Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Nominations

Jessica Chastain

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Back at this after I had to withdraw the previous nomination a year ago. Hoping for more constructive criticism this time around. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • I looked at this a year ago, so I'm working from a diff since Sept 19. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award nominations and nominations for two British Academy Film Awards" was changed to: " Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations". First, that's wrong: change it to "two Academy Award nominations and two British Academy Film Award (BAFTA) nominations", and use BAFTA after that. Second, if you're talking about where you visited this summer, and you say "I went to London, then Bristol, then Manchester. I visited London twice and Paris twice.", then many listeners will think you visited London three times, because you're talking as if this is an ordered list of your destinations. After you make the change I just suggested, the lead will say: "Her performance as an aspiring socialite in The Help earned her an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty. Chastain made her Broadway debut in a revival of The Heiress in the same year. ... Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations." Most readers, especially if they're reading quickly, will interpret that last sentence as "two additional Academy Award nominations" (unspecified), because you appear to be presenting an ordered list of her accolades. Don't repeat awards in the lead section. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "She is known to prepare extensively for her roles": Some WPian copyeditors automatically change this to "She prepares extensively for her roles", but I think it's worth slowing down and trying to figure out what the source means. If they avoided saying that she actually does prepare extensively for her roles (rather than just being known for that) because they're hedging, then treat it as spurious information, and don't include it at all. If the source said "X said that she prepares extensively for her roles", and some WPian shortened that to "known for ...", then un-shorten that ... in WP articles, it's important who said what, unless you're writing some dusty history article and there really is a consensus of historians we can rely on. That's not going to be true for currently active actors. If the person (or persons) attributed by the source isn't (or aren't) worth attributing, for some reason, then again, that's your cue to leave it out entirely. Bottom line: when you see "known for" or the equivalent in any WP article, check what the source said. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "vocal about social issues such as gender and racial equality, and mental health": I don't know what this is trying to say ... is she vocal about social issues in general? Is she only vocal about social issues that are similar to gender equality and the other things? Which issues are like gender equality? Better would be: "vocal about mental health issues and gender and racial equality".
  • "this aspect of her childhood": What is it that she doesn't talk about?
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

RAAF area commands

Nominator(s): Ian Rose ( talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is a little unusual in that I'm unaware of any comparable short history of the subject, a command-and-control system that's been defunct since the 1950s but which was a key part of Royal Australian Air Force operations in the Pacific during World War II. The nom is a follow-up to my last FAC on Donald Hardman, the officer charged with dismantling and replacing the area system. I’m not sure why this particular subject should interest me particularly, but it may have something to do with the way the commands evolved throughout their existence, sometimes with the apparent speed and abandon of the Haggunenons of Vicissitus Three. I originally planned a list-like article with subsections on the individual commands following the overview but in the end I decided that the commands all justified their own articles; with this article they now form a Good Topic. As well as those who commented at the article's MilHist A-Class Review, I’d like to acknowledge the RAAF history staff at the Air Power Development Centre, Canberra, for their help in chasing down some references; they were also kind enough to look over the article recently and suggested only one minor improvement. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Tks Dan -- that's good to know! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Any time. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

German destroyer Z39

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer made under Plan Z, which served two years in the Kriegsmarine, before being used for experiments by the US, and later as a pontoon by France. I believe it meets all the criteria, even though it is a bit short for a FAC article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons

Nominator(s): Pres N 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In 1992 id Software created the grandfather of first-person shooter video games with Wolfenstein 3D, and in 1993 they released the canonical form of the genre, Doom. But two years before that, they weren't even id: they were "Ideas From the Deep", a group of employees from Softdisk in Shreveport, Louisiana, who had just figured out a way to make a smooth platformer game on an IBM-compatible PC instead of a dedicated gaming console. And with that concept, they made the strangely-titled Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons: featuring no demons or Nazis, but a child jumping his way through alien-filled levels. Commander Keen launched id as a developer and Apogee Software as a publisher, so while it was never as famous as id's follow-up games, it forms an important bit of video gaming history, as well as fond memories from my childhood. I wrote this article last summer as part of a campaign to get all of the Keen games to GA; I'm now circling back around to them in an effort to boost at least some to FA-level. I hope you have as much fun reading this as I did researching/writing it! -- Pres N 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Astronomica (Manilius)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This article focuses on the titular work, a Latin hexameter didactic poem (probably) written by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius during the reign of Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. The five-book work describes celestial phenomena, explaining the zodiac and astrology. The poem—which seems to have been inspired by Lucretius's Epicurean poem, De rerum natura—espouses a Stoic, deterministic understanding of a universe overseen by a god and governed by reason. The work is of note for a number of reasons. First, it is seen as an answer to Lucretius's aforementioned poem. Second, it is an important window into Roman views on astrology and Stoicism. Third, it very barely made it to the present day, as only one manuscript transmitted the poem through the Middle Ages. Finally, its style is rather heady and peculiar, and its subject matter is very, very complicated and dense. These last few factors have led to it being described (rather hilariously, might I add) as "like a trigonometry texbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." Currently, it is a good article (the very thorough review can be accessed here). It has also undergone two extensive peer-reviews: one in June of 2016 (courtesy of User:Tim riley, User:Caeciliusinhorto, and User:Johnbod), and the other in January of 2017 (courtesy of [4]) by four extremely competent editors. I had submitted this for FAN a few months ago, but upon realizing that I neglected part of Groupuscule's peer-review, I withdrew it and continued to make changes. Now, I feel it is ready to be promoted.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Comments from JM

A few quick comments:

  • You provide the full name of Steven Green five times in the prose, introducing him as a classicist the second time. Could this be neatened up a little?
  • Oops. I removed the repetition, having his name appear only the first time.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The poem also contains a direct allusion to Ennius's Annales, which, according to Goold, is the Astronomica's "one solitary notice of Latin literature.[73]" Could you close that quote?
  • Is "Pseudo-Empedocles" worth a link?
  • "The work of Julius Firmicus Maternus, who wrote in the time of Constantine about astrology and other subjects, resembles Manilius in many ways" It doesn't resemble him- it resembles his work or Astronomica, surely?
  • That was just a bit of confusing metonym. I've changed it to "resembles Manilius's work".-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "both of which bear the line, "We are born to die, and our end hangs from the beginning" (nascentes morimur finisque ab origine pendet) from the poem's fourth book" Is that comma necessary?
  • Do you mean the one after "line"? If so, I think so, since it's introducing a quote (or, rather, an inscription).-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I really don't care for it, but I think this may be a legitimate stylistic difference, so I'll say no more! Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

And please double-check my edits, especially the wikilinks I have introduced. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@ J Milburn: I have responded to/implemented you suggestions. Your edits also look great! Thanks for your help. Does it look better now?-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. I really, really like this article. I am very happy to offer my support. (FAC coordinators: I was the article's GA reviewer, and participated in the previous FAC discussion.) Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of recent comments from here that may be helpful. Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I've added some more stuff to the article to address some of his points[5].-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from groupuscule

Comments from groupuscule

Hello. I have no further suggestions to make, having done my best to nitpick an article that was already quite good. Although the topic has aspects about which more could conceivably be written—for example the relationship of Astronomica to historical trends in astrology and astronomy—the page as it stands is well-focused and reads as a very solid encyclopedia article. Thanks again to Gen. Quon and other editors for this contribution. I'll return here if I come up with any more half-baked suggestions to annoy you with. groupuscule ( talk) 02:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Groupuscule: Thank you for all your help. Not to put you on the spot, but at this time, would you support this for promotion?-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. groupuscule ( talk) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • OCLC for the books without ISBNs? Not a requirement, but would be nice.
  • Ah, good idea. I've added them.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Ok, a couple little things stuck out...

The work's date has also been controversial. The... - strikes me as a little strong, why not just "The work's date has also been debated"?
I have implemented this suggestions. Good catch.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Despite the attention it received after its rediscovery, the Astronomica was never as widely studied as other classical Latin poems --> "Despite the attention it received after its rediscovery, the Astronomica has never been as widely studied as other classical Latin poems" (presumably all these classical Latin poems are still studied?)
Good point. Changed.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It is unknown if the Astronomica is a finished work, and this is further exacerbated by the presence of a large lacuna between lines 5.709 and 5.710 --> I know what you're getting at but "exacerbated" strikes me as an odd verb to use here..
How is "this issue is further complicated"?-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Casliber: Thanks for the comments. I've implemented your suggestions.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Shout

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been a little while since my last FAC, but I think this one is up to scratch. Shout was a New Zealand-born soldier and Australian Victoria Cross recipient of the First World War. Commissioned into the AIF not long after its formation, Shout took part in the Gallipoli invasion on 25 April 1915, was awarded the Military Cross for his "conspicuous courage and ability" over the next two days, and soon after Mentioned in Despatches. His VC was posthumously awarded for his actions at Lone Pine in August 1915 – after Ottoman forces had recaptured a section of trench, Shout twice led small parties of men to clear them out. He was mortally wounded when a bomb he was throwing exploded prematurely. Shout was the most highly decorated man in the AIF at Gallipoli, and his VC sold for a world record auction price in 2006. The article was listed as GA some months ago and recently passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review. Any and all comments welcome, and much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian -- recusing from coord duties; good to see you back, Bryce!

  • Copyedited so let me know any issues; outstanding points:
    • Shout "assisted greatly" in maintaining the position of his men... brought him back "to a place of safety"... As a result of his "great courage" -- if we use quotes I think they should be attributed inline; as it is we don't know if it's the author of the work speaking or an official despatch or something else.
Have tweaked this – let me know what you think.
    • having "served with distinction" during his time in South Africa -- as above.
Will get back to you on this one, as there is something I would like to double check with the sources.
Have cut this one – it was not really vital, and there seemed no smooth way of attributing the quote to Snelling.
    • the couple had a daughter named Florence Agnes Maud on 11 June that year -- not a biggie but I don't think we generally name children unless notable in themselves, nor worry about their exact birthdates.
Have cut the middle names and specific date of birth, but as Florence was Shout's only child I think the name and month is worth retaining.
    • Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914 for active service overseas. -- I think this sentence has one clause too many for comfort; suggest you lose either "Following the outbreak of the First World War" given the section header, or "for active service overseas" since you explain the purpose of the AIF next sentence.
Have cut the latter.
    • the "impregnable" Ottoman position at Lone Pine -- I seem to recall from my readings that it was generally considered so therefore perhaps not appropropriate to attribute to this particular source but simply to paraphrase in some fashion.
Done.
    • "bitter, savage fighting" over the next three days, predominantly in the form of "deadly bombing duels" -- since the quotes don't relate directly to Shout, I wonder if rather than attributing the first one we could just try paraphrasing; I think "deadly bombing duels" would be worth retaining if attributed.
Done.
    • Shout was fighting with "splendid gaiety" throughout the assault, "laughing and joking and cheering his men on" -- probably worth retaining the quotes with attribution.
Done – let me know what you think.
    • he remained cheerful, "drank tea and sent a message to his wife" -- if only one of the cited sources described him as cheerful I think worth attributing that, as well as the quote.
Ditto.
    • Shout was evacuated from the Gallipoli Peninsula to the hospital ship Euralia shortly afterwards. -- given this is the start of a new section, I think "shortly afterwards" needs clarification; shortly after he was wounded I assume?
Clarified.
    • Although Sasse's Sap "was never wholly regained" -- I think preferable to just paraphrase this one; we need to guard against the article becoming a quote farm.
Done.
  • Structure is straightforward and level of detail seems appropriate.
  • I'll try and look over images and referencing at some stage, if no-one beats me to it.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Ian! Much appreciated. The following are my edits: [6]. Will get back to you on the second point asap. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support and image review by PM I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and could find little to comment on then, I've had a look at the above improvements, and believe it currently meets the FA criteria. I also checked the image licensing during ACR and they are all fine. Great job on this article and welcome back to FAC! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 15:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Okay, we have a problem with the use of the "record search" from the National Archives of Australia. These are all primary sources. And it's an 83 page file but all sorts of things are cited to the entire file. I'm pretty sure there are some problems with interpretation of the primary sources going on here - but I'm not going to freaking scroll through the entire slowly loading 83 page file trying to figure out which of the 83 pages (that take forever to load) supports each tiny bit of information. Each bit of information should be sourced at the least to a page range, but ideally to an individual page.
  • Actually I have to agree here regarding closer citation. When I've used NAA records, I tend to cite the page (as defined by NAA) or a narrow range where the information comes from across a couple of pages. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, will differentiate between cites. However, I will not get a chance to do so until at least this evening. Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • there is no rush. To be honest, I probably won't have a great deal of time to get back to it before Monday or Tuesday Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries – I'll let you know as soon as I am done, but it should be before then. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of these sources are primary sources - embarkation rolls, the various bits of paperwork in the archival records, the Gazette mentions, etc. The extensive use of primary sources concerns me - we should be relying on secondary sources not primary. It's entirely too easy to slip into interpreting the primary sources - can none of these details be cited to secondary works instead?
  • This has not been a problem in the past, as the sources have not been 'interpreted' to make an argument. Rather, in almost every case they have been used alongside secondary sources to provide slight additional detail, such as a specific date. Indeed, the embarkation roll is backed up by Snelling and, while all of Shout's awards can be verified by basically any of the secondary sources used here, the London Gazette provides the date of announcement and a complete and accurate rendering of his VC citation (though this does appear in Staunton and others too). Further, as every single one of the records are freely accessible and available online, there is not really a verifiability issue (excepting perhaps the above, which will be addressed shortly). To be honest, you'd be hard pressed to find an FA-level article on an Australian military figure that does not use similar sourcing. As for the London Gazette, this article features just four entries – compare this case to Richard Dannatt and Donald Hardman (both FAs, the latter promoted just last month), which make use of dozens, though in a similar method for a similar reason. Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are the long quote from the citation for the VC, which is properly quoted and attributed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, Ealdgyth! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion in living systems

Nominator(s): — swpb T 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is my first FA nomination, and what I think is a rather interesting topic. The article has had a peer review by User:Dunkleosteus77 ( here), and a thorough mentor review by User:Brianboulton ( here). I will do my best to respond to review comments as quickly as possible. Thank you to all reviewers. — swpb T 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Mentor's comment: I was not involved in the general preparation of the article, which was already a GA when I offered to act. My role has been to help it bridge that important gap between GA and FA. The article is original and interesting, and I'm satisfied that it holds up well when tested against the FA criteria. I look forward to reading reviewers' comments. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Consistency review from Gertanis

  • Be consistent in whether you write "The University of Chicago Press" or "University of Chicago Press"
  • Same goes for shortened page ranges (we have both '182–184' and '167–91')
  • Ditto inclusion of publisher locations

That's the only inconsistencies I spotted. Well done! Gertanis ( talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotten those fixed up. Thanks! — swpb T 20:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Wheeled_animal_-_East_Mexico_cultures_-_Ethnological_Museum,_Berlin_-_DSC00852.JPG: the description states that the artwork is PD because artist died over 70 years ago - to my knowledge Mexico has never used that rule. Should include an explicit tag.
  • File:Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png: what is the source of the data used in this image?
  • File:Buer.gif needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed the tagging on the Mexican toy and Buer images. The fitness landscape image is notional – the curve is an arbitrary example with peaks and valleys to illustrate the concept of optimization via an evolutionary process; there is no data corresponding to the depicted function. — swpb T 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Tukwila International Boulevard station

Nominator(s): Sounder Bruce 05:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet another transit FAC, to complement my ongoing tunnel one. This one involves the other end of Seattle's light rail system, with the third-to-last stop, an elevated station overlooking parking lots, suburban chain stores, and majestic mountains and hills. The station also boasts a pretty nice design, with a roof that is meant to evoke the wings of an airplane (it's only one stop from the airport). Was promoted to GA a few months ago and recently touched up. Sounder Bruce 05:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Most images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the coordinates on the 2006 image. Sounder Bruce 20:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lesley J. McNair

Nominator(s): Billmckern ( talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Lesley J. McNair, a United States Army officer who served as a general during both World War I and World War II. He is notable as the primary architect of the Army as it was organized, trained, equipped, and fielded for World War II. Billmckern ( talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some comments from Nick-D

While this article is in good shape, I think that it would have benefited from a Military History Wikiproject A-class review prior to this nomination. In particular, I don't think that it really captures the debates over McNair's performance in World War II. This is a complex topic: from what I've read, while historians tend to strongly approve of some elements of his approach and strongly disapprove of others, what they like and dislike varies considerably! I have the following comments on the World War II section:

  • "In addition to Mark Clark, other officers who served on McNair's AGF staff and later achieved prominence included: Alexander R. Bolling; Floyd Lavinius Parks; James T. Duke; Willard Stewart Paul; Lyman Lemnitzer; and Robert A. Hewitt" - does this need to be specified? It's not surprising that some of the officers at this very high level and large HQ went on to achieve prominence during the war.
  • "McNair identified difficulty with training National Guard units" - slightly awkward wording
  • "He recommended demobilizing the National Guard" - did he really want to stand down the Guard units (and their personnel), or disband the often-dysfunctional Guard units to free up their personnel?
  • Regarding the 'Fielding army divisions' section, wasn't one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? The US Army's divisions of World War II were pound for pound probably the best-equipped of any combatant (for instance, the standard US Army infantry division of 1944 was more mobile and had more firepower than the supposedly elite German Panzergrenadier divisions, of which Germany only ever fielded a small number). I believe that most historians regard the organisational structure as a success.
  • The 'Individual replacement system' section seems much too kind to McNair. In particular, the statement that " more recent assessments have viewed it more favorably" isn't supported by the source: its Thomas Ricks quoting with approval a ten year old paper. Recent works continue to be highly critical of this system (in particular, how inexperianced soldiers were posted to combat units while they were on the front lines, leading to appalling and avoidable casualty rates)
  • "McNair attempted to improve recruiting into the AGF through improved public relations" - given that the US had conscription and most conscripts were allocated to the Army, why was this necessary?
  • The 'legacy' section should note the continuing debates over McNair's role in the war. Nick-D ( talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:SandyHookProofBattery1900.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:General_Carlos_Brewer.jpg: source indicates that author is unknown
  • File:Lesley_McNair.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and source links are dead
  • File:McNair-TIME-1942.jpg: not sure about this - press images with the {{ non-free historic image}} tag generally require a strong argument in favour of transformative use, and IMO there's not enough discussion of the image to support this
  • File:Lesley_J._McNair_Purple_Heart_1943_(2).jpg: where was this first published? And I think "uncredited" photographer was intended, rather than "unaccredited"?
  • File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sign itself?
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

On the Job (2013 film)

Nominator(s): Slightlymad ( talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about On the Job, a Philippine crime thriller movie with a couple of chases, gunshots here and there, a serving of sex, and a simple yet intriguing premise: two prison inmates find renewed value and sense of purpose as assassins hired by powerful political forces—until one botched assignment turns their world upside down. Fun stuff! Slightlymad ( talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

ALT text seems OK as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved
  • For the sentence (Michael de Mesa, Leo Martinez, Vivian Velez, Angel Aquino, Shaina Magdayao, and Rayver Cruz feature in supporting roles.), I would recommend "play" instead of "feature" as saying someone is featured in a supporting role or minor role seems a little contradictory.
  •  Done
  • I would suggest linking the ₱ to the article on the related currency to make it more obvious to an uninformed reader. I was initially confused by what the symbol mean when reading the lead. It needs to only be linked in the first mention in the lead and the body of the article.
  •  Done
  • In the sentence (Acosta relays Mario's composite sketch to the police, which unknowingly stuns Mario's family.), I am confused by what is meant by "unknowingly stuns". I think more context or revisions would be helpful.
  •  Rephrased
  • I am not entirely sure if the "Red EPIC camera" image is entirely necessary as it does not really add that much to the article. I would remove it and move the images of the two actors down in its place as that section discuss their casting.
  • I thought it'd be a fine substitute to just add the image of the camera as an illustration since there's not an article about it in the mainspace. Would you consider not removing it?
  • I will leave that to another reviewer; it is not too much of an issue to hold up my review. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Please add the years in which Magnifico and Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros were released, either in parenthesis following the title or somewhere in the sentence. Same goes for Dirty Harry.
  •  Done
  • In the "Music credits" table, some of the parts of "Producer(s)' column are blank and need to be filled in.
  •  Done Those blocks don't have credited producers. I just left a long dash so that it won't appear as if I left it intentionally blank.
  • I would encourage you to add topic sentences to the paragraphs in the "Critical reception" subsection to make its organization/structure clearer.
  • I feel like adding topic sentences constitute original research. Couldn't we just let the reviews speak for themselves?
  • I would move the "Home media" directly after the "Theatrical run and distribution" subsection.
  •  Done
  • I would move the "Critical reception" and "Accolades" subsections to a new section titled "Reception" that would be directly after the "Release" section.
  •  Done
  • Are there any updates on the development of the American remake of the film or the miniseries?
  •  Done No fresh update on either one.
  • For Reference 24, the film's title should not be in all caps.
  •  Done
  • The phrase "full list" should not be in all caps in Reference 46.
  •  Done
  • The link to the official website in the "External links" section redirects to the home page for me.
  •  Done

Wonderful job with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Aoba47, I have fixed most of the concerns you raised, but I have questions on a few points there. Slightlymad ( talk) 04:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Great work with this. I support it for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


Source review

This looks huge, but don't be scared. ;) Some regulars here at FAC took issue with the brevity of one of my earlier source reviews, and tried to make it look as though I did a half-arsed job. I'm not gonna give them the opportunity to do that again. It's not even necessary for you to read this entire thing: it's more here for the sake of completeness than anything else. The sections in green are the sections that require any action on your part—I'll remove that formatting once you've addressed the issue. I was gonna wait until the weekend to put this up, but it's so big that it'd probably be much easier to put this up in phases (this is phase 1 of – probably – 2; more likely 3). Homeostasis07 ( talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved
  • Ref #1: download-able production company dossier being used to source film length, US release date and additional cast actors. Since I'm not seeing this used as a source for anything on the article that isn't also available at the film's listing at IMDb, I suggest replacing this with the latter, since the latter is an industry-validated high-quality reliable source.
  • Ref #2: Philippine Entertainment Portal—a subsidiary of multi-billion dollar independent Filipino broadcaster GMA Network, which has a dedicated editorial staff. High-quality reliable source being used to source budget, uncredited consultants developing the story, reception at Caméra d'Or and Philippine distribution, all of which are attributable to this reference.
  • Ref #3: Box Office Mojo, a high-quality reliable source, in terms of collecting officially-released film industry financial data, being used to accurately source box office figures. No problems to be found here.
  • Ref #4: ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs, clearly a high-quality reliable source, being used to source director Eric Matti's acquisition of the film's concept, as well as Michael de Mesa's casting and the film's positive critical reception, all of which have been adequately paraphrased and accurate to the source.
  • Ref #5: I initially wasn't too sure about the quality of the actual website here, but the website has obviously developed quite a reputation as it has bagged interviews with some pretty damn high-profile people. This source is an interview with the film's director, which has been used to elaborate on aspects of the film's production and development, so I see no problem here. Everything sourced from this article is attributable to it, and has been adequately paraphrased.
  • Ref #6: Article from Philippine edition of Scribd.
  • This ISSN is for the February 2016 issue, not the August 2013.
  • An International Standard Serial Number is used to identify any serial publication, and remains the same on all issues. I'll add it to the article myself, just so I can tuck all this under a collapsible template. Feel free to respond if you think there's still an issue here.
  • Ref #7: Philippine Daily Inquirer, listed as a newspaper of record from the Philippines, obvious high-quality source. Used to describe the film's distinction from the lead production company's usual romantic comedy projects. Everything on the article attibuted to this source is accurate, and adequately paraphrased, with the exception of a direct quotation.
  • Ref #8: Same publication as in ref #4, being used to describe Joey Marquez' casting in the film. No problems here.
  • Ref #9: This was the reference I was most concerned about, mainly because of the Squarespace link in the URL. It turns out Squarespace is a hosting service which insists on putting its name in every one of their website URLs. It is not UGC as I initially suspected, but rather the website of Rogue Magazine, a long-established and popular Filipino magazine—pretty much the Filipino Rolling Stone, with a dedicated editorial staff focusing on films, music, art, politics, et cetera. This reference is an editorial which originally featured in the magazine's June 2013 issue, and primarily consists of an interview with the film's director where he discusses the film's principle photography and the mechanics of production (ie, type of cameras used). I'm convinced there is no issue with quality or reliability here.
  • Ref #10: Same publication as in ref #2, being used as a reference to the film's shooting, film's classification by the Cinema Evaluation Board, as well as the publication's own review. All good.
  • Ref #11: GMA News and Public Affairs—major independent Philipino broadcaster. Used to cite the film's cinematography as well as the broadcaster's own review. No problems here.
  • Ref #12: The Philippine Star—broadsheet with multiple notable editors. Used to identify the film's musical director and editors, also discusses the soundtrack's inspirations. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #13: same publication as above reference. This is an interview with the film's musical director.
  • Ref #14: Soundtrack.Net: another website which initially seemed a bit iffy, but it's been listed as one of the best music websites by Time Magazine, and is also used on other featured film articles, see Alien vs. Predator (film) and Boys Don't Cry (film)—and those are just the A's and B's. I went up to the F's at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media, and seen 4 more.
  • Soundtrack.net is actually recognized by WP:FILM/R as a RS for all things soundtrack.
  • Ref #15: same publication as in ref #7. Used as source for the film's premiere at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival. No problems here.
  • Ref #16: Cannes Film Festival website. Only used on the article as a 2nd reference for the statement about the film's premiere at the event. Otherwise, it's a primary source that adds nothing to the article that isn't third-party sourced by the previous reference. Can be removed with no loss to accuracy or article sourcing.
  •  Done
  • Ref #16: this from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (as in refs #7 and #14) and it does explicitly say that the film premiere ended with "a two-minute standing ovation." Consider using this instead.
  •  Done Can you archive this one for me?
  • Archived it for you.
  • Ref #17: Same publication as in refs #7 and #14. Used to support the film's release in North America and France. No issues here.
  • Ref #18: IndieWire, Notable and trust-worthy source being used to source information regarding the film's release on BluRay and DVD. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #19: Deadline.com—an industry trade publication being used to identify Well Go USA's CEO and XYZ Films founders. I see no problems here.

I'll pause here. It'll probably be Saturday before I can get part 2 up. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Might wanna use the Template:Collapse just like the ones used atop your comments so that this page won't appear too unwieldy to navigate. Slightlymad ( talk) 04:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I know there's only a few references left, but I'll pause here and start again tomorrow, hopefully. I've been going through every reference and trying to determine its quality and if it's a reliable source, and with a couple of exceptions, it been mostly fine on this aspect. I've also been checking that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and the article has been perfect so far in this regard. I still have to check each source for close paraphrasing, so I'll do that after I finish the last few references. Be back soon. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Claudio Monteverdi

Nominator(s): Smerus ( talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC), Brianboulton

This article is about the composer Claudio Monteverdi, a key figure in the evolution of Western classical music at the transition from the Renaissance to the Baroque period. We have already run the article through a peer review and made changes (and sometimes not) accordingly; those who did not see the review may like to take a look at it before commenting here. All and any constructive opinions will of course be very welcome. Smerus ( talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support I was a participant at the peer review, see here, my concerns, and they were few, were addressed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Support I took part in the peer review and have no outstanding concerns. Looks like a very thorough job. -- Folantin ( talk) 08:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of the above. Your contributions to the peer review were much appreciated. Brianboulton ( talk) 09:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "made great developments": Developments aren't made, exactly.
  • "the lowest level for about 150 years": probably: "the lowest level in almost 150 years"
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this: I have altered one of your edits (no evidence that M. 'originated' basso continuo). I've changed 'made' to 'undertook'; but 'almost 150 years' (implying 'less than') is not the same as 'about 150 years' (which could be a few years either way), so I have left it. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 10:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Always good to see you at FAC, Smerus (and Brian!). Right, I wasn't saying he originated it (see the edit summary), I was saying that either the lead needs an edit or the text does. The text says "among other innovations, Monteverdi introduces a device that was to become a typical feature in the emergent Baroque era, the concertato style with basso continuo" ... since you're talking about multiple innovations here, and you list and link two things, many readers will think you're referring to both of them as innovations. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I get! I will think on this. Thanks, Smerus ( talk) 14:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have now reworded the text in a manner which I hope meets your point. Smerus ( talk) 12:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Consistency between citations - you normally give last name first for citations, but current ref 17 (Sergio Vartolo) is an exception. Needs fixing.
  • Same consistency issue with current ref 137 (Lindsay Kemp)
  • Most of your sources you do not give a state for the publication location, but you do with "Cruice" - make it consistent and remove the CT there
  • Same with Palisca - gives a state
  • Same with Rosand - gives a state
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have changed Vartolo and Kemp. Not too sure about the state references; I have normally used these in the past on FA for US publications for clarity's sake, and under the assumption that this was in accordance with WP guidelines - but I can't now find any such guideline. Would be grateful for any further opinions on this. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 14:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Generally what I do is give state for anything but blindingly obvious US cities (so plain "New York", "Boston", "Los Angeles" (as examples) but "New Haven, CT" or "Berkeley, CA"), and country for anything but blindingly obvious non-US cities (so plain "London" but "Cambridge, UK"). It's up to you. You can leave off locations all together which avoids the problem completely - there isn't a requirement for locations, but it IS nice to give them. You can also just give the city and avoid the "state/country" issue. Just need some sort of consistency. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have now gone through and I think have achieved consistency on the above basis. Smerus ( talk) 20:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) –

Tim riley

Support. I said my bit at PR. Three quibbles so tiny as to be barely visible with the naked eye:

  • de' Medici or de’Medici? – we have both forms
  • ritornellos or ritornelli? – ditto
  • Cateau–Cambrésis – shouldn't the en-dash be a plain hyphen, as in the WP article?

The main editors have done wonders: the article is not only comprehensive and authoritative, it is remarkably readable, given the subject. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your accipitridoptical identification of these anomalies, which I have now resolved (de' Medici, ritornellos, Cateau-Cambrésis). And thanks of course for your endorsement. Smerus ( talk) 07:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

An interesting read, and not excessively difficult for a person with no formal education in music. Possibly a few more links of technical terminology may be helpful.

On this basis, Support • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Cremona_Duomo.jpg: this should include an explicit copyright tag for the building. Same with File:Veneza47.jpg, File:Frari_(Venice)_Cappella_dei_milanesi-_tomb_of_Claudio_Monteverdi.jpg
  • File:Gabriele_D'Anunnzio.png: source link is dead and needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, Nikkimaria, can you please point me to the rules for copyright tags for buildings? I am completely unfamiliar with this territory. With thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 17:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Italy does not have freedom of panorama for buildings or sculpture. Thus, with the restrictions noted on that page, building copyrights are held by the architect and are subject to similar expirations as conventional 2D works. Does that help? For example, if the architect died over 100 years ago, {{ PD-old}} would apply. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I will proceed accordingly. Smerus ( talk) 07:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I have now tagged the three views, and changed the D'Annunzio pic. Hope this is now OK, Best, Smerus ( talk) 07:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

  • "Born in Cremona, where he undertook his first musical studies and compositions," – you can undertake musical studies, for sure, but a composition? Not sure.
  • "His opera L'Orfeo (1607) is the earliest of the genre still widely performed" – perhaps 'in the genre' or 'example/entry/work' of the genre
  • "Cremona was close to the border of the territory of the Venetian Republic, and not far from the lands controlled by Mantua, in both of which states Monteverdi was later to establish his career"
  • "When Wert died in 1596, his post was given to Benedetto Pallavicino, but Monteverdi was clearly highly regarded by Vincenzo" – Is 'but' the right preposition here? I'd have used 'yet'. Also do we need both adverbs before 'regarded'?
  • "but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response" – perhaps use 'however,'
  • We have both 'among' and 'amongst' in the article
  • Each line in the paragraph ¶ Vespers starts with 'The'
  • "they were not especially regarded in Monteverdi's time" – highly regarded?

As you might gather, these are only subjective ramblings of a confused Norwegian. :) Hope they are of use anyway; you'll have my support in any case. Gertanis ( talk) 13:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I have standardised 'among', cut 'of the territory', and added 'highly' to regarded. The other points seem OK to me as thy are for colloquial usage, unless anyone else objects. Best -- Smerus ( talk) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Brianboulton has recently made some helpful edits; many thanks to him for that. I noted, however, that the article's source text has quite a few double spaces ("  "). Are these deliberate? Gertanis ( talk) 19:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've broken up the "The" paragraph beginnings in "Vespers", and knocked out a double adverb somewhere. Thanks for your comments and support, Gertanis. I'm not sure where the double spaces are - perhaps Smerus knows. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I blitzed the double (sometimes triple) spaces. Quite difficult to spot though. Gertanis ( talk) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. I found a few more and dealt with them accordingly.-- Smerus ( talk) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Scarabocchio

  • the lede describes him as a singer, but only mention of his singing in the article is to the fact that there is no evidence for the claim he was "a member of the Cathedral choir"
  • Late flowering: 2nd para mixes one "San Marco" with two "St. Marks'". Higher up the article, the text standardises on San Marco.
  • Artusi controversy, "L'Ottuso Academico": in current Italian, ottuso means the same as the English obtuse -- slow of thought, dense, stupid. The translation as "The Tedious Academic" should be checked. (Was Monteverdi's text published in English under this title?)
  • The picture thumbnails are too small, particularly the three in the Mantua section, and the D'Annunzio. These would benefit from being at least 50% wider.

(updated) Scarabocchio ( talk) 08:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I have adjusted the pix, and changed translation of 'Ottuso'. The remaining use of 'St. Mark's' comes in a direct quote - not sure what to do about this. Being a singer - this is generally stated (e.g. Carter says he presumably trained as a singer as he later gave vocal lessons) but I am having difficulty finding specific evidence at the moment..... Brian, do you have anything? Smerus ( talk) 08:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
There is little evidence to suggest that singing was a major factor in Monteverdi's professional life; in my view, not enough to justify the headline description of him as a "singer", and I suggest we drop this. Similiarly, I think the description of him as a "string player" is questionable. Although this was the role he took when first employed in the Mantuan court, it's hardly what he became famous for. I would prefer to see him identified in the lead as a "composer and choirmaster", which I think more accurately summarises his career. Brianboulton ( talk) 09:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • He describes himself as a string player in the intros to the 2nd and 3rd books of madrigals, and this is mentioned and cited in the article, so I think that should certainly stay. I am removing singer, and adding choirmaster, as suggested by Brianboulton. Smerus ( talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Scarabocchio:

  • "Cremona lay under the jurisdiction of Milan, a Spanish possession, so that Monteverdi was technically born a Spanish subject. Cremona was close to the border of the Venetian Republic, and not far from the lands controlled by Mantua".
This would be much clearer with a map. Monteverdi was active, professionally, over quite a small area. If the state boundaries haven't changed, it would be possible to re-annotate this map to cover all of the places mentioned in the article. (Specifically, Cremona would need to be added! (inside the Duchy of Milan, just to the left of the 'M' of Mantua)) I don't know how to clone and reannotate maps, but could look into it if you think such a map would add value. Scarabocchio ( talk) 10:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Italy 1494
  • The map doesn't show Cremona. In any event I think the point in question is too trivial to justify including the image, but if Smerus thinks differently he may wish to replace the Cremona Cathedral image with it. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd rather leave this. Apart from not showing Cremona, the map is as at 1494; here's a map as at 1600, looking a bit different, and showing Cremona, but alas copyright. Smerus ( talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a non-starter .. the boundary changes were very fluid at the time. Scarabocchio ( talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Images.
    Possibly CM?
    The images are now a better size, (thanks, Smerus), but not very inspiring ....
The itWP article has this portrait of a musician with a viola da gamba, dated somewhere between 1570 and 1590 by an unknown Cremonese painter. The image description:

"The sitter has traditionally, but incorrectly, been identified as Antonio Stradivari.   Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643) and Gasparo da Salò (1540-1609) have been suggested. He holds a Brescian viola da gamba, and there is a violin/viola with a bow in the background."

Given the size of it, it's likely a viola da braccio rather than a violin. Even if it is not Monteverdi himself (and this cannot be proven), it is of the right period and right locality to show clothing and instruments. (updated) Scarabocchio ( talk) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of the choices of images were Smerus's, and I'll leave it to to him decide whether any should be changed. Personal preferences about choices of image are likely to vary. However, such exchanges of opinion properly belong to the article's talk page rather than to the FAC, and I suggest that the discussion be continued there. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is true, if moderately surprising, that there are no requirements/guidelines on illustrating Featured Articles. The conversation can continue elsewhere, as you suggest. Scarabocchio ( talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This image was in the original article. One reason I took it out is that it was claimed to be possibly CM, whereas there is not in fact a shred of positive evidence for this; I don't think WP should give that line of thought any credibility. On images generally, by all means take the topic to the article talk page, but I suggest leave things as they are for the purposes of the present review. Smerus ( talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Holy orders. Pause: Final para: "His set of Scherzi musicali was published in Venice in 1632.[34] In 1631, Monteverdi was admitted to the tonsure, and was ordained deacon, and later priest, in 1632."
There's a little bit more in itWP (no inline refs, I'm afraid): "We don't know if it was for convenience or from devotion, but Monteverdi took sacred orders on 9 March 1632 .. we find him with the title 'Reverendo' in the second book of Scherzi musicali, which dedication is dated 20 June 1632." Scarabocchio ( talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Fall of Mantua (One more, the last, from itWP). Pause, First para: "Mantua was invaded by Habsburg armies in 1630, who besieged the plague-stricken town, and after its fall in July looted its treasures, and dispersed the artistic community."
There's a bit more context in itWP: "In 1627, the throne of Mantua passed into the hands of Carlo I di Gonzaga-Nevers (the French, cadet branch), provoking a reaction from Emperor Ferdinando II, who in July 1630 sent in his Landsknecht troops. They took the city by assault, devastating it and spreading the plague."
The change of ruling family, and hence change of side in the Wars of Religion, provides a bit of necessary explanation for WHY Mantua was attacked. Scarabocchio ( talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Holy orders and Mantua. As CM wasn't actually in Mantua at the time, and as there is a link to the article on the fall of Mantua, I don't believe we need to expand on this in the article about CM himself. If you have a citation about CM being 'Reverendo' in the book of Scherzi, please let us know - I can't find one, alas. Smerus ( talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no access to anything more than Grove and Google, ahime' Scarabocchio ( talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Criteria for FA article?

Which criteria are to used for evaluating this article? The WP Opera standards? Scarabocchio ( talk) 11:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Scarabocchio: WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Oups! should have spotted that .. thanks! Scarabocchio ( talk) 12:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support from SchroCat. I was happy at PR, and the article is even stronger now. – SchroCat ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Rossbach

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For your consideration, this article is about a crucial battle in the Seven Years' War. About 1000 infantry and the Prussian cavalry of Frederick the Great's army routed the combined French and Reichsarmee forces during a 90 minute battle. It was critical in forcing France out of its support of Austria's strategic goals. As always, I appreciate your ideas and suggestions. As usual, I've used what Ealdgyth considers a funky annotation system. It's what I know and have used since 2009. auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

(on general intelligibility to a lay reader}

Terrain and maneuver

  • What is the relevance of the plateau elevation? Is this the elevation above the general altitude of the lower lying areas, which would have obvious military relevance, or above sea level, which would not? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • general relevance to the type of terrain -- a rolling plateau--. It measures above sea level, of course, but within that there was very little elevation change. This influenced how the battle was fought, obviously. No hill was higher than 120 meters (390 ft), which influenced how and where troops could move, and how visible they were from the highest observation points (usually the church towers, sometimes well-placed manor houses). auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the elevation of the low-lying areas known? the relative elevation would be far more relevant to tactics. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I read through again, and now understand that the battle was fought on the plateau, which had an altitude ranging from 120 to 244m, so the variation of altitude on the battlefield was not more than 124m and may have been less? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ok, thanksw for re reading....is the article clearer now? auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be better to explicitly state whether the battle was on the plateau. The map does not clearly show steep sides to the valley, but suggests fairly steep hillsides, which is not supported by the text or photos. I am not getting a clear impression of the terrain where the actual fighting took place. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As I've stated in the text, there were no steep hill sides. The entire region is rolling hills--none of them higher than 120 feet above the general altitude of the region. It's all relatively flat. I've tried adjusting the text, and moved the images of the terrain into that section. auntieruth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to nitpick like this. The section now reads more clearly, but I remain uncertain whether the elevation of the plateau is between 120 and 244m, or lower than this with peaks up to 120 to 244m above the base altitude of the plateau. (which is more than 120 feet as stated above) If I understand correctly, the 120 feet is a typo, and the altitude of the plateau including its rolling hills is between 120 and 244m. I made and reverted an edit which would clarify this point if I got it right. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The elevation of Rossbach is 104 meters (341 ft). Braunsbedra and Reichertswerben are the two closest villages and they are, respectively, altitudes above sea level of: 120 meters (394 ft) and 131 meters (430 ft). The site of the battle field is rolling hills and plains between 120–244, mostly between Braunsbedra, Rossbach and Reichertswerben. But the entire topography outside the villages, where the battle took place, has changed since the mid-20th century (and earlier) because of lignite mining. The steepest hillsides are in Merseburg at the river crossings, and then only in a few places where the river cut through sandstone. If you look at Mapcarta here you can see that the location of the Janus has been completely excavated. There is really no way of telling exactly how high or how steep it was in 1750s. Carlisle, who was there, says the hills were slight. Frederick and Gaudi, who were there and observing from the manor rooftop, could see most of the French troop movements--this means that the hills were not high enough to obstruct the view. The vintage maps do not indicate steep hills, simply "hills" or elevation changes. Better? auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mapcarta gives Rossbach elevation as 124m, your sources may differ, otherwise good. I see what you mean about the topography having changed. The explanatory note does help. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:The_Imperial_German_Army_1890_-_1913_HU68455.jpg: if the author was a German court photographer, why a UK tag? Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • From what it looks like in the documentation on the photo, the German court photographer took the picture. The German king gave wrote on it and gave it to Hugh Lowther, 5th Earl of Lonsdale, apparently, because that's the collection it came from.
  • Okay - unless there was a transfer of copyright involved (?), this wouldn't be a UKGov work. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's in the UK Imperial War Museum. The template doesn't accommodate the specifics of this particular instance. Something created by German court photographer, given by Kaiser to someone; from that person's collection it apparently went to the UK Imperial War Museum, which provided it. So I don't know what to do about it, and if you don't know what to do about it, I suggest we leave it as is, because it was uploaded under auspices of the UK museum, and it had been given by the Kaiser. Perhaps we should accept that the transfer of the photograph as a gift is sufficient? The museum provided the provenance. auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Er... the museum provided the provenance and their own IWM licensing; I don't see that they provided anything to support the tags used. Given available information I would think a German/EU tag would be more appropriate. Open to other opinions though if any other reviewers want to weigh in. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no problems with a change. What do others think? auntieruth (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • maps are scaled, although I don't know how to do that for the ones in the gallery. auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "moved up the Rossbach itself": What's "the Rossbach"? I'm aware "Bach" is "brook" in German, but I'm not aware that you've mentioned that, unless it's "a small stream [that] ran between Rossbach and Merseburg". okay, fixed.
  • "The fighting soon dissolved into man-on-man combat": Not wrong, but I might say "the columns dissolved", or "the fighting devolved". fixed.
  • "muskets shouldered": Did you mean to repeat that? I only see it once.
    • Sorry, the other occurrence is: " Frederick ... boasted that the victory had come while most of his infantry had its weapons shouldered." - Dank ( push to talk) 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Barry Voight

Nominator(s): ceran thor 01:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on this article about a star volcanologist and engineer—who happens to have some star siblings as well—for a while now, and I think it finally meets the FA criteria. ceran thor 01:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, Dank. ceran thor 12:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There is one image in the article, which is well-relevant, has proper description template, and is under public domain. No issues whatsoever. It is good to go!. Adityavagarwal ( talk) 00:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, Aditya. ceran thor 11:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting. I've probably read about him, but all I can think about with Mount St. Helens is old Harry Truman. Anyway, to business:

  • "Teaching career" Must this be one long paragraph?
  • Some mention of how he could have a teaching career and a career as a government geologist simultaneously would be useful.
  • "he published the first volume of a publication" published/publication
  • References are not always in numerical order [14][6]
  • "Voight insisted that the bulge could fail" Why insisted? Was there opposition?
  • "After a magnitude 5.1 earthquake centered directly below the north slope triggered that part of the volcano to slide" Maybe "caused" instead of"triggered"? It's the "to slide" that's bothering me.
  • "In 1985, Voight blamed human error for the Armero tragedy, where more than 23,000 died from an eruption from the Nevado del Ruiz volcano." I might toss a "in Colombia" in there somewhere.
  • "while categorically accurate predictions of volcanic eruptions were impossible, unpreparedness for the disaster and inaction in preventing it exacerbated the death toll.[25]" I'm not sure what "inaction in preventing it" means as distinct from "unpreparedness for the disaster". After all, the volcano was going to erupt no matter what.
  • "Voight began contemplating initiating an evacuation" That sounds a bit vague.
  • "it was largely unknown by volcanologists." probably should be "to", not "by"
  • "including guests of a wedding ceremony." No doubt "at" is meant.
  • "People in Pasto, located at the foot of the volcano, became alarmed by noises and shaking from Galeras." I imagine this is what caused Voight to visit, so possibly "had become alarmed" might be better.
  • "Voight still oversees hazard assessments at the volcano, including providing his input during eruptive periods in 2006 and 2010.[12]" I might cut "including"
  • "helping plan engineering projects in France, India, Ireland, Somalia, Papua New Guinea, Canada,[8] and Turkey, as well as the United States.[10]" I think you still need an "in" before "United States"
  • "monitoring of active volcanoes, and pyroclastic flows have brought him to Iceland, Columbia, " Presumably the nation of Colombia is meant. By the way, this list is somewhat duplicative of the one two paragraphs previously.
  • "For his service as a professor at Penn State, Voight has been given two awards, specifically for his research. In 1991, he gained a Faculty Scholar Medal for "Outstanding Achievement in the Physical Sciences and Engineering".[8] In 1990, he received the Wilson Research Award from the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences for excellence in research.[33]" I would put this in year order. Paragraph breaks might also be welcome somewhere.
  • "In addition to journal articles, Voight has written or helped write at least 21 books and monographs since 1965, some of his co-authors including W. D. Gunther, R. T. Chase, Mary A. Voight, and George Stephens." I'mnot sure the grammar completely works in the second half of the sentence. I might put a semicolon after 1965 and change "including" to "include"
  • "The Eruption of Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat from 2000 to 2010," Looking at the front cover online, there seems to be a grave accent over the first e in Soufriere.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I wrote the article about Harry R. Truman, too! I'll get started on these in just a bit. Thanks for your comments. ceran thor 02:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: I think everything has been taken care of except the government geologist comment. Isn't that explained in the career section where I mention that he was a USGS consultant, and that much of his research overlapped with his work for them? He wasn't a government geologist per se, just a consultant for them. ceran thor 18:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Support all looks good. It's a bit technical, but it can't be helped given the subject matter. Nicely done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and support. ceran thor 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Current citation 2 ("Chip Taylor") - can we expand the NPR abbreviation for folks outside the US who will be clueless about what it means?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are properly quoted and attributed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Ealdgyth: Just took care of the NPR abbreviation. Thanks for the review! ceran thor 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Maurice Wilder-Neligan

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an English-born Australian Army soldier of WWI who rose from the rank of private to command a battalion during the latter stages of the war. A superior tactician, one of his attacks was described as "the best show ever done by a battalion in France". He was also an eccentric character, once chasing his officers off a parade ground on horseback to show his displeasure with their efforts at drill. An administrator in New Guinea after the war, he died there, probably caused by wounds he received during the war. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • The URAA tag used by most of the images requires you to specify a publication date, but the Australian "expires worldwide" also means the URAA tag isn't needed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We have one, if we have any tag that says "applies worldwide" (as the Australian one does). Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Used to, prior to that OTRS confirmation that expiry applies worldwide - including in US. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Mahavira

Nominator(s): -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · count) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the twenty-fourth Tirthankara of Jainism who holds great significance in the history of the religion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · count) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
  • 3D objects should include a copyright tag for the original object, not just the photo - some may be covered by freedom of panorama, others will not. For 2D works under US law the photographer gets no copyright but the original artist does.
  • Needs a pass for Manual of Style issues - linking, hyphenation, italicization, etc
  • Generally the article is in need of copyediting - suggest reaching out to the Guild
  • The text is likely to be difficult to follow for non-experts. For example, the Historical section discusses "year of nirvana", but this concept is neither explained nor even linked until later in the article.
  • One-sentence subsections should be avoided
  • The {{ expand section}} tag should be addressed
  • Citation formatting is generally quite inconsistent, and some citations are incomplete
  • Don't think a press release meets the requirements of this RfC. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopian historiography

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens Talk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FA status because I think it meets all the basic FA criteria. This article has recently succeeded in passing its Good Article candidacy and has seen some massive improvements since then, although it is now stable with very little editing activity going on. There were some disagreements between another editor and I over some of the content and wording of the article, but we have since come to a consensus on how the article should look. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it. The article is filled with a rich amount of historical details that should keep you entertained if you're a history buff like me. I've written and nominated various articles on European and Chinese history for FA status, but this is only the second African-history related article that I've nominated, the first being Ancient Egyptian literature. It's certainly my first nomination focused on a sub-Saharan African country and Semitic culture, two areas of our English Wikipedia that perhaps need a lot of work and still lack critical information. This is my little effort to help remedy that and hopefully spark interest in other editors to follow suit. Let's hope so! Pericles of Athens Talk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • All the 18 images are well-relevant, have proper description templates, and have no copyright problems! ALT text is absent, though.

Looks good otherwise. Adityavagarwal ( talk) 20:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Adityavagarwal: hello. Thanks for reviewing the images so quickly. I wasn't expecting any response anytime soon! I'm glad to hear that everything is in order. Per your suggestion, I have also amended the article to include alt text for each and every image. I hope that you find the descriptions to be suitable. If not, please let me know! Regards, -- Pericles of Athens Talk 12:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! No issues, now. It is good to go now. Adityavagarwal ( talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Once again, thanks for the speedy review. -- Pericles of Athens Talk 13:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments from Hchc2009

An interesting article! Some initial comments, more to follow:

  • "The Church of Saint George, Lalibela and a panel painting inside depicting Saint George slaying a dragon; it is one of eleven monumental rock-hewn churches built in Lalibela, Ethiopia that were allegedly sculpted after a vision by the Zagwe-dynasty ruler Gebre Mesqel Lalibela (r. 1185–1225 AD), in which St George instructed him to do so.[18][19] The city of Lalibela was reestablished as a symbolic new holy site, following the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslim forces of Saladin in 1187 AD, yet archaeology reveals the religious structures to have been built between the 10th and early 12th centuries AD, with perhaps only the last phase carried out during the 13th century AD and reign of Gebre Mesqel Lalibela." - a very long caption, and failed the MOS test for me. I'd advise trimming after "...slaying a dragon."
  • File:St. George Astride His Horse, Church of Bet Giorgis, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3268383996).jpg needs a copyright tag for the underlying image (could be done in a similar way to File:Gebre Mesqel Lalibela.png, for example). The other historical images need checking in this regard as well.
  • After Zagwe dynasty, the number of images produced a solid wall of images on the right hand side of my screen; I suspect that you should cut one or two to bring it into the MOS guidelines.
  • "An engraved book portrait of Ethiopian monk Abba Gorgoryos (1595-1658) by Christopher Elias Heiss, Augsburg, 1691;[72][73] Abba Gorgoryos aided the German orientalist Hiob Ludolf (1624–1704) in the translation of Ge'ez and Amharic, as well as with material for composing a history of Ethiopia.[74][75]" - I'd trim after the first clause
  • "File:Painting of St. Abbo, Church of Bet Mercurios, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3308268798).jpg" - needs an Ethopian tag to cover photography of 2D art images (NB: if this is legal in Ethopia, I don't know!)
  • "File:Battle of Adwa tapestry at Smithsonian.png" - needs a tag for the underlying tapestry image (or painting, depending on which bit of the file you believe).
  • "File:"Yared An (sic) His Disciples Singing A Song In Front Of King Gebreme Skel . . ." (3171512810).jp" - needs an Ethiopian tag to cover photography of 2D art images. Hchc2009 ( talk) 22:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo Medal (Pistrucci)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 11:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... something of a sideline from the Pistrucci one, about the famous Waterloo medal, that cost the British Government thousands of pounds, and at the end of the day, could not be struck in its original form. And if it had, it would have been useless, since most of the recipients were dead and it would have been politically imprudent to bring up Waterloo while wooing the French ... "Don't mention the war" ... Wehwalt ( talk) 11:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There are 4 well-relevant images in the article. They have proper description templates and no copyright issues. Just one minor issue, that the fourth image is moving into the references section due to which the references are gliding to the left.

Otherwise, everything is great! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've moved that image up a paragraph.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Awesome one, yet again! It is a great article. Adityavagarwal ( talk) 14:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Gertanis

  • Perhaps add short description of Mr. Pistrucci in the very first sentence, as it is at present rather short.
I did, though I'm not sure it entirely helps.
  • "Commissioned by the British Government in 1819 on the instructions of George IV while Prince Regent, the medals were to be presented to the victorious generals at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, and to the leaders of Britain's allies." – I fell into a garden path when I read that first part, and had to read the whole sentence thrice to make sense of it (though the link to prince regent certainly did help). Something with the prepositions, though don't ask me, I'm not a native speaker
I've simplified it a bit.
  • "Most of the intended recipients had died by 1849; with improving relations with France the medals were never struck, though modern-day editions have been made for sale to collectors." – "with...with"
  • "The Royal Academy proposed work by John Flaxman but Pistrucci, whose responsibility it was to engrave the dies, refused to copy another's work, and proposed designs of his own." — "proposed...proposed". Also, who was Mr. Flaxman?
  • "He likely concluded that he would be sacked if he completed it, something the Mint was reluctant to do before then lest the sums paid Pistrucci be wasted, and progress was extremely slow." – again, difficult to parse, especially w/ the tense oscillating between conditional, indicative and subjunctive. And whose judgement stands behind 'likely'?
Most of the sources say more or less the same thing on this point. It's backed up with a quote and inline attribution in the text.
  • "Pistrucci's designs have been greatly praised by those who have written on the subject." – i.e. numismatists?

I hope these comments don't come off as facetious, as I did genuinely have some difficulty reading it. YMMV Gertanis ( talk) 23:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No, they are excellent comments. I've made those changes, more or less.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Red-billed quelea

Nominator(s): Dwergenpaartje ( talk · contribs) & Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the most populous non-cultivated bird in the world. Newcomer Dwergenpaartje has done most of the heavy lifting in this one, but many folks of the bird wikiproject have had a look. It got a detailed going over at GAN and I think has buffed up quite nicely and is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have a go at it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagaral

  • There are 8 images in the article, and all have proper description templates, and have no coyright issues. Also, they are well-relevant to the context.
  • There is some sandwiching of text in the description section, and it would be great if that could be removed. Also, the images do not have ALT text.

Looks great otherwise! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Some quick comments to start off with.

  • Why is there citations in the lead? I don't think that there needs to be any except after that quote in the next-to-last sentence.
You're right, though I don't think even that one is controversial enough to warrant a ref. removed refs in lead Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The ref for the quote should probably be included since it is a quote. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
ok re-added Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be good to include the pronunciation in the lead.
didn't strike me as that odd a word to pronounce.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least for me, it is. I had something like ə/ going. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
yeah me too...I'd not thought about any other way... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is interbreeding with the red-headed quelea included in the phylogeny section? Maybe put it in the section on reproduction and add some more details about how it affects clutch size, success rate, etc.
I have always put hybridization in taxonomy as it touches on the relationship with other species or a population with distinct characteristics. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully I will do some more soon. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Some more:

  • The last part of the sentence "The species is endemic to Sub-Saharan Africa and avoids forests, deserts and colder areas such as at high altitude and southern South Africa" doesn't seem to be right; maybe say "such as high altitudes and..." RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
the altitude isn't a place so needs some sort of preposition and article. Added "those". Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be better to have what family it is in in the first sentence, instead of in the middle of the first paragraph. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "globular roofed nests" in the sentence "It constructs globular roofed nests woven from strips of grass hanging from thorny branches, sugar cane or reeds", maybe say "roofed, spherical nests"? RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
not sure about this one..."globular" implies a less exact roundness than "spherical" and hence strikes me as more appropriate word. Can you expand on why you think this change is good (am I missing something...?) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, "globular" pretty much implies roofed, but some may be confused if we leave that out. Maybe say "spherical-like"? RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 16:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, need to think about this one... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Readers might be a bit confused when you mention out of the blue that "In 1850, Ludwig Reichenbachthought the species was not a true bunting, but rather a weaver, and created the genus name Quelea, as well as the new combination Q. quelea". Maybe, after the citation to Linnaeus, say that it he placed in the bunting family? RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 12:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

A very worthy topic, and one that I am sad to say I know little about. Only have a few minutes right now, but I'll be back soon enough to finish up. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm personally not keen on referring to people by surname only at first mention; it strikes me as a little over-formal, and alienating to certain readers. YMMV. Also, why no link to Reichenbach in the lead? How about the countries mentioned?
Nope, was an oversight. Now rectified Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "oval roofed nests" oval-roofed?
The nests are oval...and have a roof Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The usual pest control measures are spraying avicides or detonating fire-bombs in the enormous colonies during the night." Avicides is jargon- link? Also, wouldn't it be pest-control?
linked...was trying to think of an accurate plain English substitution but couldn't without getting really wordy.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps "a chemical bird control substance"? Do'nt like it too much for it is really wordy. Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 10:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "When food runs out, the species migrates to locations where in recent weeks the rains have started and grass seed is plentiful and so exploits its food source very efficiently." Could this sentence perhaps be broken up?
Gave it a shot - tricky one to split Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "without giving the literature reference however." I would recommend "without, however, giving the literature reference", but more importantly, I'm not sure it is clear what is meant here.
I think it means that he didn't explain the name or bird...but then again he almost never does anyway. I removed it as no real meaning is lost. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean Surrey and not "Surry"?
fixed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The 18th century source says "Surry" and not "Surrey", can we be sure they are the same? Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
fixed I think so yes Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, next batch:

  • "The nominate" is this common? Would "The nominate subspecies" not be more standard?
slightly worried it is a tad repetitive but done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Q. quelea intermedia is regarded a synonym of the nominate" Could we perhaps have a smidge more about this name?
added. Reichnow named it but a few years afterwards realised it was aethiopica Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The type was collected in the neighbouring Sennar province in today's Sudan." Of the subspecies, you mean? Probably no need to change if so. If you mean the type specimen for the species, the placement is a little odd.
yes. I used a run-on "and" and "its" to tighten the link Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "DNA-analysis," Why the dash?
no idea. removed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "lores", "coverts and flight feathers" Jargon
linked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The mask is surrounded by a varying area of yellow, rusty, pink, purple or (in case of a white mask sometimes) black. This coloring may only reach on the lower throat or extend along the belly," Could this be smoothed out a little?
rejigged Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "the chin, throat whitish" Not very prosaic!
rewrote this bit Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The male sings in short bursts, starting with some chatter, followed by a warbling tweedle-toodle-tweedle.[21]" Do females not sing?
not sure - have tried to search for any details on this. The guidebooks say the flocks give a chittering, but is unclear if they know that both sexes make the calls. So I have nothing conclusive to add... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The birds however avoids forests, including miombo woodlands, and rain forest such as in central Africa. It is also" Singular/plural
Done
  • "where it attacks crops, although it is suggested it prefers seeds of wild annual grasses" I think "attack" is a little strong, and is the passive voice necessary?
attack changed. tweaked it a little but hard to get out of passive entirely Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Central Kenya" Is that a proper noun?
no. downcased Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "South-Sudan" Is the dash necessary? The fact you're referring to South Sudan rather than the south of Sudan is shown by the capital S.
It's both actually. clarified Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "to the South-East to southern" south east or south-east, surely?
yup. done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "When breeding, areas with thorny or spiny vegetation below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation are selected, such as Acacia, and lowveld." I'm struggling with this.
rejigged Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Red-billed queleas feed mainly on a wide range of grass seeds such as from native annual grasses like species" Too many qualifiers
rejigged Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "lanner falcons, tawny eagle and marabou stork" Singular/plural?
Done
Done by Dwergenpaartje Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We're given two lots of stats about birds caught "near N'Djamena"; I don't think we need both. Also, I feel the paragraph quickly loses track of the "three methods" structure that it sets out with.
I thought both facts were helpful and illustrative so I rejigged so they were flowed better. I am not sure how else to set out the three methods, but did add a comma and a "while" between methods two and three to try and delineate them Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Quelea guano is collected in Nigeria. Tourists like to watch the large flocks of queleas, such as during visits of the Kruger National Park. The birds themselves eat pest insects such as migratory locusts, and the moth species Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exempta.[6]" This feels a little out of place. Also, perhaps you could specify the uses of guano?
added, though little other info available. Have split this into second para Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I fear the "Aviculture" section is a bit how-to. A striking example: "Particularly during the breeding season living insects such as mealworms, spiders, or boiled shredded egg should be provided."
rejigged now..better? This is tricky to massage. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "can put away 50 tonnes of grain" Informal
aww spoilsp- fixed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the "pest" section is also a bit-how to. Perhaps better to simply stick to describing the methods used?
tweaked, how about now? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the "illustrative images" section. You could consider using {{ external media}} in the article body as an alternative.
We have a pic of nests in article, videos now in EL with template. Most photos don't add a huge deal so removed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's all for now. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and please check my edits. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I did, they were fine Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Few additions, and a consideration in purple by me Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 12:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Usual nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • color, coloring, colored—the English-speaking counties in its range all use BE, but your spelling is inconsistent and regularly wanders into AE
I'm not a native speaker, but try to stick to BE, although I may not always be aware. I'll correct to colour, and any other irregularities that will catch my eye.
  • Over time, two other subspecies have been describe—"Formerly" is better
Done
  • However is overused
Avoided using it now in 3 out of 7.
  • kwelea domo-jekundu in Swahili—is this borrowed from English or vise versa?
This remains unclear. Please see this discussion.
  • link iris genets, civets
Done
  • When they reach for instance the Benoue River valley, where passed rains already caused the grass to set seed. —doesn't make sense
You're right. I've rephrased and hope it is better now.
  • 18 g of grain… 50 tonnes… 1500 tonnes… one hectare—need converting
Done Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 11:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • It is described as small in the lead, but I think the actual size and weight should be given there.
done
  • "The male sings in short bursts" Presumably the female does not sing, and if so worth saying so.
Yes, it is likely she doesn't, but I haven't found a source that says so.
  • "Nest building usually commences four to nine weeks after the onset of the rains and a quantity of about 300 mm (12 in) has been exceeded." I checked the source on this as 300 mm seems high, and I could only find a statement that the quelea needs 300 to 800 mm annually, not before nest building. You give one reference for 6 citations to a 73 page thesis. This is far too long to cite the whole document. You need to cite each separately with page numbers so readers can check your source.
You are doubly correct. The amount does seem rather high and the reference did not cover that aspect of the statement. The source actually says under the heading "Early Warning Systems": They utilized knowledge that 60 mm of rain within a two week period would stimulate grass-seed germination, and hence the initiation of the early rains migration, and that only if a further 240 mm falls within the following six weeks will conditions allow breeding.
I have added the page numbers for the thesis for each citation - e.g. rainfall and breeding are mentioned on 2 separate pages but one refers to the other. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Predators and parasites section. There is five lines on predators of quelea ending with the scorpion Cheloctonus jonesii. The reference for these lines only suggests the scorpion as a possible predator, and does not cover other predators. The next sentence regarding parasites has two refs, one a general description which covers most of the paragraph and the other about a rare example of turtles preying on quelea.
I think I've disentangled it now.
  • The final paragraph is confusing. It starts by saying attempts at control took place at the turn of the last century, and later in the 1950s and 1960s.
I've rearranged it a bit to avoid breaking the time line. Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This article is interesting and well written, but the referencing is unsatisfatory. Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

The site is run by the Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Cape Town. As far as I have checked, all information is consistent with other sources, but not everything can be found elsewhere freely accessible on the web.
replaced with a Reliable Source now Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 2 "Quelea quelea" Handbook of the Birds of the World - any reason the Handbook part isn't in italics? And is it "Handbook of the Birds of the World" or "Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive" (as it's given in current ref 23)
The source is identical, no reason for avoiding italic, corrected
XC is a bird sound data base. It gets its material from crowed sourcing. Many birders contribute and also check on each others contributions. I think it is actually more reliable than many peer-reviewed science articles. In fact, by allowing media from wiki commons, we include illustrations much less reliable in almost every wikipedia article.
Generally user generated content is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree it is a difficult issue. I was unable to answer a question on whether the female made calls with any other source. XC has many biologists contributing and vetting content. I will have a look on whether this has been discussed elsewhere Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The website says its content is taken from a book titled The Bird Almanac, by David M. Bird. Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, ouch. So they are basically copying the information and/or doing a copyright violation? Better to get the information from the original source. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed that - apart from the almanac (a tertiary source), the consensus appears to be 1.5 billion with no mention of larger figures. Hence I have removed the sentence Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations. I did not check the reliablity of the foreign language sources.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Indian National Army

Nominator(s): rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about " Indian National Army", an organisation in south-east Asia formed during World War II. It forms a part of the radical side of the Indian independence movement, different from the Gandhian pacifist movement and is a very delicate topic, with very many differing viewpoints. A substantial effort has been made over several years to achieve an NPOV good quality article, carefully avoiding hagiography and pro and anti-INA bias. Best efforts has been made to achieve quality secondary and tertiary sources in noting the pre and post-war history, politics, people, of what formed the INA. Very close attention has been laid on factual content and giving due weight to view points and opinions, and extensive help has been sought from the GOCD. In time for Indian independence day, I think this would be a great article to achieve FA status on a less visible side of the Indian indepdendence movement. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Fujiwara_Kikan.jpg: can you provide more details on source?
  • File:Gandhi_and_Subhas_Bose.jpg: given source has date of 1950s; where was this first published?
  • File:Destruction_of_INA_Memorial_1945.jpg: source link is dead; who is potentially the copyright holder, and is the claim for the memorial, the photo, or both?
  • File:Former_Indian_National_Army_Monument.JPG: what is the copyright status of the memorial?
  • File:Azad_Hind_stamps_released_by_Indian_National_Army_in_display_at_Netaji_Birth_Place_Museum,_Cuttack,_Odisha,_India.jpg: what is the copyright status of the depicted stamps?
  • File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg: can you explain why the URAA tag would apply? Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, I took a quick look. I can't comment on content as I don't know enough about the subject, so I have focused on more generic things. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • "army remains a popular and passionate topic in popular Indian...": suggest trying to change one of the instances of "popular" here to vary your language
  • this needs a ref: the paragraphing ending with "Men going forward on duty were issued British stocks of hand grenades by senior officer of the Bahadur groups attached to each unit."
  • this is not grammatically correct: "Men going forward on duty were issued British stocks of hand grenades by senior officer of the Bahadur groups attached to each unit."
  • this needs a ref: "Both the soldiers of the INA and civilians addressed Bose as Netaji ("Dear leader"). In October 1943, Bose proclaimed the formation of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind, or the Provisional Government of Free India (also known as Azad Hind or Free India). The INA was declared to be the army of Azad Hind."
  • this is not grammatically correct: "The radio transmitting set with all accessories that sent by Subhas Chandra Bose to India in a submarine, four members of INA were the carriers."
  • "was organised into a quasi-military organisation..." (please try to reword to avoid repetition)
  • in the Operations section, I suggest splitting the 1944 paragraph as it is very long
  • this needs a reference: "Malik Munawar Khan, commander of 2nd Guerilla Battalion during INA's Imphal campaign, later joined Pak Army and commanded Pakistani Special Forces during Operation Gibraltar in 1965."
  • this needs a ref: the paragraph ending with "The Indian National Army Memorial at Moirang, Manipur, commemorates the place where the flag of Azad Hind was raised by Col. Shaukat Hayat Malik. Moirang was the first Indian territory captured by the INA."
  • newspapers such as Times of India, Hindustan Times etc should be presented in italics
  • inconsistent date format, for instance compare "2007-07-07" with "2 November 1945"
  • the citations are generally ok, but I found a few that needed tweaking (I may have missed a few, please review)
  • the Further reading section is inconsistently formatted
  • the Cohen, Moremon and Ghosh works do not appear to be specifically cited, I suggest moving them to the Further reading section

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • the use of emdashes or endashes instead of parentheses is inconsistent
  • this is unreferenced: "In October 1943, Bose proclaimed the formation of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind, or the Provisional Government of Free India (also known as Azad Hind or Free India). The INA was declared to be the army of Azad Hind."
  • Stenson & Rai citations (136 & 137) are inconsistent in their presentation, both also lack page numbers
  • the Cohen ref uses a different style citation to the other journal articles. For instance compare citation # 114 with 120 (Green).
  • is there a page numbr for the Urquhart news article?
  • sometimes you use "Firstname Surname" and others you use "Surname, Firstname". For instance compare "Healey, Beth" with "Stephen P. Cohen" or "Sumit Ganguly"
  • "File:Destruction of INA Memorial 1945.jpg": the source link for this file appears to be dead. You might be able to find an archived version here: [7]
  • "File:Surrendered Indian National Army troops at Mount Popa.jpg": the image description page should include an indicative date of when the image was taken
  • "File:Gandhi and Subhas Bose.jpg": probably needs a US licence as well as those that are already on the image description page

Replies to Images comments

Thankyou Nikki, to address the comments:

File:Fujiwara_Kikan.jpg: can you provide more details on source?
The original image was published (from what I gathere) in a Singapore newspaper in 1942 in print (I cannot shed light on which one). The image is also found in Joyce Lebra's Japanese-trained armies in South East Asia, published in 1977. I haven't asked Prof Lebra where her original source is.
Correction, the source were it was published is Domei Newsagency in April 1942.
Okay, could you add that to the image description page? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Gandhi and Subhas Bose.jpg:
To the best of my knowledge, the original image was published in TIME magazine in 1937.
As above, please add to image descirption
The destruction of INA memorial file is from s1942.org.sg.
This was a digital archive of Singapore government (to the best of my knowledge). I am not tinternetwise gifted, a cached version of the website may exist?
Former Indian national army monument is noted as released under CC license by the creator.
INA stamps are released under CC license by the creator.
For both this and the memorial, the CC license given appears to apply to the photo, but not what is pictured. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, the photos are of the memorial to the memorial, and if the stamps described. The photos are used in accordance with the license to the best of my understanding. Is there a problem that is not immediately apparent to me? rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If something is being photographed, either freedom of panorama must apply or the thing being photographed must be freely licensed or in the public domain. This is separate from the license of the photographer. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I see your point now. The former Indian National Army monument falls under FoP-Singapore, the Azad Hind stamps are in fact Cinderella stamps published in and by Nazi Germany. I imagine this is appropriately covered under PD-Germany-§134-KUG. please let me know if this clarifies. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 14:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure which other Subhas Bose image that you mentioned under URAA (terribly sorry, not sure what is URAA).

Best regards rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Uruguay Round Agreements Act - the image includes a tag stating it was in the public domain on the date on which that act came into effect, but it is unclear to me why that would be. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC).
Many thanks, I must ask though which image is in question since the only one with Bose is the Gandhi and Bose together, discussed above. Best wishes, rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou, this image is not in fact displayed in the visible part of the article, I will delete this if it is a part of the hidden part of the article. In any case it does not add much to the article and is interchangeable (the subject of the article being the INA and not Bose). Thankyou for highlighting this. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 14:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Note File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg is not a part of this article. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Australian Rupert

I will addess your notes today. Mnay thanks rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


Many thanks for your kind comments Rupert. I have addressed the poitns you raise.

  • Some sentences have been removed now (re:Munawar Khan) for which I could not find dependable source (this was added in the past by a different editor).
  • Grammatical corrections carried out.
  • Italics provided for print publications.
  • I have not changed the date format. The inconsistencies you highlight are not in fact such. The date in words show the original publication date where the artile was first published in print. For online resources first published online (and therefore available as such), this is the date provided.
    • I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. The format is clearly different/inconsistent. Please pick one style and use that throughout. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Yo're right,it didn't. This I think is adressed now. rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 14:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have trimmed the Further reading section to include only relevant literature.
  • Uncited works removed

rueben_lys ( talk · contribs) 10:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Habits (Stay High)

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi ( talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the song " Habits (Stay High)"—and its remixed version—by Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo, both of which became hits in 2014. This is the third time I nominate this article. The past two nominations failed because it struggled to receive reviews from other users, so no consensus was reached. I addressed every comment from every past review, so I think it's ready and I'm open to receive more suggestions. Paparazzzi ( talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There are 8 images in the article. Have proper description templates and are either under fair use or under CC licensing. All but one images have ALT text. Adityavagarwal ( talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Added ALT description to that image. -- Paparazzzi ( talk) 17:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Great article, and the images are in great shape too. Good to go! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • In the body of the article, I would put EP in parenthesis after the phrase "extended play" so that way you clearly define the acronym for an unfamiliar reader and can use it throughout the rest of the text. I believe the first time you use EP in the body of the article is in the "Background and release" section.
  • I am a little confused by the following sentence in the lead (the song under the title "Habits" on 25 March 2013 as her second single.). You say that Lo self-released the song as her second single (from what I originally assumed was the EP Truth Serum), but the next sentence says that the song was released on a different date as the second single from the EP. I am just a little confused by the timeline of events in this scenario. I think you say "as her second independently-released single" instead of "as her second single" that would make help to clarify the chronology.
  • Something about the phrase "she got over the breakup after writing the song" seems a little bit too informal, specifically the verbage "got over". Also, would it be more accurate to say that she dealt with the breakup "through" the song?  Comment: I changed "got over" to "recover", since she says in the interview that she "got better" after writing the song.
  • In the following sentence (The second version was filmed at a Swedish club for three days), I would say "over three days" as opposed to 'for three days".
  • I would link Tove Lo again in the "Background and release" section.
  • In the phrase "to re-released it with proper promotion because", change "re-released" to "re-release".
  • I am not sure you need the following quote "still [had] a lot left to give" and I think you can paraphrase and change the sentence to the following and preserve the same meaning (Then, the label representatives decided to re-release it with proper promotion as they believe it still had commercial potential.)
  • I would suggest adding a topic sentence for the second paragraph in the "Critical reception" section.
  • Please add the year in which "Chandelier" was released to the same section.
  • Not really a suggestion, but I have respect for you for putting the Roosh V review piece in as it is good for comprehensiveness, but that review does make mad and disappointed. Removed
  • You have Kesha linked twice in the "Critical reception" and the "Recognition and accolades" sections. You can unlink the second instance.
  • On the same note, you have Queen of the Clouds and studio album linked in two sections as well. It only needs to be linked on its first mention.
  • Make sure to include the year in which Queen of the Clouds was released when you first mention it. Same applies to Truth Serum.
  • In the phrase (lost to "Blank Space" by Taylor Swift (2014)), I would move the (2014) part to right after "Blank Space" rather than after Taylor Swift.
  • Allmusic should be written as AllMusic.
  • Would it be beneficial in the "Critical reception" subsection of the "Hippie Sabotage remix" section to separate the paragraph into two parts, with one focusing on the positive feedback and the other on the negative?
  • When you mention "Out of Mind", please include the year in which it was released.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope that this receives more attention in this round. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: I have addressed your comments. I just left one comment above. Thank you so much for your review. If you need something, count on me. Regards, Paparazzzi ( talk) 17:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from edwininlondon

I reviewed it last time around and the issues that stopped me from supporting have now been resolved. The two music blogs are no longer used as source. Nice work. And admirable persistence. Edwininlondon ( talk) 08:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball (manga)

Nominator(s): 1989 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a manga series following Goku and his adventures. It made it's run on Weekly Shōnen Jump from 1984 to 1995. The manga is recognized from its anime adaptions in the United States, most notably Dragon Ball Z. 1989 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • Both the images have proper description templates, well-relevant, and qualify for fair use. Good to go! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 02:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe you mean one is fair use, the other is CC 2.0. In any event, all looks proper.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean both are appropriate, in sum. Face-tongue.svg Adityavagarwal ( talk) 10:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • For the caption for the Akira Toriyama image, I would replace the comma between "advance" and "he" with a semicolon as they are two separate sentences. I also think that "he thought it up weekly" can be changed to "he developed it on a weekly basis" as something about the current wording sounds a little too informal to me.
  • In this sentence (The journey leads them to the desert bandit Yamcha, who later becomes an ally; Chi-Chi, who Goku unknowingly agrees to marry; and Pilaf, an impish man who seeks the Dragon Balls to fulfill his desire to rule the world.), the semicolons should be replaced with commas as this is a list and not individual sentences.
  • In the sentence (Bulma, Gohan, and Kuririn search for them to revive their friends and then the Earth's Dragon Balls), I do not believe the "then" part is necessary.
  • I would suggest revising the following sentence (This leads to several battles with Freeza's minions and Vegeta, the latter standing alongside the heroes to fight the Ginyu Force, a team of mercenaries.) to avoid starting a sentence with "This".
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (In order to be allowed to end his popular series Dr. Slump). Who is allowing him to end the series? The publisher? A little more context would be helpful here.
  • In the "Japanese publication" subsection, you alternate between spelling out numbers and representing them as numerals. I am specifically referencing how you spell out twenty and twelve in the second paragraph. Please be consistent one way or the other about this.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. I hope that you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 16:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Argento Surfer

  • from the lead, "strong comedic aspects early on." Suggest adding "in its run" to avoid ending on a preposition.
  • "to be allowed to end his popular series " - was he under contract or something?
  • "the two-part one-shot" - what does this mean? "two-part story" might be less confusing.
  • "he specifically aimed Dragon Ball at readers older than those of his previous work Dr. Slump" Dr Slump was already discussed two paragraphs earlier. The italicized section here seems repetitive.
  • "thinking about how you get in and where " suggest "a/the pilot enters and where"
  • "no one can tell him his original designs are wrong, as it is faster to draw" - the second part doesn't follow from the first here.
  • "asked Torishima for as few color pages as possible"
  • "The February 2013 issue of V Jump, which was released in December 2012" - I think this passage could be rewritten more clearly with a link to cover date, such as "The December 2012 ( cover date February 2013) issue of V Jump..."
  • "have been collected into four tankōbon volumes on April 4, 2013" - "were collected"? All released the same day?
  • Excellent work on the plot summary. It couldn't have been easy to distill such a long story into such a brief retelling. Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    @ Argento Surfer: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 17:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response. I support this one. Argento Surfer ( talk) 17:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 122.108.141.214

  • Comment - has the scholarly literature been surveyed for this series? For example:
  • Mínguez-López, Xavier (March 2014). "Folktales and Other References in Toriyama’s Dragon Ball". Animation. 9 (1): 27–46. 10.1177/1746847713519386. 

Thanks! -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I have scholarly sources on refs 63 and 93. I couldn't find much that was based on the manga from where I was looking at. -- 1989 02:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I added the source you recommended. -- 1989 03:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! What about book chapters, is there anything on DB in the encyclopedia we used for Naruto? & what about Japanese English-language news sources? (Due to the great popularity of DB and DBZ.) -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 04:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to scholar sources. I used Google Scholar and Trove (for searching purposes, not access) to find something, but not much. I don't know what you mean, do you mean by publisher? The Japanese English-language news sources mostly talked about the ( mostly newer) anime more than the manga. The only source that were relevant to the manga were The Japan Times from what you've found. I didn't find much on Asahi Shimbun except for a future exhibit event that I was able to use for the Legacy section. -- 1989 05:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there does seem to be a lot of confounding reviews on DBZ and Dragon Ball Super in the searches I've done. Perhaps someone from "Naruto". In Beaty, Bart H.; Weiner, Stephen. Critical Survey of Graphic Novels : Manga. Ipswich, Mass.: Salem Press. pp. 215–221. ISBN  978-1-58765-955-3 – via says the book has a chapter on Dragon Ball. I know that the articles in this book tend to duplicate what WP already has, but there might be some information that would help lift the article to further comprehensiveness. Glad to know you've checked through the available English language Japanese newspapers. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I added the source you recommended. -- 1989 23:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Freikorp

  • "but no one can say his original designs are wrong and they are faster to draw." This wording reads quite badly, at least to me. It is supposed to be in quote marks? If not, reword it.
  • I removed it. -- 1989 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Now, decades later, cars are so sleek and aerodynamic, he currently draws square ones." - As per WP:REALTIME, try and avoid using terms like "now" and "currently".
  • "while thinking if the fighters can move around in it." - I think it would be better to say "can move around in them"
  • "he does not draw bad guys" - "bad guys" is pretty colloquial, I'd either put it in quotes or use a less childish term, like 'villains'.
  • "inspired by real estate speculators, Toriyama called the "worst kind of people" - I think you could use the word "who" after the comma
  • "Viz began to censor the manga in response to parental complaints." - How were they censoring it at this stage?
  • 'translating the sound effects of gunshots to "zap"' - this is confusing. What was the translation before it was zap?
  • Susan J. Napier could be introduced with her profession so we know why her opinion is relevant.
  • "In 2016, the manga has sold over 156 million" - this should be "As of 2016, the manga..."
  • "lots of martial arts, lots of training sequences, a few jokes" - I think this would read better if you put "[and]" in front of "a few jokes"
  • "became the model for other shōnen series" - this appears to be a fragment. I think you need the word "it" before 'became'
  • "thus starting a trend that he says continues to this day" - can you reword this considering WP:REALTIME?
  • "he commented that the developed" - huh? Is this supposed to be 'commented that the development'?

Well done overall, that's all I found. Freikorp ( talk) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Freikorp: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Happy to support this now. Freikorp ( talk) 06:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review

The article's sources are reliable and archived. Only one thing that bothers me is the use of all capitals for some Japanese sources. Also "Shenlong Times 2". DRAGON BALL 大全集 2: Story Guide (in Japanese). Shueisha. 1995." is lacking a isbn. Just fix these two issues and I'll make it pass. Good work with the article. Tintor2 ( talk) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Tintor2: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 17:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Good. Passing this review. Good luck. Tintor2 ( talk) 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Paparazzzi

  • "...which together were broadcast in..." I guess you meant "broadcasted"
  • "The companies initially split the manga into two parts, Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z to match the anime series, however...", I think that a full stop would be more appropiate before "however"
  • "the most recent edition saw the entire series released under its original name." Sounds odd to me, why not to change it to "the most recent edition of the series was released under its original title"
More to come... Paparazzzi ( talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Paparazzzi: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

  • I think the are so many short paragraphs in the "Spin-offs and crossovers" section.
  • Split the "Popularity" section into two paragraphs

These are my comments. I did not find any flaw. Since they are minor comments, I'm going to support this nomination. If it is possible, could you take a look at my FAC? Sorry for the delay on this review. Have a wonderful day. -- Paparazzzi ( talk) 22:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the paragraphs. -- 1989 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

  • In the "Writing" section:
    • "In order to be allowed by Shueisha to end his popular series Dr. Slump, Akira Toriyama agreed to start his next work relatively soon after." sounds weird. How about In order for Shueisha to allow him to end his popular series Dr. Slump, Akira Toriyama agreed to start his next work relatively soon after.

More comments later. epicgenius ( talk) 02:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Epicgenius: I resolved your concern. -- 1989 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will comment more tomorrow when I have more time. epicgenius ( talk) 03:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@ 1989: More comments:

  • In "Characters":
    • Paragraph 2 - "The editor admitted his concerns were unfounded" contains "admitted", which has a connotation. Would you like to change this? This is optional since Torishima's concerns were unfounded.
    • Para 3 - "He created Piccolo Daimao as a truly evil villain, and said that arc was the most interesting to draw" is missing a "that", but having "that that" is kind of weird. How about Having created Piccolo Daimao as a truly evil villain, he said that arc was the most interesting to draw.
  • In "Japanese publication":
    • Para 1 - "before Toriyama changed midway through to drawing them on a graphics tablet and coloring them with Adobe Photoshop" could be a separate sentence. How about Midway through, Toriyama changed to drawing them on a graphics tablet and coloring them with Adobe Photoshop
  • In "Controversy in the United States":
    • "A fan petition that garnered over 10,000 signatures was created," → A fan petition was created, garnering over 10,000 signatures,
  • In "Legacy":
    • Para 3 - "Installations included using an EEG that measured visitors' alpha brain waves to move Goku's flying cloud." Remove "using".

Overall, this is very well written. I will be happy to support this nomination after these issues are fixed. epicgenius ( talk) 02:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Epicgenius: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 02:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. I'm glad to see that this was resolved so quickly. Nice work! epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Intermission

@WP:FAC coordinators: Is there any more feedback that needs to be put here? -- 1989 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is about the document considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Its 100th anniversary is in three months' time. It is a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. It was promoted to good article status in April 2016, and has since had a peer review, a GOCE copy edit, and support for almost a year from FunkMonk as a mentor. As an important topic in a controversial area, it has been prepared in conjunction with WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which aims to create a bilateral narrative in a field with distinct and divergent ways of describing the same things. The abundance of supporting quotations and notes, reflecting the fact that every detail of this topic has been argued over by scholars from all sides of the spectrum, has been discussed at WP:ANI. Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Haven't finished reading it yet.
  • "The Balfour Declaration was a British public statement made during World War I to announce its support for the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish " Who is "its"? (if it's the British government, remember to use "their"; note the first sentence of the Declaration is similar.)
  • The lede seems to me too long with five paragraphs plus the lengthy blockquote. My understanding is the maximum is four paragraphs. The blockquote seems a bad idea to me as the prose in the lede should be as concentrated as possible to give the reader information and I don't think a blockquote of an original source can fit the prose. I'll wait and see before discussing further what you have to say on it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt

I agree with you that the verbatim text is not needed in the lead. It was discussed 18 months ago at this talk thread with Hertz1888 and Rjensen, and consensus was for keeping. However, the article and lead have developed a lot since then, so consensus may have changed. Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a memorial plaque or similar with the words written on it that would do instead, say as the lede image? I would urge you to discuss making a change.== Wehwalt ( talk) 12:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Good point. When this was last discussed, we had a lower quality image on the page ([8]). Now we have a much clearer lead image with the words on it. I will open a request on the talk page. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
On "its" to "their" - thank you, I will fix this. Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where to make comments, so I'll do it here. It seems to me that the text belongs in the lead. Reasons:

  • From what I remember, every word and punctuation mark of the Balfour Declaration was crafted with a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering.
  • Without the text the subsequent two paragraphs would be incomprehensible ("The first part", "The second part" and discussion of the various phrases like "national home".
  • MOS:LEAD recommends four paragraphs as a rule of thumb, but AFAIK there's no prohibition against having five. More importantly, the guideline says that the lead should "stand on its own". I, for one, can't read the image easily on a desktop and mobile is probably even worse.

Kingsindian    15:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to removing the text from the lead. Having it buried several sections below, at the end of the "Drafts" section, after several earlier versions, is not the same at all. The lead should "stand on its own" and explain what "it" is, "it" being the subject of the article. In this case "it" can be shown, verbatim, in a single legible paragraph. Let's leave it be. Hertz1888 ( talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's a pity about the images, not much you can do with 100 year old stuff; is there any way of somehow putting the nicely typed version together with the image or is that just impractical? I did as well wonder about having a face or two on the page somewhere, maybe a little shot of the authors or even just Balfour?

Selfstudier ( talk) 18:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Just messing about a bit:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox Selfstudier ( talk) 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea on the bottom right - where you have the full text in the infobox.
I don't like having Balfour's photo in the lead as it's misleading - sure his name is attached to it, but he was just one of many players in the story of its creation. Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
True, three of them here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Times_history_of_the_war_(1914)_(14577979888).jpg
I don't like Balfour's photo either, probably can just remove it. As for the infobox stuff, does the infobox count as part of the lead? Perhaps it might work. I am not sure I like it though: it would still be awkward to talk about "first part" and "second part" without actually stating the text in the lead. It might be the least of all evils. I don't know. Kingsindian    20:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, how about this one, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox Selfstudier ( talk) 22:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I had a go at amending the one on your sandbox. What do you think? Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Like Kingsindian says, its an awkward choice, I hadn't paid much attention to it before, its not good that the text in the infobox is difficult to read tho it is nice to see a copy of the original. However I think I prefer a popout version at least some users can then see a legible version. It says that infoboxes should still contain what is in them in the main text somehwere, they are supposed to be a fast summary of some key data, having the long block of text is also frowned on apparently /:
I suppose that in the end, the reason it is in the lead is because it is short enough to be able to do that (cf United_States_Declaration_of_Independence has a single line quote from it in the lead). Selfstudier ( talk) 09:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I will wait and see what other FAC reviewers think of the text in the lede. Please ping me when you want me to take a second look. .-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
What about a "no infobox" version? Starting something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Selfstudier/sandbox

A picture could be inserted somewhere later in the article. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As to photographs, there are no known photographs of the protagonists together from the time of the declaration. This is likely a function of the wartime and secret nature of the discussions. The available photographs are usually posed portraits which give the reader no relevant information other than these people's facial features. I prefer going a little later, either to the 1918 Zionist visit to Palestine (see Weizmann, Edwin Samuel, Ormsby-Gore, Israel Sieff, Leon Simon, James de Rothschild and Joseph Sprinzak) or the 1925 Balfour visit (see Sokolow, Balfour and Weizmann or [13]. Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Image review (let me know if discussion above results in further changes)

  • Suggest scaling up 1915-16 maps
  • File:The_"Basel_Program"_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • I'm not entirely sure that textual documents of this sort would qualify as "artistic works", which is the wording of PD-UKGov. Does provision of Crown copyright differ for nonartistic works?
  • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._amd_King_Hussein.png is of poor quality; is a better-quality image available?
  • File:Balfour_Declaration_in_the_Times_9_November_1917.jpg should explicitly state author's date of death
  • File:Filastin_(La_Palestine)_March_25th_1925_editorial_addressed_to_Lord_Balfour.pdf needs author date of death, and given the 1925 publication date what is the rationale for that US tag?
  • File:2011-08_Desk_Balfour.JPG: what is the copyright status of the pictured wall art? Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria, a few initial reactions:
  • Basel - have added as suggested
  • Times - Since no known writer (to be expected, since it looks like a government press release), I have added the date of death of the editor (1944)
  • 1918 map - no, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere. I have looked high and low (this was discussed at the talk page a few months ago). It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
  • Filastin - the editor and owner (El Isa) was the author of the piece. He died in 1950. I have removed the other tags, as Mandate Palestine copyright laws apply
  • Bit confused here: if he died in 1950, and the Mandate Palestine copyright term is life+70, why would this be PD? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • 70 years is for Israeli copyright post 2008. For creations prior to 2008 (as this was), the British Mandate laws apply, see [14]: "The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death." Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, so we need now to determine the status of the work in the US - not sure how the Mandate laws mesh with URAA. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's an interesting question as the El Isa family would likely not have recognized Israeli descent of their Mandate copyright. It's not relevant though as the paper was almost certainly published in the US without a copyright notice or copyright registration. I have added a tag and an explanation onto the file page. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Desk - a tricky one. The Hebrew text is simply a verbatim translation of the letter and declaration. But the artwork, I don't know. An option is to replace it with a cropped version (e.g. he:קובץ:שולחנו של בלפור.jpg, but i'm not sure how to transfer the hebrew otrs to global commons).
  • I don't know the answer to that one, maybe ask over at Commons? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I figured it out! I will swap the photos. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • UK Crown Copyright - I read this [15] as applying to all Crown material, not just art. Following [16] gives the same conclusion.
  • Hm. That flowchart does differentiate between artistic and non-artistic works, though: artistic works have their copyright expire 50 years after creation, whereas for other works it's 50 years after publication, assuming that happened before 1989. So the question becomes, when were all the textual documents pictured here published? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • They were all published before 1961 (the date of Leonard Stein's seminal publication on the topic which incorporated most of them as core primary sources; the others are in other works from the same time period). I will figure out the dates and add them to each file. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added the details against each of the files on commons. Onceinawhile ( talk) 01:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay. I'm wondering whether there is a UK tag more reflective of the situation for textual works, as UKGov is specific to artistic works. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added a note above each of the tags on the file pages to clarify. To clean things up for future users of the tag, I have also proposed an amendment to the template at [17]. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Scaling up - do you mean make larger on the page, or zoom in further?
  • Make larger on the page, ideally using |upright=. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you - this has been done. Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

While you are deciding what to do with the lead/infobox, here are a few other minor points you should address:

  • The form "Lord Walter Rothschild" is wrong; it would only be right if he was a younger sone of a duke or a marquis, which he wasn't. Just "Lord Rothschild" would be correct everyday form.
  • "Mark Sykes" was "Sir Mark Sykes" at the time, and was rather more than "a British War Cabinet secretary", which makes him sound like a typist. "A senior member of the British War Cabinet secretariat" might be a better indication of his rank.
  • The way it's currently written, it sounds as though Sykes began discussions with Weitzmann on his own initiative, out of the blue. I would preface this sentence with "In accordance with government policy, which was increasingly favouring Zionism,..." (or some such wording)
  • Repetitions in second line of final paragraph: "ongoing...ongoing", and "conflict...conflict".
  • Like others, I think including the text of the declaration in the lead as well as in the infobox is unnecessary. Do you actually need the infobox at all? It contains nothing of note that's not in the first paragraph of the text. A possible alternative to the infobox is illustrated here - replacing it with a quote box containing the declaration's text, and obviating the need to repeat it in the body of the lead.
  • The image in the current infobox gives an impression that the declaration document was headed "Balfour Declaration", which was not the case. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know when the document first acquired this name – was it from the very outset, or a later appellation given by historians?

Aside from these minor issues, I have a major problem with the article as presently constructed. In addition to its main text, there are more than 10,000 additional words of "Primary supporting quotes" and "Explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives" – considerably exceeding the length of the article itself. Some of the notes are, individually, quite lengthy essays running to several hundred words. I don't believe that this approach is what is intended for Wikipedia, which is about providing articles in plain style for the general reader, not for researchers or academic historians. The authors should reconsider the nature of their intended readership, with a view to removing much of this explanatory material. WP:NOT might be a useful guideline. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to Brianboulton

Many thanks Brianboulton. Comments on your points in turn:

  • I agree that "Lord Walter Rothschild" is wrong. However, we need a way to differentiate him from two other contemporary Baron Rothschilds (in England Baron = Lord), much better known in politics, his father Nathan Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild who died a couple of years before the declaration and his distant cousin Baron Edmond James de Rothschild (who was, I believe, not an English Baron but an Austrian Freiherr, but who used the style Baron in England). Walter was not a particularly political or financial man, so it is notable that it was him in particular.
  • Agreed re Sir Mark. It seems his entitlement as a sir was in his Baronetcy inherited from his father, rather than being knighted. I have made both these changes
  • Agreed re Sykes's authorization; I have added wording to clarify
  • As to the infobox, that's an interesting idea. I am neutral on this and will wait to let consensus form.
  • The caption below the picture in the infobox is intended to explain that the declaration itself is within the letter. The name "Balfour Declaration" formed very early. It was used frequently in the reports of both the 1919 King–Crane Commission and the 1920 Palin Commission
  • As to the notes, in the original nomination above I linked to the ANI discussion on the topic. The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Seconded, on the last point. Some quotes are useful to get some insight into the topic. Around the time of the ANI discussion, I made an attempt to shorten the quotes, but judging from the overall discussion, people didn't find the practice problematic; so I discontinued the attempt. There were some concerns raised about copyright, but from what I saw, most people agreed that it did not fall into copyvio territory. Kingsindian    11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fragment of a Crucifixion

Nominator(s): Ceoil ( talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Post war horror by the painter Francis Bacon. The article rightfully went down in flames a few months ago, since then I am most grateful to Wehwalt especially for reviewing on talk. The painting is overwhelmingly nihilist, and fittingly was a thematic dead end outside of the emphasis on the screaming mouth. Bacon went in a completely different direction after this; the article is thus slight, but is a comprehensive summary of this once off direct depiction of the logical end of existentialism. His later work reflects the same bleakness, but was never again so literal. Ceoil ( talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I know less than I would like to about the history of art, but I have some familiarity with Bacon. I used to visit the Ulster Museum a lot, and this houses his Head II.

  • I think you and I have slightly different comma philosophies, so I'll avoid commenting on comma use unless it seems particularly problematic to me.
  • Is the predatory animal a he or an it? Also, there's some slight repetition in the second paragraph of the lead.
    Its an it. Ceoil ( talk) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "he did not believe in either divine intervention nor an afterlife" How about "he believed in neither divine intervention nor an afterlife", perhaps with some links?
    Reworded Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the description section could start with some very basic information? "Fragment of a Crucifixion is a [whatever] painting measuring [whatever]"? It seems to jump straight in to tricky material! In particular, it seems to assume information in the lead, where as I am inclined to think that a description section should be relatively free-standing; the figures, the cross, etc. can be introduced anew.
    Have simplified the lead as much as I could, moving thing around, but its a very dense article, with not much levity. Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "catholic" Shouldn't that be Catholic? (Also, would raised not be more accurate than born?)
    Done Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "religious believe...he would go for them" belief? Also, check spacing?
    Done Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "in of itself" and?
    This is a quote Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "the whole art of Francis Bacon."" Check MOS:LQ.
    Dont follow Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Punctuation should be outside of speech marks, except in a few special cases as outlined at MOS:LQ. I was asking if you could double-check this particular use. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "more imbued with pathos" Link?
    Dont follow Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    "pathos" is not a word that you would hear down the pub; I was suggesting a wikilink to our article on the subject. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "and weighted heavily throughout his career" What does weighted mean, here?
    "Weighted" removed Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bacon's patron and then lover" I think this means "Bacon's patron who later become his lover", rather than "Bacon's patron and, at that time, lover" which would be "Bacon's patron and then-lover". Does that make sense?
    Yes agree, and reworded Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "1512–16 "Isenheim Altarpiece" and" Why quotemarks?
    Fixed Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The loosely opened mouth in the seventeenth-century painting is taut in Bacon's image." I'm struggling with this.
    Reworded Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Maquettefor King and Queen" Spacing?
    Eek Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bacon's devoutly atheist and nihilistic outlook" Is "devoutly atheist" an oxymoron? It strikes me as a little non-neutral.
    Reworded Ceoil ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bacon was his own harshest critic" Also a little non-neutral

Fascinating read. Hope these comments are helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi J; your edits are very solid and thanks for the comments. Re devoutly atheist; thats probably even underselling, he was far more so than I claim here. I'm ok with such a bold claim here. Otherwise, agree with all..working through. Ceoil ( talk) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree that "devout atheist", if not an oxymoron, is definitely off. "Committed atheist" would work better all around. — swpb T 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I like that, for what it's worth. I don't mind stressing the strength of commitment, it's just the word "devout" that I'm not sold on. Josh Milburn ( talk) 17:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree that committed is beter but left just as "atheist" in the end. Thanks again for the review - almost there.... Ceoil ( talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
J Milburn can you take another look pls. Ceoil ( talk) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ian

Recusing from coord duties, I don't claim to be an expert on painting but I do have a weakness for fantastic imagery, and a Bacon piece usually fits the bill... Copyedited so pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything, or if you simply disagree with my changes. Outstanding points:

  • I would've expected BritEng for Bacon, but notice "modeled" and "center"...
  • "...its form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats" -- sorry does this mean Bacon used some of his actual pictures of bats in the painting (like a collage) or simply that he took inspiration from his pictures of bats?
    Ended up taking this out. Ceoil ( talk) 23:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the first Peppiatt quote, is the ungrammatical "its" in the original, or is it a typo in our article?
    Fixed now. Ceoil ( talk) 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That's about it, but I'll keep an eye on proceedings since it's early days. Structure and level of detail seem fair to me, and I was fine with the tone, but will hold off support until image and source reviews are in. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...have most. Ceoil ( talk) 10:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Got them all. Ceoil ( talk) 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • Support I did a review for the first FAC, they were posted here. Those look to be addressed, or moot. A few fresh comments:
  • "The prey unsuccessfully struggles to flee from its capture." It seems likely to me you mean "captor"
  • "at what may be a beach or seaside resort." this may puzzle the American reader, since they would use them almost interchangeably.
  • "Bacon was born a catholic," caps?
  • "He kept a photographic still of a close-up of the nurse shown screaming in panic and terror, with broken pince-nez spectacles hanging from her blood stained face." I might cut "a photographic still of"
I won't say I admire the work of art. But the article is admirable ...-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, got these. Ceoil ( talk) 10:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

I reviewed this at the previous nomination; it has massively improved since then, so good job!

  • The first paragraph in §Description seems a little topsy-turvy to me: we hear about the link with the Crucifixion, and the positioning of the creatures on the cross first; only then do we move on to the description of the creatures and the cross as individual elements.
    Now restructured. Ceoil ( talk) 23:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the mid-ground, the artist has sketched a street scene, which features walking stick figures and cars, at what may be a beach or seaside resort.[6] the reference given supports that there are stick figures and cars in the mid-ground, which is obvious to me from looking at the image, but not that it is at a beach or resort, which is not. Where does that interpretation come from?
    I ended up taking this out about the resort. Ceoil ( talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The motif was developed from sources including [...] Matthias Grünewald [...]. Not knowing who Grunewald was, it was not at all clear to me on first reading what this meant. Having clicked on his link, I see he was an artist: did his works include screaming mouths? I'm still not entirely sure how he inspired the motif of the screaming mouth...
  • Horizontal frames often featured in Bacon's 1950s and 1960s paintings. The motif may have been borrowed from the sculptor[...] Henry Moore The only Moore sculpture with such a horizontal frame I can think of is the Maquette for King and Queen mentioned in the article, but this postdates Fragment of a Crucifixion. It's possible that I'm forgetting a Moore, though.
    Removed. Ceoil ( talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A few queries, but the article definitely in much better shape than I last saw it. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@ here. I have added a link in the article; Ceoil might want to reformat it to fit in with their scheme. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for finding this, and for both reviews. Ceoil ( talk) 23:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Caeciliusinhorto: Thanks for the spots, especially re Moore. Can you take another look. Ceoil ( talk) 23:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

All looking good to me. Happy to support.

Comments from Ceranthor

  • 1950 canvas by the Irish-born, English figurative painter Francis Bacon. - might be worthwhile to link figurative art
  • Added. Ceoil ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Blood pours from the animal's mouth onto the head and body of its prey, a chimera rendered as owl-like with human facial characteristics. - I feel like these characteristics should be introduced when you first name the lower figure as a chimera, not the second mention
  • not returning to it until the more loosely based, but equally horrific triptych, Three Studies for a Crucifixion. - the use of horrific seems out of place here, more opinion than anything
  • Went with "bleak", which I think is ok as its a well worn trope when talking about Bacon Ceoil ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • body of the chimera, or hybrid bird,[10] - You didn't mention a hybrid bird in the lead
  • I say "as owl-like with human facial characteristics". Ceoil ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • His referred to the still in paintings throughout his career.[14] - Is this meant to say He rather than his?
  • Ahem. Yes Ceoil ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • He admitted that, "When I was younger, I needed extreme subject-matter. Now I don't." - citation after a direct quote?
  • Got it Ceoil ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The Barker reference should probably have an accessdate too.
  • Added now Ceoil ( talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • References all seem reliable.

A short, but fascinating article. The prose is very, very good, so these are just a few nitpicks before I can support. ceran thor 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Support ceran thor 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Ceoil ( talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • What makes artandreligion.de a high quality reliable source? I'll note that I could NOT get the site to load, even trying a number of workarounds.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some spots that probably need to be looked at and possibly reworded.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Will get to these this evening. Ceoil ( talk) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Have reworded some. Re:artandreligion.de; see archive link added by here. Ceoil ( talk) 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

(I am commenting from the point of view of a lay reader not expert in artistic convention or critical style.}

Lead

  • The upper figure, which may be a dog or a cat, grips a chimera with its mouth - This is not apparent from a visual inspection of the image. There seems to be a significant gap between the head of the upper figure and the nearest obvious part of the lower figure. What part of the lower figure is the upper figure claimed to be gripping with its mouth?
  • Reworded now. Ceoil ( talk) 21:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Description

  • The upper creature is modelled on a dog or a cat, its form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats - Are you sure it is the upper creature that has a "form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats", as the lower creature actually looks more bat-like to me? If so, how is its form merged with pictures of bats? I do not see it.
  • Have taken this bit out. Ceoil ( talk) 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • at what may be a seaside resort - This does not appear to be supported by the adjacent reference (ref name=gs (Gemma Sharpe))
    Removed Ceoil ( talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Looks OK, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Imagery and sources:

  • Bacon was born a Catholic, ... - How can one be born a Catholic?
    Reworded Ceoil ( talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Now the lead says he was an atheist and Imagery and sources says he was a Catholic. I don't think it is technically possible to be both at the same time, but he could change from one to the other. It seems likely that he was brought up/indoctrinated to be a Catholic, and may actually have been one for some time, but lost faith and ended up an atheist, but I have not read the sources. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Crucifixion

  • Crucifixion scenes appear from Bacon's earliest works, and appeared frequently heavily throughout his career. - What does frequently heavily mean?
    Reworded - "appeared frequently throughout" Ceoil ( talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Fine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ben Affleck

Nominator(s): Popeye191 ( talk) 14:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the actor/filmmaker Ben Affleck. It was listed as a Good Article in June 2017, and has been copy edited and peer reviewed since then. Popeye191 ( talk) 14:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support I did a detailed review at the PR; here are my edits. I was satisfied then and the article still seems in good order. Well done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Popeye191 ( talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do some copyediting Popeye191 ( talk) 13:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking them Popeye191 ( talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This article is in excellent shape. Here are five suggestions, questions.
2006–2015
  • ¶4 What is a "first-look producing deal"? Can you link to something or briefly explain?
Political views
Democratic Party activism
  • ¶1 "and later remarked, "I'm going to vote twice next time, in true Boston fashion." – Should this say "joked" rather than "remarked"? If taken straight, it might feed into the mistaken idea that voting twice is commonplace in the United States.
Religion
  • ¶1 "In a 2003 interview, Affleck described himself as a "lapsed Protestant... " – Again I would recommend moving the linked term outside of the direct quotation. In this case, I think you could simply drop the quotation marks.
References
  • Most of the titles are in title case, but some like citations 96 and 97 are in sentence case. Making them all the same would be good.
Thanks, the first four points have been addressed and I'm looking at references now. Thanks for the suggestions Popeye191 ( talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Changes look good. I'm happy to support, as noted above. I leave the title case – sentence case decision to you, but I'd opt for title case myself. Looks to me like most are already in title case. Finetooth ( talk) 21:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, I've changed them all to title case now Popeye191 ( talk) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks much better, though I confess that my suggestion was nit-picky and that fixing these dudes must have been a tedious chore. Finetooth ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No, there hasn't been one yet. I've requested it at WT:FAC Popeye191 ( talk) 23:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Finetooth

A random Google search of four sentences revealed no problems.
Earwig's tool finds no real problems but flags this text, which must have been copied from Wikipedia to YouTube without acknowledgment.
Yes, I think so. The article's introduction has been gradually edited over years to get to the current draft. Popeye191 ( talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation 48. What makes blogspot.com highly reliable?
If this reference needs to be removed, that's okay. The Boston Magazine ref also speaks to how the movie was based on their own experiences (but not as expansively). It's the blogspot of Tom Shone - he writes for The Times and uses the blog to share extra material he didn't have space to fit in printed articles. He links to the blog on his twitter profile and the Sunday Times regularly link to his twitter profile. This specific blog post was reported on by Indiewire - they linked to blogspot.com. Popeye191 ( talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds fine. It can stay. Finetooth ( talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation 147. Author's name should be last, first.
Fixed Popeye191 ( talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation 218. Needs a page number.
Fixed Popeye191 ( talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks fine to me. Finetooth ( talk) 02:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
All good. Finetooth ( talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Spotcheck: I just realised that this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, unless I'm mistaken. In that case, we need a spot-check of sources for reliable use and close paraphrasing, above the Earwig check carried out above. Finetooth, any chance you could do this as well? Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. I might add that this is my first-ever formal source check for FAC, and I won't be insulted if someone else double-checks. Finetooth ( talk) 23:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I found reliable use and no close paraphrasing for these six citations chosen at random: 25, 51, 96, 163, 225, and 313. Finetooth ( talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Current ref 2 - we should have a secondary source that connects the birth record to the actor - how do we know that the "Benjamin G. Affleckbold" is the correct person? It is OR to assume that some primary record is the person without some other way to connect them than the same name.
Comment I think ref 1 did just that. Affleck explained how he got his birth name in detail while he was honored at the Writers Guild of America Awards. Or, we could add another ref from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ben-Affleck Artoasis ( talk) 00:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes http://global-citizen.com/enter-bens-world/ a high quality reliable source?
  • What makes http://tomshone.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/how-good-will-hunting-got-its-ending.html a high quality reliable source? I saw your reply to Finetooth, but I'm not quite convinced that this is high quality - is the information not shared in the actual newspaper because there isn't space or is it rejected by his editors? I'd like to see something that shows that it's the former and not the second - and not from the writer. Do other writers pick up on what he puts on his blog and consider it reliable? Or do they ignore it?
Indiewire reported on the additional information contained in the blog post concerned and linked directly to the blog. However, I've replaced the source with a link to the published interview in The Times. Sorry - I've only just realised that the quote about how they drew from their experiences to write the screenplay is there too. Popeye191 ( talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Just a quick question of my own. Throughout the article, there are a selection of reviews of Affleck's performances. Given that there is no biography available, how have we chosen which quotes and reviews to include? I also wondered if there were any sources available that took a broader overview of his career, rather than just interviews publicising his films? (If there are not, that isn't a problem, I would just like to check we have exhausted every option.) Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Underwater diving

Nominator(s): • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the lead article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving, and a level 4 vital article in Everyday life. The article is about the human practice of going underwater to interact with the underwater environment for professional or recreational reasons. It is in summary style throughout as it is intended as the top level introduction to the large number of Wikipedia articles on subsidiary topics relating to underwater diving. ... • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

  • General notes on first glance (sorry if this is formatted wrong, I'm not an FA regular):
    I think I can manage, I too am not very familiar with the procedures. Thanks for your attention. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. There are various WP:SANDWICHING issues that just get worse the wider the resolution is.
    If I understand you correctly, you mean that when the gap between the images gets too wide it causes problems? I will try to recreate this and see what it looks like. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have done what I think may solve the problem. Please confirm. If it does not, please feel free to demonstrate, as I am not sure that I can replicate the problem adequately. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sandwiching issues happen when there is an image on the left and an image on the right and text "sandwiched" between them. The easiest solution is to use only right aligned images, but left can also be used, if they are adequately spaced. The wider the screen resolution the more difficult it is to avoid sandwiching. Wood 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I understand. The changes I have made eliminate reduce sandwiching issues on my screen, so I will assume it is fixed until notified otherwise. however, putting the images on only one side pushes some of them out of the relevant section, and at a screen width where sandwiching starts, the text width is already quite wide. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Changing all images to right aligned default width seems to give an acceptable appearance over the widest range of page widths, for my browser. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    I added upright scaling to all the vertically oriented images, combined a few images using Template:multiple image, and removed exactly one image. This reduced a lot of the stacking issues, but there's still a pretty bad stack right around the History section. I'm not sure if there's an easy solution there other than adding more text or removing some images. Wood 13:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Looks OK to me, I will experiment a bit with more multiple images and see where it goes. Worth a try at least. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. The images in the lead look fine on PC, but on mobile browser they result in having to scroll through a full screen's worth of image before you get to any text, and on mobile app they do the same, but they appear after the first paragraph of the lead, meaning you can't really see the text of the first paragraph and the second in the same screen. The flags should probably be moved, removed, or incorporated into something like Template:Multiple image.
    I think I get your point, but have no mobile browser to check on. I will look into possible solutions, including those you suggest. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I moved the flags to another section where they are probably more relevant anyway. Does this solve the problem? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it seems to have. Wood 22:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. The lead overall could probably be more concise. Some animals are physiologically and anatomically better adapted to the environmental conditions of diving doesn't really seem like it has thorough treatment in the body, and so it's not clear why it needs to be in the lead. The whole thing could probably be reduced to about two thirds its size with careful reduction.
    Changed so that other animals are not mentioned in that statement. Other reductions are not obvious to me, but I will see if there is anything I can do. I did reduce the lead considerably during the GA review, but a few things have changed since then and it may be possible to squeeze it down a bit more without too much loss. If you have any specific suggestions, I would like to see them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I've done a good deal of tightening to the lead. One sentence still bothers me: In ambient pressure diving, the diver is directly exposed to the pressure of the surrounding water, and uses breathing apparatus for scuba diving or surface supplied diving, or when freediving, will breath-hold. The "when freediving, will breath-hold", although I can probably imagine how it would be technically grammatically workable, if so, is still really awkward sentence construction. But I'm not totally sure how to best reword it so that it would be understood by... a fairly average but inquisitive 15 year-old. Wood 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    I noticed, most is good, but I had to change one where the meaning was distorted. I will look at options for the awkward construction as I don't like it either. It may take more words. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    Really awkward construction changed by rewriting much of the paragraph. I think it is better now. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. There is probably an over-reliance on scare quotes where they're not clearly necessary, some MOS:WORDSASWORDS instances where they should probably be italicized instead of quoted. Also quotes and wikilinks should not be used in concert.
    Works for me. Wood 13:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    Good point, I will sort this out. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Removed several that seemed unnecessary. If I have missed any that you think should go, please feel free to delete them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Personal preference, but if upright is used on vertically oriented images, it should probably be used consistently.
    I will take a look, but am not sure that I get your point. Maybe it will become clear after I look into it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Still mot sure. Do you want all the images to be of the same width, or all the portrait format images to be the same width, or something else? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have made all the images default width and right aligned as this seems to provide reasonable layout over most page widths between about 50 chars to 200 chars. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Taken care of this one. Wood 13:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. The sourcing has a mixed format, and Sources section should be incorporated into inline citations.
    I don't think I understand what you are suggesting here. If I do, then I don't understand why. If this is about some having parentheses round the date and others not, I am on it. I had not noticed it before. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I Think I have all the dates parenthesised, and a couple of references consolidated. Done? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have changed the Sources level 2 header to level 3, so it is now a subsection of References. This might have been one of the things you wanted, and is how I normally do it anyway. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but per WP:FACR #2c, my understanding is that you can use either a footnote citation style or a bibliography citation style, but you can't use both. Wood 14:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    WP:FACR #2c states: either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). I am not using Harvard referencing, and assumed that what is used here is all considered footnotes. I see no mention of bibliographies/sources or whater one chooses to call them, so assumed that the current arrangement complies. I will make some further checks, but have seen this arrangement pass several GA reviews. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    I have found existing FAs with similar referencing by randomly inspecting FAs - it is a minority format, possibly between one in five and one in ten use it:
    I choose to use this system because it seems an efficient compromise at providing the necessary information while using the least space on the page. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. The Notes section needs sources to indicate exactly where that information is coming from. Wood 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Also a good point, I will look up the source and add it, these are fairly standard definitions, so should not be too difficult. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Found a source, now all I have to do is work out how to nest references with list definitions. That will have to wait for another day. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    As far as I can make out from the help pages, it cant be done, so will leave the definitions inline for now where they at least work as required. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    I see you found exactly the template I was going to suggest. Looks good. Wood 14:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Wood 15:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Timothyjosephwood, I have changed one of your multiple image templates, as one of the three was out of place in that section, and combined it with the other image from the previous section, with similar overall effect. You may wish to adjust overall widths to suit what you had in mind - I left them at 450px. I am not familiar with the workings of multiple images, and have hesitated to use them because of possible accessibility issues such as overriding the users image width choice, and I have no idea how they display on mobile. However I think we have a situation where we are choosing a lesser evil, and image formatting can always be changed when the software is improved. With this in mind, there are other possible combinations for multiple images. How far do you think it is advisable to go? I will combine a couple more to see how it looks. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the template doesn't work with an upright scaling factor at all, so this is one of those "preferred whenever possible" situations. On mobile it basically ignores the template and treats it like two adjacent images, unless you use perrow as in the lead image for Humour, where it treats them either the same as PC, or as horizontally cropped swatches depending on device. Probably right that for mobile users it's better to use just two combined images at a time. Wood 09:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, Are there any outstanding issues? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility review

  • All of the images now have sensible (if sometimes lengthy) alternate text.
  • Images (other than the multiple images) do not use forced sizing, thus allowing registered users' preferences to work.
  • No use is made of text below 85% of the page's base font size.
  • The only use of colour is in the navigation templates, which meet WCAG AA standard, but fail WCAG AAA when a link (colour #002BB8) is displayed against the light blue background (#CCCCFF).
  • No data tables are used which would require considerations for accessibility.
  • The article is navigable by use of the keyboard without a mouse, and the collapsible content is also accessible from a keyboard (but needs JavaScript enabled, of course).

I do not judge that the minor deficiencies noted should be a barrier to promotion as a Featured Article. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, If you have any recommendations for improving the minor deficiencies, go ahead. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There's not much that I can do to improve the colour contrast as the templates all use the default styling from {{ Navbox}} and it was a design decision to harmonise colours; also I don't really have the stamina to start micro-managing every template we use. It's not a big deal as it's almost AAA compliant (and the colours appear to differ anyway between Vector skin and Monobook), so it's unlikely to be a problem for the vast majority of readers. I really ought to create an alternative to {{ multiple image}} that allows |upright= to solve the other problem, but I need to find some time to do that. I promise I'll let you know when I have. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
    I have made some changes, but I am not confident that they are all done, or all correct. The more I look at them the less sure I am. Please identify which ones you think are wrong.
    Thanks for the fixes. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Diving_stage.jpg: source link is dead
    So I see. I did not take the photo or upload it. I just used it as found on Commons, assuming that the Commons community will have checked that the image is acceptable for use on Wikimedia projects. The photo has been on Commons since 2008 and there are no warning notices and the provenance is entirely plausible. Is there something I am expected to do about this, or are you just mentioning it?
    Suggest checking for an archival copy of the source and adding if available. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    I searched but could not find an archived copy. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:US_Navy_explosive_ordnance_disposal_(EOD)_divers.jpg: is there a source for this image?
    Not that I am aware of. It too was linked from Commons on the assumption that as has been there since 2005 without challenge, and the provenance is entirely plausible. I have no reason to suspect that it is not exactly as claimed.
    Okay. You can add this one if none other is available. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:ROV_working_on_a_subsea_structure.jpg: image description suggests that the uploader was not the author
    So I see. It is possible that User:Mierlo was the author, but the copyright was held by Oceaneering. I do not know how to investigate this possibility. Commons appears not to have an issue with it.
    Ideally we would have an OTRS ticket to confirm licensing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    I think this may not be reasonably practicable, as the original uploader has been vanished for some years. Commons keeps files of this era of upload through a grandfathering policy as it was uploaded before OTRS was implemented. See discussion at commons. I have no compelling reason to assume bad faith, but admit I may be biased because I like the image and find it useful. It is easily the best I could find on Commons for this purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Alexander_the_Great_diving_NOAA.jpg: even though NOAA is the immediate source, they wouldn't hold copyright under US law - should use a different tag
    As a 16th century painting I would assume that any copyright would have expired long ago. It has a template. What other PD template should it have? Is there any doubt that it is PD?
    No, but it should still be appropriately tagged. The NOAA tag is currently representing its status in the US; this should be replaced with one of the pre-1923 publication tags. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    PD-US tag added. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John_Scott_Haldane_1910.jpg (1) needs a US PD tag (2) needs an explanation of what has been done to try to ascertain authorship (3) needs a publication date
    I cannot prove anything that I have done by way of trying to ascertain authorship, and as I cannot find out when it was published beyond the moderately obvious "1910 or later". I will give up on this and use the only alternative available, which is dated 1902, by an author who died in 1914.
    The new image (File:John_Scott_Haldane_1902.jpg) will need a US PD tag of some sort. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    PD-US tag added. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Trevor_Jackson_returns_from_SS_Kyogle.jpg is tagged as lacking source details, and is that attribution correct given the author?
    I corrected the apparent attribution error. There is an OTRS ticket referenced, As far is I know that means that permission has been verified. I have no source information, and no idea where to get it from. Is it a problem?
    I've dismissed the tag. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Decompression_chamber.jpg: source link is dead
    So it is. Provenance seems uncontroversial. There are thousands of US Navy photos on Commons.
    Suggest adding archived link if available. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    I do not know how to go about finding an archived link. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    And now it seems I do. At least I found one for this and have added it. Seek, and sometimes ye shall find. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Pavillon_rouge_avec_une_diagonale_blanche.svg is too simple to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    Still needs addressing - should use a different tag. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    Should I just arbitrarily change the tag to CC0 on Commons? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    Check out File:Alpha_flag.svg. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    Ah! Precedent. Thanks, and done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Thanks for pointing out these details, I will look into them and ping you again when I am finished or if I need clarification. If there are any improvements you would like to do yourself, please go ahead. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I have done what I can to address some of these issues, and it is not clear whether I am expected to do anything about the others, or whether you are just mentioning them here to show due diligence in your checks. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I think these have been done as far as possible. Is there anything else> • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, looks fair enough. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience and advice. I have learned some new things. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Welcome to FAC, Peter. It's really, really hard to take a big topic like this and make it your first attempt at FAC, but I think you've done a good job with this article. I cleaned up a few minor things while reading it and came up with the following points:

  • The most important issue is that there is some uncited content (either whole paragraphs or the ends of paragraphs) in Breathhold limitations (admittedly basic stuff), Diving environment, Medical aspects of diving, and Risks and safety. The coordinators will be reluctant to promote this as long as that content remains uncited, and even if it is promoted some random editor will be sure to put cite tags there on main page day; I've seen it happen quite a few times before.
    Busy with this one. One down, 3 or 4 to go. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    Just one more, that is proving surprisingly recalcitrant, considering its importance as a general principle of diving safety. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    Remove unreferenced statement. It is sufficiently logical that readers should come to that conclusion from the rest of the context. I may replace it if I find a suitable reference, but it is not critical. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Breathhold limitations: The first paragraph consists solely of links to three articles. Was this meant to be part of the hatnote here?
    Even worse - they were notes to link to those articles I made as an aide-memoire when I started the section, and then forgot. Now moved to where they should have been.
  • Surface supplied diving: Is Snuba supposed to be capitalized? I thought I should ask here, as I wasn't comfortable changing it without knowledge of the subject.
    It is a trade name which is probably becoming genericised. As far as I know it is still normally capitalised, unlike scuba, which has been around as a generic term for far longer.
  • History: I can't say that I'm in love with the bold text here. We don't need to have this in bold just because the full article on the subject begins that way.
    Quite agree, changed.
  • I see a mention of Second World War in the lead and one of World War II in History. You should probably pick one style and stick with it consistently, though I have no strong preference either way.
    Agreed, and changed.
  • Diver training: This section has a couple of small paragraphs, including a one-sentence "Further training is required..." paragraph. Would it be possible to merge a couple of these so they don't appear so stubby?
    Done. I used the best fit I could think of.
  • This is just a suggestion, but you might want to check the article for wikilinks that are duplicated. I'm seeing a lot of them, particularly in the History section, and typically only one link is needed per subject in the body. It is sometimes considered acceptable to have multiple links for a longer article like this, but some of the overlinking here is bordering on overkill.
    I recently eliminated several redundant links. Those which remain are unique to a major section. I left them as they may be useful to the reader, who otherwise might not easily find the link if there were only one in the whole article. My own experience is that if it is not easy to find a link within about a page up or down from the term in question, it is easier and quicker to just do a Wikipedia search, and that reduces the value of the links. Your experience may differ, and I know that WP:OVERLINK does not agree. I am open to logical persuasion on this point. It is possible that some of the links may be considered trivial or unnecessary and if you prefer to remove some of the duplicates, I will not object, but I find it difficult to decide which ones should go.
  • I'm not doing a full source review here, but I noticed that references 4 and 13 have different styles in their access dates than those in the rest of the cites. I'd change these two to the DMY format; that's what is used elsewhere, and the source checkers will want to see consistency in this regard. Giants2008 ( Talk) 22:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    Somehow I keep missing these. Thanks for spotting. Fixed. I rechecked all the access dates again, and that was the only one I found.
    You found number 4, but missed number 13, which still has the different formatting. It's from Aviat Space Environ Med, in case that helps. Giants2008 ( Talk) 22:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    OK, Got it. Fixed. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Giants2008, Thanks for pointing out these details, I will look into them and ping you again when I am finished or if I need clarification. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Giants2008, I think this is all done now, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Support – All of my concerns have been adequately resolved. This is a fine effort at developing a big topic Wikipedia article, and I'm satisfied with its quality. Let's hope it attracts some attention from other reviewers. Giants2008 ( Talk) 20:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and support. I also hope for a few more reviews, as it would appear that an insufficient number of reviews is one of the major reasons for a nomination not making it to FA. (largest single factor in the last 11 months - 19 out of 54 = 35%) Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Vultee Vengeance in Australian service

Nominator(s): Nick-D ( talk) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Vultee Vengeance dive bomber is one of the most notorious lemons to have been operated by the Royal Australian Air Force. Ordered when the country faced the threat of Japanese invasion in early 1942, the aircraft didn't arrive in significant numbers until this threat had passed. While five RAAF squadrons were equipped with the type, their performance was mixed and the only significant deployment of Vengeances ended in embarrassment when they were ordered back to Australia after only six weeks to free up space at airstrips for more capable aircraft. Nevertheless, the history of the Vengeance's Australian service provides some interesting insights into the RAAF's successes and failures during World War II, as well as air combat over New Guinea during 1943 and 1944.

I developed this article as part of a series on aircraft operated by the Australian armed forces, with the previous articles covering some of the most successful types. It passed a GA review in April this year, and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in June. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are also met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D ( talk) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There are 7 great images which are in public domain, have proper description templates, and are also relevant. No issues; good to go! Adityavagarwal ( talk) 02:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the image review Nick-D ( talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article at both GAN and Milhist ACR, and have reviewed all edits made since then. It has been significantly improved by the addition of material relating to the perceived performance of the aircraft and dive-bombing as a tactic in general, and is really comprehensive and an interesting read. Great job! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for these comments Nick-D ( talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dank Nick-D ( talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D ( talk) 22:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

  • Mention World War II somewhere in the Acquisition section?
  • The USAAF was also rapidly expanding at this time, which limited the number and types of aircraft available to the country's allies. Suggest "its allies", as "the country" refers to Australia in the previous sentence.
  • the Australian Government sought assistance from its allies to rapidly expand the RAAF Explain RAAF and link.
  • While in Washington DC should be "While in Washington, DC," and why was he there anyway?
    • To represent Australia on the Pacific War Council and seek aircraft: added Nick-D ( talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The Australian Government eventually placed an order for 400 Vengeances. Were they acquired under Lend Lease?
    • I tried to clarify this one, but no source was clear. Several sources noted that the Vengeances were expensive to purchase (as noted towards the end of the article), so it seems not. Nick-D ( talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
      According to Hasluck (p. 16), the first of 400 Vultee Vengeances were to be delivered in January 1942. So they must have been ordered in 1941. He later says that as a result of Evatt's mission, it was agreed to deliver 34 in 1943 (p. 214) Odgers says that 297 were on order in December 1941. (pp. 268, 484). The Wikipedia article says "a mixture of Lend Lease and diversions from the original British orders". (Shores. Christopher and Smith, Frank. "Diving Vengeance." Air Enthusiast Number Five, November 1977 – February 1978. Bromley, Kent, UK: Pilot Press, 1977. p. 31) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
      Thanks a lot for this. It looks like the RAAF history I'd relied on here was totally wrong - from Googling the quote from Evatt in the paper, it appears that they got confused with a deal he struck in June 1943! ([18]). I'll do a bit more digging, and amend the text. There appear to be some useful-looking files on the NAA website which hopefully provide a clear cut date. Nick-D ( talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      After a fair bit of digging (including the fortuitous availability of a book I was unable to consult earlier), I've been able to provide an overview of the procurement history. The Australian Government paid for most of the aircraft, with the remainder being provided under Lend Lease. Interestingly, this purchase replaced an earlier order for an aircraft type often described as being among the worst aircraft of World War II. Also interesting, multiple highly reliable sources (including the RAAF Museum and the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History) stated that the Vengeances were ordered in early 1942, which explains why I didn't think to check the earlier official history volumes which demonstrate otherwise. Nick-D ( talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      That's great! It makes a lot more sense now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The US Fifth Air Force preferred to use fighter-bombers and light bombers to support ground troops in New Guinea. You might also mention that it had withdrawn its own A-24 Banshee dive bombers
  • The commander of the Allied Air Forces in the South West Pacific, Major General George Kenney, requested in late August 1943. Suggest linking South West Pacific Area at this point, and Kenney was a lieutenant general in August 1943.
  • Air Vice-Marshal George Jones, the chief of the RAAF The Chief of the Air Staff?
  • USAAF units equipped with superior types were rapidly arriving in New Guinea during early 1944 The Fifth Air Force had six fighter groups during the war. The 8th, 35th and 49th arrived in New Guinea September-October 1942; the 348th and 475th in June-August 1943; and the 58th in October-December 1943. No new fighter groups arrived in New Guinea in 1944, although the 3rd Air Commando Group arrived in November 1944, and went straight to the Philippines.
    • I've added a bit more to clarify this - the main factor was the need to accommodate the USAAF fighter groups at forward airfields. Nick-D ( talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Article seems very good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Is it worth mentioning the August 1944 crash? [19] It appears that someone has written a whole book on it, and there's a memorial plaque. [20] It doesn't seem to have been the only crash though [21][22][23] Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Not without being about to note how many of the type were lost in crashes, which no source states. The NAA has files for large numbers of crashes for this type (and one appears to list about 189 incidents involving casualties). Nick-D ( talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      • The number of crashes seems large, but I have no point of comparison with other aircraft types. If you're thinking of taking a trip to the National Archives, A649 22/600/31 and 57 probably contain the purchase history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Hawkeye7: Thanks very much for this review. I think that I've now actioned all of your comments. Nick-D ( talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Support Looks good. I made one minor change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Beringian wolf

Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Beringian wolf (Canis lupus), an extinct type of wolf that lived during the Ice Age. It inhabited what is now modern-day eastern Alaska, the Yukon, and northern Wyoming but is morphologically and genetically different to the wolves that inhabit North America today. It existed at the same time as the more famous dire wolf that lived south of the glaciers. The Beringian wolf article has recently achieved GA listing and has been reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. Please enjoy. William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Nice to see this finally up. I will add comments as I read along, so I might take some time to finish. FunkMonk ( talk) 20:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for initiating the comments. This page is not transcluding to the Talk:Beringian wolf page for some reason.
That is only supposed to happen automatically with GANs. It can be done manually for FACs, though. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • First, from reading the intro and skimming the article, I'm not really sure whether anyone is proposing this is a distinct taxon or not? Could we get a clearer statement on this in the intro?
Addressed; no subspecies classification has been applied. The wolves are similar in morphology to C. l. spelaeus (cave wolf) in Western Europe and C. l. brevis in Eastern Europe. Baryshnikov 2009 proposes that spelaeus and brevis may be the same species, and there are similarities with the Beringian wolf. Until further work is done clarifying a single wolf subspecies - or not - no name has been applied.
  • As I mentioned elsewhere, the wolves in the diorama photo seem so lifelike that it makes me, and probably others, wonder how this was made. Some readers may even inaccurately believe it is actual, stuffed Beringian wolves, so may be good to somehow clarify it. Is it rogue taxidermy? Made from extant wolf skins, or just models with fake fur?
Addressed. Models created by paleoartists; how they did it might be beyond the scope of the article.
Yes, what you wrote is what I was thinking of. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the gif map could need a caption, to explain how it relates to the subject of the article. Seems a bit diffuse now, and you could explain what the numbers mean.
Addressed, perhaps. Your assessment?
Much better with context. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Likewise with the photo of the bison hunt. How does it relate to the subject of the article? Is the Beringian wolf thought to have had similar prey?
Addressed. All of the Late Pleistocene wolves across the mammoth steppe loved bison and horse! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "From the 1930s a representative of the American Museum of Natural History" Name?
More than one representative after checking the reference.
  • "The historic population was found to possess twice the genetic diversity of modern wolves." Perhaps state in parenthesis why this was? I assume due to hunting? Would also explain this sentence: "However, much of their diversity was later lost during the twentieth century."
Addressed - extirpated.
  • "The replacement in North America of a basal population of wolves by a more recent one supports the findings of earlier studies." Rather than "support" wouldn't it be "is consistent with"? I'm not sure if something that is hypothetical can support anything. Or perhaps it is not that hypothetical after all.
Addressed - that sounds better.
  • You have a section called "two types of grey wolf", yet the cladogram shows wolves outside these categories. So there are more than two? So what does the title allude to?
I had originally named this section "Two gray wolf haplogroups" but that seemed a bit heavy going for the reader. A recent study found the Himalayan wolf to be more associated with the African golden wolf than with the holarctic gray wolf (Werhahn 2017). Perhaps I should remove it and the Indian grey wolf (the next one to be seriously studied) from the cladogram?
Could be, if it only confuses the reader. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Title of that section changed to "Different genetic types of gray wolf" as that is what we are addressing. Let me know if you have doubts.
  • There is some quoted description in the taxonomy section, but I think this should be summarised in the description section, where anatomical features are to be discussed in detail. Now the description section only says it was "robust", which is too vague to mean much.
When I can find a holotype with a formal description, I include that under taxonomy. It is by this description that a taxonomist would tell a Beringian wolf from other types of wolves. In this case, I am more interested in Olsen's designation as C. lupus - despite the weirdness - than I am in the description. However, I am not fussed - your call. William Harris • (talk) • 11:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it doesn't have to be on expense of the quote, rather in addition to. We need to know which details that set them apart from other wolves in the description section too. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Relocated.
  • "Adaptation is the evolutionary process by which an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats." Isn't this definition a bit narrow? As you state later, it also involves other species and so on. Perhaps say environment/ecosystem instead of just habitat?,
Amended. NOTE: I have added a new sentence after this one, further highlighting the link between the wolf and its habitat.
  • "The term ecomorph is used to describe a habitat specialist." The way I understand the term, it is a distinct morphology/behaviour that is adapted for a specific ecology/purpose? So it does not itself mean a habitat specialist, but what may make a species a habitat specialist.
When you include behaviour, I believe you have just described an "ecotype", with "ecomorph" including morphology only (it is in the name). However, I have sourced a superior definition; let me know if it is not sufficient.
  • "his Beringian refugium, eastern Beringia's vegetation included isolated refugia of" Seems a bit redundant the second time?
Amended
  • " and was well-adapted to the cold" In what way? Doesn't seem to be specified anywhere.
"cold, megafauna-rich environment" is using the adjective "cold" to describe the environment, not the wolf. However, we have said that the environment was cold elsewhere, so it is removed here.
  • "twice the percentage of tooth crowding" Which is what?
Now included. 18% v 9%. Interestingly, the domestic dog was only 5%. (That an increased level of tooth crowding separates a dog specimen from a wolf specimen and demonstrates "domestication" is not supported by this study, and calls to question many of the ancient "dog" findings.)
Oh, I meant what is meant by the term tooth crowding? FunkMonk ( talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, amended with explanation.
  • What is the "Rancho La Brea wolf"? Canis lupus?
Amended, they are lupus.
  • Any sources that explain why the Beringian wolf hasn't been named as a distinct taxon? Have researchers consciously refrained from doing so?
No sources available. (Pers. Comms. J. Leonard - the relationship between these and the other megafaunally adapted wolves across the northern holarctic during the Late Pleistocene is unclear and further research is required.)
  • "The Beringian carnivores included the Beringian wolf (Canis lupus)" Since the article is already about the wolf, I would say "In addition to the Beringina wolf, other Beringian carnivores include".
Amended.
  • "A study of Canis dentition shows" You give dates for most other studies, but not this one.
Amended.
  • Who coined the name "Beringian wolf" and when?
Amended. (As always, there is a team behind this, this one under the guidance of Bob Wayne.)
  • "This type of wolf has been referred to as the Megafaunal wolf." Needs source. And your text implies the megafaunal wolf is the same as the cave wolf?
Provided. As above, we do not know if this is the same subspecies across the northern holarctic during the Late Pleistocene. (I understand that this is being worked on now, and we should have an answer sometime in the next 12 months.)
  • " and if the study is correct then it suggests that the wolves were able to migrate south between 23,800 and 23,000 YBP but were then unable to return north due to the closure of the corridor." Needs a source.
I have removed this section altogether. A corridor that is impassable to bison may not be impassable to wolves.
  • "presenting new competition for large game." No source. May seem like common sense, but do we have a source that specifically says this?
Amended to what we know the humans ate; the reader can follow what this means.
  • "Beringia was once an area of land that spanned the Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea, joining Eurasia to North America. Eastern Beringia included what is today Alaska and the Yukon." Needs a source.
Cited.
  • I'm not sure what the second paragraph in the "range" section has to do with the subject's range? Rather seems to be about relatives in other parts of the world?
Relocated the text to "Differenct genetic types of gray wolf", which now adds to further support that narrative.
  • "Ancient DNA and radiocarbon data indicate that local genetic populations were replaced by others from within the same species or by others of the same genus." This would of course only be true for those animals that ave modern representatives, which should be clarified. There are no elephants in America, of course.
Amended.
  • "Phenotype is extinct" I think you need to define phenotype somewhere in the section, I wouldn't think casual readers necessary know what this means.
Amended.
  • "The study did not support two wolf haplogroups that had been proposed by earlier studies." This should probably be noted in the section titled "Two types of gray wolf"?
Are we to say this twice in the text or leave the disagreement within the section that indicates a new study has found ancient lineages still existing in remote places today?
As is, it is kind of like one section supports one interpretation, while the next supports another. I am tempted to say it should be mentioned both places, but I don't really have a strong opinion. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Amended. It does not detract from the key evolutionary scenario in the next paragraph that is supported by other studies: "A scenario consistent with the phylogenetic..."
  • The title "Haplotype is not extinct" does not seem to be consistent with the fact that the text only says "One ancient haplotype... was similar to that of modern wolves"?
Amended - the same haplotype was shared with them.
  • "The Beringian wolf (Canis lupus) is an extinct type of wolf" This should rather be: "The Beringian wolf is an extinct type of wolf (Canis lupus)", as the name of course isn't specific to the Beringian type. I seem to have missed this when you asked about it earlier...
Amended.
  • "The Beringian wolf is the first ecomorph of the gray wolf to be identified and comprehensively studied" This is only stated in the intro with no source. It should be mentioned and sourced in the article body as well.
The source was unclear on this, so amended.
  • Support - everything looks good to me now, and I think it is clearer for the average reader in places. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and the intensity of your reading for this review. William Harris • (talk) • 10:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up phylogenetic tree
Done, thanks.
  • File:Beringian_wolves_diorama.jpg: what is the copyright status of the diorama? See references here. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A fascinating case. However, the copyright status of the diorama is not relevant as at no time is that called into question. I believe the copyright status of the photo is the issue here, and we have that well covered. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
If you're taking a photo of something for use on Commons, either freedom of panorama must apply or the thing being photographed must be freely licensed / public domain. Absent FOP, a photograph of a non-free thing is a derivative work. The status of the diorama is relevant if you want to have it pictured here. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, you are quite correct - I never knew this stuff existed. Given that the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre is located in the Yukon of Canada, we should be OK: " Personal photography and videography is permitted in our exhibit galleries.". Do you concur? William Harris • (talk) • 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Canadian government works are not public domain by default, but sounds like a FOP tag would work. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged the image on Commons with FOB/Canada in the "Licensing section"; please let me know if anything else is required. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and for your review of the Beringian wolf. (Another thing to bear in mind in the future!) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Just going to praise you here for knowing how to cite current ref 12 (Editorial board)... thank you, thank you, thank you. So nice to see.
I am finally learning.....
THank you FOR learning.... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Removed, plus we have the other citation supporting that statement.
  • Current ref 17 - all other books sources are "last name, first name" but this one isn't it's "Sam Turvey" ... needs fixing to be consistent
Amended, one always slips through.....
  • Current ref 42 (Elias, etc) per the MOS, we don't do all caps even if the original does, needs fixing.
Amended
  • Current ref 43 - you give the location here for this book source, but don't on others... pick one system and be consistent (either include locations or don't include locations)
Locations removed. They don't add a lot of value and have become meaningless in this age of global publishers.
  • Current ref 61 has the author as "first-name last-name" which needs fixing to the more commonly used here "last name, first name" system
Amended, so two slipped through.....
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
You taught me how to run earwig over articles and it was a valuable lesson.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your time wading through all of these references. William Harris • (talk) • 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

  • In 2016 a genetic study showed that some of the wolves now living in remote corners of China and Mongolia are genetically identical to one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen - if possible, avoid two "genetic(ally) in one sentence
Amended; now looks more elegant.
  • Should add rationale for status (i.e. why not subsp.)
Please see editor Funkmonk's 17th and 21st dot point above.
Yeah I figured - but it needs to spell it out succinctly, once in the lead and again under taxonomy. This is important as it is part of what defines (or currently fails to define) a taxon. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added some explanation but I have no citation to support it. Intuitively it fits, as does the link to the cave wolf.
Yeah, I understand it's a tricky one. I think that's about as good as we can get it without veering into OR. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully things will be clarified within the next 12 months and with it some media interest. This is one of the reasons why I wanted to get this article at FA standard - once people come looking for further quality information, Wikipedia can provide it.

Otherwise looking good... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. William Harris • (talk) • 10:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

Lead:

  • In 2016 a genetic study showed that some of the wolves now living in remote corners of China and Mongolia are genetically identical to one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen, indicating that both types of wolves share a common maternal ancestor. If they are genetically identical, why are the Beringian wolves considered extinct? Alternatively, does this refer specifically to mitochondrial DNA as hinted by the maternal ancestry?
Good point. I would like to avoid saying "shares the same haplotype" this early in the article, as we define a haplotype later and that would be more tidy. I have amended it to read "share a common maternal ancestor with one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen."
Better for the lead, as everyone will understand. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Phenotype is extinct:

  • Phenotype is defined right at the end of the section. If it is necessary to define (I think it is useful), it should be described earlier so the definition is more useful to the reader.
Agreed, let's move it to the start of that section.
Fine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Haplotype is not extinct:

  • The earlier definition given for haplotype implies that there are several. The section states that one of them not extinct. Is this connected with the statement in the lead mentioned above?
If you are referring to the "four modern European mDNA haplotypes", these are "phylogenetically associated" but the Beringians were not ancestral, i.e. more like "auntie" than "mother". I once had in the article the phrase "but the Beringian wolf was not ancestral...." Perhaps I need to reinstate that phrase? Or "close on the phylogenetic tree" rather than phylogenetically associated? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The rewrite of the lead clears this up sufficiently for me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Support as intelligible and interesting to a person with a moderate amateur background in evolutionary biology (no formal training). • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You have just described the person who wrote it! :-) Thanks for your time and comments. William Harris • (talk) • 11:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nodar Kumaritashvili

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias ( talk) 04:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A break from ice hockey player nominations from me, this is about the Georgian luger who died on the eve of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. It went through GA years ago, then I updated it a few months ago with some more information, and recently had it looked over at WP:COPYEDITORS. Kaiser matias ( talk) 04:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Nodar_Kumaritashvili.jpg: suggest using {{ non-free biog-pic}}
  • File:Nodar.png: who is claimed to be the copyright holder here? The video from which this is taken appears to be a derivative work, but other than the music the original source(s?) is unclear. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Changed the first image's status. In regards to Nodar.png, I removed it from the article. While I'm fairly certain it comes from an IOC video, I can not confirm it, and while the image is a key component to the story, it can be restored if/when the proper information is found. Kaiser matias ( talk) 04:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Interesting story. I remembered his death, but had forgotten the story behind it. These are my comments after a full read-through:

  • Life and career: Minor point, but you might consider putting refs 8 and 6 in numerical order at the end of the sentence in which they both appear.
  • I have some bad news for you: it looks like the Vancouver2010.com references are dead. I tried looking at ref 16, to see if I could find the name of the Italian luger who died in 1975, and it redirected to the home page. You'll have to check the Internet Archive to see if they have copies of the pages (I count four of them cited here).
  • The last sentence of Accident and death is uncited; try moving the cite in the lead, which covers a similar sentence, and see if that will be adequate here.
  • Georgian response: "that it would consider skipping the opening ceremonies or withdraw from the games entirely". Should "withdraw" be "withdrawing" here?
  • For formality, the part that says "who was to compete with Nodar" should probably be using his last name.
  • Coroner's report: The November 13, 2009 date appears to be in different formatting than the others here. I'd imagine it should be DMY for consistency.
  • I'm not providing a full source review, but note that the publishers of refs 15, 19, 24, and 26 should be italicized, as they are all print publications. Giants2008 ( Talk) 21:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
That's unfortunate that the Vancouver2010.com site is gone. However a quick look suggests it shouldn't be too hard to find replacement sources, you'll just have to give me a day or two to have time to do so. Kaiser matias ( talk) 09:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Other Languages
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Вікіпэдыя:Кандыдаты ў абраныя артыкулы
oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча: Vikipediya:Tanlangan maqola nomzodlari