Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  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.



Nominator(s): KJP1 ( talk), DBaK ( talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong, made his fortune in hydraulic power, guns and warships, transforming Newcastle's industrial landscape in the process. His wealth enabled a further transformation on the Northumbrian moors above Rothbury, where he created Cragside, "the most dramatic Victorian mansion in the North of England”, and its equally dramatic 15,000-acre estate. The house is notable, too, for its technical innovations using water power, providing electric lighting and water-powered spits, dumb waiter, dishwasher and dinner gong. The financial misfortunes of his successors brought this remarkable house into National Trust stewardship in 1977, opening to the public two years later. KJP1 and DBaK hope that you enjoy the article and that, if you do not already know Cragside, you might one day feel inspired to visit this extraordinary house and its estate. Any and all suggestions for improvement most gratefully received. KJP1 ( talk), DBaK ( talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Support, I was pleased with responses in the peer review. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Gerda - much appreciated, and many thanks for your input at Peer Review. KJP1 ( talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Direct quotes should be cited wherever they appear, including in image captions
Think these are done now. KJP1 ( talk) 15:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • File:William_George_Armstrong.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - many thanks. The first I shall fix immediately, the second will need a bit more digging as I picked it up from Commons. Will get back. KJP1 ( talk) 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Um! Not sure. The immediate source is a commercial site, J. Cosmas Vintage Photography[1]. I don't think they own the copyrights, just actual images taken from magazines etc. The original source appears to be Cassell & Co., who published a series from 1890-1894 entitled "Cabinet Portrait Gallery". The photographers were W. & D. Downey, who operated a studio from the 1860s to the early 20th century. If this image was published in, say, 1890, it's now 127 years old. Does this make the PD tag acceptable? There are one or two others in Commons, but none that captures him so well. KJP1 ( talk) 15:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Published in 1890 in the UK? Because it's on Commons, it needs to account for status in the US (for which, given an 1890 publication, the current tag is fine), but also in its country of origin. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes - somewhere between 1890-1894 in the UK. I've added a ((PD-UK-unknown)) , but this can't really be right as we do know the authors, William and Daniel Downey. William died in 1915, and Daniel in 1881, so what tag should I use to show we do know the author but the work's out of copyright in the UK? Sorry, more questions than answers. KJP1 ( talk) 15:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
For some reason Commons doesn't appear to have an equivalent to our {{ PD-old-70 should work. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I couldn't find an equivalent, and when I used PD-UK, it told me "deprecated template". I shall hurry off and put PD-old-70 on. Thanks again. KJP1 ( talk) 16:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Now all done, I hope. KJP1 ( talk) 16:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Together with a few minor points I must have missed at peer review (apologies).

  • Debden/Debdon
    • I notice we have both "Debden" (4 times) and "Debdon" (twice). The latter is correct, I think.
  • William Armstrong
    • "Krupp's" looks fine to me but I feel I ought to point out that the Wikipedia article on the company calls it just "Krupp".
  • Kitchen, service rooms and Turkish bath
    • "…a dumb waiter and a spit run on hydraulic power" – a very minor quibble, but are they both run on hydraulic power or just the spit? From the lead I infer the latter, but the wording is ambiguous here.
  • Armstrong's heirs: 1900–the present
    • "rewiring of the entirety of the house" – a slightly long-winded way of saying "rewiring the whole house"
  • Architecture and description
    • Again, although it doesn't trouble me, our article on the subject is on "neoclassical architecture" with no capital letter and no hyphen. (The OED is of that view, too.)
  • Technology
    • There is a certain amount of repetition here. In the second paragraph, you repeat the mention of incandescent lighting from the preceding para, and you tell us again about the hydraulic spits in the kitchen. These, by the way, were a single spit when we met them in the "Kitchen, service rooms and Turkish bath" section, earlier.
  • Grounds and estate
    • "Armstrong bought land continuously" – unless he bought without taking breaks for rest and refreshment you mean "continually".

Nothing of sufficient importance there to delay my adding my support for the promotion of this excellent article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 19:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Tim, hugely appreciate the Support. DBK or I shall go through and address the above. But for now, having stumbled inadvertently across the final thread here, Talk:Josephine Butler, I think I shall just go to bed and despairingly pull the duvet over my head. KJP1 ( talk) 21:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

There is one thing I'd like to question: the article seems to repeat some references rather unnecessarily, for example:

  • "When this was completed in 1869, Shaw was asked to propose enlargements and improvements to the shooting lodge Armstrong had constructed at Rothbury some four years earlier.[20] This was the genesis of the transformation of the house between 1869 and 1884.[20]"
  • On a walk with friends, Armstrong was struck by the attractiveness of the site for a house and, returning to Newcastle, he arranged for the purchase of a small parcel of land and decided to build a modest house on the side of a moorland crag.[13] He intended a "house of eight or ten rooms and a stable for a pair of horses".[13] While I'm on this point, what's the purpose of the quote marks? If it is a quote, who said it?
  • Armstrong's architect for Cragside's expansion was the Scot R. Norman Shaw. Shaw had begun his career in the office of William Burn and had subsequently studied under Anthony Salvin and George Edmund Street.[16] The former had taught him the mastery of internal planning that was essential for the design of the large and highly variegated houses the Victorian wealthy craved. Salvin and Street had taught him to understand the Gothic Revival.[16]
  • When this was completed in 1869, Shaw was asked to propose enlargements and improvements to the shooting lodge Armstrong had constructed at Rothbury some four years earlier.[20] This was the genesis of the transformation of the house between 1869 and 1884.[20]
  • In August 1884 the Prince and Princess of Wales made a three-day visit to Cragside; it was the apogee of Armstrong's social career.[32] The royal arrival at the house was illuminated by ten thousand lamps and a vast array of Chinese lanterns hung in the trees on the estate, and by six balloons from which fireworks were launched, and a great bonfire lit on the Simonside Hills.[32]
  • It belongs to the first phase of Shaw's construction work and was completed in 1872.[67] It has a large bay window which gives views out over the bridge and the glen.[67]

I'm sure you get the message. Could you go through and blitz the ones you don't need, unless it follows a quote. Aside from that, this is a most engaging article. Cassianto Talk 20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto, many thanks indeed. The Support is much appreciated. Entirely take the point and shall see to the multiple, "duplicate" ref.s just as soon as I can. KJP1 ( talk) 21:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Dragoon Saga

Nominator(s): Popcornduff ( talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Panzer Dragoon Saga, a 1998 role-playing game for the Sega Saturn. Saga is the most critically acclaimed Saturn game and appears on many lists of the best games of all time, but was released in very limited quantities and few people got to play it.

The article became a GA a couple of years ago. Since then, I've greatly expanded the Reception section, restructured the article a bit, and tightened up the references. Popcornduff ( talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Dunkleosteus77

This article is about yet another major group of mammals: bats. They will make a nice addition to the FA list being the only mammals capable of flight. We have already got this article to GA status and John has done multiple copyedits. We now feel it is ready. LittleJerry ( talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Some of the images in the taxonomy diagrams are too small to be reasonable representations of the group they attempt to depict
Scaled them up, hope that's better now. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Also suggest scaling up the bat wing and song acoustics diagrams
Done. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Zalophus_californianus_J._Smit_(white_background).jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Rhinopoma_microphyllum.jpg, File:MystacinaTuberculataFord.jpg, File:Furipterus_horrens.jpg
Done. LittleJerry ( talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Big-eared-townsend-fledermaus.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Batlook2.jpg
Replaced link and removed image. LittleJerry ( talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Craseonycteris_thonglongyai.JPG does not have a FUR for this article
Replaced. LittleJerry ( talk) 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Pipistrellus.ogg: is a more specific source available?
Added. LittleJerry ( talk) 16:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Bat_god,_Zapotec,_Period_III-A_-_Mesoamerican_objects_in_the_American_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_DSC06023.JPG: needs a tag explicitly indicating the status of the work pictured. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry ( talk) 18:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

  • What date is the classification listed? 2011 classification is mentioned as not including things, but it is not clear if the list below is 2011 or something else.
  • Nycteridae are mentioned as not fitting in, then we are left wondering what happened to them.
  • Yinpterochiroptera also presumably currently deprecated? Also a bit unclear.

More later. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Lancashire Fusiliers War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm back, and with another war memorial! This one is in Bury, which today is in Greater Manchester but in 1914 was in the southeast corner of Lancashire. This part of the world is particularly well-endowed with war memorials, not least because of the local regiment—the Lancashire Fusiliers. Over 13,000 men served and died with the Lancashire Fusiliers and the effect of such losses on its garrison town, Bury, is still evident a century on. Wikimedia UK kindly gave me a modest grant to travel to Bury and take several of the photos used in the article. The regiment no longer exists, but their memorial is well taken care of, having been adopted by the successor regiment. If that wasn't enough, there's more historical interest with its architect, whose father and great uncle both served in—you guessed it—the Lancashire Fusiliers.

It's an interesting, if poignant, story and I hope this article tells it well. All feedback will be gratefully received! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sources: all in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Breeders Tour 2014

Nominator(s): Moisejp ( talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This is about an impromptu tour that the Breeders went on three years ago to practice some then-unrecorded new material. It has been recently peer reviewed. I've thoroughly researched the topic, and believe the resulting article is a representative survey of available sources and is comprehensive in covering all the relevant details out there about this short tour. I look forward to your comments. Thank you. Moisejp ( talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (comprised thirteen concerts in central and western United States), do you think it would be beneficial to link for Central United States and Western United States?
  • For this part (The tour received good reviews from critics), I would link critics to music criticism.
  • For this part (and the title track from the Safari EP), please provide a link for EP.

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great day or night. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Aoba. Thank you very much for your comments. I have linked "Music criticism" and "Extended play" as you suggested. I feel wiki-linking each of "Central United States" and "Western United States" would be too much—for one thing, there are already quite a few links in the first sentences of the lead. But if you feel strongly these are better, I’d be happy to discuss. Let me know what you think. Thank you again! Moisejp ( talk) 06:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments, and I agree with your response regarding "Central United States" and "Western United States". I support this for promotion on the basis of prose. Hope you have a wonderful day or night. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Aoba! Moisejp ( talk) 21:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources comment

Before I complete a sources review I'd like clarification on one point. Fifty sources ("references") are listed, but there are only 38 separate citations, which indicates that 12 of the sources are not cited and shouldn't be listed as references. Is this the case? Brianboulton ( talk) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Brianboulton. Thank you very much for offering to do the source review. The other 12 sources are in Notes 1 to 4. Thank you again! Moisejp ( talk) 21:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that the Gavin Ryan book does not have an ISBN number. See here for more details [[2]]. Moisejp ( talk) 21:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Nominator(s):   Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is no overstatement to say that the topic of article is hugely important in the academic literature regarding famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 is considered by academic consensus to be the paradigmatic case of a man-made famine (generally considered an inadvertent outcome of WWII; though some Indian nationalists consider it rather less inadvertent). Other scholars disagree, holding that it was a natural disaster, but its natural origins were obscured by the fact that accurate records were not kept of a decisive crop fungal infestation... In any case, it is a seminal event in world history, because of its horrendous death toll, its impact on world opinion regarding [British] colonialism, and its continued controversial nature even to this day...   Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

General comment: This article is of undoubted importance. My concerns are:

  • Length: the article has grown by 2,200 words since its archived FAC earlier this year, and now stands at 16,500 words or 103kb of readable prose, greatly in excess of the maximum suggested by WP:SIZE.
  • The previous FAC achieved no supports and several opposes; is that not an indication that some intermediate review should be undertaken before its return to FAC?
  • I see that the article talk page contains this statement from Lingzhi dated 2 September: "It has now been four months since the failed FAC. I will wait two more months, then I will put this article into WP:PR. After a healthy period residing in that forum (how long I leave it depends on how much activity it gathers, but I would say the reasonable minimum time would be 3 weeks to 1 month." I can't find any trace of this peer review. Did it ever happen? Brianboulton ( talk) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your spot-on comments. The peer review, with only one respondent, is here Perhaps I didn't link to it correctly. That review shares concerns about length; I respond by agreeing and saying I am very open to trimming some content which seems to be largely peripheral...
    • As for the first FAC, as nearly as I can understand, the main reason that a small but very keen and proactive group of editors was up in arms about that FAC was that the article version nominated was (by their account) created in an un-Wikipedia-like manner in my sandbox and (probably more importantly) thrown into FAC within minutes of its unveiling. This process led to concerns which I at the time (quite stupidly) did not foresee: that the article would be opposed on the basis of stability. So now it is stable.
    • There was a huge amount of discussion of me and my methods but not much discussion at all about the content of the article itself. One of the original Opposes has repeatedly said that the article is chock-full of errors, and is apparently keeping a list somewhere in his/her personal possession. But that list hasn't been presented. That editor has also made other unsubstantiated claims, and will probably show up to continue doing so.
    • This article is quite controversial and even repellent to both pro-UK editors (or in a less broad context, pro-Indian Army editors) on one hand, and Indian nationalists on the other hand, for completely opposite reasons.
    • The article is stable. I am quite willing and eager to trim text based on well-reasoned discussion. I am hoping that neutral and dispassionate reviewers will show up and begin discussing article content rather than LingzhiLingzhi ♦  (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for this reply, and for providing the PR link. The PR discussion rather confirms my fears, that the length of the article will not only inhibit readability but will prevent proper review scrutiny. I am all in favour of developing articles on important and controversial issues – and must belately thank and congratulate you for your sterling work on this one – but all is in vain if no one reads the end-product. I don't accept the oft-quoted dictum that all the arguments on any issue can be reduced to one side of paper, but I do believe that however complex a topic, a precise and comprehensive summary can be made in a lot less than 16,000 words. Anyway, I propose to read the article (which will take some time) and in due course I'll bring forward suggestions as to how it might be reduced. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I am quite genuinely in your debt, as are those who read the article in the future... I too feel that at least 2000 words could be sent into the ether with practically no harm done. Perhaps more than that? Skillful editors can determine the answer.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Tottenham outrage

Nominator(s): SchroCat ( talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The events of the Tottenham outrage of January 1909 read like a piece of particularly tawdry prose from a penny dreadful. Two dastardly anarchists undertake a wages snatch and are chased by police and members of the public (including, at various times, football teams and workmen). The dastardly anarchists keep up fire from automatic pistols throughout the subsequent chase; the police are largely unarmed, but manage to borrow firearms from passing members of the public on four occasions (yes, seriously!) The chase was on foot, by car, grocer's cart, milk float and, bizarrely, by tramcar. In the end the dastardly anarchists commit suicide rather than be taken by the forces of law and order (even though one of them fails in his attempt), but the £80 they stole has gone missing... It all sounds like a ripping yarn, except it was all true and cost the lives of one unarmed policeman and a ten-year-old boy caught in the crossfire. All constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map, lead, and Daily Mirror images
  • Since the images are hosted on Commons, they should also include a tag indicating their status in the UK. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria - both points done. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto I did. Here goes:

  • "Paul Helfeld (also given as Hefeld[12]) aged 21 in 1909, and Jacob Lepidus (also given as Lapidus[13]) aged 25 in 1909..." -- A little repetitive. Any chance of one "1909", "aged", and "also given as"?
  • "the terms "socialist" and "anarchist" had been conflated in the British press, which used the terms interchangeably to refer to those with revolutionary beliefs." -- terms/terms
  • "Special Branch thought that there was a political element in which Salnish was involved..." -- "Special Branch suspected that there was a political element to the robbery in which Salnish was involved..." May as well use the lingo?

Robbery and chase See this and this for my copy edits - I feel like Dank saying that! Support. All good, feel free to revert any of them Cassianto Talk 20:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I may've undone your intervening edits in an ec.
  • You did. I shall biff you next time I see you! - SchroCat ( talk) 20:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • No you won't. I'm not having fisticuffs at Riley Towers. Tim riley talk 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cass, these (and your copy edits) are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

A few quibbles in doing so, and I apologise for missing these points at PR. (One – well, I at any rate – will invariably spot additional things on rereading.)

  • Lead
    • "The robbery was undertaken by …" – "undertaken" seems an odd term, as though the robbery had been put out to tender. I think perhaps "committed" might read more naturally.
    • "Jacob Lepidus, two Latvian immigrants who were pursued" – perhaps a comma after "immigrants" to close the subordinate clause?
  • Background
    • "the largest Jewish community at the time" – just belt and braces, but I wonder if "the largest Jewish community in the world at the time" might avoid any doubt.
    • "because of the influx into one part of Tottenham, north London, gained the nickname Little Russia" – on rereading this I struggle to break it into its constituent parts. Does it mean one part of Tottenham was "Little Russia", or north London was "Little Russia"? If the former we need something like "because of the influx into one part of Tottenham in north London, the area gained the nickname Little Russia". If the latter, we need to lose the comma between "London" and "the".
  • Criminals
    • "a bomb he was carrying … detonated prematurely" – I don't know the answer and ask merely to check: can "detonate" be used intransitively? Bombs are certainly detonated, but do they detonate?

These very minor points do not detract from my support for the promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the criteria. Highly readable, widely and thoroughly cited, well illustrated, and balanced. – Tim riley talk 19:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim, for your comments at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • One last point, I forgot to add ("old, old, Master Shallow!") – if this were my FAC I'd have cropped the picture of PC Tyler to make his head roughly the same size as that of poor Ralph Joscelyne. Tim riley talk 23:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Leaning support, very interesting, I had never heard of it. Quite a slow motion urban chase. A few comments.

  • "The car from the factory joined in the chase, driven by Wilson; he paused and PC Newman boarded the car before they gave chase again." You use chase in two slightly different ways. I might change one of them.
  • "As the car neared the two criminals, they turned and open fire." opened?
  • "He was taken to hospital by a member of the public on a bicycle," I might reverse "on a bicycle" and "by a member of the public"
  • "One policeman borrowed a pistol from a bystander, made his way round through the scrub until he was close enough to fire, but the gun was faulty;" an "and" is needed somewhere.
  • I gather Lepidus shot himself as he was being shot by others. I don't think you clearly convey it.
  • I might put the exact date in the lede. I had to chase it down a bit in the article.
  • "Oak Cottage" later referred to as "Oak Cottages".
  • "In early February 1909 Herbert Gladstone, the Liberal Home Secretary defended the government's record on immigration, including those who had been subsequently expelled from Britain for criminal activity." I'm not certain the sentence as a whole makes sense.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Support Very enjoyable.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 05:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ritchie333

Looks good, I've just got a few comments:

  • I've changed the "Little Russia" link to Little Russia, London. Although that article says "It became commonly known as "Little Russia" when a large number of Russian immigrants settled there after fleeing the 1917 Russian Revolution", that can't be right as the Middlesex source used here name-checks it in 1906.
    • We don't mention the 1917 revolution; we refer to the period between 1875 and 1914, which peaked in the late 1890s. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The influx of émigrés" - any particular reason to use "émigrés" here?
    • Are you querying the use of the word in general, or the use of accents with "émigrés"? - SchroCat ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The word specifically, I'm just wondering if there was a purpose to use that term instead of, say "immigrants". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Just for variety - we use "immigrants" a couple of times earlier and "immigration" in the next sentence. I'm fine swapping it over if you think it misleading or something. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 15:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I see your point about avoiding repetition of "immigration" - this is an encyclopedia article, not a Daily Express rant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Wilson 2015, Chapter 2" - did you mean to cite the whole chapter, or should there be specific pages?
LOL. If you think the Mail and Express are bad (and they are), you ought to have seen what the press was saying back then! The Manchester Evening Chronicle in 1905 was banging on about "the dirty, destitute, diseased, verminous and criminal foreigner who dumps himself on our soil". (although I'm sure the Mail would love to print things like this again now!) - SchroCat ( talk) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • This is from Google Books, and the closest I can come to a specific reference is the chapter - SchroCat ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • According to this contemporary map, there is no "t" in "Chesnut Road"
    • Quite right - spell checker was being "helpful"! - SchroCat ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "according to members of the group, both men had criminal records" - could we change "both men" to avoid repetition of "both"?
    • Now tweaked. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "it is not known whether the robbery was politically linked or a more straightforward criminal act" - as we've already mentioned "political element" in this sentence, wouldn't it be simpler to say "whether this was the case or was a straightforward criminal act"?
    • Yep, swapped over - SchroCat ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "the west bank of the River Lea until they crossed the river" - can we lose one of the "rivers"?

And that's about it. No surprises to see the Daily Mail being an apologist for racism; some things never change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • That's great - thanks Ritchie. If you could let me know about the "émigrés" point, I'll have another look. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a minor point, so I don't see any reason to not support at this point, so I will. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks Ritchie - much appreciated. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

I know this area well, so I read this excellent article with great interest, although I was slightly surprised that the Tottenham outrage article wasn't about the even more dastardly Arsenal F.C.. I agree with Ritchie333's final comment too. Just a couple of comments that you are free to ignore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • six miles (9.7 km); nine yards (8.2 m).— In the circumstances, I wonder if the metric conversions are over-precise
  • known Russian revolutionary— Is the "known" necessary?
  • gold, silver and bronze— Usually the lowest value British coins are described as copper, whatever alloy is used
  • Police Constables— Query capitalisation.

Many thanks Jimfbleak - all tweaked accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 15:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise

Hi Gavin, how are you? I hope all is well. Pretty sure I’m going to support, just noticing some very minor stuff.

  • Legacy: “The lengthy procession included white-plumed horses drawing Joscelyne's coffin and black-plumed horses drawing Tyler's; both were draped in a Union Jack, which were escorted by policemen, a police band, men from the local fire brigade, a contingent from Royal Garrison Artillery and tramway employees.” Slightly awkward phrasing in that “which” looks like it is tied to Union Jack, but is then followed by a plural verb. Moisejp ( talk) 02:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • “On her death, the capital sum was paid to the Metropolitan and City of London Police orphanage fund.[63][64][i] Mrs Tyler later married PC Williams, who had taken part in the chase; he died in 1925.” I think this is the same person? If so, it is a bit jarring to read that she was “later married” after her death is mentioned. Moisejp ( talk) 03:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Moise, all is good, thanks; I hope you are also well and thriving. Thanks for the tweaks you've done on this article. I've amended the two points you've mentioned; do they look OK for you now? Cheers. – SchroCat ( talk) 06:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's all good now. This article was a very nice read. Moisejp ( talk) 16:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Moise – much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 18:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

I (lightly) edited this fine and pacy article as I read through in more or less one sitting, so have nothing to grumble about here. Not sure what the scrolling equivalent of a page turner is. Timely and relevant, and am very impressed. Ceoil ( talk) 07:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ceoil - that's much appreciated. Thanks also for the edits. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Malik Shabazz

I think SchroCat has done a fine job of bringing this article to FA standards. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll point out that I've made a few minor edits to this article over the past nine years.[3][4] —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Malik, your thoughts are much appreciated. - SchroCat ( talk) 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

I've come to this cold hopefully I bring a new perspective.

  • Can we make the opening sentence or two a bit ... punchier? I find this one of the hardest parts of writing an article, but the reader should know what the subject of the article is and why they should care within the first few seconds.
  • at the nearby station Police station? Might be worth specifying—"station" without further qualification usually means a railway station, which is what I initially assumed.
    • Yep, added. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Relatedly, is it safe to assume these officers belong to the Metropolitan police?
    • Yes, they are. I've added a link a little further up to say that. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • a pistol borrowed from a member of the public Can we say anything about whether it was unusual for random members of the public to have access to firearms like that, bearing in mind that Britain has never had the American obsession with guns?
    • I've gone back over the sources, and none of them really address this point. The fact that police borrowed guns from FOUR members of the general public (and that the duck shooters also joined in), speaks volumes to us, but not even the newspapers at the time commented that it seemed excessive! – SchroCat ( talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • One policeman commandeered a pony If you're going to link to commandeering (personally I probably wouldn't, but it's a matter of editor judgement), it should be on the first mention.
    • I was in two minds about the link, but decided that it's probably safer to include (someone is bound to link it later, I think), so I've moved the link upwards. – SchroCat ( talk) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Eagles descended pun intended? ;)
  • while entering the room while Lepidus shot himself repetition
  • What's a Coroner's warrant?
    • I've reworded this to make things a bit clearer. – SchroCat ( talk) 21:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • the firearm used by the police It's worth noting here that British police officers didn't (and don't) routinely carry firearms, and a link to police use of firearms in the United Kingdom could be included.
    • I've added a footnote where the first gun was borrowed about the police use. They were issued with guns for night patrol only. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A very nice piece of work. That was all I could find to criticise and even that is mostly nitpicking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

A couple of minor formatting issues:

  • Should the BBC news item be included among the websites rather than the "News articles"? And "BBC News" should not be italicised as it's not a print source.
    • I think it could be in either section, but as it is from BBC News, rather than from one of the other parts of the site, I think it's probably best in the news section. I've tweaked the citation.
  • There's a minor format inconsistency in that the Morgan news item is cited by its title, whereas the others seem to be cited by author's name. Is there a reason for this?
    • None! Now redone. – SchroCat ( talk) 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources look in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian. All readjusted now. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from GRuban

Mostly minor issues, gripping story.

  • The lede states "much of the press coverage was anti-Semitic in nature" without ever having mentioned the two were Jewish. Either remove this until the body, or mention they were before then (it mentions they were Latvian something like 4 times).
  • On that note, "The two Latvians committed suicide at the end of the pursuit." - how about "The two criminals" or "The two robbers" or something in that vein; surely that is the key point, rather than their nationality?
  • The "weapons used" pictures are in the Criminals section, though the text that they illustrate isn't until the Robbery and chase section. Either pics down or text up.
  • "Christian Salnish, who Special Branch considered to be" - whom
  • "£80 in gold, silver and coppers" - copper? Seems strange that only it has the "s"
  • Can we write a few sentences on why, though the police were unarmed, the public generally carried pistols? It seems very surprising that the public was so heavily armed.
  • " Lepidus threatened the conductor with a pistol and ordered him to drive; although he had never driven a tram before, he managed to get the vehicle moving." - "he" is a bit unclear ... how about "the conductor managed" ... ?
  • "window–locked in with her children—she" - seem to have different types of dashes there
  • "he died in 1925.[63] On her death, the capital sum of the money raised for her was paid to the Metropolitan and City of London Police orphanage fund" - date of her death seems called for
  • "The board was also instructed to examine whether the firearm used by the police—the .450 Webley Revolver—was suitable, and whether sufficient numbers had been issued." - In what sense was the revolver used by police? Didn't the ones involved borrow most of their pistols from the public?
  • "The two victims" picture box seems badly titled, given that one picture is of the grave of a policeman, while another memorializes either the whole gun battle, or Lepidus, very debatably a victim. I'd expect Joscelyne.
  • "Although there was some initial confusion about the backgrounds of Helfeld and Lepidus—The Star reported that they were Italians—the actions of the two men led to a debate on immigration control." Dates would be good here - when did the Star report, and then withdraw, that they were Italians, and when was the debate?
  • No pictures of Helfeld and Lepidus?
  • "Donald Rumbelow, in history of the event" - ...his history of...?
  • "£1,0550 in 1909 equates to" - comma after 4 digits?

-- GRuban ( talk) 22:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hours of Mary of Burgundy

Nominator(s): Ceoil ( talk) 11:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Late 15th century book of hours commissioned by a lineage given to a mournful outlook. Following the death of her father, Charles the Bold, Mary of Burgundy became the wealthiest woman in Europe. Opinion shifts as to weather it was commissioned to mark his death or the agreement of her marriage to Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor. The opening 54 pages align to the rarefied and extremely bleak Black books of hours grouping, suggesting it was at first intended to mourn her father and later became a doury. Ceoil ( talk) 11:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • The source link used for most of the images is dead. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I have not found anything on the wayback machine, and the images are are not replaceable from other sources. What are the options here; withdrawal? Id prefer that to removing all the 500 year old pd reproductions. Ceoil ( talk) 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not possible to find any other source that includes these images? Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, done now; replace most, and removed a small few. Ceoil ( talk) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Lingzhi:
  • I would prefer to see "Kren & Mckendrick" formatting style used in the refs rather than "Kren; McKendrick". Use of the semicolon in the latter could easily be mistaken for two separate references.
  • In refs, does "Ingo" refer to Ingo Walther (Walther, Ingo)?
  • Missing ref for " Jenni; Thoss"
  • In Sources but not Notes: Campbell. Stokstad. Wiek.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Have worked through these. Ceoil ( talk) 20:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I intend to review the content, but I'm dealing with sources first.

  • The references in the footnotes would be better formatted consistently with the rest, e.g.<ref>Kren, 21</ref> rather than "See Kren, 21"
  • Refs 5 and 37: page ranges should have ndashes not hyphens, per MoS
  • The language of foreign sources should be stated (Ulrike & Thoss)
  • The format of the Miller book is unclear and/or incomplete. Is this the book in question? "H. Miller" appears to be the publisher rather than the author/translator.
  • location missing from the Woods book

Otherwise, sources look in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. These have now been resolved. Ceoil ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "It was probably commissioned for Mary of Burgundy, then the wealthiest women in contemporary Europe" - what does contemporary Europe refer to? It's not linked or anything, so I don't follow
  • "Its production began around 1470" - Can't begin "around a date", I'd prefer "about" here instead or "circa".
  • "The book has been described as "undoubtedly...among the most important works of art made in the late middle ages...a milestone in the history of art and one of the most precious objects of the late middle ages".[3]" - Shouldn't you bracket the ellipses [...]? Minor nitpick I suppose
  • "and believed intended to mark Charles' death at the Battle of Nancy on 5 January 1477" - something about two verbs next to each other perturbs me
  • "The book of mourning theory" - I get what you're going for here, but I'd tweak it a bit since this reads like a discursive theory rather than a theory about the book itself
  • " Traditionally, pearls represent purity, a transparent veil signifies virtue, while red carnations were often used as symbols of love.[" - I'd add an "and" after purity
  • "Most attention is given to the innovative images" - I'd watch the passive voice here
  • "The text is preoccupied with the rituals of the only a, the litany and the rites of intercessory prayer." - the only a?
  • "seemingly viewed through a contemporary windowsill" - I'd drop the adverb

Always such a pleasure to read your work, Ceoil. This is a well-written and engaging account. Once these comments are addressed, I'll be happy to support. ceran thor 15:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ceranthor, working through these, most are resolved. Ceoil ( talk) 22:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support ceran thor 00:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comment from Tim riley

  • Commission
    • First line – here we have the possessive form Charles' – American style; later we have Charles's – British style. Best to stick with one or the other.
    • "the most wealthy heiress" – I think "the wealthiest heiress" would be a more usual construction. Likewise with "the most wealthy nobility" later in the section.
  • Attribution
    • "to carry some of the lettering" – missing an "out", I think.
    • "van Lathem is attributed" – is it correct to use the lower-case "v" at the start of a sentence?
  • Design
    • "the rituals of the only a, the litany" – something has gone off the rails here, and I can't work out what the intended meaning was.
    • "are painting in such a way" – are painted in such a way? And this sentence veers from plural to singular rather confusingly: we need "the marginalia and drolleries … were sprinkled"; and "in a three dimensional manner that suggests…"
  • Miniatures
    • "viewed through a contemporary windowsill" – I don't think one can see through a windowsill ("a ledge or shelf forming the bottom part of a window frame" – OED). Just "window" is wanted here, I think.
    • "innovator in bring about" - innovator in bringing about?
  • Virgin and Child
    • "what seems to be the words" – perhaps "what seem to be the words"
    • "She is positioned an intimate" – missing an "in" I'd guess.
    • "shutted by boards" – shuttered by boards?
    • "without the usual intersession of saint" – I think we need "intercession" here, and perhaps an indefinite article before "saint".
    • "the figures scale and plasticity" – seems to be missing a possessive apostrophe: figures'.
    • "which as a very small panel painting, is yet" – I'd either lose the comma or add one to open the subordinate clause after "which".
    • "The figure's distance" – plural possessive figures' needed here, I think.
    • "that they are rendering" – that they are rendered?

I hope these points are helpful. – Tim riley talk 18:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tim, yes very helpful, and resolved now I think. Thanks very much for the review. Ceoil ( talk) 22:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject is so far out of my ken that I am diffident about expressing an opinion, but I mustn't sit on the fence: so, from an absolutely lay viewpoint I thought it clear, comprehensive and well and widely sourced. And of course beautifully illustrated. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course, and I add my support. Tim riley talk 15:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, for the review and edits. Ceoil ( talk) 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Chains of Love (TV series)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 ( talk) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that cuffing season is in full effect, you could celebrate it by learning about this rather unique dating game show. In a concept compared to "televised prostitution” by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chains of Love revolves around a man or woman being chained to four members of the opposite sex for four days. Critical reception towards the show was primarily negative, with a majority of the criticism directed at the premise.

This show represents a rather interesting slice of early reality television programming, though I could still see a network like VH1 rebooting this for the controversy. Also, for a bit of television trivia, the development of this show actually indirectly led to the production of a far more famous series known as Fear Factor. This nomination also continues my weird fascination with UPN programming as I have put several other shows from the network through the FAC process in the past. I am looking forward to everyone’s comments. I hope you all have a wonderful day. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moise


  • The second sentence talks about a “man or woman”, then the third sentence is about a group, then the fourth sentence starts with “This person”. It feels a little far, especially when the group was talked about in between. It’d flow better if you could find a way around that. Moisejp ( talk) 05:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the note; I have revised the section. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead ("The program was originally ordered by NBC, before UPN produced it") and in the Production section ("UPN produced Chains of Love, along with three other reality television shows, as part of its "aggressive" campaign to air more unscripted content on the network") is there any reason not to say "UPN began producing" instead of "UPN produced"? It the context it seems like that would flow a lot better. Moisejp ( talk) 11:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, now I see that NBC never actually produced it, and they gave up on it before any episodes were made. Still, I think you could make that transition clearer by changing the wording from simply "UPN produced". Moisejp ( talk) 12:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I am sorry for missing this earlier. I have corrected the two instances pointed out above. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The show was compared to other dating game shows, such as Temptation Island and The Dating Game." I know nothing about those other dating game shows. As a reader, if given this information in the lead, I'm interested to know at least a little about what aspects of these other dating shows was deemed similar, otherwise the sentence is meaningless to me. Moisejp ( talk) 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have revised this to hopefully read better. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Aoba. This looks likely better. (On my second read-through after, I'll have one more check for how everything flows as a whole.) But maybe I wasn't clear in my other comments above, but I was also hoping you could tweak the two instances of UPD produced. I'll continue my review soon. Thanks! Moisejp ( talk) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response! I apologize for missing your earlier comment; I am not sure how that happened. Hope you have a great day. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


  • "John Carman of the San Francisco Chronicle interpreted the Lockmaster as the show's version of the Grim Reaper." I'm not sure what this means. All Carman says is "who is the show's Grim Reaper" and it is not clear what aspects Carman is talking about, or what aspects of the Lockmaster would be realistically comparable to Death personified. Maybe Carman was joking? It's really hard to know. I might suggest removing this sentence. Moisejp ( talk) 06:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. I was actually look at this sentence in particular the other day, and I do admit that it is rather silly. It also generally disrupts the flow of the information being presented either way. I have removed it. Aoba47 ( talk) 07:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "When one contestant remains, the Picker can choose to split the remaining cash with them if he or she feels that a "love connection" has been formed.[1] The Picker can also choose to keep the money for themselves." Here you use two different strategies for designating someone who could be a man or woman ("he or she" / "themselves"). I've always vaguely felt people should decide to use one strategy or the other but not both as they are kind of opposing ways of treating the problem. But it's not a strong opinion, and if you disagree with me, I won't insist. Moisejp ( talk) 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed the "he or she" to "they". Aoba47 ( talk) 14:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


  • "Garfinkle had previously worked on Blind Date.[1] It was also produced by people who were involved in the development of the Big Brother franchise." Could you give more background about these shows for people like me who have never heard of them? Maybe what kind of shows they were and the years they ran, at least. But I guess if you put the years for them, you'd possibly have to start putting the years for all the other shows in the article. Maybe you can find another way to give them little introductions. I have heard of Melrose Place, but if you think it is appropriate, you could give it a mini-introduction too. Some people out there might not know it.
  • Added two descriptive phrases in front of Blind Date and Big Brother. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "it's become more like a soap opera with the competition": I really don't know what this means. Ah, OK, after reading it several times I now think it means that because there is competition among the contestants, the show is like a soap opera. Maybe it would be an idea to paraphrase this quotation. At first I was reading it like "the competing networks were treating it like a soap opera", which doesn't make sense. Moisejp ( talk) 05:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Paraphrase the quote. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "UPN began producing Chains of Love, along with three other reality television shows, as part of its "aggressive" campaign to air more unscripted content on the network." Do you have any information about the circumstances between NBC giving up on it and UPN picking it up? Was it shopped around more, or were there other circumstances that made UPN aware of the opportunity to produce it?
  • Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any further information on this matter. It just appears to me that UPN somehow became aware of the property and that it was n longer being produced by NBC, and then took it. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The New York Times' Bill Carter identified Chains of Love as part of a "second wave of reality shows" " Can you develop this more? When was the first wave? Were the two waves different from each other? What ended the first wave and brought on the second wave? Even if this info isn't used in the current source, maybe you can dig around and find supporting info elsewhere. As it is, the statement doesn't tell us much that we can sink our teeth into. Moisejp ( talk) 05:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Expanded the paragraph. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast history:

  • "Kay explained that UPN had allocated a lower budget for the Chains of Love advertising campaign than it had for Gary & Mike." "Explained" in relation to what? Would a different verb be better here?
  • Replaced verb. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider breaking the last paragraph in this section into two, from "UPN cancelled"? It's not clear how the first part and second part of the para are related. Moisejp ( talk) 05:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree; I have separated the paragraph into two. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception:

  • "On its debut, Chains of Love received primarily negative feedback from television critics.[9][10] Even though he heavily panned the series as "crass, exploitative and demeaning", the San Francisco Chronicle's John Carman wrote that he was interested in watching how each of the men would approach the situation differently." I feel there is a somewhat awkward transition here. The first sentence is all about negative reviews but then the first example (sentence two) is worded in a way that the non-negative is emphasized.
  • I have made a new paragraph with the more positive remarks toward the show and changed the part in the lead associated with the criticism. However, I have kept the first line of the first paragraph as it is cited by the two sources, which both claim that the show received a primarily negative response from critics. I can change that if you feel it is necessary. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Entertainment Weekly's Dan Snierson described it as "the most bizarre and captivating reality series in TV history" due primarily to its premise." This is not negative at all; its describes the show as "captivating". Maybe you need a different topic sentence, which won't set the reader's expectations that the paragraph will mostly be about negative stuff.
  • See above. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph in this section, the statements by reviewers are so short; I urge you to try to develop these more, so that the reader can get deeper understanding of what it all means. The paragraph compares it to a bunch of other shows. What aspects are similar? What are the premises for these other shows being compared to? As I mentioned above, maybe readers (like me) are not at all familiar with these other shows. As I was reading through the paragraph, all the comparisons meant very little to me. Moisejp ( talk) 06:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. I have cut some parts of the paragraph, and added further context to other portions. I can edit it further if you feel that more context is needed or I can remove the paragraph entirely if you do not believe it adds much to the overall article. Thank you again for your review as always. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 7: Harvard error
  • I think that I have corrected this. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 14: link gives 404 message
  • Unfortunately, I could not find an archived version of the site so I have removed the source completely. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 23 and 28 appear identical
  • Thank you for pointing this out; I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There are no citations to Castleman and Podrazik, which should be removed from the book sources
  • Removed. I had thought about using the source, but could not find a good place for it. Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Page ranges (see Bell, also Madger) require ndashes not hyphens
  • Added. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Subject to the above, sources seem of appropriate quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @ Brianboulton: Thank you for the source review! I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

This article looks pretty good written. I give this my support. Good work. Tintor2 ( talk) 16:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 17:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

I'll be posting some comments in a little while. JOE BRO 64 20:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 21:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I feel like some of the quotes, such as "a burly dude in a dark suit and shades" and "creative conflicts with the show's producer" could be paraphrased.
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Put EW in parenthesis after Entertainment Weekly. Some readers may not know what EW means.
  • The EW part is not necessary as the critic was already introduced in the same section so I removed that part. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Later dating shows, Elimidate Deluxe, Lap of Luxury, and Tethered, were described as borrowing elements from Chains of Love - such as?
  • Added more to this part. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all I found. Overall, this is a well-written article, and there wasn't much that I found. Once these comments are addressed, I'll support promotion. JOE BRO 64 11:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @ TheJoebro64: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my concerns. I support this promotion. Good luck! JOE BRO 64 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 17:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Bcschneider53

I cannot find anything in this article that would lead me to oppose it. As the most active member of the Game Shows WikiProject, I will not give an official support as doing so would constitute a conflict of interest, but I do want to congratulate the nominator on a job well done. Best wishes for the rest of this nomination! -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comment! Aoba47 ( talk) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Withypool Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl ( talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of only three late prehistoric stone circles located in the southwestern English county of Somerset. It has been a GA since March and is probably as comprehensive as it can possibly be until archaeologists carry out further excavation of the site. Having brought another stone circle article— Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas—to FA status in April, I would like to try and achieve the same success with this article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Usernameunique

Looks good, and specific comments/suggestions are below; feel free to disregard stylistic points if you disagree, of course. Two general points:

  1. The significance of the site seems split between "Context," where you offer general suggested ideas for the reason being stone circles, and "Investigation," where you give Gray's suggestion that this one was used for cremations.
  2. "Investigation" feels somewhat incomplete. It only covers up to 1909/1925, yet it is clear that there have been investigations at least up to 1989.


"In diameter it measures 36.4 metres (119 feet, 6 inches) across."

"across" is redundant.
Removed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


"with some sources referring to it as Withypool Hill Stone Circle."

How about "and is sometimes referred to as Withypool Hill Stone Circle."
Doing so would switch the prose from active voice to passive voice. Personally, I'm not really fussed about that but there are definitely editors who urge us to use active voice wherever possible, deeming it more engaging for readers. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The site is at a height of 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level."

How about "The site is 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level."
Good idea. Will change. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"two and three-quarter miles south/south-west of Exford."

Every other measurement in the paragraph is converted, why not this one?
Quite right. Added. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"east-southeast ... south/south-west"

Two inconsistencies: 1) east-southeast is separated by a hyphen, and south/south-west by a slash, and 2) southeast doesn't have a hyphen, while south-west does (there are many more examples with the hyphen later on in the article).
I've ensured that everything is standardised. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"a range of different Bronze Age round barrows, or tumuli"

Are you using "round barrows" and "tumuli" are the same thing (if so, do you really need to use both terms?), or that both are visible (if so, use "and" instead of "or")?
These terms are synonymous and I was trying to convey that. Do you think that there is a better way to convey that? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps "a range of different Broze Age round barrows, a type of tumulus..." What's confusing about the current wording is that seemingly synonymous terms link to different articles about different (but very similar) things.
Agreed; I've altered the prose to your suggested variant. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"although this can no longer be seen from Withypool Stone Circle itself."

Why not?
The barrow has been eroded to such an extent that it no longer sticks out of the top of the hill. I have amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The three Brightworthy Barrows ..."

This feels like a lot of red links. Are you thinking of creating articles on them?
Perhaps one day. They certainly all warrant articles, but I'm not sure that I have the time in the near future to go and create articles for all the different barrows on Exmoor. It would be a very time consuming process. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Also visible from the circle is a scatter of over thirty stones on the Westwater Allotment"

What is the significance of this?
It gives a description of the environment surrounding the stone circle; it is probably of importance for individuals interested in the phenomenology of the site? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Westwater Allotment/Withypool Common

What are these?
The names of particular fields in the area. Do you think that this needs to be made more specific? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


"While the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic—which took place with the transition from the fourth to the third millennium BCE—witnessed much economic and technological continuity..."

The part within dashes feels a bit repetitive. What about something like "While the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic in the fourth and third millennia BCE..."
A good alternative. Changed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"and were instead replaced by circular monuments"

I don't think you need "instead." Also, "had been" might be better than "were."
Changed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"These include earthen henges, timber circles, and stone circles. These latter circles..."

Consecutive sentences beginning with "These."
Changed the latter to "Such". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"These stone circles typically show very little evidence of human visitation during the period immediately following their creation. This suggests that they were not sites used for rituals that left archaeologically visible evidence,"

This is somewhat circular, seemingly boiling down to 'These stone circles show little evidence of human visitation. This suggests that archaeologists did not find visible evidence there.'

"The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggested"

Perhaps "suggests"?
Changed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"There are only two known prehistoric stone circles located on Exmoor: Withypool and Porlock Stone Circle. The archaeologist Leslie Grinsell noted that there was a circular stone monument on Almsworthy Common that was "probably" also the remains of a stone circle, although P. J. D. Way argued that it was a rectilinear stone setting, perhaps a series of parallel stone rows."

What about the possible one mentioned in the last sentence under "Location"?
Who is P. J. D. Way, another archaeologist? Do you really need to introduce each person who offers a theory, or is it enough to state what the theory is?
Generally, I find it best to attribute specific theories to the individuals who proposed them, where that is possible. Way was another archaeologist, and I have made that clear in the text now. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Archaeologists have attributed these circles to the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age"

"dated" would be more precise than "attributed"
Should it be "Age" or "Ages"?
I've changed "attributed" to "dated" but I think it should remain "Age" rather than "Ages". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The creation of these different monument types might explain why so few stone circles were apparently created here."

Perhaps "might also explain", since you gave another explanation (bad rock) in the preceding paragraph.
Added. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


"Plan of the site as it existed in 1905 (after Gale 1906)"

Presumably you mean Gray 1906?
Do you really need in-text attribution, or would a footnote do (the "after Gale 1906" could be added to the image page instead)? If you prefer it in-text, what about using ?
You're right, this is not only wrong, but also unnecessary. I've removed it from the article. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Conversely, the following year Burl..."

This is the first time you mention Burl, so perhaps a first name is warranted (but see comment above about including archaeologists' names).
Good idea; I've added some text introducing him. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The stones themselves are small; on average they measure 0.1 metres (4 inches) in height, 0.3 metre (one foot) in width, and 0.1 metres (4 inches) thick."

.1 meter seems small enough that you might consider giving it in centimeters instead.
Done. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


"The site was first rediscovered in 1898"

I don't think you need "first." How about "The site was accidentally rediscovered in 1898..."?
Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"His horse stumbled against one of the stones, and on further investigation he located other stones within the bracken."

The horse located the other stones?
Changed "he" to "Hamilton". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps "stumbled on" rather than "stumbled against"
Changed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"He proffered the suggestion that the circle had been the site of cremations,"

How about just "He suggested"
Changed. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"In August 1909, Gray returned to the site for the first time in nine years."

But you just said that Gray went in August 1905, i.e., four years before August 1909.

"He noted that the circle was in largely the same condition as before, but that the ling and whortleberry bushes around the site were more stunted than they had previously been."

Is the part about the ling and whortleberry bushes relevant? -- Usernameunique ( talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It isn't a major point by any stretch of the imagination, but as the Reliable Source mentions it then we might as well do so too (or at least that was my thinking on the issue). Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and edits Midnightblueowl, and I agree with most of your comments. I've made a response to one comment above (tumuli/round barrows). Additionally, there are three minor points above that you did not respond to (see "This is somewhat circular...", "What about the possible one...", and "But you just said that Gray went in August 1905..."), and the two broader points at the top (numbered 1 and 2). But I look forward to seeing you address these points, and to supporting your nomination afterwards. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


  • The site was rediscovered in 1898 - excavated?
  • As far as I can see, it has never actually been excavated, so "rediscovered" is (I think) the most appropriate term here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "rediscovered the term used in the literature? It can see from the photographs that its quite buried and not obviously a stone circle. Ceoil ( talk) 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The site is 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level.[3] - this to me is a random factoid, as is that it is 670.25 meters (733 yards) east/south-east of Portford Bridge - would remove.
  • The reliable sources provide it, so in general I would be inclined to retain it. I can appreciate the view that it seems a little random, although it does perhaps convey interesting information about the landscape in which it is situated - i.e. we are dealing with quite a high up position in the land. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Fine. Ceoil ( talk) 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delighted to see "The Modern Antiquarian" in external links. Ceoil ( talk) 00:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support - my minor quibbles notwithstanding. Ceoil ( talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look....

  • The village of Withypool is mentioned in the lead but not in the body. As well that first sentence is a bit repetitive - hard to do anything about but how about something like, "Withypool Stone Circle, also known as Withypool Hill Stone Circle, is a stone circle located within the Exmoor moorland in the south-western English county of Somerset. . Lying [distance and direction] from the village of Withypool, ..."
  • A range of different Bronze Age round barrows, a type of tumuli - shouldn't "tumuli" be singular here?

Otherwise looking good WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Looks pretty good. Points:

  • Lead para 2: "Although there were a large number of monuments construction in Exmoor during the Bronze Age, ..." needs something
  • "This scarcity of large stones may explain why Neolithic and Bronze Age communities used small stones, termed "miniliths", ... This suggests that larger stones would have been available had the sites' builders desired, and that the use of miniliths was therefore deliberate." - perhaps one of the sources makes the point that miniliths might be all that a mini-workforce could handle?
  • "The stones themselves are small; on average they measure 10 centimetres (4 inches) in height, 30 centimetres (one foot) in width, and 10 centimetres (4 inches) thick.[5] The largest stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground..." Somewhat confusing - "height" seems to be taken from their current orientation, and so on. Is the 0.5 m a height? Might be better to clarify this, or just give all dimensions & explain the old + new positions clearly. Height + width + "thick" is odd - one would expect "length" or "depth" to make up the trio, but as I say, it might be best to abandon oriented terms.

Johnbod ( talk) 14:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Revival (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer ( talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an American comic book series that ran for 47 issues before ending earlier this year. The plot is a twist on the zombie genre. It became a GA in June and has been mostly stable since then. Most of the recent changes were suggestions from the previous two FACs. The first one failed because some sources were challenged. I was encouraged to work with the oppose before re-nominating. I provided detailed explanations of each challenged source here and invited the opposer to discuss. They have never responded. The second FAC did not attract enough comments to pass. Third time's the charm, right? Pinging previous commenters @ Aoba47: @ 1989: @ Ian Rose: @ Ealdgyth: @ Slightlymad: Argento Surfer ( talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • For the first sentence in the lead (Revival is a horror-science fiction comics series described by its creators as "a rural noir”.), I would specify who the “creators” are (i.e. Tim Seeley and Mike Norton) in order to avoid potential confusion.
  • I am not certain about the following sentence (Set in central Wisconsin, Revival follows the aftermath of one day when the dead came back to life and the ensuing intrigue.). I am not sure if that “of one day” part is absolutely necessary as the phrase could be shortened to (Revival follows the aftermath of the dead coming back to life). Also these two parts (the aftermath) and (the ensuing intrigue) seems to be talking about the same thing so it seems a little too repetitive. If these two ideas are different, then it needs to be further unpacked.
  • For this part (, but touches on religious, moral and social themes), I would change it to (, while touching on religious, moral and social themes) as I am not sure if the “but” construction is the best approach for this context.
  • Are you using the Oxford comma in this article? You do use it in this instance (with art by Mike Norton, coloring by Mark Englert, and covers by Jenny Frison) but not in this other instance (but touches on religious, moral and social themes).
  • For this sentence (Although the conclusion was determined from the beginning, the exact length of the series was determined by sales.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “determined”.
  • This is more of a nitpick, but I would change the ALT text for the main infobox image. I think it would be more valuable to provide a brief physical description of the character rather than just say the character’s name. If a reader has not read this before, then just saying “Em” may not be that helpful in the end.
  • This is more of a clarification question. For this sentence (Everyone who died within a few miles of Wausau, Wisconsin, on January 1 returns to life on January 2.), does the comic provide a year for these dates?
  • I am a little confused by this part (It is led by Detective Dana Cypress). First, you identified Dana as a police officer in the lead. Second, I am not sure if “Detective” needs to be capitalized or not.
  • I am not sure about this sentence (The revivers are now immortal and heal from all wounds.). Something about the “now” reads a little weird to me, and I am not sure if it is needed.
  • I would introduce the concept of “Revival Day” in the first sentence just to make it clear what it means.
  • Do you think it would be more helpful to move the image in the “Plot summary” section to the top so it would be closer to the part in which the “creeps”/“glowing men” are first introduced.
  • In this section, you refer to some characters by their first names “Dana” and “Em” and others by their last names “Majak” and “Holt”. It is not a major issue for me, but I wanted to point it out to you.
  • Should Revival Day be in quotation marks? There are a few instances where it is in quotation marks, and a few instances where it is not in quotation marks.
  • I was a little confused by this sentence (He also considered using her in Hack/Slash, but that version eventually became Acid Angel.), particularly this section (but that version eventually became Acid Angel). Could you possibly explain what you mean by this?
  • Please link White Noise in the following sentence ( They were inspired by Don DeLillo's novel White Noise, which follows people trying to escape an approaching cloud but no one knows what it actually is.).
  • “The Walking Dead” is linked multiple times in the article.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

    • I have made the requested changes. I prefer to refer to characters by last name, but used "Dana" and "Em" in this case because they share a last name. If you find this distracting, I do not oppose using first names for everyone. Argento Surfer ( talk) 14:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing my comments. As for the point on names, I understand what you mean now and I think that it makes the most sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I support this for promotion, and good luck this time around with this article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a great day and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Refs 3, 19, 25: What makes "Bleeding Cool" a high quality, reliable source?
  • Ref 18: The link seems to go to the wrong page – I can't locate the source title there.
  • Ref 35: What makes "SKTCHD" a high quality, reliable source?
  • Ref 47: Ditto "Comic Crusaders" – it advertises itself as "by fans for fans"
  • Ref 63: Why the italics (see 4, 46, 55)? Also, the retrieval date format should be consistent with all the others.

Note: questioning a source's reliability does not mean I'm assuming it's unreliable. I just need more information. Subject to the above queries, sources look in good order. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @ Brianboulton:
    • Bleeding Cool has been referenced by reliable sources like Comics Beat, Newsarama, Multiversity, and [5].
    • That's...bizarre. CBR seems to have deleted it. I have replaced it with a new link to Multiversity.
    • SKTCHD writer David Harper is regularly referenced by other reliable sources.
    • Comic Crusaders is a review site with editorial oversight. The reference is paired with another from Newsarama to show that multiple reviewers felt it stood out among other zombie comics at the time. I'm ok with removing it if need be.
    • Two of the italic references were due to templates. I have corrected them. The last one is italic because it's actually a print source, not a website like all the others. I can change it too, if you think that would be best. Argento Surfer ( talk) 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moise

Hi Argento, just working my way through the article.


  • “Although Frison was planned to create the covers from the beginning, Norton provided the design for the cover of the first issue”: Here “was planned to” feels a little awkward to me. Is there another way to word this? Moisejp ( talk) 16:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Does "Although the team planned for Frison to create the covers from the beginning..." work better? I have already made the edit. Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Williams (conservator)

Nominator(s): Usernameunique ( talk) 13:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Williams was a conservator at the British Museum before conservation was recognized as a profession, and as an early figure in an emerging field, he reconstructed a number of world famous artifacts. When only 23 he was tasked with restoring the Sutton Hoo helmet, regarded as “the most iconic object” from "one of the most spectacular archaeological discoveries ever made", and near the end of his life he took to pieces and reconstructed the Portland Vase, “probably the most famous glass object in the world”. He spent his entire career, and most of his life, working at the museum, and died while in Jordan to work on an excavation.

Like Williams’s life, this article is short but complete. It draws on all the available sources for his life, and for his life’s work. Thorough yet concise, it focuses on someone whose job was to work in the back rooms of a world class institution, and comprehensively details his life, his career, and his contributions to the field of conservation. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 13:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, only a slight change is needed - FUR for File:Nigel_Williams_with_Portland_Vase.jpg should link directly to this article, not a dab. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the (extremely fast) image review, Nikkimaria. Fixed the link. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 15:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • The two works by Williams that are cited should be listed separately, as they are sources for this article while the others are not.
  • Preferably, ISBNs should be standardised in 13-digit form. This is a useful converter.

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. Should ISBNs be 13 digits even if the copyright pages only list 10 digit numbers? Also, do you mean that I should move the two Williams works in question into the bibliography section? It feels a bit odd to break up his list of works. How about instead making "Bibliography" it's own section (rather than a sub-section of references), and making "Works by Williams" a sub-section thereof? -- Usernameunique ( talk) 21:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The recent trend at FAC is to convert 10-digit to 13-digit format, to achieve presentational uniformity. On the other point, if you wish to keep the Williams oeuvre intact, you could subdivide the list between "Cited sources" and "Other works". Brianboulton ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thanks for the explanation. I've reformatted the ISBNs (and added dashes as appropriate, which that tool is also useful for). I'm not quite sure what you mean by "subdivide the list between 'Cited sources' and 'Other works'", but I have reordered the list of works—please let me know if it is appropriate as stands. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Declaring my interest at the outset, I undertook the GAR. I thought then, and think now, that this is a fine article. The prose is of a high standard and, to the best of my knowledge, the article covers the major events of Williams's significant, but sadly short, life. The sourcing is impressive and I am relieved to see that the Sources review has not identified any major issues. The images are well-chosen and the whole article presents a balanced view of Williams's considerable achievements. Overall, an article that merits Featured Article status. KJP1 ( talk) 22:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Pretty close; I've made small changes. Could do with detail at some points - where in Surrey? Which Roman mosaic (and a link)? Ancient Greek vase painting or Pottery of Ancient Greece need a link. The cryptic "Icon" in the notes needs explaining better. Johnbod ( talk) 14:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and suggestions, Johnbod. Added the links, and changed "Icon" to "Institute of Conservation." Unfortunately Williams's obituaries do not say where in Surrey he was born, or what mosaic he helped lift. Perhaps Abila.pao, who wrote one of them, has an idea? -- Usernameunique ( talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

Nominator(s): Display name 99 ( talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson was one of the most prominent Americans in the early 19th century. As a young lawyer from Tennessee, he helped the territory gain statehood and served briefly in both houses of Congress. He later became a Federal judge and commander of the state militia. During the War of 1812, Jackson led an army that defeated first the Red Stick Indians and later the British at New Orleans, securing the American frontier and granting the country one of its greatest military victories at the time. His controversial invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 was done without explicit orders, but the end result was the acquisition of that territory by the United States. From 1829 until 1837, Jackson served as president. He led a popular movement consisting largely of poor workers and farmers against what he saw as undemocratic control of government by the elites. Jackson replaced officeholders, preserved the union during the Nullification Crisis, waged a successful war against the Second Bank of the United States, secured favorable agreements with foreign countries, instigated the forced removal of thousands of American Indians, supported slavery, and recognized the Republic of Texas. Amongst historians and the general public, Jackson is extremely divisive. His reputation has fluctuated considerably, and scholarly assessments of his life and presidency in particular are remarkably varied. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Indian Removal Act map, Democratic cartoon, and Panic of 1837 images
I scaled up the Indian Removal Act and Panic of 1837 images, but decided against doing the same for the Democratic cartoon. That's mainly because it aligns so well with the 1832 election map. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Flag_of_Tennessee.svg could do with half as many copyright tags
I got rid of two of them. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Andrew_Jackson_bust.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson_Tomb.jpg
Added. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like there are some template issues - the former is now showing a USGov tag for the photo, which doesn't seem to mesh with the original information? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Must have put that in there by accident. It's out now. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Andrew_Jackson_Portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson,_by_Ralph_Eleaser_Whiteside_Earl,_c._1788_-_1838.png, File:WilliamCRives.png, File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:Isaac_Brock_portrait_1,_from_The_Story_of_Isaac_Brock_(1908)-2.png
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
For File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, is there an earlier publication to support the new tag? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed the tag. The photographer is unknown. The source cited is a book from 2000. I have no publication date earlier than that. But everything's cited, so I don't think there should be a problem. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Per the life+70 tag currently in place, we do need an additional tag indicating the work's status in the US. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:JacksonAssassinationAttempt.jpg: source links are dead, tagged as lacking author info
Added new link. Regrettably could not find author info. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:USS_Porpoise_(1836).jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
Added new link and tag. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:US_$20_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info, and can you confirm it meets point 1 of the given tag? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with this one. I can't find a URL that shows a bill with the same serial number. The "author" is obviously just the US Treasury Department. Not sure what else can be done here. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. The immediate source is a user-generated scan, and the original source is a design from the Treasury - we just need to write that out, with details (eg. which design version) to make things explicit. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I have responded to all of your above points. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Initial comment: There's an awful lot to trawl through here, which will take some time. Meanwhile, a couple of general points could be dealt with:

  • Format: Five columns for the citations is too many – it squashes the information unnecessarily. I'd recommend reduce to three, or four at most.
  • Many (if not all) of your page ranges show hyphens. These should be converted to ndashes.
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be back with a more detailed report when I've gone through the list. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Nit: It's just setting the width of the columns (I have 9 columns across), it'll be as many columns as your resolution can support. That said, 15em is a little tight, so I just amped it up a tad to 22em. SnowFire ( talk) 00:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI: I'm a college freshman and finals are starting to hit this week. So please give me some time with coming up with responses and implementing recommended changes. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thank you for your review. Your comments have been addressed. Do you think you can get to the rest of the review anytime soon? Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at it now. Expect comments in a day or so Brianboulton ( talk) 14:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Detailed sources comments

Here are my comments from my first pass of the source section:

  • Although you say you've replaced the hyphens in page ranges with ndashes, you've not done this thoroughly – there are many hyphens still present.
Done Hoppyh ( talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 17: how is this a high quality, reliable source?
The biographical info on Remini I have reviewed indicates he is a widely published, award winning academic on Jackson and other presidents. Hoppyh ( talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hoppyh, he was referring to something else. The citation numbers got changed up a bit after he did his initial review. What was previously citation 17 came from an online source that I ended up removing. But thanks for your help on the article. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Hoppyh ( talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 20: appears identical to the source in ref 3
Looks ok. Hoppyh ( talk) 16:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I replaced one of these sources. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 25: These genealogy websites are not generally considered as reliable. Try to find anopther source.
I think this is now #24 and I believe we can remove the sentence which utilizes this ref. Thoughts? Hoppyh ( talk) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I decided to keep the sentence-it's important contextually. But I did get a new source. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 36: page range requires pp. not p. (There may be others similiar, take a careful look)
Done. All look good. Hoppyh ( talk) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 39: This looks on the face of it to be a university source, but on examination it seems to be a student project. Read this. I thus have doubts about its quality and reliability
Replaced. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 43: I don't see any reference to "The Andrew Jackson Foundation" which you name as publisher
Changed to "The Hermitage." Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 91: appears identical to 31
Fixed. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 117: The publisher appears to be "ThoughtCo". I don't know where "About Education" comes from
Fixed. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 139 and 140: Titles not represented in the source
Fixed. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 147: What makes this a high quality, reliable source?
  • Ref 149: Link not working
Fixed. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 153: needs subscription template added
  • Ref 160: A page number is required - the book has 1,928 pages
Removed. Unable to find relevant information in source. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 162: Needs publisher. Not "" which is merely the online facilitator. Who published the book?
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 164: Not working. I get "The Andrew Jackson site has been retired from"
Source replaced. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 177: Syrett needs a "p." A publisher is required for "President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832"
Syrett removed. Not needed. Publisher added. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 180: p. range format inconsistency
Fixed. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 181: Website blocked - "potentially dangerous content"
Not sure what to say here. I tried it and did just fine. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 203: Publisher details missing
Fixed. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 213: Not working: "404 File not found"
Click on where it says "Archived." Display name 99 ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 218: Not working – repeated timeouts
It works for me. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 219: Who publishes this?
A website is given. That should be enough. They don't all have clear publishers. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 224: "James" Catron?
Fixed. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 243: Page reference missing
Added. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 250: Page reference missing
Source replaced. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 253: Why is "Masonic Research identified as publisher? I can't see nay reference to it.
Removed. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 254: The format seems wrong in terms of title and publisher
  • Ref 255: Publisher details missing
Publisher added. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 263: Publisher details missing
Removed per terrible formatting and the fact that another source seemed to take care of the information. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 264: provides insufficient detail
Removed along with text in question. Unable to verify. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 265 and 267: Similar format issues to 254
  • Ref 268: publisher details should not be abbreviated.
This source has been removed. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • More generally: there are issues relating to italicization. Some of these appear to arise from the frequent confusion of website name ("work") with the publisher, i.e. the owner of the website. However, before tackling this, I advise you to tackle the lengthy list of specific queries, above. Give me a ping when you think you're through.

Brianboulton ( talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Good to see all the hard work that has gone on here.


  • I really think that mention of Jackson's leadership of the Democratic Party needs to be mentioned in that very first paragraph. It is of great importance. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably a tad too long. It currently stands at 25 lines long (at least in my browser), which is one line longer than FA-rated political biographies of equal (if not greater) importance like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin. To that end I would recommend trying to get that second paragraph trimmed back a little bit. For instance, we could get rid of material like "(now part of Tennessee)". Other areas of prose could be condensed: "he was appointed a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court, serving from 1798 until 1804" could easily become "he served as a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1798 to 1804". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I cut down on it using a couple of the suggestions you mentioned along with some others. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Born in the Waxhaws, Jackson" - perhaps a tad more on his ethnic background here; "Born in the Waxhaws to Scots-Irish migrants, Jackson"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been able to determine if one is more proper than the other. Therefore, I left it alone. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "winning a major victory at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend" could easily become "winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "In reaction to the alleged "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Henry Clay and the ambitious agenda of President Adams" feels a bit clunky. How about "Reacting against Adams' alleged "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay,". Shorter and more succinct. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It's shorter because it removes the part about Adams's agenda. If you can find a way to increase brevity without changing content or meaning, that would be excellent. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • " thoroughly dismantled the Bank" - perhaps scrap "thoroughly"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it works well. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "dispossessed the Indians" - probably best to avoid the use of "Indians" in the lede (unless referring to something like the Indian Removal Act) given the disputed nature of the term. "Natives" would do just as well and lacks many of the problems of "Indians". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think they're both fine. I know a guy who met a "Native American." The "Native American" allegedly that people like him should be referred to as "American Indians" because, in his view, anybody born in the U.S. is a "Native American." I don't think it matters. You can't please everybody. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "as an advocate for the causes of democracy and the common man" works just as well as "as an advocate for democracy and the common man". Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thank you for taking the time to do this review. I have responded to your comments above. I have not chosen to implement all of the reforms that you have suggested. However, I did manage to cut the lead down in size by a little bit. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

ZETA (fusion reactor)

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am re-FACing this article. It stalled out after two supports about a month ago. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the ZETA fusion reactor built in the UK in the 1950s, the largest and most powerful reactor of its era. ZETA is representative of the fusion field's history - a theoretical breakthrough suggests a new route to fusion power, a reactor is built to take advantage of the design, it proves not to work, and fixing it requires a larger and more expensive design. Unlike other examples, however, ZETA had the rather unfortunate problem of announcing it was successful in very public fashion in newspapers around the world and then having to retract the claim. In spite of this embarrassing event, ZETA went on to have a very productive career and provided several important advances in the field.

Sources review

  • Ref 27: Publisher?
It's a patent, I don't think it has a publisher, per se.
  • Ref 50: Needs ndash in page range, not hyphen
Looks like XOR did this edit.
  • Ref 109: Is the source here the book, in which case a page reference should be given? If the source is this online article, this should be clarified and the ISBN removed.
Good point, I have changed this to a web ref.
  • Ref 118: The source seems devoid of information that supports the text
The cite is connected to his win on the JCM for the the ballooning transformation and more broadly his work in fusion. The body mentions "played a major part in developing the "ballooning transformation" for toroidal plasmas".
  • Ref 121: I'm getting repeated timeouts here
I tried three times, once last night and twice this morning, with no problem. It's, I'm not sure it will ever be speedy, but I suspect your problem is because your local server hadn't accessed it recently and didn't have it cached. It might work fine now.
  • Sources: The Hill book is wrongly titled.
I cut and pasted the title from the Google page, can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Other than these points, sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've started addressing these points. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by IP

What's a "shot?" You use this in quotes three times. Use a real word, please. I think, from starting to read the article, some of the jargon is used incorrectly, shortened phrases that slightly change meaning, mixing up somewhat close technical words. I found the article tricky to read because of this. I started editing, but there's too much. I enjoy reading FAs. I would not read this. -- 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2 ( talk) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@ 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2: I added an explanation of "shot". Can you be more specific on the others? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Greek battleship Salamis

Nominator(s): Parsecboy ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC) and Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 05:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Salamis was a Greek capital ship project that arose in the naval arms race between Greece and the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, shortly before the Balkan Wars that involved the two countries, and more importantly for this ship, World War I, since that war ensured the ship would not be completed. Salamis represented years of development work, arguments between elements of the naval command, machinations behind the back of the Greek Prime Minister, and ultimately, protracted contract disputes between the builder and the Greek government. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Battleship_Salamis.jpg: is this image original to that source, or does it provide attribution? Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • There is no credit given in the source - many of the photos in Conway's are credited as being part of the Conway Picture Library, but the illustrations like this one are not. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Added the three potential names. (None are specifically identified in the text, as Parsecboy said; they're just given a general attribution alongside the authors at the very beginning of the book.) Happy to email a screenshot if needed! Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ed, I hadn't thought to look for that. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Nothing wrong with the sources, which are entirely appropriate and of the right quality. However, I find your choice of "Footnotes", "Endnotes" and "References" as headings a little odd. "Footnotes" and "Endnotes" esentially mean the same thing (I don't remember seeing "endnotes" used in this context before). The three elements would be bettter combined as subsections under a single level-2 heading, which I suggest should be "Notes and references", with level-3 subheadings: "Notes", "Citations" and "Sources". You don't have to adopt my proffered wordings, but they would be much better within a single main section.
  • The only format error I can find is a "p." missing in 22

No other issues. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Brianboulton, thanks for the review! I fixed the pp. The sections were my choice, I believe; I've used them before. It's a division built on MOS:FNNR, with explanatory footnotes/citation endnotes/general references. Parsecboy, I wouldn't object if you wanted to edit the sections. Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 04:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not a critical issue, but I believe some thought should be given as to whether the present arrangement represents best practice. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The formatting I usually use is this. I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. What are your thoughts, Brianboulton? Parsecboy ( talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "(Greek: Σαλαμίς or Σαλαμινία)": WP:LEAD has been tightened up within the last year. Now it permits "a single foreign language equivalent name" in the lead sentence, so pick one or the other.
    • Trimmed the second one.
  • I don't follow "which contributed to her classification as a battlecruiser", since you're calling the ship a battleship, so I removed the related text from the lead. Give it another whack. - Dank ( push to talk) 04:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • There was a line in an earlier version of the article about how the ship has been called a battleship and a battlecruiser, but that fell out somewhere along the way - how does this strike you? Parsecboy ( talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Looks good, back soon. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "the outbreak of World War I in August": I don't object to that, the case can be made for August, but is it consistent with our other WWI articles?
  • "The hull ... She": Is a hull a "she"? - Dank ( push to talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There was a passage in Development that seemed ambiguous to me; I tried "The Ottomans ordered the dreadnought Reşadiye in August 1911, threatening Greek control of the Aegean. The Greeks were faced with a choice of conceding the arms race, or ordering new capital ships of their own." Does that work? - Dank ( push to talk) 22:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Still, the British had hopes of obtaining the contract after the number of British officers that had been seconded to the Greek Navy in recent years.": Seems ambiguous to me.
  • "Hovering over all of these was the possibility that the dreadnoughts of the South American dreadnought race could be put up for sale." Hovering in what way? The connection should be mentioned first.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from PM

Just a few comments from me:

  • "the invitation of a British naval mission" - to do what exactly?
  • suggest using the Ottoman names for the two pre-dreadnoughts bought from Germany
  • Armstrong's proposal was higher in what respect, cost?
  • link beam, draft and displacement
  • where were the TT to be located?
  • suggest linking Cabinet (government) and dropping initial cap
  • just check that you consistently use future tense when discussing any bits of the ship that weren't actually fitted, for example "and they were (to be) electrically operated." Mainly around the armament, turrets etc
    • Yeah, I wondered about that, since the turrets were fitted, just to other vessels. I could go either way on this - Ed, do you have an opinion? Parsecboy ( talk) 15:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "soon shift to the Ottomans in the near future" is a bit redundant, ie soon and near future. Trim?
  • Are there ISSN's available for the journals?

Otherwise, looking good. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Much like it's central character, after over 20 years of being imprisoned in sub-GA status, The Shawshank Redemption has acquired a rock hammer (me) to dig a tunnel to GAdom, and now we just need a Red to help us escape, crawl through a tunnel of shit (FA nomination process) and come out clean on the other side as a Featured article. Which one of you will be Red to this article's Andy? Which of you will be Warden Norton only to be overcome by hope? TL;DR, think this article is pretty good, would appreciate input. Thanks in advance. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but I strongly suggest you go through the references before someone reviews them, as there are quite a few formatting errors and inconsistencies. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I've taken a quick look and I've addressed what I can find. Was there anything specific you noticed or is there a tool to help point things out? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, there are issues with the use of |publisher= vs |work=/|newspaper= - publications like the Los Angeles Times should use the latter. Also, should use a timecode to specify where we can find specific facts cited to a video, and citations to multiple pages should use pp. rather than p. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok I will have a look after work. The publisher v work thing never seems to be consistently applied across articles, since sometimes I have no issue on FA noms and sometimes I do. With the references being websites and publishers routinely changing, I considered the paper to be the publisher of the information, but I can fix these. I thought all time codes were present but I'll take a look at these to. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Nikkimaria:, I've tried to address the issues. After reading through Template: Cite web, I learned that the preference is to use the "website" parameter and that "publisher" becomes largely redundant when doing that. It seemed to make more sense since they are websites being cited so I've changed them over. Hopefully that is the right thing to do. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
That's considerably better, although a few things have moved that shouldn't have (a good check is to see if the article about the source italicizes it - if no, the citations probably shouldn't). Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I've taken another pass Nikkimaria, it's quite hard. Like I switched Rotten Tomatoes from "website" to "work" but that still italicizes it, but reading template: web cite, the publisher would be fandango not Rotten Tomatoes, so there's no field I could use to not italicize it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I just want to comment that with this article on my watch list (and having contributed to it before), DWB has done an amazing job over the last few months elevating it from its prior state to bring it here. I'm not saying its flawless (see other comments), but I'm pretty confident this meets the key FAC aspects, and should more help be needed, I'll try to throw my hat in. -- ASEM ( t) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

Initial comments after skimming and doing some minor copy edits:

  • Why is some of the cast bullet listed, while the rest are listed in paragraph form?
  • The Music subsection contains two paragraphs and an image that are marked out as hidden comments. Why?
  • "Andy's incarceration between 1946 and 1966 (1947 and 1975 in the novel), largely overlaps with Nixon's presidency which ended in disgrace." The 1946-66 range doesn't overlap Nixon's presidency at all; 1947-75 overlaps it completely, but that is the novel, not the subject of this article.
  • "Despite its poor box office returns, The Shawshank Redemption opened to generally positive reviews." The mention of "poor box office" is repetitive since it is mentioned multiple times in the previous section. Also, most reviews are released before box office returns are known, so positive reviews do not happen "despite" the box office.
  • I spotted various phrasings that seem odd for an encyclopedia article; for example: "earning a spell", "the like of which", "male-centric".

Will attempt a more thorough reading/review later. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The bulleted cast are the people billing as starring roles per the poster and infobox. The rest are in paragraph form to avoid a long list of minor roles.
  • That was information present in the article before I started work on it but couldn't find a source for it, I've removed it.
  • If I change it to partially and mention the novel largely overlaps would that make a difference? It's from a book on the film, and it's suggesting a basis for the character of Warden Norton, so i think it's inclusion in some form would be useful, but I get what you're saying.
  • thanks for the advice, I've rewrote this.
  • I've tried to rectify the ones you've noted let me know if you find any more. I think "male-centric" is a reasonable word though? Could change to male-orientated maybe.
  • Thanks for taking the time to review this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 3: content behind paywall, therefore needs subscription template
  • Ref 21: The source article is from The Observer, not The Guardian
  • Refs 33 and 45 appear to be identical
  • Ref 93: There's no need to replicate the capitals, which look shouty and out-of-place here.
  • Ref 121: Ref shows a different title from the source.

Otherwise, sources seem thoroughly prepared, consistently formatted, and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Brian. I've added the subscription template for Ref 3, removed duplicate reference 45, sorted the CAPS on ref 93 and deadurl'd ref 121, seems they replaced it with a more up to date version. For Ref 21, it says the Observer but when I click the Observe link it brings me to the Guardian website with the Observer as a subsection. Searching the review brings me back to the original link, so I don't know if it should remain the Guardian or the Guardian would be the publisher and The Observer would be the work. Any advice? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If you use "work= The Observer" rather than "website= The Guardian", you'll get the necessary italicisation without disturbing anything else. This could be done generally for all those cases where the original source was a newspaper or journal. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Southern boobook

Nominator(s): Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This article got a thorough going-over at GAN and I think is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)\

Image review

  • Have to say, I'm having trouble figuring out from the legend which of the map colours is meant to be which - for example, which of the greens is pale and which is dark?
that was tricky....I will see what I can do - i.e. make the range map of one subspecies paler and eliminate the political boundaries. ok I made the pale green more unambiguously paler and removed the political colours, leaving all land not inhabited by this bird white. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay... what is the colour covering most of Australia? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It is the cream colour denoting the range of subspecies ocellata Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Ninox_boobook_fusca_Keulemans.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I agreed with Nikkimaria; I had an issue with the legend as well. Perhaps the legend could have things like to supplement the name of the colour? Umimmak ( talk) 01:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
okay, I think I can come up with something in a few hours where I have a spell of time and can focus on it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Umimmak

I don't feel like I have enough experience to support or oppose. I have some initial notes and questions; feel free to do with as you please.

Lede, infobox, and Taxonomy

  • [Addendum: Infobox image: do you want to specify this is S. b. boobook, not any other subspecies? 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
added subspecies Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • [Addendum: How do you pronounce "boobook", this is an unfamiliar word to me, at least and I can think of at least three plausible pronunciations: /bubuk/, /bubʊk/, or /boʊboʊk/. And as a general note, maybe it isn't standard for ornithologists but all of these pronunciation spellings of the calls aren't super clear. For "mopoke", e.g., I could imagine it trying to represent a call like /moʊpoʊkeɪ/ or /mɑpoʊk/, but as the source also has "morepork", which presumably reflects a non-rhotic pronunciation, I guess it's something like /moʊpoʊk/. It might be helpful if prounciations of the English representations of the calls can be added in with reliable sources 03:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC).]
it's pronounced "boo" (as in a ghost says..) "book" (that which you read). Come to think of it I haven't seen a source for this....will look. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I noted my suggestion re the map colour above
  • How are the author citations for Ninox boobook and Strik boobook both Latham, 1801? Missing parentheses?
oops, added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • IUCN should be updated to reflect the new 2016 version, and should be cited as suggested in Template:IUCN
tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • [Addendum: Perhaps the taxobox should also list the subspecies? Or at least mention how many there are. 03:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
link added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Parentheses around subgenera should not be italicized.
got it...I think Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "A local Aboriginal word" -- do we just not know which language? local to which area?
local to the Sydney area. See the next para. I am pondering how to reorder this added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "this is now regarded as a synonym." The word "now" is unhelpful ( MOS:CURRENT) -- say who synonymized it and when, or use the Template:As of to note it was in 2017 when you checked whichever database.
it was realised it was a synonym from early on. Took out "now" Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "renaming S. boobook to Ieraglaux (Spiloglaux) bubuk." I'm confused, so he just randomly decided to invalidly emend the specific name?
aah the old days. there was more of this going on in the early days of taxonomy. If I can find an RS that explains I can add as a footnote. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • S. maculatus all of a sudden gets mentioned like the reader should be familiar with it. I'm presuming this is some other species than than another synonym (like S. marmoratus), so wikilink?
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And so your list of synonyms doesn't reflect all combinations which are synonymous, then, since you only have A. marmorata, not S. marmoratus? Which is standard?
good point. it isn't listed in the source for some reason... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • More of "the native name", okay maybe we don't know which language but do we know where Dawes or Caley asked for the indiginous name? Like what you do later for Gould.
See above - I will look up and add something on this Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Dutch naturalist Gerlof Mees and evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr" makes it seem like Mayr is Dutch as well
added Mayr's nationality Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • [Addendum: Who transferred it Ninox was it Mees in 1964? 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
Blyth in 1849 was the first - added this now. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • why did you italizice the *b* in "cytochrome b"? And that should probably be wikilinked.
I often saw it italicized..however our page does not have it such so de-italicized. And linked now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it kosher to just refer to a specific name by itself as you do for "leucopsis", "novaeseelandiae", and "connivens"?
possibly a tad informal...I will rectify tweaked now. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have any secondary sources that talk about Wink et al.'s and Gwee et al.'s studies? How were they received by others?
Gwee's is really recent, but will likely see the addition and subtraction of subspecies. Winks helped confirm the split accepted by the IOC world birdlist (consensus bird taxonomy worldwide), though they cite Schodde there... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "A 2017 study by Singapore-based biologist Chyi Yin Gwee and colleagues [...], In a 2017 paper, Gwee and colleagues" -- this makes it seem like they're not the same paper.
oops, removed 2nd intro. must have forgotten that Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


  • [Addendum: caption should be capitalized, and I personally think it should give credit to the illustrator, viz., John Gerrard Keulemans 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Eleven subspecies are recognised by the IOC" Template:As of? This is esp important in case they change due to Gwee et al's recommendations. It also might be better to have more of an introduction here, say which subspecies have been suggested to be reclassified by Gwee et al., for instance.
have added version and date of publication. Am coy about speculating future additions and subtractions (which are almost inevitable) - they are listed in text anyway Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Type localities of the subspecies?
damn there are alot of these... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Casliber: like I said I don't consider myself an expert in FA bird articles; I just wanted to raise the issue and see if excluding them was made for a reason. Maybe if not for the subspecies perhaps at least for the species as a whole? Umimmak ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I have added it for the species as a whole and ones (such as lurida and ocellata) where they don't come from an island (eg. The type specimen for Kangaroo Island is just listed as "Kangaroo Island" in the source...which makes it repetitive and not really informative Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "It is sometimes included in the nominate subspecies." -- are König et al. claiming this synonymy or merely reporting others have?
reporting others Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • " it is known to the local people as" again who are they? The peoples local to which area? Aboriginal Australians are not a homogenous group.
here it refers to the indigenous people of Rote Island. have changed "local" to "indigenous" - should I add "of Rote Island" here too? worried it might be a bit repetitive... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I still think it's a bit unclear...the source makes it seem like these are the names in two different languages, but right now the article reads as if they're two terms of a single language instead. Umimmak ( talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
ok, have added "of Rote Island" Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I was more getting at how the source says one word was used by the people in one part of Rote Island and the other by the people in another part, i.e., they're presumably different languages, not just synonyms of the same language. Even changing people to "peoples" might be clearer. Umimmak ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I've added in the localities - I can't assume anything about the language(s) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • When did S. fusca become N. b. fusca?
added some material. Not 100% sure that Mayr was the first to have it as a subspecies but his was a comprehensive review Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "than subspecies boobook" Is it okay to just have subspecific name insteas of N. b. boobook?
formalised now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "collected by Kuhn in 1902 on Moa." Who's Kuhn? You only give his last name like we know who he is.
I meant to get back to that - I thought he was one of the notable scientists named Kuhn but he doesn't appear to be. So have modified. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm just assuming throughout that in the absence of providing a different basionym that these subspecies were all described explicitly as a subspecies of N. boobook.
  • "different to subspecies boobok" Is this standard in Australian English? "Different to" is often proscribed in formal American English, although I think it might be acceptable in British English I just saw this in academic Australian English so you're good with "different to" I guess 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
yup Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Umimmak ( talk) 02:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


  • [Addendum: "Roosting boobook" image -- is this a southern Boobook? Is the subspecies known? 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
subsp. added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No sex difference in size?
added - females often a little larger and heavier Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The bill is black with a pale blue-grey base and cere" It's a bit weird to all of a sudden discuss cere in the midst of several sentences discussing color, especially since this is likely to be an unfamiliar term.
it is wikilinked, and is a part of the beak...? Not sure how to rephrase this Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it might be useful to have photos illustrating differences with possibly confusable species?
problem is, we don't have any photos of Tasmanian boobook... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "in mainly Eucalypt forest" why is Eucalypt capitalized?
a mistake. tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "In fact, it can adapt to any habitat as long as there are some trees present" -- this seems a bit strong... surely not every habitat? is true. I have seen them twice in quite inner suburban Sydney Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
There are trees in the taiga as well, I'm reluctant to say they could adapt to that habitat. Umimmak ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


  • [Addendum: lowercase common name 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
Oops, hangover from pre 2014 case wars Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a shame there's apparently(?) no free audio. I wonder if it might be useful to bring up the sound file in external links within an "external media" template
  • "the second note generally lower than the first" clarify lower in pitch, not volume
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Birds give a harsher version of the call when mobbing intruders" wikilink mobbing
linked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "one and twenty metres (3-70 ft)" Is there a reason you don't use the convert template? At the very least the hyphen should become an en-dash
ndashed now....didn't use template as didn't want to muck up prose Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow, never seen that article before! Fascinating! Still, not convinced it's garden pathy but did change to "regurgitate" Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "which becomes quite smelly" The word "smelly" strikes me as being entirely too informal for an encyclopedia
hmm, I don't but happy to change to another simple word - "malodorous" strikes me as too long, "foul-smelling"..I guess "stinky" is out too then...what would you suggest? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, just raising a point and making sure you've thought about your word choice; if you think "smelly" is fine, then perhaps it is I who has divergent views. Umimmak ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "and raptors such as the brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus), [..], and probably powerful owl seize young birds." I'm confused, is "probably powerful owl" a common name for a species of owl?
yes - linked now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Fix your brackets w/ the binomen Umimmak ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Prey species were mainly ..." I wonder if this list should be split up instead of a single sentence that spans half the paragraph
split Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


  • You're inconsistent about the use of |via= -- I don't think it's necessary to say via BHL if that's where the URL goes.
I never used it but someone else added...I have removed them Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is just my own personal preference, but I'd prefer to see a more consistent use of DOIs and links to the publisher's versions, e.g., 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1846.tb00135.x for Gould 1846
added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking Gould in a reference that immediately follows a sentence wikilinking Gould.
umm...if you're in the reference section? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The google books link for Gould does not take the reader straight to the relevant page.
Found a better link. switched Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Gould 1846 also lacks volume information.
added it Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm confused why you list Giacon's first name as "Gianbattista (John)"; he listed his name on the chapter as "John Giacon" 10.1515/9781614510581.251 [moved 03:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ISBNs should all be consistently 13 digits and hyphenated
Done what I could - one is ten digits only Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Strange that something published in 2008 would have the old format... Umimmak ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see the benefit to wikilinking in references in general -- why would the reader want to know more about the journal Zoologische Verhandelingen?
I think it is rare but not impossible that somoene would be interested Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • [Addendum: You just cite Higgins 1999 as if he's the author of the entire book, but he's only the senior editor. You seem to only be citing from one chapter which has its own title, author, and pages, within this book, and these should be specified in the reference. Umimmak ( talk) 03:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
Higgins is main compiler - each species account is a (sort of) chapter. The text is very dense and lists loads of links. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand, so was there an author for the southern boobook chapter in addition to the Higgins? Umimmak ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Not that I could see Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • [Addenda: why don't you have the full citation for "Is the Timor southern boobook a separate species?" You should have the date (2010), volume (28), issue (1), page (10), journal (Boobook) at the minimum. 03:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC) ]
No excuse. must have been in a hurry. added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Umimmak ( talk) 02:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I fixed a couple of obvious typos. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  • it was for many years considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999—perhaps keep temporal elements together as it was for many years prior to 1999 considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand
changed to "generally" as most authorities lumped but there were a few splitters here and there... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • continent and Tasmania— is Tasmania not considered part of the Australian continent?
twaeked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The legend for your map would look neater if you had the left align column of colour boxes vertically aligned
I'll look into it... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) —over-precise conversion for this purpose
tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
linked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • killed with rat poison— any particular poison?
added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Changed to support above, a nice article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz


  • "Described by John Latham in 1801, it was for generally considered to be the same species (conspecific) as the morepork of New Zealand until 1999." Something wrong here.
offending preposition removed. I forgot it when rewording before. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


  • Does the male defend a territory outside the breeding season?
It's not clear - so mentioned this Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Does the female help with defending the breeding territory?
It's not ruled out...but not mentioned either Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the pair bond maintained from one year to the next?
Anecdotal bit suggest not monogamous over years Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Does the female start incubating when the clutch is complete - or does she start when the first egg is laid? In other words - do the eggs all hatch at the same time (synchronously)? If not, presumably the last born does not survive when food is scarce.
Source doesn't say - moreover sometimes the young hatch at teh same time and sometimes ...not. I added what I could. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • How long do southern boobooks live? What is the oldest recorded?
15 years 11 months - added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz ( talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

After posting the above I discovered that the Higgins article is available online. The answers to my questions are not always straightforward

Higgins can be tricky as it can be a mass of primary sources unintegrated. Also have to tease out NZ material. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
  • Perhaps mention that the young stay with their parents for some weeks after fledging. p.860
post fledging dispersal added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Some sites are reused for up to 20 years, especially if broods have been successfully raised in them before." I find this sentence confusing. To me it suggests that an individual pair could use a site for up to 20 years - but southern boobooks do not live that long.
I added "by the species" to indicate that this does not mean a single pair Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz ( talk) 20:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

All good. Supported above. - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from WereSpielChequers

Nice read, I've made some tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. Not sure if the phrase "Caves or ledges are alternative roosting sites if there are no trees available." is fully compatible with the idea of them being restricted to habitats where there are trees. But anyway the prose is of FA standard Ϣere SpielChequers 23:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

changes look fine. I realise the critical adjective there is "suitable" (trees)... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Rhode Island Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 07:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... another coin, with quite a bit of chicanery going on, though it doesn't get the bad press as much as others. Enoy. Wehwalt ( talk) 07:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "This incensed coin collectors, and led Congress to move in the direction of banning commemorative coins due to the abuses.": I can't tell what this sentence from the lead is referring to; I didn't see it in the text, reading quickly.
  • "depositary": I don't know, I think there's a chance of confusion with "depository".
  • "had been wound up, having shown a profit of": To British ears, "had been wound up" is "was made nervous or angry". Maybe this? "wound up with a profit of"
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and the support. I've adjusted those things.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 05:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 7 needs pp. not p.
  • Refs 8/9/10: The links on the page ranges aren't particularly helpful, as using them doesn't provide a means of entry beyond the paywall. The useful link is found in the sources section.
That's not the same source. I could supply a link to the Congressional Record on ProQuest Congressional, but I'm not sure if it would be useful, you still need the subscription.
  • Sources: I can't find citations to Yeoman 2015
Last one of the article.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 05:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • The obverse image lacks a clear statement that the photos is Bobby131313's own work, although I'm fairly certain that that's true.
I think that the circumstances make it clear.
  • The other image is properly licensed.
  • Shouldn't there be another comma after 'Island' in Providence, Rhode Island Tercentenary half dollar?
  • Add a link to Rhode Island in the lede.
  • Concur with Dank, that the last sentence in the lede is awkward.
  • Agree with the criticisms of the design, the human figures are badly done and what's up with Williams' cuffs and arms? And the Indian's right forearm seems oddly lengthy. And the lettering does dominate the design, although perhaps that helps to minimize the impact of the central image.
  • I think that it's a good thing when my artistic critique of the design is longer a than my substantial review of the article.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I won't disagree with you about the design, which seems ugly and cartoonish. Thank you for the review and support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 05:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, in line with my review cop out. Nice piece of work. In addition to Sturmvogel's comments, I have just one point about a word in the Background section:
  • "applied political pressure to get the coin": is "get" the best word - makes him sound like he was trying to obtain a single coin for himself. Would "commission" or similar, work instead?
Aside from that minute nit-picking, this meets the FA criteria on prose. – SchroCat ( talk) 07:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support. I've made that change.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 05:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Background and legislation
  • ¶1 Link Puritan?
  • ¶1 Link Massachusetts Bay Colony?
  • ¶1 Link Salem?
  • ¶2 "...sold by the government—Congress, in authorizing legislation,..." – I think a semicolon or a terminal period would be more appropriate here than an emdash.
  • ¶3 "for passage in the Senate" – Link Senate?
  • ¶1 "The Tercentenary Commission's coin committee originally proposed the seven stars from an early version of Providence's seal, with the anchor from Rhode Island's seal and the state motto, "Hope". – Maybe "... originally proposed including in the design..." for clarity?
  • ¶1 Link Philadelphia Mint? Likewise Denver Mint and San Francisco Mint?
Production, distribution, and collecting
  • ¶4 "...that he could not consult Grant about some issue as Nichols apparently had suggested..." – "Some issue" seems confusing. Maybe delete "about some issue"?
  • Alt text would be nice even though not required. I don't know if there's a way to add it to the infobox images.
  • No problem with disambiguation links.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No duplinks.
Thank you. With the exception of alt text (I will be happy to, if someone knows how) in the infobox, I've made those changes.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Support on prose. Finetooth ( talk) 21:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Moise. I have read through twice and it all looks very good. Moisejp ( talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just a couple of things before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Link Salem and Orpheus
  • Providence Tercentenary Commission— I get no sense, as a Brit, of what this was. Was it a business, a charity or a politically appointed committee?
I can't find a huge amount on the commission, but I've added a bit. Likely it was chartered by the state legislature, and consisted of prominent locals. That's how it usually was. Thank you for the review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't expecting much on the commission, but I thought it was worth asking the question, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

More Hall Annex

Nominator(s): Sounder Bruce 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

From 1961 to 1988, this unassuming building on the University of Washington campus in Seattle handled nuclear research experiments and helped promote the safety of nuclear power to the public. It later became the subject of a battle between the university and preservationists before it was demolished early last year. The article has been sitting as a GA since just prior to that demolition, and I've made some touches here and there with the help of a copyeditor. Sounder Bruce 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • I don't know if I'll have time to review this one, but I've got a question, concerning "proudly showcased", "crown jewel", "proudly showcasing", "promote the apparent safety of nuclear energy", and "digitally preserve": who are you quoting, and could none of these be paraphrased? See the WP:INTEXT guideline. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I've paraphrased a few, and outright removed the quotes from some phrases. The two remaining quotations are direct quotes, from Prof. Babb and the Trust, and I feel they're appropriate. Sounder Bruce 04:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Looks good, thanks. - Dank ( push to talk) 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "preservationists held a wake for the building": That's not what "wake" means. (Understood that it's an attempt at humor, but the tone isn't encyclopedic.) - Dank ( push to talk) 16:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "100 kilowatts (kW) thermal" - I think thermal kilowatts would be more familiar to most readers
    • Bri's source shows that kwt would be the correct order.
  • Try to vary sentence structure in the lead; four consecutive sentences start with "The X..."
    • Done.
  • ". The reactor room was 'proudly showcased' by the building's design, with large windows allowing views of reactor experiments from the outside." - citation?
    • Removed; though the lead doesn't necessarily need citations if the same quote is repeated.
  • "Amid concerns from preservation groups and the City of Seattle, the UW Board of Regents ultimately decided in February 2016 to demolish the structure." - Think despite might work better than amid?
    • Done.
  • "The research reactor was an Argonaut class reactor with an initial output of 10 kW thermal, later increased to 100 kW in 1967" - same note as the lead
    • Done.
  • "15 ft (4.6 m) high, 20 ft (6.1 m) long and 19 ft (5.8 m) wide." - comma after long
    • Done.
  • "running for some days at half power or for as little as 10 minutes.[6]" - how are these two things close enough to be compared? This doesn't seem like an appropriate comparison
    • It's not meant to be a comparison between the two figures. Dropped the "or".
  • Keep the serial comma consistent throughout; you use it in some places but not others
    • Done.
  • The sentence structure of "Design and functions" is very choppy; vary it some
  • Link nuclear engineering?
    • Done.
  • "The proposed 10 kW reactor was approved by the university's Board of Regents in April 1959, proposing a two-story " - redundant, and this doesn't make sense gramatically "the proposed reactor..., proposing"?
    • Fixed.
  • " The building would be designed by TAAG architects Wendell Lovett, Gene Zema and Daniel Streissguth, all members of the UW faculty.[11" - why the change to would instead of saying it "was designed by ..."
    • Done.
  • "Jentoft & Forbes, who would be paid $308,082 for the project; the building would be on the eastern edge of the campus at a site proximate to various academic engineering buildings and would "promote the apparent safety of nuclear energy" by being located directly on campus." - same note as above
    • Done.
  • "Student use of the reactor was replaced by commercial use to produce nuclear isotopes for medical use.[3]" - commercial use by whom?
    • The source doesn't elaborate beyond "medical uses".

Here are some comments to start. ceran thor 22:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Ceranthor: Thanks for the comments. Only have a handful that I've left to do later. Sounder Bruce 04:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@ SounderBruce: Sounds good - just let me know when you want me to read over it again. It looks like it's in pretty good shape. ceran thor 16:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "They designed the reactor room with large windows that allowed observation from the outside, in an attempt to promote the safety of nuclear energy." - think 'promote the safety of nuclear energy' could be phrased better; I think promote is what bothers me here
  • "It will be replaced by a new computer science building." - think it's useful to mention in the lead when it will be done
  • "The research reactor was an Argonaut class reactor with an initial output of 10 kWt," - I know it's already in the lead, but it would help to reintroduce for unfamiliar readers what kWt indicates
  • First paragraph of design and functions still needs more sentence structure variety

Once these are addressed, I think it'll be ready in my opinion to be an FA. ceran thor 16:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Ceranthor: I've reworked the Design section and made other changes in accordance with your second set of comments. Sounder Bruce 08:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Support then, on the prose. ceran thor 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All referencing appears to be in good order, based on sources of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This reads well. I made five minor proofing changes. Please revert any you think are misguided. Here is a short list of questions, suggestions:
  • NRHP infobox. If the building has been delisted, there's a slightly different infobox for delisted properties. On the other hand, it may still be listed even though it no longer exists.
  • Moved things around a bit to emphasize that he is the laboratory's director.
Preservation attempts
  • ¶1 "...based on an application from UW architecture student Abby Inpanbutr (then Abby Martin) submitted in spring 2008." – Slightly better as "...based on an application submitted by Abby Inpanbutr (then Abby Martin), a UW architecture student, in spring 2008."?
  • Done.
  • ¶1 (here and in the NRHP infobox) – Was the More Hall Annex delisted by the NHRP? If so, when"
  • As far as I'm aware, the building has not been delisted.
  • ¶2 "In May 2015, it was named...". – To make instantly clear which building the "it" refers to, replace "it" with "the More Hall Annex?
  • Done.
  • ¶1 "The Board of Regents approved its construction in January 2017, which began later in the year." – Better as "In January 2017, the Board of Regents approved its construction, which began later in the year" since "which" modifies "construction" and not the date?
  • Done.
  • The images have alt text.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No duplink problems.
  • No problems with disambiguation links.
  • @ Finetooth: Thanks for the review. Other than the NRHP delisting, I have made the changes you suggested. Sounder Bruce 03:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks fine. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth ( talk) 16:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Other Languages
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Вікіпэдыя:Кандыдаты ў абраныя артыкулы
oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча: Vikipediya:Tanlangan maqola nomzodlari