Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Nominations

Æthelflæd

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Æthelflæd, daughter of Alfred the Great, Lady of the Mercians and the foremost female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, close to a support. Some initial thoughts:

  • "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule, East Anglia and Northumbria having been conquered and Mercia partitioned between the English and the Vikings, but in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington."- a long sentence; any way of breaking after "the English and the Vikings."?
  • I think it could do with more detail to clarify. How about "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule: East Anglia and Northumbria had been conquered, Mercia was partitioned between the English and the Vikings, and Wessex was on the verge of defeat. However, in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington, and Wessex was never seriously threatened thereafter." Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Æthelred played a major role in fighting off renewed Viking attacks in the 890s, together with Alfred's son, the future King Edward the Elder. " - is Edward therefore her brother? If so, might be simpler to describe him that way.
  • "His health probably declined early in the next decade," - I found "his" a bit awkward here, as we'd had two men mentioned in quick succession before.
  • Changed to "Æthelred's health". Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • " and the Mercian rulers were buried there." - which Mercian rulers? I may have missed something here.
  • I was using a symonym for Æthelfæd and Æthelred, but it is a bit confusing as I mention Æthelred's death in the next sentence. Best delete? Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Shortly afterwards the York Vikings offered her their loyalty, " - would "Vikings in York" sound more natural? not sure...
  • York Vikings is the usually term and sounds better to me. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Æthelflæd was succeeded by her daughter Ælfwynn but in December Edward took personal control of Mercia and carried Ælfwynn off to Wessex." - I'd have gone for a comma after AElfwynn
  • "According to Pauline Stafford, "Like a latter-day Elizabeth I..." the MOS would permit the lower case "like" which would help the flow
  • Some of the cited works give location and publisher (e.g. London, UK: Cambridge University Press) others just publisher (e.g. Oxford University Press, Yale University Press.) - the style should be consistent
  • Done. I could only find one location I missed. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Miller, Sean (2004). "Edward [called Edward the Elder] (870s?–924), king of the Anglo-Saxons". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. reference is wrongly cited; the version linked to is the

online edition, September 2011. Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Steller's sea cow

Nominator(s):    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Steller's sea cow, a large sirenian that went extinct in modern times. I believe this article's up to FA criteria    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Will read through this soon, but at first glance, I see somewhat serious problems, but since you usually work fast and effectively, I think they can be worked out. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • First, it is a bit messy to combine all info about physical features, biology, and ecology, into one large section, it would be better to keep them in separate section, as in virtually all other articles, to keep focus. Now the section jumps wildly between unrelated subjects.
split    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You are combining a section that should be abut distribution facts with unconfirmed "sightings" long after the confirmed extinction date. Info about such "sightings" (and anything else not based on facts) should be moved to the extinction section, as they have nothing to do with the confirmed historical range of the animal.
done, but I kept the part about Turner in the range section, and anything talking about its range up into the 1800s.    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The article seems quite short, but I guess not much is known about this animal. Have you looked through Google scholar and similar for further sources?
I'll get to expanding later.    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The notable fact that it had no finger bones is not mentioned, which also makes me uncertain about the comprehensiveness of the rest of the text. Perhaps there should be more purely descriptive info about the skeleton, all we have left of the animal.
  • It appears the only known drawing from life was made by a Friedrich H. Plenisner[1], yet this article credits Steller himself. The drawing shown in this article also appears to be of uncertain origin. If your sources discuss the circumstances of these illustrations, it is very important info to add.
You mean add it to the caption or to the article?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
To the article, but the caption would of course have to be modified accordingly. There are two issues that need to be handled: there were drawings made originally by Plenisner, which seem to be lost, and the drawing that is now in the infobox may be one of those. No other drawings of actual specimens seem to exist, and none were drawn by Steller himself. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The caption does say "thought to be". Also, his full name is Friedrich Plenisner, right?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why the media appearances are not listed chronologically?
fixed    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The old illustrations should have dates in their captions to show their historical context.
done    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think a clear close up of the skull, such as this[2], should be shown.
added    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy section could describe the circumstances around the discovery in more detail, and explain the meaning of the scientific names. There also seem to be many unexplained synonyms. On what basis were they named?
The circumstances? They got shipwrecked. this link has a lot of info but I'm not sure exactly what is relevant. Should I talk about their first sea cow hunt?
  • Why does the intro begin with "the"? Glancing at the sources, few if any say "the Steller's sea cow", but you use it throughout the article. We should follow the majority of the sources.
Some people use it, some people don't. Since it starts with the name of a person, it could go either way, and I think it's alright. Do you still want me to continue?    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, we should always do what the majority of sources do, so it comes down to that. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the article body should mention the full name, not just "the sea cow".
done    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The first sentence reads "The Steller's sea cow grew to at least 8 to 9 m (26 to 30 ft) in length as an adult" I think that this wording doesn't work grammatically and is awkward prose. Something can't grow to 'at least' a range of sizes. 'at least 9 m' or 'sea cow grew 8 to 9 m in length' could work, or some other wording, but the current wording is not good I think. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
changed to "...grew to be 8 to 9 m..."    User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 

Kona Lanes

Nominator(s): — ATS 🖖  talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the late, great Kona Lanes. Already a Good article, I believe its day in the sun is due. — ATS 🖖  talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Coinage Act of 1965

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... the act that took the metal silver out of most US coins struck for circulation. The coin shortages of the 1960s are mostly forgotten today, but at the time, they affected commerce and everyday life. This act for the most part ended them (I'm old enough to remember the 1974 cent shortage). The price, of course, was the silver coins, which vanished from circulation around 1967. Enjoy. Wehwalt ( talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Nemegtomaia

Nominator(s): FunkMonk ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the first ever nomination of an article about an oviraptorid dinosaur, a bird-like group first thought to have been egg-thieves, but since redeemed as the parents of said eggs. This particular genus has fortunately had papers published in CC licensed journals, which means plenty of free images. All articles discussing this dinosaur have been summarised here, and for some circumstantial info I have also cited a blog-post interview with one of the scientists who described the nest. I thought it was ok to use, since the blog is owned by a published palaeontologist (Victoria M. Arbour), and it has uncontroversial info not found in any of the journal articles. FunkMonk ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak

Nominator(s): Cerevisae ( talk) 11:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Sarawak, a territory on the island of Borneo. It is a state inside a country named Malaysia. It has one of the regions with the highest biodiversity in the world with the rich cultural heritage. It also has a unique history where indigeneous people accepted white people as their king (or White Rajah. Gunung Mulu National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rainforest World Music Festival is listed as "Top 25 Best International Festivals" by the magazine Songlines. This article has undergone GA and FA reviews, and peer review. I hope that it can achieve FA article status in this FA review. Any comments are welcomed for this article. Thanks! Cerevisae ( talk) 11:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Drive by comments As an Australian military history nerd, the following statements jumped out at me:

  • "Allied forces later carried out Operation Semut to sabotage Japanese operations in Southeast Asia" - Semut was a fairly limited scale operation aimed at scouting in Borneo and starting a guerrilla war there, and didn't extend to other areas of South East Asia. See [3] - Done Cerevisae ( talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Intelligence gathered from the operation helped Allied forces (headed by Australia) to reconquer Borneo in May 1945 through Operation Oboe Six" - the Australian forces only liberated the island of Tarakan off the east coast of Borneo, Labuan, some bits of British North Borneo and Balikpapan by the time of the Japanese surrender: the rest of the island was in Japanese hands. Operation Oboe Six was the campaign in north Borneo, with the landings elsewhere in Borneo having different code names. Please see the Borneo campaign (1945) article for background and references. - Done Cerevisae ( talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "This led to the surrender of the Japanese to the Australian forces on 10 September 1945 at Labuan" - The Japanese forces surrendered as part of the general surrender of Japan, not due to the campaign during mid 1945. The Australians actually planned to leave the remaining Japanese in Sarawak well alone from about June 1945 as they'd captured the territory they were after (the oilfields and Brunei Bay) and the Japanese posed little threat. - Done Cerevisae ( talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sarawak security was also the responsibility of Australia and New Zealand", with an implication that this started sometime around 1888 - this simply isn't correct. The source appears to be referring to the Five Power Defence Arrangements which was a relatively loose arrangement which came into effect well after the Second World War and applied to all of Malaya and involved several countries with the UK being the most important. Australian forces only served in Sarawak for a short period during the confrontation with Indonesia, and the Australian Government was fairly reluctant to get involved there. - Done. Removed the sentence. Cerevisae ( talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that no mention is made in the history section of Japan's brutal occupation policies in this region during the Second World War Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC) - Not Done. I cannot find any notable Japanese atrocities in Sarawak, unlike the Sandakan Death March in North Borneo and Pontianak incidents in neighbouring Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Would greatly appreciate it if you are able to find one. Cerevisae ( talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I included a little bit of information on this topic at Battle of Labuan#Background. From memory, the book Rising Sun Over Borneo : The Japanese Occupation of Sarawak, 1941–1945 provided much more detail on this topic, and the bibliographic details for it are in that article. Nick-D ( talk) 09:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I have included a more detailed explanation of the Japanese occupation in the article " History of Sarawak". Generally, it is the harsh labour and ill treatment of the Japanese towards captured Allied soldiers and civilians in the internment camp. Cerevisae ( talk)

Comment - I found examples of close-paraphrasing. In the article we have:

"Strongly export-oriented, the Sarawakian economy is susceptible to global commodity prices." - Done. Paraphrased. Cerevisae ( talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This is close to:

"Nor Zahidi said the Sarawak economy is strongly export-oriented and therefore susceptible to volatile global commodity prices."

This is from this source [4], which is not cited in the article.

And, in the article:

"The Kuching Water Board (KWB) and the Sibu Water Board (SWB) are responsible for management of the water supply in their respective areas. The state-owned LAKU Management Sdn Bhd manages the water supply for Miri, Bintulu, and Limbang" - Done. Paraphrased. Cerevisae ( talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

is close to:

"Kuching Water Board (KWB) and Sibu Water Board (SWB) are the two Statutory Authorities that responsible for the management and provision of water supply services to Kuching and Sibu respectively, while State-owned LAKU Management Sdn. Bhd. manage the water supplies water to Miri, Bintulu and Limbang."

Which is from here [5]. Graham Beards ( talk) 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

August Meyszner

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about August Meyszner, a former gendarmerie officer and right-wing politician in Austria who travelled to Nazi Germany and joined the SS soon after Hitler's rise to power. After a series of police postings he was appointed by Heinrich Himmler as the head of the SS security and police organs in German-occupied Serbia, a position he held for two years. He was responsible for carrying out of numerous reprisal killings of civilians, the sending of tens of thousands of forced labourers to Germany and other occupied territories, and oversaw the killing of 8,000 Jewish women and children using a gas van. Sidelined in early 1944, he was captured by the Allies at the end of the war and extradited back to Yugoslavia, where he was tried and executed for war crimes. He has been described as one of Himmler's most brutal lieutenants. The article went through Milhist A-Class review in September 2015 and has been tweaked recently in preparation for this nomination. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, as always! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - figure legends that contain a finite verb should end with a period. Graham Beards ( talk) 14:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Graham thanks. I think I got them all. Would you mind checking? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - for an engaging, good read and subject to a satisfactory image review. But can we do something about a few fused participles? They are becoming common these days in spoken English (especially the BBC), and I might be flogging a dead donkey but they look ugly to me in prose:

  • with a Military Commander in Serbia being responsible for the military administration
  • with Kuntze's chief of staff describing Meyszner
  • with the men sending long letters of complaint to each other

How about using a simple past tense? "and a Military Commander in Serbia was responsible..." "and Kuntze's chief of staff described" "and the men sent long letters".

Alternatively, sometimes just dumping the "with" works well.

No big deal. Graham Beards ( talk) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had a crack at it, hopefully it is an improvement! Thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with the changes. By the way, you are a far better writer than I am; it's always easier to criticise than to create. Graham Beards ( talk) 01:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You're very kind, Graham. I am always keen to have input from editors who have a better grasp of grammar than I... Regards, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • What do the colours represent in the map?
  • File:Der_Panther_Pfrimer_Putsch.jpg: not sure the tag is accurate - the photo certainly has an identified individual author
    • I'm pretty sure it is in Austria, as far as the newspaper is concerned. The photograph (I can't make out the photographer's name) would be PD-Austria because it is a lichtbild (simple photograph, not taken in a studio or involving lighting and poses) and was published in 1931, so copyright on it expired in 1981, and therefore before the URAA date. Should I add a PD-Austria tag to cover the photograph? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Draza_Mihailovic,1943.jpg: that tag requires that the image was published before 1973 - was it?
  • File:ParteiabzeichenGold_small.png: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950

Nominator(s): Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This article tells the story of the early US science fiction and fantasy magazines, up to 1950. I originally planned to include non-US magazines, but the article is very long as it stands, and I think it would be unacceptably long without restricting the scope. Many of the magazines discussed have either been through FAC and are FAs, or are GAs if too short; I hope to plug the few remaining holes this year. A note to whoever does the source review: the sources for the list are given at the top of the list without page numbers, since those three sources are used for almost every line, and there would have to be scores of cited page ranges. It seemed easier to give the books as a reference -- any reader who wanted to verify anything in the list would find it easy to do so with those three books in hand. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Absolute impeccable prose and quality. However, may I draw attention to the sentence "In 1919, Street & Smith launched The Thrill Book, a magazine that was intended to publish "different" stories: "different" meant stories that were unusual or unclassifiable in some way, which in most cases meant that they included either fantasy or science fiction elements."; I feel like this could be combined into one shorter sentence to get the same point across. Good luck! Regards, Carbrera ( talk) 04:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC).
I changed it to "In 1919, Street & Smith launched The Thrill Book, a magazine that was intended to publish stories that were unusual or unclassifiable in some way, which in most cases meant that they included either fantasy or science fiction elements" -- I don't think it's necessary to tell the reader that they used "different" to describe these stories; the point is just that they were sometimes sf or fantasy. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Astounding_Stories_of_Super_Science_(1930-01).djvu needs a US PD tag, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    Done; thanks for the review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Virgin and Child Enthroned (van der Weyden)

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Ayesha23

c. 1433 Marian portrait attributed to Rogier van der Weyden, showing Mary enthroned in a niche, which is presumably fixed to a Gothic church wall. The panel was once half of a diptych, later broken up. Those with an interest in medieval Christian iconography (including hardened atheists like me) will find much to enjoy in this rich and emotional panel painting. It is of interest to specialists as a prime example of the transition between two major art historical periods. Ceoil ( talk) 11:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hand et al not cited.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Have included them now. Ceoil ( talk) 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

I love the artist, and like the article already, with only minor concerns. One general: I grew up on Wikipedia with no left images right below a header, because the reader's eye "wants" to continue reading below the header, not jump to the right, - consider.

Lead

  • "The panel is filled with Christian iconography, including representations of prophets, the Annunciation, Christ's infancy and resurrection, and Mary's coronation in heaven." - Only two of these terms are linked, but I have been told to link even terms such as stanza. We have a mixed readership who may not know what Christian iconography is, what Christians think are prophets, and who Christ is, perhaps also Mary. I'd prefer infancy of Jesus, using the given name for a baby ;) - Who says Mary's Coronation is in Heaven? - I'm not sure about capitalization, but think Annunciation and Coronation, or annunciation and coronation. There must be an article about the infancy, even if we know little ;)
  • I'd like more lead, but will look at the rest before perhaps saying what more.
  • Second round: I'd like Thyssen explained in lead and body.

Description

  • "The smallest extant work", - how small is it? Dimensions anywhere? I found them now (searching for the word), but miss them in the body, and think they are much easier to find here.
  • perhaps link Gothic sculpture?
  • consider to speak about the niche before about shadows cast on it (and before details such as the hair behind the ear)
  • Shirley Blum is mentioned here first, saying just "Blum", - better introduce her a bit?
  • "Claus Sluter's c 1395–1403 Well of Moses" - I am not happy with the order, how about: Claus Sluter's Well of Moses (c. 1395–1403)? - same for other occurrences of more than just one year
  • Champmol is unexplained and unlinked, linked only in the caption.
  • To my knowledge, those who said "we have a law, and according to that law he must die" ( Book of John), were no prophets and no judges, but those arguing with Pilate. Source? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dyptich

  • "his Madonna Standing" doesn't refer to St. George ;)
  • in the link, please spell out Descent from the Cross, - I know what you mean but only because I love it.

Dating and attribution

  • I'd like to read some of this in the lead: the dating and attribution, and also about the "sculptural" aspect.
  • Can you get the image more to the context of that painting, and perhaps end the article on that outlook, rather than another dating?

Saw the Descent last November, again. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lucky you! Working through these points. Ceoil ( talk) 23:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I see you're working on it, if any of these are obsolete, I apologise.

  • "it appears to be bulk-less and as if she has only one leg. " Is bulk-less an accepted term? insubstantial? lack substance? lack bulk?
  • "both with foreshortening and the depiction of a body under clothing" I might add an "in" before "the"
  • "There are symmetrical difference between the left and right hand sides of the painting. " Should "difference" be plural?
  • "While they may appear incompatible with the architectural setting" maybe "incongruous" for "incompatible", if the source will support.
  • "the breath of the buttress contradicts the spatial dept" there seem multiple spelling errors.
  • "Champmol" this is never linked or described in prose, but is in an image caption. Not certain that's enough.
  • "Lorne Campbell attributes the work to van der Weyden's workshop,[15] while John Ward attributes Campin" sounds like there should be a "it to" after the second "attributes". I might suggest using a synonym for one of the attributes.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have most of these, valid points. Ceoil ( talk) 23:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Nicely done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Virgin_and_Child_Enthroned_(van_der_Weyden)_Detail2.jpg: the first tag doesn't make sense here
  • File:Dijon_mosesbrunnen3.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Arrah

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 ( talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Siege of Arrah, an event that occurred during the Indian Mutiny. It was an eight day long siege during which 68 men, a mix of civilians and soldiers, successfully defended a two-storey, 50 by 50 ft (15 by 15 m) building against a force, under the command of Kunwar Singh, of between 2,000 and 3,000 mutinying professional soldiers combined with an estimated 8,000 irregular combatants. This article has been copy-edited by the GOCE, and it has passed a GA review and an A-Class review from the Military History Wikiproject. I make no apologies for pushing this through because it's been a pleasure to develop this article - it made an excellent procrastination project while I was meant to be doing something else (and editing this article has led to me purchasing a very fine, 110-year-old copy of one of the books that is used as a source!). I'll be available to respond to this review over the coming weeks, and as my previous engagement with this shows (in the previous reviews) I usually respond within 24 hours. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "(now 58 (Eyre's) Battery ...": MOS recommends against nested parentheses.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this article. I know that nested parentheses are usually not OK but in this specific case, 58 (Eyre's) Battery is that unit's proper name so that's why I went with it. It probably seems like I'm being awkward but what can I say - I'm a geek! Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 23:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You could perhaps replace the outer set of parentheses with dashes? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I've followed your suggestion and replaced the parentheses. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 16:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • A couple of footnotes use "pp." but should use "p."
Fixed Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN51 should use endash
Fixed Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether newspaper citations end in a period
Fixed Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • GBooks links don't need accessdates and should be trimmed to ID/page
Fixed Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Best is missing location. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Fixed Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @ Nikkimaria: - I believe I have addressed your concerns. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun

Nominator(s): Display name 99 ( talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesman who held a number of high political offices in the United States during the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the sectional divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of nullification and slavery. Display name 99 ( talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from a brief glance of the article:

  • Why don't you use a photograph to illustrate him in the main infobox?
For a while, the lead image was the 1849 Mathew Brady photograph. That was replaced by consensus here. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Is your link correct, it doesn't seem to point to a specific discussion.— indopug ( talk) 14:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
4th bullet down. Sorry, I should have said that at the beginning. Display name 99 ( talk) 14:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • References need to be formatted better—university names have been italicised (they shouldn't be), for example.
Thanks. I've taken care of the part about university names. If there are any other issues, please bring them up specifically. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also refs 73–85 have been formatted differently than the others, and also feature lengthy quotations from the sourced material (why?).
Here is an excellent question. The part of the Secretary of State section concerning the Texas annexation and election of 1844, which is what includes the lengthy quotations, was written mostly by an editor by the name of 36hourblock. That editor has a citation style that always seems to involve the use of lengthy quotes from the sources. You'll see it in every article that he or she edits. I have never liked the style.
There previously were many more quotes in this article. Before renominating this article I went through the Secretary of State section and removed numerous quotations which I found to be particularly confusing, excessive, or unrelated. Others I managed to work into the main text. I chose to keep the remaining quotes in the article largely due to the fact that I was recently involved in a major dispute with 36hourblock in which that person, after falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet, alleged that I had engaged in harassment and troll-like behavior by altering his or her edits. I did not want a repeat.
Yet, if you say specifically that you concur with my opinion that the quotations are unnecessary, and a distraction in that they are inconsistent with the citation style in the rest of the article, I will remove them. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: Indopug, I have decided to remove all the remaining quotes, revising the citations to make them the same format as the rest of those in the article. I also removed all references to "Presidential Profiles, 2016", as it is still unclear to me what that even is. Display name 99 ( talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Legacy looks like it needs an overhaul:
  • Historical reputation is far too scattershot and recentist, relying a lot on newspaper articles of the past few months instead of scholarly works. There needs to be more about how historians of the past 165 years have perceived him. Perhaps Thaddeus_Stevens#Historical_and_popular_view can be a model in this regard?
I will try to expand this section. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, thus far I have expanded the section by adding a paragraph about how Calhoun is viewed and portrayed by one of his biograpers, John Niven. It is now the second paragraph of the section. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Film and television is stubby and probably unnecessary. I'd remove it or at the least merge its content with one of the other Legacy subsections.— indopug ( talk) 05:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It's accepted practice to include film and other forms of popular media in which biography subjects have been featured. I don't think this content could fit into either of the other sections. Therefore I think it best to leave it where it is. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
indopug, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • As the US does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, images of 3D works should include tags for the original works in addition to the photo
The Fort Hill historical marker is for a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and which is on the Clemson University campus. Calhoun was buried underneath his gravestone immediately after his death. I'm not sure what kind of copyright issues we would have here. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Likely that and the statue are out of copyright, but we should include a tag on the image description page saying so and why. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I've dealt with the gravestone, but I'm not sure what to do about the marker. I suppose there's a good chance that was created after 1923. Display name 99 ( talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Any way to verify that, or to check for other possible reasons it might be PD? Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I can email the NPS to try to find a date. But what happens if the marker wasn't erected before 1923? We have plenty of photographs on our encyclopedia of things created after 1923. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There may be another reason that it would be PD - that is the case for some things that we have photographs for, while others are in a country with different freedom of panorama rules. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, the marker for Fort Hill is on the campus of Clemson University. It's also a historical site that is generally recognized as something preserved for the public, and not for private use. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so is there a USGov tag that would apply? Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I tried a Department of the Interior tag. However, the tag said that the work was created by someone from the U.S. Government as part of an official duty. That is not the case. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John_C_Calhoun_by_Mathew_Brady,_1849.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg
The former was published as a lithograph in 1850. As for the second, I don't know for certain of the publican date. It was acquired by the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution in 1978. The identity of the photographer is unknown, and so I imagine it would be difficult to pinpoint an exact publication date. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
For the former, please add details to the description page. For the latter, the current tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have dealt with the former. On the Commons page, File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg, there is already a "Licensing" section, which includes a template stating that the photograph was published before 1923 and is thus in the public domain. Display name 99 ( talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But if we can't verify that the photo was published before 1923, then we don't know whether that tag is correct. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I doubt we will be able to verify it. We don't even know the author or the exact year that the image was taken. Do I need to remove it? Display name 99 ( talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there another reason it might be PD? Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Having been created around 1843, it's likely that it was published before 1923. Even if it wasn't, we don't know who took the picture, so to whom would we credit it? Display name 99 ( talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we don't know that. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, I've removed it. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: photographers of 2D works don't generate a new copyright. What is the status of the original work?
The original work was created by Healy in 1851. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Please update image description page with the appropriate info and tag. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The page already reads: "Charleston City Chambe; George P.A. Healy's painting of Calhoun, 1851, no copyright". I'm not sure what "tag" you're asking for (I don't work often in Commons or with imaging) but that seems like all the information you could need. Display name 99 ( talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If it was displayed in 1851, {{ PD-1923}} would work. But in this case, we should also remove the incorrect information - the photographer does not get any copyright on this work, so that tag shouldn't be there. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Jcctypo01.jpg should include details of the original work
Done. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also suggest doing some MOS work - for example, seeing some overlinking/ WP:SEAOFBLUE issues.

I don't see how this is an issue. I'm fairly certain that nothing is linked more than twice in the body of the article. Also, what else is there? Display name 99 ( talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on at least a couple of occasions you've linked the same thing twice in the same section. For another example, you've got [[Abbeville, South Carolina|Abbeville]], [[South Carolina]], [[United States|U.S.]] - that's several MOSLINK issues in a single line. Your citation formatting in particular is all over the place and needs serious cleanup - you're mixing up works and publishers often. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have discovered and removed two duplicate links. Please excuse me, but I can't find any sections with the same thing linked twice. If you're including the infobox, it's ok to have something linked in the infobox and also linked in the body of the article. The MOS article specifically allows for that. Also, to me the citation style does not seem terribly inconsistent. All printed books or journals are cited using the Harvard reference format, and are cited in full at the article's bottom. Internet articles are cited using the templates. Display name 99 ( talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nullification is linked twice in the lead, Randolph twice in War of 1812. MOSLINK also covers other types of linking issues, such as linking multiple items in such a way that they appear to be a single link. As to citations, some of your Harvard refs are not linking correctly, and you are varying significantly in what information is entered in what parameter for the cite templates. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Those instances of duplicate links have been remedied. I have added the Harvard referencing style to two sources to which it had somehow not been applied previously. I have also increased the consistency in the citation style. Thank you once again for your help. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you for the review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 ( talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I supported last time, have read the discussion at the old FAC and the article again. I think it deserves promotion.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Siberian accentor

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Siberian accentor is a drab little bird from the Russian Arctic, and this article is short by necessity because it's so little researched. The unprecedented westward irruption of October 2016 was the catalyst to write this page, especially after I'd joined its admirers in Yorkshire. Thanks to Nikkimaria for advising on the licensing of the NOAA map and vetting the associated reference

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

This article is well prepared and I can find very little to quibble with. Please check that you are happy with the small edits that I've made to the article.

Taxonomy

  • "is most closely related to the black-throated, brown, Kozlov's, Radde’s and Arabian accentors." I think it would be safer to write: "is most similar in appearance to ..."
  • I think you should mention the phylogenetic study by Drovetski et al published in 2013. It is an open access article. Very surprisingly (to me) they find that the Siberian accentor is sister to the Japanese accentor (Prunella rubida). This species looks very different as it lacks the pale supercilium, dark crown and eye patch - (click on "Go to the plate of this family" here). The authors state that this relationship is strongly supported by their data (p. 1523) and that these two species are among the four that can be found in lowlands. The full reference is:
Drovetski, SV; Semenov, G; Drovetskaya, SS; Fadeev, IV; Red'kin, YA; Voelker, G (2013). "Geographic mode of speciation in a mountain specialist avian family endemic to the Palearctic". Ecology and Evolution. 3 (6): 1518–1528. doi:10.1002/ece3.539Freely accessible. 
  • I can't find any modern study that looks at the relationship of Prunellidae to other passerine families.

- Aa77zz ( talk) 16:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Aa77zz thanks for the review and copy edit, it's astonishing what you miss through over-familiarity with the text! I've removed second part of the comment about relationships with other families and added your reference, which, as you say, has quite unexpected conclusions. I've not mentioned the lowland bit, since it's not a relationship indicator, and is open to interpretation. Only the Dunnock is truly a lowland species. Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - well done. - Aa77zz ( talk) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Looks pretty good so far! I have a few nitpicks:

  • I think that it would be better to change the "4–6" to "four to six" in "The nest is an open cup in dense shrub or a tree into which the female lays 4–6 glossy deep blue-green eggs that hatch in about ten days."
  • In "It is therefore evaluated as a species of least concern by the IUCN," IUCN needs to be put in its unabbreviated form, with IUCN in parentheses.
  • In "The autumn of 2016 saw an unprecedented influx of this species into western Europe, reaching as far as the United Kingdom," the "autumn of the 2016" needs to be changed to something that doesn't include the season, per MOS:SEASON.
  • You should probably unlink accentor in the lead, but keep it linked in the taxonomy section.
  • Supercilium is overlinked.
  • I am pretty sure that you have some inconsistencies in your usage of oxford commas.
  • Fixed a couple, feel free to fix any I've missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the behaviour section, it might be better to either put the second paragraph in the status section or make a predators and parasites section.
  • Yes, i was uncertain what do do with this, since not really enough for a separate section, moved to status for now

This is just a quick review, I will probably do a more through one soon. Good luck! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz Many thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Extra comments:

  • You missed a period in the taxonomy section, specifically in the description of the nominate subspecies.
  • Spaces have a place in headings. Particularly the subheading in the movements section.
  • You should probably changed "2–6" in the sentence "The breeding season of the Siberian accentor is from June to August. Little is known about territorial or breeding behaviour, but birds of the nominate subspecies tend to occur in small groups of 2–6 closely spaced nests," to "two to six".
  • For consistency, you should probably change "10" in the sentence "The clutch of four to six eggs is incubated by the female for about 10 days to hatching and the downy brown-black chicks are then fed by both parents. They are able to breed in the following year," to "ten". This comment and the previous one are both about the breeding section, just so you can easily find them.
  • Second paragraph of status, probably need to change "7·4" to "7.4".
  • Jumping back to the taxonomy section, you need to change the weird apostrophe in "but within that genus the Siberian accentor is most similar in appearance to the black-throated, brown, Kozlov's, Radde’s and Arabian accentors." (in Radde’s specifically).

I also fixed 2 oxford comma mistakes, so check those to make sure they are correct. That is the thorough review, it looks pretty good. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 16:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, all done. Well spotted with the apostrophe, I don't know how it's possible to do it like that. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading through it a third time, I forgot to catch one thing, which I am unsure of. The usage of "winter" in the sentence "It is rare in winter in Japan," is dubious. Perhaps "It is rarely seen to winter in Japan," instead? Other wise, I am ready to support. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, I'm not sure I get this. Although you were right to comment on seasons earlier, there is nothing wrong with using seasonal terms if attached to a place, eg "winter in Japan" can't possibly be read as referring to the southern hemisphere winter, and your suggestion just moves the seasonal aspect to a verb instead. Changed to "It is only rarely recorded in Japan in winter" (adding "local" or "northern hemisphere") seems redundant). Apologies if I've completely missed the point of your comment. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about that! You didn't miss the point, anyways. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Interesting article. Just a few things:

  • "In winter, some seeds may be consumed and the accentors may then sometimes feed near human habitation." the word "then" leads to some ambiguity. I might say "In winter, the accentors may also consume seeds or feed near human habitation."
  • You refer to the incursion being in October and November in the lede, but only October in the body.
  • "sometimes cold environment" "sometimes cold seems kind for Siberia.
  • yes, but they aren't there in the winter, so that's probably appropriate for May when they return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Seeds are be consumed in winter," some slight problem here
  • "Estimates for the small European part of the range vary from 100–500 breeding pairs, with up to 10,000 breeding pairs in Russia" This is confusing. Is European Russia meant? Or the whole of Russia?
  • The source isn't totally unambiguous, but I think it means the whole of Russia. In practice, these figures are very approximate anyway, so it doesn't make much odds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I might move the tick image down to the final section, were there is room for it and where you talk about it.
  • The text started higher on the page, forgot to move image when I moved text, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it usual in these articles to mention lifespan or the amount of time it takes for the young to reach maturity?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Songbirds are invariably mature after the first year, so it's easy to omit to actually say that, done. Average lifespan, like so much regarding this species, appears to be unknown. Scientists appear strangely reluctant to investigate species breeding in the mosquito- and horse-fly-infested forests of Siberia :( Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt, many thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Looks good.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Query by WereSpielChequers

A breeding range of 2.2 million square km and a breeding density of 5pairs per square KM would imply a population in the region of 10 million pairs rather than 10,000. Since the bird is of least concern I would be surprised if there were as few as 10,000 pairs. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ϣere, good point. Looking again, the IUCN's ref for this was a table in the back of Mark Brazil's Birds of East Asia (see my reflist), but that only gives a rough estimate for the part of eastern Russia covered by that book. Brazil says his table is based on "published sources" but gives no further info. Population estimates for these Siberian species are always going to be a bit "think of a number, any number" but IUCN have misused Brazil's data, which is in itself dubious. I've removed the estimate, other than the not-unreasonable figure for the small European range. "Large" seems adequate for the total Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. No other questions. Prose is fine. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • The licensing and sources of the images look good. But I see the Gould art is in very low res, while it can be found in high res here:[6] Seems you dramatically shrunk it when you cropped it? You could also give its date in the caption. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for review. Not sure how I did that, but large version uploaded now, date added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

, amen

Coord note

Have we had a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look now. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwig's copyvio tool clear Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref formatting consistent. author names, dates, titles in sentence case etc. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 15,16,17,18 and 19 all used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 14 used once - my take on the source is that the Canadian occurrences are also in September (so autumn) as much as winter...? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Cas, thanks for review. I've added autumn (and removed an extraneous full stop from the ref) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
cool. all good then Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

House of Music

Nominator(s): Dan56 ( talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 1996 studio album by the R&B band Tony! Toni! Toné!. It was their fourth and last album, a platinum seller, and widespread critical success, deemed by some critics as their best work, an influence on 1990s neo soul, and a masterpiece of 1990s R&B music. The previous nomination for featured status received support votes from Dank and TheAmazingPeanuts but not the requisite commentary to establish a consensus for promotion, thus its closure two weeks ago. Dan56 ( talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the first FAC. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support as my last vote on this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Magnolia677

The entire track listing section is unsourced. Is there a way to verify this large section of the article? Magnolia677 ( talk) 03:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Magnolia677:, I've made a note that it was taken from the liner notes. Dan56 ( talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Great. I also moved the image right. Thanks for your hard work on this article! Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - One cosmetic issue. MOS:LINKSTYLE states that items within quotations should not generally be linked. I noticed this a few places in the article, but none of the linked topics seem crucial to reader's understanding. Your call. Thanks again. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Garagepunk66

I just started looking at the article and I see a lot that looks really good. I'll need to comb through it. I noticed you have a statement mentioning the cover artwork. I was wondering if there is enough information out there on the topic to be able to delve into that subject a little more (if that is possible)? Garagepunk66 ( talk) 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Garagepunk66:, at this article by Albumism, there's a one sentence describing the band's attire in the cover photo, but I'm not sure it's a reliable/notable source. Otherwise, there's nothing that can be said about the cover except the photographer credit from the liner notes. Dan56 ( talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That's fine--I was just checking to make sure. In light of the lack of published information about the artwork, the statement you have is fine. I think that should suffice. I also think the source is fine for this situation and can be considered reliable in this context, because it is reiterating what is in the liner notes and what we see with our own eyes in the artwork. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about the band's attire in the photo based on the article @ Garagepunk66:. Dan56 ( talk) 04:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting point. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 05:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Support: I just read the article top to bottom, looking to see if I could find anything. If there was one thing I could say, and this was the only thing that made me look twice while reading, it would be that the length of the first paragraph in the lead could fool someone, as it is actually only three sentences. You could replace the semicolon in the third sentence with a period, but it is fine regardless if you do or don't. The article is very well written and it is well referenced. Great job! If you have some time, would you mind taking a look at my my FAC. -- JDC808 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by TarkusAB

Support: The only comment I have is that it seems the band both reunited before the album and broke up after. I think some more detail about the band coming off hiatus (if it can be found) would fit nice into a Background section, and the consequential breakup could be added on somewhere. But otherwise, I think the article is well-written, goes into a fair amount of depth, and is well-sourced. This is coming from someone who isn't too familiar with WP:ALBUM's guidelines. TarkusAB 12:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The breakup is discussed in the third paragraph of the "Release and reception" section; Sons of Soul elaborates on their hiatus before this album, so I kept it short here to avoid a content fork. Dan56 ( talk) 20:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Louis Leblanc

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias ( talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

An ice hockey player who recently retired after a somewhat disappointing career. It's been a GA for a while, and now that he's retired there shouldn't be much effort to keep it at a high standard. Kaiser matias ( talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Zenobia

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very interesting woman, Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra. Often, her story is distorted by romanticism and myths, which ignore the fact that she was a historic monarch whose actions were not really based on romantic motives. I re-wrote the article with the aim of giving a clear picture of the historic queen, and gave the romantic accounts their share, but also noted them for what they are: romance. The article was privately peer-reviewed (as in I asked an editor directly to review it) by one of Wikipedia's most productive editors Al Ameer son and was copy-edited by the copy-editing guild. Looking forward for other editors notes and advice. Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

Thanks for your review and sorry for the late reply, I was busy and didnt have the time to edit Wikipedia.

That's quite alright; real life (allegedly!) comes first, after all. Based on your replies I've done a little bit of copy-editing: feel free to revert anything you think I have made worse or where I have changed the meaning of the text.
Again thanks for waiting. I have exams actually and thats why my time is so limited now. Nothing to be reverted, thanks for taking the effort :).-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead:

  • "Palmyrene: (Btzby), spelled Bat-Zabbai" – What does this mean? In what way was her name "spelled" Bat-Zabbai?
Semitic languages do not include vowels when written. So, in Palmyrene alphabet, the vowels in her name are missing and if you will read it as it is, it will be read Btzby, however, the right pronunciation with vowels is B(a)t-Z(a)b(a)(i)
I changed "spelled" to "pronounced": I think this is what you mean?
  • "who exiled her to Rome (where she spent the remainder of her life)." why is "where she spent the remainder of her life" in parentheses?
The article was copy edited by a guild member and it was their choice. I removed the parentheses

Name and appearance:

  • "The queen was born c. 240–241": as she wasn't queen when she was born, I would write "Zenobia was born"
Done
  • The section says, apart from the quote from AH at the top, very little about Zenobia's appearance: this is a surprise given the name of the section
Yes, we know little of her appearance but for a reader looking for info about her outlook, it would be helpful for him to know where to read and find the answer which justify the heading
  • "Historian Victor Duruy believed that the queen used the Greek name as a translation of her native name in deference to her Greek subjects.[11] No contemporary statues of Zenobia have been found in Palmyra or elsewhere, only inscriptions on statue bases; most known representations of Zenobia are on her coins.": this paragraph covers two ideas; it would probably be better to concatenate the first part (about her use of the name Zenobia) with the preceding paragraph, and expand the second part into a more substantial coverage of representations her (or cut it and make the section one about Zenobia's name)
I wrote more about the representation on coins
  • Not really sure what the paragraph on sources is doing at the end of this section
  • "other sources are available" doesn't really tell us anything. discuss what the key sources are, or tell us something about them, but don't just assert that they exist
Removed the sentence. As for the paragraph, it is important to give an idea about how careful one must be when dealing with the life of Zenobia counting on those written sources. It gives the readers an understanding that not everything they read from AH should be taken with certainty.

Early life and family:

  • "The Augustan History contains details of Zenobia's early life, although their credibility is doubtful; according to Augustan, the queen's hobby as a child was hunting." Presumably the connection here is that Zenobia having hunting as a childhood hobby is not credible; if so, you should make this more explicit as it is not obviously incredible to me. Macedonian nobles and Spartans, to take two examples from the ancient world, both learnt to hunt as children.
The paragraph on sources was meant to do the job of not having to explain that the info taken from AH is unreliable. Throughout the article, info from the AH are included and their source indicated (which is inevitable since most scholars still indicate the AH) It would make the paragraphs redundant to mention that an AH info might be unreliable every time such an info would be written. On a side note, the situation of women in the east cant be compared to Greece as females were more marginalized
As it is at the moment, the semi-colon suggests that there is a link between the two parts of this sentence: that AH's story that Z's hobby as a child was hunting is a reason to doubt its credibility. This doesn't seem to me to be at all what the relevant source is saying, which is that AH is unreliable, and then, as a seperate thought, that it tells us that she enjoyed hunting. Therefore, I think that this semi-colon should be a period instead. (If you intend this sentence to be read as I am reading it, then I would instead quibble with your use of the source, which doesn't as I read it say that.)
But Stoneman made the connection: he say that we are given plentiful info by the AH but that little of them should be believed. Then Stoneman say that we are told (by the AH) that Zenobia loved haunting. Before giving any info from AH, Stoneman was careful to tell his readers in advanced that they shouldnt believe what they are reading from AH. I see that he connected the two thoughts really. In any case, I removed the semi-colon.
  • What is "an education appropriate for a noble Palmyrene girl"? Were girls – noble or otherwise – in ancient Palmyra educated?
According to Stoneman, we know nothing about that education but Palmyra showed a high level of literacy and Zenobia is known to have mustered many languages which cant be achieved without education. Stoneman reference here.
Well that's disappointing but unsurprising.
  • How can one be "fluent... (to a lesser extent)"? Is fluency not a binary property?
reworded
That's fine, but see below.
  • "and nafsha is Aramaic for "soul"." I don't understand the relevance of this. Explain?
Deleted. The scholar (Potter) do not mention why its relevant, its only and extra info
  • "Based on Zenobia's Palmyrene name (Bat Zabbai), her father may have been Zabbai or he may have been an ancestral head of Zenobia's family (rather than her actual father).": this is a rather clunky sentence; I would rewrite it something like: "On the basis of Zenobia's Palmyrene name, Bat Zabbai, her father name have been called Zabbai; alternatively, Zabbai may have been the name of a more distant ancestor."
reworded
  • "led scholars such as Harald Ingholt to speculate that Antiochus might be a distant ancestor" – should be "might have been", I think
reworded
  • I'm not sure I quite understand the point being made about Ammianus in what is at the time of writing note 1
The info of the AH is similar to Ammianus'. It could be that the supposed Cleopatra descent entered the mind of the AH writer when he read the comparison Ammianus made between the two queens. This would prove that this connection is fabricated
Ammianus doesn't equate Zenobia and Cleopatra, though: he says that the Egyptians praise Cleopatra and the Palmyrenes praise Zenobia. I can see what is being got at, here, but this is I think too compressed for the average reader (though irritatingly the source you cite doesn't make the argument any more explicit! Dammit!)
No, he doesnt equate, but he mention the two as equals. This might have inspired the AH writer to fabricate the claim since Zenobia occupied Egypt. I think this is the simplest way to elaborate on what Teixidor meant when he discussed this idea
  • Note 2 says that Zenobia claimed descent from Cleopatra; the sentences that follow say that she didn't. Which is true? (If the latter is true, should we still believe the inference that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia?)
I wrote "alleged" in the note. This concerns modern scholars and what they know about Zenobia's claims made in ancient sources. It doesnt mean that she actually made such claim. It is widely accepted by scholars that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia, and we cant give our own opinions.
Better now you've added "alleged", thanks :)

Queen of Palmyra:

  • Is Boccaccio a reliable source when it comes to Palmyran history? I am unconvinced that he is. If not, why are we singling his account out?
Boccaccio is definitely not reliable. But, an FA article must be comprehensible and gives the readers an answer to any question they might have. If a reader was convinced that Zenobia rode with her husband, this Wiki article should be able to tell the reader where that notion of riding came from
But you write "according to later accounts, including one by Boccaccio". Why single out Boccaccio, instead of any other later account? (And WP:WIAFA requires that an FA "neglects no major facts or details"; I would argue that precisely which millenium-late account contains a particular story is not a "major" fact or detail!)
Well, I hated the fact that Boccaccio thought he can write whatever he wants and present it as a legitimate history. However, the details of Boccaccio are the most widespread and I read a lot of misinformation circulating the internet that were taken from his account. Thats why its important in this article to mention the source of those info and make it clear how unreliable that source is.
  • "If the accounts of her accompanying her husband are true, Zenobia would have boosted the morale of the soldiers": I don't really understand how this follows.
It gives an idea about how she gained her obvious close relation to the soldiers
I think you need to explain or expand upon this, then: as it is, it just confuses me. Why is it that Zenobia's accompanying her husband would necessarily have boosted the soldiers' morale? It certainly wouldn't have boosted the morale of early-modern British seamen to have their captain's wife accompanying them! (yes, I know that 2nd-century Palmyrene and 16th century English society were very different: that's not the point.)
I cant explain since those are the words of Patricia Southern and she doesnt give much explanation She only say that the soldiers would have been dazzled by the young wife of their king. I will write in the article that this morality boost is according to Patricia Southern, and the readers can indulge themselves in imagining why. As someone who comes from the middle east and is familiar with it, a woman in the battlefield will always make the soldiers more eager to win cause they want to prove that they are capable of protecting their honor (in this case, women are considered part of the honor). But this is my original research :)
  • Vaballathus is described in quick succession as "ten-year-old" and then "adolescent" on his accession: I wouldn't consider a ten-year-old an adolescent
Changed

Descendants and Title:

  • Having been told much further up the article that Herodianus was Odaenathus' son "not Zenobia's offspring", we now have a long discussion of whether or not he actually was!
Yes, and it is inevitable kind of. Odaenathus had two sons named Hairan; one with his first wife and another with Zenobia. The problem arise on the identity of Herudianus: was he the first Hairan or the Second. It is generally accepted that the crowned son was Hairan I, but since some scholars (mainly Potter) suggest that he might be Hairan II, then this should be written since Potter is an authority when it comes to Palmyra's royal family. We are dealing with uncertainties here and the NPOV thing to do is to represent all opinions and give the reader the chance to build his own opinions
Possibly you should explain this more in the article, then (and not relegate much of it to a fairly obscurely-written note). Even having read your explanation here, I am struggling to understand the account which is given in the article. (Additionally, a footnote at the point where the article states that Hairan was not Zenobia's son explaining that there may have been two Hairans could be a good idea.)
The two Hairans are confusing. I created a new article for Hairan II where I assembled all the mess and explained further. As for the article of Zenobia, I removed the note, and in the "Consort" section, I removed that Herodianus was not her son. In the role in the assassination section, I explained that the Augustan says that Odaenathus crowned his eldest son (whom the Augustan names Herodes), who was not Zenobia's. Finally, I explained about the theories concerning the relation between Hairan II and Herodianus in the descendant section

Evaluation and legacy/Myth, romanticism and popular culture:

  • I'm not quite clear on why these are two different sections: they seem to have fairly overlapping scopes
The legacy section deals with the effect of the historic queen's actions on the national feelings in the region while the Romance section deals with outright fabrications and dramas written on her. They might seem similar though, but the difference are enough to separate them
  • I'm not sure how much the random list of "selected cultural depictions" adds. If they are worth discussing, I'd like to see them actually discussed; as it is they just seem like an invitation to listcruft
It isnt quite random as it is very comprehensive and lists the most important works. If they will be discussed then we need a new article about cultural depiction of the queen like it is the case with Cleopatra. Discussing them in the article will turn it away from its scope.

General:

  • I know false titles are a matter of preference: I don't like them. More than that, though, I don't see the point of describing every writer on Zenobia as "historian Foo Bar". They're writing about ancient Palmyra: of course they are historians! I count 14 different examples of this usage for modern authors.
I used to share your opinion and never mentioned a profession of a scholar. However, when I nominated Palmyra for FA, an editor was confused about those people. You and I are interested in ancient history and it is obvious to us that a certain guy mentioned in an article is a historian, but not all readers will know that especially if the historian doesnt have a Wiki article
Fine. So long as you know what you are doing.
  • Frequently the article uses semi-colons to divide what seem to me like they should really be separate sentences
Those were the choices of the copy-editor. Its a matter of personal judgment really.
I changed some of what seemed like the more egregious ones.
  • Almost all of your sources are recent; why are two (Duruy and Mommsen) so conspicuously out-of-date? There's an 89-year gap from Mommsen being first published in 1882 and Millar in 1971, the next-oldest source. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Being older doesn't discredit a source specially if it is discussing an idea that newer sources make no mention of. This is the case of Duruy who is the only one to give a possible explanation for the motives behind the use of the name Zenobia. As for Mommsen, it is used as a reference for Gallienus being Valerian's son, which is a common knowledge and new sources are not gonna discredit it. After all, Mommsen is still considered one of the greatest historians and his works are still used by modern scholars.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 11:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Re. Duruy: if his idea hasn't been discussed since he proposed it in 1855(!) is it really WP:DUE to be discussing it in the article?
Re. Mommsen: there's nothing technically wrong with using him as a source for this – it's not exactly a fact which is likely to be challenged in new sources! But as it's such common knowledge, I would either a) have cited it to one of the other works you are using to establish other things: one must surely have mentioned it at some point(?!); b) cited it to a recent standard resource (the OCD?) or c) not bothered citing it at all: it's not exactly "likely to be challenged". Again, there's nothing actually wrong with citing Mommsen; it's just incongruous when you have cited with two exceptions literature written within the past 50 years to have a source from the 1880s...
Duruy is a respected historian hence his opinion do have some weight. The information is attributed to him and it is good that the article would offer some answer to any reader who might ask himself: Why did she named herself Zenobia. As for Mommsen, I removed it and added a newer source
More comments
  • Now that I look at Stoneman p.113, it says that Z was fluent in Palmyrene, spoke good Greek, spoke Egyptian, and did not speak Latin. Yet this article has her fluent in all three of Greek, Egyptian and Palmyrene, and speaking Latin though not fluently. Ball, cited for that claim, does in fact back it up: but is that the scholarly consensus? The two sources I have just read literally at random disagree. (And neither cite the source that "reported" what they claim, so I can't go back to check that...) Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Its from the Augustan. I added a source with direct quote from the Augustan next to Ball's source

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • Since Syria does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, we should explicitly account for the licensing of the pictured 3D works from that region
Even when they depict statues many centuries old that are no doubt in the public domain? FunkMonk ( talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't that leave us without photos of any ancient buildings in Italy, such as this featured picture?[7] Certainly there must have been some wider discussion about how to handle this? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It would not, as copyright can still expire. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Odaenathus_Kingdom.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Palmyrene_Empire.png
  • File:OldSyrian500front.png: the uploader is not the copyright holder. What is the copyright status of this work?
  • File:Hosmer.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture
Same as above, if the author died more than a hundred years ago, as is the case here, there is no copyright, so FOP is irrelevant. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The US only cares about author's date of death in a few cases, and those don't seem likely to apply here. If these works are out of copyright, it should be relatively quick to add an appropriate tag - but we should still do so. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Herbert_Schmalz-Zenobia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria. I will work on the issues as soon as possible but will probably require your help.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 21:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this is so so annoying to be honest. You see a column 2000 years old pictured, and the one who took the picture released it into the public domain, yet we are faced with this.. I removed all the pictures that you think have issues.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you can put them back, I will help you add PD tags. The structures are certainly too old to be copyrighted. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Might take a while before I can make a full review, but it will certainly come. In the meantime, maybe more approximate dates can be given in the captions of various sculptures and buildings (and the painting)? Also, describing a banknote as "old" seems unnecessarily vague. No date? Artist names stated in captions could also be linked. FunkMonk ( talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk. Done.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ninety-five Theses

Nominator(s): JFH ( talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This short work started the Protestant Reformation. It will turn 500 years old on October 31st, on which date I hope the article can be featured on the main page. The article was just promoted to GA by Coemgenus. JFH ( talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • Why is Palmer in your sources list?  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Leftover, now removed. -- JFH ( talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at GA, as the nominator mentions. I found very little to complain about there. The only thing I'd recommend as for FA that I didn't care about at GA involves citations. Everything is well-cited, but sometimes an entire paragraph sourced to the same source is marked only by a cite at the end. That's all good, but in FAs I like to cite every sentence, even if it appears duplicative. That way, if someone adds a sentence to the paragraph later, we can distinguish what information goes with which citation. It would be unnecessary on paper, but in a dynamic encyclopedia, it makes sense. But this isn't required by the rules, I don't think, so if the nominator and the other reviewers disagree, I won't let it stand in the way of my support of this excellent article. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Iry-Hor

This is a well-written, spotless article on a topic of profound importance given the consequences it had and continues to have on world history. I did a random spot-checking of the sources and found no problem. I wonder however if the lede could better reflect the content of the article: the piece of the lede referring to the content of the theses is a single sentence "They advance Luther's positions against what he saw as abusive practices by preachers selling plenary indulgences, which were certificates believed to reduce the temporal punishment for sins committed by the purchasers themselves or their loved ones in purgatory" while the section discussing the content is a good quarter if not a third of the article. Given that people coming to read the article are likely to be at least as interested in the theses themselves as in the historical circumstances surrounding them, I think it would be good to add another sentence to the lede incorporating Luther's positions in more details, in particular vis-a-vis the pope, given that this is what led to the opposition of the church. Iry-Hor ( talk) 15:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've expanded the lead. -- JFH ( talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I gladly Support then! Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber

Looking good, some questions below:

  • Why was Tetzel barred from entering Saxony?
  • In theses 41–47 Luther begins to criticize indulgences.. why not just, "In theses 41–47 Luther criticizes indulgences..."
  • Luther begins to criticize the doctrine of the treasury of merit on which the doctrine of indulgences is based in theses 56–66 - ditto
  • there are a lot of disputations in the first para of Luther's intent

Otherwise looks good Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've addressed these. -- JFH ( talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

Overall the article looks very good. I have a couple concerns.

  • In the "Content" section, you say:
"In theses 14–16, Luther challenged common beliefs about purgatory"
He does so in many statements after that, seemingly up through thesis number 29. Thus, you may want to say "In theses 14-29, Luther challenged common beliefs about Purgatory." Then go into more specific detail about what he said in 14-16.
  • Luther is famous for his assertion, condemned as heretical by the Church, that salvation is attainable "by faith alone". I don't see any specific mention of this in the article. Is there any statement in the 95 Theses that was understood by some to imply that argument? Display name 99 ( talk) 20:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've clarified that at least for Luther the Theses don't imply that doctrine. I don't believe any of my sources argue that they imply that, only that they set Luther up to be open to disagreement with the Pope.
Thanks for your comments!-- JFH ( talk) 20:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. The article is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced. I believe it meets the criteria. Display name 99 ( talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Excellent piece of work, clearly and concisely written. I made a couple of minor edits for page number formatting. All the best, The Bounder ( talk) 22:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Coord note -- Was there a source review for formatting/reliability? You can make a request at the top of WT:FAC if not. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Red wattlebird

Nominator(s): Aa77zz ( talk · contribs) & Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a critter I commonly find in my garden. Aa77zz and I have buffed it quite a bit and it got a good going-over at GAN so I reckon it is at or nearly at FA standard. I promise to address issues promptly. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

All looks good, just a couple of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • sedentary (present year-round) — I don't like the parenthesis, perhaps year-round resident or permanent resident?
  • A mainly sedentary residentsedentary seems superfluous
  • up to 1900 m above sea level —imperial conversion
  • Your conversions to inches are inconsistent, some with fractions, others, such as the eggs, with decimals
  • often parasitized —make clear or link to brood parasite
all done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from MeegsC

Lead
  • Is the "bright yellow patch towards the tail" on the dorsal or ventral side? It's not clear from the sentence.
Ventral - fixed. Aa77zz ( talk) 19:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground. This reads a bit awkwardly. Do you mean that it spends most of the time in trees, but forages on the ground? Because that's how it reads.
Aah, I tried to rectify like this Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

*No information on breeding or status and threats in the lead? I'd expect to see at least a few sentences about each!

added now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

more coming soon!

ummm, @ MeegsC:...? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry - I'm in Guyana at the moment, with only intermittent veeeeeeeery sloooooooooow connectivity. Will check ASAP. MeegsC ( talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • I can't remember which script throws these out, and I am not certain how to fix this particular error, but I see four of these: "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" in your refs.
Not sure what the problem is here - but I've switch all author= to last=, first=. Does this fix it? Aa77zz ( talk) 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
All except for the one I just fixed. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the logic behind placing Jobling, James A. (2010) and Beruldsen, Gordon (2003) in the References section, but all other books in the Cited texts section?
Good point, I'm looking into this. Aa77zz ( talk) 20:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the three books into Sources. I'm in two minds about this. For books which are only cited once there are advantages in keeping the full reference in the text. Aa77zz ( talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Did you get a copy edit? This sentence is a bit clumsy; moreover, it seems to forget the frequency of Hawking (birds): "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground."  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
See above, I changed it Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

First, in the lead, "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" reads a bit odd. Second (I know I'm just adding on to the dogpiling on at this point), the sentence, "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground." reads weirdly. Also, before that, why did you link to just Western Australia and not all the other places? In the taxonomy section, why did you say, "The red wattlebird was first described as the wattled bee-eater by the Irish surgeon and naturalist John White in his Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, which was published in 1790."? The original common name is in italics, which doesn't make much sense to me. For the description section and on, you seem to have inconsistency in the usage of to and the em dash and whether to use fractions or decimals. The final nitpick I have is the fact that you should probably make parasites a separate section, "Predators and Parasites". It may not be long enough to make into a separate section though, it would be great if somebody else could give their take on that. Good luck! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Other Australian states now linked. Aa77zz ( talk) 20:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" seems fine to me. Cas - are you happy with this? Aa77zz ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It is fine grammatically but readers may find it odd. It could just be changed to "distinctive pinkish-red wattles on either side of the neck". It reads a lot better for me at least... RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I realized I was scanning it and putting the 'on' in it mentally when it wasn't there. Added now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • wattled bee-eater - italics removed but see MOS:ITAL "Words as words". Aa77zz ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for linking me to that, I will read it. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It is tricky as italics delineate the scientific names from common names, yet if we use words-as-words then we italicize the common names when they are set out as such. There's no real right answer on this. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding parasites, I am in two minds as we have some brood parasites mentioned in the breeding section, but it strikes me as a bit odd to group cuckoos with birdlice and protozoa. But you're the second person to raise it so will do in a sec done. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, all imperial units are in fractions and decimal units in decimals Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Just realized something else—oxford commas are inconsistent. Otherwise, it looks good. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
just adding now I think I got 'em all...(I should say I don't really like Oxford commas but they are very useful if one needs to add a ref after one..) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - Looks good. My nitpicks were all addressed. RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Aa77zz ( talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Source review sources are appropriate and consistently formatted. I checked refs 12, 19, 31 and 56, and subscription ref 23. Content is supported by sources, no close paraphrasing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks Jim Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nyuserre Ini

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor ( talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Nyuserre Ini, pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt during the 25th century BCE. The most prolific builder of his dynasty, with three new pyramids under his belt, he also completed a further three pyramids, built the largest sun temple of the Old Kingdom period and undertook restoration works in Giza and Elephantine. Starting his reign in difficult and still debated circumstances following the death of his brother and the ephemeral rule of an uncle, Nyuserre ruled over a prosperous Egypt for three decades. After his death, he became the object of a spontaneous popular cult, where he played the role of an intercessor between the believers and the gods. This article recently reached GA status following a review by Jaguar. It is part of a series of FA articles on the Fifth Dynasty (including Shepseskare, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi, Unas and one GA Sahure), and represents 8 months of research and editing work, with more than 500 inline citations drawn from over 120 sources. Iry-Hor ( talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

Sorry I've been so slow in working on the review. I'll spot-check sources and make a few more copyedits in the next few days, but I thought I should submit these comments now.

  • The article uses "Old Kingdom period" and its equivalents throughout. The normal usage is to simply say "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom", and "New Kingdom", reserving the word "period" for all the other phases of ancient Egyptian history. I wouldn't object to using "period" once, to make it clear to readers unfamiliar with Egyptian history that "Old Kingdom" refers to a time period, but in the rest of the article it should be cut.
Fixed, I am removed the word period throughout except for the first instance of "Old Kingdom". Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The article also uses the phrase "pharaoh Nyuserre" several times. Egyptological literature rarely uses "pharaoh" as a title appended to a name like this. Although I've used it in Wikipedia writing myself, I'm not entirely sure I should. Anyway, if it's going to be used that way, "Pharaoh" should be capitalized.
Fixed, I am removed all "pharaohs" appearing before the name of a king, I prefer to stick to the sources. Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Directions (north, east, etc.) should be in lowercase, unless it's part of a proper name, as in "South Abusir". I've corrected the capitalized directions I've found, but I may have missed some.
Done, I have corrected a few ones and have been over all others to make sure there aren't any mistakes anymore. Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Abusir south" sounds rather strange in English. "South Abusir" seems to be the usual term for the area in English; Lehner 2008 and Verner 1994, for example, both use it.
Corrected! Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "He may have succeeded his brother directly, as indicated by much later historical sources, or as advocated by Miroslav Verner, Shepseskare reigned between the two, albeit only for a few weeks or months at the most."
I have rewritten this sentence to clarify it. It is now split into two sentences. Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I dislike having a "main article" link at the top of a section when the link is red, but I assume you'll be creating the Pyramid of Nyuserre Ini article soon.
I want to but I don't know when I will have the time to do so. Thus I am removed the link and will put it back once the article exists. Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be useful to include Ludwig Borchardt's reconstruction of the sun temple: File:Temple-solaire-abousir.jpg. It's not outdated as far as I know (recent illustrations of the sun temple are virtually copies of it), and the temple is hard to picture without a reconstruction.
Yup, added! Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "At the western end of the rectangular court was a giant obelisk symbolizing the resting place of Ra." I'm not sure what "resting place" is meant to mean here—maybe related to the interpretation of the temple as a funerary temple for Ra. In any case, this claim isn't supported by either of the references later in the paragraph. The usual interpretation of obelisks in general is as a symbol of a ray of light, though I don't know exactly how Egyptologists interpret the sun temple obelisk, which isn't exactly the classic obelisk shape.
I have removed "symbolizing the resting place of Ra", I think the sentence was here when I started editing and I kept it without questioning it. I will read some more on this, but for the moment it is clearly better to remove the assertion. Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The citations are all in a single column right now, which stretches the article vertically. I assume you'll want to add columns to the reflist template; 20em and 30em are the values you use in your other articles on Fifth Dynasty kings.
Fixed, this had been changed by a bot for an unknown reason. Back to normal now. Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
A._Parrot Thanks very much for your comments and time! Iry-Hor ( talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. – Masterfully written and fully referenced. My few concerns have already been highlighted by A. Parrot and resolved, namely the "period" thing and the redlinks. Khruner ( talk) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Iry-Hor ( talk) 08:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - well written and well researched article. -- Udimu ( talk) 18:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones)

Nominator(s): Calibrador ( talk) 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I am a major contributor to the article, and have significantly expanded it to cover every aspect involved with creating the episode. Calibrador ( talk) 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Lead
  • I already made this copy-edit, but as a rule of thumb, spell out all numbers unless they take three of more words to write. There are exceptions.
Writing
  • At the end of the second paragraph, there's a rather long quote. Block quote it or try to cut it down and paraphrase it.
  • There's another rather long quote in the middle of the fourth paragraph.

Basically, and this applies to all sections, any long quotes, try to cut those down and paraphrase unless you feel that the full quote is particularly noteworthy to have, or that you are not able to accurately convey the same message.

Also, if there are quotation marks inside of a quote, use a single apostrophe at the beginning and end of the inner quote (that is for future reference, as I took care of these in my copy-edits).

Once the quote issues noted above are addressed, let me know. Also, if you have some time, I have an article also at FAC, God of War: Ascension. -- JDC808 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

    • @ JDC808: Thanks for the assistance in copyediting. I will take a look at the long quotes you mentioned and cut them down as best as I can. Calibrador ( talk) 01:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @ JDC808: Could you indicate by the reviewer's name which quotes you were referring to? Calibrador ( talk) 01:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ Calibrador:

Writing
  • Benioff's quote at the end of paragraph 2.
  • Wright's quote in paragraph 4.
  • Weiss's quote in paragraph 5, though this one isn't that bad.
  • Both of Benioff's quotes int the last paragraph.
Casting
  • Chapman's quote in paragraph 1.
  • Both of Dormer's quote in paragraph 2; the second one isn't too bad.
  • Pryce's quotes in the next paragraph can be trimmed/paraphrased.
Filming
  • All quotes in paragraph 3.
  • Sapochnik's quotes in the next two paragraphs.
Costuming
  • Clapton's quotes throughout this section.
Musical score
  • Any long quotes by Djawadi in this section.
Critical reception
  • Fowler's quotes in paragraph 2.
  • Calia's first quote in paragraph 2. His second quote doesn't really add anything to the reception IMO.
  • Egner's quote in paragraph 3.
  • Hibberd's quote in paragraph 3 can probably be trimmed/paraphrased.

-- JDC808 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look at what quotes I think are important to stay, and copyedit the ones that I believe could be copyedited and convey the same thing. Is there criteria specifically against having long quotes? In the actor instances, I thought it best to have the actual quote that relays their personal feelings about leaving the show or working on the show. Calibrador ( talk) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There's not a rule against having long quotes, however, it's not good to have a bunch of quotes (see MOS:QUOTE). In some of the instance noted above, the majority of the paragraph is quote(s). -- JDC808 03:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by HJ Mitchell

What you have here is good and I can see myself supporting but at the moment it completely fails criterion 1b, specifically "places the subject in context". A reader who hasn't watched Game of Thrones would have no idea who these people are or what any of the events in the plot section refer to. At the very least you need an introductory paragraph that leads the reader into the detailed plot that follows. As it is, it's like starting Star Wars at "I am your father". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to go about avoiding this. As this is the 60th hour of the television show, there would be a lot to have to provide back story on to make the uninitiated aware of who each of the characters are, what the settings are, etc. Especially with as many characters there are in the show. I've already attempted to cut the plot as short as possible, only including the necessary information, to at least try to conform with WP:Plot, but I would think the Wikilinks to the main articles, that do place the subjects into context, would be the main resource for the uninitiated to understand the basics about the article that's being presented. Only thing I could think of that would alleviate the problem would be to have a big list of the cast and characters and explain what they are all about, and I don't think that would be beneficial for the article as a whole. Calibrador ( talk) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My two cents on that situation: Although we're supposed to present these articles in a way that someone unfamiliar could understand, I would find it a bit that someone who has never seen the show would be reading an article about its last aired episode (the 60th episode to put it in perspective). If anything, maybe a small summary at the start of the Plot section (or maybe small summaries for each subsection) that summarizes what happened prior to this episode (at least summarizing the events of season 6 that lead to the events of this episode). As for characters, in addition to linking their names, I would link List of Game of Thrones characters at the start of the plot with Template:See also. -- JDC808 03:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

CMLL World Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ -DK  15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, promoted by the oldest professional wrestling promotion in the world. It was an FAC in April 2016 but unfortunately died on the vine due to lack of input from reviewers. I have created a lot of Good or Featured content on Wikipedia and I am always willing to listed to suggestions and made adjustments to help improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia.  MPJ -DK  15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Resolved

I've done copy-editing throughout the article. There was a bit more than what I expected for an FAC and I feel that this should have been taken through a copy-editing process before nomination.

  • I noticed your work and I am grateful for it as well, there was more than I was aware of for sure and I apologize. Question - is it normal to spell out all "15th" etc.? I followed the convention of anything under 10 is spelled out but left the rest as numbers.  MPJ -DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It depends on what style guide you go by. If you prefer the numbers above 10 to be written as numbers, you can change those back if you want. -- JDC808 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Nah I'm good with the change, I was just wondering if it was one of the things to put on my personal "checklist" to always spell them out.  MPJ -DK  02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, I'm mainly familiar with WWE's championship articles, so I have a question as WWE only recognizes title changes, does CMLL also recognize title defenses in their titles' histories?

  • Well with CMLL it's inconsistent - TV announcers will often mention that it's the "fourth defense" etc. but it's hardly ever referred to in writing. Since championship matches are much rarer in CMLL it is totally possible to provide a list of defenses, I am just not sure when to included them and when not to, I went with "not" in this case.  MPJ -DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I was mainly asking because in some spots of the article, defenses were noted (e.g., Último Guerrero is officially credited with 20 successful title defenses by CMLL,..."). -- JDC808 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
      • So for Guerrero they specifically mentioned 20 and that it was a record, a comment I stumbled and figured it would make an interestig addition to the reigns section. Since I had a "most defenses" I researched the "least" defenses too and noted the oddities to kinda cover all bases. I think it makes for good info in the article, but I probably would not want to put it in list form.  MPJ -DK  02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For the tournaments, does their happen to be specific dates (and specific shows) for when each round occurred? -- JDC808 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I will look around, the second tournament definitely needs dates as the matches were spread out over several shows and I can find show names etc.  MPJ -DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I added some information on the 1992 tournament, that one had the least amount of detail that has now been added. I think the other two have all the information I know of.  MPJ -DK  03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all your input so far JDC808, and the help with the copyediting, definitly helping make this a stronger article.  MPJ -DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Meant to come back to this earlier today (technically yesterday in my time zone). I'm gonna look over the article more tomorrow (or rather later today). Also, if you have some free time, I also have an FAC up. It's of the 2013 video game God of War: Ascension. -- JDC808 05:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

One comment before I'm off for the night. I happened to look at the article history and noticed this edit you made. I had added "respectively" because the way it was worded sounded like that was the order. I'll have a follow up on this when I return later. -- JDC808 05:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Gonna breakdown the article section by section:

Lead

Possible way to rewrite the first paragraph:

  1. The CMLL World Heavyweight Championship (Spanish: Campeonato Mundial de Peso Completo del CMLL) is a professional wrestling world heavyweight championship that was established in 1991. Promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), the promotion introduced the championship to signal their independence from the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). As part of the move away from the NWA, CMLL established a number of other championships also designated as "world championships" for a variety of divisions, such as the [link one or two of the others here]. The World Heavyweight Championship was the first CMLL title to be created, and the inaugural champion was Konnan el Bárbaro, who won the title by defeating Cien Caras in the finals of a tournament on June 9, 1991. The current champion is Máximo Sexy, who is in his [#] reign. He is the fifteenth person to hold the championship and the eighteenth overall champion.
  • The italicized part could be omitted as the body of the article covers who Konnan defeated. I'll leave that decision to you.
    • True it's a detail better saved for the detailed section, I will remove.  MPJ -DK  00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence is not entirely necessary for the lead (as it is covered in Reigns). Again, I'll leave that decision to you.
    • Well technially everything in the lead should be covered in main body ;-) so in this case I disagree.  MPJ -DK  00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I guess I should have said let the Reigns section go into this detail (similar to the above point). To me, it kinda seemed trivial for the lead. But it's fine if you wanna keep it. -- JDC808 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph is fine, aside from me linking "Mexican wrestling". -- JDC808 23:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Did a little copy-editing on the lead, as seen here with the edit summary.

Something else I meant to ask sooner on, is there a picture of the actual championship? I think that would be better for the infobox picture, and the picture of the current champion can go in the Reigns section. -- JDC808 02:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I have not found one with a proper licese unfortunately.  MPJ -DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Take this, download it, and then upload it to Wikipedia with the proper rationale. It's from cmll.com. -- JDC808 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Added, I used the same basic rational as several WWE championship belt images. Hopefully it does not get deleted. Thank you for the generic image, that's a great find.  MPJ -DK  01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
History

Did CMLL leave the NWA in 1991 or in the late-1980s? In the lead, I was under the impression that they left the NWA in 1991 with the creation of this championship. However, in the History section, it says that the EMLL left the NWA in the late-1980s and became CMLL.

  • Left in late 1980s, renamed to CMLL in 1991 where they introduced the championship.  MPJ -DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay....so they left the NWA in the late-1980s. Did they still have a working relationship with them until 1991, or did they just not have a championship for a few years until they introduced this title? -- JDC808 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Alright so this gets a little convoluted here. They left the NWA, but still used the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship, NWA World Middleweight Championship and the NWA World Welterweight Championship as well as a slew of "Mexican National" championships, so they had PLENTY of championships. In 1991 they rebranded to make it obvious they were not with the NWA any more - fans were confused since they promoted three NWA championships etc. So they created a number of "CMLL World" titles and downplayed the NWA ones (but still promoted them). Of course they actually still promote three NWA labelled championships today, almost 30 years after leaving - CMLL, they're that weird relative that you love despite of them being weird (or maybe because they are).  MPJ -DK  15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay, that helps in clarifying this. I made these two edits, 1 and 2, for clarification. This article doesn't need to get into the detail of CMLL still promoting three of NWA's titles. -- JDC808 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"On April 2, 2009, Último Guerrero successfully defended the title against Rey Mendoza Jr. on an independent wrestling promotion show in Gomez Palacio, marking the first time the CMLL World title was defended on a non-CMLL promoted show."

  • Was this the first time that a CMLL World Championship was defended on a non-CMLL show, or the first time that the Heavyweight Championship was defended on a non-CMLL show? If it is the former, that sentence should be reworded as "marking the first time that a CMLL World title....."; if it was the latter, then change "CMLL World title" to "Heavyweight Championship" or "Heavyweight title". I ask this because there are other CMLL World titles, and I don't know if any of those had been defended on a non-CMLL show before the Heavyweight.
  • I am not sure if others were defended prior, the source spoke only of the cmll heavy. I left it at that to not goo into OR territory.  MPJ -DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • In that case, reword it to Heavyweight, because that would still be correct. -- JDC808 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Rules

State what Garza's weight division was when he won the championship. It can be stated as "The Heavyweight Championship was no exception as several champions were under the weight limit, for example, Héctor Garza, who is classified as a [weight division and link it]." -- JDC808 02:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I will get that added.  MPJ -DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I added in that he would be in the "Junior Light Heavyweight" at his weight and threw in a source for Garza's billed weight as well to make sure it's got all bases covered.  MPJ -DK  02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
1991 tournament

This is the follow up from earlier that I had mentioned. To avoid ambiguity, for the first two battle royals, I would suggest only mentioning those who were eliminated. Before doing that, however, how were there multiple winners for the battle royals? For example, the first one. Was it an 8-man battle royal and the match ended when only four wrestlers were left in the ring? -- JDC808 03:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It ended with four people still in the ring. And I will look at the wording to tighten it up.  MPJ -DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, this could be reworded to something like:

"The first round of the tournament saw two eight-man battle royals, with each ending when four wrestlers were left in the ring. This was used to cut the field in half with the remaining wrestlers from each match advancing to the next round. The first battle royal featured Konnan, Rayo de Jalisco Jr., Black Magic, and Mascara Ano 2000 advancing, while Brazo de Plata, Vampiro Canadiense, Universo 2000, and El Egipcio were eliminated. The second battle royal saw Nitron, Pierroth Jr., Pirata Morgan, and Cien Caras progress to the next round, with Fabulous Blondie, Gran Markus Jr., Máscara Sagrada, and El Egipcio being eliminated. The second round saw another pair of battle royals, this time with four men in each and ending when two wrestlers were left in the ring. This narrowed down the tournament to the final four wrestlers, who faced off in traditional semifinals matches."

  • "finals" can be omitted as it is shown in the bracket, and this paragraph shows how they got to the semifinals in the bracket.
  • Also, just noticed something, how was El Egipcio in both battle royals? -- JDC808 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah if you recall I called CMLL "weird" earlier? Yeah this is one of those cases, from all sources I have seen on the tournament they had Egipico in both blocks - Not sure why they did that other than some sort of massivly disorganized planning snafu.  MPJ -DK  15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Did not even read my own note that's in the article - Apparently he was a last minute replacement for someone who did not show up.  MPJ -DK  15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I am also at fault for not looking at the note lol I had copy-pasted the paragraph and did reworking here so I didn't look at the note as I was concerned with how the paragraph was worded. The wording above (with that note) should suffice. -- JDC808 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe I have addressed the last couple of concerns you raised JDC808. Once again thank you for your contributions, it's a stronger article now.  MPJ -DK  02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: This has been the most extensive FAC review I've done (not saying that's a bad thing; usually an extensive review is done by the time I get to an FAC). I read over the article again and I feel comfortable in giving my support for this FAC. -- JDC808 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I did not do a source review. I will let someone else take care of that. I did glance over the ref list and the sources appear to be okay (I do like that there are a good number of print sources). Check the format on the sources and make sure that they all match (for example, ref 28 is "Cagematch.net" where the others from that site are "CageMatch"). -- JDC808 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Acne vulgaris

Nominator(s): TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the very common chronic skin condition acne vulgaris and underwent significant refinement during the last FAC. I strongly believe the article should be featured as a significant amount of effort has been poured into this article (by multiple editors) to ensure that its discussion of acne vulgaris is comprehensive, accurate, and accessible to a general readership. This is a very important topic since the condition is nearly ubiquitous (one of the most common skin conditions worldwide). This article aims to provide all readers (general and professional) with an informative summary of the underpinnings of this condition and to address any questions those affected by the condition might have (e.g., safety and efficacy of various treatment modalities). I believe this article to be an example of Wikipedia's highest quality work but am certainly open to constructive feedback to further refine it to reach FA, if applicable. Thank you to those reviewing the article for your consideration. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by CFCF

Reserving a spot for a coming review (may not occur in its entirety before the 10th of January). Prior to the full review I may perform some minor c/e and adjustments. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrific, and thank you responding so quickly CFCF. I do have a question for you. What is it about the procedures part in the lead do you feel needs clarification? So far other readers have felt this section was clear so I'm curious to hear your thoughts about that part. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh right: well procedures is a little vague — considering quite an industry exists offering all-manner of "facials". It would be better to explain this as "medical procedures" or some qualification that explains that much of what is on offer does not work. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I will start by going through the prose for issues with readability and clarity, diving into specific sources later. For what it's worth this likely fulfills all the criteria for FA already. However it is an important topic and when it reaches the main page the article should be a good as possible. Some early points:

  • Images are important as there is significant variation in presentation:
    1. We should try to find images that show acne on different skin types. Acne looks very different on dark skin
    2. We should try to find quality images of acne of varying severity.

These are not necessarily requirements for FA, but if we can we should include them. I will take a look if I can find anything. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with everything you said CFCF. We do have photos that exhibit some variance in acne severity and on different skin colors. We don't have any high-quality images of acne vulgaris on someone with very dark skin and my last review of the Wikimedia Commons images was unrevealing. If you know of a good image, I agree it would be worthwhile to include. I have no objection to rewording procedures as "medical procedures". I think the efficacy is well-addressed in the body and we don't go into significant detail about the relative efficacy of medications, lifestyle changes, or the medical procedures in the lead. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking and will continue looking for images. Unfortunately there aren't that many in the medical literature that are free. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected but thanks for looking. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I intend to keep my comments coming rolling and I hope they do not overwhelm you.

  • This article currently redirects from "acne", yet makes no mention of other types of acne such as
    • acne rosacea
      • I'm not sure what you mean. When I search acne rosacea this redirects to the rosacea page. This is briefly covered in the differential diagnosis section. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • acne inversa ( hidradenitis suppurativa, Wikipedia's use of that name is debatable, should potentially be moved to acne inversa)
There is some debate whether these should be classified as acne or not, but they are widely referred to as such and I think about a sentence differentiating them from acne vulgaris is due in the classifications section. I am able to provide you with a high quality source that describes both the classification as such as well as the controversy surrounding the classification.
      • That's a fair point. I have seen the literature refer to hidradenitis suppurativa as acne inversa. Which source did you have in mind for the classification/controversy? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No mention of "background erythema" — a strong factor differentiating acne vulgaris from acne rosacea
    • That specific phrase wasn't used but rosacea is discussed in the differential diagnosis section as above. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Blackhead is explained as an open pore, but is also referred to as an "open comedone", this should be in classification
    • I'm unclear on the suggested edit here. The discussion of blackheads' definition is within the classification section already. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mention of juveline acne needed
    • I'm assuming you meant juvenile acne here (which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page to link to). Hasn't been featured in any acne review I've seen so far. If you have good sources demonstrating this deserves mention, I'll take a look. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mention of papullopustules needed (simple as we mention both papules and pustules in the classification
    • I haven't seen this mentioned in any review I've seen so far. Do you have an illustrative source that mentions a papulopustule as a characteristic acne lesion? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We could potentially mention secondary infection with other microbes such as s. aureus
    • That's reasonable. Where in the article did you have in mind? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We should carry information on classification of scarring, mentioning: hypertrophic (common), keloid (rare)
    • This information is in the article in the scarring section. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To fulfill this I can offer help finding images and accessing sources, mail me if you need help with sources. I have sources for all the statements above. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by My Core Competency is Competency

Comment - Wow... You have done such a great job improving this article! Here are a few initial thoughts: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is used to treat active acne, not just scars (I am most familiar with red light therapy; check Pubmed for a reference). Microneedling and subcision are two other common treatments for acne scars ([8], [9]). Cryotherapy with dry ice was once a very common treatment for acne (see [10]; you can probably find a better reference), maybe you can add it as a historical note (I think some docs still do this). Hydroquinone should definitely be mentioned for treatment of PIH. For meds where both oral and topical forms are avaliable, it should be made clear which form is being referred to in the article (for example, is "dapsone" being used to refer to oral dapsone or topical dapsone gel; the same applies to clindamycin as another example). I would like to see Whey protein specifically added as a cause (that's a big trigger in people taking protein supplements to enhance weight lifting). I know this is an article on acne "vulgaris", but it would be nice to see the various subtypes of acne briefly mentioned, including other conditions that are closely related (such as SAPHO and PAPA syndromes) (see: [11]). A bit more coverage of drug-induced causes would be a plus too, for example, acne from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (cetuximab, panitumumab) and small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (eg, gefitinib, erlotinib, lapatinib (see [12]). Perhaps olumacostat glasareti should also be mentioned as a possible future treatment (see: [13]). Cosmetic adhesive pads could also be mentioned as a treatment (see here [14]). Also, some comments on the role of cosmetics/make-up might be beneficial (both with respect to concealing acne, as well as acting as a possible cause of acne (comedogenic vs non-comedogenic products)). Perhaps the US iPledge program should also be mentioned with regard to oral isotretinoin (see [15]). Though acne lesions are rarely biopsied to confirm the diagnosis, there are distinctive features visible in a skin biopsy specimen when examined by a pathologist under the microscope; it might be nice to have a description (and photo if possible) of that dermatopathology in the article (you may need a better reference, but see [16]). Would a "Notable cases" section be a good idea, as is seen with other FA's like here [17] and here [18], a "Etymology and pronunciation" section like here [19], and/or an "Other animals" section (apparently cats can get acne, see here [20]; though you'll need better sourcing for your article)? And a question I have is this, is it a problem that some of the references are quite heavily cited, such as this one: [21] (I don't know if there are any pertinent wikipedia policies regarding this)? There are many other fun references that could be used for this possible feature article (I think this is a great one, for example: [≤http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/479093]). Another thing you might try is to find author email addresses in the reference articles you have used and email those authors inviting them to comment here (that might give you some really useful feedback). Additionally, I wonder if the article name should instead be reversed to simply acne with a redirect from acne vulgaris (perhaps someone else at the Medicine project can chime in on that); then all the various subtypes could be merged into and redirected towards this article (most of which are stub type articles). Maybe a "Further reading" section could be added at the end of the article (obviously not required, but I find it to be a nice addition (see [22])). But overall, fantastic work! --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 14:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Core, that was a rather large block of text you left so I'll try to work through it in order.
  • I'll look into the photodynamic therapy part to see if I can find high-quality evidence to support the assertion that it's used for both acne & acne scars and report back with what I find.
So, just to clarify, the article does not say photodynamic therapy is used solely for acne scars. I think the article makes it pretty clear that it's used for acne vulgaris itself too since it discusses its mechanisms involve reducing bacterial (e.g., P. acnes) load and reduces sebum production. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The microneedling search you linked there is mainly from one journal (which is not MEDLINE-indexed) and was not mentioned in a slew of high-quality review articles so I would question how common this really is as a treatment for acne and/or acne scars. I'll have to look into the subcision part more.
I've added a few lines about the microneedling treatment in the procedures section for the sake of being comprehensive. It appears to have received limited study for acne vulgaris and scarring so far but it has been reviewed in JAAD so I agree that it's worth mentioning. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 06:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll look more into cryotherapy but very few (1-2) cover this topic for acne vulgaris so if it was once common (per that 1968 paper), it doesn't appear to be anymore.
I performed another search for cryotherapy and acne vulgaris and there's very little mention. Cutis has an article that discusses it but it's a low impact journal so it's questionable whether it really merits inclusion in the article since it doesn't appear to be a prominent treatment. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll take another look at the PIH section re: hydroquinone.
A brief section discussing hydroquinone has been added to the treatment section since it is a frequently used treatment for acne-associated PIH. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The mention of other acne subtypes would add unnecessary length to the article (which is already quite long, IMO) and there are dedicated Wikipedia pages to drug-induced acne (although those need a considerable amount of work). I believe those pages would be the more appropriate places to include discussion of the medications you mentioned (e.g., EGFR inhibitors).
  • I'll take another look at the dapsone bit to see if that requires clarification.
I've clarified that topical dapsone was meant in one sentence where it was ambiguous. The formulation of clindamycin under discussion is clear in each instance it is mentioned in the article. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have a high-quality source you can cite regarding the whey protein claim? Most review articles state diet has not been conclusively linked to acne vulgaris incidence or severity as the current article states.
per [23]...[24]review-[25]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see whey specifically mentioned there. Also, @ My Core Competency is Competency:, in [26] you said you thought the article could do with a good copyedit. Where do you think it could use this specifically? If you can identify problematic areas, I'm happy to address them. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The source you linked for the cosmetic adhesive pads is not a high-quality one (not a MEDLINE-indexed journal).
  • If you have good sources to suggest for inclusion regarding the makeup to conceal acne, that might be a useful addition to the society/culture section so I'd be interested to hear your suggestions about that.
  • I think specific mention of the US IPledge program might be a bit too U.S.-centric for the article but that's just my two cents. If the consensus is that this is okay for inclusion, it might be worthwhile mentioning in the retinoid or society/culture sections.
  • A brief addition of the histopathology is not a bad idea but it will be hard to incorporate that into simple language for a general readership. I'll look into that more.
  • I'm unsure about a notable cases section. It might be a reasonable addition to the society/culture section if we can find good examples.
  • I personally don't think the etymology section is particularly important since that's discussed in the history section.
  • It's okay to cite a review heavily if it's an influential and important review. I think there is definitely adequate diversity in the reviews included in the article considering there are over 100 references. Additionally, many of the claims referenced to that article are also supported by other reviews as well so I think we're fine there.
  • The JAMA article you cite is an old primary source so I wouldn't recommend its inclusion.
  • The further reading suggestion is a nice one if you have any specific sources you would like to present for review.
  • I would vote to keep the article as acne vulgaris since it's established in the very beginning of the article that it's referring to what is colloquially called acne. I think naming the article itself "acne" is too vague since there are so many subtypes. @ Doc James:, @ Opabinia regalis:, @ Seppi333:, @ CFCF:, any thoughts about these suggestions? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyler, my initial comment was from just an initial skimming of the article. I can give you more feedback once those initial issues are fully addressed (and I do think you have overlooked a few of my initial comments (probably by accident)). With regard to copy editing, again it is not my strength, but I can say that subjectively (to me), this article does not flow/read like one of Wikipedia's best articles. Here are just two examples/honest questions I have:

"Boxcar scars are round or ovoid indented scars with sharp borders and vary in size from 1.5–4 mm across." Is the right type of dash used here and should there be a space between the "4" and "mm" ? (I don't know) Is a comma needed after "ovoid"?
"Frequently used combinations include the following: antibiotic + benzoyl peroxide, antibiotic + topical retinoid, or topical retinoid + benzoyl peroxide." Should plus signs be used here? Or should there be words instead?

I think you should have multiple copy editors look this article over again.

Whey protein is mentioned in the full text of that article (search reference 18 for "Whey"). And with regard to references, the ones I provided above were just to get you started. I realize better sources need to be found for some of the facts/issues I mentioned (but they are out there and you can find them). On a related note, think about what your audience would want to know about; take a young woman for example. She is going to want to know about cosmetics (do they cause acne, can she use them). There needs to be some coverage of cosmetics, including cosmetic adhesive pads, etc.

My feeling is that opinion on the length of a FA is irrelevant and subjective (it takes the length it takes to make an excellent article). My preference would be that you change the article name to "acne" and redirect from "acne vulgaris" as well and merge in all the obscure subtypes of acne into this article (like pomade acne - that is never going to be more than a ~1 sentence stub anyway). Once all those are merged in (see here for a good list [27]) then you can have a really interesting "etymology section" talking about all the obscure names, including what "vulgaris" means (common). Plus, people are going to search for "acne" not "acne vulgaris".

While this may be controversial, and I don't have strong feelings about it, Brad Pitt might be one option for a "notable cases" section (Google him and acne scarring - he is "known" for his bad skin).

Here are some ISBN's for further reading: 0723435715, 032331967X, 0323244750, 0071669043.

-- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Which specific comments do you think I have overlooked Core? I'm pretty sure I addressed just about everything you mentioned earlier and have incorporated many of your suggestions into the article. The ones I didn't were generally ones I disagreed with or did not see good sources to support the idea. No comma is needed after the word ovoid and I'm pretty sure that type of dash was felt to be okay by Grammarfascist (and many others who have read through so far so I'd be surprised if someone changed that) and none of the aforementioned seemed to have any issue with the + sign (but if someone vociferously advocated for the word "and" there, I wouldn't be opposed since it's so minor a change). I'm not really sure why the article doesn't read to you like one of Wikipedia's best. I think article length is important (within reason) for the sake of readability. We must keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for a general readership and if it's endlessly long then few will read it. I'm going to agree with Opabinia and say the article should remain acne vulgaris. I think the other acne articles simply need to be developed. If we add in all the other forms of acne, that's going to lengthen the article even further. The article does come up if the term "acne" is searched so we should be okay there, but I'd be interested to hear what other members of the community have to say about these matters. I'll take a look into the whey/acne link but from what I've seen the consensus amongst secondary sources is there is no convincing link at this time. Lastly, why do cosmetics need to be discussed in this article? As above, what reference(s) do you suggest for this? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 05:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
So, looking into the question of a link between whey and acne, I find it interesting that the most recent JAAD guidelines from 2016 say that observational evidence (often very limited by retrospective design and self-reporting to say the least and no RCT evidence) has suggested a link between dairy and acne severity but found that milk (especially skim) was associated yet cheese and yogurt were not. It strikes me as peculiar that other dairy products such as yogurt would not show the same correlation if this were truly attributable to whey protein. Granted, this is totally my own analysis on the matter and inadmissible as WP:OR, but I felt it was worth mentioning all the same. Taken together, since whey protein is mentioned in a JAAD 2014 review already included in the article, I think it's reasonable to allow brief mention but whey protein's link does not seem to have much evidence behind it at this time. I have added a brief statement covering the topic. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 05:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Things you have yet to address at all: adding brief mention of other conditions that are closely related (such as SAPHO and PAPA syndromes) (this is a separate issue from adding in the subtypes of acne), adding mention of olumacostat glasareti as a possible future treatment, adding an "other animals" section, and emailing article authors for feedback. With regard to copy editing, if you can get User:Tony1 to look at this article and he thinks it's ready for FA status, then I would be satisfied on this point (I did post on his talk page here [28]). I have also already answered "why do cosmetics need to be discussed in this article" and references are out there (search through here [29] and see more specifically here [30], [31], [32], [33]). With regard to other initial content issues that remain unresolved, I suggest you solicit many more opinions from other less biased third party users regarding: mention of the US IPledge program, addition of notable cases, addition of an etymology section, addition of cryotherapy, changing the article name to "acne" and merging in all the various subtypes (including adding drug-induced causes of acne), addition of dermpath findings, the presence of heavily cited sources (is that a problem?), addition of a "Further reading" section. I would love more users (10+ ?) debating these issues, not just you and I and two other users (this is healthy for the FA process). For the time being, I oppose this nomination.-- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 13:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, there is essentially zero chance of 10+ users weighing in on topics like "should olumacostat glasaretil be covered". (But here's one more: there's no need to add unproven, still-in-development possible treatments to an already long article about a disease with many existing treatments.) Also, Wikipedians are perfectly capable of making judgments about whether an article meets the FA criteria; while there have been other projects aimed at soliciting external review, contacting outside authors has never been an expectation at FA. As for the cosmetics thing, see also my comments in the first FAC about body image and media representations - I could believe there's an article waiting to be written at acne in popular culture, but I'm not sure it needs to be in this article. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 00:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for more users participating in this FA review, even if they don't chime in on all the questions raised. Regarding asking outside authors to review this article,I suggested that idea thinking it might be helpful, not an expectation (though I have brought it up again as Tyler did not respond to the idea); I don't feel strongly about this issue. Cosmetics, on the other hand, I do. This is a general article about acne with no mention of cosmetics, no matter how brief - it is a major omission. I don't think a whole section is necessarily needed, but some type of coverage is. And concerning olumacostat glasaretil and "there's no need to add unproven, still-in-development possible treatments", have you read the "research" section in this article? By your reasoning essentially that entire section should be deleted (which I would not agree with). -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 02:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think it's slightly premature to oppose the nomination based on the above issues since I'm actively addressing them. I have tried getting other editors over here (pinged above for opinions though I think 10+ is a little ambitious) but I'll ping them again. @ Doc James:, @ Seppi333:, @ CFCF:, @ Ozzie10aaaa: any thoughts about Core's suggestions and concerns? More opinions are always welcome and strongly encouraged. Core, I'll try to address your concerns that have not been sufficiently addressed. I left a comment for Tony yesterday so we'll see if he answers soon and has any additional ideas for copyediting but I did make some tweaks yesterday that should improve the article's readability. Regarding your suggestions/concerns above, I'll address them in order.
  • I had previously grouped the concern you had about SAPHO and PAPA syndromes into the same issue as not mentioning the various acne subtypes. I'll look into this issue more to see if mention is warranted and report back soon.
So, looking into the matter further, the most recent reviews I found discussing SAPHO syndrome specify that acne conglobata and acne fulminans occur in up to 25% of patients with this rare syndrome and these seem to be regarded as dermatologic entities distinct from acne vulgaris (unless I'm missing something) but other reviews do mention variable severity of the acne so perhaps acne conglobata and fulminans are simply severe forms of the acne vulgaris spectrum. Is that correct Core or would you view that as a misrepresentation of the definition of acne conglobata and fulminans? If these are just severe variants of acne vulgaris, then I agree it's worth mentioning and have a good review article from Clinics in Dermatology I can use to add this information and a few other syndromes. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 03:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I did briefly look at the olumacostat glasareti trial you linked earlier. I have to look into it more to see if it merits brief mention in the research section.
I think this is still too preliminary to warrant mention after further review of the cited trial. The results are encouraging but it's a single phase IIa trial of relatively short duration. The other treatments mentioned in the research section are largely reviewed in a secondary source so I think we can wait for a secondary source to emerge covering olumacostat glasareti (very interesting novel MOA though!). TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't feel strongly about the other animals section but certainly don't think its absence should preclude an FA nomination from going through. I'd be curious to hear what other editors think about this idea.
  • I don't see where you explained the need for discussion about cosmetics. In your original suggestion, you mention cosmetic adhesive pads should be mentioned and link to a non-MEDLINE indexed journal (which I did address above since it's not a high-quality source though I'm sure you're right that high-quality sources do exist). Additionally, you suggested mentioning the use of makeup as a cause of acne but I believe this belongs in the acne cosmetica article. With respect to the use of makeup to conceal/minimize the appearance of acne, I believe that may have a place in the society & culture section though I would need a good source (thanks for linking the PubMed search-I'll explore that).
  • I think it's reasonable to have other opinions on the IPledge question. I still think it's a bit too U.S. centric but if consensus says otherwise I'm happy to mention it.
  • I'm looking into dermpath findings so stay tuned (This was addressed above as a good suggestion in my earlier comments and it hasn't been forgotten).
  • I maintain that with >100 sources there is adequate diversity despite some reviews being heavily cited (as above, this is addressed by the fact that most of the statements supported by some of these heavily cited reviews are verified in others).
  • I don't feel strongly about the notable cases section but I think it's optional and shouldn't preclude upgrade to FA.
  • I still don't think cryotherapy is worthy of mention and would be WP:UNDUE. It's very sparsely mentioned in recent high-quality literature (from the search I did anyway but if you come across high-quality sources really discussing it, please let me know)
  • I think the mention of the drug-induced acne belongs in the acne medicamentosa article since that seems to have enough of a distinction to not call that true acne vulgaris but a more specific form of acne. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 02:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Tyler - I can see you are working hard on this article, and you’re doing a good job! I took some time to reflect about this FAC the last hour, and I really don’t want to dig in any further on these issues. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. If you do end up adding a notable cases section, you could reference celebs who have admitted to having acne and endorsed Proactiv in commercials (see specifically [34]). I will not stand in your way any further and look forward to seeing what the ultimate acne FA looks like! -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 03:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@ My Core Competency is Competency:, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you from participating. In fact, I encourage you to stay and wait to see what other editors think since we value your input. As you can see, I am incorporating many of your suggestions and I do think they are helpful. I'm not suggesting that you're obstructing anything but I do disagree with some suggestions you've made (that's certainly allowed and okay-this is why we have discussion). Since you're a dermatologist, can you weigh in on the question I posed about the acne conglobata/acne fulminans and SAPHO/PAPA syndromes? If you could provide some insight about that, it would certainly help clarify whether their mention is appropriate. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I must say I do not agree with MCCiC about mentioning SAPHO and PAPA, these are just one of a multitude of disorders that display acne as part of their presentation. I mean if we don't stop there we're going to have to list them all by name. Certain mention of disorders which present themselves with acne may be due, including acne medicamentosa, but hardly more than a sentence, making it undue to mention SAPHO and PAPA by name.

We should remember that this is a Wikipedia FA, not a full Cochrane review, frankly these requirements strike me as far from what FA entails. None of our FA's are anywhere near perfect, and if we expect perfection we will simply get nothing. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Opabinia

I reviewed this article in some detail in the previous FAC round and just re-read it. While I still think there's probably room to expand the "society and culture" section, I haven't found as much material as I would've expected and think this subtopic may actually be better off covered elsewhere, somewhere like body image. In response to the above, I think the article's current name is preferable. I'm out of nitpicks and I support this nomination. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Seppi333

Continuing from where I left off during the last nomination...

I'm going to take on a review of the article's MOS compliance ( criterion 2) now. Seppi333 ( Insert ) 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Criterion 2b ( MOS:LAYOUT): since this is a medical article, the section ordering is indicated by MOS:MED. From looking at the TOC and a cursory inspection of the sections (mainly to identify any single sentence paragraphs and see how section hatnotes were used), I can see that the layout conforms to MOS:MED#Diseases or disorders or syndromes. There's no issues with the formatting in the EL section, the image layout is fine (per my image review during the last nomination), and the correct infobox for a disease ({{ Infobox medical condition}}) is used in the article.
    In a nutshell, I see no issues with the current layout. Seppi333 ( Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Criterion 2c ( MOS:CITE): pending review - reviewing citation formatting and consistency is rather tedious, so I'll probably end up doing this last. Seppi333 ( Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Criterion 2 overall (general WP:MOS compliance): I've gone through the article to find and fix formatting issues relevant to MOS:NUM/ MOS:DATE (partially done via script), MOS:NBSP/ MOS:DASH (partially done via script), MOS:TEXT, and MOS:ABBR. The revisions made by me and the nominator during my image review in the last FAC fully addressed my concerns relevant to MOS:IMAGE and MOS:ALT/ MOS:CAPTION. I'm not going to go through every aspect of the MOS since this isn't actually necessary for FA promotion; however, based upon a fairly thorough examination of the article's source and the article itself, I don't see any further issues with any of these components of the MOS. Seppi333 ( Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Seppi, that sounds great. Once you've finished reviewing the last few criteria about the lead and citation formatting/consistency, please be sure to let me know if anything needs fixing and I'll attend to it immediately. Once that criterion is satisfied, please let me know if there are other issues you see with the article (if you care to comment on them) and elaborate if you support or oppose the FA nomination. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 05:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Seppi333:, any updates on your assessment of MOS compliance? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 03:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll follow up soon. Sorry for the delay. Seppi333 ( Insert ) 03:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)