Indrian ( talk) 05:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @ GamerPro64: It looks like all my concerns have been addressed. I have also made a few edits here and there to improve the flow of the article. There is just one more thing I would like to see before supporting: The book High Score by Rusel DeMaria and Johnny Wilson includes a little bit of info on the game and brings up two points that I believe are of interest for comprehensiveness. One is that the game originally contained nudity as well as violence and gore, but they decided to take it out. The other is that during post-production Roberta Williams became an absolute perfectionist and kept sending back footage that did not fully integrate the actors with the blue screen backgrounds so as to avoid a "halo effect" like that found in 7th Guest. If you do not have access to that source, I would be happy to add the info myself. Indrian ( talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't have any real way to access the source unless I buy it. You can add the info if you want. GamerPro64 03:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I'll go ahead and add it in the near future, but I see no reason to wait to offer my support. Indrian ( talk) 03:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Double sharp ( talk), R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the seven metals of antiquity. I've been working with R8R Gtrs to get it up to this level on and off since about last year, and the talk page reviews make me confident that it finally meets the criteria. (Naturally, I consulted R8R for the final confirmation of the go-ahead; this is my first FA nomination, after all!) Of course, I support as nominator. Double sharp ( talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

notes by Hawkeye7

Groan. Let's start with getting it fully referenced, which should have happened back at GA. Find citations for:

  • Fourth paragraph of "Bulk"
  • First paragraph of "Isotopes"
  • First paragraph of "Chemistry"
  • Second, third and fourth paragraphs of "In space"
  • First paragraph of "Confusion with tin and antimony"
  • First, sixth and seventh paragraphs of "Elemental form"
  • First paragraph of "Exposure sources"
After seeing this lengthy list, I initially thought, "oh my, do we actually have such a poorly referenced article that we have so many citationless paragraphs?" Turns out most of these (exceptions being the "In space" and "Elemental form" paragraphs) are actually referenced. If there are particular claims in these paragraphs that you want to be referenced, please add them so that I could understand what I need to get references for (or feel free to use the {{ cn}} tags).
Also, I'd want to note that the first paragraph in "Elemental form" contains no new information that has not been referenced elsewhere in the article.
I will, of course, add citations for the rest of problematic paragraphs and any specified problems if they follow.-- R8R ( talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Added the source I used when writing In space. Only Elemental form left.-- R8R ( talk) 02:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sandbh resolved this some time ago (thank you!).-- R8R ( talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Missing references
  • Add Thornton, Radu & Brush (2001) to the Bibliography
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Link rot
  • FN 24, 34, 41 and 209 are dead
Archived links for citations 24, 34, and 209. 41 does not qualify for a dead link (it is a hyperlink to Bibliography).-- R8R ( talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Incomplete references
  • FN 1, 64, 205 access date?
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 5, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 39, 49, 52, 58, 59, 6-, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74, 77, 87, 96, 104, 109, 120, 122, 124, 132, 133, 134, 153, 168, 169, 173, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 201, 206, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214 ISSN?
This is another requirement I've never heard of. In neither {{ cite book}} nor {{ cite journal}} have I found these among the ones most commonly used.-- R8R ( talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 13, 22, 53, 73 page number?
Done for no. 13. I removed the claim supported by no. 53. Citation 73 contains a monograph number, which is an acceptable option instead of page numbers. Resolution pending for no. 22.-- R8R ( talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Found a replacement for no. 22.-- R8R ( talk) 13:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 19, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 65, 71, 73, 78, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 107, 112, 115, 116, 117, 121, 125, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199 location?
During my previous FACs, this never was a requirement. I had to have them all in or all out. As I faced this choice again prior to this FAC, I decided to have them all out as they add little meaningful information to the citation, if at all.-- R8R ( talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 64, 164 publisher?
Citation 64 is a reference to a web page and {{ cite web}} advises against having a publisher in this case. Done for citation 164.-- R8R ( talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 155 Fix the date format
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 211 Journal?
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 211 Date?
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Suggest moving to the Bibliography
  • FN 2, 6, 8, 13, 16, 19, 22, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 65, 71, 73, 78, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 112, 115, 116, 117, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199
I'd rather not as I don't see the point. I think it's generally better to get your citation in one click rather than two.-- R8R ( talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

notes by Nergaal

  • its density of 11.34 g/cm3 => too many sig figs, and/or put it in parenthesis
How come two is too many, especially when we have a reliable source to cover the claim in the body?-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I generally don't like long numbers in intro
I don't see this number as long in any way. It's four digits long.-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • of all practically stable elements => this is very unencyclopedic
This one is difficult to react on. What do I do to enhance encyclopedicness?-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
"practically stable" is very weak
I actually think it's fine. Nonetheless, what do you suggest?-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
not radioactive? Nergaal ( talk) 11:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • the heaviest truly stable nuclide or something like that should be in intro
I deliberately removed that from the lead section as this is a fact of undue importance. In any practical sense, bismuth is the champion. Even if we go into theory, then it must be noted that lead is not truly stable in the sense of how it is expected to be radioactive as well. "Heaviest element that has not been observed to decay" is not just as catchy a claim.-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lead is a post-transition metal => isn't it an "other metal" ? /s
No, it is coded in the periodic table as a post-transition metal. Sandbh ( talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • lead shows a tendency => use exhibits
Sure.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • intro should mention that lead is one of the most common heavy metals in the human body, although it has no role (it's due to environmental presence)
I specified that in the body of the article. As for lead, I find it difficult to fit in one paragraph the claims of a) lead being one of the most common heavy metals in the human body despite no role; and b) lead being highly toxic given that no organization like WHO signals massive lead poisoning of the humanity. I've got enough space in the body, but I'll rather sacrifice claim a) here for a short self-contained description. By the way, I don't see some particular importance of the claim anyway.
All in all, cool (and I speficied that in the appropriate section) but doesn't fit in the lead.-- R8R ( talk) 15:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • intro should mention that it is one of the few elements known since ancient times
We have an even stronger claim: "Lead [...] was known to prehistoric people in Western Asia."-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
yes, but it is one of only ~8 elements known since antiquity
I considered your idea one more time. It doesn't sound right: "Lead was known to prehistoric people. It was one of the eight elements that were known in the antiquity." (Note that antiquity comes after prehistory.) Don't see the point in specifying this given lead is present in an earlier era, an even more unique thing than being a metal of antiquity.-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • should be a bit more clear that relativistic effects favor +2
We have that covered in the more relevant section of Lead#Inorganic compounds.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
the section says +4 isn't common but I think it should explicitly say prefers +2 instead of +4 cause of relativistic effects
Again, we got that covered in Inorganic compounds, which is the most relevant place to talk about oxidation states in inorganic compounds anyway: "Lead shows two main oxidation states: +4 and +2. The tetravalent state is common for group 14. The divalent state is rare for carbon and silicon, minor for germanium, important (but not prevailing) for tin, and is the more important for lead: even the strongest oxidizing agents, oxygen, and fluorine, initially oxidize lead only to lead(II).[38] This is caused by relativistic effects, specifically the inert pair effect..."-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
See my addition Nergaal ( talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • allotrope para is confusing: half of it is about what lead is not; trim that and pls add explicitly what other allotropes are known
took 3 mins:
Oh, I stand corrected, thank you. I missed that one. Leave it with me for a bit. Sandbh ( talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Note added to end of atomic properties section. Sandbh ( talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Something is wrong with that paragraph. Nergaal ( talk) 18:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Should be better now. Sandbh ( talk) 22:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I tweaked it a bit more. See if it is fine. Nergaal ( talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be OK now. Sandbh ( talk) 22:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • somewhere in the intro talk about lead banning/phase-out laws (and later on mention that study correlating drop in violent crimes 20yrs after lead gasoline was banned)
The purported link between crime and lead is mentioned in the Biological section. Sandbh ( talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • are any allotropes metalloids?
No, since lead has no allotropes. Sandbh ( talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
As per previous mention of allotropes. Sandbh ( talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Unknown, as above. Sandbh ( talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • melting point of lead is low compared to most metals => are there applications for lead baths due to this low mp? how dangerous are lead vapors (in industrial settings) considering this low mp?
I found that the answer is most probably no: "Where lead containing solders are used, the risk from lead is usually very low. This may seem strange given the high percentage of the metal in the solder. However, soldering is usually carried out at a temperature of around 380 C and significant lead fume is only evolved at temperatures above 450 C. So exposure by inhalation is normally insignificant. This is recognised in the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) supporting the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 (CLAW). Table 2 in the ACoP (reproduced below) lists processes which are not liable to result in significant exposure to lead. This list includes “Low-temperature melting of lead (below 500°C)” during soldering." And a few others.-- R8R ( talk) 11:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • really nice that you put all numbers in perspective to other elements
Thank you!-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • nowhere in the entire article is explained why is lead used as an x-ray shield => this is a particular use of lead that no other element really has;
We've got a picture of that but I agree, we can explicitly explain it. This will happen.-- R8R ( talk) 10:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • nd is a magic number => add in nuclear physics
Don't understand this one. What do you want to be done (and is it related to this article?)-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
magic number is a general term. here it is in the context of nuclear physics
I still don't understand. If you mean correcting the wikilink from magic number to magic number (nuclear physics), as I just read it, then it already points at the right article, Magic number (physics).-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I edited this bit and added a note about lead-208 being doubly magic. Should be OK now. Sandbh ( talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
the stuff in parenthesis is what I was looking for. Nergaal ( talk) 12:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • only primordial isotope => wikilink primordial
Sure.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • very slightly radioactive => i think radioactive it a bit much here; say decays extremely slowly
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • d for any of them:[24] accordingly => why ":" ?
Agree; I put a semicolon.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ranium series, actinium series, and thorium series => wikilink
There is nothing to wikilink these to. All three search queries redirect to decay chain, which has been linked by this point.
I though those series had separate articles, nvm then
  • famous uses for lead–lead and uranium–lead dating?
We have a cool picture of a meteorite that mentions one example of such a use. Overall, I think that this is a relatively minor question for an overview article like thism and it's already long enough.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I meant say something in text that is used in dating meteorites and old geologic formations. I guess image caption covers it
  • the 4th decay chain should be presented a bit more clear: i.e. it stops at Bi
Don't see why: it's not about lead. Again, space is limited.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
fair point. could you though clarify that the 3 Pb isotopes are end points of the chains?
I think we got that covered: "lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 are the final decay products of uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232, respectively".-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think fundamentally, it should be pointed out more explicitly somewhere that any heavier elements than Pb/Bi that existed when the solar system formed have decayed into Pb/Bi, except for the relatively small amounts of U and Th. it's a bit unclear right now to non-experts.
We do the talk at the more relevant section, Origin and occurrence (specifically, the In space part).-- R8R ( talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • this section should talk about double magic numbers and which isotopes of Pb are
"atomic number is ... a physical magic number.". The first time I (a half-layman) encounter this 'magic number' thing. (Today I have added 'physical'). I stumble, because as an explanation of whatever, it is not enough. In science, one cannot say: "Why so?" "By magic number!" "Oh great, that's clear then". I'd expect italics for this new concept (but cannot find the MOS for this); a wl is not enough. Then, the word magic does not return, nor is it explained in any length. - DePiep ( talk) 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh ( talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • maybe mention in the chemistry section if anybody argued that Pb is a metalloid
There is only one relatively recent reference that I'm aware of that refers to Pb as a metalloid and, IIRC, one plumbing journal article from the 30's that refer to lead as a metalloid. I tend to feel that these references are too few and too obscure to merit a mention in this article. Sandbh ( talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • what typical test do freshman college courses use to identify lead samples? I can't remember exactly, but there is a standard benchtop test
I have not replied up to this point as I couldn't find it to build an opinion. I still can't. This makes me think it's not a big loss. -- R8R ( talk) 10:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • —plumbites— wikilinks strangely use ()
Fixed this one.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I might be wrong, but wasn't one of Pb salts a "prototypic" packing unit cell (maybe PbS)?
Even if so, what does it change? It's just a name.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
other ox states
  • say somewhere that [Pb9]4- is one of the common zintl anions of Pb and maybe give a picture of it
I don't follow: we already have a picture? As for "say something," I'd rather not. This whole Zintl topic is quite minor to write much text about it. I'd rather focus on lead(II) and lead(IV).
I didn't see the picture; the caption is way too long. I actually think the Zintl para might be too long. But [Pb9]4- is the most common one, more so than [Pb5]-. And is [Pb]4- considered Zintl? I thought you need E-E bonds for it.
Shorthened the caption. As for which one is more common: doesn't matter much. It's already in the picture so it seems reasonable to me to highlight something else in the text. Both are pretty minor anyway.
The source from Universitaet Freiburg indeed says Ba2Pb is Zintl.-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • switch 3rd para with 2nd para
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!-- R8R ( talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how that link got there but I meant to say Galena has really cool looking images. There is nothing cool about boring white powder. Nergaal ( talk) 10:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The article has a few cool images indeed, but these are mostly the mineral rather than the compound. We could take the space-filling unit cell model but we already have a few similar pics (though ask for it again and I won't insist).-- R8R ( talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • the table seems a bit random, why were the present entries chosen?
The idea is that all elements are even-numbered; we have mercury as the closest even-numbered element, Th and U, and a few elements of comparable occurrence with a Z of 40--60 to illustrate that lead is indeed quite common for its atomic number.
still seems incredibly random. maybe merge it with the image below it since that one needs a better caption anyways
I adjusted the set of featured elements. Looks better to me now.-- R8R ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • is the relative abundance in the crust much different from that in the Solar System? Nergaal ( talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I prepared some time ago an introductory sentence for this but apparently didn't add the figure itself. Added it now.-- R8R ( talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Image caption should say Pb is rightmost-red spot (image is unreadable without zoom) Nergaal ( talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The image is supposed to be read. This is a scheme, they are meant to be read. Besides, I don't understand what you mean. Lead is the middle row (pretty clear from the image itself).-- R8R ( talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • should discuss meaning of plumbum / plumber also
  • maybe mention other languages too
I don't want any other languages in this section. Etymology of the English word lead is the top priority in the English Wikipedia. As for other notable names and words---as in your plumbing example---this is better suited for History, and we actually cover it there.-- R8R ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • sugar of lead => use "" for this term and give the chemical compound name in text
Done. Sandbh ( talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • decline of Rome theories => list what effects of lead poisoning satisfy this theory; why do some researchers argue against?
As for what caused this theory: we've mentioned by this point that "writers of the time, such as the Cato the Elder, Columella, and Pliny the Elder, recommended lead (or lead-coated) vessels for the preparation of sweeteners and preservatives added to wine and food." Also see note l. As for why against: expanded a bit.-- R8R ( talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add more later. Nergaal ( talk) 10:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • How come no discussion on alchemy and association with Saturn?
We got that covered, too: "Lead poisoning—a condition in which one becomes dark and cynical—was called "saturnine" after the ghoulish father of the gods, Saturn, and, by association, lead was considered the father of all metals.[115]"-- R8R ( talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC) and Alchemical_symbol#Seven_planetary_metals Nergaal ( talk) 12:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. We had this some time ago, so I thought we still do. We'll add it back when we have more alchemy material available (my point of concern is that we have European alchemy but not Arabian one. This wouldn't be a big loss in a printed book, but Wiki is a different business). Hopefully, this won't take too much time.-- R8R ( talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lead is mentioned in the Old Testament
I've taken a long time to think about this one. Added.-- R8R ( talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • why did the pope declare it forbidden? did they base it on toxicological reasons?
Yes. Lead often caused colics. Do you want that in the text?-- R8R ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • were lead cannonball ever used?
I googled it and the answer is yes, though apparently, lead's softness is a disadvantage. Unlike bullets, these weren't used as long.-- R8R ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • what lead compounds were used for whitening faces?
Too many to list, I think. See here-- R8R ( talk) 12:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I think at least White lead should be mentioned. Nergaal ( talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Outside Europe and Asia" can be merged with previous section
These subtitles were not my invention in first place. I liked the story not being torn apart by headers. Nonetheless, if we do use them, I'd want to keep this one. The reason for that would be the content of this paragraph (lead mining in the Americas, Africa, and Australia) differs from the previous one (lead usage in (mostly) medieval and Renaissance Europe).-- R8R ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Lead production in the United States dominated by 1900" you mean US became the major producer?
changed to "The United States became world's largest producer by 1900." Hopefully, it's good now.-- R8R ( talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Into the modern era" is a bit too artistic
True. Is it bad though? If so, can you suggest an alternative?-- R8R ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "ountries in Europe and the United States started efforts to reduce the amount of lead that people came into contact with" when was the first significant program?
Depends on what you define as significant. In my view, that is the White Lead convention, which prompted many European countries to ban lead paints for some applications (Ctrl+F "1930" in the text). You may also think of the following fragment as of the answer: "In the UK, Sir Thomas Morrison Legge became the ®rst Medical Inspector of Factories in 1898. A centralized system of factory inspection had been created under the Factories and Workshop Act of 1878, and Legge did pioneering work to implement the Act". I stand by paints, and we mentioned them.-- R8R ( talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "adding of tetraethyllead to gasoline" => because it did what?
Served as an antiknock agent. Added.-- R8R ( talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "From 1960 to 1990, lead output in ..." and after is a bit TMI; trim this production part since it is present in the next section
I disagree. First of all, 1990 was over 25 years ago; it is history. Second, it's natural to focus a bit more what is common to the contemporary people. Third, there is actually no overlap that I see. Production does not deal with the 1980s; it deals with the 2010s (i.e., the present as opposed to comparably recent past).-- R8R ( talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the first time the text talks about increase of "31%". Up until now it's been only X had largest, Y produced over half, etc. Keep the gist and move extra % to a subarticle. Nergaal ( talk)
The idea of percentages is that lead production did not decline despite all the new regulations on it. I put a colon in the end of the previous sentence to demonstrate that.-- R8R ( talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • has coal burning in plants been a source of worry for lead poisoning? I would be very surprised it it isn't part of the "clean coal" idea
It has, but apparently mercury is the main heavy metal to worry about. Let's get back to this when we reach the section on environment.-- R8R ( talk) 12:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • nowhere here nor later in text is explained why lead-based paint has been popular? was it white lead compounds that don't lose whiteness? was it cheap prices?
The heavy metal additive also decreases the amount of time that the paint takes to dry, makes the paint more durable, and causes the paint to be more moisture resistant. This made lead-based paint ideal for use in homes, on metal exposed to the elements, and even children’s toys.
I'll integrate this into the text.-- R8R ( talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I googled more and it turns out the main advantage was its opacity. Added.-- R8R ( talk) 06:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Production and consumption of lead is increasing worldwide (due to its use in lead-acid batteries)" this is so vague
It is meant to be vague. This is the first sentence in the section. We proceed to specifics later.-- R8R ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The top lead producing countries were " when?
Here's some context:
In 2013, 4.74 million metric tons came from primary production and 5.74 million tons from secondary production. The top mining countries for lead in that year were China, Australia, Russia, India, Bolivia, Sweden, North Korea, South Africa, Poland, and Ireland. The top lead producing countries were China, United States, India, South Korea, Germany, Mexico, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and Australia.[143]
Is it really unclear?-- R8R ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Missed that. But you don't need to give out top10 mining if you have a table. Why not give a production table too and trim the text to only major producers. Nergaal ( talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought about this. Yet there are two considerations:
  • We don't have data for miners and producers from the same year. The lists mention data from the same year, 2013, to keep the data listed side-by-side, because listing them side by side implies the reader can compare the two sets, and the comparison is only correct when the data is from the same time range.
  • The most up-to-date data for mining is from 2015. For production, it's only 2013. Removing the 2013 mining data suggests we run into the problem I described above or lose the option of comparing the two sets. Removing the 2015 mining data means we don't list the newest data we have.
Also, two tables side by side don't look nice. Bringing them into one table could be better, but the sets of countries don't match.
That's why it's the way it currently is.-- R8R ( talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "the global per capita stock of lead in use " annual?
What do you mean, "annual stock"?-- R8R ( talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "a very low percentage of lead," is lead mined as a primary or a secondary ore?
In galena, lead is the primary metal. In basically any other mineral lead is obtained from -- secondary.-- R8R ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "which has a lead content fraction of 30–80%" by what? mass? as in almost pure PbS?
Yes. 80% was referred to as an exceptional case though.-- R8R ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Specified the regular percentages.-- R8R ( talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • isn't sulfuric acid a major (more important) desired product of the production chain?
I have re-read Ullmann on this. Nowhere does it say so.-- R8R ( talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • the text almost implies that Pb is produced more of as a by-product of sulfuric acid and Au/Ag production chain. am I wrong? how much of the bottomline $ do these other products represent
I don't see why you think so but I'll leave this for now to think about it. I believe percentages are beyond the scope of the article.-- R8R ( talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "silica fluoride" should be linked
Nothing to link to, but I spelled out the formula.-- R8R ( talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • are uranium tank shells a direct replacement of Pb shells or W ones? in other words, does the army use/used Pb outside small bullets?
I've taken my time to look for it. As for tank armor, I think the answer is no (unless you mean big containers by "tanks"). I was unable to quickly identify a good detailed source in English, but I used my knowledge of Russian to see the Soviet/Russian army never relied on lead much, if at all (Russia has the largest standing tank army).-- R8R ( talk) 14:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • lead glass is about PbO, so it shouldn't be in the elemental form section
Indeed. I removed this information as Compounds already mentions its use as a colorant.-- R8R ( talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • there should be a bit more info about lead statues. check this out. Degas used lead armatures for some of his bronze statues [4]
  • are certain instruments traditionally made of lead
"Instrument" is a wide term. What do you mean?-- R8R ( talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The main target for lead toxicity in humans is the central nervous system." then "The primary cause of lead's toxicity is its predilection for interfering with the proper functioning of enzymes."
From what I understand, there is no contradiction here.-- R8R ( talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • what is "Chinese brass"
Antique metalware made from brass in China.-- R8R ( talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Restriction of lead usage" should have more dates on first ban examples; also, when were lead pipes banned since even in colonial US they seem to be in use
Nobody said anything about banning lead pipes in the U.S. They were, however, subjected to closer attention and government-approved anticorrosion measures. See Lead and Copper Rule.
As for more dates: what dates are we missing?-- R8R ( talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • are there any plans for lead cleanup? where is lead waste being dumped?

Nergaal ( talk) 11:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • there is no mention of actual amounts in the human body (average, highest recorded?) Nergaal ( talk) 11:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see of what use could highest recorded rates be. Probably it would be one of those people who has been shot a huge number of times. Seriously, though, I genuinely don't see the point of looking at the extreme cases.
As for average ones: I have seen that many papers quote the figure "120 mg" (thus 1.7 ppm assuming a 70 kg human), but I'm staying away from it following this quote: "Lead in human bodies comes from food, drinking water, and the environment. The rates vary greatly by country.[188]" The source is a WHO report.-- R8R ( talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal ( talk) 16:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Oppose on prose. Sample clunky sentence: "One of them is lead-210; although it has a half-life of 22.3 years,[26] a period too short to allow any primordial lead-210 to exist, some small non-primordial quantities of it occur in nature, because lead-210 is found in the uranium series: thus, even though it constantly decays away, it is constantly regenerated by decay of its parent, polonium-214, which, while also constantly decaying, is also supplied by decay of its parent, and so on, all the way up to original uranium-238, which has been present for billions of years on Earth." This is not the standard required. We also don't need to use the respell template on such a common word. Further comments will follow but my initial impression is that this is a long way off where it needs to be to pass. -- John ( talk) 09:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I've broken this sentence into two, and it indeed looks better this way. As for respell: I think it does not hurt in an infobox. I can, however, relate to the point that we don't need a transcription in the text if you raise that.
Eagerly waiting for your further comments. Hopefully your initial impression will change, after either you read the article in whole or we solve the problems you raise.-- R8R ( talk) 17:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
About using respell: Lead (disambiguation) told me there is a major and significant difference between this lead and (to) lead. I'd prefer to keep it respelled. - DePiep ( talk) 12:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Mmm. I would argue that the detailed info about the various versions of this word are better placed at the dab page than on a hypothetical future version of this page which is of FA quality. -- John ( talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No. It was there five years ago already, and rightly so. As I said, different pronunciation for a same-spelled word is huge (unless one knows this beforehand, of course?). There is no argument in "I don't need it, so nobody does", or even worse: "you can look it up elsewhere". Also, please leave the cynicism out. The undisputed fact that your knowledge of English language is great does not allow you to look down on others. That part of 'being English' we don't need. - DePiep ( talk) 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Further comments; image formatting is weird, extensive over-writing (count the "however"s), why is "sugar of lead" in italics? The more I look the more problems I see. A Featured Article has to be written elegantly to be clearly understood. This looks like it was written to maximise the word count. -- John ( talk) 10:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (9X "as such")
  • (3X "however")
  • (1X "moreover")
  • (1X "nevertheless")
  • (1X "additionally")
  • (11X "while")
  • (5X "although")

None of these words are forbidden, but as a rule of thumb they should occur about an order of magnitude less frequently than this in a FA. This is a symptom of a general lack of attention to language throughout the article. Merely replacing or removing these words would be necessary but not sufficient. -- John ( talk) 12:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've asked Sandbh to take care of prose quality. He is able to produce beautiful prose in English, so I am confident this will be resolved; just bear with us.
Interim progress note: I've reduced the words of concern from 31 to 3. Have just noticed there are 24X "also" (another of John's favourite, rightly not) so will get started on trimming these too. Sandbh ( talk) 23:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
''Interim progress note 2: All the "also's" have become also-rans (one managed to seek refuge in a note). Sandbh ( talk) 04:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
''Interim progress note 3: I've copy-edited all sections bar the lead and the one on Biological and environmental effects. After that I'll check for paragraph flow, and wiki-linking, and by then I hope to be done. Sandbh ( talk) 23:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've replaced italics for "sugar of lead" with quotation marks, which seem to be more appropriate. As for image formatting: what's wrong with it? I'd react somehow, but I don't yet even realize what the problem is.-- R8R ( talk) 20:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Maybe I can make some suggestions myself? The usual plural of "alkali" in English is "alkalis". -- John ( talk) 23:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I first learned about this spelling when my browser highlighted the "alkalis" that I typed as an unknown word. I then referred to my usual reference dictionary, Merriam-Webster. It says, "plural alkalies or alkalis," putting the -ies form before the -is one. I think this makes the use of "alkalies" in American English justified.-- R8R ( talk) 09:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks to all for the replies. I (probably) wouldn't oppose solely over the respell template (although we certainly don't need a pronunciation guide in the lead as well!). I think I would oppose over the spelling issue. I don't deny that "alkalies" exists, but what is the benefit of using this highly unusual spelling rather than the one used most often? I certainly oppose strongly over the stodgy prose. A major copyedit is required. Images should be formatted according to WP:IMGSIZE as well. Feel free to ping me when you want me to take another look. -- John ( talk) 19:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
re "we certainly don't need a pronunciation guide in the /ˈliːd/ as well!"? Is there one, then?
re: wouldn't oppose solely over the respell template: there are arguments.
And to keep in mind: not all our Readers can pronounce the IPA alphabet. - DePiep ( talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan Shepard

Nominator(s): JustinTime55 and Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Alan Shepard, the first American in space, and one of twelve men to walk on the moon. The article recently completed an A class review that included an image review. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

An interesting read. Here are my first-pass comments:

  • The 4th paragraph starts with "This was surgically corrected", which refers to his dizziness and nausea at the end the previous paragraph; shouldn't this topic be in one paragraph and not spread over two? These two paragraphs could be merged. MOS:LEAD says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs ..." – the lead currently has 5.
    A good idea. I have merged the paragraphs. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Early life and education
  • When did he attend school? No years are given.
    Not certain about his school years. I know he skipped the sixth and eight grades. He waa at Pinkerton from 1936 to 1940; added this. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No reason is given for him skipping grades 6 and 8 at school (the source is offline, so I can't check it). Presumably it was because of his above average performance, but perhaps that should be stated.
    It says that he impressed his teachers. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Should the second occurrence of "Louise Brewer" at end of the section not be "Brewer", or "Louise" as she is referred to later?
    Sure. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Navy service
  • I take it events in the opening sentences took place in 1944. No year is given.
    August 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "... calling Louise at 17:00" – is that each day?
    Yes, Added. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Project Gemini
  • "Shepard was designated Chief of the Astronaut Office" – when did this happen?
    In November 1963. Added. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Apollo program
  • No mention is made of Apollo 13's fate? Considering that Shepard nearly commanded it, perhaps a brief mention should be made.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, that helps. Just one point: I take it "joje" means "joke". It seems to be a very obscure word to me, it's not defined in and a Wikipedia search for articles using this word yielded only one – Alan Shepard. I'd suggest that it be changed. — Bruce1ee talk 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    Typo. j and k are adjacent on the keyboard. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    LOL, and there I was trying to look up to this "obscure" word! Actually, according to the Urban Dictionary, it is a word! [5]Bruce1ee talk 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    It is, and it fooled the automated spell checker that I rely on to correct my awful typing as I write. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
In media
  • The format of the first entry is different to the rest. How about this: "1965 British science-fiction TV series Thunderbirds – character of Alan Tracy is named after him"
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    All that's changed is the source, not the formatting. — Bruce1ee talk 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    Oh. I thought you meant the reference format. Changed. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • These entries also need sourcing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    Added. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done some minor edits here, but feel free to revert. That's all for now – I'll have a more detailed look later. — Bruce1ee talk 14:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Just one more thing:

  • Ref.# 115 (H.R.4517) has a dead link. — Bruce1ee talk 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    That would be right. Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    Support the prose and MOS. Thanks for all your work on the article, it's looking good. — Bruce1ee talk 09:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Alan-shepard.jpg: source link is dead, and could we have a better description than "none"?
    I can fix the description. The image is part of a series that includes this image. I have located several; there should be at least a dozen. But I cannot find it on NASA's site. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    We could switch to this image Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Mr-3-patch-small.gif and File:Apollo_14-insignia.png: the tag indicates that insignia use is restricted - how does that impact our use?
    The image is in the public domain. Assuming that they qualify as NASA logos, there are some restrictions on use. It doesn't impact us. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Alan_Shepard_statue.jpg: bit confused here - the FUR states that the sculptor has given permission to use the image for any purpose, and record of same has been filed with if that's the case, why is this still non-free? Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    Too complicated for me. Maybe @ Bubba73: can explain. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've done it, but the file is still only on my computer. It looks a lot better than the low-contrast one, but the low-contrast one may be more historic. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


  • What does "Status Deceased" add? -- John ( talk) 17:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    It conforms to the consensus at template:Infobox astronaut and makes all the astronaut infoboxes consistent. It was added to the infobox in 2007. You changed the status code from "deceased" to "dead" in the documentation (but not the example) per WP:EUPHEMISM in 2014. Another editor opined in 2015 that "dead" doesn't add much, and should be discouraged, but the documentation didn't change. I have removed the status card; but the discussion really belongs over there. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    Huh, I'd forgotten that. You mean there are loads of articles on dead astronauts with a template helpfully adding that as well as being dead they are also "deceased"? Gosh. Consistency isn't always a good thing! -- John ( talk) 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Chase (U.S. game show)

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 ( talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the American version of The Chase, a primetime game show on Game Show Network (GSN) from 2013–15. The series is arguably one of GSN's most successful shows of all time and is an adaption of the popular British version of the show. I have tried to model this article after that of another GSN game show, The American Bible Challenge, which recently passed FAC itself. All feedback is welcome and appreciated. Bcschneider53 ( talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The official website link in the “External links” section is dead and needs to found through a website archive. Same goes for the link in the infobox.
  • You use the transition: “For each question answered…” twice in close proximity and I would suggest changing one for variety.
  • The phrase “fell through” in the “Production” section is rather informal and I would recommend using a stronger word choice.
  • The “Production” section seems rather short. Is there any more information about the production of this show? This may not be possible, but I just want to double-check.
  • I would suggest revising the second paragraph of the “Production” section, as it seems to read rather like a list of dates rather than a cohesive narrative. I would work on presenting the information in a more engaging manner if possible.
  • I would combine the two paragraphs of the “Critical reception” subsection as they are both rather short independently.
  • Are there any more reviews of the show? I understand if it is not possible to get more information on this, but I just want to double-check.
  • Please links Game Show Network the first time that you use it in the body of the article. Also, spell out the network the first time you use it in the body of the article and put the acronym in parenthesis next to it so the future use of the acronym makes sense for the reader. Put the acronym in parenthesis in the lead too.
  • Do you really need a separate subsection for accolades as it is only one paragraph? I would combine this under the umbrella of the “Critical reception” subsection.
  • Why is Labbett referred to as “the Beast”? The article does not provide a clear answer for this.
  • I have made some edits to the article here. Feel free to revert them if you do not agree.
  • You only reference the rotating panel from other versions of the game show in the lead, but not in the body of the article. Would it be beneficial to include this comparison in the body of the article as well, ideally with a source to prevent accusations of original research? I also approach leads as including only information covered in the body of the article so the omission of this bit of information in the body of the article seems odd to me.
@ FLC too? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Aoba47: Thank you for picking this up after Bible Challenge. I'm very busy with schoolwork right now (I was actually working on a research paper for The Tempest when I saw this and have four papers due this week) so I may not be able to get to this immediately. No promises, but if I can find the time, I'll try to take a look at your FAC, or you can let me know if you would like any other help (perhaps a GAN or something?). Cheers, -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your message and no worries. Good luck with all of your schoolwork (your research paper on The Tempest sounds interesting). And don't worry about it if you do not have the time. I enjoyed reading through your article and I hope that I could be some help. Cheers! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Heathenry (new religious movement)

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a new religious movement, the practitioners of which seek to recreate the ancient 'pagan' pre-Christian religions of Germanic Europe using sources like recorded Norse mythology. The article was awarded GA status in December 2015 and has seen wider copy editing and scrutiny since then; I think that the time is right for an FAC. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment The lead contains none of the information as to number of followers (pretty tiny) and geographic spread (mostly the Nordic countries) which occur naturally to those, like myself, who had never heard the term. This eventually appears right at the bottom of a very long article. On a skim, it seems good quality, but I don't know if I can face actually reading it to review. Johnbod ( talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, Johnbod. I have added a brief half-sentence to the lede mentioning the demographic size of the Heathen community. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find it a bit odd that several different groups with distinct origins are simply merged into this article, and on top of that, associated with white supremacism, even before individual movements are named? That seems to associate them all with racism by default. It would be less awkward if movements like asatru had more in-depth articles about them each, but they are mere redirects. Yet we have articles about movements within the wider movements, such as Asatru Folk Assembly and [6], but the arguments don't seem compelling to me, especially since many tiny splinter groups have separate articles. Also, the current title of the article seems confusing, compared to for example Germanic neopaganism. I had no idea what it referred to when I saw it listed, yet I'm familiar with Scandinavian asatru. Also seems most of the sources refer it as paganism, not heathenry. FunkMonk ( talk) 19:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "several different groups with distinct origins are simply merged into this article" - the same could be said for our articles on Christianity or Buddhism. Many religions contain a great diversity of belief and practice within their ranks; to properly understand Christianity, one has to appreciate that it encompasses both the Ku Klux Klan and liberation theology, and both the Eastern Orthodox Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this, Heathenry is no different, and it is important that the article reflects that. Forgive me if I misunderstand or exaggerate, but I feel that carving up this article into separate articles out of a belief that different Heathen groups are too dissimilar would be akin to deleting our article on Christianity through the argument that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism are far too distinct to be regarded as part of one single movement.
  • You mention the term "Asatru" as if it were a denomination of Heathenry, but the situation is more complex than that; some who call themselves "Asatruer" are universal Heathens, others are folkish Heathens. Similarly, most "Odinists" are folkish Heathens, but some are universalist Heathens. As a number of academics make clear (and this article mentions), there is no clear cut demarcation between "Asatru" and "Odinism". I'm certainly willing to concede that there may well be space for articles on Universalist Heathenry and Folkish Heathenry, but I don't think that that leads on to the idea that the Heathenry article itself should be disbanded.
  • The term "Heathenry" is not perfect, but as has been argued at the talk page over the past few years (resulting in a group vote that led to the article gaining its current name), it really is the best option available. As you can see, the article has an entire section on "Terminology" to better reflect the complicated terminological issues at play here. Moreover, with respect, I do not believe that the statement "most of the sources refer it as paganism, not heathenry" is true. The majority of academic sources on Heathenry refer to it as Heathenry, even if they regard it as a form of contemporary Paganism (this is all explained within the article). Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding here, I'm not contesting that all these groups should be dealt with in the same article, it's the fact that they simply redirect here that seems odd. To go by your own example, we don't merge sub-groups of Christianity into the Christianity article either. FunkMonk ( talk) 20:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies for the misunderstanding, FunkMonk. I think it only right and proper that specific Heathen organisations ( Asatru Folk Assembly, Ásatrúarfélagið, Odinic Rite, Heathen Front etc) have their own articles. At the same time I think that it would be difficult to have specific articles on "Asatru" or "Odinism", for example, because these are such contested terms. They do not comfortably designate specific denominations of Heathenry; they aren't as precise as "Roman Catholic" or "Anglican" are. For that reason, I think that the only reasonable option is to leave them as redirects to this article. As stated above however, there is perhaps room for the creation of specific pages on "Universalist Heathenry" and "Folkish Heathenry". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 22:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "New" is a relative term. The "new" in the title should be removed 22mikpau ( talk) 00:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The term " new religious movement" is well established within the academic study of religion and we have academic sources cited within the article which specify that Heathenry is categorised as such by scholars. The term is a necessary component within the article title because it serves to distinguish Heathenry (the religious movement stemming from the late nineteenth century) from heathenry as the term is used generally to refer to pre-Christian belief systems or irreligious behaviour. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I get it, I just mean it might be better to use a term like "modern" 22mikpau ( talk) 18:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... I think the title speaks for itself. It's a coin, issued for the 300th anniversary of the Pilgrims' landing. It did start a trend of ripping off coin collectors by being issued in multiple years, so that's not exactly in its favor. Enjoy. Wehwalt ( talk) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Usual impeccable stuff, although I'll never get used to "harbor", Just a couple of thoughts

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged for the support and the review. I've made those changes, more or less.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from HalfGig

@ Jimfbleak: I'll never get used to "harbour", "colour", etc. HAHA

I just reviewed User:Casliber's Yellow-faced honeyeater FAC and this looks like the same high quality.
  • Copyvio check Earwig's tool shows no issues; in fact the score is 0.0% !!! mostly offline sources
  • Source check impeccable quality and consistently formatted. My only question is in the two Congressional Record refs is "page" spelled out and in the rest it's "p." Why is that?
It's as generated by the template. I could, I suppose, do it manually but I imagine the templates are there to be used.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I find no issues with the writing
  • Image check
1) The two photos in the infobox could use better formatting/info
Not sure what you are looking for. -- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Could add the "Information" template so they have full info like date, author, source, etc? HalfGig talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
That's done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
2) On the Landing-Bacon photo, the link goes to a photo of modern boston
This?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes but go to that file, click on the source\photographer link, and the photo that comes up is in no way the source for that painting. HalfGig talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I've cut that image and re-arranged them. The one illustrated on the Plymouth museum site has somewhat different colors and I think we can make do without this one.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
3) Bradford and Springfield photos....I can't recall the law on statue photos, I posted a question here: [7]; the answer was pre-1923 is fine.
4) no issues with other photos
HalfGig talk 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged for the reviews.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now. Very nice article. HalfGig talk 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you indeed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

North Ronaldsay sheep

Nominator(s): TheMagikCow ( talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

About a rather unusual breed of sheep, noted for their seaweed diet. They are found on a remote Orkney island. TheMagikCow ( talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll do a full review soon, but at first glance, the article seems a bit empty, I saw this photo of sheep among seals[8], which seems quite unique, perhaps it could be added? It also seems to be the only photo that shows lambs. This photo showing heads close up might be nice, though the fence is in the way.[9] FunkMonk ( talk) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added the first image in - I am not too familiar with using Flikr images and the uploading process. TheMagikCow ( talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I can upload it, if you want to use it. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
That would be great if you could - thanks! TheMagikCow ( talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Here you go:[10] Note these seem to be in Lincolnshire. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much! That is in the text now. TheMagikCow ( talk) 08:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "These primitive sheep are" I think it would be better if the first sentence of the article body spells out the name of the subject.
I am slightly unsure to what you mean here. TheMagikCow ( talk) 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The first section of the article outside the into, "Physical", should start with something like "North Ronaldsay sheep are physically very small", so that you name the subject of the article first time it is mentioned. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
clarified TheMagikCow ( talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and their head is dished." What does this mean?
Clarified TheMagikCow ( talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is the wool section so far from the physical description section? Would seem the two are closely related.
yes - changed that. TheMagikCow ( talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Scientific analysis" The title seems a bit too generic. Analysis of what? Seems to be of its diet?
The section is a subsection of the diet section. Is this not therefore implied? TheMagikCow ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, a bit hard to see sub-headers of sub-headers (no dividing line)... FunkMonk ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Prehistory" seems too specific a title, if it is not certain that their origin is actually prehistoric, something like "origin" would be more neutral. "The 9th and 15th centuries" certainly aren't prehistoric.
done TheMagikCow ( talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this review - all the hard work is much appreciated! I will get onto the improvements. TheMagikCow ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

More to come as I read along. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The stone for the wall used to be taken from the shoreline, but now has to be imported onto the island." Why? Have all stones been used?
clarified. TheMagikCow ( talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You only state in the intro they are feral, should be stated somewhere in the article body too.
clarified TheMagikCow ( talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I assume the dykes are connected to the dyke? Are they made the same way?
Do you mean punds here? TheMagikCow ( talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yes... Seems like one giant labyrinth? -- FunkMonk ( talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "copper poisoning" You say toxic in the article body. I think there is a distinction.[11]
yeah - fixed that! TheMagikCow ( talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Last comment before I support, you say "in North Ronaldsay" in almost every image caption, but isn't this redundant? I know they exist elsewhere, but I assume only the ones on this island are confined to the beach... FunkMonk ( talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that does seem a bit repetitive. Removed it. TheMagikCow ( talk) 07:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Just a drive-by comment: you say radiocarbon dating has shown the δ13C value, but this isn't correct -- radiocarbon dating is a technique for dating things. What was probably done here was to use accelerator mass spectrometry to determine the ratio, but that's up to your sources. Radiocarbon dating comes up when fractionation is discussed because it messes up the age calibration, but it's never used to actually measure the fractionation. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahh yes. I have double checked with the book source. Thanks! TheMagikCow ( talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

INS Vikrant (R11)

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the first aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy. Built by the United Kingdom, the ship was commissioned in 1961, and served until 1997. She played a decisive role in India's naval victory over Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The article has already passed an A-class review from Military history project. For reference, you can view the review on the talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Support I gave this article very close scrutiny during its recent Milhist A-Class review, which followed a GAN review by one of Milhist's naval specialists. I supported it at Milhist ACR after further improvements were made. I believe it now meets the FA criteria. It is great to see Indian naval subjects being given such attention. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments – really happy to see a warship like this brought to FAC. I've made several copyedits.

  • In the lead, there's only one sentence on the ship's service in the Indian Navy. Can that be expanded? (I recognize that there's not a lot out there, but it comes across as a hole)
    • Same for the article. Were there no deployments between 1971 and 1997?
  • Why was the ship decommissioned? I assume it was age-related, but were maintenance costs getting to high? Too much breaking down? Etc.
  • "After the war, the carriers were sold to several Commonwealth nations." Do your sources have a reason why? I assume it was because Britain didn't need them and was in something of a financial crisis in the post-war period? Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 04:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@ The ed17: Thanks for the edits and the review. I've added a sentence to the lead and I think nothing much can be added. Because it covers all the sections now. Between 1971 and 1997 the ship had seen only general service with no specific deployments. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd points, what you are correct, but we don't have any sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 13:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

White-rumped swallow

Nominator(s): RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is another one about a swallow from the Tachycineta genus. It is found in central South America. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine Sunbird

  • The second paragraph of the intro is book-ended by references to the supraloral stripe - why not combine the two sentences? The stripe is a weird way to start the paragraph and you could say It has a white supraloral streak above its eye, which can be used to differentiate it from the similar Chilean swallow.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Does the species have a lower altitudinal limit? If not, perhaps mention it ranges from sea-level to 1000 m.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Nest prospecting is a behaviour recorded in both breeding and non-breeding individuals. Does this mean that birds prospect for nests while actually nesting? If so it could be made a touch clearer.
I added a sentence after the one mentioned to clarify. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • transition from pinkish-white to pure white. Does this mean they vary in colour or they change colour after laying?
Clarified, they change color after laying. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made few edits for language and will have another look soon. Looks good overall. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@ Sabine's Sunbird: FYI, I'm done. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • According to the HBW the species was sometimes placed in the genus Iridoprocne, worth mentioning?
I added a mention of that. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think, raving read the article, that the section on nest-prospecting isn't quite right. I'll try and re-jig it later.
Ok! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this close... Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@ Sabine's Sunbird: Is everything good with the article now? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I've been struggling with the nest- searching behaviour paragraph. I'm not convinced that the article conveys accurately the journal article's conclusions, but the journal article itself is a little unsure (in my opinion) about what it is trying to say. Its saturday here so I'll have another go at reading the journal article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • "This swallow was first formally described" You should give the full name of the subject at the first mention in the article body. Preferably also in the start of every new section.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The species name is derived from Ancient Greek. Tachycineta is from takhukinetos, "moving quickly", and the specific leucorrhoa" You translate both the genus and species name, so the first part should be changed.
Changed to "binomial name." RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "a subspecies of the Chilean swallow" Link everything again first time it is mentioned outside the intro.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "It has since been moved to the genus Tachycineta." By who?
Cannot find, may need more experienced editor to do so. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • When did it split? Any cladogram?
I don't really know, a more experienced editor is needed here. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
(Update) I will not include a cladogram, see Jimfbleak's comments. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Never seen a cladogram create problems myself (unless there is serious disagreement in the literature), shouldn't hurt, but yeah, it isn't necessarily required. FunkMonk ( talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "This swallow is monotypic." I'd say species instead of swallow, otherwise it's too vague. Maybe even specify that it does not have subspecies, most readers probably don't know what monotypic means.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The culture sections seems fairly pointless, I'd cut it.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could invert the alignment of the images under breeding and diet; depicted subjects should face the text, and then you won't get the subject header clutter you now have with the lowest image.
Good now? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The article seems fairly short, is there no more info to squeeze out of the sources, and have you checked Google Scholar?
Not too much more, I only found one more source. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "These flocks frequently consist of both the white-rumped swallow and other species of swallows." Like which?
Not specified RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "supraloral", " lores", "ear-coverts" Could be explained and linked.
Linked all three, explained lores and supraloral. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "These features fade with age." Which features? Both the black and white?
Not specified, but it seems to refer to the tips. I also made it more accurate, "fade" to "erode." RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and was once considered a subspecies of it" Already mentioned in a more appropriate section than description.
Removed RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No predators are mentioned in the "Predators and parasites" section.
Removed RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Status" is too vague, could be renamed Conservation status.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is quite a bit of info in the intro that is not mentioned in the article body, which it all should be. There are also statements that are phrased very differently form how they are phrased in the body. Please double check all statements and make the article body consistent.
Done RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is not a word about its behaviour in the intro, which is supposed to summarise the entire article.
Added RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "extra-pair young" Which means what?
Added RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "About 58 percent of the broods hatched" Why past tense suddenly?
Fixed RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • to FunkMonk's point about the culture section, I agree it could and probably should be removed. If it is kept it needs to be moderately expanded, just to elaborate about how it wan't just a throwaway reference but the central plot diver of the episode. That said, I'd still lean towards taking it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Cut RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The changes look good. Will you ask someone for help about the taxonomy issues? FunkMonk ( talk) 09:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: Yeah, I asked Jimfbleak. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - everything addressed, looks good to me now. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

The genus was created by link which also fixes the date. personally I wouldn't give a cladogram, it's not required and usually attracts criticism. More comments to follow as and when Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • or a streak above its lores— I'm not convinced by the indefinite article
Removed RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Its underparts, underwing-coverts, and rump are white, as the name suggests— lose the last bit. Although I see what you mean, the name doesn't suggest that the underparts and underwing-coverts are white
Better? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • starts in October and ends in December in Brazil and February in neighboring Argentina—Does that mean that the breeding season is two months longer in Argentina, or is the start later than October there?
Specified RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. As written, "features" applies either to the wings or the named feather tracts, neither of which is what you probably mean
It wasn't exactly specified, so I think it should be left like it is. Do you object? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The song this swallow uses... alarm note it uses— repeat of "uses", seems a strange word choice anyway
Removed on instance RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is known to inhabit… It is also known to occur… It is additionally known—three uses of a word that isn't necessary anyway. "known to inhabit"="inhabits". I see that there are other pointless "knowns" further on too
Removed some instances RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • First two paras of "Breeding" seem to have more repetition of terms than is strictly necessary
Removed a few instances of repeat terms. Good now? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with most of the responses, but surely in the sentence It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. it can only be the white tips that erode, not entire feathers? If that's so, it should be made clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Jimfbleak: I will fix it then. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed it, I think this just needs a source review now. Once can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber

  • References formatted consistently - just need to align page ranges. I use final two digits myself (like FN 6 & 7), but FN 8,11 and 12 have full page ranges. Either is ok, just choose one to follow. Also, ref 4 has publisher location, others don't. Just choose to have or not. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Used full page ranges, removed publisher location. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 3, used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 12, used once. material faithful to source.
  • FN 8, used nine times. material faithful to source, though the source does not explain why it is also called the white-browed swallow (however as it is very obvious happy not to worry about this). I also tweaked the wording to distance from the source (this can be tricky I know).

Ok all good Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.

Nominator(s): — Bruce1ee talk 07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is this article's second FAC; the first received a couple of reviews (thanks Imzadi1979 and Nikkimaria), but all the issues raised by them were addressed.

This article is about George Steiner's controversial 1981 literary and philosophical novella in which Adolf Hitler (A.H.) is found alive in the Amazon jungle thirty years after the end of World War II. It is currently a GA and has recently been peer reviewed. I believe it meets the FA criteria, but I'm open to any comments/suggestions. — Bruce1ee talk 07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Support, with a few minor points:

  • I made a small edit, which is here.
    Thank you, I'm happy with that. — Bruce1ee talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Orosso a town? When I first read the line that mentions it, I was a little confused.
    Orosso is a town, as stated at the end of that sentence. If you feel it's still confusing, I'll reword the sentence. — Bruce1ee talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence in "Reception", as a stand-alone sentence, looks incomplete. Are there other awards for which the book was nominated? Was there any notable reaction to its nomination for the Faulkner Award?
    From what I've found this book didn't receive any other nominations/awards. Further, I can't find any notable reaction to this nomination. The nomination is mentioned in the lead – I could cite it there and remove it from the Reception section. What do you think? — Bruce1ee talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Was it ever translated into other languages? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 17:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    Yes it has – I've added this to the Background and publication section. — Bruce1ee talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Coemgenus, thanks for picking up this review and for the support. I've responded to the issues you raised above. Please let me know if you find any others. — Bruce1ee talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg

Nominator(s): Edelseider ( talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the former residence of the prince-bishops of Strasbourg and current seat of three museums. It is the most famous and most ornate 18th-century palace of Strasbourg and one of the main tourist attractions of the city. It also is a place with a most colourful history. I expanded the article quite a bit since it was made a GA and I think it has now reached the right dimensions and covers every aspect in enough detail without being overloaded with details. I have of course provided as many different valuable sources as possible. Edelseider ( talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Since France does not have freedom of panorama, photos of 3D works will need explicit tags for the work itself as well as the photo
  • File:Strasbourg,_Palais_Rohan,_tapisserie_dans_la_bibliothèque_(4).JPG: what is the copyright status of this tapestry?
  • File:Strasbourg,_Palais_Rohan,_nature_morte_n°1_de_la_salle_du_Synode.JPG: what is the copyright status of this painting? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The tapestry is from the first half of the 17th-century (author died more than 300 years ago) and the painting is by Jean-Baptiste Oudry (died 1755), so these works are in the public domain under every aspect. -- Edelseider ( talk) 21:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I addressed that by adding the appropriate tag, though, and I hope there will be some more reviewing done soon. Regards, -- Edelseider ( talk) 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@ Nikkimaria: FoP only applies to objects not inside buildings. Since the two images you have listed are clearly inside a building, FoP rules does not apply anyhow no matter if there is FoP in France or not. You comment is not irrelevant but has nothing to do with FoP. cheers, Amada44   talk to me 18:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@ UK, for example. That being said, the two works I specifically mentioned above are separate points from that dealing with FoP or lack thereof, and are 2D works. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: -and are 2D works- that is correct so there was no point in mentioning it? Amada44   talk to me 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Er, what? The 3D works needed tags; those two 2D works also needed tags. That's the point of the list above. The point of this conversation originally was to clarify a misunderstanding, but now we can move on. Nikkimaria ( talk) 11:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
They have been tagged. Can we move on? What about reviewing the text? -- Edelseider ( talk) 12:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that the 3D works have been tagged yet. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@ What sort of tag are you expecting? -- Edelseider ( talk) 06:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
First, that needs to happen for all 3D works, including architectural. Second, some of the works have been restored - was the restoration work sufficient to garner a new copyright? Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand you. The architectural elements are integral parts of the building and the building is from 1742, it could hardly be more public domain. Did you even read the article? I'm going to tag every single file but allow me to say that I find that insistence on marking centuries-old objects with tags and more tags and even more tags a bit fussy. Are you going to review the text as well, yes or no? -- Edelseider ( talk) 14:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely. This is just an image review, as the header says. Johnbod ( talk) 14:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
He could follow up with a text review, though (ideally). -- Edelseider ( talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Coord note: Edelseider, last things first -- Nikki is female. She is also one of our most experienced image and source reviewers, and I suggest you adopt a more collegial approach to dealing with her comments or those of any other reviewer. Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us and under no obligation to review more of the article than she chooses to. Her image reviews alone are vital to the FAC process, because if a nomination does not satisfy WP image licensing standards then it won't be promoted to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: - I am trying to be collegial, which is not always easy, as you will admit. So I am - quite collegially - asked about the public domain status of a building that is in the public domain and about the copyright status of works whose authors are dead for centuries. I thought it wouldn't take long to deal collegially with these simple questions but I was proven wrong. I collegially suggest that @ Nikkimaria: removes all the pictures from the article that she still has doubts about. That would settle the matter at long last. Regards, -- Edelseider ( talk) 06:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose: As for "Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us", you couldn't have said it more rightly. Thus I am a volunteer like the rest of you to provide Wikipedia with quality content, which should be judged on its qualities and on its content.-- Edelseider ( talk) 07:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Eve Russell

Nominator(s): Aoba47 ( talk) 01:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, this article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, who was featured prominently throughout its entire run on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. Introduced as the seemingly perfect wife and mother, Eve's storylines revolve around her past alcohol and drug abuse while working as a nightclub singer and her past relationship and child with businessman Julian Crane.

Tracey Ross, who played Eve for the series' entire run, has discussed the casting process and her interpretation and influences when acting out the role. Ross' casting was part of NBC's attempt to include a racially diverse ensemble on daytime television. Ross' performance was praised by fans and critics, with the character's relationship with Julian receiving positive attention. The character's storylines were negatively received by the cast, specifically the scenes in which Vincent Clarkson gives birth to his father's child and Eve incorrectly attaches Julian's penis during a botched surgery.

Despite these mixed reactions, Ross received eight nominations for the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Daytime Drama Series, winning at the 38th NAACP Image Awards. This is my third nomination of a Passions-related article through the FAC process; the other two were Chad Harris-Crane and the Russell family (Passions). I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 01:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:PanagiotisZois

Hopefuly I'll be able to offer additional and more helpful comments in the future (sorry)... Shouldn't the information regarding her appearence in Providence be included under the "Appearances" section? Besides that the article is very well written and broad in its coverage of the character, dare I say even moreso than Chad's article. I'd definately support its promotion to featured article. -- PanagiotisZois ( talk) 18:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @ PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your support and comments. I completely agree with you and I have moved the "Other appearances and merchandise" subsection to the "Appearances" section. This is actually the article that I am the most proud of so I greatly appreciate the kind words. Hope to work with you further in the future! Aoba47 ( talk) 18:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Not my usual area, so I can't comment on sourcing or comprehensiveness, just nit-picking over what appears to be a very solid article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • "Harmony" presumably a town? Real or fictional? In either case, do we know where in the US it's supposed to be?
  • Good point. I have added the phrase "the fictional Northeastern town" in the lead, but let me know if you feel that it requires further clarification in the body of the article as well. I have WikiLinked Northeastern to make that part absolutely clear for a more global audience. We do not know the exact state in which the town is supposed to be located (though it could be somewhat guessed by the two death penalty cases that were prominently featured on the show, but an exact state is never provided outside of somewhere in the New England). Aoba47 ( talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "better understand" twice in one sentence
  • Oops, fixed this. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "born on Christmas" reads oddly to me, as a Brit I'd expect "Christmas Day", but if it's standard US, fine
  • I am actually not sure. I have never used the word in this context before (I never knew anyone born on that day lol) so I have changed it for Christmas Day instead. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and an erection might kill him" is this based on fact or is it an alternative fact?
  • This is actually a fact fact lol. It was one of the soap opera's final storylines and was referenced as one of the worst ideas by one of its cast members (and I have to agree with her on that one lol). Aoba47 ( talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@ Jimfbleak: Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate your feedback, especially on something outside of your usual area of interest. Let me know if there is anything else that needs attention and I look forward to hopefully working with you more in the future. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with your responses, and happy to support above, an interesting read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 16:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • (easy) image review. Only image has appropriate FU tag Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 14:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tintor2

The article looks in a really good shape to become FA but there some things that bugged while reading it:

  • Can "Ross initially saw the character as easy to play ("everyone's best friend, and the town doctor, and a great mother")" simply be changed to "Ross initially saw the character as easy to play stating it she is "everyone's best friend, and the town doctor, and a great mother"). Otherwise the quotes feel pointless if they are hidden. There is another example in the cast response section.
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Remember each citation needs wikilinks if they are possible. (Reference 18 for example "TVGuideOnline Interview with Tracey Ross". TV Guide Online. CBS Interactive. October 2003.")
  • I think that I have everything covered now. Let me know if there are any others that require WikiLinks. I am fairly certain that the only ones left are those without a Wikipedia article. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll give my support if these issues are solved Good work. Tintor2 ( talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @ Tintor2: Thank you for your help! I believe that I have covered both of your comments, but let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems better. I'll give my support. Good work with the article. Tintor2 ( talk) 21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Tintor2

All the sources are archived and apparently reliable. However, I am confused with refs 12 and 13 "Sloane Gaylin, Alison (February 21, 2000). "Tracey Ross goes One on One". NBC Passions Online. "Ben Masters and Tracey Ross "Passions"". NBC Live. April 11, 2000." Can these citations be given some links? Just doing that, I'll support it. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @ here and have cited them directly. I could remove both if you feel that it is necessary as they are relatively minor. Just for clarity, I have also used the NBC Live source in the Russell family (Passions) article. I hope this response is helpful and I look forward to your response. Thank you again!
All right, it passes. Good work. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Tintor2: Thank you for your help and I apologize for any inconvenience. Feel free to let me know if you need any help with anything anytime. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@ Ian Rose: @ Laser brain: @ Sarastro1: Just want to notifiy the FAC coordinators that this FAC has received three "support" votes and image and source reviews. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think I'd like to see just a little more commentary on this before promotion. I'd also like a little commentary on comprehensiveness and source reliability. Sarastro1 ( talk) 00:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me; thank you for the message. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Other Languages
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Вікіпэдыя:Кандыдаты ў абраныя артыкулы
oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча: Vikipediya:Tanlangan maqola nomzodlari